# now this is what Canon should have started ten years ago



## martti (Jan 1, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10

This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
It is scary.
Sony is going to eat up the Canonists who have not been brainwashed as such as yet.
When I was talking about the UI (user interface) this is what I meant.
Sony is almost there but not quite yet. Close enough, though. I will shoot with the EF lenses with an adapter.
AF, AE with adapters...or...maybe I just get rid of the heavy glass.

An eye-opening video.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 1, 2015)

Why Sony does NOT done this 10 years ago? ???

Maybe would have avoided the financial losses and the current state of pre-bankruptcy for Sony ... :


----------



## raptor3x (Jan 1, 2015)

Is he still claiming the 7D2 only does 6fps?


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 1, 2015)

When is the best time to plant a tree?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 1, 2015)

martti said:


> Sony is going to eat up the Canonists who have not been brainwashed as such as yet.



Sure. Right. That's what'll happen...

I don't think "brainwashed" means what you think it means. We don't use Canon because Hypnotoad told us to, but _because the gear does what we need it to do_.

Do you _really_ not understand this point?


----------



## dak723 (Jan 1, 2015)

Why don't folks understand that people join a Canon site to discuss Canon cameras and enjoy interactions with fellow Canon users.

Please, people,* ignore these constant threads advertising other camera makers*. Yes, Sony, Nikon, Samsung _____ (fill in the blank), all make very good cameras. We know already.


----------



## JonB8305 (Jan 1, 2015)

Very informative video. I don't mind hearing about other tech instead of having a myopic canon only view. Thanks for posting, now when selecting another camera or system, I can be fully informed as to whats out there. 

I come to Canon rumors because in addition to being a Canon shooter, the user interface of the forum is much nicer on the eyes and easier to follow along than sites like DPreview or Fred Miranda.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jan 1, 2015)

This is what I'm talking about when I way that the idea of "camera" is evolving very quickly. The level of system integration in these Sony cameras is outstanding and will only get better.

Your comment about EF lenses being heavy is, for me, an interesting way of looking at things. When small/light can be just as sharp, perhaps even more contrasty, more powerful and just as flexible as big/heavy why shoot big/heavy?




martti said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10
> 
> This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
> It is scary.
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 1, 2015)

martti said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10
> 
> This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
> It is scary.
> ...



#1 mistake :

After owning all a7 series, I strongly believe RX1 is my most fav. compact system in Sony line up. I hope they come out a9s with pop-up EVF, just like RX100 III.


----------



## tayassu (Jan 1, 2015)

My uncle wanted a camera for family shots and for product Images...
He asked me what to buy and I recommended this very camera, the Sony a6000 with the 16-70.
I had in my hands now for a day and I have to say I don't like the handling, I hate the JPEG engine and I'm not as impressed by the AF and the VF as several reviews stated I should be... 
Sure, RAW IQ is nice, but other than that... It is a good choice for him as a relative noob, but wouldn't be an option for me...


----------



## Tinky (Jan 1, 2015)

Personally I find it interesting to see where the manufacturers are at, especially in comparison to canon.

I like to hear about the caveats and pitfalls and hope that Canon is using their time to launch a sorted product rather than a headline grabber..

The USP that canon have is EF lenses.

That is still strong enough to lead the market.

What version of the Sony mount are we onto? How many fast aperture primes fit the A series? etc etc.

Sony make brilliant innovative gear. But then they switch paths. Canon are playing the long game.

Anybody who really needs a 36mp or 52mp camera will not be having this conversation... not if they _need_ 36 or 52mp. 

Anybody else still here? Good. Hello friends.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 1, 2015)

martti said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10
> 
> This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
> It is scary.
> ...



What part of it was so amazing? Most of these innovations seem to apply to entry level consumers and those not knowledgable about cameras. He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 1, 2015)

+1

Professional video autofocus has existed for many many years.

A trained experienced cameraman will put an evf to his eye and his fingers will turns the lens the right way enough automatically.

One great video technique is racking focus, this is great for tracking a moving subject, if af can do this then bprilliant...

but what if you want to rack focus between to fairly static folk at set moments in a scripted conversation, through a glass pane, with hustle and bustle reflected in the glass? with a waiter in the room moving around poupring winpe?

or if you don't want to track focus, if you want to use telephoto compressoon to isolate an abject at a given plane, say a bmx doing a jump... 

video of is great great great for school sports days, for gramps at christmas. really happy they are getting it close to working for these kind of scenarios.

but the only folk who would use it on a £7k camera are folk who haven't the skillset to use a £7k camera or for whom a £7k camera will make no difference.

Still it's a free market. You see plenty of people driving range rovers that will never get muddy, porsches that will never have the edge of their grip tested, so why shouldn't talentless unskilled amateurs be able to buy otherwise professional camcorders that do everything for them.

In my event days when we would on budget jobs have 3x Pd150s rather than say 3x digibetads I would have any operator switching to af off the set. 

Af does what it thinks, if you are using a professional camera then the operator and director should be doing the thinking.

Stills guys won't get this. It's a contiguous brick wall I bang my head against, sometime softly, sometimes sharply.


----------



## Old Sarge (Jan 1, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> When is the best time to plant a tree?



Twenty years ago. The second best time is now.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 1, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> When is the best time to plant a tree?



PrivateByDesign has the answer to this in his signature


----------



## mpphoto (Jan 2, 2015)

tayassu said:


> My uncle wanted a camera for family shots and for product Images...
> He asked me what to buy and I recommended this very camera, the Sony a6000 with the 16-70.
> I had in my hands now for a day and I have to say I don't like the handling, I hate the JPEG engine and I'm not as impressed by the AF and the VF as several reviews stated I should be...
> Sure, RAW IQ is nice, but other than that... It is a good choice for him as a relative noob, but wouldn't be an option for me...



I bought the a6000 to give mirrorless a try and to see what the fuss is about. I also wanted something smaller and lighter than my Canon DSLRs. 

The electronic viewfinder works fine for me. I spent several years using a PowerShot S5 IS, so the EVF didn't take much getting used to. I wasn't blown away by the autofocus. It was fast, but didn't feel faster or more accurate than a 5D3 or 70D. The AF isn't perfect; it hunted annoyingly in a few instances. 

As for the basic kit lenses, the tiny 16-50mm powerzoom is just OK and I do not like the 55-210mm telephoto zoom. The 55-210 is small and light, but it is not sharp and the f/6.3 aperture is just too slow even in cloudy conditions. The Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM with a Metabones adapter produces great images on the a6000, but without autofocus. That brings me to one of my favorite things about the a6000 - focus peaking. It makes manual focusing so easy. I see many posts about the quality of high ISO images from Sony sensors, but I'm not seeing it. I don't shoot over ISO 1600, and even at that moderate ISO I don't like the noise. I don't know if the Sony is noisier than the Canon crop bodies I have used, or if I just prefer the look of the noise from the Canons. I do pixel peep.

The user interface of the a6000 is decent, and the face-finding autofocus works well. I do like the portraits I have taken with the a6000, but I can get similar or better results from a Canon. The body is put together well, but feels fragile to me. I feel like a Canon DSLR will stand up better against bumps and the environment. For me, the buttons are too close together and don't feel as good as Canon's. I usually shoot in Aperture priority, and on the Sony my thumb keeps hitting the top scroll wheel, changing the aperture. There isn't much of a thumb rest on the back, though the grip in front is OK.

The a6000 is great for walking around town because it is small and light, and it can produce some good photos with the right lenses. I wish there were good E-mount zooms that didn't cost an arm and a leg so I don't have to carry several primes. I could pop on one of my Canon zoom lenses with the adapter, but there goes the compactness.

My feelings are mixed about the a6000. It's good enough, but given the hype, I think it should be better. For me, it just isn't as good as a 70D or 60D. I want to like it, but I feel like I have to work harder to get a good photo from the a6000 than I do with a Canon product. The only time I choose the a6000 is when I want to travel light or want to challenge myself.

If Canon comes out with an awesome replacement for the EOS M, I'll probably ditch the a6000.


----------



## sanj (Jan 2, 2015)

mpphoto said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > My uncle wanted a camera for family shots and for product Images...
> ...



Well said.


----------



## troppobash (Jan 2, 2015)

Ruined said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10
> ...



+1


----------



## martti (Jan 2, 2015)

_"He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place."_

Of course all the skills you have thus far acquired are instantly forgotten the moment you use face tracking or eye focusing of this devilish new technology. You should not ever even try them. You might have to change your opinions and Serious Photographers do not do that...this is turning into a religious kind of an argument so I leave it here.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 2, 2015)

mpphoto said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > My uncle wanted a camera for family shots and for product Images...
> ...


Very good explanation. I would like Canon to bring something at this level with the EOS-M so I can shoot only Canon but now the a6000 is way better. Lens line up for mirrorless is limited though.


----------



## zim (Jan 2, 2015)

martti said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10
> 
> This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
> It is scary.
> ...



Congrats on your new purchase
Have fun and enjoy

Regards


----------



## martti (Jan 2, 2015)

Thank you, Zim. 
I'll be posting about my experience once the thing arrives.
Happy New Year!


----------



## Eldar (Jan 2, 2015)

I think the current development within mirror-less cameras is very interesting and I´m sure we will see great innovative products coming in the near future. At the moment though, I am not tempted. 

I think mirror-less is a good idea and I can see many conceptual benefits of using one. But when this mirror-less system sits in a body which feels like a total misfit in my hands, such as the A6000 and A7/7r/7s, with controls that has immense improvement potential and with an electronic viewfinder at least one generation away from being an alternative to an optical viewfinder, I am less tempted. Add lack of available lenses and poor battery life, it ends up in the not-interested-basket with me.

I do however see that, with a bit more work on the EVF, improved power consumption (or better batteries) and improved ergonomics, we should see very exciting products being released in the future.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 2, 2015)

martti said:


> I'll be posting about my experience once the thing arrives.



And we'll be pointing out that _everything_ about the images you end up with could have been achieved just as easily with any of the current crop of Canons...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 2, 2015)

dak723 said:


> Please, people,* ignore these constant threads advertising other camera makers*. Yes, Sony, Nikon, Samsung _____ (fill in the blank), all make very good cameras. We know already.



I have _no problem at all_ with the idea of people posting about third party cameras in the relevant section of the site.

It's this ridiculous "_*Canon is *******!*_" hyperbole, whenever a given third party body has some particular characteristic that happens to appeal to the author, and which might be lacking from Canon's offerings, which is _just so bloody tedious_...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 2, 2015)

martti said:


> this is turning into a religious kind of an argument so I leave it here.



Which would have been _entirely_ avoided if you hadn't come out with histrionic flamebait like:



> Sony is going to eat up the Canonists who have not been brainwashed as such as yet.


----------



## meywd (Jan 2, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > this is turning into a religious kind of an argument so I leave it here.
> ...



+1


----------



## martti (Jan 2, 2015)

;D 'histrionic flamebait'


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 2, 2015)

Old Sarge said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > When is the best time to plant a tree?
> ...





wsmith96 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > When is the best time to plant a tree?
> ...



lol Was told this yeeeeeears ago by mi familia


----------



## EchoLocation (Jan 2, 2015)

I'm a big music fan and archived a bunch of concerts on the highest quality cd's I could buy about ten years ago...sony
I made double copies and kept the second copies in jewel cases in a box in a cool, dry closet. I never played them, or touched them.
ten years later, almost half of them have lost their sony paint on the top side and are now basically clear, and totally unplayable.
don't believe that cd's, dvd's or blu ray will last 100 years. that is 100% BS.
I now have triple backups of everything on different portable hard drives.


----------



## weixing (Jan 2, 2015)

martti said:


> _"He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place."_
> 
> Of course all the skills you have thus far acquired are instantly forgotten the moment you use face tracking or eye focusing of this devilish new technology. You should not ever even try them. You might have to change your opinions and Serious Photographers do not do that...this is turning into a religious kind of an argument so I leave it here.


Hi,
Hmm... I thought face tracking is very common is compact camera, so just wonder why it become so "exciting and wonderful" when it implement in a Sony camera?? By the way, that's a very long video, so I just browse through, but I did saw the face tracking start to track the picture on someone shirts instead on the subject face.  So I think I rather manually point my "old tech" AF points on my subject face... at least I'm quite sure it'll focus on my subject face instead on the picture on someone shirts.

Have a nice day, happy shooting and Happy New Year to ALL!!.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jan 2, 2015)

martti said:


> _"He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place."_
> 
> Of course all the skills you have thus far acquired are instantly forgotten the moment you use face tracking or eye focusing of this devilish new technology. You should not ever even try them. You might have to change your opinions and Serious Photographers do not do that...this is turning into a religious kind of an argument so I leave it here.



haha right on. ;D


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 2, 2015)

Ruined said:


> What part of it was so amazing? Most of these innovations seem to apply to entry level consumers and those not knowledgable about cameras. He seemed to make a big deal about face tracking and a $7k camera not having that, but if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place.



Nonsense. That's a non sequitur. It's like saying that for people who use automatic transmissions are not skilled enough to drive stick, or saying that people who use automatic focus or any of the semi-automatic Av/Tv/* modes are incapable of using a manual iris or manual focus lens.

People use different tools under different circumstances and for different reasons. Face detection AF is great in live view modes, because manual focusing is harder on an LCD screen. It's also great for video, assuming you're using AF at all, because it makes AF a lot more usable.

For example, I have a 44M that I use for portraits on occasion, and I often end up in full manual mode when shooting anything on a black stage (concerts, plays, etc.) to avoid blown-out faces. But when I'm walking around with a tour group, dealing with wildly alternating amounts of light, I'd miss a lot of great shots if I were trying to manage all of those extra variables. In those situations, I'd estimate that 99% of my shots are done in P mode, with autofocus, and with automatic ISO. The nearly fully automatic setting does a good enough job in most typical circumstances (sometimes a little overexposed or underexposed, but not enough to ruin the shot), freeing me to focus on more important things, like choosing a good shot angle, nailing the timing of the shot to get good facial expressions, and all the other myriad things I'm thinking about in the background. And this is how I come home from a two-week trip with 6,000 photos, with only a single-digit number of shots that are bad enough to throw away.

Would I use face detection? Maybe sometimes, so long as it is a quick knob twist between that and traditional focusing modes, and so long as they also add an in-viewfinder indicator to tell me what shooting mode I'm in. Then again, I guess it would be obvious, because that mode would switch over to an EVF, and none of the other modes would, so....





Tinky said:


> A trained experienced cameraman will put an evf to his eye and his fingers will turns the lens the right way enough automatically.



Or, if he or she is used to that other camera system, an experienced cameraperson will automatically turn it the right amount in the wrong direction every time....


