Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think John in Vancouver had it right earlier: Alamy has just changed their active focus on things in the last year and so have no basis for an opinion on this camera. Still, to blow me off with that nonsensical "answer" is not only unhelpful but insulting. 

 

The rest of the posts since then have just been contributors guessing about reasons. 

Edited by Ed Rooney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think John in Vancouver had it right earlier: Alamy has just changed their active focus on things in the last year and so have no basis for an opinion on this camera. Still, to blow me off with that nonsensical "answer" is not only unhelpful but insulting. 

 

The rest of the posts since then have just been contributors guessing about reasons. 

 

You can't really blame anyone for not being able to keep up with camera manufacturers these days. They tend to dish out new models like flavours of the month. But, I agree, rather than giving you a ridiculous answer, MS should have come clean and just said that they hadn't had time to evaluate the NEX-6.

 

This might be a good place for them to start:

 

http://snapsort.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-NEX-6-vs-Sony_Alpha_NEX-5

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I of course will continue to shoot with the NEX-6 and my other Sonys. And I'll not be asking MS for any more information unless it has something to do with the collapse of the stock industry because of the fall of civilization as we know it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's weird! I haven't submitted many (only from inadequate time management on my behalf) but so far I've had no failures with the NEX 6 and the 16-50mm lens, and although the RAW files do have some distortion problems they are easily corrected in Photoshop before submitting to Alamy. JPEGs come out already corrected. In fact I'm getting better results from the NEX 6 than from my Canon 550D - much sharper and less noise. I was disappointed with images from the 550D from the day I bought it.

 

That seems to be the general consensus regarding the 16-50 zoom, Carole -- i.e. it's not the best lens around, but it does the job.

 

It's encouraging to hear about your experiences since I'm planning on buying the NEX-6 at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see any of the NEX's on the "unsuitable" list. 

 

I remember a thread on the old forum about the Fuji X10. Some people, including myself thought that files from the camera should be acceptable. Alamy resolutely refused to accept it, however, a couple of members piped up and said that they had submitted pictures from the X10 and that they had been accepted. Work that out!  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's weird! I haven't submitted many (only from inadequate time management on my behalf) but so far I've had no failures with the NEX 6 and the 16-50mm lens, and although the RAW files do have some distortion problems they are easily corrected in Photoshop before submitting to Alamy. JPEGs come out already corrected. In fact I'm getting better results from the NEX 6 than from my Canon 550D - much sharper and less noise. I was disappointed with images from the 550D from the day I bought it.

 

Carole, we seem to be left with the old proverb, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." We'll have to do our own research, discuss things here in the forum, buy the item, and do some intensive testing. I'm very happy with all three of my NEX cameras . . . and not at all happy with most of the lenses Sony has on offer.

 

Wouldn't I just love to have a high-quality 16-50 f/2.8 zoom, but there is no such thing. My guess is you will have to be careful of your f/stops using that lens, the way I am with my 16 pancake. But people are using that zoom, so good luck to you. 

 

Richard, the Alamy "unsuitable" list is mostly a bunch of budget P&S pocket cameras, all a long way from anything able to pass Alamy QC. 

 

Sempre avanti!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, I fantasize about being able to purchase a fast, high quality lens (or maybe 2) covering approx. 16-300mm zoom range. Something extremely lightweight so my ageing back doesn't feel like it's carrying a pack of bricks but still gives corner to corner sharpness, no distortion, good colour rendition, no chromatic aberration etc - and of course all this for a reasonable price.

 

But I suppose if someone come up with perfection we'd have few challenges left! Ah well, nice to have dreams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.