Sony Alpha A6000

• 

  StickMan on 09/11/2015 - 09:06

  +1

  That camera is indeed epic. I checked out a lot of reviews, and it beats $1200+ body-only DSLRs. Get a quality lens and it'll be kicking it with top-end DSLRs very easily.

  I got the cam 12 months ago, for a steal - JB had body + 16-55mm power zoom (default kit lens) and the 55-210mm telephoto all for around $680. At the time this was ~$1500 value. Just recently, my friend got the camera at HN on clearance with the PZ kit lens for around $650. I think due to our dollar falling, sub-$700 with one lens is a decent deal.

  Also check the forums for another thread about the A6000 - in there owners talk about which lenses they bought, etc etc.

  • 

    pinchies on 09/11/2015 - 09:15

    +2

    Also have this camera: it's so good, in particular at autofocus, I often take it rather than my A7. 35mm f1.8 Sony lens is expensive but is the lens I use 80% of the time, and I own quite a few E and FE lenses. The 55-200 lens is junk though. I have it, and you are welcome to buy it off me if you don't believe me :)

• 

  pjetson on 09/11/2015 - 09:12

  Also I would be travelling overseas and claiming GST back

  My understanding is that the GST refund is only intended for items that are not coming back into Australia.

  I have no experience with it, but I'd imagine that the intention would be that you would have to pay the GST when you brought the items back into Australia.

  • 

    UncommonName on 09/11/2015 - 09:56

    Not for new items under 1000$.

    • 

      ozhunter on 09/11/2015 - 12:24

      +1

      Limit is actually $900.

• 

  mooboy on 09/11/2015 - 10:01

  If you're not in a huge hurry, the A6000 is rumoured to have a replacement announced at end of the month. If true (there have been rumours before), then it could either bring the price of the A6000 down or there might be a new camera out there you'd prefer :)

• 

  chillybags on 09/11/2015 - 10:11

  My gf got one, is very very happy with it! Got i last year for around 600-700 (cant remember exactly) with the 16-55 and 55-210 lenses, both are great.

• 

  p1 ama on 09/11/2015 - 12:10

  +1

  I know I'll probably get hate for this, but this is just my opinion (people may disagree).

  I find that out of all the camera brands, Sony has the worst colours and the one who understands photography least. I'm a semi-professional photographer and I've shot with heaps of camera brands including Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm…etc.

  I must say that Sony is good for your typical DPR forumite, like they'll all say "wow, such dynamic range", "wow, such colour depth", "wow, such high ISO performance", all of which have very little to do with real world photography - very rarely do we push shadows and highlights as much as we think we do and rarely do we shoot at crazy high ISOs.

  The best camera systems are the ones that have good lenses and good colours. Sony's colours are bull - for me, they tend to be too green, AWB (auto white-balance) tends to be crappy and it's just not as good as Nikon or Fuji (the best colours) or even someone like Olympus who has better colours.

  The problem with Sony is they don't understand photography, every few months they're going to churn out new bodies without considering the lenses you need. Before you jump to the defense of the A6000, consider that if you ever need a fast normal prime (i.e. a 35/1.8 on APS-C format - gives you ~50mm), the E-mount Sony 35/1.8 is $500 and not really that sharp, especially in the corners. The Nikon 35/1.8 is $200 and super sharp in the corners.

  The A6000 is a good camera, but it's a camera for the scientists and forum guys, that's why everyone's always talking about the A6000's dynamic range and FPS. If you want a serious system, go Nikon D5500, or even Canon 760D, but I recommend Nikon. If you want small and light, go Fuji X-T10 (same price/size as A6000, but much better lenses and colours). If you want even smaller and lighter, go Panasonic GM5 and the M4/3 system. There are just much better options out there from manufacturers who understand photography and are serious about photography.

  Sony is just mucking around, ask anyone who bought thousands of dollars worth of A-mount lenses and haven't seen an A99 successor in years.

  • 

    ozhunter on 09/11/2015 - 12:31

    +1

    Some reviews do include image and video comparisons so…

  • 

    pinchies on 09/11/2015 - 12:37

    +1

    Firstly, I have thousands of dollars of A mount lenses - sony 70-200, 24-70 zeiss, and more… YES, I would like an a99 successor, and the rumours are pointing to next year. However, thats a totally different issue to the awesome stuff sony has been doing in the E-mount world.

    I would like to disagree with your review - the 35mm f1.8 is a very very sharp lens in the centre, and after doing tests when I got it, mine is still very sharp (on 24 megapixels too!) in the corners, and it has low chromatic aberration and low LoCA with very nice booked - much nicer than the Nikon 35mm. The price is high, thats really the only issue.

    The colour rendering of Sony is generally excellent – I've used the A6000, the A900 and A7 for weddings and have been very happy with the results. Much nicer toning than from Canon - part of which comes from the larger dynamic range. The green tint is probably true to some degree but only in very low light - and RAW white balance correction fixes it 100%. In normal light, I think they are spot on for colour.

    The flexibility of the A6000 is hard to beat. No point taking a photo if its going to be out of focus, or horribly grainy – the only other options I would consider are the Olympus m4/3 (larger) or the recent fuji (just as expensive!). I bought the a6000 before the GM5 was released, and it looks like a good camera, but as well as the some of the good lenses being almost just as expensive, it is lacking the very handy tilting screen of the a6000 and has no flash. The a6000 flash is super handy - its on a extendable stalk that means you can bend it upwards to even bounce light off the ceiling quite effectively!

    • 

      p1 ama on 09/11/2015 - 14:18

      However, thats a totally different issue to the awesome stuff sony has been doing in the E-mount world.

      Not really, I think it shows how committed Sony are to A-mount (i.e. not very committed), whilst the recently released A68 might show that there's still life in A-mount, I honestly wouldn't expect it to be around in a decade or so.

      That's just the problem with Sony - they're not serious about photography in the way that Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus and some of the others are. That's not a dig against Sony, it's just that whilst Fuji has built up a serious selection of lenses in a short amount of time, Sony has just been releasing body after body after body. To be honest, it just seems like Sony's stills cameras line have become a testing ground for their EXMOR sensors before they put them into their $50,000 production and broadcast video cameras.

      I would like to disagree with your review - the 35mm f1.8 is a very very sharp lens in the centre, and after doing tests when I got it, mine is still very sharp (on 24 megapixels too!) in the corners, and it has low chromatic aberration and low LoCA with very nice booked - much nicer than the Nikon 35mm. The price is high, thats really the only issue.

      CA and LoCA are probably being corrected in-camera. DxOMark rates the 35/1.8 as being less sharp on a 24MP sensor, e.g. compare the 35/1.8 Sony on an A6000 vs. Nikon 35/1.8 on a D7100, but hey, if you get good images that's good. Doesn't excuse the price though, it really is quite expensive for what you're getting.

      The green tint is probably true to some degree but only in very low light - and RAW white balance correction fixes it 100%. In normal light, I think they are spot on for colour.

      I agree, but all cameras take good pictures in good light. When the conditions get challenging, I don't think the A6000 holds up as well as some other cameras I've used. I know that WB issues can be fixed in post or by taking a custom reading…etc. but it's better if it can just be done right in the first place.

      The flexibility of the A6000 is hard to beat. No point taking a photo if its going to be out of focus, or horribly grainy – the only other options I would consider are the Olympus m4/3 (larger) or the recent fuji (just as expensive!).

      I'm not saying that the A6000 is a bad camera, it's not, but I think it's just not as good as some of its competitors. For the same price, you can get a Fuji X-T10 and have a much better system.

      Anyway, all of that is just my opinion, if you love the A6000, that's great, there's plenty of different cameras on the market and we all choose what works for us.

      • 

        pinchies on 09/11/2015 - 14:40

        +2

        All fair points and I'd agree with most of your criticisms of Sony. However, Can nikon be called serious when they buy their own sensors from sony? Can canon be serious when they have a pittance of an offering for mirrorless users? I can't fault them for chasing after the video market, and the E mount in particular when it has been such a success compared to the "niche" A mount market, especially considering the financial situation sony is in.

