Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
Jkim7
Regular MemberPosts: 109
Like?
Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
7 months ago

Hey guys,

I'm pretty set on getting an A6000, and from what I understand mirror less has pretty much caught up with DSLRs. Especially with the AF of the A6000, wouldn't an A6000 be just as good as a D5300? Is there any reason why I should prefer a D5300 over it? It's just that I still see so many people buy t5i's and D5300s and entry level APS-C DSLRs.

Canon EOS 700D (EOS Rebel T5i / EOS Kiss X7i) Nikon D5300 Sony a6000
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
symbology
Regular MemberPosts: 222
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

What do you plan to do with the camera?  What kind of photography?

Having these details will allow members to help you with your decision.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jkim7
Regular MemberPosts: 109
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to symbology, 7 months ago

symbology wrote:

What do you plan to do with the camera? What kind of photography?

Having these details will allow members to help you with your decision.

Mainly travel photography. (landscapes, people, buildings, cities, maybe some animals)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
istreetshooter
Regular MemberPosts: 147
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

If you want something more portable, think of the A6000. If you want something with a better range of lens and flashes, the D5300.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wb2trf
Senior MemberPosts: 1,439
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Right now the only thing missing on the A6000 are native long lenses >200mm.  If you want to get something long with image stabilization you have to get an LA-EA2 adapter and a non-Sony IS lens. The long A mounts from Sony won't give you IS.  If I thought that was very important, and that issue was bigger for me than all the A6000 advantages, of size and probably better AF and video, I'd get the 5300.  Substantively, except for its bulk and the fact that you are collecting the wrong lenses for the long term, the 5300 is also a great camera.  (In the long term collecting F mount lenses is going to be something everyone is going to want to escape from, but there's a few years left yet before that becomes totally obvious.)

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however.  I think it is pretty obsolete.  For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much.  The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jkim7
Regular MemberPosts: 109
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to wb2trf, 7 months ago

wb2trf wrote:

Right now the only thing missing on the A6000 are native long lenses >200mm. If you want to get something long with image stabilization you have to get an LA-EA2 adapter and a non-Sony IS lens. The long A mounts from Sony won't give you IS. If I thought that was very important, and that issue was bigger for me than all the A6000 advantages, of size and probably better AF and video, I'd get the 5300. Substantively, except for its bulk and the fact that you are collecting the wrong lenses for the long term, the 5300 is also a great camera. (In the long term collecting F mount lenses is going to be something everyone is going to want to escape from, but there's a few years left yet before that becomes totally obvious.)

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however. I think it is pretty obsolete. For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much. The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

You bring up a really good point about the super zooms. So I'm heavily leaning on the A6000 now and the ONLY reason I'm wavering is the fact about the lack of 200mm+ lens. I'm going on some African safaris this Summer and am a little nervous that 55-210 Sony won't be enough reach, although many people say it will since cars can get pretty close to animals and such. However, the 200+ range would be reassuring.

So maybe getting something like the Panasonic DMC-LZ40K super zoom would be a good idea, giving me a reach of 900mm and it only costs $250ish. Do you think that super zoom camera would have similar quality images (looking at it from a retina computer screen) in the middle 500mm-ish ranges as I would at the longer end of the 210 range of the Sony? Didn't word it so well but I hope you understand what I mean.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig Gillette
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,733
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Size, stability, grip and/or better hand fit, different, more complete lens selections if looking for lenses with in lens vibration reduction.  You can use an adapter to add A/Maxxum mount lenses to the A6000 but some of the third party lenses for Sony don't include anti-shake where the Nikon mount versions do.  There is a point where the aperture or focal lengths/ranges result in larger lenses and the body size is less significant to the overall kit.

I don't think, as good as discussions of the 55-210 suggest it is, that 200mm is going to be long enough for African safari uses

Both the D5300 and A6000 (IIRC) will require lenses with in lens focus motors so the speed of autofocus is going to also depend on the responsiveness of the lenses.  Until the A6000 is in the wild, it may be hard to see just how fast "fastest" really is and how that actually works in a variety of applications.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
123Mike
Senior MemberPosts: 4,306Gear list
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Forget about stabilization. Just use bursting to make up for it. If you want ultimate sharpness you need to burst anyway. I *thought* it'd be a major problem moving from an A57 to A3000 (temporary) + LA-EA2 + A-mount lenses, and also focal reducer + A-mount lenses, wrt to stabilization, but I'm finding more and more, that since you need to burst multiple shots to ensure super sharp results anyway, that stabilization isn't that missed it seems.

