Feb 16, 2017378 views

Looking for my first mirrorless. Help?

I've been looking into getting my first mirrorless camera. My budget is sub $500 for body only.
I have been comparing the Sony A6000 and the Panasonic G7.
I mostly take pictures but I go to the occasional event.
I want to hear your opinions on each camera.

Thanks! kbwarriors
EDIT: I bought a Sony A6000 and a Sigma 19mm F/2.8. I am very pleased!
Cilvre, tanhy90, and 16 others

Got the olympus em10 mk3 lately and it is a very good camera, slick and sleek and full of features. Highly recommended.
I also bought a6000 recently, one recommendation, buy 30mm 1.4 sigma. It is amazing. Sharpness is incredible even wide open, fringing appears only in 1.4 - 1.6, although it has a bit of barrel effect (which is the only con I found so far and you can easily correct it), great lens. I got it for around 400$. It is like a steal. Altogether Sigma lenses are much cheaper and same or higher quality compared to Sony's. I got also 60mm 2.8, but the 30mm is the one that's truly outstanding.
Another vote for the the 30mm f1.4 sigma. It's a seriously good lense.
Although in comparison to art lineup for Sony slightly overpriced, maybe the wideness justifies it. It is common for these kind of wide apertures to have many optical problems, and the Sigma's looking very well in that segment.
Good choice on the A6000 and 19. Add a Samyang 12, Sigma 30 and Sigma 60 and you have one of the best bang for buck prime kits ever.
As you shooting more and more picture, you will realized bigger sensor still is a big plus. In this case, A6000 (aps c) is better than G7(m43).
Even M43 has some good lenses, for everyday use, normally just one( We are not pro photographer, do not think you'll need all the lenses). In this case, either A6000 or G7 is fine.
But, if you think you will have more fun(Upgrade camera/lenses etc.) after this first mirrorless camera, go with Sony, get A6000. You can buy Sony full frame lenses after you know what you are shooting, when you get bored with A6000 (aps-c), you can still keep those lenses and buy a full frame Sony mirrorless camera(A7r II or whatever the latest one).
Also, if you want to shoot 4k video, buy G7. If you want to have a camera that focus very fast, buy A6000.
Conclusion, if you just want a camera, A6000 and G7 are both a good camera to own. But if you think maybe you will learn more about photography, or upgrade your equipment in the future, go with Sony, they get both aps-c and full frame camera/lenses.
Yah, I just bought an a6000, I am pleased with it so far. the menu is a little confusing though
It's a sony! Their menu's are always confusing at first. I've owned 3 sony apsc dslr cameras. I recently switched to the olympus omd em 10 mark 2 and boy does the menu take some getting used to after my sonys :p
I had Sony NEX-6 and now have A6000. It is very good image wise. Focusing is snappy. Lens selection is somewhat limited. You wanna get 2-3 spare batteries, they are small and won't take much space in your pocket. The camera itself is very fast, light and pleasant to use. Before deciding on Sony - I looked at MFT or M4/3 camp. However I cannot live with such a small sensor. And fullframe was out of reach for me financially. So I have APS-C. My lenses are 18-200OSS, 35F1.8, Sigma 60F2.8. I also bought tiny flash HVL-20, as built-in flash is blocked by bigger lenses. I shoot RAW and process using DxO software. Sony gives you free license for CaptureOne RAW software. Both are good. Adobe Lightroom will not impress you with results out of the box - you will need to tweak it.
I hike on the Tahoe Rim a lot and take Euro vacations. I have a Pany GX1 with the 24 pancake lens (and the 50-150 telephoto), and one consideration is that with the pancake lens, it easily fits in my jacket pocket for hiking or vacations. The small size of even the kit lens is a consideration with the 4/3 format. That said, I don't see how you can go wrong with either the G7 or Sony, unless you are a professional.
These days, its hard to go wrong with just about any camera system. As someone above mentions, the lenses that are available ultimately outweigh the camera itself because you will end up spending far more on lenses than the camera body, just like an audio system where you end up spending more on media (CDs, records, etc.) than on the equipment.
I am partial to the micro four thirds (MFT) system for several reasons. First of all, you have two major manufacturers, Olympus and Panasonic, that have committed to the system. Second, as one of the early mirrorless systems, there is a huge variety of lenses available. Third, the lens prices are much more reasonable compared to Sony, Zeiss, etc.
I think one of the most exciting developments in digital cameras has been in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which Olympus invented and started manufacturing in the EM5 many years ago. IBIS allows you to take legacy glass (e.g., older glass lenses designed for film), mount them with an adapter on your camera, and have the camera compensate for camera shake. Most other camera system use in-lens stabilization, where the IS is built-in to the lens, so only newer lenses have it. IBIS has so revolutionized the industry that Sony, Panasonic, and others have now adopted it in some of their cameras. When Sony starts copying something last year in their high-end cameras that Olympus had in a camera over 5 years ago, you can draw your own conclusions ...
For your budget, I would suggest the Olympus EM10 II, with 5 axis IBIS, at a lower price than you can get IBIS in a Sony camera. If you can increase your budget slightly, check out the Panasonic GX85.
I have heard many good things about Fuji and certainly Sony, Nikon, and Canon all have excellent mirrorless offerings, so its hard to go wrong. But check out the MFT system and the prices of lenses in MFT vs comparable lenses in other systems. Here is the full MFT catalog: http://www.four-thirds.org/en/common/pdf/catalog2017_en.pdf
A lot of really good stuff here. So I am just coming in off my own personal experience. I got into photography as a hobby a couple years ago to distract from my digital design work and I went with a more affordable option. I chose the Sony a6000. Bought a kit on craigslist and shot with it for two years. I had all the lenses I needed to shoot anything I wanted, however in the end, I still found myself gravitating toward Fuji. The only reason I didn't go that route to begin with was the prices of the lenses and back then the X-T1 was their main (out of my price range, expensive) flagship mirrorless camera. It was for a hobby after all, I didn't plan on shooting weddings or anything and I don't have small fast moving busy bodies. Now that the X-T2 is out. I found a used X-T1 body on craigslist for $500 and have been slowly building my lenses back up. I couldn't be happier. I am kicking myself for going with the a6000 even though the performance, customization and size was there, I really didn't enjoy the experience of shooting with it and found where I cheaped out on the lenses...my photos paid for it.
In the end, the a6000 felt like a point-n-shoot, as that was typically how I found myself shooting with it. The X-T1 feels like I am crafting a photo. Everything is there to really dial in what you want the shot to look like. It gave me my creativity back without having to fiddle with the menu screen ultimately missing the shot all together.
Now I am not saying, go with Fuji! Go with Fuji! I realize that brand wasn't it wasn't in your two initial options, so this is more of my own cautionary tale. How you shoot is just as important as what you are shooting with.
As always, the body means nothing compared to the lenses. If you feel strongly about image quality, choose a body that will allow you to expand into some high end glass. Sony will open you to the world of Zeiss, for example. You may not be able to afford it now, but you will thank me later if you go cheap on the body and spend on the glass. Think of it like buying an audio system - skrimp in the electronics to afford the best speakers you can. Speakers affect sound the most, just as lenses affect image quality the most. Good luck.
Be careful here... I truly believed this but now I'm careful to pair my lenses with my camera. I shoot a crop Canon and some of my "kit-type" lenses outperform my pro lenses in sharpness for much less. sdp.io/tutorials is a great place to start.
price wise they are ultimate bargains and yes as noted G7 has no inbuilt image stabilizer but also 4/3 lenses all compatible. I got G7 for its video capability where Panasonic shines And it was the same argument I heard so basically if video -panny if photo - Sony (key pt frame size )
Don't forget about Olympus which has in body stabilization (best in class) and the best MFT lenses by far. I have both a Sony and Olympus and the Sony is a very good casual camera with a lot of friendly features but they do not have lenses available which are in the same league as those from Olympus and also from Panasonic. The Olympus/Pansasonic lenses are not compatible with Sony. For serious use, I always turn to my Olympus. Image quality competes with those from the larger sensor. Olympus is not as good with high ISO (low light) photos but their in-body stabilization does help tremendously in that you can stop down one or more stops because of it and thus get more light into the lens. Have fun! I should also add that the lens from Olympus and Panasonic are much smaller for the same equivalent focal length than those for Sony because the MFT system mathematically permits much smaller focal lengths. So if being compact and light plus having the best lenses are most important, than Olympus/Panasonic would be best option.
Load 1 more comment
Sincerely beg to differ especially taking price and portability into the equation and Olympus and Panasonic have some excellent primes too with no need for the lens to be stabilized when on an Olympus body. I'd recommend doing searches that review lens systems. Olympus is very highly regarded and amazingly compact which is the main reason to go with a MFT system otherwise just lug around a traditional DSRL or go with the mirror less Sony which is in the middle size categor.
Olympus has professional quality glass, both micro four-thirds and legacy. In addition, the micro thirds universe has Leica designed lenses that Panasonic manufactures.
I love Sony a6000 11 fps for capturing kids and action events.
Definitely don't count out Fujifilm. A growing number of professional photographers are shelving their full frames for Fujifilm - myself included. The APSC sensor has come a long way, and Fuji's prime lens line up is unmatched. And of course, there are always adapters as well. I cover about 12 weddings a year with an XT2 and a XPRO2 and their line up of fast prime lenses. Weatherproof, light, powerful, and honestly beautiful pieces of engineering.
Load 5 more comments
I know you're trying to defend your micro 4/3 purchase after the fact that the format is more or less dead compared to APSC but, please read what I wrote before responding. You don't need to buy a modular lens with the X100T.
What's up with the passive aggressive reactions? Anyway Olympus was able to have the biggest mirror less market share with almost 35% last year with a dead system. I don't consider that dead at all. But none of that matters to me since 90% of pictures taken are viewed on mobile phones. And never printed. So my 16 mp is plenty. You probably have completely different demands from your system and the mft system obviously isn't for you. But just because you don't like it doesn't make it obsolete or dead.
I personally own the G7, and I can say that it truly is a great camera especially for the price. If you're willing to make the sacrifice of a smaller sensor, and to not have in camera stabilization for pretty much the same quality of video as the GH4, then I'd 100% recommend this camera. Also, in terms of low light, for a micro four thirds camera it does surprisingly well and considerably better than the GH4. One disadvantage is that you will be limited to MFT lenses which frankly speaking, there aren't many of (well not as many lenses for Canon EF or Nikon F mounts). Sure you can use an adapter for other lens types to MFT, but unless you're willing to shell out $400 for a metabones speed booster, you're not going to get auto focus or aperture control.
Do I recommend this camera for pictures as in your case? Well the auto focus is pretty quick and accurate and if you're seeking a telephoto type image, you get double "zoom" (thanks to its crop factor of approx. 2). If you're going to be taking mostly wide angle pictures, Panasonic offers some reasonable priced primes which are fast as hell and will do the job. If you're going to need wide zooms, the only ones Panasonic makes are their kit lenses which frankly speaking are decent, but they really won't compete with the vast array of lenses of different focal lengths of Sony's arsenal of compatible lenses.
Have I been talking only about the G7? Yes, and I was considering one of those two cameras (those exact two) just like you are right now back when I was deciding to get a camera. My choosing of the G7? Well I wanted a solid video camera, which in terms of video the G7 is definitely better than the a6000. The G7 also had a microphone jack, and the screen was flip out as well.
In terms of pictures, it's pretty 50/50. The Panasonic has great low light, fast auto focus, an extremely accurate viewfinder, and has tons of shooting modes than many professionals can even take advantage of. The bad side? Lack of in camera stabilization, MFT sensor (depends on your use case), and not as many lenses. I have a friend who owns the Sony a6000 with the 16-50mm lens and both cameras are great. The G7 seems to be more bang for the buck in my opinion and has more features, but again, this all depends on your use case. Sony has a reputation for having great auto focus so that could be a big factor for you as well. Go with your gut. Either way, you're not gonna have a bad camera for sure.
Load 4 more comments
If you're not going to be doing much videography work, then it really isn't. And even if you are going to, are you going to be using a 4K monitor or screen of some sort to view this footage on? 4K is nice sure, but if you don't need it then I'd go for the a6000. Also, if you're just going to be making home videos or videos that you aren't planning to do much "touching-up" on or if you don't care what the resolution is as long as you have a nice clean image, then 4K is not necessary for you. Another factor to consider is if you're going to be editing said 4K footage, do you have a machine capable of doing so? Because 4K footage is very hard to work with (especially at the 100 mbs rate of the G7), and you won't be able to use any old casual use web browsing laptop (at least not effectively).
The a6000 has 24 MP which frankly speaking, megapixels after a certain point doesn't really matter to sharpness. Like Vira said, the sharpness of an image comes down to the type of lens you use. With 24 MP as compared to the 16 MP of the G7, you're not going to be able to tell much of a difference with the naked eye. Now, if you are going to be zooming in and cropping in to your pictures, then go for the a6000, because then you have more pixels to zoom in clearly on as compared to the G7, but for sharpness, the fact that the a6000 has an APS-C sensor, you will be getting a very solid picture. Take a look at a cellphone for example. The iPhone 7 is capable of producing pictures at 12 MP. Compare that to a DSLR which is taking pictures at 36 MP. To the naked eye, (hypothetically if all given circumstances were the same) when you compared the two pictures, in terms of quality you won't see a huge difference. But when you zoom in, the DSLR will stay much sharper as compared to the iPhone as you keep zooming in. Same works for printing pictures as well. If you are going to be printing your pictures on a larger paper, finer details are easier to see so your best bet for an instant like that is to go for the a6000.
Boil it down to your needs. Do you need more room to play with cropping and printing size and zooming? Then I'd go for the a6000. Do you need clean, crispy video which you plan on viewing on a large screen? Then I'd go for the G7. Also, if you plan on recording 4K, be prepared to spend some hefty amount of money for a fast, large SD card, because 4K @ 100 mbps is not a small file size...
AgniSarode's latest points are also what I wanted to cover but was avoiding as I didn't want to drop a long essay and overload. There's more aswell but will keep it this simplified. There's a lot more going on in photography and background than one sees.
Adding to his comment about storage, with today's MP, you'll defo need a decent file storage regardless. MPs and Vid Reso are growing at a fast rate. Phones never been commercially capable at getting photos like you see now, compared roughly to a decade back. This includes cameras, 100+ MPs are looming about, 12K+ video, and its all still advancing. Make sure you get a good quality one, last thing you'd want is it dying on you, taking all your photos and videos with it. I know from experience, it'll hit you when you'll least expect it.
They're both good cameras to grow into. The sony is the nicer choice from experience. Have you considered any other types of cameras? fixed prime lens cameras etc?
Load 4 more comments
Those two you have are still good to grow into. I'm guessing you have an urge to upgrade to something a little lighter and less bulky.
Yah that Is my exact reasoning. even though they are pretty compact dslrs. I would like to be able to strap them to my belt without hanging off too much