Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Sony a6000? And which lens?
Page <<first <prev 10 of 15 next> last>>
Dec 1, 2015 09:30:22   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
:mrgreen:

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 13:10:47   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
The Sony a6000 body only being sold at B&H, Best Buy, Fry's Electronics and a few others for $398-$399.
Some had free shipping, no tax. Suggest B&H to save tax and for their return policy if you decide to go Sony.
B&H will usually price match if you decide on a lens. Suggest either the 16-50 O.S.S for travel, landscapes, or the 50/1.8 O.S.S for low-light, indoors use, or the Sigma 30/2.8. All have their strengths and weaknesses like most lenses. All of the above lenses are in the $200-$300 range.

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 14:46:30   #
le boecere
 
GrandmaG wrote:
I've had my eye in the Sony a6000 but I read that the 16-50 lens is not a very good lens and that there are not a lot of lenses for their mirrorless cameras. I know the right lens can make all the difference & Hasselblad makes a couple of lenses for this camera. This lens issue led me to research other brands and Olympus gets a lot of praise for its EM-10 Mark II w/14-42 lens. However, the sensor is smaller...so then I started thinking about the full frame sensor on the Sony a7 II. So now I've come full circle to the Sony again which leads me back to the original question. Which lens? Is their a pro quality lens for the Sony a7 II that is better than the 28-70 f/3.5-5.6? Or are the PRO lenses you can get for the Oly make this a better package?

I want a smaller, lighter "kit" and only 2 -3 lenses. I would be more likely to always have this kit with me & reserve the bigger, heavier DSLR for special occasions. By the way, I did consider the Fujifilm as well just to confuse myself some more.
I've had my eye in the Sony a6000 but I read that ... (show quote)


If true, this remark certainly weighs in on the topic:

"The longer answer is that they (megapixels) sort of matter, but only if you’re scaling your image—that is, blowing it up to a larger size for printing. For computer uses, 5 megapixels are more than enough; after all, the average modern computer monitor is only 2 megapixels large."

From: http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/what-to-look-for-in-a-new-camera-instead-of-megapixels/

What I (le Boecere) derive from this remark (again, if it's irrefutable fact) is: Maybe full-frame 50 MP with a Zeiss Otus lens ain't all that necessary for most folks who're viewing their photos on a computer screen or showing off the grandchildren on a cell-phone screen. Ya think?

Reply
 
 
Dec 1, 2015 21:28:29   #
CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!
 
Pretty much...

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 22:04:31   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
So all of this brings up this question: What, if anything, does the Sony A7 have over the A6000, other than being a full frame format?

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 22:14:58   #
lev29 Loc: Born and living in MA.
 
Far North wrote:
So all of this brings up this question: What, if anything, does the Sony A7 have over the A6000, other than being a full frame format?
The 5-axis IBIS. 8-)

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 22:53:13   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
My friend, watch the blown highlights. It could have been a nice picture

Far North wrote:
One of the things I keep thinking about is image quality and if the A6000 can produce images on a par with the D7200. Then I have to realize that Nikon uses the Sony processor! So I can't imagine that the Nikon would produce images superior in quality to the A6000. They're just different styles of cameras using the same size sensor. The D7200 does have a few more controls than the A6000, but in the end, I have to imagine that the A6000 can do pretty much everything that the D7200 can.

And yes, I agree, three batteries is a better idea. And I like the idea of the wall charger. Can it also be used with a 12volt plug-in, in your car to be used as a portable charger?

Here's a nice sunset-through-the-grass shot I took this Fall with the A6000 and the 55-210 kit zoom lens.
One of the things I keep thinking about is image q... (show quote)

Reply
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Dec 1, 2015 23:21:33   #
le boecere
 
tdekany wrote:
My friend, watch the blown highlights. It could have been a nice picture


How does one avoid this, other than with pp?

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 23:32:14   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
le boecere wrote:
How does one avoid this, other than with pp?


You can not "fix" blown highlights.

You have to expose FOR the highlights - so in your live view shadows will look dark. ADJUST shadows slider in LR or what ever PP program you are using. You can also bracket your shots.

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 23:37:59   #
le boecere
 
tdekany wrote:
You can not "fix" blown highlights.

You have to expose FOR the highlights - so in your live view shadows will look dark. ADJUST shadows slider in LR or what ever PP program you are using. You can also bracket your shots.


Thank you

Reply
Dec 1, 2015 23:39:07   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
le boecere wrote:
Thank you


Any time :thumbup:

Reply
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Dec 2, 2015 00:24:21   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
tdekany wrote:
My friend, watch the blown highlights. It could have been a nice picture


I guess you will have to explain that one. Mimthought it was a nice picture. Not sure what highlights are blown. Perhaps I don't know what to look for.

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 00:24:29   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
tdekany wrote:
You can not "fix" blown highlights.

You have to expose FOR the highlights - so in your live view shadows will look dark. ADJUST shadows slider in LR or what ever PP program you are using. You can also bracket your shots.


Here is an example, not like the previous picture that was posted but should help.

Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 9.18.38 PM by Thomas Dekany, on Flickr

After pulling the shadows

Screen Shot 2015-12-01 at 9.20.19 PM by Thomas Dekany, on Flickr

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 00:30:58   #
Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak
 
At the time I took the picture I didn't have any PP software programs, so I guess I couldn't do anything with it. This was straight out of the camera. I am just learning about a lot of this.

Reply
Dec 2, 2015 01:10:54   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Far North wrote:
At the time I took the picture I didn't have any PP software programs, so I guess I couldn't do anything with it. This was straight out of the camera. I am just learning about a lot of this.


I'm learning too - I cought the bug 4 years ago exactly. Every camera comes with a basic pp program. They are good enough to do basics and more. Keep reading.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 15 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.