Sony a3000

[Marvin McAbee]

What do you think it uses NEX lenses.  20mp may be David will give us the scoop.

[Mirco Vacca]

I think it is a good idea since it has no mirror. Why the objectives should be larger than need to be. Only hoping that the choice will get much bigger. It looks like the first step of Sony to get rid of the mirrors once and for all. I think in future there will follow the Alpha 5000, 7000 and so on.

[David Kilpatrick]

The sensor is modified from the A58, to incorporate contrast detect pixels. I may buy one, as they are very low cost and I have a load of lenses. Actually, the A3000 is not a lot more for the body than just buying an EVF to add to my NEX-5N. I do not think the 20 megapixel sensor hits the sweet spot as well as the 16 megapixel of the 5N or 6, and I sold my A58 after buying it (actually, I swapped it for a good condition A580, which has the 16 megapixel sensor). It's hard to give any exact reason why the results from one sensor have less eye appeal than another, but I didn't fall in love with the A58 - I don't need an extended output gamut (TriLuminos) and I need better input colour discrimination, perhaps. The 20 megapixel sensor looks more like Canon colour in terms of typical results.

 

The EVF is a lower level of resolution, similar to the A58 (in turn, an improved version of the A55 which did not make proper use of the full EVF display area. Not quite like getting a free RX1/RX100II/NEX5N etc quality EVF almost free.

 

I agree, there will be higher level bodies later, and I do not think this spells the end of the A-mount or the DSLR/SLT model. If you stand back from everything, it's clearly a Panasonic GF, Samsung NX300 or Olympus OM-D competitor - a mirrorless camera made to look more SLR or bridge-camera like. The other makers have been doing well from this type of design, and Sony needed to join in.

 

It will be a great bargain at £300 for the body only if, like me, you have both a good set of lenses and an Alpha adaptor and various other adaptors. I've also got extension tubes, and a turbo-booster 0.7X adaptor. All make for a very versatile cupboard full of strange things.

[John Mitchell]

Interesting and inevitable, but personally I don't see any real advantage over the NEX cameras. The a3000 is more "ergonomic," I suppose, but bulkier and more conspicuous. Curious how "consumers" want to look like professional photographers, and the latter now prefer to look like happy snappers. 

[Marvin McAbee]

Thanks David for the info you seem to be up to date on all the tech stuff.  From what you say the 16mp sensor seems to be the best choice for stock shooting.  what adapters are available for NEX to a mount and what limitations do they have.  I have several older Minolta lenses but focus and aperture  are controlled out of the body.  I am guessing that using them would be manual focus and wide open aperture.  I also have many older Minolta MD mount lenses that I don't know if there is any use for.

Marvin

[John Mitchell]

Thanks David for the info you seem to be up to date on all the tech stuff.  From what you say the 16mp sensor seems to be the best choice for stock shooting.  what adapters are available for NEX to a mount and what limitations do they have.  I have several older Minolta lenses but focus and aperture  are controlled out of the body.  I am guessing that using them would be manual focus and wide open aperture.  I also have many older Minolta MD mount lenses that I don't know if there is any use for.

Marvin

 

I bought an inexpensive adapter (under $20) and sometimes use a couple of my old MD lenses on my Sony NEX. The 1.5X crop factor is a drag, but the Minolta lenses are sharp (nice colour too) and can be fun to use. Have to say that I've gotten to prefer autofocus over the years, though.

[John Mitchell]

I ran across a somewhat closer look at the a3000 here.

 

The a3000 is actually starting to sound somewhat more interesting considering the low price. Sony Canada is taking pre-orders at $429 w/lens ($398 at B&H). Being a man on a limited budget, I'm looking forward to checking one out in the flesh (so to speak). The a3000 appears to have contrast detect AF only, rather than the hybrid system found on the most recent NEX cameras. No tilting screen either. Neither of these is necessarily a deal-breaker, though.

 

And then there is this preview at dpreview that doesn't quite as positive. Guess we'll have to wait for the actual reviews to get the complete picture.

[Bryan]

  what adapters are available for NEX to a mount and what limitations do they have.  I have several older Minolta lenses but focus and aperture  are controlled out of the body.  I am guessing that using them would be manual focus and wide open aperture.  I also have many older Minolta MD mount lenses that I don't know if there is any use for.

