A68 vs Canon SL2 & Nikon d5300 (or other low-end C or N)

Started 1 week ago | Discussions thread
Ralf B
Ralf B Veteran Member • Posts: 8,011
Level of ambition / Flash mount

Stigg wrote:

If it was a drastic improvement over the 18-300mm then I would definitely consider it. I'm still deciding what to go with but have found that the superzoom range suits my general usage for nature photography.

Any of the camera bodies you are currently considering outresolve the superzooms you consider for "general usage for nature photography". If that is your level of ambition, stop overthinking your camera choices. To fully benefit from the differences in cam resolution assumed to be caused by the impact of a low pass filter on the sensor (or lack thereof, as you raised the point elsewhere) you may consider to start thinking prime lenses. Superzooms only go so far, but not that far.

The Sigma 100-400mm is very reasonable but only available to E mount through adapters.

You are in the A Mount forum here, just to prevent you loose track on where you are posting.

One point not yet mentioned at all: Flash.

One reason to choose the a68 in your situation is the flash mount, as you are already invested in the E Mount you may benefit for the shared flash mount on E and current A Mount bodies if you ever consider adding a dedicated fash. Your a3000 and a6000 have the same flash mount for example as the a68.

Good luck with your choices!

 Ralf B's gear list:Ralf B's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha a99 Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow