tagged by: photography
An informal review of the Sony a6000 mirrorless camera paired with the Sony-Zeiss 16-70mm lens.
When I first made the move to a DigitalSLR I deliberately bought a cheaper camera - a Canon Rebel XTi/400D. I did this partly to put more money to lenses, but also becuase I knew that technology would move on and I'd be looking to replace the body in a few years.
For a while I've been happy about my lens setup for my DigitalSLR: a Sigma 18-200 as a general on-camera lens, Canon 10-22 for wide, Canon 50 f1.8 and 100 f2 for low light portraits and narrow depth of field. It's a good set up that's helped me take lots of photos that I like.
But, as most obsessive amateurs like me know, there's always that nagging desire for better equipment. I hear about how a consumer-grade lens like the 18-200 can't be as sharp as something a bit better, that I can get a lens that will auto-focus faster and quieter, maybe my longer tele shots are a bit softer than I think I ought to be able to get?
Like many obsessive snappers, I've recently got hold of the Canon S90 camera. It's small enough to fit in your pocket, but has the kind of things that people with pretensions to seriousness like: full manual controls, RAW file support, a good sensor, and an f2 lens.
Like many geeks I'm into photography. We geeks like photography because it provides the veneer of an artistic endeavor while allowing us to indulge in lots of technical details and spend money on expensive toys. A friend recently asked about my camera buying decisions, a question that prompted me to write them down.