Camera gear discussions

Hi does anybody have any experience with the sony a6000?

 

You're welcome... I just fixed a bunch of egregious autocorrect typos I noticed in my post so if a sentence didn't make sense before it should now! (cold 'sore' for flashes? wtf Swype) What camera/lens combo are you gonna be using it with? Joby is pretty conservative in their ratings IMO (with both those nifty Micros and their Gorillapods, tho I'm not a huge fan of the latter)

The Micro 250 would/should actually work fine with most mid size M4/3 bodies if you're using smaller primes (anything up to an E-M5 and f1.4+ primes at or under 60mm)... Despite their weight rating probably being borderline with those combos IIRC.

Not that the 800 isn't great too, I'd look at the length more than anything, the 800 could stick out the side (when folded/collapsed) on the smaller bodies (PENs maybe, definitely the GMs & newer GF). OTOH if you're using a zoom (or like, a Voigtlander prime, Oly 75, etc) which sticks out further and/or have something like an E-M5/G7 or larger then the 800 might be the better bet.

FWIW I used the 250 just fine on my GF6 (way larger than the GF7), I've use it on a G6 even but with small (2") primes at most. There's an 800 at my house (and a G6 too, not mine) so I could test various lens/body combos on either if you're really curious. They're pretty cheap tho, easy impulse buy (no pun intended)...

Manfrotto makes something similar too, as in meant to stay on the bottom of the camera even when not in use... Pocket something or other, I never tried one because the range of adjustment on it seemed way smaller than on the Joby Micros and the latter are already pretty svelte. It has these little flip out legs rather than the Joby's twist out, not sure either would have an advantage as far as stability...

There's also the Joby GPod Mini Magnetic, it's actually the only Gorilla-esque tripod I've kept... It's so small (2-3"?) you can't even really wrap the legs around much, but the little magnets on the leg ends are really strong so it has it's uses and I keep it on my larger bag. What I love about the Micro is being able to quickly throw my GM1 on anything for a group/self shot with virtually zero setup or fidgeting w/gear.

 

Very kind of you. I've just got an Olympus E-PL7 with the kit lens, which is as large a lens as I'm likely to ever have (my next lens will be a prime). The weight of that combo is 469g, well above the official rating for the Micropod 250. Are you sure that'd still work fine?

 

I've played around with one as my uncle owns one, it was my second choice before eventually deciding to buy into M4/3 so I looked at it a lot... What do you wanna know about it?

Biggest advantage to Sony's mirrorless APS-C bodies is their C-AF performance, and video quality to an extent. They've held the lead on C-AF ever since the a6000 and the a6300 seems to have extended it...

Biggest knock are their lens selection (not terrible, just not as many as many choices as the likes of M4/3 or Fuji), no touchscreen for quicker AF point selection (unless you go a5x00, but no EVF then), and low light AF to an extent... Dunno how much that improved with the a6300.

The a6000 has been priced very very aggressively when it goes on sale tho, and I imagine that's happening now with the a6300 launch, hard to go wrong with it.

 

It's as much about the center of gravity as the weight, up to a point obviously... Gimme a few and I can grab the G6 and a small lens to try it again tho, I think that's a little over the weight of your E-PL7...

I think my GF6 was lighter than that PEN and the 14-42 Panasonic kit lens was smaller too (unless you got the pancake EZ kit lens, that's tiny), so I wanna make sure I'm not overestimating the Micro 250.

 

Sorry, took me a minute to find the 800... Here's some shots of both in use and collapsed. The one with the red leg tips is the 250, grey is 800:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5oc4ut4j6y6t8li/AABLN5u7bKMmKXZfYrMA34UZa?dl=0

Rather than testing with the decidedly larger and more top heavy G6, I grabbed my old GF6 (nearly the same size as your E-PL7) and the Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4 (also not mine, but I borrow it constantly!)... And I stand by what I said before, the Joby Micro 250 feels absolutely trustworthy with this combo. I can angle it up/down just fine and even if I bump it hard the tendency is to sit back down rather than tip over.

For reference, the PL25 is one of the larger primes <75mm short of something like an f0.95 Voigt, larger and heavier than any of the other small f1.7-1.8 primes (I think only the Sigma or Oly 60mm f2.8 are larger but I think both are also lighter)... So that combo should approximate anything you'd mount on the E-PL7. That being said, the Micro 800 also fits alright underside the GF6.

If you look closely in the pics you'll see the Micro 800 actually sticks out a little from the side of the camera, but just a little and your PL7 is like 5mm longer so the difference might be even smaller there... Even on the GF6 it actually doesn't feel odd when collapsed, could even argue it's an improvement on the grip of the camera.

I have fairly long fingers so I always end up with my pinky and often my ring finger under the body itself... Those leg tips on the Micros are soft rubber and the 800's fall right where I'd slip those two fingers, so it works out very well, almost like extra padding there. OTOH the Micro 250 disappears a little better in general, specially if you're cramming it in a tight bag, you can see the 800's ballhead joint sticks out more from the bottom.

Really, it's a toss up, at this point I'm probably not helping at all... This is is exactly why initially I just bought both! Heh... All shots taken with my Oly 45mm f1.8, which I really need to get around to selling. I bought the Pana 42.5 f1.7 for the OIS (on GM1) and the shorter minimum focus and haven't used the Oly since... Being lazy about it. With a lens like that on a small body the 250 is more than enough tho.

Like I said, they're pretty underrated IMO... I imagine they're just trying to avoid someone sticking a superzoom P&S or something that extends out way more, which would toss the weight out further over the legs. A small M4/3 prime or kit zoom easily keeps it all within the legs. Only longer zooms I own per se are the 9-18 (f4-5.6) & 35-100 (f4-5.6) but they're really light and actually smaller than the PL25 when collapsed so it wouldn't make much of a difference.

I could test or post photos with much larger lenses we have here... But for anything like the 14-150 or f2.8 zooms I'd just get the 800 obviously. Hope this helps...

 

Thanks man, I really appreciate the help. I'll go to a shop and see which one fits my camera better!

 

Thanks man. I'm interested to learn photography soon enough and it seems to be a solid offering compared to others. Am just looking around but reviews seem to be really in its favour. The thing is, those reviews are old so I'm not sure how valid they are and whether there are other alternatives today.

 

Go to a store, hold a few cameras in your hand and make a list of the cameras that feel good in your hand. After that choose the one that matches your budget and your intended use. Ask for tips along the way...

 

I'm no expert, but it seems to me it's still a totally solid choice (for $500 or less, and probably a better deal sans the so-so kit pancake). Even though I ultimately went in another direction (M4/3, for the lens/body variety, size, and IBIS - in body stabilisation), I actually think the a6000 has held up really well, probably better than most mirrorless bodies.

The fact that Sony has been focusing on the A7 line probably contributed to that, but the a6000 nailed some aspects that other mirrorless brands are only now catching up on (chiefly it's great C-AF but it still has good DR and other core elements done right). You can pick on a few others of it's faults or omissions, like no silent electronic shutter (which all more recent Sony have), but it did have an EFC way before most (electronic first curtain).

It's dial arrangement isn't necessarily great if you're really gonna get into more manual modes (hard to operate both at the same time, specially whilst using the EVF) but there's a lot of similarly priced bodies that don't even have two dials or a decent auto ISO implementation. Trying them in a store helps, but I'd do a ton of research into specific functionality you care about first...

Otherwise you're just gonna stand there flipping dials and doing the same thing with any given camera... How it feels initially might not be as important as how you can make it work for you once you know more about it IMO... Unless you're planning some epic 6 hour shoots with the camera glued to your hand, heh.

Cameralabs had some of the more balanced, complete, and all encompassing reviews, worth checking out if you've only been reading DPReview and/or Imaging Resource... The latter two do some more technical testing (and both are worth reading as they run very different tests), but I like Gordon's more usage based approach as well. His comparisons are pretty in point too...

 

More or less what Deep Funk says. Most camera reviews are about as trustworthy as headphone reviews i.e. hardly at all, so the age doesn't really matter. At this level, it'd not so much of which model has better image quality but the quirks it has and whether you can live with them. Unfortunately these are usually more apparent with long-term use, and aren't usually covered by reviews. For instance, Sony's full frame mirrorless have quite poor battery life; you may want to check if the same extends to the a6000 and if it will affect the satisfaction you gain from using it.

 

I upgraded from an a6000 to an a7s. I have had extensive experience with pentax's k-5, k-x, ricoh's aps-c GR and Canon's 60d, 5d mk1,2&3 before switching entirely to sony. My switch was mostly for video, I still find the pentax system my favorite for photography despite it's lack of (until recently) full frame options and it's less-advanced autofocus.

The a6000 is a jack of all trades, master of none sort of camera. It's controls aren't as abundant as I'd like and the lack of a third dial for controls is a bit annoying, as I prefer having shutter, aperture and iso/ev comp right on hand. Lack of official battery grip is also annoying, as I find battery grips the easiest way to balance out small cameras with big lenses (that, and I shoot in portrait orientation most of the time). Ironically, I find the grip more comfortable than that of the 1st gen a7 bodies. Image quality is quite good for an aps-c sensor. It's no low-light or dynamic range demon, but should get you by for 90% of general photographic situations. Video output is pretty, but the lack of any real audio input is a pain in the ass and you're not getting the full benefit of the sensor's dynamic range since the a6000 lacks the s-log2 profile of it's sequel. Throw a speedbooster and a fast FF lens and you'll be able to get some really shallow DoF or low light shots with minimal added effort. Focus peaking, zebras and magnify options are all really handy for shooting with old-school manual focus glass. Overall, would make a decent b-roll cam for guerilla type shots. Autofocus is reliable and fast in AF-S, AF-C isn't pro-tier reliable but good enough. Wifi is pretty cool for instagram. Battery life is shit, as it is in all sony cameras. The EVF is pretty good, although there's better out there and it won't beat a good OVF. Overall, a solid camera for beginners. It's weak points will generally help to point you towards what you should upgrade to.

 

Thanks for the overview. As a general beginner I really don't need anything too high up. How bad is the battery life though?

 

I don't know if Sony's battery life is significantly worse than other mirrorless brands' (somehow I doubt it tho, unless it's like - while recording 4K or something else really taxing), BUT, I do think mirrorless requires a bit of recalibration on the user's part if you're coming from a DSLR. If you're a pro doing 4hr+ shoots or you shoot mainly video then this doesn't apply and you have every right to gripe about it...

However, for most general photography uses mirrorless battery life isn't as bad as many reviews would lead you to believe, even CIPA's shot count figure can be highly misleading and could use an overhaul IMO. The big issue with mirrorless is the sensor is always on and feeding a live video feed to your screen or EVF, that takes power (and those displays take power), and batteries are smaller to begin with as bodies are smaller.

By contrast a DSLR sips power while idle, you could realistically leave one powered on half the day and not notice a big drain. This is where I think some usage/mindset recalibration is required. You can't use a mirrorless body *exactly* like a DSLR, and thinking about battery life in terms of "shots taken" (as CIPA does) is pointless... That's akin to thinking of smartphone battery life in terms of emails sent or pages loaded, nobody would do that.

I can take 200 shots on a single battery charge for my Oly/Panasonic cameras just as easily as I could take 1,000 shots, just depends on how quickly I'm shooting. It's MUCH more useful to think about it in terms of powered on time, just like a phone, and learn to *turn off* the camera in between shots or when not in use (it'll save more power than any amount of settings tweaking).

Batteries are also pretty small so carrying 2-3 on any given day is pretty inconsequential. Now if you're a pro or you're doing video and filming events this is all moot and almost any mirror less body's battery life will irk you, outside of that I wouldn't sweat it too much. Video rec specs can also offer a good idea of absolute worst case power-on time figures (typically 1-3 hrs, maybe less w/4K or the smallest bodies).

 

You get about an hour's worth of filming per battery. 1hr/battery in 1080p video shooting is quite tolerable, as there tend to be enough breaks between the sort of material I shoot for work where I have the spare minute to swap batteries between shots. With photos, it's kind of all over the place depending on how you shoot. I usually got by on 2 batteries for a shoot if I was just doing photos. Main reason I think battery life is bad is because I'm coming from having shot cameras where a fully-loaded battery grip will get me through a hard all-day gig and a whole week if things are slow.

 

Not trying to shill for Nikon or full sized DSLRs but the more than decent battery life is one of the reasons I really enjoy using my D7100. Regardless of how fast the startup time is, having to power on the camera before most shots still slows down your response and that, together with worrying about remaining battery life, will ultimately detract from your photography experience. Admittedly you can get used to it, but ideally a camera should get as little between you and your shot as much as possible, and that includes not having to worry about running out of juice at a critical moment. If you'd prefer to think optimistically though, you could see it as a film camera-esque challenge in that the number of shots you'd take are limited (by battery life), so you'd better make every shot count. Maybe that's Sony's secret noble plan to improve photography standards. Hmm....

Spare batteries are definitely a must regardless of camera model, but I wouldn't count on them to help provide a better photography experience. Chances are some of your better pictures may be taken in less than ideal conditions (light snow, beach with seasprays) and if you run empty at one of those times (as you probably will, given the number of shots you might take there), well, good luck changing batteries.

 

So swap aggressively (and maybe carry 3-4 instead of 2-3), don't wait until the battery empty alert is flashing to swap it... It's something that I started fostering even with my phone. Not that I swap anymore because it's sealed, but I charge aggressively and not when it's at 10% (specially with wireless chargers around the house, I just drop it in one whenever I'm sitting still).

I'm not trying to suggest it's a non issue, for many it'll always be a big issue, I'm just saying there's ways around it and not as bad as often portrayed. Getting in the habit of charging/swapping batteries 'aggressively' (or not just when very low) is an easy way of eliminating battery angst, at the cost of a few spares and some habit shaping.

 

I am already happy that rechargeable batteries have improved so much in the past decade. I still remember testing brands and hoping they would survive the recharging cycles.

 

That's a valid point, tho it goes back to shooting style... I live in a tropical island and yet, given what I shoot most, I only find myself near sea spray a couple times a year at most (and snow only when I travel). If I'm going to the beach/docks for a few shots I put in a fresh battery as soon as I get there, it's very unlikely I'd run out in one sitting unless I'm like camping out there. It's a little more likely while camping or hiking in the rain forest, but I've managed.

As an aside, if the forum member that asked about battery life is actually gonna be shooting in those conditions very often, he/she should reconsider buying a camera that lacks any sort of weather sealing (a6000).

 

I live in Singapore which is as tropical as it can get. My purpose in wanting to get a camera is largely just for general photography as a hobby, but there is a good chance it'll be mostly urban/street photography as Singapore isn't the most scenic place for nature, and I travel maybe once a year only
Looking largely towards a mirrorless camera due to its smaller, more inconspicuous size, which would come in handy for my needs. I tried going around with a D5100 around my neck before and it just drew more attention than I would have preferred. A6000 has no silent shutter though, so that may be another factor I have to account for.