I recently ( I say recent but was October last year lol)got try the zve10 and that seems a nice improvement over my a5000 .Jpeg sooc . Vivid with auto dro .

Humansvillian wrote: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.You would see a massive improvement just by opening the aperture more.f14 is very deep indiffractionterritory, for a lens that's already quite soft. Stop at f8 if you can.Lenses will play a much larger role in IQ at ISO100, unless you have shaky hands, than a top body. a6100 might be plenty enough. That's already offering the same IQ and AF as the top model.Viltrox 13, Sigma 16, Sony 16-55G (zoom), Samyang 24 (for FF), Sigma 56, are some of the lenses that resolve more on Sony APS-C. Tamron 17-70 and Sigma 18-50 aswell.The very cheap 19/30/60 f2.8 Sigma Art from the very first line, are very sharp, but they don't offer the best AF.If you are looking for an improvement in autofocus, the new models make alot of sense. Don't expect Sony IBIS to be as good as Olympus though.

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'm quite certain that if you buy or own a good 4k monitor and you flip through photos you will not be able to tell what camera took what photo from the image quality alone. (not counting if you know from context.) Others who look at your photos will certainly not see any difference. Nor will you know if you print. No matter what you do, even pixel peeping, it will be hard to see any difference, but not impossible when pixel peeping.I have in my house two large wall mounted 4k monitors that roll through at a very slow change rate about 1600 images taken with ~15 different cameras ranging from Canon S10 (2mp circa 2002) to A7R and A6600. No one notices differences.  (I can see those differences, of course, because that gap is gigantic.) but you won't see between the small gap you are talking about.The big difference between the A5000 and contemporary cameras is in AF speed and accuracy, but that's not an issue for landscape. Having a viewfinder can also be a big deal in a few situations, like super bright light, or aiming a telephoto lens.

Humansvillian wrote: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.If you want something that makes a visible difference get the SEL18135. It is bigger of course but it plays in a different league than the 16-50. Ok, you loose a little at the wide end but it is definitely worth it.

No, not in good light and normal viewing conditions. I still use my Sony NEX5R and NEX6 (though I am not a fan of the 1650). But the old Sigma trio (19-30-60) is still among the best.

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?Extra mp probably just means you can crop more, if needed, or print larger.  For reasonable print sizes (probably even 11x14 inch prints), even my old 14mp Nex-5 was fine.  My largest print (20x30 inches) was taken with a 10mp camera!Personally, I like the better AF as it gives me more keepers, as I occasionally photograph wildlife or my dogs, etc.  I do low-light sometimes, so other factors come into play. But the bottom line is, if what you have works OK for you, you don't have to change.Mind you, I think the 16-50PZ is probably the worst lens, quality wise, but it's still decent enough for most use, and sharp in the center.  I used it a lot, for a while, but don't use it much anymore as I can get better results from other lenses.  It's ideal for travel, and at least it's a lens I don't worry about breaking (because it'd be cheap to replace).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.The 16mm/2.8 might be in competition with the 16-50PZ for "worst lens", so yeah, not a big difference.However, the 16/2.8 has a really sharp center, once stepped-down. Step it down enough, and the corners are still a bit soft but not super soft like it is wide open, and then the lens is pretty nice.  I prefer using the 16/2.8, as I think the image quality is better overall, but it needs to not be used at f2.8!  The lens needs some understanding to be able to live with its quirks.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...

GaryW wrote: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?Extra mp probably just means you can crop more, if needed, or print larger. For reasonable print sizes (probably even 11x14 inch prints), even my old 14mp Nex-5 was fine. My largest print (20x30 inches) was taken with a 10mp camera!Personally, I like the better AF as it gives me more keepers, as I occasionally photograph wildlife or my dogs, etc. I do low-light sometimes, so other factors come into play. But the bottom line is, if what you have works OK for you, you don't have to change.Mind you, I think the 16-50PZ is probably the worst lens, quality wise, but it's still decent enough for most use, and sharp in the center. I used it a lot, for a while, but don't use it much anymore as I can get better results from other lenses. It's ideal for travel, and at least it's a lens I don't worry about breaking (because it'd be cheap to replace).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.The 16mm/2.8 might be in competition with the 16-50PZ for "worst lens", so yeah, not a big difference.However, the 16/2.8 has a really sharp center, once stepped-down. Step it down enough, and the corners are still a bit soft but not super soft like it is wide open, and then the lens is pretty nice. I prefer using the 16/2.8, as I think the image quality is better overall, but it needs to not be used at f2.8! The lens needs some understanding to be able to live with its quirks.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...After about five hundred shots, I’ve decided that Sony knew the average, casual user wouldn’t notice their JPEGs soft in the corners due to computerized corrections.This was a $600 camera/lens combo  in 2014.For a big sensor point and shoot it’s wonderful.

Your gear is fine and can produce excellent photos!  No need to change up your gear!After my wife decided to send her heavy Canon DSLR gear to a younger sister, I started looking for a small and light digital camera solution and ended up with the Sony a6000 in the first year of its release.  At one point, I decided to downsize and kept two a5100 cameras, 4 primes and the 16-50 kit lens (used mostly for short video clips).Meanwhile, I moved to Olympus for photography.  I liked the retro black & silver look that reminded me of my film days, the external controls and the in-body image stabilization.  The rangefinder style of the Pen E-P5 also appealed to me.  Since I had a prime lens on my camera 95% of the time during my film days, I purchased all 5 of the (older) Pen Primes. This "What's in my bag?" video helped me decide on the E-P5 and Pen Primes:"What's in my bag?" - MicromaticsSince then, I have added a number of MFT cameras including an Olympus E-M1 Mk2 and a Pen-F.  The E-M1 Mk2 is the closest to a do-it-all camera that I have with reliable AF, fantastic IBIS and excellent weather resistance and durability.  I have it paired with the Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 lens.I am still using Sony APS-C for video and am really happy with the ZV-E10 and multiple lens additions.  I still have the a5100 cameras and have added an a6300 to hold me over when my preferred retailer was sold out of the a6600.  I am enjoying some of the updated features of the ZV-E10 but the a5100 is by no means obsolete.  In addition to its small size and light weight, the location of the SD card on the side of the camera instead of in the battery compartment is one of the things that I like best about this camera.Jim

Is there a difference in photos between a6400 and zv-e10? I've heard, that zv-e10 have some improved color science, and I'm thinking, since I've heard some unpleasant things about a6400 ports for charging, maybe to go for zv-e10 instead...

I’ve kept my a5000 in my car for a few weeks and I just love it.For $150 I own a completely modern, large sensor, light, and capable camera and lens that’s good, as it is, for a travel and everyday camera.Plus it’s a decent video camera, and the panorama feature actually works, maybe a first for me.I’ve not touched my “better” cameras since I bought this.I’m happy.

Tapik wrote:Is there a difference in photos between a6400 and zv-e10? I've heard, that zv-e10 have some improved color science, and I'm thinking, since I've heard some unpleasant things about a6400 ports for charging, maybe to go for zv-e10 instead...https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4676517

Tapik wrote:Is there a difference in photos between a6400 and zv-e10? I've heard, that zv-e10 have some improved color science, and I'm thinking, since I've heard some unpleasant things about a6400 ports for charging, maybe to go for zv-e10 instead...I own an A6600 and the ZV-E10 and for taking photos outside this isn't even a close race I go with the A6600 every time because of the EVF. Framing a picture in sunlight just using the LCD display can be impossible at times. Go with the A6400 if you take a lot of photos in sunlight the EVF is almost mandatory, The ZV-E10 is for bloggers not photographers in my opinion, mine stay on a gimble for video only.

For you it's a pleasant journey.Check out the 7-Artisans f0.95 35mm (manual) and the Laowa 9mm f2.8 (manual) for some astonishing image-power with any Sony 6XXX. The 6100 gives you 6400 image quality in a lighter, cheaper, package. The tiny flash is useful fill-in - you lose that on the IBIS 6500.I really like the Sony APSC mirrorless system.

Alan Hope wrote:For you it's a pleasant journey.Check out the 7-Artisans f0.95 35mm (manual) and the Laowa 9mm f2.8 (manual) for some astonishing image-power with any Sony 6XXX. The 6100 gives you 6400 image quality in a lighter, cheaper, package. The tiny flash is useful fill-in - you lose that on the IBIS 6500.The 6500 has a small flash.  The 6600 does not.I really like the Sony APSC mirrorless system.