Why the A7s cost 4x more than the a6000?

B

benn

Well-known member
I bought yesterday an a6000. I still have an A7s and an A7r. Because I have two APS-c lenses beside the FE 24-70mmm I need to close the gap between the A7s for stills and the A7r. The a6000 is a nice camera with an astonishing still quality and an amazing 1920x1080 quality. Its hard to decide if the A7s video is really better. For sure the a6000 has a better video than the A7r.
However, I had not enough time to test it, but the first impression says: Why are the fullframe As so much more expensive. OK I know, only AVCHD, but zebra, peaking etc almost the same user interface than the big As. Ok, no audio for mics .
But theoretical SONY is able to create a 1500 Euro camera with every thing your heart desires.....
Benn
 
Full frame is always more expensive, sensor is twice the size, which is exponentially more expensive to produce due to lower yield (greater chance of a flaw in the chip). Also the market always gets smaller for more expensive products, further driving up the price required for the manufacturer to get a good return on their investment. Full frame is worth it though as it generally has 1 stop more DR and sensitivity due to being double the imaging area.
 
Last edited:
It's four times the price because Sony decided it should be so. Now, the question is: is it worth 4x as much to you? For me, it is, because I want the clean and sharp image and the DR and the codec. YMMV.
 
benn said:
I bought yesterday an a6000. I still have an A7s and an A7r. Because I have two APS-c lenses beside the FE 24-70mmm I need to close the gap between the A7s for stills and the A7r. The a6000 is a nice camera with an astonishing still quality and an amazing 1920x1080 quality. Its hard to decide if the A7s video is really better. For sure the a6000 has a better video than the A7r.
However, I had not enough time to test it, but the first impression says: Why are the fullframe As so much more expensive. OK I know, only AVCHD, but zebra, peaking etc almost the same user interface than the big As. Ok, no audio for mics .
But theoretical SONY is able to create a 1500 Euro camera with every thing your heart desires.....
Benn
Click to expand...

Recognizing I personally need to focus more on improving my skills than "shopping" so much for the "right" camera, I noticed this post about the Sony a6000. A friend recently bought one and one of his reasons was "in this age of electronic cameras why do I need a mirror (as in DSLR) anymore that just needs to flip out of the way?" So, that is my question, what are the advantages/disadvantages of mirrorless vs mirror DSLR? One thought that did occur to me was with the EVF of mirrorless you really can see what picture or video you will be taking (including all the adjustments you may have made to settings) through the viewfinder whereas with DSLR the optical VF will not show you the picture you will be taking--I guess you rely on the LCD to do that? I did buy a Canon 70D by the way, but I can still return it. Dennis
 
That is one of the big reasons that I got the a7s. The evf. It really fits my style of shooting. I hate looking through lcds. A7s over the A6000 simply because it is full frame and I like the dof, better light and lens options.
 
For me, the a6000 is A LOT better than the 70D. The image is cleaner (less aliasing/moire, though still some) and sharper, it has around a stop better usable DR, it has an EVF (the OVF on the 70D is useless for video), and it can take a speedbooster if you want the FoV and DoF of a full-frame sensor. Colors are nice on both, and the codecs are of similar quality.

Test charts from www.slashcam.de:

a6000:
sony_a6000.jpg


70D:
1204-ISO340-ISO340.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top