I had been waiting (like many others) for whatever model replaces the Sony A6000. When the price for the body went down to $, I couldn’t resist any longer.A big improvement over the NEX 6 in almost every respect. I miss the level, but I’ll live. Pretty much everything good about this camera has been said over and over again.

The one thing I hadn’t expected is that the viewfinder has a wider diopter correction range than the NEX 6. My least nearsighted eye is -4.75. The finder on the A6000 adjusts to a -4 and that seems to be enough to be useful to me. Using the finder with glasses is awkward at best. Now I can take them off and see the entire frame.

Great camera

Such a great little camera for a fair price. I have the Canon 6D and bought this as a lighter alternative. I had the NEX-7 couple of years ago, which was a great camera, but for the cost at the time I was disappointed by the AF speed and tempted by the ISO performance of the large Canon that I replaced it with. The AF speed of the A6000 is much improved and I haven’t yet seen it anywhere underperform when compared to the NEX-7. This will definitely be my go-anywhere camera.

The 16-50 kit lens seems a bit fragile and I suspect the image quality isn’t really good enough for the 24MP sensor, but what can you expect from such an inexpensive lens? I’ll be using the camera with a couple of old Canon FD manual focus lenses, and with focus peaking it’s really a breeze to focus with them.

Still new, but already love it

I’m not a professional photographer yet, but I’ve been learning on my friend’s Sony A7s. I would’ve liked to have gotten that, but it was not in my budget. This is a great second choice! I’m so thrilled with this purchase and I can’t wait to get to know it better.

Solid Performer For The Money

I’m a worship photographer and for the past few years I’ve been shooting with either my Nikon D300 or D5000. More recently I’ve been shooting with a Sony a77ii. Those 3 systems have a lot of weight so I began looking for something lighter.

I’d heard quite a bit about the mirrorless systems and so did some research and determined that the Sony a6000 might be a good system to migrate to. I’ve had this camera for about two weeks and at this point have only paired it with the 50mm 1.8 lens which kind of limits me because I need the reach, however, until I acquire more lenses, I use the D5000 with the long lens attached. And believe it or not my weight factor is still lighter with those two systems than using the D300 with that one long lens attached so that’s a plus in of itself.

All that aside I find the a6000 refreshing to use and to be honest I found myself opting to shoot much closer than I normally would just so that I could use it. The image quality is certainly better than both Nikon’s and is equally as good or superior to that of the A77. Many have complained about the low light performance, however, I didn’t find that to be much of an issue.

In fact this past weekend I shot a Christmas program where only the production lamps in the church were on and some of them had blown bulbs and this camera handled it quite well. I’ll admit that I generally shoot church services at f/2.8 or wider and so with the 50mm lens low light wasn’t a problem. Even when on the occasion I decided to go 5.6 or a little smaller still no problem. A friend of mine who was shooting with me also shoots with Sony and so he let me try his 18-105mm lens he has for his a6000. With that lens there was a bit of hunting with the AF, but, the lens doesn’t get wider than f/4 (which I think is typical for all of the zooms for this body)and I found that ramping up the ISO seemed to solve that problem.

Speaking of ISO I am quite comfortable shooting those church services at 3200 with this camera. I wouldn’t do that with either Nikon’s and I cringed a bit with the a77. The a6000’s ISO performance at high ISO’s is very good. Indeed with this body, if I have to, I’ll push it to 6400. Above that things get a little too muddy for me. After shooting the a77 transitioning to the a6000 was not difficult at all. It’s pretty much the same thing menu wise, etc.

Ergonomically it fits well in the hands especially if they are small. It doesn’t have a lot of buttons which coming from the d300 is a bit of a downside and there seems to be some redundancy in terms of how you get to things, yet, considering how my D5000 is put together I was able to easily adapt to it. For individuals with 50 year old eyes the electronic view finder is a divine gift.

Some may dislike it but I find that the brightness, and the overall clarity is less of a strain for me than the optical view finders on my other systems. The wireless capability is nice-a bit slow if you’re transferring RAW files, but, for the number of images I shoot for a service, my transfer speed wireless or through card reader is going to take time. Not a deal breaker for me.

The power consumption is noticeable, but I still get through a service on one charge as I do on the other systems. I always keep extra batteries regardless of the system. So, I’d say that if you are on a APS-C system looking at some point to go full frame, be mirrorless, but stay within the brand and not break the bank, the a6000 should be a serious consideration.

16-50 kit lens is a real stinker

Love the camera – hate the lens! The 16-50 is a soft lens on good days, an awful lens on cloudy or overcast days. I had the best results using the camera in Aperture priority mode at f8. I photograph architectural subjects with my Nikon 810 most of the time. I tried using the little Sony, and wound up reshooting the job with the 810…just not up to the quality I need. I suspect the Zeiss 12mm lens might be an improvement – but I’m hesitant to spend that much on a hunch – I suspect a better lens will make better photos, but it isn’t proven. Nikon will remain my woking tool and the Sony will come out when we go on vacation.


Sony Alpha A6000 – An observation I haven’t seen anywhere
5 (100%) 1 vote


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here