Time to take a new direction?

[scott_holt2]

<p>I'm looking for opinions of folks who use other mirrorless cameras that are in a similar class as the Sony a6000.<br>

For a couple of years I have been using a Sony NEX 5N - I really the portability and compactness of a mirrorless system, but it has always had some weakness<br>

1) It has no built-in view finder. There is an accessory viewfinder, but it is expensive and consumes the and only accessory port; which itself is a poor design. <br>

2) I hate the accessory flash - not only is the connector poorly designed, the flash is weak and does not have enough of the tilts and rotations I need when shooting with flash. <br>

3) The choice of lenses has been kind of weak. <br>

Of course, I knew all that when I bought the 5N and none of it mattered because was meant to simply augment my A700 DSLR. In situations where having a viewfinder really helps, I pull out the DSLR. When I shoot with flash, I use the DSLR. When I want to use a more versatile or capable lens, I pull out the DLSR. In this context, the NEX 5N has worked out very well for me... in fact, it is my primary shooter because most of my shooting is casual and does not require the capabilities that my A700 system has. <br>

Problem is, the A700 is toast - which would not be a problem since here are good upgrade paths except the Zeiss 16-80 lens I use on it 90% of the time is also toast... well, more like yeast; that's right, fungus. Just plain sucks. I blame the NEX for this, actually... it's primarily because it does such a good job for 80-90% of what I do that I had not pulled the camera out more than 2-3 times last year; and that is probably why its front element is now being colonized. Bleh.<br>

After carefully considering the costs of replacement/repair and how little I use my DSLR, it is just not worth keeping it. What lenses I have that are not infected will likely be sold and I am going to try to consolidate all my needs into a single mirrorless system. <br>

The little 5N that was such a good complement to my outfit, however, is not well suited to become its center piece. Time to upgrade. Honestly, i think this was inevitable. Like I said, I hardly pull out the DSLR - except when I really need it. I think it's death is just the thing that will push me to do what I probably should have been thinking about anyway.<br>

Thing is, unlike my DLSR, I am not locked into Sony for my mirrorless outfit. I don't have a lot invested in them. They make a great camera, but so do Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic and a number of others. So, why not consider just breaking out of the Sony box entirely?<br /><br /><br>

Thing is, I am not really that familiar with the other options. I mean, I have read all the reviews and comments people leaving on sites like B&H. I've read people's comments here too... still, it's really tough to look at all the various options and not get really paralyzed trying to make a decision.<br /><br /><br>

Before I wrote this, I was looking at a Sony a6000 body and 18-105 F4 G lens. This provides me with number of things that were missing with the 5N<br>

1) An integrated view finder. I like the rear display in many cases, but there are times when it is unusable. Also, composing in the viewfinder is just more natural to me. <br />2) An accessory show that can accept a "real" flash. I realize that some larger flashes dwarf the camera, but at least the options are broader than the POS flashes that the NEX system originally provided.<br />3) A better and more versatile lens than the standard kit lens. This is key - I don't need a 7-8x zoom range, but I do need 4-5x and in a good quality package. <br>

There a dizzying number of options from other manufactures that will get me the same thing. I would really like to hear from some of you who have practical hands on experience with them what you think. I am particularly attracted to the Olympus system - in part because of their controls and styling. I like that "small SLR" style, it's what I grew up with... and I am more comfortable with the dial based controls than menus and buttons. I realize that both Sony and Fuji have offerings here, but both the A7 II and the X-T1 are out of my price range by nearly $1000. I would really like to get the camera and a decent 4-5x zoom lens and stay under about $1200-$1500. <br /><br /><br>

If it helps, most of my subjects are static - city and landscapes. I have a 7 year old daughter so there is a fair amount of portraiture of daddy's beautiful princess. Point is, there is very little I do that demands high burst rates and focus tracking. Those are nice to have, but they won't be the thing that pushes one model ahead of another.<br>

I also do most of my shooting in raw mode and process in Aperture or Photoshop. This is partly because I have always been disappointed by in camera JPEG, but also because I actually like the process. I like pulling an image up and trying creative ways to re-interpret it. That is part of the fun of this... honestly, very few image capture systems (film, or digital) ever capture what you see with your vision, they only capture what you see with your eye. So, an exceptional suite of features for in camera processing is really not a requirement. Again, nice to have - doesn't need to be best in class.<br>

I appreciate manual focus and plan to grow my collection of manual focus lenses. Support for manual focus is a key requirement. The ability to visualize I have achieved sharp focus manually is critical. Features like focus peaking and viewfinder zoom are important. <br>

One feature I am disappointed not to see in many cameras is a wide range of auto bracketing options. Most are limited to 3 shots. I would really like to have 5 shots with a choice of increments whole, half or 1/3 stops. I think that is something the a6000 does not have. If another model does have it, that would be a plus. <br>

Right now, the one camera that seems to be up there in a similar price point is the Olympus OM-D E-M5. I am particularly interested in hearing feedback from folks who use that camera - what do you like and dislike about it? What is it missing that you want? <br>

thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<p>Scott,<br>

since you're in a "let's re-evaluate anything moment", perhaps it might help the considerations that I did when I switched from Nikon. I moved to Sony, but I'd like to emphasise a couple of considerations about the method, and then anyone applies his own criteria.</p>

<ol>

<li>As you say, there are tons of options and it really needs that you take the time to evaluate anything. This might be relaxed if you are able to rent some stuff, or to buy it and eventually sell it back later without loosing too much value (this wasn't an option for me).</li>

<li>Consider how much weight is important for you. While mirrorless is promising less weight, this isn't necessarily true in all combinations - I stress the point that it's important to evaluate the weight of the combination camera+lenses, because it could lead to surprises. For instance: for my needs, I discovered that m43 wasn't a lot of gain in weight for focals shorter than 100mm (equivalent): cameras are light, but the lenses I was interested to were heavier than my Nikkors. On the contrary, for longer focals there's an evident advantage of m43 over e.g. Sony.</li>

<li>I value "classic" controls too, but weight for me was more important. For the likeness of controls, yes, Fuji and Olympus are better than Sony.</li>

<li>Sony is, at the moment, the one providing better AF. But as you're interested in mostly static stuff, this is not important.</li>

<li>On the other hand, Sony is the one providing a less complete lens system, if you are only focused in APS-C. It's ok for me, even though I had to buy a FE lens (the SEL70200G). It's of excellent quality, but it's heavier than it could be for an APS-C sensor. There is no native solution longer than 200mm, and as far as I know nothing in the roadmap. Olympus and Fuji t least have something in the roadmap.</li>

<li>The biggest limitation of m43 is the number of megapixel. It's quite clear that they don't feel about going over 16MP natively, because Olympus proposes the strategy of oversampling. On the other hand, oversampling works, with some limitations, which probably are negligible for static objects. Furthermore, you might just not need many megapixels.</li>

<li>Evaluate with care also the implications in your workflow; don't assume things are always smooth. For instance, I use Lightroom. With Lightroom I don't have problems with Sony as everything is supported with good quality. At the beginning, there were some problems with Fuji because of their TRANS sensor, but as far as I know everything is fine now. For what concerns Olympus oversampling, I think that there are some problems now, that I suppose will go away in a short time. But be careful.</li>

</ol>

<p>All in all, I think you have some solid reasons to investigate Olympus and Sony.<br>

But don't under-evaluate the a6000. I can give you also some answers about the a6000, which I own. It's dramatically better than my NEX-6 (with the exception of EVF resolution, which is still good, but slightly inferior for manual focusing: nevertheless, with some exercise I proved to be able to manually focus even with a 12mm lens. If it's good for you... you should definitely look into it personally).<br>

For EV bracketing the options are (just checked them with the menu in the camera):</p>

