From A6300 to A6600. Is it worth it?

Started 4 days ago | Discussions thread
VBlaster_W211 New Member • Posts: 11
Re: From A6300 to A6600. Is it worth it?

Cooper82 wrote:

Advent1sam wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

I shoot mainly static architectural and only RAW.

Maybe a7 III and tamron 28-75 instead of a6600??? Don't know if the advanced AF functions of the a6600 are going to be all that helpful.

As good as the 28-75 allegedly is, the a6600 and 16-55 is surely a much better proposition, especially if the op wants to add a tele for architecture too, the 70-350 is an unbelievable bargain for landscape and wildlife, offering up again state of the art af, compact 100-525 focal range. a7iii is what it is, a pseudo milc dslr with little advantage over the a6600 in any area, personally I prefer the corner evf and the thumb controls and the 16-55 with a 24mm start is better than the 28 start any day of the week, especially landscape and architecture and the 83mm tele is better than the 75 tele too if you want a compact 2.8c zoom!

We both know the A6600 + Sony 16-55 2.8 is far more expensive than an A7iii + Tamron 28-75. The OP isn't even looking for a zoom.

That being said, the OP is looking for better image quality. The A6600 has very little upgrade over the A6300. The A7iii on the other hand will give a much more noticeable increase in picture quality. The A7iii routinely outperforms the A6500 (The A6600 hasn't been tested yet) at pretty much all ISO levels apart from maybe base ISO.

For architecture there's no APSC camera that compares to an A7iii + Sony GM 24mm f1.4 (which is the same price as the A6600+16-55 2.8 btw).

For architecture interior, I love my a7riii + Tamron 1728F2.8.

Over here, the a6600 + 16-55 is cheaper than the a7iii + Tamron 2875. The 16-55 can be had about usd 1250. Edited to remove political comments moderator.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow