Sony A6000

[pierces]

Has anyone bought (and used) an underwater housing case? I just bought the Meikon case for the A6000 and received it today. I am looking forward to trying it out before our cruise in February :)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Please post your experiences with it and of course, photos!

 

I am not a water fan but a new place to take photos might tempt me.

 

Dave

[JessandLevi]

Please post your experiences with it and of course, photos!

 

I am not a water fan but a new place to take photos might tempt me.

 

Dave

 

Once I figure it out I'll use it at the pool/beach first then see if I can find someplace underwater.

 

Do you think I need the red filter that came with it if I'm not diving? I read it was for diving deep but I won't be doing that LOL

[pierces]

Once I figure it out I'll use it at the pool/beach first then see if I can find someplace underwater.

 

Do you think I need the red filter that came with it if I'm not diving? I read it was for diving deep but I won't be doing that LOL

 

At snorkeling depths, I don't think you'll need the filter. There should be enough red light left that you can fix any color balance issues in Photoshop.

 

Dave

[JessandLevi]

At snorkeling depths, I don't think you'll need the filter. There should be enough red light left that you can fix any color balance issues in Photoshop.

 

 

 

Dave

 

 

Thanks for your input. I'll bring it along just in case :)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Victress2007]

Has anyone bought (and used) an underwater housing case? I just bought the Meikon case for the A6000 and received it today. I am looking forward to trying it out before our cruise in February :)

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Let us know, I've got it on my wishlist before our Hawaiian cruise next year.

 

Vic

[JessandLevi]

Let us know, I've got it on my wishlist before our Hawaiian cruise next year.

 

Vic

 

I don't have any pictures on my phone but we used it in the pool and it took pretty good pictures (I'm still learning). Everything stays dry and there is an alarm with flashing red light if it gets a leak.

 

It is pretty bulky but it's no big deal to me.

 

I can't wait to use it more. I would recommend this. At least with this I can now take pictures of my son in the pool/ocean. He's almost 4 and loves to splash so I was never able to take pictures unless I got out and semi dried off.

[tommui987]

take pictures of my son in the pool/ocean. He's almost 4 and loves to splash

 

In one of his lectures (The Great Courses) Joel Sartore - National Geographic - used a small fish tank (empty of course!) and places his camera in the tank to take pool shots.

[Victress2007]

I bought a sm/med size RFID backpack (on sale) at the Container store the other day. It has light padding, I'm assuming for the RFID properties. It is much softer than a camera backpack and much more comfortable to wear and carry. I used the dividers from my camera bag to divide the main compartment. I used sticky velcro to attach the dividers.

 

I'm not the most careful person in the world with a camera, I think it's a tool (albeit not a cheap tool) to be used.

 

It has a lot more space to carry a wallet, phone, maybe even water that any other case I have seen - other than a super hard and super heavy camera backpack. I can even tuck my tablet in the pocket on the back for

traveling.

 

Any reason I absolutely shouldn't do this?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

Vic

[jandlcruise]

I have a Sony a6000 that I got in September. I am still learning how to use all of the functions and have taken a couple of photography classes. I recently took it on a cruise in May and was slightly disappointed in some of the photos. I was trying to use mostly manual functions and didn't always get the settings right. I chalk that up to learning curve. The one thing that I did struggle with was taking my camera with me when I walked around on the ship. I didn't want to lug the camera bag around but wanted the camera available for candid shots. I ended up using my phone for some pictures. Does anyone have advice on a good way to carry your camera around the ship in the safest-lightest way?

[The Viking]

I always use a sling, in my case from Op/Tech USA. I have attached a battery pouch from same vendor on the sling. There is room for a spare memory card in this pouch.

 

This way I am prepared while walking around the ship, or a shore, with both hands free.

[pierces]

Any reason I absolutely shouldn't do this?

 

 

Thanks,

Vic

 

I have started wearing a nearly padding-free waist pack with my other body, batteries and a lens in it along with the main camera on a BlackRapid strap. Your bag should be fine for general day use but I would use something with more protection for the origin to destination travel.

 

Dave

Edited June 14, 2016 by pierces

[pierces]

I have a Sony a6000 that I got in September. I am still learning how to use all of the functions and have taken a couple of photography classes. I recently took it on a cruise in May and was slightly disappointed in some of the photos. I was trying to use mostly manual functions and didn't always get the settings right. I chalk that up to learning curve. The one thing that I did struggle with was taking my camera with me when I walked around on the ship. I didn't want to lug the camera bag around but wanted the camera available for candid shots. I ended up using my phone for some pictures. Does anyone have advice on a good way to carry your camera around the ship in the safest-lightest way?

 

As mentioned in my note above in response to Victress, I got this waist-pack to carry my second body around. I think it would be fine for your purpose. It will hold my A6000 with the 55-210 zoom plus batteries and one other small lens.

 

Get a wrist strap for the camera and you should be gold!

 

Dave

Edited June 14, 2016 by pierces

[Victress2007]

I have started wearing a nearly padding-free waist pack with my other body, batteries and a lens in it along with the main camera on a BlackRapid strap. Your bag should be fine for general day use but I would use something with more protection for the origin to destination travel.

 

Dave

 

This pack actually has more padding than my laptop bag, which is what I used last time I traveled. I may be able to put this bag into the larger one, thereby carrying more STUFF!

 

I do want a wrist strap, the vast majority of the time I carry the shoulder strap wrapped around my hand. I was in the Navy a lifetime ago and got used to carrying anything I needed in my left hand, leaving my right free to salute. It must have been pretty natural for me because I do it to this day. :)

 

Vic

[jandlcruise]

This pack actually has more padding than my laptop bag, which is what I used last time I traveled. I may be able to put this bag into the larger one, thereby carrying more STUFF!

 

I do want a wrist strap, the vast majority of the time I carry the shoulder strap wrapped around my hand. I was in the Navy a lifetime ago and got used to carrying anything I needed in my left hand, leaving my right free to salute. It must have been pretty natural for me because I do it to this day. :)

 

Vic

 

Thanks so much for the info! I have ordered the wrist strap from Amazon and I am hoping with a small bag that will be the best thing to try. I appreciate the input.

Liz

[jandlcruise]

I currently am using the kit lens that came with my camera but want to get another lens. I have seen many opinions about whether it needs to be a zoom or a prime lens and of course the more I read the more I go back and forth. Does anyone have any advice for me? Also, I rarely use Auto ISO but read recently that it can serve a purpose if you limit how high it will go. I have read the camera user guide (as user un-friendly as it is) and played around with the camera but it seems that Auto ISO is hard to limit. Can anyone give me advice on these two things??

Thanks!

Liz

[havoc315]

I currently am using the kit lens that came with my camera but want to get another lens. I have seen many opinions about whether it needs to be a zoom or a prime lens and of course the more I read the more I go back and forth. Does anyone have any advice for me? Also, I rarely use Auto ISO but read recently that it can serve a purpose if you limit how high it will go. I have read the camera user guide (as user un-friendly as it is) and played around with the camera but it seems that Auto ISO is hard to limit. Can anyone give me advice on these two things??

Thanks!

Liz

 

If you want maximum image quality -- sharpest possible photos, greater low light capabilities, greater ability to blur backgrounds, then you go with prime lenses. I do the majority of my shooting with prime lenses.

If you want convenience, less need to foot zoom, less fear of missing a shot from being too close or too far, use zooms.

 

For example, I recently did a shoot of wedding portraits. I exclusively used an 85mm prime lens. I love the focal length, I love this particular lens. I got stunning shots, soft blurred backgrounds, beautiful rendering. But I had to constantly get closer and further away with my feet. I did some group shots of the entire wedding party-- I had to back up 50 feet to get them in. and then step up 45 feet to get a headshot of the bride.

A zoom, depending on the range of the zoom, decreases the need to rely on zooming in and out with your feet.

 

But I will stress the otherwise superiority of the prime. The absolute best $2000 - $3000 zoom will generally still be optically inferior to a $500 prime.

 

The problem I find with the a6000/6300 as a system, is generally a lack of great aps-c lens choices. Sony has concentrated on great FE full frame lenses, and they would work great on the a6000, but they are overly expensive and heavy for an aps-c camera.

 

In terms of auto ISO, not sure what trouble you're having. You just go to the menu and set the highest ISO you find acceptable.

[jandlcruise]

If you want maximum image quality -- sharpest possible photos, greater low light capabilities, greater ability to blur backgrounds, then you go with prime lenses. I do the majority of my shooting with prime lenses.

If you want convenience, less need to foot zoom, less fear of missing a shot from being too close or too far, use zooms.

 

For example, I recently did a shoot of wedding portraits. I exclusively used an 85mm prime lens. I love the focal length, I love this particular lens. I got stunning shots, soft blurred backgrounds, beautiful rendering. But I had to constantly get closer and further away with my feet. I did some group shots of the entire wedding party-- I had to back up 50 feet to get them in. and then step up 45 feet to get a headshot of the bride.

A zoom, depending on the range of the zoom, decreases the need to rely on zooming in and out with your feet.

 

But I will stress the otherwise superiority of the prime. The absolute best $2000 - $3000 zoom will generally still be optically inferior to a $500 prime.

 

The problem I find with the a6000/6300 as a system, is generally a lack of great aps-c lens choices. Sony has concentrated on great FE full frame lenses, and they would work great on the a6000, but they are overly expensive and heavy for an aps-c camera.

 

In terms of auto ISO, not sure what trouble you're having. You just go to the menu and set the highest ISO you find acceptable.

 

 

Thanks for your input, that does help me. As to the ISO question, I am having a hard time finding where to limit it in the menu.

[havoc315]

Thanks for your input, that does help me. As to the ISO question, I am having a hard time finding where to limit it in the menu.

 

ISO right click to auto, right click again to adjust the range limits.

 

And to add to the discussion of adding a new lens, what capability are you looking to add? more reach? superior quality? wider? better low light? better background separation for portraits? better macro capability?

[jandlcruise]

ISO right click to auto, right click again to adjust the range limits.

 

And to add to the discussion of adding a new lens, what capability are you looking to add? more reach? superior quality? wider? better low light? better background separation for portraits? better macro capability?

 

I am not sure if I need more low light capability or more reach. Wondering if one is more useful than the other.

[havoc315]

I am not sure if I need more low light capability or more reach. Wondering if one is more useful than the other.

 

It's like saying... what is more useful, a car, a cruiseship or an airplane.

Each has it's own use and purpose. So it depends on your own needs.

 

Personally, I rarely need a lot of reach. I do some birding, and shoot my kids sports -- for that, I need reach. But that's all I use reach for. 95% of the rest of my shooting is landscapes and portraits, topping out around 85mm. So personally, ultrawide (the Sony 10-18), low light and portrait are my priorities (thus I also have the Zeiss 24/1.8 and Sony 50/1.8).

 

Of course, you can get reach and low light -- the new Sony 70-200/2.8. Though it will weigh a brick, and cost about $3,000.

[jandlcruise]

Thanks for the input on ISO, I just didn't know how to limit it! As far as the lens, I guess I am asking what lens people found the most useful for cruise photos as well as others. Mostly I photograph outside, landscapes, architecture, etc. I have had the kit lens-16-50 for 8 months and have not needed more reach but have needed more light, especially at night and indoors so for that reason I am leaning toward the prime but then I think zoom might be beneficial for travel photos since we do travel a lot.

[pierces]

Thanks for the input on ISO, I just didn't know how to limit it! As far as the lens, I guess I am asking what lens people found the most useful for cruise photos as well as others. Mostly I photograph outside, landscapes, architecture, etc. I have had the kit lens-16-50 for 8 months and have not needed more reach but have needed more light, especially at night and indoors so for that reason I am leaning toward the prime but then I think zoom might be beneficial for travel photos since we do travel a lot.

 

Until recently, I used the 16-50PZ as my everyday lens and though I now use the 18-105 f/4 most of the time, I kept the 16-50 for when I don't want to tote around the bigger lens. Maybe I just got a great copy, but I never found much to complain about except for the speed. To offset this I picked up the 50mm f/1.8 and a Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 to use when light was a real issue.

 

The trip in the link below was shot with the 16-50, 55-210, 12mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.8 and a few tith a Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 fisheye. I was pretty happy with the results.

 

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/allure

 

For reference, the 50mm and 12mm cost less than $600 for both.

 

For comparison, the trip in this link was shot mostly with the same lenses except with the 18-105mm instead of the 16-50mm:

 

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/allure2016

 

Maybe a fast 50mm and a fast wide angle would round out your travel kit?

 

 

Dave

[havoc315]

Thanks for the input on ISO, I just didn't know how to limit it! As far as the lens, I guess I am asking what lens people found the most useful for cruise photos as well as others. Mostly I photograph outside, landscapes, architecture, etc. I have had the kit lens-16-50 for 8 months and have not needed more reach but have needed more light, especially at night and indoors so for that reason I am leaning toward the prime but then I think zoom might be beneficial for travel photos since we do travel a lot.

 

Native APS-C primes can be great for travel, because they are so small and light. I'm going to Universal Studios in 2 weeks -- they are pretty camera unfriendly, no camera bags on rides.

So I intend to stick the Sony A6300 in one pocket of cargo shorts, and a couple prime lenses in a couple more pockets.

 

For cruising, I know many people talk about needing extra reach. Personally, outside of Alaska where I wanted to do some wildlife, extra reach is never an issue on a cruise. Even for Alaska, I used ultrawide more than I used telephoto.

 

So it comes down to style, personally I strongly prefer ultrawide for interesting landscapes on cruises.

 

None of these are the A6000, but they are all ultrawide:

 

Disney Fantasy at Castaway Cay by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Dawn at Night.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

alaska-764-HDR.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Canada Place sunset by Adam Brown, on Flickr

[havoc315]

So comparison time, on the Sony A6300, between the 16-50 and a prime lens.

First, some caveats, I don't *expect* the 16-50 to match a much more expensive prime lens.

The question though is, apart from the low light capability of a prime lens, is the prime lens *worth* the extra money over the kit lens?

If low light or narrow DOF isn't an issue for the shooter, are you just as well off using the 16-50 compared to the prime lens?

Or is the prime lens worth the extra cost and inconvenience?

 

Well, I believe you get what you pay for in this regard. If you aren't nitpicky, the 16-50 can deliver perfectly acceptable images. In smaller prints and web images, you may never notice a significant difference.

But if you are nitpicky, there are clear differences in image quality, even when using the 16-50 under ideal circumstances.

Obviously, using a fast prime will be preferable if you need to show at wide aperture.

 

But what about shooting at a mid focal length, in bright day light, stopping down to F8?

 

I was at the ballgame.... I took 2 shots of the field at F8. Using the 16-50, I shot at 22mm. (I wish there were exact markings on the lens). Then I took the same shot with a 24mm prime. In theory, at F8, the 16-50 should be at its best.

 

Here are a couple crops from the shots:

 

Corner from the prime lens:

DSC03624-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Corner from the 16-50:

DSC03612-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Near center of the frame on the 16-50:

DSC03612.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Same shot with the prime:

DSC03624.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

So this is why I totally avoid the 16-50 kit lens unless I'm desperate for a compact zoom lens. In fact, I didn't even own the 16-50 for a while. I just re-purchased it for a singular purpose -- I'm going to Universal Orlando. They don't allow loose cameras or camera bags on many of the rides. The only way I can pocket the A6300, is with the 16-50. Even the prime lenses are too big.

[jandlcruise]

I definitely see that the Prime is the way to go for my next lens. Thanks for the photos and information.