<ul>

<li>steps of 0.3EV, 0.5EV, 0.7EV with sets of 3 or 5 images </li>

<li>steps of 1EV, 2EV and 3EV in sets of 3 images</li>

</ul>

<p>So it seems they fit your needs.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Scott - there are choices and there are choices galore. I dipped my toe into the mirrorless world about two years ago with a refurbished Olympus E-PL2...today I use it much more than my Nikon DSLR or my film cameras. However, getting used to its quirky menus, instead of more simple dials, was a frustrating experience. I've heard a lot of good things about the OMD E-M5, and one day may look into checking one out. I encourage you, before even mentally committing to a change, to find a way to physically handle whatever one (s) you are considering.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>most of my subjects are static - city and landscapes. I have a 7 year old daughter so there is a fair amount of portraiture of daddy's beautiful princess.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you already know and appreciate Sony I would stay with them (also for lens interchangeability). The Sony A7 and a 28-70mm zoom can be had from the Sony store for $1600. Not a 4 to 5X zoom. With a 7 year old daughter you will in any case need to move position a bit in making pictures, so this you might also do as well to extend the range of a 2.5X zoom lens, which is also very adaptable for most city and landscape. I would also compare prices elsewhere and try to buy the best camera and lens as you like to shoot RAW to seek best quality. The A7r with a 36MP sensor would likely be overkill in your case unless you use highest quality prime lenses or super expensive zooms and all this would be much more expensive.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I encourage you, before even mentally committing to a change, to find a way to physically handle whatever one (s) you are considering.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's sage advice - and for me the OM-D EM-5 story ended right there as nothing about the camera felt right or good. Stepping up to an EM-1 changes things a bit - but two issues remain - the "quirky menu" and the 2x crop factor. Certainly not favorable to adapting manual focus lenses - among other things. Selecting the high-end E-M1 puts the cost right up with other options though - Fuji X-T1 or even the Sony A7 - all of which have the advantage of a larger sensor. In the case of the Sony A7, however, lens selection is an issue as with the exception of the rather limited-range kit lens, lenses are rather expensive.<br>

IMO, the A6000 is currently the camera with by far the best ratio of price to performance in the mirrorless realm. Together with the Zeiss 16-70, it should be within reach if you stretch your budget a little. For landscape and architecture, the 10-18 is a lens to add once the budget allows for it - it seems to get good reviews.<br>

If I was interested in acquiring a set of prime lenses, then I would be looking closer at Fuji - but you seem to prefer zooms.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I agree with Dieter on the A7. I disagree with him on lenses for it. I have the kit zoom but I use chiefly the lenses I had for my Leica M6.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Scott</p>

<p>My advice would be to not over think the decision to much. Most of todays cameras far exceed the photographic ability of the user (and I am including myself in that statement). Menu systems and button placements all become second nature over time as the brain and body adapt to different operating systems. What is far more important and often overlooked is your vision as a photographer. No camera body or lens combo is going to be better or worse in regards to that.</p>

<p>Fuji makes great mirrorless cameras. So does Sony. Oh, and Olympus and Panasonic also. All of them can become the tool you need to create your art. Beautiful landscapes, sweeping cityscapes and achingly powerful portraits of your daughter can come flowing out of any of these small electronic boxes when inspiration, creativity and love is fed into the viewfinder.</p>

<p>My advice? You seem to know your way around Sony. Why don't you stick with them. There will be less time then spent 'adjusting' and more time spent creating. The a6000 is a powerful and compact tool capable of stunning imagery. I hear the a7000 is just around the corner. This should be the long awaited replacement for the mighty NEX 7, a tool I have used for several years to create images only somewhat recently 'upgrading' to an A7. Heck, if you look at my flickr page you will notice that the photos I posted just yesterday were taken with my old NEX 7. My daughter and I went to a local lake and did a several hour walk around. I didn't want to worry to much about trying to keep sand and water out of my A7 so I brought along the old NEX for more 'worry free' photography. You may view the images here if you like.</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/</p>

<p>A smart option might be to buy a used body from KEH.com and give that a try. They offer very sensibly priced cameras in great shape with a wonderful return policy. I have used them many times for lens purchases and have NEVER had an issue when I needed to return something. Buying new is all well and good, but if you can save money on a camera body then more money can be spent on lenses which are far more important to the image creation process.</p>

<p>A final thought. Do you ever use old 35mm film lenses on your cameras with adapters? If you view my flickr page you will see that almost every single photo on there is shot with old legacy glass using adapters. This is a very cost effective way to get phenomenal glass in your bag without breaking the bank. Minolta, Canon FD, Olympus OM Zuiko, Yashica ML....these are some of the most amazing lenses ever made and are still viable options today. They should also stand the test of time far better then most plastic auto focus lenses of today. An added benefit is that your lenses can always move with you if you decide to change camera makers with only new adapters needing to be purchased. If you don't already do this I think your comment about the mostly static subjects you photograph should make you a 'prime' user of old legacy glass. :)</p>

<p>Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject. Good luck with your gear purchase. I hope you find the tool you need.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I disagree with him on lenses for it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mukul, I was only referring to lenses with the native FE-mount - I do agree that there are plenty of options when one considers adapting. Though only few provide AF in that case, and most of those are disproportionally large for the small body. And quite a few M-mount lenses have issues that aren't easily or at all correctable. I recall the list of lenses you are using, and it appears you won't be affected. I'm not that lucky - the A7 turns the 35/2 ASPH into the equivalent of a $300 kit lens and rendered the Color Skopar 21/4P all but useless.</p>

<p>I find the A7 II very compelling and may eventually get one just for the image stabilization it would impart on my manual lens collection. I am waiting for reports on the new Voigtlander 15mm Heliar III - and if positive may start a trial period to find out if I can live with manual focus prime lenses for most of my shooting. If positive, then my Nikon FX system might find itself for sale. I have been considering trading it in and acquiring the native 16-35 and 70-200 lenses - but I want to try the even more radical approach of going all prime and manual first - with the Nikon system still available to me in case it's needed.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Dieter, I meant that no one thinking of an A7 should be deterred by the limited number of FE lenses and their high prices. I accept that users of a larger range of focal lengths than mine may have trouble. We all have our particular needs. I continue to use my Olympus digital SLR for the work for which it is good. The A7 is a replacement for my film Leica, which is fine camera but which uses a medium the processing of which has now become too time consuming to run after. It is "full frame", with certain effects on depth of field, and it is about the same size as a film Leica. For Scott, who has different needs, I think the A6000 is the answer.</p>

[scott_holt2]

<p>Thanks! This is all very good advice. <br /><br />Sadly, some of it can't easily be taken. It seems and more difficult to actually put your hands on these things before buying. I am in Atlanta and I am only aware of one remaining photographic equipment retailer. It's been a while since I shopped there, but last time I did they were not even representing some of the brands. At the time, i don't think they had caught up with the fact that brands other than Nikon and Cannon were reemerging as players in the higher end markets that they tend to serve. On the flip side, while the "big box" retailers represent these brands, they only keep the mid to lower range models inventory. <br /><br />Rental is another difficulty as the one business that seems to handle rentals here does not rent out mirrorless systems. Of course, renting via the internet is more of an option in that case. <br /><br />On the subject of lenses, i definitely do plan to utilize some older MF lenses. I have a few good samples (if they have not suffered the same fate as my 16-80 Zeiss) of older MD mount lenses. Ultimately, I plan to augment my outfit with selected MF lenses - looking at finding samples from legacy MF systems (KEH is local to me, woo hoo! - no showroom, but they allow local pickup) or investing in new Voightlander or Zeiss range finder lenses.<br /><br /><br>

I understand, though, that they sometimes do not perform per expectations when coupled with digital sensors, particularly the older lenses designed for film systems. To some degree this can be corrected in post processing, but not always. That is one aspect of this I know I will always have to be careful of and do my research carefully. <br /><br />That said, though, other than crop factor, are there other general considerations with manual focus lenses that might make one format preferable to another? Are there factors that make one model generally less favorable when using adapted manual focus lenses?</p>

[andrew_brown7]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a NEX 6 and 7. I bought the 6 new and then a 3N s/hand, which I traded in after a year for a s/hand 7. These 2 cameras with their EVF viewfinders seem to be a pinnacle of mirrorless design --clean lines, small, and yet filled with more features than one would ever need. Or me, anyway.<br>

They seem to possess the same sort of classic square-cut solidity as the F and F2, but I must stop now as I am waxing a bit lyrical.<br>

As David posted above, an adapter lets you use almost anything on it and I have my old non-AI Nikkors which I use.<br>

One imponderable is how long a digital camera will last..my Nikon bodies are all 45 to50 years old at least and still as good as new in functionality, if a bit scratched up; I can't see the Sonys lasting that long, although I really hope they're as tough as they look and feel.<br>

Good luck with your choice, I think that when you find a camera that feels right in your hand you'll know it!<br>

Andy.</p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>I got a Panasonic GH2 and enjoy having the knobs rather than menus, though heaven knows there are enough of those but apart from review where the GH2 has lost the simple button of other Panys I have I enjoy using it. My lens also suits me though possibly not yourself, the Lumix 14-140 which means I rarely change lens which also suits me as I came to MFT from bridge, and now have a reasonably light weight large sensor bridge camera which feels right in my hands.</p>

[harold_gough]

<p>I use an EP-2 for a couple of years and hated it. The lack of an eyelevel viewfinder was the main reason. The VF-2 was a good substitute but I couldn't use that and flash at the same time, a disaster for macro.<br>

The EM-1 has covered those two very well. It also has a much better feel in the hand.<br>

Another reason was that menu settings were extremely easily altered just by normal handling of the camera, very much less so with the EM-1.<br>

I thought that the 5-way IS would be amazing but have not been really aware of it.<br>

I use mostly legacy lenses but do find a much-improved AF with 4/3 lenses over the abysmal performance on the EP-2.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I meant that no one thinking of an A7 should be deterred by the limited number of FE lenses and their high prices. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>really? how can this comment possibly be true? the lack of fast zooms and shortage of fast primes shouldn't matter to ANYONE who is thinking about getting a full-frame mirrorless? and price isn't a consideration? lol, yeah right.<br>

<br>

sorry, but using legacy lenses means manual focusing, period. if you need AF, then, legacy lenses are not a solution. focus peaking isn't super-reliable for moving subjects, so it wouldn't work for action. on that same note, if you wanted an A7s for low-light work, say, concert photography, the f/4 zooms give back the advantage you get from that camera's super-sensitive sensor. and there's currently only one native prime faster than 2.8 currently available. sorry, but that's a #fail.<br>

<br>

to the OP, all signs point to the A6000 for you. its an upgrade from your current camera, you already have some lenses for it, and its within your price range. at this point, no one can say that Fuji, Olympus, or Panasonic would be a better fit for you, unless there's some specific feature you want those cameras/systems have. the A6k looks like a good body at a relatively affordable price point, and as long as you avoid the subpar 16-50 kit lens, that could do the trick.</p>

[fabriziogiudici]

<blockquote>

<p>... the lack of fast zooms and shortage of fast primes shouldn't matter to ANYONE who is thinking about getting a full-frame mirrorless?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, not "anyone". People interested in landscapes don't have any specific need for fast lenses. In general, you're right that there's a problem of completeness, but a good deal of people aren't particularly hurt by this.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Yes, I should have said that "<em>not all</em> people thinking of an A7 should be deterred...". My statement does not take account of all those who want fast lenses which have auto-focus. I did try to point out, as Fabrizio does, that different people have different needs: and I did also say that for Scott, the A6000 would appear to be the best option.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> My statement does not take account of all those who want fast lenses which have auto-focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that describes a fair amount of full-frame shooters, no?</p>

<p>just to be clear, an A7 would be a great landscape/general use camera, or in any situation where the f/4 zooms and dearth of fast primes aren't going to slow you down. an A6k with the right lenses would be as good as APS-C gets. the Fujis also have great IQ and their 18-55 kit lens is better than everyone else's kit lens, so you'd have to price out, say, an Xe2+18-55 vs. an A6k + 16-70 and see what works better for you in terms of cost-benefit.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Despite the dearth of fast auto-focus lenses designed for it, the A7 series appears to have attracted enough buyers to induce Sony to add two more variants to the two originally offered. It may even be that a fair number (or amount) of people are content to use their A7x cameras with adapted lenses. All this has nothing to do with what the first post was about, though.</p>

[scott_holt2]

<p>Thanks for all the good advice. I purchased an a6000 yesterday. <br /><br />It came down to a Fuji X-E2 or the Sony a6000... fortunately I was able to take off work early yesterday and made it to a local store that actually stocks both - though seeing and holding them did little to sway me (they both feel comfortable, though the Fuji is heavier). In the end, was three things:<br>

Resolution<br />5 steps of bracketing<br />Flip out screen<br /><br />The fact that I already have one e-mount lens and an e-mount to MD adapter really didn't sway me too much, but it helped since they did not have the lenses was looking at for either camera in stock. <br /><br /></p>