I hold this site in high regard. But the review of the Sony a6000 has left me rather baffled. Maybe itÂ´s because of all the comparing categories that have evolved rather confusingly over the years. "Midrange, upper-midrange, entry, lower range, as compared to other 2011, semi-pro" and so on. I understand the confusion on behalf of the site - but itÂ´s still confusing for the reader as well.
Now I donÂ´t care if the a6000 is being "recommended" or "highly recommended". I think - with the AF-accomplishments according to the review itself - the "highly recommended" is the only obvious one. Seems as if this down right stunning feature puts it in a league of its own - or pair it with fully - and much more costly - pro DSLRs. As always this review is good and thorough and concentrates on the main feature: the AF-tracking abilities (the holy grail of the mirrorless cameras). And the a6000 scores as a pro - but "only" gets "recommended". Gordon mentions the nikon 5300, the 70d and the olympus omd em10 (the other comparative mirrorless cameras are named "semi-pro"?? - because of buttons!?) but hesitate to put the a6000 up against the 70d directly (with regards to viewfinder AF capabilities ) all though this camera seems to be the main DSLR-rival. And yet:
"Only the Canon EOS 70D can compete with the A6000 for continuous AF in Live View, but it costs at least 50% more and only shoots at 7fps. (Although it does have a much more useful fully articulated touchscreen)."
But is that in fact true? Can the 70d (which was "highly recommended") really compete? This is what Gordon wrote about the 70D:
"Enable Continuous AF though and the process becomes noticeably quicker. With the 70D pre-focusing on the target and refocusing if or when it moves, it normally has little if anything to do when you eventually press the shutter release. Indeed with Continuous AF enabled, the 70D's focusing speed for reasonably static subjects becomes as fast as, say, the Olympus OMD EM5, which is one of the quickest mirrorless cameras for single AF acquisition.
But it's not all good news. Take a photo at the same time with a mirrorless camera and the EOS 70D, and while they may both focus and react at the same speed, the 70D will generally take much longer to return you to back to a capture view. With image review disabled, I timed the 70D taking around two seconds between the shot being taken and the live view returning for composition. In contrast, a native mirrorless camera like the Olympus OMD EM5 took less than a second between taking a photo and returning you to a live view. This may not sound like a big deal written down, but in practice I found the 70D's live view was frustratingly slow when taking portraits or shots of kids in live view. Sure the focus and response once the live image was available was quick, but it took too long before I could recompose and shoot again for subsequent shots."
I may be missing something. But is sounds to me as if the a6000 is capable of things that not even the 70D can muster? And yet, is rated as a midrange camera thatÂ´s only recommended. Does it make sense?
Anyway, I applaud GordonÂ´s intentions of trying out the AF-system with other lenses as well. That makes a lot of sense for people who already bought into the system. I would be very interested in how the a6000 fare with the good but rather slow 55-210. Can the AF still keep up?