----------



## Tinky (Jan 3, 2015)

dgatwood said:


> Tinky said:
> 
> 
> > A trained experienced cameraman will put an evf to his eye and his fingers will turns the lens the right way enough automatically.
> ...



Traditionally, certainly not, there was uniformity in design between Fujinon & Canon ENG lenses, and certainly between bodies, be they grass valley, sony, ikegami, panasonic. A stringer getting a lot of work from say the bbc would probably buy a betacamsx or digibeta, and itn stringer would probably buy a dvcpro, but the majority of camera ops would use different cameras on different jobs, so the core finctions coukd all be accessed through external switchgear, and other than some differences in the filter wheels (some were split by colour and nd, others were on the same wheel) things like setting wb, audio channels, knee circuits, gain etc were all exactly the same.

I have to say, and this is a gross generalisation but I'll stand by it, I've never met a pro video user using a nikon body ever. I've met plenty of nikon users who would adapt their f lenses to a 5d, but I have never met anybody using a nikon body (they were fixed at 24p and had auto exposure and no audio controls up until relatively recently)

In the dslr realm I do use third party lenses, and yes some turn canon some turn anti-canon, but with regular use you remember which is which without having to check, and mistakes are usually quickly detected on large sensor cameras.
In my own shooting style I like to use subject motion to accentuate depth of field, so prefocus on a desirable point then let the subject move through it, if I'm shooting moving camera to moving subject I will tend to be closer, wider and use zone focusing.

One great thing with video us that with 1/50th and iso 100, even at civilian twilight, you actually have lots and lots of aperture to play with. If I need greater depth of field I'll just use a weaker or no nd filter and stop down.

If I was long lensing and tracking, say at a sports event, then I'd more likely be on a pedastol ISO camera with powered long throw zoom servo and electronic follow focus.


----------



## dgatwood (Jan 3, 2015)

Tinky said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Tinky said:
> ...



I realize that. I was just using it as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Nikon.




Tinky said:


> I have to say, and this is a gross generalisation but I'll stand by it, I've never met a pro video user using a nikon body ever.



Me either. Then again, I've never met a pope, but I know that at least two of them exist. The same principle applies (and probably with similar numbers).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 5, 2015)

We own a professional lighting and camera rental business for stills and lower end pro-video. 
We carry Canon, Nikon, Leica (S2), Hasselblad for stills / video and Canon C300 / C 500 for video as well as Black Magic. Never had any requests for Sony DSLRs or their lenses. Sony make great video cameras in our main rental business we have Sony F55s, F5s etc. but the glass is Cooke, Zeiss, Leica, Angenieux etc. 

No question sensor design wise Sony are currently the kings, just ask Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Hasselblad, Phase One and even Canon. But Sony over complicate cameras they cannot help themselves they forget they are a lightbox or a computer with an imager, the lenses are more important and they cannot compete with Canon or Nikon in this area, yet.


----------



## martti (Jan 6, 2015)

A very good point about the Sony lenses. There is nothing much we can say for them except that they have developed the chip that corrects the optical shortcomings to a very high level. They are good in electronics so an optical problem gets treated with electronics. It seems as if their success has taken them by surpise. The only clear idea of their customers seems to be that they (we) already have a selection of adaptable quality lenses so that they are in no hurry to produce them by themselves. And that we are probably well versed in different brands of cameras and computers so that there is no need for a manual. _Somebody_ will write one and there will be videos on YouTube. Which is true.

Sony does have an 11% stake in Tamron. They bought the Minolta camera department which had already fused with Konica. Both brands were known for their high quality optics at the time. Zeiss designs the Touit product line. The lenses are assembled in Japan to very high standards but unfortunately at unacceptably high prices. The E-mount 32mm (50mm f/1.8 equivalent) costs 580 dollars. That is pretty steep for an APS-C normal lens. The 16-70 f/4 stabilized zoom costs as much as the 24-70 f/4 Canon EF. Hopefully, the co-operation with Tamron will eventually bring a solution to this problem.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 7, 2015)

my dad got the a6000 when it came out with the top end ziess zoom 16-70 f4 or something like that
its an ok camera but i was playing with it side by side while using my eos-m and 11-22

the things i noticed are

the a6000 AF is not very accurate while it's burst rate blows the doors off the eos m the M is much more accurate and consistant for actually getting stuff in focus even in servo...

jpg files out of camera on the a6000 are horrible (not sure if they fixed this with firmware) raws are fine though

low iso (iso 100) shadow recovery on the a6000 raw files are just sooo much better than the m can do
handy if you under expose by 5 stops on a regular basis.... 
high iso performance is basically a wash iso 3200 and 6400 theres nothing in it between these 2

bag space, you can fit 2 eos m bodies in the same space the a6000 takes 

not having a touch screen on the a6000 was annoying since i was used to the M and kept trying to touch the screen to change stuff on the a6000

overall the build on the a6000 is not too bad its a decent camera but overall I still prefered the EOS-M to it


----------



## martti (Jan 7, 2015)

My Little Sony is getting here through DHL. Very typically, there are no events recorded once the item entered the Paris CDG airport. The French _detestent_ everything coming from foreign countries, especially Asia. When they _detestent_ they _ignorent_. Also, this is the only country in the world where the customs officers cannot read _any_ English, not even numbers.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 8, 2015)

Ruined said:


> if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place.



I remember when Canon said that autofocus had no interest at all as "their" photographers would never rely on such a feature. After Minolta started selling more SLRs than Nikon and Canon combined Canon somehow changed their mind...

Personally, I would love such a feature on my next DSLR.


----------



## martti (Jan 8, 2015)

My Little Sony arrived by DHL. It is bigger than I thought with the Zeiss 16-70 f/4 zoom.
I am at work so I only managed to put the battery in and start charging.
The first impression is that of a quality instrument. Setting up the date and the place and playing around in the menus was a straightforward thing. It seems that Sony is learning simplicity.
The camera responds very fast.
I think this will be a rewarding relationship.


----------



## martti (Jan 9, 2015)

Between rain showers. Zeiss 16-70 at "24mm" (16mm) f/11. RAW cropped and profile corrected LR5.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 12, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > if you use a face tracking feature for your autofocus you probably are not skilled enough to be using a $7k camera in the first place.
> ...



Video is contiguous. In stills you talk about a keeper rate. In video, every frame needs to be a keeper. AF is great at getting things that should be in focus, in focus. Sometimes for creative reasons, the dop might want something else in focus.

when you bring in wide aperture lenses and large sensors your af system has a lot of tracking to do, ignoring foreground and background distortions.

A 7k camera is a serious tool, for people who want and are capable of manual control, I think that, rather than giving hobbyists a help, is the gripe. At least from me.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 15, 2015)

Optical viewfinders and the SLR form are still ergonomic for hand-held action photography.


----------



## martti (Jan 16, 2015)

The Metabones adapter arrived but it was already too dark to go outside to test it.
What I noticed just by playing around is that you do not get anything that you could call 'autofocus'.
The focus goes wildly back and forth and finally stops somewhere where everything is blurred.
This I tested with three different Canon lenses.

The interesting thing is using these lenses with manual focus indicator. You can actually set the peak focus exactly where you want it. The 100mm f/2 becomes a 150mm f/2 which is Very Nice for portraiture.
I think I'll keep this...


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2015)

Not exactly pocketable but the image quality is OK.
Yeah, I hear you: "what's the point?"


----------



## zim (Jan 25, 2015)

Is that 'just' OK or 'great' OK?


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2015)

Quite amazing from an APS-c sensor, I have to admit. With the focus verification you can put the sharp point exactly where you want it which is fascinating. You are focusing with the actual sensor without any mirrors or calculations. Very cool if you want to isolate a non-moving subject. You get the eyelashes if that's what you are after.

In fact, this is what I would have wanted when the need of multifocal eyeglasses started to interfere with taking pictures and I could not really tell what was in focus through the viewfinder. They came up with the autofocus which obviously was the right move when you look at its current status. But this is not bad, not bad at all.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 25, 2015)

martti said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg&spfreload=10
> 
> This BH photo/video is about the Sony a6000.
> It is scary.
> ...



The a6000 is a very good camera and it is a LOT better to use than the NEX-6 that I owned previously, but the a6000 is still not quite as good to use as a Canon DSLR. Having said that, the NEX-6 had already replaced my old little 400D for those times when I wanted to travel light and still bring a good camera. The a6000 reaffirmed that decision tenfold. But still, my FF Canons deliver where it counts.


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2015)

A casual test with the EF 20mm f/2.8 + Metabones adapter fails: Camera either takes a picture or crashes. Either there is an f-stop indicator or not. Clearly, no reason to try to take pictures with this setup. 
The 40mm pancake does not focus, of course not but it does not crash the camera either. Why should you want to lug around a 60mm-equivalent f/2.8 which does not autofocus and which is not especially compact either? No particular reason in my mind. Then I tried the 50mm f/1.4 which has a hopelessly shallow DOF. It communicates OK with the a6000 but then again, why should you ever use a combination like this?
Clearly, the 16-70mm f/4 Zeiss seems enormously agile and useful after these three attempts.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 25, 2015)

martti said:


> A casual test with the EF 20mm f/2.8 + Metabones adapter fails: Camera either takes a picture or crashes. Either there is an f-stop indicator or not. Clearly, no reason to try to take pictures with this setup.
> The 40mm pancake does not focus, of course not but it does not crash the camera either. Why should you want to lug around a 60mm-equivalent f/2.8 which does not autofocus and which is not especially compact either? No particular reason in my mind. Then I tried the 50mm f/1.4 which has a hopelessly shallow DOF. It communicates OK with the a6000 but then again, why should you ever use a combination like this?
> Clearly, the 16-70mm f/4 Zeiss seems enormously agile and useful after these three attempts.



I prefer to use my old FD/FL lenses, either with a Metabones optical adapter or with a plain adapter, and then use focus peaking. Disadvantage= no AF. Advantages however: cheap, good and mostly relatively small lenses (re-use old stuff), no compatibility issues. And when I need AF I will most definitely use native e-mount lenses as listed in my signature. (FWIW the 16-70 Zeiss is very much like the 24-105 Canon) I'm thinking about getting the 10-18 too, (and sell the 12mm Samyang) but not so sure because there's more glass I'd like for my EF system. Choices, choices....


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2015)

Please, mrsfotografie, tell me why are you not happy with the Rokinon 12 mm f/2.0?
It is supposed to be of very high optical quality and reasonably priced. In fact, I though I might actually get one.
As you said, there is so much more tempting stuff from Canon for the EF that you'd really have to be a Sony fanatic to buy a Zeiss Touit or whatever for 1000 dollars when you can get a 16-35 f/4 at that price and it is _quand meme_ something else, totally. Value is something where Sony is seriously lagging behind.


----------



## zim (Jan 25, 2015)

martti said:


> Quite amazing from an APS-c sensor, I have to admit. With the focus verification you can put the sharp point exactly where you want it which is fascinating. You are focusing with the actual sensor without any mirrors or calculations. Very cool if you want to isolate a non-moving subject. You get the eyelashes if that's what you are after.
> 
> In fact, this is what I would have wanted when the need of multifocal eyeglasses started to interfere with taking pictures and I could not really tell what was in focus through the viewfinder. They came up with the autofocus which obviously was the right move when you look at its current status. But this is not bad, not bad at all.



Interesting, I really do like this ability. I've never used ML but of course I'd love to use this through the viewfinder. It's funny with all the talk in another thread about face recognition I'd really much prefer to be able to do this through an optical viewfinder with some sort of HUD ability that switches off when not in use.

Regards


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 25, 2015)

martti said:


> Please, mrsfotografie, tell me why are you not happy with the Rokinon 12 mm f/2.0?
> It is supposed to be of very high optical quality and reasonably priced. In fact, I though I might actually get one.
> As you said, there is so much more tempting stuff from Canon for the EF that you'd really have to be a Sony fanatic to buy a Zeiss Touit or whatever for 1000 dollars when you can get a 16-35 f/4 at that price and it is _quand meme_ something else, totally. Value is something where Sony is seriously lagging behind.



martti, the 12mm is a very good optic and lives up to its reputation, there's some CA but that's easily corrected. Reason for selling it would be that it is a pain to correctly focus manually, even with focus peaking enabled and especially when stopped down. The focus peaking does not clearly enough identify what is in focus and what is not, when dealing with such a short focal length. This is not really a problem in itself because you can check the result on the screen or in the viewfinder, but it means that shooting with this lens is cumbersome if you want to shoot fast and move on. I don't see myself using this lens if I would have the zoom because the times when I need a fast aperture in such a wide angle lens are fairly limited (and for low light use I'd be shooting with my 5DMkIII anyway).

And yes I totally agree the Sony lenses are overpriced. I have the 16-70mm but comparing it to my 24-105L (size, weathersealing), the price just isn't right. The 10-18 is also a pricey piece of glass. And as for those Touit's, something like that deserves a full frame sensor.


----------



## 1800daniel (Jan 25, 2015)

martti said:


> Please, mrsfotografie, tell me why are you not happy with the Rokinon 12 mm f/2.0?
> It is supposed to be of very high optical quality and reasonably priced. In fact, I though I might actually get one.
> As you said, there is so much more tempting stuff from Canon for the EF that you'd really have to be a Sony fanatic to buy a Zeiss Touit or whatever for 1000 dollars when you can get a 16-35 f/4 at that price and it is _quand meme_ something else, totally. Value is something where Sony is seriously lagging behind.



My experience with the Rokinon 12mm f/2 on the a6000 is very good. It has some CA but it's about what I expect from such a wide lens. Color is great.
It's very light weight and the focus ring is stiff but I have lots of practice with MF so it's not a problem for me. 
Focus peaking is ok but I prefer to use focus magnification and I can nail the focus every time, easily.
The resolution is very good and works nicely with the high resolution sensor to produce great detail.
I gave my Canon gear away because I was so impressed with the results from the Sony system.


I'll upload some samples:
Note that the images were resized during upload, so some quality may be lost. 
I always shoot in the "Neutral" profile, no HDR or heavy processing/manipulation.

This first one has no CA correction, -7 highlights, +11 shadows, +9 clarity, +15 saturation in Lightroom




(ISO 100; 1/50sec; f/5.6)





(ISO 400; 1/30sec; f/4ish)





(ISO 3200; 30sec; f/4ish)


----------



## martti (Jan 25, 2015)

Thank you for your views and 1800Daniel, your pictures.
So basically the Rokinon/Samyong does exactly what it is supposed to do. 
It is probably not the 'social event'-lens but rather the painfully sharp desert objective.
Looks good. At about 320 dollars...reasonable.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 25, 2015)

Thank you Daniel for posting these, it's a lens I'm considering buying.

I'm between this in the EF-m mount or the 16mm f2.0 in the EF mount.

I already have the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 but the extra stop interests me, as does the quality wide open.
If i get the 12mm I'll probably dedicated one of my EOS M's to timelapse by installing ML.


----------



## 1800daniel (Jan 25, 2015)

Tinky said:


> Thank you Daniel for posting these, it's a lens I'm considering buying.
> 
> I'm between this in the EF-m mount or the 16mm f2.0 in the EF mount.
> 
> ...



It is a lens worth considering. 
The wide aperture is great and I am never hesitant to use it at f/2 when I want to.
I also forgot to mention that the close-focus distance is great for interesting perspective. I've found it to be an extremely versatile lens and one that is a pleasure to use for a variety of subjects.

I think if you get one for your EOS M, you will want to take it everywhere.


----------



## martti (Feb 1, 2015)

The best lense for the a6000 for taking pictures of a bottle of gas in the balcony is the Canon 85mm f/1.2 *L*


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 1, 2015)

martti said:


> The best lense for the a6000 for taking pictures of a bottle of gas in the balcony is the Canon 85mm f/1.2 *L*



I'd like to challenge that but I don't have a bottle of gas in the balcony ;D

I might have given it a go with my Canon FL 135mm f/2.5, possibly using my metabones speed booster which turns it into a 144mm f/1.8...


----------



## Tinky (Feb 1, 2015)

when you say converts, I take it you mean in terms of depth of field rather than actually letting more light in?


----------



## martti (Feb 1, 2015)

Exactly. The diameter of the optical opening does not change but the effective focal length does.
With this adapter you take only a part of the circle of focus while its luminosity is what is.
Then you have these boosters that take in dome of the wasted light and focus it on a smaller area.
They actually 'boost' the luminosity or the 'speed' of the lens by the factor of .071 while increasing the angle of view. 
http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster 
I have no experience of its optical quality of the way it co-operates with the rest of the system.

Today I found that the a6000 actually does autofocus _via_ the Metabones like woom-woom-zap-bling.
Manual focus seems more...hmm...matter-of-fact?


----------



## Tinky (Feb 1, 2015)

I can see how this would work with say fullframe lenses on an aps-c body (lots of redundant image circle that was designed to be used) does it also work with full frame lenses on full frame? Sure there will be some extra image circle, but it may be right at the limit, vignetting, image quality issues etc?

Not convinced.


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 1, 2015)

martti said:


> Exactly. The diameter of the optical opening does not change but the effective focal length does.
> With this adapter you take only a part of the circle of focus while its luminosity is what is.
> Then you have these boosters that take in dome of the wasted light and focus it on a smaller area.
> They actually 'boost' the luminosity or the 'speed' of the lens by the factor of .071 while increasing the angle of view.
> ...



The Metabones adapters do not work with all lenses. There are a number of bugs with third party lens. My Tamron 28-75f2.8 will work on an EOS-m via adapter but will not auto focus on a Nex-6 with a Metabones. 

My advice is if you want to adapt lens to a Sony camera with a Metabones adapter forget about auto focus. With the manual focus aids you can focus faster manual. 

Also when using the Metabones adapter auto focus is handled by contrast auto-focus. It does not use any of the phase detection abilities of the sensor. I see the Speed adapters as an interesting concept but I am not really interested. 

I was more interested in getting the standard adapter. A speed adapter for the EOS-m system might be interesting. I do not see Canon releasing a EOS-m full frame mount.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> when you say converts, I take it you mean in terms of depth of field rather than actually letting more light in?



No, it actually INCREASES the amount of light that hits the sensor by gathering it from the projection circle of a full frame lens and then squeezing it into the area of the APS-C sensor, much like a magnifying glass does (if you've tried to start a fire with a magnifying glass, then you'll know what I mean). Speed goes up by ~1 stop, and it alters the equivalent focal length too. A 135mm on the a6000 becomes 1.5x132=203mm. Reduce that by multiplying by 0.71x (which is the effective magnification of the speed booster) and it becomes 144 mm. The speed booster works like an inverse tele-converter so instead of loosing stops and gaining focal length, it works the other way around.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 1, 2015)

Tinky said:


> I can see how this would work with say fullframe lenses on an aps-c body (lots of redundant image circle that was designed to be used) does it also work with full frame lenses on full frame? Sure there will be some extra image circle, but it may be right at the limit, vignetting, image quality issues etc?
> 
> Not convinced.



No. Unless you want massive vignetting.


----------



## Tinky (Feb 1, 2015)

PropeNonComposMentis said:


> *> Hi Tinky* Seriously luv your work too. That B&W of the Switching Points in the Coal Yard, Shot with Minolta on Film, I consider that a Career Defining Work. If you don't have that printed on a 6foot or 12foot canvas, you are nutts.



Very many thanks. It's not typical of my work at all to be honest. 

For the assessment (I kind of miss those, photography is my hobby, video is my job, so my stills don't really take me out of my comfort zone, video takes me where the client tells me) i printed it on silver inkjet sheets. 

Which really worked well. I got an A pass between this and the other 5 images I submitted (my kit at that time was the film minolta gear and a Konica Minolta Dimage A2)

I'm pleasantly surprised it's been such a hit!


----------



## martti (Feb 4, 2015)

On the a6000 you can shoot a 'prrrt' sequence and maybe you get a keeper.
This one of Kittanmin and Lillekittan was taken with the light of the sun just gone down with the Zeiss 16-70 f/4.0 somewhere around at f/5.6, 50mm or 75mm eq...the girls were moving around a lot so...
Yeah, I do love these girls and I hope it shows.








(now it is evident that I should have removed that bicycle from the background...)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 8, 2015)

mrsfotografie said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > Please, mrsfotografie, tell me why are you not happy with the Rokinon 12 mm f/2.0?
> ...



Update: I've been playing around with the focus magnification feature on my a6000 and it's an excellent help to check that the lens is in focus, much better than focus peaking which doesn't really work very well at such short focal lengths. So for shooting that allows time for 'focus checking' I will hang on to this lens - I'd rather spend the money for a Sony 10-18mm on a Canon 16-35f/4 IS


----------



## martti (Feb 8, 2015)

What you are saying about the 12mm Rokinon is basically the same thing I am experiencing with the 14mm on the 5DIII. If I really want the focus to be exact, I have to open up to 2.8, check with th LiveView, then stop down again and then bracket because there seems to be no correlation between the actual brightness of the shot and the readings that the meter is giving. Cleatly it is not a lens for sharp shots of moving subjects.

What you said about the relative values of the Sony 10-18mm and the Canon 16-35mm is correct.
It seems that at least some Asian dealers are putting the Sony lenses on sale. For instance purnimadigital offers some items 300 dollars less than B&H. 
http://www.purnimadigital.com/objectifs/objectifs/pour-sony.html
Sorry, the site is in French.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 8, 2015)

martti said:


> What you are saying about the 12mm Rokinon is basically the same thing I am experiencing with the 14mm on the 5DIII. If I really want the focus to be exact, I have to open up to 2.8, check with th LiveView, then stop down again and then bracket because there seems to be no correlation between the actual brightness of the shot and the readings that the meter is giving. Cleatly it is not a lens for sharp shots of moving subjects.



I also have the 14mm. I've solved the focus problem by adding an AF confirmation chip and calibrating it at f/4. Opening up to 2.8 and then stopping back down is not a good way to focus the 14mm because it suffers from aperture dependent focus-shift. If wider apertures than f/4 are required (almost never) I tend to use this lens on my 5DMkII which has an EF-S precision matte focusing screen fitted and that DOES allow to see the DOF at f/2.8.

FWIW the 14mm gives me no metering problems. I put the camera in aperture mode and leave it at f/2.8 which is the aperture value I programmed into the AF confirmation chip. I then focus with the lens stopped down.

As for the 10-18, well it's a 'too' nice to have to be honest. I should really just concentrate on lens purchases for my EF system as that is my main system and it is the best from a value and performance point of view. I really only have the Sony for those occasions when I want the convenience of something compact but still good image quality and interchangeable lenses. It also let's me use my old FL and FD lenses which is fun.


----------



## martti (Feb 8, 2015)

There are opinions about focusing this lens. Focusing shift does not throw the original point out of focus into blur, stopping down just moves the _sharpest_ _zone_ away from the camera. For exposure, I get at least a constant response going full manual, bracketing with the histogram and ignoring the meter suggestions and the suggested luminosity on the LiveView. 
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=57491.0

My experience with various EF lenses on the Metabones adapter is telling me that if you really _need_ the picture, try something else. The *L* lenses seem to be working predictably whereas the EF 20mm f/2.8 and the 28 mm f/1.8 either show the selected f-stop or don't and after a while the camera turns itself off, probably to protect itself against incongruous data. Every now and then the a6000 also suggests that there is no lens attached. 
Probably a simpler adapter would be less imaginative.


----------



## martti (Feb 8, 2015)

I got the precision matte also on the 5DII but my son took it away from me. 
You can change the focusing screen on the 5DIII as well. I tried it but the screen they sent me was scratched. 
Of course, there were no responses to my emails. The procedure is simple if you have a small magnetic screwdriver. Calibrating it would have been be another story but I never got that far.


----------



## martti (Feb 14, 2015)

Doing the firmware upgrade on the a6000 reminded me of the First Principle: If there is something written in French, please control its veracity by any other means available. And again, just replace the 'ne fait pas' by 'commencer par'. Translation: Replace 'do not' by 'start with'. And then you get the firmware update. The point is, you have to patch the firmware installer to be able to install the firmware. It would be easy if they did not tell their clients the exact opposite.

The Metabones upgrade was easier. One needs a bit of agility to be able to push a button while inserting the USB contact. 

Now I will probably find out that the old EF lenses are doing OK with the a 6000.
Only tested the 35mm L thus far. It sort of does autofocus but not in a useful way.
Manual focus good, picture quality excellent.


----------

