.

[Guest]

.

[Allan Bell]

The Sony should be OK but the kit lens is rubbish.

 

Allan

[spacecadet]

I've been passing QC for years with nothing but kit lenses.

If Allan means that the E-mount kit lens is especially deficient, how about a low shutter count second-hand A58 with the A-mount 18-55.

[Allan Bell]

I've been passing QC for years with nothing but kit lenses.

If Allan means that the E-mount kit lens is especially deficient, how about a low shutter count second-hand A58 with the A-mount 18-55.

 

 

Yes Mark the E-mount 16-50 has a bad reputation. In fact Sony are virtually giving it away now.  That is why I went for the Zeiss E-mount 16-70mm which gives better IQ. That and extra reach on my A6000.

 

Allan

[John Mitchell]

I use the original Sony SEL18-55 (on a NEX-6) for most of my general photography. It's well-made and I find it to be as good optically as any lens in that focal range that I've ever owned (seems I got a good copy). It's also a manual zoom, which I prefer to power zooms. You can pick up a used 18-55 for a song. I never liked the 16-50, but then I don't have one.

BTW, if you're on a tight budget like me, you might want to consider looking for a used NEX-6 rather than an a5000. The NEX-6 has an electronic viewfinder, which makes a huge difference.

Real-world review of the 18-55 here.

[Johnnie5]

The Nikon D3300 would be a good choice and the kit lens is fine for Alamy and passes QC with no problems.  The photo below was taken with the Nikon D7000 and one of the newer version 18-55 kit lenses.  That is a bright overcast sky background so flare doesn't seem to be a big problem.  If I was just starting in stock photography I would buy one of the lower priced Nikons.  There are lots of cheap used lenses out there to fit it.  The D5500 has a tilt out screen which can be handy.  The Sony A5000/A6000 would be a good travel camera.  There is $100 off on the Sony A5000 right now here in the US.  John  

[Guest]

On 06/03/2017 at 18:09, Johnnie5 said:

 

.

[Guest]

On 06/03/2017 at 16:43, Allan Bell said:

 

.

[Johnnie5]

I have been researching the Sony A6000 for my niece who wants to take a good camera on a trip to Italy, but I have no first hand knowledge of the Sony Kit lens.  There has been some mention in various forums and reviews of the kit lens not being the sharpest lens choice.  I am sure with some other lens it would take great photos. 

[MizBrown]

I've passed QC with shots taken with an a3000 Sony and the 18-55mm kit lens.  I've even passed QC with the much reviled 16mm lens on the Sony a3000.   I prefer to use an a6000 with a Sony/Zeiss 24mm lens, which is a fantastic lens, but not cheap.  The a6000 is a wonderfully discreet camera.  I've also passed QC with a Panasonic GF1 and its kit lenses and with an older D300 (12 MP) and with two scans from Hasselblad shots.   The black Sony 18-55mm lenses made in the last couple of years seem to be fine.

 

There's something to be said for buying into the Nikon or Canon ecosystems -- I have Sony because higher end Canon and Nikon bodies are unobtainable where I live (Nicaragua) without importing them (and having to pay shipping and customs and now, pro camera fees).  The Sony mirrorless APSC cameras are very good of their kind; the Sony mirrorless full frame cameras approach the smaller Canons in size (I have one, but the a6000 goes out the door more often).    Go to a store and hold all of them and see which one feels best in your hands.

[John Mitchell]

I've passed QC with shots taken with an a3000 Sony and the 18-55mm kit lens.  I've even passed QC with the much reviled 16mm lens on the Sony a3000.   I prefer to use an a6000 with a Sony/Zeiss 24mm lens, which is a fantastic lens, but not cheap.  The a6000 is a wonderfully discreet camera.  I've also passed QC with a Panasonic GF1 and its kit lenses and with an older D300 (12 MP) and with two scans from Hasselblad shots.   The black Sony 18-55mm lenses made in the last couple of years seem to be fine.

 

There's something to be said for buying into the Nikon or Canon ecosystems -- I have Sony because higher end Canon and Nikon bodies are unobtainable where I live (Nicaragua) without importing them (and having to pay shipping and customs and now, pro camera fees).  The Sony mirrorless APSC cameras are very good of their kind; the Sony mirrorless full frame cameras approach the smaller Canons in size (I have one, but the a6000 goes out the door more often).    Go to a store and hold all of them and see which one feels best in your hands.

 

I quite like the 16mm pancake lens and use it fairly often for interiors. Have not had any problems with QC. It's very sharp in the central area, I find, even at f2.8. I do sometimes downsize images somewhat to sharpen the edges, but that's not usually a big issue. I also use the Sony ultra wide angle and fisheye converters with the 16mm. They work surprisingly well. Again, no difficulties passing QC.

 

BTW, I visited Ometepe a few years ago and enjoyed my stay very much. It's a beautiful island.

[John Mitchell]

 

The Sony should be OK but the kit lens is rubbish.

 

Allan

Allan, what is rubbish about it? Can it not produce images that will pass Alamy QC?

 

Thanks.

 

Jan

 

 

I don't mean to speak for Allan, but others have confirmed that the 16-50 produces images plenty sharp enough for QC.

 

As mentioned, I don't own this lens, but it seems a bit flimsy to me. Also, there is apparently a lot of distortion that needs to be corrected, especially at 16mm.

 

The 16-50 is really compact, though, and it would probably make a fine walk-around lens while you are saving up for the pricey Zeiss 16-70 (too rich for my meagre budget, I'm afraid).

[Bryan]

I've passed QC here a number of times using a NEX 6 and the Sony 16-50 kit lens. Some of these shots have sold. I've never had a QC failure using this lens. In that sense it's fit for purpose.

 

It's not a complete dog, actually surprisingly sharp at the edges, but it just doesn't sparkle. I get much better looking images from my collection of old manual focus lenses. They always produce bigger JPG files after raw conversion, suggesting that they are collecting more detail. I therefore only tend to use it when travelling light, maybe popping into town, or cycling. If I set out on a dedicated photo mission it gets left at home.

 

I have found that you can get slightly better results from it if you use manual focus, but it's not easy to use in that mode, and the gains are not huge.

 

I've documented this in my blog at http://bryansphotographs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/50-mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-6.html

 

Something else to consider. I have some evidence to suggest that it is not easily fixed should it fail. A friend bought a pristine used copy in working condition, which ceased to function after a short period. Our local camera technician said that it would not be cost effective to fix it. Having said that I believe that you can buy some components for this lens.

 

Overall it does a job, is cheap, light and convenient, but not a lens to fall in love with.

 

The Zeiss alternative is no doubt much better, but it is horribly expensive.

[Inchiquin]

 

The 16-50 is really compact, though, and it would probably make a fine walk-around lens while you are saving up for the pricey Zeiss 16-70 (too rich for my meagre budget, I'm afraid).

 

 

The 16-50 is perfectly adequate for stock and has the advantage that it will go in a pocket with a NEX6 attached. I've had plenty of images from it go through QC. For me it's the ideal take-anywhere set-up.

 

Alan

[Guest]

.

[spacecadet]

I did ask Alamy themselves before I came here and the core of their replies was always:

 

'We accept images from the majority of DSLR cameras but most point & shoot, and bridge cameras will struggle to meet the technical standard for submitting to Alamy.'

 

Thanks for all your replies. I think, as a newcomer, I should stick with a camera that is most likely to produce acceptable results, so will probably go for the Nikon D3300.

There's no reason why mirrorless (NEX, A5000, etc) shouldn't be included in that statement. It's capable of the same quality as a DSLR depending on glass. It's not p&s or bridge.

You can still fail QC with bad glass, such as a cheap long-range zoom, but the point is you can pass with the right glass. With a fixed-lens camera, with very few exceptions, you can't.

[Guest]

On 07/03/2017 at 10:20, spacecadet said:

 

.

[spacecadet]

 

 

I did ask Alamy themselves before I came here and the core of their replies was always:

 

'We accept images from the majority of DSLR cameras but most point & shoot, and bridge cameras will struggle to meet the technical standard for submitting to Alamy.'

 

Thanks for all your replies. I think, as a newcomer, I should stick with a camera that is most likely to produce acceptable results, so will probably go for the Nikon D3300.

There's no reason why mirrorless (NEX, A5000, etc) shouldn't be included in that statement. It's capable of the same quality as a DSLR depending on glass. It's not p&s or bridge.

You can still fail QC with bad glass, such as a cheap long-range zoom, but the point is you can pass with the right glass. With a fixed-lens camera, with very few exceptions, you can't.

 

I'm sure you're right, but I'd better play safe.

 

You'll find plenty on the forum on mirrorless. Many of the people who have answered your questions here use them. There's no quality difference vis-a-vis DSLRs. I considered one at my last body replacement and I can't take chances with money either.

If you have no investment in lenses you have a free choice.

[Inchiquin]

 

 

I did ask Alamy themselves before I came here and the core of their replies was always:

 

'We accept images from the majority of DSLR cameras but most point & shoot, and bridge cameras will struggle to meet the technical standard for submitting to Alamy.'

 

Thanks for all your replies. I think, as a newcomer, I should stick with a camera that is most likely to produce acceptable results, so will probably go for the Nikon D3300.

There's no reason why mirrorless (NEX, A5000, etc) shouldn't be included in that statement. It's capable of the same quality as a DSLR depending on glass. It's not p&s or bridge.

You can still fail QC with bad glass, such as a cheap long-range zoom, but the point is you can pass with the right glass. With a fixed-lens camera, with very few exceptions, you can't.

 

I'm sure you're right, but I'd better play safe.

 

 

Alamy's advice is slightly out of date, I fear. It implies there is a quality difference between DSLRs and all others. This may have been true once but it certainly isn't now. Modern mirrorless cameras are as good as, and probably can be better than, basic DSLRs. What matters most is the quality of the glass, as has been said already, and also the sensor size. The Sony cameras that have been mentioned, as well as Fujis, have the same sensor size (APCS) as the Nikon D3300. The kit lens on the Nikon is probably no better than the kit lens on any other camera. So there really is no need to 'play it safe' with a DSLR unless there are other factors involved. Try before you buy.

 

Alan

[Betty LaRue]

As far as kit lenses go, the Fuji 18-55 kit lens is great. Better by far than most other systems kit lenses.

[Brian Yarvin]

I had the a5000 and found that there was no problem with the images passing QC. However, I finally sold it because the viewing screen was tough to see outdoors, its strangely compressed raw files sometimes didn't live up to expectations, and the poorly designed menus left me scratching my head too often. The kit lens was the least of my problems.

[Allan Bell]

 

 

The Sony should be OK but the kit lens is rubbish.

 

Allan

Allan, what is rubbish about it? Can it not produce images that will pass Alamy QC?

 

Thanks.

 

Jan

 

 

I don't mean to speak for Allan, but others have confirmed that the 16-50 produces images plenty sharp enough for QC.

 

As mentioned, I don't own this lens, but it seems a bit flimsy to me. Also, there is apparently a lot of distortion that needs to be corrected, especially at 16mm.

 

The 16-50 is really compact, though, and it would probably make a fine walk-around lens while you are saving up for the pricey Zeiss 16-70 (too rich for my meagre budget, I'm afraid).

 

 

 

Sorry to be late back to the discussion.

 

John thank you for replying to Jan.

 

Allan

[Allan Bell]

As far as kit lenses go, the Fuji 18-55 kit lens is great. Better by far than most other systems kit lenses.

 

 

With you on that one Betty.

 

When I had my brief period with Fuji I could have kicked myself for letting the 18-55 go in P/X for the longer 18- whatever which was inferior.

 

Allan

[spacecadet]

I had the a5000 and found that there was no problem with the images passing QC. However, I finally sold it because the viewing screen was tough to see outdoors, its strangely compressed raw files sometimes didn't live up to expectations, and the poorly designed menus left me scratching my head too often. The kit lens was the least of my problems.

Sony's RAW compression can look a bit odd- I've only seen the weird striping artefacts around bright light sources once or twice in 7 years, and then only at 200% and they passed QC. They won't trouble the OP.

[Bill Kuta]

Jan, you're talking about the Nikon D3300, which is a crop-sensor DSLR--i.e., it has an APS-C size sensor. The Sony mirrorless a5000, a6000 etc also have APS-C size sensors. The cameras are smaller because they're mirrorless--the lack of a mirror and prism results in a shorter lens-to-sensor distance, which allows for a smaller camera and lens.

 

I've been using the Sony mirrorless for 3-4 years now, with no QC failures, including with the kit lenses (and the 16-70mm and 10-18mm, which also have their critics). All fine for Alamy work.

 

The D3300 is also fine for Alamy work. I opted for the Sony's because of their smaller size.