.

[John Mitchell]

 

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.

 

 

I haven't noticed anything odd about Sony's RAW files, but then I don't have anything to compare them with since I've only used Sony cameras since I went digital.

[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.

 

 

I haven't noticed anything odd about Sony's RAW files, but then I don't have anything to compare them with since I've only used Sony cameras since I went digital.

 

Rather a bald statement of mine. What I described turned up on a website somewhere and when I looked hard I found it in a couple of images, but only at 200%.

Here it is.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2834066212/the-raw-and-the-cooked-pulling-apart-sony-raw-compression

 

As the article says it's less noticeable the higher the pixel count- I haven't seen it since I went from 16MP to 20. You'll probably never see it.

[John Mitchell]

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.

That's why I recommended a used NEX-6 (or a6000) rather than the a5000. Having an EVF makes a huge difference.

 

I agree, the Sony menus can be frustrating. Somehow I've manged to adapt. I think they have been redesigned on the newer a60XX models (?)

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I haven't noticed anything odd about Sony's RAW files, but then I don't have anything to compare them with since I've only used Sony cameras since I went digital.

 

Rather a bald statement of mine. What I described turned up on a website somewhere and when I looked hard I found it in a couple of images, but only at 200%.

Here it is.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2834066212/the-raw-and-the-cooked-pulling-apart-sony-raw-compression

 

 

Thanks. I'll take a couple of aspirins and try to read the article.

[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.

 

 

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

I still use the 18-135, Allan. In fact, I've shot with it a lot for stock. If you dig deep enough to find my storefronts, (business buildings) they were shot exclusively with it. I think you got a bad copy, maybe. Or it was the subject matter? Although I've shot lakes, marinas, boats, etc with it just fine. I wouldn't give it up for anything.

My 18-55 has basically gathered dust until recently when I've began using it for tabletop. It generally doesn't have the reach I need for my style of shooting.

That said, it is an excellent lens. Because of that, I never have been able to let it go. Now I've found a use for it.

My chocolate coconut cake and apple pie was shot with it.

Don't look, it'll make you hungry.

The Fuji 80mm 2.8 macro is due out this year.

Betty

Edited to add, I have dupes of the cake. The first set looks too dark so I lightened them, resubmitted and have the others up for deletion.

[Bryan]

 

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.

That's why I recommended a used NEX-6 (or a6000) rather than the a5000. Having an EVF makes a huge difference.

 

I agree, the Sony menus can be frustrating. Somehow I've manged to adapt. I think they have been redesigned on the newer a60XX models (?)

 

 

Indeed, and, although the photo press universally condemn the Sony menus, in practical terms, and for the limited range of settings that I use, I just don't see the problem.

 

Thinking of moving on from the NEX6 to an a6XXX and am concerned that I will have to get to grips with the new "improved" menus.

[Guest]

.

[spacecadet]

That was quick.

[Bill Kuta]

A good choice for a limited budget, and Nikon will give you more lens options in the future.