A6300 when a6000 is 400 usd

snapa · Dec 25, 2016

FuzzyQball said:
Agreed. Although you have to spend the extra for the 6300 then the adapter. At least when you have it you then have more options.

-- Glenn

Wouldn't you still need to spend the extra for the adapter if you had the a6000? I'm not sure what your point is. The only thing different is the a6300 works better than the a6000 with an adapter, or am I missing something?

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

grasshpr · Dec 25, 2016

Adapter cost is a one time purchase. It is a bit expensive but if your buying a high priced item like the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 vc. The cost is half of the Sony version and is almost as good in terms of IQ. Same with most of the other third party Canon lenses. For example, the sigma 50-100mm, Sony has nothing like that lens. If they did, the cost would probably over 2k and for full frame.

meta4one · Dec 25, 2016

CameraCarl said:
To me, it seems that the advantages of the a6300 or a6500 are a slight increase in image quality/ISO, some water/dust resistance (but only with a water resistant lens -- but then, Sony doesn't make any for the APS-C cameras), perhaps better video, better ability to use third party lenses and slightly different/better ergonomics. I haven't seen enough advantage to update my NEX-6 or a6000 for my photo needs which are primarily landscape/travel photos with very minimal need for video. And I only use Sony autofocus/image stabilized lenses, so I don't need to adapt other lenses to my camera. I got the $400 deal last year and have happily been taking photos ever since.

So, if you are starting out - the a6000 + one or both kit lenses is a great way to go at an amazing price point. The much maligned kit lens has lots going for it, but not snob appeal. A lens of many compromises, it will nonetheless afford you the opportunity for create gorgeous images with an a6000. If you stay with with photography, you'll eventually want additional lenses, faster and sharper edge-to-edge. But this is exactly how i got my start and I still shoot the kits lens when I need something that is ultra light and compact.

FuzzyQball · Dec 25, 2016

True enough. Just saying you have to make significant investment to use those lower cost Cannon lenses.

meta4one · Dec 25, 2016

foot said:
Guillermo Ramhorst said:

Hi all and Merry Christmas! I can see at B&H the Sony a6000 at 400 or 550 with the kit lens. I plan to use it for street, family travel and eventually trecking, which I love but somehow I am not doing quite often. Lightweight and portable are also a plus. Based on your experience, Is it worth to go for the a6300 or shall I get the a6000? Is the kit lens that bad? As I see it very practical.

Click to expand...

Same image sensor, but smaller and lighter:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#562,535

Sony A5100 is 9% (10.4 mm) narrower and 6% (4.1 mm) shorter than Sony Alpha a6000.

Sony A5100 is 21% (9.4 mm) thinner than Sony Alpha a6000.

Sony A5100 [283 g] weights 18% (61 grams) less than Sony Alpha a6000 [344 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).

The A5100 also has a pop-up flash than is on a hinge, and can be tilted upward, to bounce against the ceiling. No evf thought, which the A6000 has

>> note: very hard to shoot w/o an evf in bright daylight.

foot said:
Another quick feature comparasion:

http://www.cameracomparisonreview.com/2014/08/23/sony-a5100-vs-sony-a6000/

FuzzyQball · Dec 25, 2016

I guess I wonder when I should just use a Canon body instead for those Canon lenses. How far do I go to adapt them, and how does the cost/performance compare to adapting them to a 6000 or 6300?

meta4one · Dec 25, 2016

grasshpr said:
Guillermo Ramhorst said:

Hi all and Merry Christmas! I can see at B&H the Sony a6000 at 400 or 550 with the kit lens. I plan to use it for street, family travel and eventually trecking, which I love but somehow I am not doing quite often. Lightweight and portable are also a plus. Based on your experience, Is it worth to go for the a6300 or shall I get the a6000? Is the kit lens that bad? As I see it very practical.

Click to expand...

Choice of A6000 vs the A6300 depends heavily on whether you are looking for a camera with good image quality for a bargain basement price, or whether you need a camera with better image quality and has a bunch of new features like:

1) silent e-shutter

2) 4K video and a dedicated mic input jack

3) faster AF and more than double the AF points

4) faster and higher quality EVF

5) PDAF AF with adapted lenses

6) weather proofing with magnesium alloy body

7) some additional camera ergonomics

8) Oh and don't forget the improved high iso performance

If your willing to live without those features, than the a6000 is more than capable to satisfy your needs...

I own the a6500 and previously the a6000. The difference in IQ, AF, etc. between the a6x00 bodies would be hard for most beginners to notice. All these bodies are quite capable and unless you know that you need to feature (like IBIS) on a more advanced model, than the a6000 is a great place to start. And if you know that you need IBIS or a deeper buffer you are probably not a beginner anyway.

I could shoot the a6000 for the rest of my life and be a very happy photographer!

meta4one · Dec 25, 2016

snapa said:
FuzzyQball said:

Agreed. Although you have to spend the extra for the 6300 then the adapter. At least when you have it you then have more options.

-- Glenn

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you still need to spend the extra for the adapter if you had the a6000? I'm not sure what your point is. The only thing different is the a6300 works better than the a6000 with an adapter, or am I missing something?

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

AF with adapted lenses on the a6000 (unless you use the LA-EA$ and alpha mount) is based doesn't use PDAF -- not worth bothering over as you can focus manually -- faster and more reliably. On the a6300/a6500 it is an entirely different matter. For those bodies, AF with adapted lenses can be excellent, though there are some limitations on high speed burst mode AF, lock on AF and eye AF.

grasshpr · Dec 25, 2016

Cheapest functioning adapter is around 50 dollars. I think a circular polarizer may cost just as much as that.

grasshpr · Dec 25, 2016

FuzzyQball said:
I guess I wonder when I should just use a Canon body instead for those Canon lenses. How far do I go to adapt them, and how does the cost/performance compare to adapting them to a 6000 or 6300?

grasshpr · Dec 25, 2016

meta4one said:
grasshpr said:

Guillermo Ramhorst said:

Hi all and Merry Christmas! I can see at B&H the Sony a6000 at 400 or 550 with the kit lens. I plan to use it for street, family travel and eventually trecking, which I love but somehow I am not doing quite often. Lightweight and portable are also a plus. Based on your experience, Is it worth to go for the a6300 or shall I get the a6000? Is the kit lens that bad? As I see it very practical.

Click to expand...

Choice of A6000 vs the A6300 depends heavily on whether you are looking for a camera with good image quality for a bargain basement price, or whether you need a camera with better image quality and has a bunch of new features like:

1) silent e-shutter

2) 4K video and a dedicated mic input jack

3) faster AF and more than double the AF points

4) faster and higher quality EVF

5) PDAF AF with adapted lenses

6) weather proofing with magnesium alloy body

7) some additional camera ergonomics

8) Oh and don't forget the improved high iso performance

If your willing to live without those features, than the a6000 is more than capable to satisfy your needs...

Click to expand...

I own the a6500 and previously the a6000. The difference in IQ, AF, etc. between the a6x00 bodies would be hard for most beginners to notice. All these bodies are quite capable and unless you know that you need to feature (like IBIS) on a more advanced model, than the a6000 is a great place to start. And if you know that you need IBIS or a deeper buffer you are probably not a beginner anyway.

I could shoot the a6000 for the rest of my life and be a very happy photographer!

I agree for most beginners, the a6000 is more than capable. The list of features isn't to demand beginners to try to not buy a Sony product, rather to show the fundamental improvements in the a6300.

I shoot quite alot of burst images and I find that the existing buffer size can be inadequate. Whether I upgrade to the a6500 really depends on whether my photography will significantly improve by spending more money on a camera body with new features, e.g., ibis, touch screen...

Having cameras with more features shouldn't be conceived as a problem but rather a blessing. But I think it's a personal choice for them to shell out money for the functionality they can gain with a new camera body. Better not make that decision blindly.

David Wyman · Dec 25, 2016

Guillermo - I do not understand your question or the title to your post.

Are you asking if the price difference between the A6000 and A6300 is so huge that you shouldn't get the latter? If so, then I say if you can afford the 10-18mm lens that you're also thinking about buying (it's awesome, by the way), then the price difference between the two bodies should make no difference to you. Get the body you that you want or can afford or justify owning.

Also, I don't understand your badmouthing the kit lens: "Is the kit lens that bad?" According to who? Sony doesn't sell inferior optics or it wouldn't be in the camera business. ;-) I'm not saying you should get a kit lens. I just don't understand the negative comment about it, unless you meant it in some other way or your just trolling.

cxsparc · Dec 26, 2016

Guillermo Ramhorst said:
Perhaps a decision could be the a6000 with the 16-70 and 10-18. I could later buy the a6300 or a6500 later. I could even get the kit for extra $150 to use when I want to travel super light or visiting risky areas.

Seems like you are not cash limited? Then get the A6500 and all the lenses, too

.

Seriously, I'd get the A6000 with kit lens, add the 18105 and if still possible, the 1018. If you then still have money left, the SEL35/1.8 for low light indoors and indoor kid shooting.

davect01 · Dec 26, 2016

I'm having a hard time justifying the A6500, when it cost $1000 more than my A6000.

I really like the A6500, and at some point may pick one up used, but for now, nope.

FuzzyQball · Dec 26, 2016

Understood. My preference so far is Sony having had a 5N, and now the 6000. I am not really stuck,on anything, and the major holes Sony is leaving in the lens lineup is concerning for me.

grasshpr · Dec 26, 2016

FuzzyQball said:
Understood. My preference so far is Sony having had a 5N, and now the 6000. I am not really stuck,on anything, and the major holes Sony is leaving in the lens lineup is concerning for me.

Cycledoc · Dec 26, 2016

Interesting comparison but for me the key difference between the 6000 and 5100 is that the 5100 has no viewfinder.

Snapperhead216 · Dec 26, 2016

CameraCarl said:
To me, it seems that the advantages of the a6300 or a6500 are a slight increase in image quality/ISO, some water/dust resistance (but only with a water resistant lens -- but then, Sony doesn't make any for the APS-C cameras), perhaps better video, better ability to use third party lenses and slightly different/better ergonomics. I haven't seen enough advantage to update my NEX-6 or a6000 for my photo needs which are primarily landscape/travel photos with very minimal need for video. And I only use Sony autofocus/image stabilized lenses, so I don't need to adapt other lenses to my camera. I got the $400 deal last year and have happily been taking photos ever since.

It would seem like the af points would be a big advantage ???

foot · Dec 26, 2016

David Wyman said:
Guillermo - I do not understand your question or the title to your post.

Are you asking if the price difference between the A6000 and A6300 is so huge that you shouldn't get the latter? If so, then I say if you can afford the 10-18mm lens that you're also thinking about buying (it's awesome, by the way), then the price difference between the two bodies should make no difference to you. Get the body you that you want or can afford or justify owning.

Also, I don't understand your badmouthing the kit lens: "Is the kit lens that bad?" According to who? Sony doesn't sell inferior optics or it wouldn't be in the camera business. ;-) I'm not saying you should get a kit lens. I just don't understand the negative comment about it, unless you meant it in some other way or your just trolling.

The difference in price between the A6000 vs A6300 is about $600, which goes a long way toward the 10-18 lens (I agree its a nice lens)

So would the smart money buy the A6000 + 10-18, or the A6300 with the kit lens?

Traditionally the answer would be buy the better lens, but in this case does that still apply? Would the A6000 with10-18 take better photos than the A6300+kit lens?

And next year it'll still be a great lens but the body will rapidly be replaced with newer and better bodies

caplanner · Dec 26, 2016

foot said:
David Wyman said:

Guillermo - I do not understand your question or the title to your post.

Are you asking if the price difference between the A6000 and A6300 is so huge that you shouldn't get the latter? If so, then I say if you can afford the 10-18mm lens that you're also thinking about buying (it's awesome, by the way), then the price difference between the two bodies should make no difference to you. Get the body you that you want or can afford or justify owning.

Also, I don't understand your badmouthing the kit lens: "Is the kit lens that bad?" According to who? Sony doesn't sell inferior optics or it wouldn't be in the camera business. ;-) I'm not saying you should get a kit lens. I just don't understand the negative comment about it, unless you meant it in some other way or your just trolling.

Click to expand...

The difference in price between the A6000 vs A6300 is about $600, which goes a long way toward the 10-18 lens (I agree its a nice lens)

So would the smart money buy the A6000 + 10-18, or the A6300 with the kit lens?

Traditionally the answer would be buy the better lens, but in this case does that still apply? Would the A6000 with10-18 take better photos than the A6300+kit lens?

And next year it'll still be a great lens but the body will rapidly be replaced with newer and better bodies

I'll start out by saying I like my copy of the 1650 but don't use it often because I have the 1670.

I wouldn't buy the A6000 with just the 1018 but having the extra wide angle with OSS does come in handy. Maybe the answer is determined by what lens the OP will use more than the quality of the lens - if the OP get's a good copy of the 1650 kit lens. It wouldn't be a bad kit to have both the 1650 and 1018. If it were me, I would get the A6000 and use the savings to buy a second or third lens or a good flash. Then decide if I have a desire to upgrade - by then the 6700 or a later model will be released. Maybe the 6500 will go down a little in price too. choices are good if we don't get "paralysis by analysis" and not do anything...

A6300 when a6000 is 400 usd

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts