Should I go for the A6300 to replace my MFT E-M5?

[ahson]

I don't know what kind of response I'll get as I am asking this in a Sony forum. Anyhow I decided to ask in here now and will ask again in the MFT forum.

I am planning to get the A6300 to replace my 4 years old? Olympus E-M5. I mainly used it for street and travel photography so being portable is fairly important. There are two reasons why I want to upgrade it.

IQ: MFT cameras are still using some old technology on their sensor. While the A6300 sensor is fairly new.

35mm Lens: Yes MFT has an excellent lens choices compared to Sony APSC lens. However the lens that I always love, 35mm (35mm equiv. FL) is quite limited in the MFT world. I've waited for many years and the only 35mm equiv lens for MFT is simply bad in quality. There are few good quality 35 equiv lens for A6300 plus it shoots 4K video so I am thinking maybe this would be a logical upgrade.

What are your thoughts?

 

[G Rash]

I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

 

[ahson]

I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

--
G

Do you see any IQ improvement on your 6300 over the EM5? I am quite surprised the 24/1.8 Zeiss is not better than the Pany 20/1.7. Also I thought the Oly 17/1.8 isn't all that great anyway?

--
Wilson Ho Photography
Website | Facebook

 

[hungrylau]

My favourite pics by far are from the 24z. The photos are so sharp, and realistic, that it's almost like I've gone back in time to that moment.

 

[Jorginho]

There are two 35 mm equiv lenses. One is the not so good Oly 17 f2.8 and the other is the quite good 17mm f1.8...So which one are you talking about?

But other than that: if you just want a 35 mm lens then the A6300 with that lens (I guess you want the 24 mm Zeiss??) would probably be a solid choice with some very good IQ and still be pretty small. So why not?

 

[Jorginho]

Well..current mFT cams especially Panasonic are very good at C-AF now. So that is no issue at all and there is no hunting in AF with virtually any lens in mFT (my 20 mm f1.7 is a bit slow...for mFT standards).

With EM1 mkII and 1/60s hiRes mode to arrive shortly it might be that the IQ at least under those circumstances where it can be used (at 1/60s quite a few i'd say) will be far better than that of the A6300.

 

[Jorginho]

I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

 

[ahson]

I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

--
G

Do you see any IQ improvement on your 6300 over the EM5? I am quite surprised the 24/1.8 Zeiss is not better than the Pany 20/1.7. Also I thought the Oly 17/1.8 isn't all that great anyway?

--
Wilson Ho Photography
Website | Facebook

Come on?! If you would just read a little you would know that the 20 1.7 is a very very good lens! You are seriously underestimating it and the 17 mm f1.8 was only seen as a disappoiting since it was slightly worse than the very same 20 1.7. But it is a very solid lens everstill.

I have been using the panay 20/1.7 for many years and I know it's an excellent lens. Yes the Oly 17/1.8 is alright but I am not looking for a lens that's not on par/better than my p 20/1.7. Thought about the Voigtlander 17.5/0.95 but I am not a fan of manual focus on a E-M5. Anyhow I will try not to talk too much about the MFT side as this is mainly a Sony forum. Thanks

--
Wilson Ho Photography
Website | Facebook

 

[santiclaws]

I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

 

[NorCal Jim]

35mm Lens: Yes MFT has an excellent lens choices compared to Sony APSC lens. However the lens that I always love, 35mm (35mm equiv. FL) is quite limited in the MFT world. I've waited for many years and the only 35mm equiv lens for MFT is simply bad in quality. There are few good quality 35 equiv lens for A6300 plus it shoots 4K video so I am thinking maybe this would be a logical upgrade.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Dirk W]

I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

 

[sportyaccordy]

One thing not to overlook- I think you're really gonna miss IBIS. And like others said, the lens selection is pretty bad. I think I can count the E mount lenses I would actually pay for on one hand (10-18, 24Z, 30 1.4, 35 1.8, 50 1.8... Sigma 2.8 primes are too slow IMO)

 

[ahson]

One thing not to overlook- I think you're really gonna miss IBIS. And like others said, the lens selection is pretty bad. I think I can count the E mount lenses I would actually pay for on one hand (10-18, 24Z, 30 1.4, 35 1.8, 50 1.8... Sigma 2.8 primes are too slow IMO)

IBIS - very true! Umm will need to think clearly before switching to the Sony system. I am still not 100% sold on the Sony E mount because of the limited lens selection.

 

[sportyaccordy]

I would personally look at Fuji. Same problem with no IBIS, but the lens selection and UI is much better.

 

[ahson]

I would personally look at Fuji. Same problem with no IBIS, but the lens selection and UI is much better.

I tried a X100T for two weeks and didn't enjoy it much. Its color rendition was a little awkward, especially on human skin tone. Not sure if it's still the same on their newer models. Their newer ones are on the higher price range so I didn't want to include it on the discussion. I could probably find a used A7II + accessories for the price of a new X-Pro2.

 

[sportyaccordy]

A7II is a good option if you can live with the smaller lenses. It's going to be a handful coming from your EM5 though and I don't think the AF will be as good.

 

[PSCL1]

To the OP: It does not seem reasonable or practical to be considering a complete switch of systems because you prefer a particular field of view and the 'new' system is reputed to have better lens(es) at that FOV than the 'old' system. I have m43 and Sony DX systems and have used both, although not 35mm equiv FOV except for zooms. Sony DX lens selection is vastly inferior to that of m43. I'd respectfully suggest that you see if perhaps you might not prefer the 20mm f1.7 Panasonic FOV on your m43 body in preference to even the very good 17 f1.8 Olympus. The 20 was praised in several posts above and I'll echo that. IMO it ranks up there with Leica 35, 40, and 50 Summicrons and it would not surprise me to learn that Leica, which has designed lenses for Panasonic, had a hand in creating the 20. (However I have no insider news or even rumors to substantiate my speculation.) So I would encourage you to buy the 20 before you spend over $1000 on an A6000 and Zeiss DX 24.

 

[G Rash]

G Rash, post: 58276241, member: 632798"]
I have both the EM5 and the A6300. You're right about the sensor, and continuous AF will be no comparison. The one shortfall, in my opinion, of the Sony system is the lenses. However, many people love the Zeiss 24mm, which will get you very close to the field of view you like. My 24z is not sharp wide open. My 20mm Pany was better and my 17mm Oly is as good wide open as my 24z (and that Oly 17 gets you just as close to your desired field of view). I must have a bad copy, because my 24z hunts a lot for focus, particularly using continuous AF like I prefer to do. My 32mm Zeiss is better than my 24z. Assuming you get a good copy of the 24, I think you'll be very happy with the A6300.

 

[snapa]

The 24mm Zeiss is a superb lens; I think this is the first time I've heard someone say that their copy is poor. It is one of the very best lenses for the E-mount and almost certainly the best APS-C lens. Just about every review I've ever seen for the lens has been glowing. I know mine is on my camera 95% of the time.

I picked up my 24 used at a reasonably good price, and it definitely was not "superb" when it came to auto focus nor when shooting wide open. I don't mind stopping down to get good results, but AF hunting issues are significantly worse than with the 16-50, 18-55, 18-105, 55-210, Sigma 19, Sigma 30 f/1.4 and Zeiss 32mm, which has been very disappointing. And it has the firmware update.

-- G

Wow, reading all these personal reviews of the 24mm Zeiss (and the 16-70), it is making me wonder if either of them are really worth their price. There are either extreme QC issues with these lenses, or the Sony/Zeiss asking price is much too high for both of them, I can't figure which one it is. I guess if you are extremely lucky enough to get a GREAT copy of either of them, and don't pay full retail, maybe... it might be worth the cost. Since I'm not into gambling, I'm going to stay clear of both of them. If they were both about half the asking price (which they should be considering their compromises), I might be tempted. I'm also not prepared to go through multiple copies through warranties to try to get a very good copy of either. Call me lazy, but I'm not going to do that.

 

[NorCal Jim]

Wow, reading all these personal reviews of the 24mm Zeiss (and the 16-70), it is making me wonder if either of them are really worth their price. There are either extreme QC issues with these lenses, or the Sony/Zeiss asking price is much too high for both of them, I can't figure which one it is. I guess if you are extremely lucky enough to get a GREAT copy of either of them, and don't pay full retail, maybe... it might be worth the cost. Since I'm not into gambling, I'm going to stay clear of both of them. If they were both about half the asking price (which they should be considering their compromises), I might be tempted. I'm also not prepared to go through multiple copies through warranties to try to get a very good copy of either. Call me lazy, but I'm not going to do that.