        I know about some of the lens corrections available, (can you correct LoCA?) but the 35mm e mount is still a better lens in every way than the plastic 35mm a mount equivalent that I also used to own, and at the time also thought was very good. I'm sure for a fact its not as good as the 35mm sigma "art", but having seen photos from the cheaper nikon, I strongly dislike the bokeh that lens produces.

        I could produce many excellent photos Ive taken with the A6000 in low and very low light, but if you are not willing to spend the time on the computer, then my perspectives and experiences won't really be relevant. When I bought the A6000 there was not a single close competitor, but now there are definitely other great options. However, the a6000 successor to will most likely put sony back in front again.

        The Fuji is an excellent camera, but the sony is smaller and lighter. There's a great video comparing them here:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHp0PyBu2CQ

      • 

        p1 ama on 09/11/2015 - 15:32

        @pinchies:

        However, Can nikon be called serious when they buy their own sensors from sony?

        Yes, because photography is about the system, not about the sensors. The truth is, you could have purchased a Nikon lens back in the 1980s and still have it work on the latest Nikon DSLRs. You could have purchased AF lenses from the 1990s and still have them work with full AF and automatic controls on modern Nikon DSLRs 20 years later.

        When I purchase cameras, I don't purchase them like smart phones or computers, which I replace in a few years' time anyway. If you're investing tens of thousands of dollars in something, you want to know that it'll last and you can still use it in the future.

        There's plenty of other reasons as well. I recently was considering the purchase of an A7R Mark II and several lenses to go along with it, but the lack of f/2.8 zooms led me to have a look at adapting A-mount lenses with an adapter. But the fact that A-mount might be dead in a few years meant that the lenses would drop in value and I might be stuck with dead stuff, at least when I buy Nikon stuff, I know it'll be usable for years to come. Maybe not a big deal if you only ever buy <$2,000 lenses, but once you start thinking about stuff like a 200/2.0, 400/2.8 or 600/4, oh, you'd have to be pretty confident your system would be around for a few decades more before making that investment. Thankfully, I'm not an aviation/sports shooter.

        Ultimately, if you're just purchasing a camera to use as a point-and-shoot which you'll just replace in a few years, then obviously anything goes.

• 

  CSR on 10/11/2015 - 07:46

  I picked up the Sony Alpha A6000 with 16-50mm lens kit ($899) plus the 50mm f1.8 SEL5018 lens ($399) for $1100 from JB Hi-Fi. Plus you get the $150 Visa card back from Sony.

  Let me know if you find cheaper as I'll try and go back for post purchase price match.

  • 

    StickMan on 10/11/2015 - 09:02

    You dun goofed. $899 for PZ lens was standard 'on special' price months back. The 50mm portrait lens is also $299 directly from Sony, or anywhere else, so return that one ASAP.

    if you really want that portrait, Camera House has (had?) it on sale, for $254 or something like that.

    • 

      CSR on 10/11/2015 - 14:22

      +1

      I started to think that when I saw this post. However I got the camera for $843 (price match HN) and the 50mm for $257, so it's actually pretty much on par by the sounds of it.

      • 

        StickMan on 10/11/2015 - 14:25

        Aha, I see. Yeah that's not bad. Enjoy the cam!

  • 

    pinchies on 10/11/2015 - 10:21

    +2

    The 50mm is an good lens, but you would have got better use from the 35mm lens. 50mm is a bit too "zoomed in" to use all the time.

    • 

      CSR on 10/11/2015 - 14:27

      Thanks for the advice. It's my first foray into owning a prime lens and kind of just grabbed it at the time. The 35mm does sound like the way to go but it's double the price.

• 

  m2000 on 12/11/2015 - 09:46

  I think $843 single kit lens as you mentioned is the best price at the moment. (can ask JB to pricematch if you prefer them or other reasons)