Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?

Started Mar 30, 2014 | Discussions thread
wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,134
Re: Any Reason to get D5300 over A6000?

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.


(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.


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow