For about seven years I’ve been utterly hooked on Olympus Micro Four Thirds cameras.Olympus pioneered IBIS, even the first kit lenses for Olympus MFT cameras were excellent, and until I spent $150 for a Sony a5000 with a 16-50 kit lens I was happy as a clam with Olympus.I realize the 16-50 Sony kit lens has limitations that need correcting by the processor, but in ISO 100 light my little Sony is a jewel.I do hackneyed, propagandistic documentation of Missouri life in the present day.I’m in love with the small size and handiness of my Sony.Would stepping up to a later model Sony APC with IBIS, 24 mp sensor, hybrid autofocus and better glass actually improve image quality in clear daylight conditions enough to notice?Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Humansvillian wrote:Would stepping up to a later model Sony APC with IBIS, 24 mp sensor, hybrid autofocus and better glass actually improve image quality in clear daylight conditions enough to notice?I have both a6000 and a6500.The only situation when the a6500 clearly has the upper hand is when shooting dimly lit subjects with non-IS Sigmas. Other advantages are marginal. And (more) modern a6xxx are a bit bigger/heavier.So, for your situation (well-lit stationary subjects) it's IMHO not worth it. I'd spend the money on better or more versatile glass.P.S. 20Mp vs 24? I don't think you'll "see" it. The only digital camera that made me wish I had more was 5Mp Sony F717.

vadims wrote:Humansvillian wrote:Would stepping up to a later model Sony APC with IBIS, 24 mp sensor, hybrid autofocus and better glass actually improve image quality in clear daylight conditions enough to notice?I have both a6000 and a6500.The only situation when the a6500 clearly has the upper hand is when shooting dimly lit subjects with non-IS Sigmas. Other advantages are marginal. And (more) modern a6xxx are a bit bigger/heavier.So, for your situation (well-lit stationary subjects) it's IMHO not worth it. I'd spend the money on better or more versatile glass.P.S. 20Mp vs 24? I don't think you'll "see" it. The only digital camera that made me wish I had more was 5Mp Sony F717.What I want is not pure image quality but instead beautiful colors, like this:My Sony should be as famous for the JPEG color engine as Olympus already is.The Sony APC sensor has just fantastic colors straight from the camera.Tweak it just a hair and it’s outstanding.There is no substitute for good light.But Sony’s color engine is right next to it.

I updated from A6000 to A6400 and glass from 16-50 to 18-135 and to Sigma 18-50 and glad I did.But in your case, I think, that you should keep your gear and be happy with what you already own. Upgrade would cost you a lot of money without noticeable outcome. Just buy replacement when A5000 break.

Martin_99 wrote:I updated from A6000 to A6400 and glass from 16-50 to 18-135 and to Sigma 18-50 and glad I did.But in your case, I think, that you should keep your gear and be happy with what you already own. Upgrade would cost you a lot of money without noticeable outcome. Just buy replacement when A5000 break.One advantage of a Sony APC over an Olympus MFT is diffraction limits begin to show at f16 instead of much lower. That means I can use automatic settings and not worry about diffraction.And the Sony panorama feature is the best I’ve tried.I’m not looking for realism.I’m shooting to glorify rural Missouri life.Most of the shots I take are in the midst of horrible poverty.I crop out the junk cars and decaying mobile homes.I ought to shoot what I got, you know?I regularly get suspected of being a private detective or government agent.A $150 consumer Sony rig is strong evidence I’m just another Ozark American out to take some pictures..:)

Diffraction actually start earlier. Sharpness graph of older kit 18-55 show slow kick in already at f8. Personally I don't go past f11 on apsc camera.

There would be a clear difference, more pixel perfect if there is such a thing, sharper, more defined etc. But since you sound content with your current camera, as you should be, I don't think you actually need what the full frame world has to offer.I'd think more of the ergonomics, are you willing to trade a "really compact" camera for a "somewhat compact" camera for pixel peeping pleasure and a viewfinder? A7C is small but it does have some body to it, then you get into larger lenses, you put the two together and all of the sudden it's no longer small or light

Humansvillian wrote:...And the Sony panorama feature is the best I’ve tried.If the Panorama feature is important to you then avoid the a6600 because that feature isn't available.  I didn't realise that until after I bought the cameraI like the colours you are getting, by the wayCheersMike M

Yours is one of the most level headed inquiries I have read on this 'upgrading' issue.  You know what you want to shoot and obviously know well how to do it.   As you state, and your photographs prove, great light is your best friend.I too am  a scenic photographer, so bright light is also my friend, along with the consequent long depth of field.I am with most of the others here in that I don't see a point in changing to a newer body as long as the present one is working.I stated out in APS-C with one of the earliest cameras in this line, the Sony Nex 5.   I added an @6300 a few years ago to gain a hot shoe so I could mount an external flash on it.  Once I got it, I found it to be the best panoramic camera I have.   The Nex 5 did panoramics well, but it cut off the image vertically, so I always had to calculate that in.   The @6300 nails them.  I am guessing your @5000 is the same way.I still use my Nex 5.   I don't like to change lenses in the field, so I keep my original 18-55mm lens on the Nex 5 and my chrome 18-200mm lens on the slightly larger @6300.  Whichever goes with me is dependent on what I am going to photograph.I print my own, and the printer size limit is 13X19".   At that size, and everything has been post processed by that point, I can't discern any IQ difference.    The size of the Nex 5 with 18-55mm lens is extremely handy to carry yet still has the APS-C sensor.    The lower pixel count has not been a factor for me.One of my of my photographic interests is similar, although not identical to yours.   Just over a mountain pass from us is a beautiful valley where there are cattle ranches going back to the 1860s.   It looks like a scene from 'Shane'.  The ranchers not only work their ranches; they are stewards of these ranches, the land and water, and the culture.   It is like stepping back into the old west.    Fortunately no poverty present, just history.Your photographs are, in my opinion, beautiful.    You certainly have the skills, and you have your equipment mastered.    I doubt a newer body will yield any improvement over what you are now already achieving.

DutchMM wrote:Humansvillian wrote:...And the Sony panorama feature is the best I’ve tried.If the Panorama feature is important to you then avoid the a6600 because that feature isn't available. I didn't realise that until after I bought the cameraI like the colours you are getting, by the wayLook at f8 Landscape color profile.  Pays to check menus.CheersMike M

Skromny_Tomasz wrote:There would be a clear difference, more pixel perfect if there is such a thing, sharper, more defined etc. But since you sound content with your current camera, as you should be, I don't think you actually need what the full frame world has to offer.I'd think more of the ergonomics, are you willing to trade a "really compact" camera for a "somewhat compact" camera for pixel peeping pleasure and a viewfinder? A7C is small but it does have some body to it, then you get into larger lenses, you put the two together and all of the sudden it's no longer small or lightA $150 small camera is unobtrusive, inoffensive, and unpretentious.Especially if it doesn’t get highlights blown.Old Sony APC cameras are the best hillbilly street photography instrument ever devised.

I had both a Sony A6000 and an Oly EM10ii (16mp) and although I loved the lens selection and size of the Oly, I didn't like the base ISO 200 or the base noise, which was noticable in photos in a way that is not on the Sony. I also don't like the 4/3 ratio as much as the slightly wider aspect ratio in the Sony. The 4/3 ratio meant that in addition to the smaller sensor, I had to crop more to get the aspect I wanted, further degrading the image at a size comparable to the Sony.

DutchMM wrote:Humansvillian wrote:...And the Sony panorama feature is the best I’ve tried.If the Panorama feature is important to you then avoid the a6600 because that feature isn't available. I didn't realise that until after I bought the cameraI like the colours you are getting, by the wayCheersMike MAlso no built-in flash on the A6600.

yep if you also photograph humans, having a small funny looking camera definitely helps them feel at home, and it shows in the pics.big cameras have this effect on people, all of the sudden you get people trying too hard to "pose" on a good day, or tell you to... quickly go somewhere else (censored), on bad days

PhotoFactor wrote:I had both a Sony A6000 and an Oly EM10ii (16mp) and although I loved the lens selection and size of the Oly, I didn't like the base ISO 200 or the base noise, which was noticable in photos in a way that is not on the Sony. I also don't like the 4/3 ratio as much as the slightly wider aspect ratio in the Sony. The 4/3 ratio meant that in addition to the smaller sensor, I had to crop more to get the aspect I wanted, further degrading the image at a size comparable to the Sony.There is nothing at all wrong with an a5000 and 16-50 for what I do.Give it good light and it works!

Humansvillian wrote:...Would stepping up to a later model Sony APC with IBIS, 24 mp sensor, hybrid autofocus and better glass actually improve image quality in clear daylight conditions enough to notice?Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.I think you have had great opinions above stating that your setup is unlikely to improve much. I still have my old Nex-6 and A6300. The extra MP and AF capabilities of the A6300 are useful for wildlife and action (eg with the Tamron 28-200), but for street use I use the Nex and its 16-70 or maybe 16/2.8. The latter is great as a pancake but not a huge difference over the 16-50.I forget if the A5000 has a swivel LCD? The only thing you may find useful is shooting from the waist with a flip up display, which will feature in something like an A6000. But note the A6xxx have all got heavier versus the A5000...

isvana wrote:Humansvillian wrote:...Would stepping up to a later model Sony APC with IBIS, 24 mp sensor, hybrid autofocus and better glass actually improve image quality in clear daylight conditions enough to notice?Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.I think you have had great opinions above stating that your setup is unlikely to improve much. I still have my old Nex-6 and A6300. The extra MP and AF capabilities of the A6300 are useful for wildlife and action (eg with the Tamron 28-200), but for street use I use the Nex and its 16-70 or maybe 16/2.8. The latter is great as a pancake but not a huge difference over the 16-50.I forget if the A5000 has a swivel LCD? The only thing you may find useful is shooting from the waist with a flip up display, which will feature in something like an A6000. But note the A6xxx have all got heavier versus the A5000...The a5000 has a flip screen, andIt’s among the lightest and smallest APC sensor cameras ever soldCost $600 new with 16-50 kit lensIn camera charging with standard micro USBHas good 1080 HD video (MP-4 option)Kit lens stabilized 3 stopsOptical zoom on collapsible power zoom kit lens50mmOptical zoom at max 50mmWhat a toy, what a toy!

Humansvillian wrote:What I want is not pure image quality but instead beautiful colors, like this:If you are happy with overall IQ and handling of the camera than no need to "upgrade". If you are looking for a bit more colour pop you could try a circular polariser (avoid it on the wide end though), it can enhance the colours quite a but, especially on dull days and harsh light. Personally I didn´t notice significant step in upgrading from NEX6 to A6500 but the overall handling of the camera is much nicer.

MVDH wrote:Humansvillian wrote:What I want is not pure image quality but instead beautiful colors, like this:If you are happy with overall IQ and handling of the camera than no need to "upgrade". If you are looking for a bit more colour pop you could try a circular polariser (avoid it on the wide end though), it can enhance the colours quite a but, especially on dull days and harsh light. Personally I didn´t notice significant step in upgrading from NEX6 to A6500 but the overall handling of the camera is much nicer.The a5000 has plenty of built in pop on command.The supreme advantage of an a5000 and kit lens is small size.My pipe is about as big as my camera.

The answer is no. I have a m43 kit and a Sony a6000 kit. Either will take great photos. I prefer the look of the Olympus files but I am also happy with the Sony a6000 with good glass. I love the compactness of my Olympus stuff and the affordable lenses that perform very well. Don't get hung up on sensor size or pixel count. My Oly is the EM-1 original so it's 16mp. Never felt like I needed more. I've printed portraits from the a6000 and they look great too. If you are enjoying your Olympus kit then keep developing that. Changing to Sony will not get you anything you don't already have.