Please can someone help me? what am i missing?

yeah i think i'm going to enjoy it. i'm actually selling in order to fund the new cam.

now i have the tough choice of going with the a6000 and kit lenses (16-50 and 55-210) or get the camera with the zeiss 16-70 f4.

Total budget is £800 tops.

I would get the A7 mark 1 before getting the A6000. Reason is because the phase detect AF is pretty good. It clearly misses a bunch of the bells and whistles of the A7ii, but starting with the A7 will give you much better options for manual glass, which can be had for cheap since pricing is an issue. A7 can also shoot crop mode, but not as many pixels on target.

You'll dig the FF look for street and portraits, it's just something hard to replicate on 1.5x crop, not to mention that top lenses that resolve a ton, usually cost a ton, where cheapo primes on the A7 mark 1 is a lot more forgiving.

see the thing that put me off the A7 mk1 was the AF, as i am planning on still shooting the odd bit of equine jumping and drifting / drag racing / sports.
i do prefer AF lenses but can see what you mean.

The only issue is the pricing of the A7 is much more for it with a lens.

I dont think it will be an issue for those sports, assuming you have capable AF lenses.

I've read that the AF is basically the same between the A7 1 and A7ii. I havent used the A71 particularly, but have the A7ii and A7rii and the AF is good on both accounts. It's not 1D3 world class, but it's good, will probably get you enough keepers. The A7 1 can use aps glass and it'll default to crop mode to give you the same view as the A6000 for the odd times you need it. For what you primarily shoot, street, it'll kick butt.

My reasoning for switching from canon a year or two back was to get a camera that kicked butt for what I shot primarily, and I would find ways of making it work for the odd bit of event shooting I do. I stopped worrying about the odd bits so much and focused on what I shot primarily. I do have some odd bits that hardly ever get used, the wildlife lens, the super portrait lens, but some like the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's, were ditched. I worked up a system that is very enjoyable to use, and for the odd bits, of shooting, I would shoot full manual (although I have partial AF and MF for event shooting nowadays).

You can take baby steps if it makes you feel comfortable. I shot two systems for near a year before I sold off my canon stuff. The sony experiment is a huge factor, learning a system that is so different than canon can take a lot of time and frustration, but oh the glory if it works out for you. I'm in photography bliss with my sony gear, cant really say I've ever had this much fun with a dslr. The honeymoon has not ended.

yeah i had a look at image quality ect on snapsort and the sony is miles ahead and from the af tests that i saw on digitalrev it will be fast enough.
i do LOVE my 1D3 (i have had 3 of them) but i feel it's a bit heavy now for what i want and often don't take it out with me becuase it's a bit of a chore.

urbanfreestyle wrote in post #17802555
yeah i had a look at image quality ect on snapsort and the sony is miles ahead and from the af tests that i saw on digitalrev it will be fast enough.
i do LOVE my 1D3 (i have had 3 of them) but i feel it's a bit heavy now for what i want and often don't take it out with me becuase it's a bit of a chore.

I have more Canon gear than I deserve or need, and I also have the a6000. It's a rockin little body which impresses me every time I use it. The 11fps is insane fast as well, and the image quality, for me, beats my expectations. I am facing my 3rd back surgery in a few weeks and have been looking at the Sony A7ii and the Sony A7rII with consideration given to lighter gear. My go-to is my 1DV right now, and it would be like losing a good friend, so I'm not ready to let go. I can't say anything bad about the a6000 for it's AF and speed and image quality. Pair it with the right lens and it would probably serve you well at an affordable price, so there is no huge commitment up front.

the setup i have been looking at was the a6000 with 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses.... but then i saw an a6000 with 16-70 f4 zeiss lens... that one pretty much has me sold. i think the single lens and zeiss glass will be perfect for what i am looking at doing. has anyone had experience with this setup?

urbanfreestyle wrote in post #17803993
the setup i have been looking at was the a6000 with 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses.... but then i saw an a6000 with 16-70 f4 zeiss lens... that one pretty much has me sold. i think the single lens and zeiss glass will be perfect for what i am looking at doing. has anyone had experience with this setup?

Not to throw another wrench in the spokes, but if you're settled on an APS-C camera I would strongly suggest looking into the Fuji system. The bodies are fantastic, the sensor is great (they all use basically the same sensor) and best of all their lenses are amazing. I really don't think there is a single "bad" lens for that system and all are reasonably affordable given the optical quality, even the "kit" 18-55mm is an excellent performer with a faster than the average aperture (f2.8-4).

I love my Sony camera, but their APS-C E mount lens lineup leaves much to be desired and I don't see it getting much more flushed out in the future, seems to me that their dedicated more to their FE lineup (which is a good thing for me )

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17804014
Not to throw another wrench in the spokes, but if you're settled on an APS-C camera I would strongly suggest looking into the Fuji system. The bodies are fantastic, the sensor is great (they all use basically the same sensor) and best of all their lenses are amazing. I really don't think there is a single "bad" lens for that system and all are reasonably affordable given the optical quality, even the "kit" 18-55mm is an excellent performer with a faster than the average aperture (f2.8-4).

I love my Sony camera, but their APS-C E mount lens lineup leaves much to be desired and I don't see it getting much more flushed out in the future, seems to me that their dedicated more to their FE lineup (which is a good thing for me )

Thanks for the wrench, googling it now! haha
I had all but bought the sony but i'm always happy to look at alternatives.

urbanfreestyle wrote in post #17804033
Thanks for the wrench, googling it now! haha
I had all but bought the sony but i'm always happy to look at alternatives.

I bought an X-E2 to supplement my a7S as my everyday comes-to-work camera and now I think I might be using it even more than the Sony But if you want something more similar to the a6000 in terms of performance you'll want to look at the X-T1 and the X-T10 or wait for the soon to be announced X-Pro2 which should bring some really interesting new stuff to the table

yeah, had a quick look and not all that impressed so far. will have a look at the X-T1 now.

It sounds like the a6000 is a very capable little camera for what you want to do. I have used mine as a second/sideline camera for both NCAA sports and NFL football. The lack of fast autofocus lenses is an issue, but if you have sufficient light, the camera is great. I like the 11 fps and the focus is dead on. My lenses are the 16-70 f4 which is very sharp and the Rokinon 12mm f2 which is probably sharper. Every time I think about buying a full frame sony, I have to think about the cost of additional lenses, because I am not giving up my Canon equipment.

I too have an old 1D3 and you can really feel the difference in build quality, but since it's only 10mp, you can't crop as much. The files look cleaner, but if I posted or printed photos from both cameras, most non-photographers could not tell any difference at all. I haven't tried an adapter, because for what I do, I cant afford to lose any focus speed. As far as manual focus lenses go, they are great for landscape and still life, and they are what we had to shoot with in the old days, but I wouldn't go back to shooting sports with them if they were giving them away.

The camera/lens combo also works well for street and family photography. Almost all of my pics of the grandkids, since I bought the sony, are taken with the sony.

Hope this helps in your decision.

whuband wrote in post #17805004
It sounds like the a6000 is a very capable little camera for what you want to do. I have used mine as a second/sideline camera for both NCAA sports and NFL football. The lack of fast autofocus lenses is an issue, but if you have sufficient light, the camera is great. I like the 11 fps and the focus is dead on. My lenses are the 16-70 f4 which is very sharp and the Rokinon 12mm f2 which is probably sharper. Every time I think about buying a full frame sony, I have to think about the cost of additional lenses, because I am not giving up my Canon equipment.

I too have an old 1D3 and you can really feel the difference in build quality, but since it's only 10mp, you can't crop as much. The files look cleaner, but if I posted or printed photos from both cameras, most non-photographers could not tell any difference at all. I haven't tried an adapter, because for what I do, I cant afford to lose any focus speed. As far as manual focus lenses go, they are great for landscape and still life, and they are what we had to shoot with in the old days, but I wouldn't go back to shooting sports with them if they were giving them away.

The camera/lens combo also works well for street and family photography. Almost all of my pics of the grandkids, since I bought the sony, are taken with the sony.

Hope this helps in your decision.

That is a perfect reply.

Sounds like the Zeiss will work well. One day i might even get the 70-200 if i ever earn some money that doesn't go on debt lol!!!

I was thinking about the same thing you are. (except I already sold my canon gear) I wanted an a6000 for the fast auto focus and 11fps. But I decided to get the a7 with the 28-70 lens. Unless the a7II goes down in price by the time I buy one. I think they're only about 300-350 price difference between the 2. But i'll end up with one of those. Full frame has advantages.