A6000.jpg

MODS

Take it out of auto mode, pleb.

>>2816929
If you have a good lens on it, it will work very well.

As for the noise, maybe limit auto ISO to 3200 and see where that takes you. It's not a really very low light camera, so use that flash indoors.

>>2816931
I've tried auto to manual and everything in between m8.
>>2816932
Even at a low ISO the noise is more than I'm used to, have used auto ISO up to 3200 for a while now, there is some improvement but still not happy. Also the in camera noise reduction is horrid and creates smeary , blurred images so that isn't an option. Shooting raw helps but I don't like to do that amount of post processing for everyday shots/candids

You can find flaws in the images of every digital camera when you pixel peep.

File: herpbunny.jpg (401KB, 781x958px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 781x958px

>>2816950
You can pixel peep well on photos shot with a A6000 using a sharp lens and in good light.

For example, this is a pixel peeping crop of a shot made with the 60mm Sigma Art f/2.8 in natural daylight.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	500 dpi
Vertical Resolution	500 dpi

>Can't figure out why its performance is so disappointing.

Because you suck and buying a magical meme camera won't help you with that

>>2816954
whats so magical meme about the a6k? its just a decent bridge with crap kit lens and a price tag that is $300 too high.

>>2816957
it's memed the fuck out off on /p/ I meant

>>2816958
yeah but why?

File: herbunny_full_small.jpg (172KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1000x667px

>>2816957
> its just a decent bridge
It is not a bridge camera.

It's a regular APS-C MILC, and about the best deal in the price range around its ~$550 price tag. Pretty fast AF with very good coverage, fast burst rate, fairly high resolution, pretty good AWB, okay video quality and okay software functionality.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2816945
none of this is helpful if you dont tell us the settings you are shooting with. for example it could be blurry because your lens isnt fast enough and you cant hold your camera still. nothing to do with the a6ks performance.

>>2816945
What do you consider an excessive amount of post processing? You can beam it to your phone if you don't want to mess around with your PC and Lightroom.

>>2816961
>Using AWB

Why?

>>2816994
Why not

>>2816994
The fuck? AWB is the only way to do white balance because who the fuck want's to waste time doing that out in the field? You can fix it perfectly in post, especially capture one with it's skintone white balance picker.

>>2816994
I use AWB most of the time, then correct in post anyway.

>>2816961
It is an IL system camera but by UI and workflow design and by the target demographic it is a bridge camera. Same goes for the A7 line.

>>2817022
Bridge camera has a definition retard. Your idiosyncratic ramblings don't matter one bit in this.

File: DSC01482_DxO.jpg (724KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 800x1200px

>>2816929
The iso and iq are crazy good for a body of that price. It's also very capable for low light if you wanna deal with manual lenses. I have a mitakon lens turbo II, and a canon fd 50. The combination gives the equivalent of a 54mm f/1.0 on a full frame camera. Photo is an example (albeit out of focus) that I took with this setup. It was shot at iso 800 and pushed 2 stops, which makes it equivalent to iso 3200, since the sony sensors are iso invariable.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3478
Image Height	5217
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2016:04:16 11:58:54
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Brightness	-5.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	800
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2817026
Canon FD f/1.4*

>>2816932
>>2816945
>ISO 3200

No APS-C camera can take good pictures at such a high ISO.

I don't even take my D800 that high unless I absolutely need to.

>>2817029
My K-3 takes good photos at ISO 6400. Your move, idiot.

>>2817026
>The combination gives the equivalent of a 54mm f/1.0 on a full frame camera.

No.

It becomes a 36.3mm f/1
Which your crop factor makes it a FF equivalent of 54mm f/1.5

>>2817032
You just have very low standards.

>>2817026
>says how good the meme6000 is, trying to convince op
>posts horrible crap photo

not sure if trolling

>>2816954
Cause this camera as opposed to my old one just makes me suck?
>>2816961
I may invest in another lens or two for testing purposes, even in decent light my shots are rarely that sharp. Also that's the best 100%crop I've seen from this camera
>>2816983
Only got the kit lens so far, generally shoot in shutter priority, rarely slower than 1/125th, don't believe camera shake is a problem
>>2816984
I usually put them on my phone, that's why I prefer jpeg cause I l can look through/edit a few pictures from a shoot before I process the best ones on PC

>>2817037
A sharp image of your cat or the back of the chair at ISO 100 might give you the best dynamic range and rich tones but it won't make a good photo.
Technicality and IQ does not make a good photo.

>>2817035
Ive never heard a good explanation of how crop factor alters aperture in terms of light gathering ability, I understand depth of field wise it's the same.

>>2817038
>trying to prove point that noise is very managable
>posts photo that has high iso and little noise
Are you retarded? I'm a terrible fucking photographer I will admit but I was trying to say you could get very passable iq from low light a6000 shots. Never did I say I could take a good photo under those conditions, but if I could the iq would be fine.

Why don't you just post some test shots, OP? We can't really help if we don't know what you're dealing with. Is there an actual fault on your camera or is it your technique that is lacking. Any properly functioning modern camera will make extremely good images technically, despite what some gearfags say. I push my x-t1 over 12800 iso every now&then, and you wouldn't notice from the actual prints. If you only look at your pics at 100% on your screen, you took on the wrong hobby. Pixel peeping is for faggots, not actual photographers. Also, don't be lazy, shoot raw.

>>2817047
light gathering ability is not affected by crop factor. An f/2 lens on crop gathers the same amount of light as on FF.

>>2817052
Oh okay, what I meant by an f1.0 equivalent was purely in light gathering terms. Shouldve made that clearer as to not confuse anyone.

>>2817017
>>2817021

Sometimes I want to give people small .jpgs straight away and I want to see if the actual lighting looks good.

>>2817029
I have always been pleased with X Trans II results at even 6400, there is some noise but it's not offensive at all. I can't think of a commonly occurring situation where it wouldn't be acceptable. It wouldn't be good for a magazine page or something, but then you wouldn't be shooting at 6400 because you would have set up good lighting.

Considering I thought X Trans II was based on the Sony sensor, I am surprised people are saying it's bad at 3200. You can find comparisons with the A7r where the noise is comparable.

Here's a Flickr that has a lot of excellent astro with super high iso in many of them most shot with the a6000. Like I'm talking 12800 iso. Obviously this isn't perfectly representative as these are massive panoramas which are then downscaled which reduces noise substantially but either way it shows what you can get out of an entry level camera at night. https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/jmartinez76/

>>2817049
>ISO 800
>high
Is this true? Is this how Sony works? All talk and nothing to deliver?
Seriously I get sharper images with 10x the detail on a Pentax than that shit on ISO fucking 6400! I got excellent images made on kit lens in a rainy dark overcast forest on an event, I was the only one making decent photos that day.
Either your camera has a defect or you don't know what you're doing. People do much much better with much worse gear, step up your game senpaitachi!

>>2817059
You know your "Pentax" has a Sony sensor, right?

>>2817059
You are actually retarded aren't you? It's iso 800 pushed two stops, on an iso invariable sensor that is the same noise as iso 3200. And no fucking duh that wasn't a sharp photo, I explicitly stated that I'm shit and it was out of focus, at f1.4 nothing is going to be extremely sharp anyways and it has nothing due to with the camera.

I will admit that Pentax weather sealing is awesome and I heavily considered buying one, but I realized I'm more likely to need the portability of an a6000 and 20mm pancake then I will the weather sealing. Congrats on being a better photographer than me and having a different camera that excells in different ways.

>>2817057
X-trans is based and has insane high iso performance for a crop. It's a serious exception the other guy should've noted. There was a comparison that showed a fuji, can't recall which one, out performing the a7ii on high isos. Although they might be compared jpegs.

>>2817060
Toshiba. With a Pentax designed image processor. Same for the Nikon D7100 and D7200 but with the Nikon processor.
Although Sony designed but think about it, if it works wonders on mine why does it perform so badly on yours? Send it in and lube your anus for Sony customer support to look at it and ram you up good.

>>2817070
Mate it doesn't work poorly on the a6000 and nobody knows what you're talking about. If you show me controlled tests proving this I'll believe you, maybe even if you show me a single fucking photo. You keep saying my out of focus downscaled photo shows that the Sony sensor is trash. Idk what I expect on this board since the only people with talent shoot film but come on admit that you're being a dumbass.

>>2817072
I'm not saying Sony is trash. I'm saying either your camera is trash or you are.

>>2817070
>why does it perform so badly on yours?

D800 isn't bad.

It's still one of the best sensors out there.
I just have higher standards than crop babies I guess.

>>2817073
Except I admitted I was trash in my second fucking reply, but you kept fucking arguing. Talk shit post pic, and if it's some fucking picture of dirt or your cat you can just kill yourself.

>>2817026
>No detail at all, swirly noise, and shit colors
Look how great this does at high ISO you guys! I'm bragging about it! Also, I missed focus (and tried to recover it in post with sharpening and clarity), so clearly it's hard to use, as well as being not great!

File: 2016-04-16 15_07_13-Lightroom.jpg (914KB, 2142x733px) Image search: [Google]

914KB, 2142x733px

>>2817029
100% crop at ISO 3200 on an X-T1 with no noise reduction at all.

Noise, but not ugly or distracting, good detail, good colors. I go to 6400 without thinking on this thing.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Greenshot
Image-Specific Properties:

File: some_fruit.jpg (673KB, 1015x633px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1015x633px

>>2817041
> Also that's the best 100%crop I've seen from this camera
Well, the 60mm is a very sharp lens. And in that situation I had daylight and could ramp up the shutter speed, so it worked just fine even handheld.

I can also very regularly get pixel peeping shots with the also very sharp 90mm FE (pic related, shot handheld with one strobe, it's a bit of a snapshit but it will do to show that this one works too).

These two lenses certainly are much better than the kit lenses.

>>2816994
It almost always works fine. And it is no problem to correct the rest in post. It's very rarely that I'll bother to change the AWB bias or even do manual WB - actually almost only with one profile I set up for my manual speedlights.

>>2817029
Works for me. It is not noise-free, but almost always something I can patch up to be usable at ~8-12MP if I didn't make other mistakes, even on more average glass like the 30mm Sigma Art. So I can use that even automatically.

ISO6400 is where I find it gets very problematic.Still useful occasionally, but I probably have only like ~2-4MP usable resolution tops after I am done with NR.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:16 21:47:43
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2817151
Leave some noise in, it will be taken care of with the export sharpening for digital or print and the JPEG compression. Gives you at least twice of that resolution.
Also turn off all kinds of in-camera noise reduction, some of that goes into the RAW.

>>2817163
Certainly, I let much of it be taken care of by JPEG compression and -usually- downscaling. I don't think that I have some automatic export sharpening set up?

I definitely still had in-camera NR enabled in many modes. Thanks for the hint, I'll disable those settings and see what I get!

>>2817108
fuji cameras apply noise reduction into RAWs

>>2817175
It can easily be removed by using pretty much any raw processor besides Lightroom.

>>2817188
Which has fuckall to do with the post you're replying to.

The guy was claiming that there was no noise reduction. He was stating that there was. That you can eliminate noise reduction that was applied does not factor into this at all.

>>2817105
Fuck is up with you guys, I'm a landscape photographer and this is the only photo I had at reasonably high iso. I just threw on a preset in dxo and exported it for Web. Sorry I didn't make sure the colors were perfect for you autists. If you want I can come take a photo of your flaccid Virgin penis in the dark at iso 12800 and then you can compare that to all of your own dick pics on your canikon

>>2817205
"Look how well I dance guys!"
>Posts link to a video of me losing a dancing competition and tripping on the way out the door

If you're going to post a photo to suggest that your camera is good at something, you would OBVIOUSLY want it to be a photo that shows the camera being good at that thing. This is like... 2nd grade level logic.

>>2817202
It's my screenshot. It's a screenshot of an image that has had its noise reduction removed in Photo Ninja. Therefore, the fact that Fuji has noise reduction in the raws doesn't really matter.

>>2816929
No, you just discovered the same disappointing truth I have. Sony cams in general are memes and have no real place in amateur/professional photography. I just bought an a6300 with a FE 90mm and the picture quality is some of the worst I have ever fucking seen in photography.

>>2817226
I doubt it. I bought an a6000 to basically use as a compact and have it still match my old t3i in image quality, and it's considerably better than the t3i, and my friend's entry level nikon. It's not gonna blow any full frame or fuji aps-c out of the water, but it does deliver pretty well for the price range and size.

I do wholeheartedly agree that Sony cams are terrible for professional (read: professional other than personal landscape photography) work, with the exception of the a7s series, which delivers insanely good lowlight on a budget, and would be wonderful if it had affordable lenses.

>>2817226
>I just bought an a6300 with a FE 90mm and the picture quality is some of the worst I have ever fucking seen in photography.
Absolute bullshit: The post.

>>2816929
No, you just need to work on your photography. Any camera is bad in unskilled hands.

ITT: Sony A7 A7s A7r is the only sony you should you for photography;

Beside that, stick with your Nikon Canon Fuji

>>2817041
>Cause this camera as opposed to my old one just makes me suck?

I assume your old one is older and thus probably had lower pixel count. Reduce the size of your A6000 images to those taken by the old camera. Compare two images side-by-side. Unless you somehow got a defective model, you are probably just wrong.

>>2817230
No, it won't "blow them out of the water", but it is certainly overall equal to most Fuji APS-C.

It has more lenses on the high-end though. If you have money to drop on those, they do mostly beat Fuji's in terms of IQ.

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>2817231
Have you owned either of these pieces of equipment or do you just believe everything the YouTube reviewers tell you? its subpar image quality for the price

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	2448

>>2817242
Let's see the photos in question. It's very possible that the best camera in the world can produce a terrible photo, in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it, or what to point it at, or when.

>>2817242
Subpar quality for the price =/= worst in photography. Sony lenses are all subpar quality for the price as they're insanely overpriced.

>>2817242
What's that photo supposed to show? That an image from another camera shooting the A6300 and 90mm FE can look shit?

I don't believe you for starters, and you made the first claim here.

Show us how this is sub-par when the A6000 with the 90mm FE can do this >>2817151 at 1:1.

>>2817246
> Sony lenses are all subpar quality for the price as they're insanely overpriced.
Only if Canon L and Nikon's high-end also is "insanely overpriced". I personally think it's more accurate to say that's just basically what most high-end glass costs.

Well, apart from Sigma which finally is a company that released a lot of high-end cheaper glass, rather than just 1-2 "platform sellers".

>>2817247
my iphone 6S can take a better pic than that

>>2817242
Nope, that's what DPReview is for.

>>2817242
>do you just believe everything the YouTube reviewers tell you?
Says the guy that just dropped 1000+ on a new camera model he doesn't like

>>2817049
I don't know what the fuck you're smoking but it looks like shit. I get more useable images out of my X pro at 6400

File: some_fruit_full_small.jpg (175KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1000x667px

>>2817255
No, it really absolutely can't.

It might look somewhat mostly like that if you successfully used your whole sensor to capture the same area, perhaps.

But >>2817151 is a pixel-peeping crop from a larger handheld snapshit. The whole image's area was pic related (scaled down and compressed since there is really no point in wasting much bandwidth on the rest of the snapshit).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi

>>2816929
It's the kit lens. Complete utter shite, you'd be better off with a cheap nifty fifty or an old Rokkor lens.

>>2817175
>>2817202
This autist is back. I'm kind of disappointed you've not died of cancer yet. Pls stop nitpicking every post to do with RAF/DNG files, it's very tired.

>>2817271
I'm pretty sure he'll be able to recover the price with only a minimal case of buyers remorse.

File: 1452987641764.jpg (184KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 640x480px

>2016
>still falling for a6k threads
This is almost not funny anymore. I had my fair share in bait threads, many lulz were had, but you guys really are hopeless. Holy shit, you fucking /p/haggots do not even bother anymore to redirect others to gear threads, but fall immediately and start throwing shit at each other for the next 300 posts instead. Fucking cesspool.
>>2816930
Yes, mods, do something with it, allow for only one gear thread at a time or ban gearfags all together, because /p/ stands for "cameras" nowadays.
>inb4 /p/ was always like this
No, it wasn't THIS bad.

File: Screen Shot 2016-04-17 at 15.56.56.png (2MB, 1216x743px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1216x743px

ISO 800 pushed 2 stops in post with no noise reduction. X100s.
Not bad at all for 3200 apsc

>>2817646
Fuji ISO 800 is ISO 400 in any other camera.

>>2817022
>Making up definitions for words

I thought this was /p/, not a sociology class

>>2817656
I'm gonna need some links for that buddy.

>>2817664
He's exaggerating, but Fuji does use a "different standard" for ISO than most companies, meaning that their stated ISO is a bit lower than it would be for another camera. I don't believe it's a full stop, but I haven't read anything about it in a while.

File: tumblr_lic2eqx1kt1qhy6c9o1_400[1].gif (33KB, 325x325px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 325x325px

>mfw when shooting with the D750 while idiots argue over abysmal image quality at ISO 800 in CURRENT YEAR

>>2817664
https://photographylife.com/does-fuji-cheat-with-its-sensors

>>2817683
True 70-200 for portraits without focus breathing? Not on Nikon.
11-24mm ultra super wide? Nope don't got that.
1.2 50/85... Unfortunately not.

Enjoy your great sensor, stuck in a nikon, faggot.

>>2817687
>Enjoy your great sensor, stuck in a nikon, faggot.

i do and i will

>>2817684
Thankfully, even with that in mind:
>If you look at the files, you can clearly see that the Sony A7 II contains more chroma noise than the X-T1. This essentially shows that even if we were to equalize the X-T1 sensor performance, it still can be a challenge for the A7 II in IQ at high ISOs

>>2817687
>Tony pls go shill Canon on cripple/p/

>>2817695
because Fuji does NR even to their RAW files.

>>2817700
Just because lightroom doesnt know how to handle RAFs doesn't mean fuji is doing anything of the sort. Every other editor strips out the noise reduction (just like lightroom strips out camera profile and toning data) and gives you a detailed file with all the noise intact.

>>2817721
>doesn't mean fuji is doing anything of the sort.
If fuji doesn't do anything of the sort then why is there anything for editors other than Lr to strip out?

OP here, went on a shoot today mid afternoon as the sun was just beginning to go down and captured some more than decent pictures, in perfect light this thing captures an impressive amount of detail.
As the majority of the photos I'd taken previously had been in lesser lighting conditions, I believe the A6000 with kit lens is just worse in low light than what I'd become used to with my previous camera. The noise I'd been so horrified with is barely noticeable-if at all in this shoot, most images were sharp as I'd expect.
Guess I should have tested it in a variety of conditions before making judgement, perhaps expected too much just after I took it out the box and hadn't had a chance to get used to it. Appreciate everybody's input so far.
I think I'll invest in a new lens or two, perhaps a 50mm prime and If anyone recommend a decent all round zoom that'd be helpful. Can't stand mechanical zooms like the kit lens

File: Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 01.27.42.png (602KB, 585x567px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 585x567px

>>2817646
400 pushed to 128000.
X100s.
Not saying its the best but fuck I can live with it when needed.

>>2817980
50mm will be 75mm FF equiv. It's a bit tight for a general lens. The 30mm Sigmas are said to be all right though. Cheap too.

>>2818081
That's crazy. My Canon 5DmkIII files would probably cause my PC to implode if I tried that.

File: 1459734821126.jpg (23KB, 255x216px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 255x216px

>falling for Spillover Sony Shills from /v/

File: f2.8_6400.jpg (131KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1000x563px

>>2818153
My main work camera is a 5DIII Its got nice IQ you just have to get the shot right in camera the raws have no flexibility even vs my little fuji x100. Not a problem with lighting.

>>2818146
Yes, both Sigma 30mm are okay. The 28mm f/2 is also a good lens.

>>2818153
Canon sensors aren't ISO invariant, meaning they won't push without falling apart. Sony sensors, you can shoot at ISO 100, and push to 3200 in post, and it will look the same as if you shot it at ISO 3200 on the scene.

>>2816929
>takes shitty photos
>blames the gear

stick to a low iso and get a better lens, of course youre getting shit photos out of the kit lens

and stop blaming your gear, people have taken great photos with cameras much worse than an a6000

>>2818146
Apart from the 30mm Sigmas the 28mm f/2 also is a trusty choice, plus that one has decent wide angle converters if you need them.

File: DSC00550.jpg (732KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 1920x1080px

Here is a shot straight out of camera (used the Sony app to send straight to my phone) shot with 19mm Sigma. I think it does awwright. Coming from a t2i though

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	ILCE-6000 v1.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:13 23:57:01
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Brightness	-1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	19.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2817980
Additionally forgot to mention I turned off high ISO noise reduction, turns out that was smearing my images even at a relatively low ISO.
Pictures are less blurry and sharper now

>>2817108
obvious color noise reduction is obvious

>>2818650
Remember, always shoot as raw as possible, and fuck around with the image later in something proper like Lightroom. First thing you should always do is disable whatever digital correction nonsense youbcan find that they have turned on for normies.

It's a king at its price point matey. If you want better, pay more.
But I suspect you just suck at photography.

>>2819168
>It's a king at its price point matey.
It really isn't. You can get better MILC's for the same price point that don't have Sony's shit tier IQ and menus.

>>2819268
> Sony's shit tier IQ
In your imagination perhaps.

In reality, Sony pretty much always has some of the best IQ for the respective camera type & price bracket.

>>2819275
Nope. They make the best sensors but they literally have no clue what to do with the data those sensors correct. Literally everyone else who uses Sony sensors does a better job with the data than Sony.

Just wait till someone figures a way around that backlit cmos patent. Sony will be dead in the water.

File: iso.jpg (79KB, 571x577px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 571x577px

Yes, the a6000 has poor high ISO relative to comparable models. But if this difference is large enough for you to care, or even notice in the field, you should literally kill yourself.

It's just to easy to blame the gear when you take shitty photos. If you're photo is good, literally no one will give a shit if it's at ISO 3200 with just about any camera made in the last 3 years. If you think an a6000 isn't capable of professional quality images, you're retarded.

Arguing IQ over any current gen camera is basically just mental masturbation. Anyone that actual needs good IQ is on DMF anyways.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Sean
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 1423423691634.png (473KB, 733x733px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 733x733px

>>2819296
>deliberately cucking yourself
Why? Why not get better IQ, performance, ergonomics, lens selection and menus for the the same price?
Right. Buyers remorse. Gotta defend that purchase online to make yourself feel better. :^)

>>2819291
> Literally everyone else who uses Sony sensors does a better job with the data than Sony.
You can get that small improvement to sensor data processing usually only if you pay quite a significant bit more.

Besides, even for the sensors where that happened, the best IQ will still be on that camera and the Sony variant with the same sensor.

> Just wait till someone figures a way around that backlit cmos patent. Sony will be dead in the water.
I am pretty sure that there are a lot more patents plus manufacturing problems that are in the way of breaking up Sony's dominance on the sensor market...

I wouldn't mind if it happened, but I really don't expect it will happen.

>>2819298
>Why? Why not get better IQ, performance, ergonomics, lens selection and menus for the the same price?
Because there isn't a camera that does that?

You basically have DSLR's which are completely apples and oranges to MILC's. Panolympus is worse in IQ, Samsung is dead, Canikon's MILC offerings are awful, so really the only apples to apples competitor is Fuji.

And of Fuji, the only model that is apples to apples price-wise is the XT-10 (which is still $200 more than the a6k). Fuji definitely makes stellar lenses, but as a system, E mount defintiely has a better selection for most people. Performance is really gonna depend on what you mean.

Ergo's are entirely subjective, so it's kinda pointless to ever bring them up. Menus too to some extent.

What cameras under $700 (with lens) or $550 (body) offers "better IQ, performance, ergonomics, lens selection and menus"? Enlighten me please.

>>2819291
Only Sony and Samsung has the means to even manufacture the BSI.

Sony owns their own sensor factories, and it's the reason they can make their cameras for cheap despite having advanced sensors.

Other makers can use the same sensors, but they will always cost more. Because they have to buy the sensors for a higher price.

File: KINGATIT'SPRICEPOINT.png (115KB, 1000x709px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1000x709px

>>2819319
>E mount defintiely has a better selection for most people
Yeah, that's not subjective at all.
>Ergo's are entirely subjective, so it's kinda pointless to ever bring them up
kek
>Menus too to some extent.
double kek
>the only model that is apples to apples price-wise is the XT-10 (which is still $200 more than the a6k).
Sure, we'll use the X-T10 then.
>What cameras under $700 (with lens) or $550 (body)
>dollars
Here we go.

This is completely excluding picking up used gear, which is completely acceptable outside of professional work. If you accept the X-T10 as acceptable, then the X-E2 is also fine at a lower price, as is the X-E1 and X-Pro 1 if you can deal with slower processing and no wi-fi.
If you can excuse the limited DR of the Canon sensor then the M3 is also fine. The A6K isn't the special snowflake that the internet makes it out to be.

>>2819319
> Fuji definitely makes stellar lenses, but as a system, E mount defintiely has a better selection for most people.
But if you want "stellar" lenses, the E-mount actually also has more of them...

File: cameraforcucks.png (16KB, 723x348px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 723x348px

>>2819327
I totally cut the price off of the M3 screengrab.

>>2819327
>The A6K isn't the special snowflake that the internet makes it out to be.
100% agree. But it's also not complete shit-tier trash like some people thing.

Every camera, as you so perfectly demonstrated, has pro's and con's. For a lot of people, the a6k really is the best for them at that price point. It's not for me (I do prefer the Fuji's), and it's not for a lot of others, but it still is simply the best choice for many.

>>2819328
Valid.

File: 1.png (7KB, 570x233px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 570x233px

>>2819327
Fuji and Canon doesn't have this.

And this is australian dollars -> 543AUD = 418 USD = 295 Britbongs

>>2819329
>>2819327
US body pricing has:

a6k - $550
M3 - $480
X-E2 - $700
X-T10 $800
X-E1 / X-Pro1 - $500

That said, all through holidays a6k bodies were $400 (and to be fair other brands had similar sales).

>>2819335
>>2819334
>Unwanted remains of the British Empire
>Relevant
Nice try m8s.
>Fuji and Canon doesn't have this.
Really glad your sigma lenses are working out for you. I can't wait to see more news on how Sigma have the best selling E mount lenses on the market.

>>2819337
Actually, I bought them because they're are 99% close to being FF lenses, just with some slight vignetting.
I'm using them for A7ii, not for an A6000.

That's 99 Britbongs for a nearly FF lens.
You just can't beat this type of system when the bodies and lenses are this high bang for the buck.

>>2819328
does E mount have 18-50 with constant f/2.8 ?

>>2817029
>no bad camera can take good pictures at such a high ISO

FTFY

>>2816952
You can pixel peep anything shot with a good lens and quality light.

>>2819473
It has a 24-70 and 16-35mm with constant f/2.8.

The 24-70 is probably the best one on any system, but also one of the most expensive.

>>2819496
Yes - the point was however that it works on the A6000,and that *that* specific good lens is highly recommendable 'cause it's a fantastic bargain at ~$150.

File: Screen Shot 2016-04-19 at 15.08.57.png (2MB, 1446x646px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1446x646px

Why would you not just get a used XE2 or XT10 and all the lovely fuji glass?

ISO 1600 pushed 4 stops.

>>2819575
>It has a 24-70 and 16-35mm with constant f/2.8.
So it has a wide zoom, and a short telephoto, so you can't just go out one day with your camera and one lens to shoot whatever comes up? You just always have to bring two lenses?

>>2819589
>used
Used A6000 could be had for 380 dollars at best buy last year.

>>2817029
the NX1 can do well at 3200 for stills but thats the only one in my experience

>>2819616
So this is what it's come to? After months of "it's the best thing ever" and dozens of photos proving it's not, we've settled to "well at least it's cheaper"?

Well I think we'll have to give it to you. Your worse, harder to use, unpleasant-lens system is less expensive than better options. Can we let it rest now?

>>2819628
Can you just admit you're the asshole points at me instead of the other guy for no reason other than I didn't start the argument?

>>2819631
What?

>>2819575
>two lenses
>that weight
>that size
>that price
you got to be shitting me anon.

Anyway, had the Nikon d5100 with tampon 17-50 2.8 and was quite happy with the focal length it provided, but decided to jump for the mirrorless meme. Anyone can suggest a body that has a nice 17-50 2.8 lens to go with it for my general travel shooting?

>>2819594
> you can't just go out one day with your camera and one lens to shoot whatever comes up
Of course you can. A 24-70 is basically ideal for that.

But if you want a 18-5x for APS-C, there are two of these. And a 16-50. And a 16-70. And a 18-105. And three 18-200. And then a few more. They're not a constant f/2.8, but you still can shoot basically everything that comes up.

Frankly, if I'm missing anything it'd be the Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8 because it combines very good sharpness with f/1.8. But fortunately that one can be adapted, and apparently perfectly so even on the A6x00 once Sigma's MC11 is on the market next month.

>>2819636
>24-70 is basically ideal for that.
Not on a crop camera it's not.

>>2819636
>16-50
slow and shit tier glass
>16-70
heavily overpriced and a complete shit glass for a zeiss
>18-105
huge and still slow but at least versatile

next pls

>>2819634
>that weight
>that size
Those are not actually bad? The Sony 28-70 f/2.8 is lighter and basically the same size as CaNikon's variants (slightly bigger I think, but they're all basically fat beer cans - won't require a different size of bag or backpack or feel different in terms of handling because of its size).

> that price
The same as Canon's lens when it was new in 2012, and I believe Nikon did the same for their (worse but older) 24-70 as well?

I wouldn't expect a lower release price from the *next* best-on-market 24-70mm FF lens either, not if it's a Canon/Nikon/Sony/Zeiss.

>>2819641
A 36-105mm equivalent is easy to work with too. Starts at typical street FL and ends with typical portrait FL - certainly good for shooting humans.

That said, of course you're free to stick it on a FF camera if you prefer actual 24-70mm?

And I did list quite a few (cheaper) APS-C zoom lenses you could use, most of them within 1 f-stop or less. There are some more primes in that range, too.

>>2819628
>"well at least it's cheaper"?
It's not even cheaper by much. It's a camera for cucks, just like the A6300.

Sony need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to make a good camera, then start working out how to use their own sensors. The problem is that they are two completely separate sectors of Sony trying to work together but they're out of sync.

>>2819834
Jealousy is so ugly Anon.

The other camera makers would love to have the A6300 sensor, it's really no slouch.
Though, I definitely doubt the other makers want to open up for 3rd party adaptors llike Sony has, in my opinion it's an advantage only Sony has the balls to give to their cameras.

>>2819848
>Jealousy is so ugly Anon
>being jealous of a 1/4000 shutter and 1/160 sync speed
HA!

>>2819879
I'm pretty sure it's the same as on the A6000 again:
1/160 *on the built-in flash*, typical hot shoe flash (YN560 series or something) can do 1/250, and you get up to 1/4000 with HSS - wireless HSS is possible with a bunch of triggers.

>>2819848
Sony hasn't opened up for 3rd party adapters. It's just easier to make them (read as: possible in some cases) for mirrorless.

All about the flange distance homie.

>>2820195
> Sony hasn't opened up for 3rd party adapters.
They did open up the lens specs, though I don't know to which extent:
http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/e_mount/index.html

>>2820192
That still doesn't rate the shutter above 1/4000. It's a cucked camera, for cucks. Americans.

>>2820224
Why would you need a shutter speed faster than 1/4000? What are you trying to do, take a picture of the sun?

>>2820548
>shutter speed faster than 1/4000

Nobody actually needs a shutter speed faster than 1/4000, but it looks great on paper. This board is mostly about gearfags circle jerking.

>>2820575
If you go outside, sometimes it's bright.
If you have fast lenses, sometimes you'd like to shoot wide open, in daylight.
1/4000 doesn't cut it for that.

>>2820578
Then use a ND filter in those scenario's.

>>2820579
That's one option if your camera can't get a faster shutter speed, certainly, but it can make looking through the viewfinder, and focusing, more difficult, depending on the level of cut the filter is doing. It also means always carrying a filter around with you, which many people don't want to do.

File: Laughing-Men-In-Suits.jpg (23KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x333px

>>2816929
>he fell for the A6000 meme
>>2817026
My LG G3 takes better pictures than this.

>>2820580
EVF...

>>2820587
No it doesn't. Get your cuck ass of this board and go back to jerking off to /r/thedonald

>>2820589
Cameras with EVFs still need light coming into the lens to work their AF systems, and a dark piece of glass in the front of the lens isn't going to do your sensor any favors.

And still, it's very annoying to have to put a filter (and therefore a case for that filter) in your pocket to go out shooting in case it gets bright out. I'd rather just have a camera that can handle it with shutter speed.

I know Fujis have the ability to use an electronic shutter with speeds up to 1/32,000. Do the Sonys not also have that?

>>2820591
Man that photo looks like it was taken on an old cell phone and edited on a broken monitor. The way the light and shadows are handled, mixed with the noise and lack of detail from the blur, make it look like she's literally wearing someone else's face Silence of the Lambs style. It's a terrible example of what a camera can do.

>>2820591
>says cuck
>accuses someone else of going to /r/the_donald

k

File: Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 19.30.08.png (209KB, 336x380px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 336x380px

>>2820591
why does this remind me of baldurs gate character portraits the way the shadows look

File: _DSC7068.jpg (334KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1000x667px

I dunno but I love shooting with my a6000 1/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	204 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:21 11:08:29
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	136.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: _DSC8218.jpg (374KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1000x667px

2/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	103 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:21 11:11:33
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	69.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: _DSC8874-Pano-2.jpg (987KB, 949x1000px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 949x1000px

3/2

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:21 11:11:54
Exposure Time	3.2 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal