Reading mode: Light Dark

Sony a6000 vs Nikon D3300?

Go to last post
K

kyrcy

Leading Member
Messages
559
Reaction score
13
How would the two cameras perform under low light? I would assume that the Sony uses a newer and better sensor than the Nikon but would the difference be noticeable in photos? What would be a good reason to choose the most expensive Sony over the Nikon if portability is not an issue to consider? Would there be much difference in visible noise on photos taken under low light?
 
Last edited:
they both will provide great IQ. I suggest you look at more important things like the size differences, AF, EVF vs. OVF etc.
 
Both of them should perform very similar in low light. It seems like the Nikon D3300 has slightly better image quality at higher ISO, but like always, you give up something for something else. I'm going to guess that the Nikon can focus a bit more quickly using the viewfinder, but chances are that Nikon's live view focusing will be blown away leaps & bounds by the Sony's live view focusing.

You can't go wrong with either one. Just make sure you research both choices before committing to one 'cause lenses & other things start getting pricey & then you suddenly realize that it's too late to switch.
 
To me its EVF vs OVF. I bought two DLSR after owning the a couple NEXs. While I love the shooting with the OVF it's much more difficult when it comes to focusing. I am just an amateur though.
 
One thing missing from the D3300, if it matters to you, is exposure bracketing. This is apparently an advanced function, and the D3300 is targeted towards less experienced photographers. I'm sure there are other omissions as well, but I very nearly purchased a D3300 recently but like to shoot HDR, and for that I need certain features.

Image quality aside, which are all excellent, the a6000 competes more with the D5300.If you're just starting out, the real question you should be asking is what system do I want to buy into? Which has more lenses I will use and can I afford them? I've been somewhat happy with Sony-I've been an e-mount fan since the NEX-5 and back then Sony did not have many lenses for this system. There are great lenses now-not cheap though. I stick with e-mount because I travel extensively and appreciate the small size, as well as the features Sony packs into these tiny cameras. I have several e-mount lenses now, and it suits my purpose.
 
Last edited:
paulcraig said:
One thing missing from the D3300, if it matters to you, is exposure bracketing. This is apparently an advanced function, and the D3300 is targeted towards less experienced photographers. I'm sure there are other omissions as well, but I very nearly purchased a D3300 recently but like to shoot HDR, and for that I need certain features.

Image quality aside, which are all excellent, the a6000 competes more with the D5300.If you're just starting out, the real question you should be asking is what system do I want to buy into? Which has more lenses I will use and can I afford them? I've been somewhat happy with Sony-I've been an e-mount fan since the NEX-5 and back then Sony did not have many lenses for this system. There are great lenses now-not cheap though. I stick with e-mount because I travel extensively and appreciate the small size, as well as the features Sony packs into these tiny cameras. I have several e-mount lenses now, and it suits my purpose.
Click to expand...
I think it actually compares more with the d5500 due to the thinner body, flip out touch screen, and wifi on that model.

The nikon has a much better variety of lenses, at cheaper price points. Ovf vs evf doesnt matter, you will get used to the parameters of your setup in a flash if you are shooting manual. In addition, you can use the touchscreen to focus and pinch zoom with the d5500.

If i had to choose again, I'm still buying the a6000, but its only due to the size. If i bought the d5500, I'd still be very happy with the purchase.

But back on point, a6000 > d3300 all day, every day.
 
The IQ is similar. The big difference- and I learned this the hard way - is the AF system that can give you a headache with the Nikon due to lenses with front- or backfocus. This problem is non existent with the Sony, due to its on sensor af system.
 
I read complaints from people that purchased the a6000 that it has more noise than they expected. I have also been told that photos from the a6000 look noiser than from the NEX-3N. I have the a3000 and I would expect the a6000 to perfom better under low light.
 
The nex-3n has lower amount of mp and as such will appear cleaner. If you downsize the images from a nex7 or A6000 down to 16mp you will see that these files will be slightly cleaner than the 3n.

If you already have an A3000 and lenses for the e-mount system, then I'd suggest sticking with the same system. In the end minor difference in IQ will not be noticeable.

A6000 won't be massively better in low-light and neither will D3300. You will have to go FF if you want to see a large noticeable difference.

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/
 
Last edited:
I only have the kit lens from the a3000 (which I purchased very cheap) so I can switch brands. I have a few manual lenses that will not focus at infinity with Nikon and this is what has prevented me from deciding.
 
kyrcy said:
I only have the kit lens from the a3000 (which I purchased very cheap) so I can switch brands. I have a few manual lenses that will not focus at infinity with Nikon and this is what has prevented me from deciding.
Click to expand...
well apart from that D3300 will be larger than A6000 (but perhaps you may like that since you have A3000).

A6000 has better AF than both (A3000 & D3300) with higher fps and a better buffer.

A6000 will obviously come with EVF and D3300 with OVF. The OVF in D3300 is rather bad (as with many other beginner DSLR models apart from pentax). But the EVF in A3000 isn't exactly that good either.

At high ISO they are all not much different. Nothing one could notice in real world. Nikon opts for less noise at the cost of some fine details. Sony (if you turn off high ISO NR) will save little more detail at cost of having little more noise. But the end result after PP will essentially be about the same.

So you need to decide for yourself which is better fitting your style. Personally I prefer having EVF over OVF, so that would have been my decision maker/breaker in this case.
 
paulcraig said:
One thing missing from the D3300, if it matters to you, is exposure bracketing. This is apparently an advanced function, and the D3300 is targeted towards less experienced photographers. I'm sure there are other omissions as well, but I very nearly purchased a D3300 recently but like to shoot HDR, and for that I need certain features.
Click to expand...
Yes, exposure bracketing is nice to have, and the a6000 auto-bracket option is very fast. There's also auto-bracket for WB and DRO, but these are rather special, as you get three images from a single exposure when you choose these. Another feature not often discussed is the auto-ISO with noise reduction using three overlaid rapid-fire images.

The AF system of the a6000 compares favourably with that of the Nikon D7100, and it's certainly a step up from the D3300. If anything, there's more AF options with the a6000 than the D7100.

Even without exposure bracketing, getting the exposure right on the a6000 is a work of pleasure; the display emulates the effect of the exposure settings, and you have an optional real-time histogram as well as an over-exposure warning.

Having three configurations saved to memory is a handy feature of the a6000. The D7100 has two user settings like this which considerably enhances the shooting experience; it's like having two different cameras in one. The transformation of the a6000 by switching memories isn't quite so dramatic, but it's definitely very useful. e.g. Landscape/Sports/Manual.

I have used the D3200 quite extensively, and while I'm very pleased with its performance, it isn't in the same league as the a6000. Lenses for the a6000 are more expensive if you want a fair range of FLs.
 
Last edited:
I just got the A3000 to use with the 70-200mm lens. It would make a great back up to the A6000. However, you don't have much of an investment in a system to this point. If you are thinking of switching to Nikon look at the D7100 and D7200 cameras. They have a pentaprisim view finder which is superior to the OVF on the D5xxx and D3xxx Nikons. I switched to Sony be causes of the Zeiss lenses and weight. They are pricey so consider where you are planning to go with photography and what lenses you may want in the future.
 
nandbytes said:
they both will provide great IQ. I suggest you look at more important things like the size differences, AF, EVF vs. OVF etc.
Click to expand...
and lenses maybe ?
 
Last edited:
kyrcy said:
How would the two cameras perform under low light? I would assume that the Sony uses a newer and better sensor than the Nikon but would the difference be noticeable in photos? What would be a good reason to choose the most expensive Sony over the Nikon if portability is not an issue to consider? Would there be much difference in visible noise on photos taken under low light?
Click to expand...
The nikon will have SLIGHTLY better ISO performance. In actual use, the difference will not matter. In terms of AF in low light, they both struggle. The nikon MAY be a tad better but it will depends more on the lens you use than the camera body.

In terms of features and general AF performance, the 5300 is more in line with the A6000. The A6000 really sits someplace between the 7200 and 5300 for features and performance. The nikon has more better cross typse AF sensors. So the nikon will be better for tracking certain types of fast motion BUT in live view mode the nikon is a POS compared to the sony. IN terms of video the sony is far far better. Keep in mind, the nikon is a classic SLR so the image sensor and the AF sensor are in different places. OFten you need to microadjust lenses to get good AF performance.

In the end the biggest difference will depend on glass and cost. You can find many cheaper better lenses for the nikon. There are a few 17-50 f/2.8 lenses available for the nikon and they are cheap. They outperform the sony zeiss 16-70 f/4 for 1/3 the cost.

So if size etc is no object.. you don't care about video.. or live view.. .. nikon is a compelling option.

If you use the kit lens.. it is about even. Both kit lenses are not up to snuff compared to the sensors.
 
kyrcy said:
How would the two cameras perform under low light? I would assume that the Sony uses a newer and better sensor than the Nikon but would the difference be noticeable in photos? What would be a good reason to choose the most expensive Sony over the Nikon if portability is not an issue to consider? Would there be much difference in visible noise on photos taken under low light?
Click to expand...
What are you shooting -
  1. is it nightclub photography?
  2. Astro?
  3. Family/friends gathering in dark restaurants?
  4. A possum in a branch about 80m away?
  5. Do you need autofocus?
  6. Can you use flash?
  7. Are you on a tripod?
 
Last edited:
hungrylau said:
kyrcy said:
How would the two cameras perform under low light? I would assume that the Sony uses a newer and better sensor than the Nikon but would the difference be noticeable in photos? What would be a good reason to choose the most expensive Sony over the Nikon if portability is not an issue to consider? Would there be much difference in visible noise on photos taken under low light?
Click to expand...
What are you shooting -
  1. is it nightclub photography?
  2. Astro?
  3. Family/friends gathering in dark restaurants?
  4. A possum in a branch about 80m away?
  5. Do you need autofocus?
  6. Can you use flash?
  7. Are you on a tripod?
Click to expand...
D5500 is a better bet than D3300. In general the a6000 will probably have slightly better autofocus than the DSLR's in good light but will hunt a lot more in low light. However the EVF will show you the scene in low light very clearly so you can manual focus if the subject is not moving.

Seems like Nikon generally squeezes a little more IQ out of Sony sensors than Sony does. Not enough to be a deal killer.

I love the face recognition system on the a6000. With my Nikon I end up using focus and recompose but with the Sony I can let it find the face to focus on. There is also "eye focus" to use if you like. These are only workable in good light though.
 
You´ll probably get at least as good IQ with the Nikon as with the A6000, but the Sony is an overall more accomplished/advanced camera that´ll give you more choices and customizeability. A potentially big problem with the 3300 is that you can´t microadjust by yourself, you´ll have to send the gear to Nikon. (This alone made a friend of mine update to one of the Nikon 7xxx)

Cheers
 
Last edited:
hungrylau said:
kyrcy said:
How would the two cameras perform under low light? I would assume that the Sony uses a newer and better sensor than the Nikon but would the difference be noticeable in photos? What would be a good reason to choose the most expensive Sony over the Nikon if portability is not an issue to consider? Would there be much difference in visible noise on photos taken under low light?
Click to expand...
What are you shooting -
  1. is it nightclub photography? NO
  2. Astro? YES
  3. Family/friends gathering in dark restaurants? YES
  4. A possum in a branch about 80m away? NO
  5. Do you need autofocus? YES (Preferably)
  6. Can you use flash? NO
  7. Are you on a tripod? YES
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
From my cursory look, the D3300 shares the same iso abilities as the D5300. Since you've noted portability is not an option, then I can state the following:
  • faster lenses are available at a cheaper price on the D3300, both primes and telephoto zooms
  • D3300 has no exposure bracketing / in-camera hdr
  • the D3300 will have comparable performance to the A6000, and may even edge it out depending on the photo you are taking
  • D3300 will likely have significantly greater battery life than a6000
As an overall system, if you are not concentrating on portability at all, and want the 35mm af-s DX f/1.8, and then say, a sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM or another comparable zoom, you are in for a treat.

However, the other features of the A6000 as an overall package really make it worthwhile exploring. You can't get over the portability of such a system, how discreet it is, the wifi & NFC sharing abilities, and the fact that it's just great bang for buck for the body.
  • Nikon D3300 + 35mm f/1.8 + sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM OR 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG HSM
  • Sony A6000 + sigma 30mm OR emount 35mm f/1.8 AND kitlens OR 1670z f/4 OSS OR 18105 f/4 OSS OR FE 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 Sony lens
With these options, I think you might be sweet. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Building a lens line-up?
Replies
6
Views
320
Martin_99
M
R
Nikon Z30 - or - Sony a6500
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
RECTANGULAR ART
R
H
Z50ii vs Z5ii
Replies
7
Views
1K
Ruedon
R
Andrew Ellis
  • User review User review
Much better than I expected (with small caveats)
Replies
1
Views
625
WorkshyLad
W
A
Sony a6000 as camera trap and battery drain
Replies
6
Views
157
albi84
A

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top