A6000 upgrade options

[920kai]

A6000 user for a couple years now, with the Zeiss 12mm and 16-70mm.

I'm ready to upgrade the body, and a 3rd lens with more reach.

I love landscapes and hike often so weight is a consideration - I carry a Mavic Pro + multiple batteries with me on hikes. Even though the Mavic is light, still adds to my backpack!

Don't shoot video or fast action sports shots.

Body - considering the A6500 vs a used A7II (A7R mk 2 seems too big of a jump, never used full frame before + it's $$$)

I do desire better DR and low light performance than what I have now with the A6000, but going to A7II means I should probably invest in FE lenses too, huh?

Lens - considering a used F4 70-200mm (F2.8 is tempting but $$$)

Thoughts?

 

[Arneb]

A6000 user for a couple years now, with the Zeiss 12mm and 16-70mm.

I'm ready to upgrade the body, and a 3rd lens with more reach.

I love landscapes and hike often so weight is a consideration - I carry a Mavic Pro + multiple batteries with me on hikes. Even though the Mavic is light, still adds to my backpack!

If you're really into landscapes you could consider a used a7R. It has a 36 MP sensor. It isn't a perfect camera, it has a lot of things that should have been different, which explains the rather low price.

Most of these issues were 'fixed' with the a7RII and a7II.

Don't shoot video or fast action sports shots.

Body - considering the A6500 vs a used A7II (A7R mk 2 seems too big of a jump, never used full frame before + it's $$$)

I do desire better DR and low light performance than what I have now with the A6000, but going to A7II means I should probably invest in FE lenses too, huh?

The a6500 has a better sensor than the a6000... but it's not that much better. The main advantages of the a6500 are the fast AF system, the large buffer, better AF with lens adapters and 4K video. And of course IBIS. As I understand that you don't really want/need most of this and that the a6500 is considerably more expensive, I'm afraid that you'll be disappointed.

So in short, if you really want much better IQ (DR and noise), I think it's better to get a FF camera ... or faster lenses. A 2.8 version of the Zeiss 16-70 would be very nice but it sadly doesn't exist yet.

There are some fast primes, like the Sigma 30 F1.4. Due to the fast aperture, a lower ISO can be used and you'll get more DR and less noise.

Lens - considering a used F4 70-200mm (F2.8 is tempting but $$$)

Unless you'll use adapters (like the Sigma MC-11) - which work better with the a6300 and a6500 - there isn't much choice. Apart from the 70-200 F4 and F2.8, there's also the (rather new) Sony FE 70-300. Slightly slower but with more reach.

Thoughts?

I found that my a6000 often underexposes, I now often shoot with exposure compensation to +2/3 or +1 and then pull the highlights back when developing the RAW files.

 

[JT26]

A6000 user for a couple years now, with the Zeiss 12mm and 16-70mm.

I'm ready to upgrade the body, and a 3rd lens with more reach.

I love landscapes and hike often so weight is a consideration - I carry a Mavic Pro + multiple batteries with me on hikes. Even though the Mavic is light, still adds to my backpack!

Very interesting you say about the mavic, I am looking at the phantom as some shots I have seen from the sky are truly stunning. Are you happy with the IQ from the A6000 in decent light? If so the 6500 would be the way to go... Probably a stop better sensor and also IBIS, together this would equate to at least 3 stops, probably 5 stops better performance, which is huge.

The A7 system would mean getting new lenses to make anything like the most out of it.

Do you ever use a tripod? Could be the easiest way to improve your IQ.

Don't shoot video or fast action sports shots.

Body - considering the A6500 vs a used A7II (A7R mk 2 seems too big of a jump, never used full frame before + it's $$$)

I do desire better DR and low light performance than what I have now with the A6000, but going to A7II means I should probably invest in FE lenses too, huh?

Yes no value in using APSC lenses on a A7 really...

Lens - considering a used F4 70-200mm (F2.8 is tempting but $$$)

Thoughts?

 

[snapa]

JT26 wrote:Are you happy with the IQ from the A6000 in decent light? If so the 6500 would be the way to go... Probably a stop better sensor and also IBIS, together this would equate to at least 3 stops, probably 5 stops better performance, which is huge.

The a6500 does not have even 1/2 stop better ISO than the a6000.

Also, the a6500 will not give 3-5 stops better performance using the same lenses.

Lets try to keep it real here and not spread false (news) information on the forum, thanks!

 

[JT26]

JT26 wrote:Are you happy with the IQ from the A6000 in decent light? If so the 6500 would be the way to go... Probably a stop better sensor and also IBIS, together this would equate to at least 3 stops, probably 5 stops better performance, which is huge.

The a6500 does not have even 1/2 stop better ISO than the a6000.

Also, the a6500 will not give 3-5 stops better performance using the same lenses.

Lets try to keep it real here and not spread false (news) information on the forum, thanks!

 

[JT26]

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Have a look at the above thread Kai. It shows you how close the A6300 is to the A7II. The A7II in my opinion would not be the best solution. You would end up with a FF camera with APSC lenses and a crop from these would reduce the number of effective pixels.

Like I said, I would buy the A6500 if you want to stick with your current lenses. If you would ever entertain upgrading to an A7 system, and selling your current gear, a used A7R would be a great choice. No AA filter and pretty compact. A perfect landscape camera for half the cost of an a6500...

 

[Arneb]

JT26 wrote:Are you happy with the IQ from the A6000 in decent light? If so the 6500 would be the way to go... Probably a stop better sensor and also IBIS, together this would equate to at least 3 stops, probably 5 stops better performance, which is huge.

The a6500 does not have even 1/2 stop better ISO than the a6000.

Also, the a6500 will not give 3-5 stops better performance using the same lenses.

Lets try to keep it real here and not spread false (news) information on the forum, thanks!

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

DXO is one way to look at performance. It also has its critics so you cant just rely on that solely. Its an algorithm based method and not in the real world.

DXO measures the RAW sensor (and RAW processing pipeline - e.g. ADC, ...) IQ performance - as far as the camera allows this - and then they analyse the RAW file. While I don't have many cameras, from what I've seen the DXO results match rather well with image samples.

DXO does not take into account or test any IBIS, long exposures, ... so they don't tell the whole story.

I'm still figuring out how they got their overall score, some cameras have rather weird scores. Also their naming (e.g. "sports" for high-iso) can be confusing (one of the cameras with the highest "sports" score is the Sony a7S, which has slow CDAF autofocus).

If you have a look at the 6300 vs 6000 there is certainly half a stop advantage especially when you get into higher ISO figures. I'd say closer to a stop.

For DR indeed (which is good of course), but less so for the SNR, which is nearly identical for both cameras. In short: the shadows are cleaner but the midtones and highlights ought to have rather similar amounts of noise. At least, according to DXOMark...

Also IBIS is claimed to have 5 stops effectiveness... maybe take that with a pinch of salt sure, but several tests with other manufacturers camera or A7II show this to be nearly the case.

Sadly, it isn't that simple. These numbers can't be just added. It depends on what you're shooting.

It only applies if you can use a shutter speed X stops longer and an ISO X stops lower. If you don't want (too much) motion blur (due to moving subjects, not due to camera shake), it might be impossible to use the longer shutterspeed that the (IB)IS allows.

Also if you're already shooting at ISO 100, the ISO can't be lowered any more so the DR and noise are already at their best.

So, in short, IBIS does not give any (or very limited) IQ advantage in the following cases:

- camera on tripod

- shooting in daylight (without ND) as the ISO is already 100 (or 200...)

- sports and other action shooting (you can't lower the shutterspeed or you'll get motionblur)

So why use IBIS? Well, it's great for landscapephotography when the light is going away and you don't want to use a tripod, for video it's fantastic, for long lenses, shooting slowly (or not) moving subjects at night, ...

The larger the sensor the less effective it seems to be...

The reason behind this is simple: it's much harder to move a larger sensor than to move a smaller sensor. The larger sensor also has to moved by a larger amount as for the same FOV (m43 <=> FF) you'll be using longer lenses. Thus the movements of the projection on the sensor of the subject are larger.

On my old OMD it was incredible. A7RII, not as incredible but still worth it. 2-3 stops maybe. Safe to say at lease 3 stops on a non stabilised lens is fair. Dont you think? Couple this with even half a stop on the sensor and you have 3.5 stops upwards.

Unsure why you are rude about this. A matter of opinions.

--
https://500px.com/candidchris

 

[Mcb345]

A6000 user for a couple years now, with the Zeiss 12mm and 16-70mm.

I'm ready to upgrade the body, and a 3rd lens with more reach.

I love landscapes and hike often so weight is a consideration - I carry a Mavic Pro + multiple batteries with me on hikes. Even though the Mavic is light, still adds to my backpack!

Don't shoot video or fast action sports shots.

Body - considering the A6500 vs a used A7II (A7R mk 2 seems too big of a jump, never used full frame before + it's $$$)

I do desire better DR and low light performance than what I have now with the A6000, but going to A7II means I should probably invest in FE lenses too, huh?

Lens - considering a used F4 70-200mm (F2.8 is tempting but $$$)

Thoughts?

As much as people say the a6500 is such a great camera and there are so many improvements to it I just don't see the value in buying the a6500 when you already own an a6000 unless you're in need of 4k video and demand IBIS. I know there are lots of improvements yada yada, but for me, I don't need 4k and IBIS so all the other features aren't worth spending $1400+ on the a6500 body when full frame cameras exist.

You can get a used a7R on eBay for $1000-$1050 (I just searched the recently sold a7R's). A used A7 II would cost you a bit more but you'd have to be the one to weigh the pros and cons vs an a7R. Selling your a6000 would net you about $400ish so out of pocket to swap out for an a7R would be about $600.

You do have a few expensive lenses that you could always still use on the a7R (you would at least start with a 36mp sensor before it being cropped down). I'm sure those Zeiss lenses used on eBay still sell for $75-80% of their value so keep that in mind, you really wouldn't be losing much money at all on those to sell and then just buy in to FF lenses.

You were concerned about weight, the a6500 and a7R camera bodies weigh almost the exact same (can't say the same for the lenses though). But, my thought is unless you're hiking Mount Rainier or a 14k mountain, an extra pound in lenses in your pack isn't going to kill you it's only going to force you to become stronger and healthier, not so bad.

If you bought the a6500, I would guess that a year down the road after owning the a6500 you'd still think the grass is greener with FF. I know I would, that's why I'll be using my a6000 until it kicks the bucket then I'll see if I have money in invest in the FF lenses or if my daughters 529 plan for college needs more funding instead! (joke, kind of haha)

 

[Bandman45]

A6000 user for a couple years now, with the Zeiss 12mm and 16-70mm.

I'm ready to upgrade the body, and a 3rd lens with more reach.

I love landscapes and hike often so weight is a consideration - I carry a Mavic Pro + multiple batteries with me on hikes. Even though the Mavic is light, still adds to my backpack!

Don't shoot video or fast action sports shots.

Body - considering the A6500 vs a used A7II (A7R mk 2 seems too big of a jump, never used full frame before + it's $$$)

I do desire better DR and low light performance than what I have now with the A6000, but going to A7II means I should probably invest in FE lenses too, huh?

Lens - considering a used F4 70-200mm (F2.8 is tempting but $$$)

Thoughts?

As much as people say the a6500 is such a great camera and there are so many improvements to it I just don't see the value in buying the a6500 when you already own an a6000 unless you're in need of 4k video and demand IBIS. I know there are lots of improvements yada yada, but for me, I don't need 4k and IBIS so all the other features aren't worth spending $1400+ on the a6500 body when full frame cameras exist.

You can get a used a7R on eBay for $1000-$1050 (I just searched the recently sold a7R's). A used A7 II would cost you a bit more but you'd have to be the one to weigh the pros and cons vs an a7R. Selling your a6000 would net you about $400ish so out of pocket to swap out for an a7R would be about $600.

You do have a few expensive lenses that you could always still use on the a7R (you would at least start with a 36mp sensor before it being cropped down). I'm sure those Zeiss lenses used on eBay still sell for $75-80% of their value so keep that in mind, you really wouldn't be losing much money at all on those to sell and then just buy in to FF lenses.

You were concerned about weight, the a6500 and a7R camera bodies weigh almost the exact same (can't say the same for the lenses though). But, my thought is unless you're hiking Mount Rainier or a 14k mountain, an extra pound in lenses in your pack isn't going to kill you it's only going to force you to become stronger and healthier, not so bad.

If you bought the a6500, I would guess that a year down the road after owning the a6500 you'd still think the grass is greener with FF. I know I would, that's why I'll be using my a6000 until it kicks the bucket then I'll see if I have money in invest in the FF lenses or if my daughters 529 plan for college needs more funding instead! (joke, kind of haha)

I think the above reply really mirror's my situation, pun intended. Every fall we do some easy and intense hiking in CO, some 9-12 mile hikes in RMNP at elevation of 8500'-12000', not so easy for this old flatlander (Iowa) but I make it. I've never once regretted carrying my D7100 and two other lenses, what I have regretted is not being in better shape! Next fall will be different as I'll only taking my a6300 and two lenses but I'll still be cussing about not being in better shape. What will please me more than anything though is being to help fund our grandchildren's college funds and for me to still have an excellent camera, I think I've finally gotten past the point of wanting the newest and bestest camera and lenses.

 

[alvie]

I have a Sony A7ii and I love this camera. Great photo quality and even better quality at high ISO compared to a A6000, A6300, or A6500. I was looking to a second camera and considered the A6500 and change my mind when I saw the price. For the almost the same price I can buy another A7II or just graduate to the A7iii series when they come out to market. I looked at different videos and DPreview post to make sure that I'm making the right decision. I don't know where you live, but if you can rent an A7 series camera do so and shoot some pics. Good Luck.

 

[val1]

Save your money and wait for the a7iii.

 

[FunkySpoo]

I'm in the same unsteady boat as far as upgrading goes. Sometime I think I'll get the a6500 for $1398 since I already have a couple APSC lenses. But then think for $1498 I can get an A7II, plus lenses of course. But I ask myself if I really need FF. Then I think for another grand I can get the A7RII but then again do I really need that much resolution since I only have a 13 inch printer. And on and on and on and on. It's exhausting

 

[mixem227]

A6000 user for a couple years now, with the Zeiss 12mm and 16-70mm.

I'm ready to upgrade the body, and a 3rd lens with more reach.

I love landscapes and hike often so weight is a consideration - I carry a Mavic Pro + multiple batteries with me on hikes. Even though the Mavic is light, still adds to my backpack!

Don't shoot video or fast action sports shots.

Body - considering the A6500 vs a used A7II (A7R mk 2 seems too big of a jump, never used full frame before + it's $$$)

I do desire better DR and low light performance than what I have now with the A6000, but going to A7II means I should probably invest in FE lenses too, huh?

Lens - considering a used F4 70-200mm (F2.8 is tempting but $$$)

Thoughts?

I was in the same boat last Christmas when the a6500 was released. Like you, I had the a6000 and the choices boiled down to the a7ii and the aforementioned a6500. The key is to ask yourself how serious you are about landscape photography.

Ultimately, I selected the a6500 because I wanted versatility. I have young kids playing sports so fast-action focus, shot burst, and longer FOV advantages weighed more on my decision. I would have loved the DR advantage of FF, but according to many reviews the a7ii edge over the a6500 was very slight due to the latter's newer tech.

Someone also mentioned the a7R - If you are really into landscapes and only landscapes then I would recommend this model. IMO, this is a one-trick pony...but it does that trick pretty damn well. The camera only has contrast detect (so not ideal for any fast action), no IBIS, and a few owners complain of shutter shock here and there. But if you fall in its target audience, you get 36MP FF goodness for a pretty decent price on the used market.

 

[Pixel Pooper]

Probably a stop better sensor and also IBIS, together this would equate to at least 3 stops, probably 5 stops better performance, which is huge.

IBIS is only an advantage compared to an unstabilised lens, but the only E mount APS-C lenses without stabilisation are wide angles where it is less of an advantage anyway.

 

[920kai]

Thanks for all the responses, can't respond to each individually but have read them all. Much appreciated!

I don't feel I have a need for faster AF or 4K video (still learning how to edit my Mavic footage)

I'm not planning to sell the A6000 + 16-70 combo even after a new body - I would even consider carrying both cameras to cover multiple focal lengths! Crazy? possibly, as I have issues with my back (hence the weight concerns)

I'm slightly leaning towards going A7 II for the better IQ, but it depends on what FE lens I can afford - debating between something like:

A6500 + F4 70-200mm
vs.
A7II + FE lens

What FE zoom lens would give a decent bang-for-weight ratio?

Edit- after browsing my local used forums, here's my current thinking:

1. A6500 + F4 70-200mm - stay on APS-C; old A6000 body will keep the 16-70mm.

2. A7II + F4 24-70 - keep old A6000 but mount the 12mm on it. Sell the Zeiss 16-70, and use that to fund the 70-200 or another FE lens in future (maybe later this year, heh heh)

#2 seems like a better option?

Size comparison between A6500/16-70 & A7II/24-70: http://camerasize.com/compact/#691.445,579.393,ga,t

A6500 with 16-70mm - 761g
A7 II with 24-70mm - 1030g