The A6000 does bursting *really* well, at like 11 fps full resolution? So, no problemo I think!

For reach, throw on that Sony 1.7x teleconversion lens. Not to be confused with a teleconverter that sits between the body and lens. I'm talking about the one that stick at the top of the lens.

Or, get an LA-EA2 and a longer range A-mount lens. The Sony 55-300 is pretty darn good for instance !

 123Mike's gear list:123Mike's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS A3000 Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
santiclaws
Contributing MemberPosts: 695
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

For a safari, you want as much reach as you can get. I'd say 300mm is minimum, 400 is better, 500 is best. So I would go with either the D5300 or the A6000 with an adapter and a long zoom. Stabilization should not matter very much, you're going to want to shoot wildlife at high shutter speeds anyway and since you're going to be shooting in daylight, that should not be a problem.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alex Permit
Senior MemberPosts: 1,342
Like?
Great point
In reply to wb2trf, 7 months ago

wb2trf wrote:

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however. I think it is pretty obsolete. For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much. The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

Long tele's in an apsc format are too big and bulky for travel.  If money were no object, I'd look into a Nikon V3 and paste on a 70-300 (200-900 equivalent).  And keep an a6000 for shorter lengths.

A superzoom is a more practical, less expensive solution.

Like you, i don't subscribe to "one camera many lenses" model.  For example, many times  i go out with an x100s and keep an rx100mkii in my pocket.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shadowz
Forum MemberPosts: 71
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Glad to know that u r going 4 a A6000 !

for comparing IQ between the two bodies do take look here if u have not already done so ..

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3646207

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
David Wyman
Regular MemberPosts: 251Gear list
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Jkim7 wrote:

Hey guys,

I'm pretty set on getting an A6000, and from what I understand mirror less has pretty much caught up with DSLRs. Especially with the AF of the A6000, wouldn't an A6000 be just as good as a D5300? Is there any reason why I should prefer a D5300 over it? It's just that I still see so many people buy t5i's and D5300s and entry level APS-C DSLRs.

You can do it all with a DSLR.  Its difficult to do that with N A6000, particularly, as others have pointed out, at the long end.

Check out the Panasonic FZ200.  It's an awesome camera. You can get cameras with longer lenses. Getting good pictures out of them can be a chore, though.  You might not need another camera with the FZ200.

Rhe thing about an A6000 is you'll be able to take photos early and late in the day in low light, and those can be great times to make photos. The 18-200mm or 55-210mm can be great  lenses if you are creative with them with photos that include the environment. And you'll be close to animals at times., too.

 David Wyman's gear list:David Wyman's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Nikon D300 Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon D600 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
wb2trf
Senior MemberPosts: 1,439
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Jkim7 wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Right now the only thing missing on the A6000 are native long lenses >200mm. If you want to get something long with image stabilization you have to get an LA-EA2 adapter and a non-Sony IS lens. The long A mounts from Sony won't give you IS. If I thought that was very important, and that issue was bigger for me than all the A6000 advantages, of size and probably better AF and video, I'd get the 5300. Substantively, except for its bulk and the fact that you are collecting the wrong lenses for the long term, the 5300 is also a great camera. (In the long term collecting F mount lenses is going to be something everyone is going to want to escape from, but there's a few years left yet before that becomes totally obvious.)

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however. I think it is pretty obsolete. For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much. The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

Do you think that super zoom camera would have similar quality images (looking at it from a retina computer screen) in the middle 500mm-ish ranges as I would at the longer end of the 210 range of the Sony? Didn't word it so well but I hope you understand what I mean.

There is no doubt that a large sensor and a very large lens to go with it can produce better quality images even in bright light. You won't find National Geographic out with a superzoom. However, in bright light, superzoom images are excellent today (I'll show you) and the image stabilization and reach they provide makes using them a completely different hobby (for me much more enjoyable) than lugging the truly big gear and tripod. Furthermore due to extreme portability, extreme reach and very fast focus, you will get shots that the "big gear" people will completely miss, simply because they can't move fast enough. People on dpr are traditionalists and they routinely underestimate this class of new gear which is breaking all the old rules. You can shoot at 1200mm handheld at 1/200th or slower because the IS is so amazing. I disagree that shooting wildlife you always need to have shutter speed up around 500+. A lot of wildlife sits or perches and you can often use much slower speeds given the incredible IS that these superzooms have. I shoot this all the time.

Verdin

(To be clear I ordered the A6000 in the first hour after it hit B&H because in addition to shooting wildlife in bright light with the superzoom I also shoot moving children in poor light. I've had two Nex's before the A6 for this purpose. The superzooms in my opinion are no good for ISO above about 400)

Above is a recent photo taken handheld with the Sony HX-100V at 812mm equiv. The HX100V is about two years out of date and there are several cameras since then which have offered better image quality. The HX400V, just starting to ship now is clearly better (the 200 and 300 were not) and the Canon HX-50IS is clearly better IQ.  I say this even though I have been pretty satisfied with the HX-100V and have found that it has given me great pleasure with its results.  I cannot advise you what to buy except that I can say that in this category IQ isn't the only thing.  It is such a "performance class" that operational characteristics are very important.  I bought the Canon HX-50IS when it came out. Even though its IQ was slightly better, it blacks out the VF/LCD when shooting in high speed burst mode (the Sony keeps refreshing), making it impossible for me to use it for birds in flight (hard but rewarding with the HX-100, impossible with the Canon).  Now Olympus has just come out with a superzoom sporting a red-dot sight, for spotting. As birds in flight are a big part of what I do with the superzoom, I would need to evaluate that.  In general the operational characteristics of the Sony's has been top notch. The HX400 brings up the IQ to about the top level.  But, the red dot sight is a potentially very interesting feature.  See the link below for more about the HX-400V.  (The operational characteristics of Nikon superzooms have been worse than terrible.  Haven't yet tried any Olympus).

Lastly on the IQ issue, I rarely shoot the same scenes with my Superzoom and my Nex, but last fall I happened to do so, by accident, up on the coast of Maine.  Bright afternoon light over the rocky coast.  When I got home and sorted the photos by time I could not tell which came from the superzoom and which from the Nex with the 19mm Sigma when flipping through them on my large eps monitor.  Maybe if I pixel peeped I could have, but really I needed the exif to know.  Bear in mind that the Sigma 19 is an extremely sharp lens and was on the Nex5R.  This will not hold for low light in which the small sensor IQ just falls apart, but still it is a reason why the "one camera many lenses" model is obsolete.

As for the Nikon 1 with the new 900mm equivalent zoom that one of the other posters notes: it is interesting, but.. It is close to $2000 for camera and lens and it will be bigger than a superzoom. Is it worth it? Maybe, but I'm pretty skeptical.  I'd like to try it, but probably won't at that price.

Enjoy.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53372652

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kdrk888
Regular MemberPosts: 107
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Jkim7 wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Right now the only thing missing on the A6000 are native long lenses >200mm. If you want to get something long with image stabilization you have to get an LA-EA2 adapter and a non-Sony IS lens. The long A mounts from Sony won't give you IS. If I thought that was very important, and that issue was bigger for me than all the A6000 advantages, of size and probably better AF and video, I'd get the 5300. Substantively, except for its bulk and the fact that you are collecting the wrong lenses for the long term, the 5300 is also a great camera. (In the long term collecting F mount lenses is going to be something everyone is going to want to escape from, but there's a few years left yet before that becomes totally obvious.)

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however. I think it is pretty obsolete. For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much. The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

You bring up a really good point about the super zooms. So I'm heavily leaning on the A6000 now and the ONLY reason I'm wavering is the fact about the lack of 200mm+ lens. I'm going on some African safaris this Summer and am a little nervous that 55-210 Sony won't be enough reach, although many people say it will since cars can get pretty close to animals and such. However, the 200+ range would be reassuring.

So maybe getting something like the Panasonic DMC-LZ40K super zoom would be a good idea, giving me a reach of 900mm and it only costs $250ish. Do you think that super zoom camera would have similar quality images (looking at it from a retina computer screen) in the middle 500mm-ish ranges as I would at the longer end of the 210 range of the Sony? Didn't word it so well but I hope you understand what I mean.

Wish Sony had a native e mount 70-400mm OSS. I want a fast camera for airshows and the A6000 seems great in AF, FPS, with decent buffer. I ended up buying the Nikon D7100 to go with the Nikon 80-400mm. But the D7100's spec is no where as good as the A6000.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tkpatric
Senior MemberPosts: 1,152Gear list
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to David Wyman, 7 months ago

Birdwatchers and badcharacterlion watchers the Nikon, all othters the a6000.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig Gillette
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,733
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Depending on the environment, switching lenses may be a bad idea.  That leaves you with trying to go with a compromise or perhaps multiple bodies/lenses.  I wouldn't rule that out.  Nor would I rule out considering a D7100 due to it's improved sealing compared to the D5300.  It also has proven focus system capabilities.  Of course, the more gear, the more hassle in transportation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rinkos
Senior MemberPosts: 2,219
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to wb2trf, 7 months ago

wb2trf wrote:

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however. I think it is pretty obsolete. For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much. The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

couldnt agree more with you

for long range a good superzoom will get you a very good result cause lest face it ..most super zoom targets are of a far different nature then a wide angle shots ( landscapes vs trying to catch a bird in a mostly blue skies for instance ) .

i think the 11fps on the A6000 plus very very positive AF speed and focus speed ( so far ) will mean much more then the 5fps on the D5200 ( not to mention the huge almost 50jpeg buffer on the a6000 ) .

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
abrahavt
Regular MemberPosts: 129Gear list
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to rinkos, 7 months ago

I am thinking of getting an LA-EA2 and a Tamron 150-600 for the Sony A Mount which has image stabilization and is not ridiculously expensive and has good image quality.

 abrahavt's gear list:abrahavt's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony a6000
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Craig Gillette
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,733
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to abrahavt, 7 months ago

The Sony A mount doesn't include stabilization. It remains to be seen whether the popularity of E mount cameras with adapters is enough to drive Tamron to rethink this or for other makers/lenses.

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/assets/pdfs/spec_sheets/150600_A011_catalog.pdf

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ChanSeuse14
Regular MemberPosts: 161Gear list
Like?
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?
In reply to Jkim7, 7 months ago

Jkim7 wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Right now the only thing missing on the A6000 are native long lenses >200mm. If you want to get something long with image stabilization you have to get an LA-EA2 adapter and a non-Sony IS lens. The long A mounts from Sony won't give you IS. If I thought that was very important, and that issue was bigger for me than all the A6000 advantages, of size and probably better AF and video, I'd get the 5300. Substantively, except for its bulk and the fact that you are collecting the wrong lenses for the long term, the 5300 is also a great camera. (In the long term collecting F mount lenses is going to be something everyone is going to want to escape from, but there's a few years left yet before that becomes totally obvious.)

Personally I don't subscribe to the "one sensor (camera) many lenses" model anymore, however. I think it is pretty obsolete. For long zoom reach I use a superzoom because the shooting I do with that is all in bright light where sensor size doesn't matter much. The whole camera costs less than a decent long lens for APS-C and gives good results with more fun.

You bring up a really good point about the super zooms. So I'm heavily leaning on the A6000 now and the ONLY reason I'm wavering is the fact about the lack of 200mm+ lens. I'm going on some African safaris this Summer and am a little nervous that 55-210 Sony won't be enough reach, although many people say it will since cars can get pretty close to animals and such. However, the 200+ range would be reassuring.

So maybe getting something like the Panasonic DMC-LZ40K super zoom would be a good idea, giving me a reach of 900mm and it only costs $250ish. Do you think that super zoom camera would have similar quality images (looking at it from a retina computer screen) in the middle 500mm-ish ranges as I would at the longer end of the 210 range of the Sony? Didn't word it so well but I hope you understand what I mean.

I have the 55-210 and though i don't have the a6000 I have the NEX 6 and that lens it amazing, i was sceptacle at first but I think you find you like it, outside, that lens is great!

 ChanSeuse14's gear list:ChanSeuse14's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads