Sony A6500 and NEX cameras: same sensor ?

[KenLee]

I had an NEX-7 in 2012 and found that once the ISO got past 400, the data I pulled from the shadows was rather noisy. Some photos I made in low light look more like drawings when enlarged substantially.

I'm considering getting the current model in the series, an A6500 (or one of the more affordable older models like a 6000 or 6300) but am less interested if the sensor is basically unchanged after all these years.

Looking at DxO Mark, I don't see much evidence of a change.

Does anyone know if the sensor itself - particularly its low-light performance - has improved as new models have been released in this series ? Or have improvements been confined mainly to the new features like controls, menus, shooting speed, stabilization etc. ?

Thanks !

 

[k-hawinkler]

I still have NEX-5N, NEX-7, and a6300 and find the a6300 significantly improved with regards to higher ISO performance. YMMV.

 

[Bugleone]

I am just getting to grips with my new a6000 and posted my first pic here a few minutes ago on the 'fun with sony' thread. The pic was made at 1600 iso and my initial feelings are that I will be keeping maximum iso to 1250 with this camera due to noise in the shadows and dark tones....the pic had minimal work in RawTherapee and no NR in either the editor of set on camera.

Previous to this camera I have been using an original NEX 3 which is 14 meg camera against 24 meg for the a6000....my feeling so far is that the NEX 3 makes better images at 1600 iso.

That said, I'm quite sure that you would be able to use a 6xxx series camera at considerably more than 400 iso unless you have VERY stringent standards, in which case you would probably need a FF model....just my thoughts, and it really depends on what your requirements and expectations are I suppose.

 

[Vivek]

Check out the Pentax KP. It will do what you want.

 

[pegelli]

To answer your original question, the 24 MP sensor of the A6300/6500 is definitely better then the NEX7 with regard to high iso noise. It's not only less noise but much better colour fidelity in the shadows. The A6000 is just below that, but still a significant upgrade vs. the NEX7

On the other hand noise appreciation is a very personal matter. I have no problems using my A6000 at ISO's in the range 4000 - 6400, processing the raws in lightroom with the luminance noise slider between 20 and 30 cleans up the noise enough for my taste without killing the details. However other people might cringe at these shots and say they're absolutely unusable.

Two examples:
ISO 6400 (on the A6000 with the lowly 18-55 kit lens)



ISO 4000 (on the A6000 with the even more criticized 16-50 kit lens)


If you're interested send me your email address per PM and I'll be happy to send you a few raw files in the higher iso ranges for you to play with so you can judge for yourself where your cut-off point would be.

 

[ken_vs_ryu]

Here's the dpreview comparison

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...t=1&x=-1.079693324892734&y=1.0899789915966387

 

[KenLee]

Here's the dpreview comparison

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...t=1&x=-1.079693324892734&y=1.0899789915966387

Thanks - that's very helpful !

The A series cameras show an improvement over the NEX-6, but surprisingly, the 6300 seems a little better than the 6500 in some places. I wonder if the difference is due to a different choice of lens, or sample variation, or just where the target fell along the sensor's array.

Comparing the A series to the Alpha 7RII, we see the same basic noise pattern, but because the larger sensor requires less enlargement, we see less apparent noise for images of the same size.

 

[KenLee]

To answer your original question, the 24 MP sensor of the A6300/6500 is definitely better then the NEX7 with regard to high iso noise. It's not only less noise but much better colour fidelity in the shadows. The A6000 is just below that, but still a significant upgrade vs. the NEX7

On the other hand noise appreciation is a very personal matter. I have no problems using my A6000 at ISO's in the range 4000 - 6400, processing the raws in lightroom with the luminance noise slider between 20 and 30 cleans up the noise enough for my taste without killing the details. However other people might cringe at these shots and say they're absolutely unusable.

If you're interested send me your email address per PM and I'll be happy to send you a few raw files in the higher iso ranges for you to play with so you can judge for yourself where your cut-off point would be.

Thanks so much for sending the images ! Using a noise reduction filter certainly improves things !

I'll have to make some large prints from your sample images to really see the effect.

 

[davidstock]

I have an NEX-7 and upgraded to an a6500. The new camera is noticeably better at high ISO, IMO. I'm pretty picky, but I won't hesitate to use the a6500 at up to ISO 800 for high quality 12 x 18 inch prints. I used to try to stay at or below ISO 400 with the NEX-7.

I'm about to exhibit a 12 x 18 inch print shot with the a6500 at ISO 640, processed in ACR and Photoshop with moderate noise reduction settings. The file was extra stressed by some cropping and perspective control. If you put your nose right up to the print, you can see minimal noise in smooth shadow areas. It's monochromatic, very even and looks like it was printed from fine grain film. I could get rid of it completely, but I'd rather err on the side of maximum detail in this case. The print looks fine hanging side by side with prints made from my A7RII files, although on close technical inspection they are not equal.

For print sizes larger than 12 x 18, I'd try to stay at ISO 400 or below. I find the a6500 files at low ISO quite impressive. And it's easier to stay at low ISO because of SS.

 

[KenLee]

Check out the Pentax KP. It will do what you want.

Thank you Vivek !

I downloaded some sample images from the Ricoh web site (Japanese language). Even at ISO 3200 (the highest ISO among the samples) the images have minimal noise. The sample shot at ISO 1600, even when we lighten the low values, is virtually noiseless.

What kind of lenses can we use on that camera please ?

 

[pegelli]

What kind of lenses can we use on that camera please ?

Indeed, an impressive sample at 3200 ISO!

Since it's a DSLR you need Pentax K-mount lenses and you could also use M42 lenses with an adapter. But to make room for the mirror the mount distance is much longer so it's much harder (or even impossible) to adapt all kind of other 3rd party lenses like you can do on a mirrorless camera like Sony-E or Fuji (or M4/3)

 

[KenLee]

Indeed, an impressive sample at 3200 ISO!

Since it's a DSLR you need Pentax K-mount lenses and you could also use M42 lenses with an adapter. But to make room for the mirror the mount distance is much longer so it's much harder (or even impossible) to adapt all kind of other 3rd party lenses like you can do on a mirrorless camera like Sony-E or Fuji (or M4/3)

I was afraid of that.

The Pentax sample images look great with regard to noise, but I wonder whether their lenses are up to the task.

 

[Vivek]

Ken, Before mirrorless, the M42 was the "universal" mount in terms of adaptability. So, the choices when it comes old lenses are huge.

AFAIK, Besides the Zony 24/1.8 there aren't any lenses worth their label or cash for the E mount.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Why not instead use FE lenses? :grin:

 

[Vivek]

Why not instead use FE lenses? :grin:

Overpriced.

The performance difference between Sony and Pentax using the same (Sony!) sensor is substantial.

 

[pegelli]

Chasing the best sensor is a never ending game. :facesmack:

But the samples of the Pentax KP look really impressive.
I wonder how much improvement it brings over the K3/K5.
To see it I guess we'll have to wait until DPReview gets their hand on the camera and produces the studio shot comparisons.