Fill your boots:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=a6000+to+replace+dslr
You'll find people with both views, plenty in there who see no need for a DSLR. One of the first links in DP has someone saying that they see no need to have a D7100 over an A6000.
Here's a thread on the Fuji side:
http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.ph...e-as-your-dslr-replacement/page-6#entry335665
Have you even used any of these cameras? For the vast majority of subjects the AF is more than sufficient, with the bonus if bring over accurate and no need to MFA lenses. So its easy to see why a lot of people are happy with them.
Just to clarify in case you missed it, I run a DSLR alongside a mirrorless setup as for me it doesn't replace it. I recognise though that many others have different needs so they are more than happy. There are plenty of Fuji wedding shooters for example. I'm happy, they're happy.
That Google link is completely irreverent to the point in contention - that The A6000 AF is not as good as typical DSLR AF. Something which most dependable reviews are quick to point out, I even linked to an excellent review by Thom Hogan, 4/10 keepers is a long way behind 9/10 form the Nikon D7100.
Sony's claim also has to be taken with a large pinch of salt. They actually say faster than APS-C mirrorless camera which means it is faster than Fuji X, Samsung NX and Canon EOS-M models - but not faster than Nikon 1 or m43 models. The latter 2 are actually faster than than the A6000 in testing.
Plus a lot of what people are saying WRT to auto-focus speed is actually referring to the frame rate - no other APS-C camera does 11FPS, but again the Nikon 1, M43 and FF cameras are that fast. Actually, the Nikon 1 v3 will push out 20FPS with AF, 60GPS when locked!
Sony's claims aren't unique. Olympus made the same claims with the E-M10, Pansoninc with the G4H, Nikon with the V1, Fuji with the X-E2, Samsung wiht the NX1, etc, etc.
https://www.olympus.com.au/Products/CompactSystem-Cameras/OMD-cameras/E-M10.aspx
Combined with the world's fastest focusing system, the E-M5 is a camera that can keep up with your fast paced needs.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/0...ns_compact_camera_selection_with_gf3_snapper/
The standout feature here though is the ability to autofocus in 0.09 seconds, which makes it planet Earth's fastest autofocus system, Panasonic said.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/v1/features02.htm
Fastest AF x Most Focus Points in the World
World’s fastest autofocus: Among digital cameras with interchangeable lens, as determined by Nikon performance tests.
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_e2/
With the world's fastest auto focus speed of 0.08 sec
http://www.samsung.com/uk/discover/camera/find-your-signature-with-samsung-nx1/
Discover how the Samsung SMART NX1, the world’s fastest and most accurate interchangeable lens camera,
Great to know that all of the cameras have the world's fastest Autofocus simultaneously, funnily the canon EOS-M is the only one not to hold such a title!
Besides which, having the worlds fastest autofocus is useless if the keeper rate is less than half what a DSLR can manage.
You seem to think that I believe people prefer a DSLR in general over a mirorrless. Quite the opposite, clearly many people prefer the smaller lighter mirrorless systems. My only point is that none of them really come close to a DSLR in terms of all out overall performance even if under certain conditions they perform equally or better. Some people are willing to make the sacrifice, or shot in environments where the current limitations are not a constraint to them.
The very first hit I see in your Google link is someone talking about landscapes and star tails - of course the A6000 is just as competent as the D7100. You see in this thread loads f people praising the focus peaking and how great manual focus is, which it clearly is better than an unmodified DSLR but that has nothing to do with DSLR beating autofocus performance!
And yes, I do use these cameras. I own an Olympus m43 that I use far more than my D800. Despite Oly pus claiming the focus system is the worlds fastest and way better than any DSLR, it is isn't. It is perfectly capable, and according to many reviews better than the A6000
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6000/verdict.shtml
when shooting side-by-side with Micro Four Thirds models from Olympus and Panasonic, the A6000 wasn't quite as quick. Importantly, the A6000, like other Sony cameras, also became less confident in low light, forcing me to use manual focus to capture city night scenes when the Olympus and Panasonic models autofocused without complaint under the same conditions.
I travel a lot and spend many hours in airports playing with the cameras.
IMO, the Nikon 1 V3 still has the best AF system that is closest to a DSLR (especially in continuous mode), combined with the all out speed and general performance would make me choose a Nikon 1 if AF was a priority. Sadly the current bodies are distinctly lack luster and over priced and the lens collection still too small. The sensors were equivalent to the best m43 sensors at the time but haven't improved since launch and that is now starting to show iMO - I couldn't replace a DSLR with a Nikon 1 but it could complement very well for wildlife and sports work.
The Olympus and Panasonic models are very very good for static AF, face detection, accuracy, and low light stuff but they don't have a continuous AF ability close to Nikon 1 or a DSLR. Nikon V3 also feels snappier. The biggest selling point to the m43 cameras is the lens system is absolutely complete and yet still growing faster than any of the competitors. m43 is the Oly mirrorless system that I could switch to and have zero regrets about lenses.
To me the sensor size is optimal in getter DSLR IQ but with distinctly smaller lenses. The whole systems just makes lense and works well.
The early Fuji models were very sluggish all round IMO, they have got faster. Continuous is still behind. My gripe with the Fujis is the lenses and camera are relatively bulky and heav.this is impart due to excellent build quality and optics, faster prime lenses etc. I see the appeal but the system ends up big. Telephotos are still in short supply and their weight very off putting. For weddings and street work the Fujis are very nice.
Sony has a load of models, some cool tech but none of their camera have really nailed it yet IMO. A6000 is closest, I have only tested briefly with the kit lens but it didn't feel as good focusing as the Nikon j3 that was sat next to it . The lenses are also mostly mediocre and again, quite large.
IF I only shot landscape I would get buy with a A7r if Sony sorted out it raw files and implemented a softer shutter. AF is quite poor IMO on the A7r, better on the A7s. The A7s could be a great wedding camera except there are almost no good lenses yet. Same issue with lens sizes though. If you wanted to do wildlife work with any of these then they just don't work - lenses that are just as big as the DSLR counterparts or simply don't exist. even at the wider-normal range we get f/4.0 zooms or primes that aren't that small.