Marvin

I can't answer your question directly as I don't have any old Minolta lenses, but I do make a great deal of use of heritage glass on my NEX 6 having tried Canon FD, Pentax and Olympus. The older primes generally provide more detail rich images than the kit lens, but some of them suffer rather more with CA - easily fixed in LR etc.. You do have to manually focus, and I normally focus wide open before stopping down to shoot. The adapters are relatively cheap, I haven't paid more than about £25 for one, and the only real disadvantage that I have come across is that you don't get exact registry with the distance scale on some of them, the lenses will focus beyond infinity. 

 

My "standard" lens is currently an Olympus 28mm f2.8, equating to 42 mm FF, while the best performer is an old 50mm f1.8 Olympus, beating the f1.4 variants from both that company and Pentax, and also outshining the Canon FD equivalent. It's razor sharp and does not appear to suffer much from CA.

 

Maybe I'm a control freak, but I actually prefer manually focusing for many applications, that way you know for sure that the bit you want to be in focus is actually sharp, and given that you are seeing what the sensor sees, that gives a 100% success rate. Having been embarrassed by irrelevance seeking auto focus systems in the past, manual focus is wonderfully reassuring.

 

Having said all of that, should the new Zeiss 16-70 live up to expectations, I may be coming back to the future.

[Mirco Vacca]

John . Dont worry about the phase detection. I have to say that i even dont feel any much difference with autofocus between the NEX 5n and NEX 6. I actually like the A3000 from first impression. It is indeed relative cheap since there is no mirror included what is very expensive.

[Imagery by Charly]

FYI, the site I use a lot while searching out Sony cameras and lenses is Dyxum. I find it very useful and perhaps others will to.

[John Mitchell]

John . Dont worry about the phase detection. I have to say that i even dont feel any much difference with autofocus between the NEX 5n and NEX 6. I actually like the A3000 from first impression. It is indeed relative cheap since there is no mirror included what is very expensive.

 

I've heard other people say that about the autofocus. The a3000 sounds fairly basic, but I'm interested in having a look at it. This is typical of Sony. The first camera in a new series is always bare-bones. Sony will slowly add features -- better EVF , tilting screen, etc. -- with each new model that they put out. They get you hooked and then reel you in. I guess other camera manufacturers aren't really much different in this regard, though.

[John Mitchell]

Marvin, I use this lens adpater for my Minolta MD lenses. It is well made and works fine. Should be OK on both the NEX cameras and a3000 since they both have the same mount,

[Marvin McAbee]

Thanks John and David what adapter are you using for the a mount.

[John Mitchell]

Thanks John and David what adapter are you using for the a mount.

 

I don't have an adapter for my A-mount / Minolta AF lenses, but Sony makes two of them I believe.

[John Mitchell]

I had a chance to fool around with the a3000 today. It's bigger than I had expected and very comfortable to hold. It also balances better with the large-ish Sony e-mount lenses than the NEX bodies do. However, it definitely feels more like a conventional DSLR -- no "rangefinder" feel at all. The viewfinder is small -- but at least it has one -- and the low magnification gives a tunnel-vision effect. The tiny diopter wheel is difficult to adjust as well. I also found having to push a button to switch back and forth between the EVF and the screen display to be somewhat annoying. The a3000's LCD screen is nice and big; however, it seemed to catch more reflections than the one on my NEX-3, plus I missed the tilting function. Another oddity is that you can't shoot in RAW, only in RAW+JPEG. 

 

So perhaps the best feature of this camera (with black 18-55 lens) is the $400 price tag, which will probably drop even lower as Xmas draws nigh. No doubt the next model in this series will be more user-friendly but considerably more expensive.

[John Mitchell]

This post on sonyalpharumours caught my attention. It's an intriguing concept, pairing a budget (but still highly capable) camera like the a3000 with a high-end lens such as the Zeiss 16-70. Personally, with financial returns from stock photography verging on peanuts, I find it increasingly difficult to justify spending a fortune on equipment -- unless of course you're a professional sports or wildlife photographer -- for general street and travel photography. Why get further into debt buying  a mammoth, over-featured camera body that you don't need. Best to put the money you save into a really good lens. Any thoughts on this?

[Mirco Vacca]

John,

 

I would also invest more in a good lens then a body. Body you can change. Lens is for longer use. For example Sony Nex - 6 cost much more then the NEX 3. But the image quality of sensor is equal. The price is in the extra functions and body material. So depending for wich situation you need the body you can better have a NEX-3 with very good lens then bad lens with NEX-6 or whatever.

This is my thinking.

 

Mirco
 

[John Mitchell]

John,

 

I would also invest more in a good lens then a body. Body you can change. Lens is for longer use. For example Sony Nex - 6 cost much more then the NEX 3. But the image quality of sensor is equal. The price is in the extra functions and body material. So depending for wich situation you need the body you can better have a NEX-3 with very good lens then bad lens with NEX-6 or whatever.

 

This is my thinking.

 

Mirco

 

 

Yes, even today's so-called "beginners" cameras have feature that would have been unheard of not long ago, even on high-end models.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading a real review of the a3000. Perhaps David K. (no pressure, but hint, hint..) will have something in the works. I always enjoy his perspective.

[David Kilpatrick]

I'm doing a short review for the BJP (not a pro camera, but a change of direction for a maker, and therefore of interest - also rather good for the student market) and then a fuller one on photoclubalpha, but as usual, not rushing. I'm still finding out about how well the camera works in different circumstances. I am using the LA-EA1 Alpha lens adaptor (contrast detect focus only) partly because this gives some benefits in terms of focus accuracy, and the LA-EA2 just adds phase detection, which effectively makes the A3000 a rather poor A58.

[John Mitchell]

I'm doing a short review for the BJP (not a pro camera, but a change of direction for a maker, and therefore of interest - also rather good for the student market) and then a fuller one on photoclubalpha, but as usual, not rushing. I'm still finding out about how well the camera works in different circumstances. I am using the LA-EA1 Alpha lens adaptor (contrast detect focus only) partly because this gives some benefits in terms of focus accuracy, and the LA-EA2 just adds phase detection, which effectively makes the A3000 a rather poor A58.

 

Sounds great. I'm still a student (albeit an older one), so I'll look forward to your reviews.

[John Mitchell]

This seems to be the closest thing to a real review that is available at the moment. No doubt there will be more to come:

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-alpha-ilce-3000/4505-6501_7-35826925.html

 

P.S. I don't think it's entirely fair to call the a3000 a "faux DSLR" (although I understand where the reviewer is coming from). It's more like the birth of a different type of camera.

[David Kilpatrick]

OK, my review is up, it's a bit of a long read but it explains a few things which the other reviews are not even touching - like exactly what you get in that EVF.

 

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2013/10/09/sony-alpha-3000-review-by-david-kilpatrick/

[John Mitchell]

OK, my review is up, it's a bit of a long read but it explains a few things which the other reviews are not even touching - like exactly what you get in that EVF.

 

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2013/10/09/sony-alpha-3000-review-by-david-kilpatrick/

 

Thanks, David. As always a very thorough and entertaining review. I actually went back to my local camera store today and spent some more time playing with the a3000. Like you, I found the EVF somewhat lacking. Fortunately, I only need glasses/specs for reading, so I can take them off when using the EVF. Still, I had trouble getting a consistently clear image and had to fiddle with the diopter whenever I changed focal lengths. Otherwise, I quite like this camera given the bargain price (about $400 in Vancouver). Also, I have been thinking that, with its EVF (idiosyncratic as it is) and more ergonomic body, the a3000 might be a good camera to complement my NEX-3, especially when using the 55-210mm e-mount lens, which does not balance well on the tiny NEX and is a pain to use with an LCD screen. I could also use the NEX-3 mainly with the 16mm lens as you suggest in your review.

 

But now ...

 

As you say, Sony loves creating dilemmas.

[John Mitchell]

OK, my review is up, it's a bit of a long read but it explains a few things which the other reviews are not even touching - like exactly what you get in that EVF.

 

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2013/10/09/sony-alpha-3000-review-by-david-kilpatrick/

So, David, unfair question I know, but might this inexpensive camera be worth considering for the good image quality, improved 18-55 lens, and comfortable ergonomics? Is it possible to live with the compromised EVF until Sony comes up with an a5000 or whatever? I only tried out the a3000 in a dimly lit store (neon lights, no windows). Chances are the EVF performs somewhat better outdoors at low IS0?

 

P.S. I'm also a one-shot-at-a-time type of photographer. Most of the subjects I shoot are standing/sitting still, so slow "burst speeds," etc. are not an issue for me. I actually found the AF on the a3000 to be quite speedy, certainly adequate for my needs.

[David Kilpatrick]

It's so cheap here that if you don't already have the equivalent, it's an easy buy. The results are very good indeed but having said that, so are the results from most new cameras of all makes. The EVF is essential outdoors, at its best in moderately dim indoor light such as shopping malls or domestic well-lit rooms (it appears much brighter than any optical finder) and at its worst in very low light, darkness. It's just a very poor EVF, visible pixels and big steps/jaggies and not accurate colour or contrast at all, compared to the better EVFs. But the entire camera costs less than one of those EVFs!