Sony Sony A6000 or Pani FZ1000 - opinions welcome

[zelker]

Am researching a new camera and "think" I've narrowed it down to the Sony A6000 or the Pani FZ1000 although I'm not opposed to considering other suggestions (Pani FZ200? Sony HX400? or ???).

 

I've never owned a mirrorless camera but everything I've read about the A6000 is pretty much favorable except that the kit lenses are "so-so" and Sony has limited (and expensive) long lenses. Costco has a great sale on a 2 lens bundle at the moment for $650 - includes the 55-210mm and the older 18-55mm lens rather than the 16-50mm PZ lens. Pretty much everywhere sells the body only for $550 so am willing to pay $100 more to get the rest of the bundle, knowing that the lenses aren't that great. Bundle includes camera bag and 32gb card.

 

I can get the Pani FZ1000 at a discounted price directly from Panasonic for $675 (Costco has it on sale for $800 with camera bag and 32gb card).

 

----------

 

Important to me:

 

* a clear, responsive viewfinder

* a minimum of 300mm (35mm-equivalent) zoom

* quick autofocus, short lag time with decent JPEG buffer

* not a daunting UI :p

 

I shoot almost exclusively outdoors - mostly landscape, wildlife, architectural elements, and macro so lighting ranges from bright light to overcast to dawn/dusk subdued light. Don't shoot all that much indoors (mostly museums) and only the occasional video.

 

Opinions welcome! Thanks!

[FRMPEI]

Here is a link very good You Tube Channel on a Professional Photographer, Jason Lanier, how made the move to mirrorless. In one of his videos he even talks about the kit glass that comes with the a6000.

 

Jason Lanier You Tube Channel

 

Here is a link to another good You Tube Channel with lots of Sony camera stuff.

 

Digital digest

 

I do not own an a6000 but it is indeed high on my wish list. Pretty sure I will have it for next year's cruise in March 2016.

 

Regards,

Kevin Reid

[zelker]

Hi, Kevin.

 

Thanks for the links. I've actually watched a bunch of Jason's videos including the one about his move to the A6000 but will have to check out the one re: kit glass. I just love to watch his on-location shoots! I was not familiar with the Digital Digest ... can see I'm going to be spending some time on YouTube! ;)

 

Thanks again -

 

Barb

[Turtles06]

I was interested in this thread as I've been very close to buying the a6000, particularly with the current sales going on, but have been holding off because of reports that Sony is about to introduce the newer version. Not really sure I should wait, given the current sales. (Anyone have any thoughts on that?)

 

OP: I bought the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 about a year or so ago to have a lighter alternative to my DSLRs, as my knees are no longer happy carrying that gear around all day. The FZ200 does a decent job in many situations, but I have never been truly thrilled with it (I know lots of folks are), hence my thoughts about going to mirrorless.

[pierces]

Just a note on the Sony Kit lenses. They are "so-so" compared to their 50mm f/1.8 and Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 primes but as far as kits go, they are really pretty good. The 18-55 is actually a bit sharper than the 16-50 but you pay a price with the larger lens making the camera less pocketable (though still smaller than the FZ1000). The 55-210 is a bit slow and is also "so-so" compared to the 70-200 f/4 G lens but in most situations it will return excellent results.

 

Here's a link to images from a recent trip that was shot mostly with my A6000. A high percentage were shot with the kit lens (Santa Barbara Zoo was mostly the 55-210)

 

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/paccoast2015

 

There is also a smattering of shots with the Rokinon 12mmf/2.0 and the Sony 50mm f/1.8. Both are very reasonable and both are top of the line in sharpness wide open.

 

Dave

Edited May 15, 2015 by pierces

[c230k]

I was interested in this thread as I've been very close to buying the a6000, particularly with the current sales going on, but have been holding off because of reports that Sony is about to introduce the newer version. Not really sure I should wait, given the current sales. (Anyone have any thoughts on that?)

 

OP: I bought the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 about a year or so ago to have a lighter alternative to my DSLRs, as my knees are no longer happy carrying that gear around all day. The FZ200 does a decent job in many situations, but I have never been truly thrilled with it (I know lots of folks are), hence my thoughts about going to mirrorless.

 

I started the Fz200 thread, this site, and enjoyed your posted pictures. Have changed to the A6000 (thanks to dave's post) and have not looked back. Size wise think you would like the A6000, the Fz1000 is about the size to the FZ200. A6000 does not have the range, but small size and good line of different lens. Over time I have bought the 18-55mm (great carry lens), 55-210mm and the 10-18mm wide angle, Sigma 30mm 2.8 for portraits. Also bought the Sony Rx100 for easy pocket camera to carry around. If you review Pierces pictures, like I did, think that might change to the A6000. Thanks again for all your post on the FZ200. I did like the 600mm range for wildlife, still have my Fz200.

Tom :cool:

[wmjivey]

After I bought the A6000 I started to look at the youtube channel for it and was amazed how many pros now carry "the Little camera that could" to their photo shoots. I love the size and low light capabilities, I have a large credit at Adorama since the price fell, and now need to decide on buying the 50 f1.8 that Dave loves or one of the Sigmas trio.

 

John

[zelker]

Who's Dave that everyone keeps referring to?

[c230k]

just a note on the sony kit lenses. They are "so-so" compared to their 50mm f/1.8 and zeiss 24mm f/1.8 primes but as far as kits go, they are really pretty good. The 18-55 is actually a bit sharper than the 16-50 but you pay a price with the larger lens making the camera less pocketable (though still smaller than the fz1000). The 55-210 is a bit slow and is also "so-so" compared to the 70-200 f/4 g lens but in most situations it will return excellent results.

 

Here's a link to images from a recent trip that was shot mostly with my a6000. A high percentage were shot with the kit lens (santa barbara zoo was mostly the 55-210)

 

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/paccoast2015

 

there is also a smattering of shots with the rokinon 12mmf/2.0 and the sony 50mm f/1.8. Both are very reasonable and both are top of the line in sharpness wide open.

 

Dave

 

this dave ;)

[zelker]

this dave ;)

 

LOL! might help if I noticed people's names at the bottom of their posts! oops!! :o

 

thanks!! :)

[havoc315]

FZ1000 if you want the convenience of never having to change lenses. It is one of the few cameras, perhaps the only camera, that can act as an all-in-one, while presenting good image quality, and never needing to change lenses.

 

Other "bridge" cameras have the range to act as an all-in-one, but their image quality is mediocre at best, they are useless in lower light, etc.

You have the RX series cameras, like the RX100 and RX10 -- They have the good image quality, but the lens on the RX100 is on the short side, so it can't serve telephoto needs. The lens on the RX10 is very good and reaches 200mm, so you *can* use it as an all-in-one. But some photographers might want to go longer than 200mm sometimes. (Though many can live under 200mm 100% of the time).

 

Now the A6000 is still the *better* camera in the sense that it has more potential. The FZ1000 can consistently give good pictures. It can perform much better in low light than a typical bridge camera --- But the A6000 can do much better. The A6000 also has the flexibility to add and change lenses, to give it capabilities that the FZ1000 simply will never have. If you ever want to do macro shooting, you can get a macro lens. Ever want to do ultrawide shooting, can get an ultrawide lens. You can put on super-long telephotos if you want (though you may need to use an adapted lens for that). On top of that, the A6000 has a much bigger sensor than the FZ1000, making it perform even better in low light, and better image quality. You will get better control over background blur with the A6000.

 

So the FZ1000 is a very good camera with compromises for convenience. The A6000 has the potential to be a phenomenal camera, if you use it fully.

[pierces]

After I bought the A6000 I started to look at the youtube channel for it and was amazed how many pros now carry "the Little camera that could" to their photo shoots. I love the size and low light capabilities, I have a large credit at Adorama since the price fell, and now need to decide on buying the 50 f1.8 that Dave loves or one of the Sigmas trio.

 

John

 

There is no decide...just do. - Yoda (paraphrased)

 

 

Focal length:50 mm

Max lens aperture:f/1.8

Exposure:1/80 at f/2

 

Dave

Edited May 16, 2015 by pierces

[zelker]

Although I do like the convenience of a bridge camera (which I've owned) and the FZ1000's 12 FPS, with the heft of the FZ1000 I'm not sure what else I gain over going with a DSLR at that point? And I am a bit concerned about the jerky zoom issue I've been reading about.

 

So Dave and others that have an A6000 ... why did you go with that over something like the Nikon D5500 which is not that much heavier and has way more lens options, touchscreen, 2x the battery life? Was it because of the FPS (11 vs 5) and more focus points (179 vs 39)? Or maybe you bought yours before the D5500 was released and if so, if you had it to do over, would you stick with the A6000?

[zackiedawg]

So Dave and others that have an A6000 ... why did you go with that over something like the Nikon D5500 which is not that much heavier and has way more lens options, touchscreen, 2x the battery life? Was it because of the FPS (11 vs 5) and more focus points (179 vs 39)? Or maybe you bought yours before the D5500 was released and if so, if you had it to do over, would you stick with the A6000?

 

First off, I will first disclose that I also have a DSLR that I shoot with - but also An A6000 and the A6000 really is my primary camera that I use more - the DSLR is more of a specialty cam now for me mostly for very long lens work in wildlife and bird shooting.

 

That said, I absolutely would pick the A6000 over compact DSLR bodies, or other mirrorless bodies, if I was doing it again. You mention the weight of the Nikon not being much more - however for many of us who go with the mirrorless bodies, weight isn't the only measure to compare - mirrorless bodies can be much thinner, less tall, less bulky - the overall 'volume' or displacement of the body is significantly less than DSLRs, and that makes them more convenient for travel and portability. That extra bulk where the lens mount of the DSLR has to stick out more than an inch, where the body is a good 1-2 inches thicker, where the viewfinder hump on top adds an inch to the height - all those little inches here and there add up to space in a bag - and it's why even compared to a very compact DSLR, with the A6000 I can fit at least 1 extra lens, often 2, in the very same bag.

 

Of course, I think the 24MP sensor in the A6000 is excellent - and since many other DSLR models use Sony sensors too, that is something that one can get in Nikons and Pentaxes. The A6000's focus system for me is a huge selling point - it's ability to track very fast moving subjects as good as some semi-pro DSLR bodies and better than many entry-level DSLRs and other mirrorless systems just makes it a wonderful all around compact shooter. That I prefer to use my A6000 over my DSLR for bird-in-flight photography, which is a challenging type of photography for any camera, says something about how good the focus system is. Other features of the A6000 which I particularly like: the built-in HDR function, and the stacking MFNR ISO mode which merges multiple frames into a single shot to rebuild detail and eliminate noise even at high ISO levels. As for lenses - it's not important to me to buy the manufacturer with the most lenses - what's important is whether the lenses I want and need are available within the system I choose. While Nikon's DSLR line has more lenses by a good margin, I can get all the lenses I need and even a few more to look forward to, within the E-mount system. It's actually funny sometimes to see a thread where someone buys a DSLR and mentions their primary reason was all the lenses available, and yet they end up shooting with an 18-55mm kit and a 50mm F1.8 prime...and maybe a basic telezoom. You can get those same lenses with just about any lens mount ever. Currently, E-mount has 27 Sony lenses and 35 total autofocus lenses available (including Zeiss, Tamron, and Sigma, who also make some e-mount lenses). That's probably more lenses than almost any buyer will ever buy, so the question is whether the lenses you'll need are available in that selection...not whether another mount has 25 more lenses you'll never buy.

 

Hope that helps a bit!

[pierces]

I was shooting with an A77 prior to going with the Sony mirrorless and one of the big draws for me was the electronic viewfinder. Having a large, clear, 100% coverage view that accurate represented what the shot was going to look like (including any added effects) was an awesome tool compared to the relatively tunnel-visioned optical viewfinder on entry-level DSLRs. Having that level of convenience in the NEX-7 and later in the A6000 was a big thumb on the scale for me.

 

Another point is that the NEX and later Alpha E-mount cameras are really quite small. A few millimeters here and there along with the mirror hump adds a lot of volume to even the smallest DSLR whereas the rangefinder-style body with the collapsible 16-50 zoom will easily fit in a jacket pocket.

 

Battery life? I carry more than one battery. Always did for the DSLRs and compacts. Still do. I may use more than one on a busy walkabout day but I have yet to use more than two and they are small and easy to carry.

 

Lens options weren't an issue for me. I will never need a $12k 600mm zoom or 4 versions of every focal length under 100mm and the number of stellar native and 3rd party lenses for the e-mount is growing as fast as its popularity. Focus-peaking with native or adapted manual lenses make them nearly as easy as autofocus for most shooting situations and the A6000's focus speed with AF lenses is equal to my already fast A77 (and faster than entry-level DSLRs).

 

Call me a fan, but I always make my choices on functionality and the A6000 is a very functional camera. If you haven't stumbled on it in any of these threads, here is a link to the review I did when I first got the A6000:

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/a6000.html

 

Hope this helps.

 

Dave

Edited May 16, 2015 by pierces

[havoc315]

Although I do like the convenience of a bridge camera (which I've owned) and the FZ1000's 12 FPS, with the heft of the FZ1000 I'm not sure what else I gain over going with a DSLR at that point? And I am a bit concerned about the jerky zoom issue I've been reading about.

 

So Dave and others that have an A6000 ... why did you go with that over something like the Nikon D5500 which is not that much heavier and has way more lens options, touchscreen, 2x the battery life? Was it because of the FPS (11 vs 5) and more focus points (179 vs 39)? Or maybe you bought yours before the D5500 was released and if so, if you had it to do over, would you stick with the A6000?

 

Even putting aside the size differences, there is a big difference between a dslr and mirrorless. The issues can come down to subjective preference. An entry level dslr like the d5500 has a small optical viewfinder, while the a6000 has a big bright electronic viewfinder. The d5500 will have tortured slow live view, while the a6000 has super fast live view.

 

Lenses become a question of what you anticipate needing. If you plan on spending $5,000 on a 300/2.8 prime, then you need the Nikon. If you plan on sticking to regular consumer zooms and a few primes, the Sony has every lens you are likely to buy.

 

I am very happily a Nikon owner -- the d750 with several thousand dollars invested in lenses. But if I was looking for a basic aps-c camera for general use, the a6000 would be top of my list.

[zelker]

Of course I'm not looking for expensive lenses - if I was, I'd be buying a FF camera to go with them. ;) But I know I'll want something longer than the 55-210mm kit lens for wildlife ... so which lens would you guys recommend that won't break the bank (or my back) that has good IQ? And yes, I see there are some nice - and affordable - Sony primes available.

 

Although I don't often shoot in Live View, guess having a more responsive one goes in the plus column. I have yet to hold an A6000 but you can bet I'll be comparing the viewfinder to other cameras as that's one of the reasons I've held off buying a new camera all this time - most of them drive me crazy. Plus I need to see how it feels in hand with my long fingers and sometimes achy finger/wrist joints.

 

You guys are a wealth of info. Again, thanks SO much!

 

Barb

[havoc315]

On the A6000, the 210mm is the 35mm equivalent of 315mm. So just slightly shorter than the FZ1000, but the higher resolution and superior IQ will give you more freedom to crop... about equalizing them for 400mm shooting.

 

Unfortunately, long lenses are lacking in the E-mount lineup -- Something that keeps some Sony shooters with their A-mount cameras. (If you want a bigger camera, with more lens options, you may want to look at the Sony A77ii)

 

The longest *native* Emount lens is the 24mm-240mm

 

http://store.sony.com/fe-24-240mm-f3.5-6.3-oss-full-frame-e-mount-telephoto-zoom-lens-zid27-SEL24240/cat-27-catid-All-E-Mount-Lenses?_t=pfm%3Dcategory

 

Not cheap, and just slightly longer than the 210mm.

 

You can adapt A-mount lenses to the Sony A6000. You can also adapt Canon or Nikon lenses, but you will generally lose autofocus. (With some adapters, you can keep slow autofocus on Canon lenses).

You can adapt Sony A-mount lenses, keep autofocus... And that will give you a long list of possible telephoto lenses in varying price ranges. But the adapter itself isn't cheap:

 

http://store.sony.com/a-mount-to-e-mount-ff-lens-adapter-w-tmt-zid27-LAEA4/cat-27-catid-All-A-Mount-to-E-Mount-Lens-Adapters?_t=pfm%3Dcategory

 

$350 for the adapter.

 

But it would open up Sony A-mount lenses, Minolta Maxxum lenses, etc.

[zackiedawg]

Of course I'm not looking for expensive lenses - if I was, I'd be buying a FF camera to go with them. ;) But I know I'll want something longer than the 55-210mm kit lens for wildlife ... so which lens would you guys recommend that won't break the bank (or my back) that has good IQ?

 

As Havoc mentioned, one solution if you really really need extreme reach autofocus lenses for wildlife shooting is to consider an LE-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapter, which will let you add any Alpha mount lens to your A6000 - that will give you many options in the 300mm through 600mm range. If you want to go with a cheaper option, that will get you by for occasional wildlife shooting, you could get the 55-210mm e-mount lens, and add a 1.7x optical teleextender to the end of the filter threads - that will stretch your reach out to 357mm, or 535mm in 35mm-equivalent terms. The final option is to just pick up a really nice, high quality 200mm lens, and crop - if the quality is good enough on the lens, and with the 24MP sensor of the A6000, you can do a surprising amount of cropping and still maintain excellent detail. I've cropped birds at 100% with my higher-end FE70-200mm lens with a bird 1/2 mile away and still had enough detail to see the individual feathers. That's extreme, but will give you some idea. Also, depends on just how close or far the wildlife is that you intend to shoot. I'm an avid birder and wildlife shooter, so I do a ton of wildlife shooting with my A6000 - I use either the 55-210mm lens with a Sony DH1758 1.7x teleextender, or the FE70-200mm F4 OSS lens. In Florida, we're blessed with very close interaction with wildlife, so I'm often shooting birds and animals from 10 to 50 feet away, which is well within reach of a 200mm lens.

 

For an idea of how the A6000 works with these two lenses for wildlife and bird shooting, check out my A6000 gallery, which is filled with many birds, reptiles, and mammals:

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/sony_a6000

 

You'll run into Disney and vacation photos too, but well over 70% of the gallery is wildlife, and the lenses are identified under each photo.

[dileep]

I have had mine for 3 years now and still love it.

[wmjivey]

Looking at Zakie's photo's most shot at 200mm, why would you need anything more? Everything always needs to be bigger, spend more money, ect... Unless you are going on a Photo safari, do you need that new 600mm lens? Go light young man go light!!!

 

 

John

[zelker]

Actually you're not far off, as a safari IS in our future in 2017 but up this year is Alaska (fly-in bear viewing on Kodiak Island) and Antarctica (hope to be dancing with the penguins) but I won't be lugging (or paying for) a 600mm lens. And it's "go light, young woman, go light". ;)

 

Have never used a tele-extender. Do they interfere with autofocus or IQ? (I did notice you sold yours though, zakiedawg)

 

Although the A77ii is certainly an option to open up more lens options without having to use an adapter or tele-extender, at that point for the difference in weight I'd probably go with the Nikon D5500.

 

Costco still doesn't have the A6000 bundle back in stock for that tremendous price ($650) and can't tell me if they will get it in before the sale ends at the end of May. :(

Edited May 19, 2015 by zelker

[Turtles06]

Costco still doesn't have the A6000 bundle back in stock for that tremendous price ($650) and can't tell me if they will get it in before the sale ends at the end of May. :(

 

It's $698 at B&H and they ARE in stock there; I pulled the trigger and mine is on a UPS truck coming to me today. :)

 

(And a further deal to be had if you also bundle in the 55-210 lens)

[zelker]

It's $698 at B&H and they ARE in stock there; I pulled the trigger and mine is on a UPS truck coming to me today. :)

 

(And a further deal to be had if you also bundle in the 55-210 lens)

 

Costco's price of $650 includes the 55-210 lens ... and free shipping. Everyone else charges $200 more for the same bundle. Wish I would have pulled the trigger when it went on sale earlier this month. Plus they give you 90 days to play with it and return it for any reason without restocking fees.

[zackiedawg]

Have never used a tele-extender. Do they interfere with autofocus or IQ? (I did notice you sold yours though, zakiedawg)

 

They don't interfere with focus, stabilization, or exposure - these screw onto the end of the lens, so the lens internals are not effected, and they are afocal designs, meaning they are not light-lossy to your exposure.

 

I haven't sold mine, BTW...still have it. I just decided I wanted to buy a high-end 70-200mm lens for my bird in flight work. The 55-210mm is a fine lens for the money, but when I really want to get pro results for bird-in-flight work, the higher-grade 70-200mm, a much more expensive lens, does deliver the fine details and focus speed I needed for that.

 

The 55-210mm lens and DH1758 combo is still in my collection - and would more likely be used for non-flying birds on days I didn't feel like carrying the heavier, larger, and more expensive lens around.