Choosing between A6500, A6600 or A7iii

[dpoon]

I have done my research but I still cannot decide and that is why I am hoping some of you can help me to make the right choice.

I currently own A6000 with 3 aps-c lens. Sony 10-18mm , Sony18-105mm F4 and Sony 35mm F1.8.

I want to upgrade to get a faster AF system and takes better pictures. My main focus is pictures quality, I do not have high requirement for video or video blogging. I am an amateur, and I use the camera once or twice a month for random events and when I go travelling for holiday (once or twice a year). I do not do any print, mainly put on social media or just look at the pictures on the screen and share them with family and friends

I am in Australia, and I keep on close eye on discounts on cameras. Here is my list of pros and cons in my own perspective.

A6500
Pro - build-in flash is handy since I do not travel with a flash.
Pro - I can get it at A$1150
Pro - I have 2 extra batteries already
Con - 3 years old. Feel silly buying 3 years old technology.
Con - Probably discontinuous any firmware update from Sony.
Con - heard can overheat when taking video. (not a big deal to me)

A6600
Pro - Bigger battery
Pro - better AF system than A6500 and has eye tracking.
Pro - better image quality because of the latest Bionz X image processor. (but can I really tell the difference for what I need)
Pro - build quality seems better than A6500. I went to the shop to play with the A6600 and A6500. I feel A6600 has better build quality, but maybe it is because the A6600 is new in the showroom and the A6500 is 3 years old demo unit.
Con - it is A$1800.
Con - no flash, not sure how much I will miss the flash but can be annoying when I needed it one day.

To throw into the discussion, I was also thinking of A7iii, since A6600 is A$1800

A7iii
Pro - For A$2100, I can get a full frame camera and it is only $300 more than the A6600
Pro - better build quality, and dual SD card slot.
Pro - better low light IQ even with APS-C lens. (not sure is it true or not)
Con - 160g heavier and bigger than A6600
Con - I only have APS-C lens, so crop to 10M pixel. (I get 24M on A6X00)
Con - no money to buy FF lens, maybe have to wait another year or two before I will consider my 1st FF lens. (even then I worry about the extra weight)

After all of these, I cannot make up my mind. Both A6500 and A7iii are both good value for money. A6600 has many of the A7iii advantages in a smaller, lighter body, but expensive especially when compare to A6500. For the A7iii, I will be shooting at crop mode for a long time, so I loss 14M pixel compare to the A6X00 series.

Give me some suggestion.... if you were me.. what will you buy?

 

[voronspb]

Throw A6400 into this list.

(+) Much cheaper than A6600.

(+) Better AF and overall usability than A6500. It's about as good as A6600 in this regard.

(?) No IBIS, but you don't need it anyway, as all your lenses are stabilized.

(?) The battery life is about as good (or bad) as in your A6000. And it uses the same batteries.

***

Be advised that technical image quality of A6000, A6600 and in-between models is all the same. Though with A6400 and A6600 you'll get a lot more keepers in challenging conditions because of great AF.

***

A7III is a camera of entirely different class than all of A6xxx models. But using it in crop mode for stills is wasting your money. So unless you're prepared to get at least basic FE lenses (there're many of them in sub-500$ range, starting right from the 28-70 kit), staying with APS-C will yield better results.

--
Vladimir Gorbunov

 

[PWPhotography]

If I were you I'd go to A7 III. It's FF that has much better IQ especially in DR and high ISO. Choose a system and a format are critical as it affects your future grow potential. It'd be costly if you want to move from APS-C to FF later after building up many APS-C lenses.

 

[voronspb]

If I were you I'd go to A7 III. It's FF that has much better IQ especially in DR and high ISO. Choose a system and a format are critical as it affects your future grow potential. It'd be costly if you want to move from APS-C to FF later after building up many APS-C lenses.

APS-C camera may be "good enough" as well for many shooters. Of course, the potential of FF is way bigger - provided it's paired with right optics. And FF is more enjoyable to use actually (while APS-C is easier to carry around).

 

[fujitiv]

This.

If you plan on sticking it out with your current lenses, then maybe leave out the A7iii. No sense limiting yourself to 10MP, I think.

Throw A6400 into this list.

(+) Much cheaper than A6600.

(+) Better AF and overall usability than A6500. It's about as good as A6600 in this regard.

(?) No IBIS, but you don't need it anyway, as all your lenses are stabilized.

(?) The battery life is about as good (or bad) as in your A6000. And it uses the same batteries.

***

Be advised that technical image quality of A6000, A6600 and in-between models is all the same. Though with A6400 and A6600 you'll get a lot more keepers in challenging conditions because of great AF.

***

A7III is a camera of entirely different class than all of A6xxx models. But using it in crop mode for stills is wasting your money. So unless you're prepared to get at least basic FE lenses (there're many of them in sub-500$ range, starting right from the 28-70 kit), staying with APS-C will yield better results.

 

[PPierre]

My opinion is you should go the A6100 way if you want to save money and get better AF, slightly better IQ (I'm not sure anyone can notice it), newer functionalities (eye-AF is one of them), or the A6600 way.

Regarding the A7III, it's a pretty nice camera (I own one), but it will sure not give you as good results as your A6000 with APS-C lenses. This means if you go that way, you have to change all your lenses. And the equivalent FF lenses of your APS-C kit are pretty expensive.

Personally, I think if I hadn't gone the FF way 3 years ago, I'd find myself buying the A6600 and 16-55f2.8 + 70-350 kit today : I tried them at Salon de la Photo in Paris last year, and they were awesome to use. The A6600 is almost as good in IQ as the A7III (if you don't print wallpapers), and the system has some pretty good lenses, including the fabulous trio of Sigma Arts (16,30 and 56, all f1.4), which is even more fabulous with the IBIS of the A6600.

 

[AngelusHD]

My opinion is you should go the A6100 way if you want to save money and get better AF, slightly better IQ (I'm not sure anyone can notice it), newer functionalities (eye-AF is one of them), or the A6600 way.

Regarding the A7III, it's a pretty nice camera (I own one), but it will sure not give you as good results as your A6000 with APS-C lenses. This means if you go that way, you have to change all your lenses. And the equivalent FF lenses of your APS-C kit are pretty expensive.

Personally, I think if I hadn't gone the FF way 3 years ago, I'd find myself buying the A6600 and 16-55f2.8 + 70-350 kit today : I tried them at Salon de la Photo in Paris last year, and they were awesome to use. The A6600 is almost as good in IQ as the A7III (if you don't print wallpapers), and the system has some pretty good lenses, including the fabulous trio of Sigma Arts (16,30 and 56, all f1.4), which is even more fabulous with the IBIS of the A6600.

 

[Rudy]

I have A7III, and some FF glass. If i would by again, i would certainly consider the 6600, because, the lenses that are good on the A7III are heavy and very expensive. Look at some 24-105 and 70-200, both extremely good, but heavy and expensive. A6600 gives you more possibilities, and a much lighter and cheaper solution. Give that you already own crop lenses, and not willing to buy FF, i would surely buy the 6600 then. (crop on the A7III is nowwhere near the 24mp of the A6600)

 

[voronspb]

Look at some 24-105 and 70-200, both extremely good, but heavy and expensive.

Then look at 17-28/2.8, 28-75/2.8 and 70-180/2.8 - all three being fast, lightweight and relatively inexpensive.

For cropped Sony cameras there's no lens being even close to equivalent of F2.8 zoom trios or F1.4 primes. Such a lens would have featured the aperture of F2.0 or F1.0 respectively.

--
Vladimir Gorbunov

 

[hungrylau]

Look at some 24-105 and 70-200, both extremely good, but heavy and expensive.

Then look at 17-28/2.8, 28-75/2.8 and 70-180/2.8 - all three being fast, lightweight and relatively inexpensive.

For cropped Sony cameras there's no lens being even close to equivalent of F2.8 zoom trios or F1.4 primes. Such a lens would have featured the aperture of F2.0 or F1.0 respectively.

Relatively inexpensive to you, but not the OP. The guy's going to have to save for a year to get an FE lens..

You'll also note the indecision in the OP. He wants the better IQ of the a7iii (thanks sony marketing), but he's undecided about the weight of the entire setup.

Yes, the a7iii system is great. But why not wait another year to upgrade? I'm pretty sure that those sales that are currently on now are likely to be on again in the future.

We've seen some very deep discounting in Australia across multiple specialty camera retailers. It suggests that people in AU on the whole aren't too keen on DSLRs and mirrorless.

 

[voronspb]

Relatively inexpensive to you, but not the OP. The guy's going to have to save for a year to get an FE lens..

I wrote in the very beginning that the preferred option, if keeping the current lenses, would be A6400.

BTW, many cropped Sony lenses aren't cheap either for what they are. In zoom lenses I count only two cheap options: 16-50 and 18-135 - both in bundle with camera. Said 10-18 and 16-70 are extremely overpriced, to my opinion. Sony E prime lenses are quite inexpensive, but in the same time they aren't really competing by 2020 (rooting in the beginning of 2010s with 14 MP sensors).

You'll also note the indecision in the OP. He wants the better IQ of the a7iii (thanks sony marketing), but he's undecided about the weight of the entire setup.

A tough choice, right. I ended up with two bodies, as it's impossible to combine all qualities in one. Both bodies are used equally often.

Yes, the a7iii system is great. But why not wait another year to upgrade? I'm pretty sure that those sales that are currently on now are likely to be on again in the future.

Staying at A6000 for a year means quite a lot of missed opportunities to get better picture. Both A6400 and A7III are free from "early adopter fee" by now, so there's no reason to wait more. Given the present trends in Sony camera development, the next generations of these cameras won't trigger the need to upgrade ASAP, so it's quite a good investment, as it seems to me.

 

[Tommy S]

My main focus is pictures quality, I do not have high requirement for video or video blogging. I am an amateur, and I use the camera once or twice a month for random events and when I go travelling for holiday (once or twice a year). I do not do any print, mainly put on social media or just look at the pictures on the screen and share them with family and friends

It is simple logic. First, ask yourself a question about what type of photography in your portfolio prevails. A7iii might seem better than A6600, but only in certain conditions. A6500 might be also good (cheaper), but having one I am switching to A6600. The main reason: Smaller form factor with much better battery life. Now I have battery grip which gives me around 700 shots, but the kit is a bit clunky. Another reason is superb AF tracking of A6600, which for my type of action/sports photography is crucial. A6500 is no slouch, but occasionally I miss the AF. Eye AF for video seems also tempting for me, maybe not for you.

Many FF users underline DR and high ISO capabilities. OK. But having Sigma 1.4 trio is hard to beat that with FF unless you stick to really fast FF lenses. F2.8 is way slower on FF than F1.4 on APS-C.

If I were you and considered your point of photography I would go A6600. It is a bit pricey but much more future proof than A6500 or A7iii. Try to beat A6600 with Sigma trio 1.4 considering price, weight, portability, ISO with FF. Excel helps a lot.