Get a Sony a6000 or stick with my Nikon D5300?

shill7 said:

I'm an intermediate photographer shooting on a Nikon D5300 and the 18-140mm kit lens. I like shooting portraiture, astro, and architectural.

I like my Nikon, but the size kills me. I want something smaller, with similar specs, and a similar focal range without having to lug around more than a few lenses.

The a6000 body matches my criteria very well. However, I'm worried the 16-50mm kit lens isn't going to measure up; I can't help but be reminded of cheap point-and-shoots by the powerzoom feature.

The other option I'm looking at is buying the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN now, and the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE in 6 months - 1 year. This will get me a nice focal range (eventually), but will cost a lot more, even just buying the Sigma. I've heard these lenses are good, but are they that good? And is a 30mm restriction for 6 months going to drive me crazy or have people found it nice to be restricted for a while?

Just to lay it out bare, here's what I see as my options:

1. Buy the a6000 with the 16-50mm.

2. Buy the a6000, but with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN. In the future, pick up the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE.

3. Stick with the Nikon D5300.

Click to expand...

Well if you are pleased with your Nikon then no need to rush. I had Canon 700D once and now i use A6300. The reasons for swapping camera were:

1. The big body (like your reason)

2. Auto Focus needs AF Micro adjustments after exchanging lens for a while, whereas the low end SLR camera (e.g. Nikon D5xxx and below; Canon 7xxD and below) does not provide such mechanism.

The kit lens isn't bad as you might think, it even provides you a taste of wide angle capabilities at 16mm. So even though with mine, the 18-105 lens is the main lens, the kit lens is still kept.

if you choose to go with A6000, i'd say get one with kit lens and buy the Sigma too. It will last for quite a while.

hansip87 said:

shill7 said:

I'm an intermediate photographer shooting on a Nikon D5300 and the 18-140mm kit lens. I like shooting portraiture, astro, and architectural.

I like my Nikon, but the size kills me. I want something smaller, with similar specs, and a similar focal range without having to lug around more than a few lenses.

The a6000 body matches my criteria very well. However, I'm worried the 16-50mm kit lens isn't going to measure up; I can't help but be reminded of cheap point-and-shoots by the powerzoom feature.

The other option I'm looking at is buying the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN now, and the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE in 6 months - 1 year. This will get me a nice focal range (eventually), but will cost a lot more, even just buying the Sigma. I've heard these lenses are good, but are they that good? And is a 30mm restriction for 6 months going to drive me crazy or have people found it nice to be restricted for a while?

Just to lay it out bare, here's what I see as my options:

1. Buy the a6000 with the 16-50mm.

2. Buy the a6000, but with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN. In the future, pick up the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE.

3. Stick with the Nikon D5300.

Click to expand...

Well if you are pleased with your Nikon then no need to rush. I had Canon 700D once and now i use A6300. The reasons for swapping camera were:

1. The big body (like your reason)

2. Auto Focus needs AF Micro adjustments after exchanging lens for a while, whereas the low end SLR camera (e.g. Nikon D5xxx and below; Canon 7xxD and below) does not provide such mechanism.

The kit lens isn't bad as you might think, it even provides you a taste of wide angle capabilities at 16mm. So even though with mine, the 18-105 lens is the main lens, the kit lens is still kept.

if you choose to go with A6000, i'd say get one with kit lens and buy the Sigma too. It will last for quite a while.

Click to expand...

The kit lens is nice and light, and takes reasonable pictures.

Depending on how you shoot, the 18-105 would be another option to consider, it doesn't have the reach of 200mm, but at a constant F4.0, will produce better bokeh for portraits- plus it's less expensive and lighter than the 18-200 (tho it does have a power-zoom feature as well, which is great for zooming for video)

I moved from Nikon DSLRs to Sony mirrorless for the size reason.

I'm happy with with my choice because I use prime lenses, and the three that I use the most (12mm, 24mm, 50mm) mean that my set up is a lot smaller than a Nikon DSLR even with say the 35mm attached.

If you are planning on using the 18-200mm then the size difference isn't going to be that big (http://j.mp/2nakdoc). You aren't gaining that much but are losing things like battery life, AF speed, lens selection etc.

I agree. I've owned the a6000, a6300, and now the a6500. The auto-focus of the a6300/a6500 is far superior to the a6000. Unless you are limited by your budget, get the a6300.

If you are happy with the image quality, focusing and your current lens then I'd say stick with the Nikon. I switched from Canon because of frustrating focus experience with prime lenses on a T2i. The smaller size of my A6300 is a mixed bag because the screen is quite a bit smaller and the quality isn't great - doesn't affect the image quality of course.

What you might consider is a sling strap that would make your Nikon "feel" smaller. I couldn't believe the difference it made when I switched from a neck to a sling strap. I have been extremely happy with the one in the link below. Cheaper than the alternatives and easy to take the camera on and off the strap for different angles and tripod mounting.

Probably stick with the Nikon

(if money is not a consideration than the Sony is a better camera IMO because I prefer the EVF and size)

but size wise once you stick a huge lens on it there is not a big difference

Stick with nikon.

shill7 said:

The a6000 body matches my criteria very well. However, I'm worried the 16-50mm kit lens isn't going to measure up; I can't help but be reminded of cheap point-and-shoots by the powerzoom feature.

Click to expand...

Another option to consider - pick up the A6000 body only, and buy the older 18-55mm kit lens. This was a non-power-zoom, non-compacting kit lens. It may be just slightly better optically according to some - though they're still both just kit lenses - but if you don't like the powerzoom feature and style of lens (I absolutely HATE power zooms and lenses that compact down when the camera goes to sleep), the 18-55mm kit lens can give you a more traditional DSLR type lens feel. And they're cheap - new or used.

Nothing wrong with your Nikon. But if you decide you want to switch to a smaller camera format and decide to go the E-mount route, the cheap 18-55 kit zoom can give you a usable walk around option that doesn't feel as much like a P&S.

I agree with zackiedawg that the older 18-55mm is a better lens than the 16-50 and can be had cheaply on ebay.

Other thing is, don't get the "18-200 OSS LE", get the older silver "18-200 OSS". The LE edition is newer, smaller and lighter, but there is some consensus that it is optically inferior to the older lens which isn't significantly larger or heavier. The OSS in the older lens is actually pretty magical. You look in the viewfinder and the view is bobbing, then you half press the shutter and the frame just seems to become locked in place in a really obvious way.

Hi,

This has been discussed many times lately on this forum.

When you buy the camera it is worth the extra hundred or so dollars and buy the kit lens.

Look here to see pictures from 1650mm lens. Sample pictures

Brad

Stay with the Nikon. All I've ever shot the last 17 years is Nikon DSLR and last fall I bought the a6300 as all of my equipment and wife's equipment was stolen. I've been underwhelmed to say the least, I never minded the size and I have a little bit of arthritis. Black Rapid makes a terrific strap for walking around. There's also a learning curve with the a6300 and I'm trying hard to like it. If you really do want to switch go with a high end point and shoot set up.

shill7 said:

I'm an intermediate photographer shooting on a Nikon D5300 and the 18-140mm kit lens. I like shooting portraiture, astro, and architectural.

I like my Nikon, but the size kills me. I want something smaller, with similar specs, and a similar focal range without having to lug around more than a few lenses.

Click to expand...

Bottom line: a reasonable goal. The A6000 camera is great. Excellent performance and IQ. However, see below, if you are very attached to that Nikon 18-140 zoom lens, that is going to be your trade off. You will get a much lighter weight, smaller, and equal or better camera IQ, but at that price you can't match that zoom lens in a native zoom lens. In zoom lenses you either pay more for quality or accept a somewhat lesser zoom lens. If you want to switch to prime lenses, my personal lifetime preference regardless of camera, then the Sony is a big win. but for hardcore zoom lens folks operating on a budget, there are tradeoffs of going to Sony.

Specifics below:

shill7 said:

The a6000 body matches my criteria very well. However, I'm worried the 16-50mm kit lens isn't going to measure up;

Click to expand...

Given your goal, you should get it. When you want a compact versatile package, the combo is great. I'm a prime lens person, but wouldn't not own the kit. The lens is ok.

shill7 said:

I can't help but be reminded of cheap point-and-shoots by the powerzoom feature.

Click to expand...

You want advice. This is silly. If what it reminds you of bothers you, don't get a smaller camera. Keep the heavy stuff and feel proud to be a dslr lugger. The kit is a good lens that is super compact.

At one point I owned both the 18-55 kit and the 16-50 kit. I did a bunch of tests with charts. There was no optical difference. The 16mm is more useful than 18mm however and the 16-50 on the A6000 fits easily into a jacket pocket which the 18-55 does not.

shill7 said:

The other option I'm looking at is buying the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN now

Click to expand...

Good choice. Fine lens.

shill7 said:

, and the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE in 6 months - 1 year.

Click to expand...

My opinion: Don't get this. Defeats your purpose of getting small. It is basically about the same size and weight as your existing 18-140, but not as good. If you need the upper zoom range only sometimes, then I'd get either the 55-210, or one of the higher end 70-300ish native zooms.

shill7 said:

This will get me a nice focal range (eventually), but will cost a lot more, even just buying the Sigma. I've heard these lenses are good, but are they that good? And is a 30mm restriction for 6 months going to drive me crazy or have people found it nice to be restricted for a while?

Click to expand...

Don't be restricted. Get the 16-50 kit.

shill7 said:

Just to lay it out bare, here's what I see as my options:

1. Buy the a6000 with the 16-50mm.

Click to expand...

Yes and get either the Sigma 30 2.8 or the Sigma 30 1.4. (I own both and would recommend the 1.4 for low light, but the 2.8 is inexpensive and very light and compact. Remember your goal. If you are shooting landscape, or anything other than indoor portrait, I'd get the 2.8 for its size, if low light indoor portrait then get the 1.4)

shill7 said:

2. Buy the a6000, but with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN. In the future, pick up the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE.

3. Stick with the Nikon D5300.

Click to expand...

If you are a hard core zoom lens lover, and think you can't get to really like primes, and don't have a big budget, then I'd stick with the Nikon. (Others may disagree. I think it is tough to match the 18-140 that you have for quality at price in Sony land.) I've always been a prime lens shooter, so the Sony wins hands down for someone with my preferences. The primes are great, good selection and quality. The camera is great. But, from a distance I'd say the Sony mid-range zoom selection is either high priced or lack luster quality.

shill7 said:

I'm an intermediate photographer shooting on a Nikon D5300 and the 18-140mm kit lens. I like shooting portraiture, astro, and architectural.

I like my Nikon, but the size kills me. I want something smaller, with similar specs, and a similar focal range without having to lug around more than a few lenses.

The a6000 body matches my criteria very well. However, I'm worried the 16-50mm kit lens isn't going to measure up; I can't help but be reminded of cheap point-and-shoots by the powerzoom feature.

The other option I'm looking at is buying the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN now, and the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE in 6 months - 1 year. This will get me a nice focal range (eventually), but will cost a lot more, even just buying the Sigma. I've heard these lenses are good, but are they that good? And is a 30mm restriction for 6 months going to drive me crazy or have people found it nice to be restricted for a while?

Just to lay it out bare, here's what I see as my options:

1. Buy the a6000 with the 16-50mm.

2. Buy the a6000, but with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN. In the future, pick up the Sony 18-200mm OSS LE.

3. Stick with the Nikon D5300.

Click to expand...

1650 kit is not awful but not great either. It can be used with good results in decent light, especially starting at 20mm up. 16mm is also perfectly usable but you can get soft corners and distortion depending on the subject. Still, it is such a versatile lens, I keep using it even though I have better zooms.

1855 (older) kit is imho sharper and with better contrast. But it's also physically longer and not as wide and the difference is not night and day. But an option to consider.

18105/4 is a very versatile lens that is decent across the range. It is about the size of your Nikon lens - slightly lighter, about 12mm longer compared to the Nikon collapsed, but it doesn't extend when zoomed so it stays the same length and Nikon is getting much longer. Looking at DXOMark sharpness tests, this lens is going to be about as sharp as your Nikon in the center, but softer in the corners. OTOH it's a constant f4, which may make a difference in not so good light.

A6000 with 18105 is going to be slightly smaller and lighter than Nikon D5300 with 18-140 , however the big difference is that you can put a different lens on and immediately make it into a jacket-pocketable combination, while Nikon is going to stay bulky no matter what.

If it was me, I'd get a A6000 + 16-50 kit (you're only paying $100 extra for the kit), and 18-105. If you end up hating the kit, you can always sell it and get either the 1855 or a Sigma prime for about the same / a bit extra. This way you get maximum flexibility.

Another advantage of Sony and mirrorless overall is that you can get a bunch of cheap manual focus primes to play with.

The trade off is going to be some ergonomics, battery life (I always carry a spare) and perhaps some AF speed. But I switched from Canon 4 years ago and I don't think I'd want to go back. Still love Canon colors and lenses but not the bulk and weight.

Thanks all, responses were all great. Have a lot to think about now.

I'm going to stick with my Nikon for a few months more, so as to think about all the situations I use it in, and how the Sony might compare.

Thanks again everyone.