Sony A6300 or what? As travel/pocket camera.

My Sony A7 failed at the worst possible moment during the summer, just as I was about to leave Iceland for a once in a lifetime trip to Greenland. I hurriedly bought a Sony A6300 to stand in for it, as I couldn't get a replacement A7 where I was (in the Eastern fjords).

So I shot all summer with the A6300 using adapted Leica lenses and a 24-105 f/4 Sony G zoom lens, which I had bought for the A7. The images are ok, but I sure wish I had had the A7. In fact, the kinds of landscapes I was shooting made me wish for an A7R, which I think I will buy to replace the A7.

Meanwhile, what to do with the A6300? I do need a compact camera to replace the old Lumix LX5 I used to keep in my pocket, but which is now well past its sell-by date. The A6300 makes no sense whatsoever with any lens other than the very compact 16-50 kit zoom which came with it -- with the rather bulky 24-105, for example, the difference in volume between the A7 and the A6300 is irrelevant, so you might as well be using the A7.

So I've been shooting with the kit zoom the last few days to try to get a feel for whether it is any good. If you compare the images to what you get out of a compact camera (rather than comparing it to the A7), the images are pretty good. Obviously the APS-C sensor has a lot going for it compared to the 1" sensors I'm used to on compact cameras, and the kit zoom doesn't seem terrible so far.

But this rig is still a bit bulky for a pocket. And the kit zoom is really slow -- f/3.5 to 5.6. Maybe I would be better off selling it and buying something like a Lumix LX-100 II to use as a pocket camera? The lens is an f/1.7 and if it is as good as the lens is on my old LX5, it should be very nice indeed. The sensor is M45, somewhat smaller than APS-C, but closer to that than it is to a 1". I love the controls on the LX-100, which are much like on a film camera. OTOH, the A6300 has all the same controls the A7 has and will be much easier to switch back and forth with the A7. You can even use the same batteries. I can use an adapted Summilux or Nokton on the A6300 if I need a fast lens.

Anyone have any words of wisdom? The pocket camera is an important job, in my particular lifestyle -- when I did chemical photography, I actually shot a lot more with the Leica CL I had than I did with the various M's I had -- because I always had it with me.

I'm having the same dilemma with my NEX-3c, which is still in great shape. An A7 or a6500 will greatly improve my IQ, especially for difficult shots. So I feel the need to upgrade. Unlike many, I don't mind the body-lens size disparity with a big lens on my APS-C body. In fact, I love the way my Sony 18-200 zoom feels cradled in my upturned left hand and have no problem gripping the body with my right while turning the zoom ring. I use this lens more than any other, so an a6500 makes sense for me given the inherent compromise in using my 5 E-mount lenses on a full frame A. I'll keep my old NEX as a backup, which is also a consideration for your 6300, given your first hand experience with failure.

Your fresh a6300 is obviously worth a lot more than my old NEX, which would certainly be a consideration for me. I've been carrying a first-gen RX100 since I got it in 2012, and the IQ is remarkably good. But I'd love to upgrade to an RX100 Va and would sell my NEX to get one if I were buying a new A body and also needed a new pocket cam. As the combined resale value of my NEX-3c and RX100 wouldn't make a dent in the combined cost of an a6500 and an RX100 MkVa, I'm leaning toward keeping my current RX100 and my 3c (for backup), and buying a new a6500. But I urge you to check out the RX100 Va.

I have to go up to my dealer with my lenses to see how much they compromise the FF images. If it's not too bad (either using the default sensor cropping or editing out the dark edges), I may just bite the bullet and buy an A7iii body, which means no new RX100 for the forseeable future and probably selling the 3c too. I'd appreciate any input you may have on how badly an APS-C lens affects FF images in an A7.

I'm having the same dilemma with my NEX-3c, which is still in great shape. An A7 or a6500 will greatly improve my IQ, especially for difficult shots. So I feel the need to upgrade. Unlike many, I don't mind the body-lens size disparity with a big lens on my APS-C body. In fact, I love the way my Sony 18-200 zoom feels cradled in my upturned left hand and have no problem gripping the body with my right while turning the zoom ring. I use this lens more than any other, so an a6500 makes sense for me given the inherent compromise in using my 5 E-mount lenses on a full frame A. I'll keep my old NEX as a backup, which is also a consideration for your 6300, given your first hand experience with failure.

 

Your fresh a6300 is obviously worth a lot more than my old NEX, which would certainly be a consideration for me. I've been carrying a first-gen RX100 since I got it in 2012, and the IQ is remarkably good. But I'd love to upgrade to an RX100 Va and would sell my NEX to get one if I were buying a new A body and also needed a new pocket cam. As the combined resale value of my NEX-3c and RX100 wouldn't make a dent in the combined cost of an a6500 and an RX100 MkVa, I'm leaning toward keeping my current RX100 and my 3c (for backup), and buying a new a6500. But I urge you to check out the RX100 Va.

 

I have to go up to my dealer with my lenses to see how much they compromise the FF images. If it's not too bad (either using the default sensor cropping or editing out the dark edges), I may just bite the bullet and buy an A7iii body, which means no new RX100 for the forseeable future and probably selling the 3c too. I'd appreciate any input you may have on how badly an APS-C lens affects FF images in an A7.

Well, you can use APS-C lenses on the A7 -- the A7 will automatically crop to APS-C. If it's the normal A7, you will end up with 10.6 megapixels vs 24. If it's the A7r, then you'll have more and see less difference.

The A7 body is very compact -- really not that much bulkier than the A6300. The problem is the FF lenses are rather larger than the APS-C ones.

The first gen A7 is as cheap as chips and still available new. Something to think about.

The lens size is probably the limiting factor for "pocket-ability." The smallest E-mount lens specifically for a Sony camera is a Zeiss Loxia, which is about the same diameter and length as a comparable Nikon DSLR lens (less the adapter).

I would look at Leica-compatible lenses for their small size (and high quality). The adapter is only 4 mm thick. Early Leica Summicron and Summaron 35 mm lenses are very compact, and likely to perform better on an APS-C camera than they do on a FF model. For considerably less money, you could get an M-mount Voigtlander lens, as fast as f/1.4. Their optical quality is pretty good, as is their build quality.

A collapsible 50 mm lens would be another candidate, as long as it didn't strike anything inside the camera. A collapsible 90 Elmar is definitely too long to fit. Actually a standard Summicron 50 is only about 2/3rds the size of a Loxia 35/2. Do you have big pockets (deep too)?

Size versus functionality and image-quality is always going to be a compromise. Especially with lenses. A large aperture or long zoom range (or both!) just can't be squashed into a compact size.

Folding 35mm rangefinder cameras like the Retina folders are about as close to 'pocketable' as you can get with an f/2 lens attached, but they're still heavy, and IQ is inevitably compromised by using a small area of film.

I think we expect too much. We want wide aperture and distortion-free zooms with a superwide to telephoto range. Not a happening thing at the current state of the art.

We also want a format/sensor large enough to give a shallow depth-of-field, and in a body no bigger than a cigarette packet and just as lightweight. We also want enough knobs on the body to avoid menu-mining, and at the same time it has to look good hanging round our necks!

Oh, yes, and it has to use a tiny battery that lasts forever between charges.

Time to get real methinks.

Size versus functionality and image-quality is always going to be a compromise. Especially with lenses. A large aperture or long zoom range (or both!) just can't be squashed into a compact size.

 

Folding 35mm rangefinder cameras like the Retina folders are about as close to 'pocketable' as you can get with an f/2 lens attached, but they're still heavy, and IQ is inevitably compromised by using a small area of film.

 

I think we expect too much. We want wide aperture and distortion-free zooms with a superwide to telephoto range. Not a happening thing at the current state of the art.

We also want a format/sensor large enough to give a shallow depth-of-field, and in a body no bigger than a cigarette packet and just as lightweight. We also want enough knobs on the body to avoid menu-mining, and at the same time it has to look good hanging round our necks!

 

Oh, yes, and it has to use a tiny battery that lasts forever between charges.

 

Time to get real methinks.

Naturally, everything is a tradeoff. The whole trick is coming up with that particular tradeoff which is optimal for your particular use case.

I think the Lumix LX-100 II is a pretty darned good set of tradeoffs. It does fit in your pocket, and it has an F/1.7 Leica zoom lens. So fast, sharp (I presume?), very compact, and covering 24-75 equivalent. The tradeoff is M43 sensor instead of something bigger, no flash, non-interchangeable lenses. The M43 sensor is maybe not such a big deal -- it's not that much smaller than APS-C

The A6300 is compact enough , sort of, with the 16-50 kit zoom, and the sensor is APS-C, as big as you could hope to have in your pocket. The tradeoff is that the lens is slow and perhaps not all that sharp. But it has a flash (I use fill flash sometimes), and I can pop one of my Leica lenses on it if I want something fast (but on the other hand, how often will I happen to have one of my Leica lenses with me? I might as well just reach for the A7). And it has a large 24mp sensor.

So that's the dilemma.

The lens size is probably the limiting factor for "pocket-ability." The smallest E-mount lens specifically for a Sony camera is a Zeiss Loxia, which is about the same diameter and length as a comparable Nikon DSLR lens (less the adapter).

 

I would look at Leica-compatible lenses for their small size (and high quality). The adapter is only 4 mm thick. Early Leica Summicron and Summaron 35 mm lenses are very compact, and likely to perform better on an APS-C camera than they do on a FF model. For considerably less money, you could get an M-mount Voigtlander lens, as fast as f/1.4. Their optical quality is pretty good, as is their build quality.

 

A collapsible 50 mm lens would be another candidate, as long as it didn't strike anything inside the camera. A collapsible 90 Elmar is definitely too long to fit. Actually a standard Summicron 50 is only about 2/3rds the size of a Loxia 35/2. Do you have big pockets (deep too)?

A jacket pocket is ok. I've been walking around with the A6300 the last few days and it is acceptably compact with the kit lens.

There is no other zoom lens which would be acceptably compact on the A6300, but there are a few primes. Sony make a couple of pancake lenses themselves. But I think having a zoom on the pocket camera is important for that use case. I do have and use a 50 'cron on this camera, but it sticks out a bit far for pocketability. But that's a great lens on this camera, and altogether a great lens, one of my all time faves. A 40 'cron (mentioned by the previous poster) would be much better, but I sold mine with the CL. Voigtlander make a 40 pancake lens which might be good. But as I said, I think I prefer a zoom of some sort. So maybe the Lumix is a better choice.

Before I had my a6000 and Nex6, I was using a Nikon CP6000 as the 'carry anywhere' camera.

None of them are really pocketable, unless you count an anorak pouch as a pocket.

The little Nikon has a great lens, and is capable of delivering nice pictures in good light. Unfortunately it shows its age in its limited ISO range, but I've still managed to get some good dawn and dusk shots from it.

My newly-acquired Nex6 is rapidly becoming the favoured carry-around. The 16 Mp sensor seems much cleaner than the a6000 at high ISO settings, and lenses (and adapters) are interchangeable between the two. Plus the Nex6 was picked up at a giveaway price, so I'm less 'precious' about carrying it.

Stuffed into a just-big-enough case it slings over the shoulder and carries easily. Who needs pockets?