but this comparison is wrong. as wrong as it can be. i have 6300 and a7ii and seriously, no. you can not compare them. full frame is a full frame. you'll never get a crazy "wow" out of 6300....sadly
Although you say the difference is very small, I think it's actually quite large and really worth the extra cost of the full frame sensor. Personally I'd go for the A7Rii. When you get beyond a certain point the increase you get in quality per unit cost becomes quite small and it depends on how much you value quality. Always get the best you can afford and also chuck away those zoom lenses if you care about your images....
Thank you for such an awesome and important comparison because I just got my A6000 and was wondering whether I should make the upgrade to A7 II and you made it just a simple NO because what you're talking about here is simply splitting hairs for me :) and over the top and will surely be an overkill!!
First I wanted to complain about the comparison between two lenses of vastly different quality, and further more the loss of sharpness due to cropping, but I must admit that it was still a useful test, especially considering the A6000 had all the odds against it and still fared very well. I'm currently considering investing in the A6000, though of course I'd like to have the A6300 with the 4K, faster AF, better sensor, and so on and so forth, but considering the price difference, I'm more and more convinced that the A6000 is the better deal, and this video has certainly added to my conviction, so thanks a bunch.
JUST watched your video on the a6000 vs. the Sony A7II and it was exactly the real world comparison I was looking for! It confirmed the side by side done by Image Resource's Comparometer. I have been wandering if I should upgrade to the A7II but have been hesitant because the glass is so expensive for it. I have the 18-55mm, the 35mm f1.8 and the 55-210 and would like to add, what seems to be well reviewed, the 10-18mm. If I were to replace those on the A7II, if I even could, it would cost a fortune, and for what? The image quality, as your test confirmed, on the a6000 is SO close, negligible at best. Thanks so much! Have you tested the 10-18mm?
+Steven Guzy hi Steven, the 10-18mm could also be used on a7R, a7ii briansmith.com/?s=10-18 surprisingly Sony made the 10-18 with the image circle big enough to cover a full frame sensor from 13mm to 16mm.
+Steven Guzy hi, i'm going to buy the alpha 6000..i think/hope it's still a good camera, especially for its price..which lense should i buy? the 16/50 + 35mm? or without the kit lense and just a prime lense (35mm, or 18mm or 50mm,or whatelse? Thanks!
I have both, the Sigma 19mm and the 60mm Art dn lenses and they are superb with this sensor. I print my work and 13x19. The smallest prints I make and sell. the 30mm is supposed to be a killer lens. This speaks more to the sensor in the A6000. It's pretty amazing! JM2cents!
Nice review. I have both cameras. The most obvious, without pixel peeping, is in lower light conditions. This is where the full frame will sine over the crop.
Well you are comparing them in full lit day scenes. This does not take in consideration one of the biggest advantages of a FF sensor, the low light capability. I always feel that if you are going to make such comparison you should also include some sort of dim lit scene. Then you will see the differences. Nowadays even phones take good pictures in full lit day conditions.
Great review. Very helpful. Personally I prefer the 55 for the quality but the 35's form factor does it for me. I often find myself needing to step back when I am using the 55 and that's not always an option in a small room
I bought both an A6000 and an A5100 in 2019. These two cameras must be the best bargain today. The autofocus is fast enough for my use and the cameras are small and lightweight and perfect walkaround cameras.
You really need to test with similar lenses or a zoom so you can put them at the same equivalent mm. The quality of the two lenses could effect results and not really show the difference between the two cameras
Well done. I've had the A6000 with the 35mm F1.8 (APS-C) lens for the past two years. It has been the one I've used most during that time (I also have the 50mm F1.8, the 16-50 and the 55-210; I have hardly ever used the 16-55, but I do use the others on occasion). All in all, I'd have to agree--given the choice between A6000 series versus A7II, the APS-C camera wins hands down (better value, faster autofocus).
Very informative review, thanks! And the result is yet more surprising considering that Sony 55mm is one of the sharpest on DOX. I have mine paired with 35mm f1.8 OSS and the quality is also outstanding. I can't help it, I just feel bad for those DSLR loyal people who still think just because a camera is bigger, heavier, and more expensive means it's gonna produce better results.
MJ JF I thing that the progress in mirrorless cameras will really limit the use of DSLRs to those niches where their qualities are still an advantage... and those niches are probably being closed in the near future ;)
Using the same lens on full-frame and APS-C bodies would not be a fairer comparison, because a lens optimised for full-frame will never yield such good results on a crop sensor body, due to its optical design. Closer results might have been achieved, had the A6000 had a 35mm lens optimised for APS-C format on it. That said, the results of this test WERE very similar, and certainly similar enough to be irrelevant under normal conditions.
Keith Spillett That was my impression exactly. I think the advantage of the Sony A7II is just in the fact that the full frame sensor is better under specific conditions (low light) and may deliver specific results when needed (narrow depth of field). I think that crop sensor cameras are delivering image quality that is more than good enough in many situations!
Keith Spillett That's not completely correct imho. Full Frame lenses deliver perfect quality on APS-C, kinda better then on full frame bodies in fact. The reason is, that only the very sharp center part of the frame covered by a full frame lens is taken by the crop sensor whilst the blurry edges are discarded. Hope that makes sense. Regards from Germany
You've missed my point Patrick. APS-C demands greater resolving power of a lens than an equivalent full-frame to achieve the same apparent result. The two Sony cameras both have 24mp sensors, but with differing pixel sizes. Using the same lens on both systems will NOT yield the same level of apparent sharpness, because an APS-C chip would require a lens with 50% more resolving power in the centre to match up with a lens optimised for that format. That said, the differences are so small that they are indistinguishable to the naked eye. Since the advent of digital, we've become far too concerned with things that wouldn't have bothered us previously. I've been a professional for over forty years, and to quote any old boss of mine, "if it LOOKS right, then it IS right".
Ok I got your point. Of course you are completely right. However, how my point and your point weights out each other might depend heavily on the specific lens, I guess. And with your final point you are more then right, too: All that stuff has absolutely no impact on reality. (Although I forget that from time to time and get concerned about my AF whilst watching my images on 100% ;-) )
You can't compare a full frame to a crop sensor to the same aperture, you should compare the f2.8 in the crop factor to f4 in full frame , to have similar DOP, then compare sharpness of the images
Adel Raziar I don't think the comparison is so far fetched... I am observing the sharpness on the actual distance that is in focus. Obviously the comparison would have been even more accurate if I had used the exact same lens on both cameras at the same aperture (trying to catch the sweet spot of the lens). But I wanted to use two lenses with comparable quality that would still reflect similar fields of view on the two sensors. If I had stopped down the 55mm to f4 and left the 35mm at f2.8 I would have had an optimal aperture on the full frame and the widest aperture on the crop.
IncredibleStuffChannel You are already stopping down the 1.8 when you compare it to the 2.8 anyway . But if you want another example , f/4 on the a6000 and f/6 on the A7 , should be fair. It just the fact that people always multiply the focal length buy the crop factor and forget about the aperture , which is a mistake when making a comparison
He’s right. The crop factor affects the aperture too. Otherwise the diameter of the lens opening is smaller on the crop camera. There is less light power.
Before having a body to use with, I bought the Zeiss 32mm 1.8 but still deliberating between the Nex-7 vs the a6000... I think I will go for the a6000...!
the test isn't really accurate for a few reasons, the depth of field is not the same if they are both at 2.8, also you are shooting the 2.8 lens wide open, and the 1.8 lens is stopped down to 2.8, witch makes it sharper, so there is no way the A6000 is going to compete in this test, and there isn't really any way to do a fare comparison with these two lenses, if you put the 35 f1.4 lens on the A6000 it would be a closer comparison
...seems like compared an apples (55/1.8) to an orange (35/2.8) ... why not use the 55/1.8 on BOTH the a7ii & the a6000 ?... sure, you'll get a different perspective due to the crop factor ... but you'd at least be using the same lens on both cameras and only be comparing the sensors ... only one, not two, variables ...
I don't think so ; the same lens quality is essential to compare and it's sure 55/1,8 is better than 35/2,8 ... but i don't say that an apple is better than an orange !!!
Hi, I own an A6000 but not A7II, I suspect that the 2 cameras performed very close to each other and you confirmed it. Those you want ultimate sharpest in A6000 and don't mind manual focus try Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 plus adapter, try this combo then you will find out what sharpness is. Thanks for this test.
If I may, I would like to comment regarding 2 things. 1st, a 50mm will always be sharper than a 35mm. 2nd, the 50mm f1.8 shot at 2.8 is already stopped down, therefore not comparable with the 35mm f2.8 wide open. Also the 55mm is if not the sharpest, one of the sharpest Sony lenses, again not really comparable with the 35mm. I prefer FF in any case, I am not defending the 6000. Also, sharpness depends on your monitor, when I switched to my Mac 5k things changed...
Thanks. I have 2 A6000 and 2 A7 I got on sale and I sold my full frame Nikon. I find the 24-70 for the A7 sharper than the 16-70 for the A6000. Although if I add some sharpening in Lightroom it improves. I am about to go to the Yucatan peninsula, and I am tempted to bring 2 A6000 rather than 1 A6000 and the A7. What is your impression at high ISO? 3200 seems a little hard on the A6000. I also noticed Lightroom renders the A7 RAW files in a less contrasty way. The Sigma 30mm seems very crisp. I also got the Sigma 19mm used on sale. But I find the zooms a lot more convenient. I dislike changing lenses when on the go. A6000 was on sale and small enough that you can have 2 bodies and 2 primes in your bag,
Thanks for the comparison. I believe the a7ii separates from the a6000 by 1 or 2 stops of light, because of the crop factor. The apsc 2.8 lens is actually a 4.2 FF equiv, so a 2.8 FF lens on the a7ii is actually 2.8. I own both and like you said, all of this doesn't matter if the body has sad glass. On another note, has anyone been able to get sharp images with the FF kit lens? The 2870, I regret getting this lens cuz I can't seem to get sharp images in daylight conditions.
Thanks for the videos. I enjoy watching them. I'm starting to get interested in the a6000 but I think the a7000 is around the corner so I'll wait and on top of that I'm saving money for my m6 TTL that I'm going to buy this year as I really want to try out the leica experience. Regarding this video wouldn't it make more sense to compare the two cameras by using the same lens to remove additional lens quality variances that influence the image quality? So perhaps testing both with the sony 35mm?
itcontractwork Thanks! Go for the Leica!!! You will love it! (At least I do love mine, pre-TTL). As for the comparison: I had thought about that but that would still not be the same because the A6000 would only use the sweetspot of the lens... So I tried to get the best comparison by having a close ratio of angle of view. Still, I think the result shows that the A6000 is a powerhouse of a camera and is up to the game of the A7, except for the full frame sensor, that many people probably don't even need.
I wonder about the low iso comparison on both of them.. maybe that's the tangible real advantage on the a7ii. I have heard that even though a7ii has better iso performance the a6000 focuses better on low light but I guess that the quality will be superior on the a7ii if you do get to focus one shot , if you take in to account that its harder to focus in low light circumstances with the a7ii, that would contrarrest its " advantages" and make them equal. please shed some light on it because I am switching the a7R to 2 a6000 bodies and one a6300
Maybe its me, but the A7ii images look much more rich and detailed. Perhaps just more saturated? To moe the sky's look more blue and the bricks look more colorful. Is the A7ii over doing the color or is it more accurate?
Hello! Thank you for your fair discussion and analysis! Where are you located? In Germany? How do you get the two photos up for side by side comparison? Thank you! Joseph V
Im using a6k for one week and i can only say that sensor it´s better than my 7d, and whit and adaptor you have a lot of possibilities, the only thing that i have to comment about, is that the battery drains fast, Im really amaze whit the a6k, sony is doing a great job whit this cameras, if they put more battery capacity it should be fantastic.
+Josep Josep get a 10000 ma power bank in your porcket and a cellphone cord, u can use it for a very very long time (charging while you are using it also)
+Enzhan Song you can't use the camera conect to a power bank or something, you can get an extra battery and a charger and then charge it whit a power bank.
I mean no disrespect, comparing crop and full frame image quality is very hard! But just as a disclaimer I don't think this kind of comparison should be used for decision making. Camera bodies have actually little to do with the image quality and lenses practically make or break the photographs! That's why you can't actually look at the photos and make out the differences in the camera bodies if you are comparing them with each other using two such a different lenses.
Hallo. Mit der G70 kenne ich mich leider nicht aus... Was man generell sagen kann ist, dass die Gs von Panasonic für Video wohl die Nase vorn haben. Aber von der A6000 bin ich persönlich sehr begeistert und der Sensor ist auch einen Hauch größer. Dafür ist das Repertoire an Zubehör beim M43 System im Moment noch breiter. Eine klare Empfehlung wage ich daher nicht wirklich. Wahrscheinlich beides tolle Kameras mit jeweils Vor- und Nachteilen :)
+IncredibleStuffChannel Bei mir ist die Lage so. Ich möchte komplett mit einem neuen System anfangen. Also muss ich keine Rücksicht auf bisherige Objektive oder anderes Zubehör nehmen. Ich lege Wert auf eine sehr gute Bildqualität, auch bei schlechteren Lichtverhältnissen. Das hat mich bisher immer gestört, das meine Hosentaschenkameras bei schlechten Licht so rauschen. Die Serienbildfunktion sollte auch gute Werte haben. Die Kamera kann im Angebot mit einem 2. Objektiv 1000,00€ kosten. Könnten Sie mir da eine Kamera besonders ans Herz legen. Danke
Also, ich benutze auch eine Olympus Om-d e-m10 und bin damit sehr zufrieden. Ist günstig, bietet alles was man braucht, und die Qualität ist über jeden Zweifel erhaben.
+IncredibleStuffChannel Hello. I'm going to replace my Nikon D3100 with Sony's mirrorless soon. I want to have high detailed shots, good resuilts at the high ISO, and fast autofocus. What would be better choise for me, A6300 or A7 II? Futhermore, I want to have good stabilisation. Is there big difference between 6xxx's OSS and A7's hybrid SteadyShot? Thanks.
Great comparison, well done. I have an a6000 with a couple of Zeiss lenses. After watching this, I no longer craving moving to the A7ii.
same here :D
but this comparison is wrong. as wrong as it can be. i have 6300 and a7ii and seriously, no. you can not compare them. full frame is a full frame. you'll never get a crazy "wow" out of 6300....sadly
mrnomore So you’d rather believe the marketing hype than your own eyes...?
Thank you for helping me make this choice as well as save lot of money on my next camera purchase. I'm picking up my Sony a6000 today
Although you say the difference is very small, I think it's actually quite large and really worth the extra cost of the full frame sensor.
Personally I'd go for the A7Rii. When you get beyond a certain point the increase you get in quality per unit cost becomes quite small and it depends on how much you value quality. Always get the best you can afford and also chuck away those zoom lenses if you care about your images....
Thank you for such an awesome and important comparison because I just got my A6000 and was wondering whether I should make the upgrade to A7 II and you made it just a simple NO because what you're talking about here is simply splitting hairs for me :) and over the top and will surely be an overkill!!
First I wanted to complain about the comparison between two lenses of vastly different quality, and further more the loss of sharpness due to cropping, but I must admit that it was still a useful test, especially considering the A6000 had all the odds against it and still fared very well.
I'm currently considering investing in the A6000, though of course I'd like to have the A6300 with the 4K, faster AF, better sensor, and so on and so forth, but considering the price difference, I'm more and more convinced that the A6000 is the better deal, and this video has certainly added to my conviction, so thanks a bunch.
Danke für das aufschlussreiche Review!
JUST watched your video on the a6000 vs. the Sony A7II and it was exactly the real world comparison I was looking for! It confirmed the side by side done by Image Resource's Comparometer. I have been wandering if I should upgrade to the A7II but have been hesitant because the glass is so expensive for it. I have the 18-55mm, the 35mm f1.8 and the 55-210 and would like to add, what seems to be well reviewed, the 10-18mm. If I were to replace those on the A7II, if I even could, it would cost a fortune, and for what? The image quality, as your test confirmed, on the a6000 is SO close, negligible at best. Thanks so much! Have you tested the 10-18mm?
+Steven Guzy hi Steven, the 10-18mm could also be used on a7R, a7ii briansmith.com/?s=10-18
surprisingly Sony made the 10-18 with the image circle big enough to cover a full frame sensor from 13mm to 16mm.
+Steven Guzy hi, i'm going to buy the alpha 6000..i think/hope it's still a good camera, especially for its price..which lense should i buy? the 16/50 + 35mm? or without the kit lense and just a prime lense (35mm, or 18mm or 50mm,or whatelse? Thanks!
Try Sigma 30mm 2,8 - that's the best 30mm lens for the A6000.
I have both, the Sigma 19mm and the 60mm Art dn lenses and they are superb with this sensor. I print my work and 13x19. The smallest prints I make and sell. the 30mm is supposed to be a killer lens. This speaks more to the sensor in the A6000. It's pretty amazing! JM2cents!
Nice review. I have both cameras. The most obvious, without pixel peeping, is in lower light conditions. This is where the full frame will sine over the crop.
Well you are comparing them in full lit day scenes. This does not take in consideration one of the biggest advantages of a FF sensor, the low light capability. I always feel that if you are going to make such comparison you should also include some sort of dim lit scene. Then you will see the differences. Nowadays even phones take good pictures in full lit day conditions.
Thanks for a great comparison, this helps me a lot in my decision which camera to buy.
Great review. Very helpful. Personally I prefer the 55 for the quality but the 35's form factor does it for me. I often find myself needing to step back when I am using the 55 and that's not always an option in a small room
I bought both an A6000 and an A5100 in 2019. These two cameras must be the best bargain today. The autofocus is fast enough for my use and the cameras are small and lightweight and perfect walkaround cameras.
Try Sigma 30mm 2,8 - that's the best 30mm lens for the A6000.
You really need to test with similar lenses or a zoom so you can put them at the same equivalent mm. The quality of the two lenses could effect results and not really show the difference between the two cameras
Well done. I've had the A6000 with the 35mm F1.8 (APS-C) lens for the past two years. It has been the one I've used most during that time (I also have the 50mm F1.8, the 16-50 and the 55-210; I have hardly ever used the 16-55, but I do use the others on occasion).
All in all, I'd have to agree--given the choice between A6000 series versus A7II, the APS-C camera wins hands down (better value, faster autofocus).
Thank you for a very interesting comparison. The results are quite surprising.
Thanks!
Very informative review, thanks! And the result is yet more surprising considering that Sony 55mm is one of the sharpest on DOX. I have mine paired with 35mm f1.8 OSS and the quality is also outstanding. I can't help it, I just feel bad for those DSLR loyal people who still think just because a camera is bigger, heavier, and more expensive means it's gonna produce better results.
MJ JF I thing that the progress in mirrorless cameras will really limit the use of DSLRs to those niches where their qualities are still an advantage... and those niches are probably being closed in the near future ;)
IncredibleStuffChannel
Please don't say that. I'm still trying to sell my DSLR bodies and lenses.
Philip Bautista Don't worry ;) A lot of people still believe in DSLRs ...
Philip Bautista // Ha! Ha! :)
im dslr user for 3years and gonna move to mirrorless but confused what should i buy a6000 or a7 ii with my limited budget haha
Using the same lens on full-frame and APS-C bodies would not be a fairer comparison, because a lens optimised for full-frame will never yield such good results on a crop sensor body, due to its optical design. Closer results might have been achieved, had the A6000 had a 35mm lens optimised for APS-C format on it. That said, the results of this test WERE very similar, and certainly similar enough to be irrelevant under normal conditions.
Keith Spillett That was my impression exactly. I think the advantage of the Sony A7II is just in the fact that the full frame sensor is better under specific conditions (low light) and may deliver specific results when needed (narrow depth of field).
I think that crop sensor cameras are delivering image quality that is more than good enough in many situations!
Keith Spillett That's not completely correct imho.
Full Frame lenses deliver perfect quality on APS-C, kinda better then on full frame bodies in fact. The reason is, that only the very sharp center part of the frame covered by a full frame lens is taken by the crop sensor whilst the blurry edges are discarded.
Hope that makes sense. Regards from Germany
You've missed my point Patrick. APS-C demands greater resolving power of a lens than an equivalent full-frame to achieve the same apparent result. The two Sony cameras both have 24mp sensors, but with differing pixel sizes. Using the same lens on both systems will NOT yield the same level of apparent sharpness, because an APS-C chip would require a lens with 50% more resolving power in the centre to match up with a lens optimised for that format. That said, the differences are so small that they are indistinguishable to the naked eye. Since the advent of digital, we've become far too concerned with things that wouldn't have bothered us previously. I've been a professional for over forty years, and to quote any old boss of mine, "if it LOOKS right, then it IS right".
Ok I got your point. Of course you are completely right.
However, how my point and your point weights out each other might depend heavily on the specific lens, I guess.
And with your final point you are more then right, too: All that stuff has absolutely no impact on reality. (Although I forget that from time to time and get concerned about my AF whilst watching my images on 100% ;-) )
But in the lowlight condition fullframes are better. Good comparison btw. Loved it. Im using A6300 and i loved it. Think to move to A7ii
You can't compare a full frame to a crop sensor to the same aperture, you should compare the f2.8 in the crop factor to f4 in full frame , to have similar DOP, then compare sharpness of the images
Adel Raziar I don't think the comparison is so far fetched... I am observing the sharpness on the actual distance that is in focus. Obviously the comparison would have been even more accurate if I had used the exact same lens on both cameras at the same aperture (trying to catch the sweet spot of the lens). But I wanted to use two lenses with comparable quality that would still reflect similar fields of view on the two sensors.
If I had stopped down the 55mm to f4 and left the 35mm at f2.8 I would have had an optimal aperture on the full frame and the widest aperture on the crop.
IncredibleStuffChannel You are already stopping down the 1.8 when you compare it to the 2.8 anyway . But if you want another example , f/4 on the a6000 and f/6 on the A7 , should be fair. It just the fact that people always multiply the focal length buy the crop factor and forget about the aperture , which is a mistake when making a comparison
Adel Raziar Wrong. Crop factor does NOT affect aperture....
He’s right. The crop factor affects the aperture too. Otherwise the diameter of the lens opening is smaller on the crop camera. There is less light power.
Nice comparison....especially given the huge price difference!
Before having a body to use with, I bought the Zeiss 32mm 1.8 but still deliberating between the Nex-7 vs the a6000... I think I will go for the a6000...!
the test isn't really accurate for a few reasons, the depth of field is not the same if they are both at 2.8, also you are shooting the 2.8 lens wide open, and the 1.8 lens is stopped down to 2.8, witch makes it sharper, so there is no way the A6000 is going to compete in this test, and there isn't really any way to do a fare comparison with these two lenses, if you put the 35 f1.4 lens on the A6000 it would be a closer comparison
pancake lens makes me hungry, and awesome video!
...seems like compared an apples (55/1.8) to an orange (35/2.8) ... why not use the 55/1.8 on BOTH the a7ii & the a6000 ?... sure, you'll get a different perspective due to the crop factor ... but you'd at least be using the same lens on both cameras and only be comparing the sensors ... only one, not two, variables ...
+Robert Bartelmes lol. Stopped down, there are essentially no differences between 2 high quality lenses.
I don't think so ; the same lens quality is essential to compare and it's sure 55/1,8 is better than 35/2,8 ... but i don't say that an apple is better than an orange !!!
Hi,
I own an A6000 but not A7II, I suspect that the 2 cameras performed very close to each other and you confirmed it. Those you want ultimate sharpest in A6000 and don't mind manual focus try Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 plus adapter, try this combo then you will find out what sharpness is.
Thanks for this test.
If I may, I would like to comment regarding 2 things. 1st, a 50mm will always be sharper than a 35mm. 2nd, the 50mm f1.8 shot at 2.8 is already stopped down, therefore not comparable with the 35mm f2.8 wide open. Also the 55mm is if not the sharpest, one of the sharpest Sony lenses, again not really comparable with the 35mm.
I prefer FF in any case, I am not defending the 6000. Also, sharpness depends on your monitor, when I switched to my Mac 5k things changed...
thanks
Thanks. I have 2 A6000 and 2 A7 I got on sale and I sold my full frame Nikon. I find the 24-70 for the A7 sharper than the 16-70 for the A6000. Although if I add some sharpening in Lightroom it improves. I am about to go to the Yucatan peninsula, and I am tempted to bring 2 A6000 rather than 1 A6000 and the A7. What is your impression at high ISO? 3200 seems a little hard on the A6000. I also noticed Lightroom renders the A7 RAW files in a less contrasty way. The Sigma 30mm seems very crisp. I also got the Sigma 19mm used on sale. But I find the zooms a lot more convenient. I dislike changing lenses when on the go. A6000 was on sale and small enough that you can have 2 bodies and 2 primes in your bag,
Thanks for the comparison. I believe the a7ii separates from the a6000 by 1 or 2 stops of light, because of the crop factor. The apsc 2.8 lens is actually a 4.2 FF equiv, so a 2.8 FF lens on the a7ii is actually 2.8. I own both and like you said, all of this doesn't matter if the body has sad glass. On another note, has anyone been able to get sharp images with the FF kit lens? The 2870, I regret getting this lens cuz I can't seem to get sharp images in daylight conditions.
Socrates Vela Absolutely incorrect. Crop factor does not alter exposure as aperture does not change!
thank you for review!
Thanks for the videos. I enjoy watching them. I'm starting to get interested in the a6000 but I think the a7000 is around the corner so I'll wait and on top of that I'm saving money for my m6 TTL that I'm going to buy this year as I really want to try out the leica experience.
Regarding this video wouldn't it make more sense to compare the two cameras by using the same lens to remove additional lens quality variances that influence the image quality? So perhaps testing both with the sony 35mm?
itcontractwork Thanks! Go for the Leica!!! You will love it! (At least I do love mine, pre-TTL).
As for the comparison: I had thought about that but that would still not be the same because the A6000 would only use the sweetspot of the lens... So I tried to get the best comparison by having a close ratio of angle of view.
Still, I think the result shows that the A6000 is a powerhouse of a camera and is up to the game of the A7, except for the full frame sensor, that many people probably don't even need.
I wonder about the low iso comparison on both of them.. maybe that's the tangible real advantage on the a7ii. I have heard that even though a7ii has better iso performance the a6000 focuses better on low light but I guess that the quality will be superior on the a7ii if you do get to focus one shot , if you take in to account that its harder to focus in low light circumstances with the a7ii, that would contrarrest its " advantages" and make them equal. please shed some light on it because I am switching the a7R to 2 a6000 bodies and one a6300
You forgot where full frame shines lowlight.. less noise..
Maybe its me, but the A7ii images look much more rich and detailed. Perhaps just more saturated? To moe the sky's look more blue and the bricks look more colorful. Is the A7ii over doing the color or is it more accurate?
I own both lenses and to me the 55 is a little sharper than the 35 so the A6000 is indeed a great camera. Let's see what the a7000 will be like...
great video. iam still not sure what i want or need! 35mm or 50mm for the a6000. mainly for holiday video and family photos? cant afford both??
not bad, but i think you should use a apsc lens on the a6000 to make a fair comparison..
Nice review.
great review ! I wonder what the a6000 and 35mm 2.8 looks like compared to a7rii same lens?
Whatever you do, fanboys will always find a way to tell that your methods are wrong!! You will never ever ever ever be right!!
Hello! Thank you for your fair discussion and analysis! Where are you located? In Germany? How do you get the two photos up for side by side comparison? Thank you! Joseph V
Im using a6k for one week and i can only say that sensor it´s better than my 7d, and whit and adaptor you have a lot of possibilities, the only thing that i have to comment about, is that the battery drains fast, Im really amaze whit the a6k, sony is doing a great job whit this cameras, if they put more battery capacity it should be fantastic.
+Josep Josep get a 10000 ma power bank in your porcket and a cellphone cord, u can use it for a very very long time (charging while you are using it also)
+Enzhan Song you can't use the camera conect to a power bank or something, you can get an extra battery and a charger and then charge it whit a power bank.
+lucas nahuel ohaco urbani I can use it while charging the battery with a power bank. I dont know why you say it cant be done.
Make sure you turn off Wi-Fi or its searching all the time!
The colors on the a7 looks better. Is that the lens?
Jeff Li Difficult to say, honestly... It could be because the 55mm was stopped down to 2.8. But I could not tell you 100%. Sorry.
good comparison!!!!
Could you compare Sony a7II with Olympus om-d e-m1, in your next video?
Samir Ahmadov Sorry, I do not have an e-m1 :(
The 55 on the a6000 is like 75mm and the 55 is way sharper than the 35mm f2.8
+Fitz Michael The 55 on the a6000 is like 75mm, f1.8 X1.5 = f2.7 , this is why no lens with f1.2 for apsc sensor.
I may I ask you what software do you use for recording the video of the computer?
I mean no disrespect, comparing crop and full frame image quality is very hard! But just as a disclaimer I don't think this kind of comparison should be used for decision making. Camera bodies have actually little to do with the image quality and lenses practically make or break the photographs! That's why you can't actually look at the photos and make out the differences in the camera bodies if you are comparing them with each other using two such a different lenses.
la a6000 è ancora una buona camera? la consiglieresti? e rispetto alla panasonic g7? grazie e complimenti
Welche Kamera würden Sie eher empfehlen? Sony A6000 oder Panasonic Lumix G 70?
Hallo. Mit der G70 kenne ich mich leider nicht aus... Was man generell sagen kann ist, dass die Gs von Panasonic für Video wohl die Nase vorn haben. Aber von der A6000 bin ich persönlich sehr begeistert und der Sensor ist auch einen Hauch größer. Dafür ist das Repertoire an Zubehör beim M43 System im Moment noch breiter. Eine klare Empfehlung wage ich daher nicht wirklich. Wahrscheinlich beides tolle Kameras mit jeweils Vor- und Nachteilen :)
+IncredibleStuffChannel
Bei mir ist die Lage so. Ich möchte komplett mit einem neuen System anfangen. Also muss ich keine Rücksicht auf bisherige Objektive oder anderes Zubehör nehmen. Ich lege Wert auf eine sehr gute Bildqualität, auch bei schlechteren Lichtverhältnissen. Das hat mich bisher immer gestört, das meine Hosentaschenkameras bei schlechten Licht so rauschen. Die Serienbildfunktion sollte auch gute Werte haben. Die Kamera kann im Angebot mit einem 2. Objektiv 1000,00€ kosten. Könnten Sie mir da eine Kamera besonders ans Herz legen. Danke
Also, ich benutze auch eine Olympus Om-d e-m10 und bin damit sehr zufrieden. Ist günstig, bietet alles was man braucht, und die Qualität ist über jeden Zweifel erhaben.
+IncredibleStuffChannel Hello. I'm going to replace my Nikon D3100 with Sony's mirrorless soon. I want to have high detailed shots, good resuilts at the high ISO, and fast autofocus. What would be better choise for me, A6300 or A7 II? Futhermore, I want to have good stabilisation. Is there big difference between 6xxx's OSS and A7's hybrid SteadyShot? Thanks.
heisenberg
Who enlarges anything above A3 print size, not many.
I've interpolated a 1.3mp image and it looks fine on my wall printed at A4 size.
I see Frankfurt :)
how about low light?
+Kevi thanks. Is there a massive difference?
+Kevi thanks!
PS here are some quick samples www.dropbox.com/sh/k0l0i6amaf3meru/AABwHEjLwwhjks3uv1SRTwLTa?dl=0