From A6300 to A6600. Is it worth it?

Started 4 days ago | Discussions thread
Advent1sam
Advent1sam Veteran Member • Posts: 8,145
Re: From A6300 to A6600. Is it worth it?
1

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.

actually it won't give you any better picture quality, except at iso100 you might pull a bit more hl and iso6400 you might get a little less noise, elsewhere you will not know one 24mp sensor of a6600 quality against any other FF 24mp sensor, it's impossible to detect any advantage in the real world and like I say shooting FF and aps-c is both a hindrance and a curse stopping down or opening up depending on the application. This guy threw in 28-75 so I threw in 16-55 which is of course better than a 28-75 imo.

The A7iii routinely outperforms the A6500 (The A6600 hasn't been tested yet) at pretty much all ISO levels apart from maybe base ISO.

Well, if you provide 2 images of equivalence we can analyse it, unfortunately equivalent images don't exist outside these labs as nobody ever takes equivalent images, and they seldom take the samples at equivalence either, aperture etc. But what real advanatage apart from that nice aperture ring do you think you'll gain from a gm 24 1.4 over the Sigma 16 1.4? Actually, I think the 24 1.4 ie a 35mm on the a6600 would be far nicer than it is on 24mpFF, I would concede that an a7r4 would probably provide the best of both worlds but then, a7r4, I don't need/want it.

Dustin Abbot tested the 16 1.4, I am not sure about other tests from optical limits/dxo etc but I think we all know the 16 1.4 is a very very good lens.

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).

I'll take the a6600 and 16 1.4 over the a7iii and 24 1.4, every day of the week, I am no fan of dslr look cameras, so for me personally its a no thanks, then the af of the a6600 is state of the art, then there's the cost of the 24 1.4, which as I say I prefer for aps-c any way as the Sigma 16 1.4 is very very nice.

 Advent1sam's gear list:Advent1sam's gear list
Sony a6500 Sony a6600 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sigma 30mm F1.4 for Sony E Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN (Sony) +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow