mudduck

I use auto all the time, I only use manual settings for special shots, like shooting 2 stops dark to capture the color of a sunset, I also have a Nikon D2H, if you think your camera has a lot variables, even that old design is filled with settings for stuff I cant figure out or really need and I've been shooting for 40 years. You have a great camera, use auto and work on the subject and what makes you happy.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

If Auto is better, why try to beat it? People spend a lot of money for advanced cameras and then use them as if they were made in 1960. There is nothing wrong with Auto, A, or S modes. You will find the same situation with the Panasonic: Auto or something else.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ1000-vs-Sony-Alpha-A6000

Recent A6000 sales on ebay.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=Sony%20a6000%20mirrorless%2C%20with%2018-50%20kit%20lens%20and%2055-210%20zoom&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

DaveC Loc: Illinois

Your final goal is pictures that you enjoy. If Auto gives you those then by all means shoot auto. Eventually you may see some that you think could have been better exposed and you might start experimenting with the other options. If so, fine. If not, and Auto works, stay with it. It's your photos.

cthahn

Your thinking of selling a Sony A6000. Then you are not a photographer, but a picture taker.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Rather than giving up on a camera that many consider to be a great camera, experiment with program mode a little, which will select proper settings for you, but allow you to override the choices it makes if you find reason to do so. I honestly do not understand how the Panasonic fz-1000 would produce better results than the A6000. The A6000, in my mind, would be an excellent travel companion due to it's compact size.

Dannj

My 2 cents: The auto mode will give you the "best" result according to generally accepted photography standards, best lighting, contrast, saturation, etc. but this may not be the result you want.
With this in mind, put your camera on auto and write down the settings the camera used and experiment. Put the camera in manual and vary the settings...go up and down with the aperture/shutter settings and look at the results. This way you'll see the results of the changes in settings and you'll learn what the impact of the changes are on your work. It's time consuming but I find it a great way to learn how my camera works.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Don't know your age, smk, but at age 80 I can sympathize with what you write. When doing wildlife, where I may only have a few moments to get my shots, I will first shoot in the Auto mode, (in fact while traipsing through the wilds I leave my camera set at Auto) and then go to other modes/settings that take a little more time to get additional, or what I hope will turn out to be better, images of the subject. If the subject waits for me, fine. If not, at least I have something I can work with and the opportunity did not get away from me completely. You are right in that in most cases the Auto Mode will get a good shot for you.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have been doing photography for 60 years. 40 years as a serious hobbyist. I started with a Kodak Hawkeye when I was about 7 years old. Simple fixed-focus snapshot camera. I graduated to an Argus C4 when I was 12. It had a wonderful technical innovation...a split-image viewfinder geared to the lens so that I did not have to guess about image distance. When my dad got his Minolta SR7 somewhere around 1965, I got to use his Voightlander Vitomatic. Lost the rangefinder focusing, but gained a different technological advantage...a built-in match-needle light meter. Later I moved to a Minolta SRT-201. Still a manual camera, but now I could meter through the lens. Really big improvement. Then to a series of Olympus OM SLRs, with off-the-film metering, shutter priority operation, and even early Program functions. In 2006, I moved to digital SLRs and have been impressed as their capability improved.

None of these improvements directly made me a "better" photographer. But they made photography easier by giving me the option to offload some of the technical workload and concentrate a bit more on the image.

I still use manual mode occasionally, especially in difficult situations. But it makes no sense to spend $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 or more on a camera and then not let it help you capture your images.

I'm an amateur radio operator. Operation requires licensing. And the licensing requirements have changed over the years (finally) in response to changing technical environments and operating realities. There are still some cranky old hams who are irritated that new licensees do not have to pass International Morse code proficiency tests at 5, 13, and 20 words per minute. They feel that since they had to do it, new operators should have to do it. Never mind that the written exams have gotten more comprehensive as technology has mover forward. And never mind that most of them spent probably 90% of their study and preparation (maybe more) learning the code. (Morse code operation is still available to those who choose to use it.)

So...use the functionality that you paid for, if it works for you. And feel no guilt. Experiment a little with manual settings. Practice a little. If it is fun, do it some more. If you get to the point where you feel your manual images are superior to automatic ones, shoot that way. But remember that you have to draw a line somewhere. For true manual photography, you also have to turn your light meter off and focus by estimating or measuring distance and setting the distance on your lens's scale.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

Depending on what you're trying to shoot, using manual exposure can be damn near impossible and auto works quite well most of the time.
If you have the time to "set up" the camera (meaning a nice stationary subject that you have time to evaluate, figure out what area to meter off of, look at the exposure meter and get the aperture and shutter speed where you want at the ISO you want........) manual is fine. Or.......if you have some faith that you can guesstimate the exposure in advance, manual may work.
If not, the camera in auto will figure things out much faster than you can and yield a pretty good rate of success.

I spend about three frustrating weeks trying to get proficient using the camera in manual mode and decided that going to auto was preferable to selling my gear and taking up a different hobby.

tjjm Loc: Saint Louis, Mo.

I wasn't comfortable shooting in manual for some time. Finally stepped back and shot T priority for a couple of weeks, next a couple weeks of aperture priority, a couple more with bracketing shots and setting iso. Was able to figure out what worked best for capturing wildlife, birds mostly.

smk124 Loc: Cheltenham, PA

Thanks again to all who responded. You have reminded me why I take pictures. Reading hedgehog every day made me think that I was missing out by not using my Sony to its full potential. Your comments and advice are so logical and I am going to charge my batteries, set it on auto, and move forward. And read the manual and recommended books. And ignore my frustration by focusing on one change at a time. Thanks for your advice and pep talks.

chaman

Three weeks..... For the love of God. And you honestly think thats enough time to become proficient at this? This is a process that takes more than that but, as it happens quite frequently, people want instant gratification. I shoot 99% of the time in manual mode, even action related images like BIF shots (Birds In Flight). If you look at awesome photography and think its a matter of 3 weeks to get it....you are probably in the wrong hobby. I bet you that when you find an impressive image browsing the net, more than 90% of the time was done manually, even action shots. Your post sounds just like an excuse for laziness, sorry to say.

Psergel Loc: New Mexico

OK.....I guess I'll go spend 6 months trying to improve my success rate with manual even though my camera does a very good job in auto.
Makes sense to me.

chaman

It does to me, and everyone else that thrives for the best IQ possible. Camera does a very good job indeed, I saw some of your images. But I know that a lot of them could have been taken to another level if you chose to effectively learn to master the exposure yourself.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

\

I expect that three weeks probably gives one a good, basic working knowledge of a camera. Then that can be used to spend a considerable time polishing up those newly learned skills and knowledge, putting them to good use. I've had my D7200 for going on 2 years, and I'm still learning how to use it. Seems the more you learn the more you find there is still more yet to learn. It's an ongoing process.