Sony a6000 or a6200?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by drew bedo, May 19, 2016.

  1. I am a large format film guy and haven't followed the digital revolution with any serious passion for years . . .so need a bit of catching-up.
    Looking at the Sony a6000 and the a6200: Is the a6200 so much advanced that I should shell out THREE TIMES as much as the a6000 (!500-$600/!$1300-$1500)? Not really interested in the 4x video (whatever that is).
    The numbers are relative examples at over-the-counter retail; of course lower prices may be found online and via gre market etc.
     
  2. where are you seeing the A6300 for $1500? MSRP is $1000 as per DPReview,or $1150 with the 16-50 kit lens, as per B&H.
    anyway, i think the answer here is no. if you're not interested in 4k video, that removes a lot of the A6300's appeal. the other headline feature is the "4D Hybrid AF" system with 4 gazillion PDAF points (actually 479). neat feature if you shoot hummingbird racing, but IMO you would be better off getting an A6000 and investing in lenses, since the kit lens is crappy. this can mean a significant extra outlay for the 16-70/4 Zeiss, which costs more than the A6000 by itself.
    since we're now up to a hypothetical $1550, we should probably comparison-shop and see what else is available at that price point. oh lookie here: everything from higher-end DSLRs to pro compacts to entry-level full frame. so why do we want an A6000 camera again?
     
  3. 4K video is filling the latest generation of computer/TV screens which display about (MP at once and should be good enough to expose 13x18cm paper via process camera.
    Are you planning to adapt your heritage 35mm lenses? Or whats the Sonys' primary appeal and intended usage to you?
     
  4. Thanks guys:
    Well I want to replace our Nikon D-60 for family outings this summer. I saw a review somewhere on the 6300 (and the price!) and then found the 6000 with nearly all that at 1/3rd the cost .
    Per the OP; I recognize that there are lower cost sources for photo gear—lower than the full service retail camera store where they know me. It is the comparison of features versus cost between the 6300 and the 6000 that is of interest.
    BTW: I have a 30mm/f2.0 Summicron in collapsing Leica Screw Mount—can that go on the front somehow?
    Usage? Initially just family snaps in the Rockies this June. later on maybe a conversion ring or two for Nikon lenses and maybe even to mount the body on a Celestron C-90 spotting scope.
     
  5. "I have a 30mm/f2.0 Summicron in collapsing Leica Screw Mount" Drew B.
    You probably mean a 50mm Summicron, they never produced a collapsing wide focal length.
    Yes, most every lens ever made can be installed on to that "digital film back" (A6000).
    But do realize that due to a "crop factor" on that model, the effective focal length becomes 75mm. The Sony A7 line of cameras are "full frame" so no crop factor to consider.
     
  6. , Right on all counts: Sorry about the typo . . .it is in fact, a 50mm lens. And I understand about the crop factor. Its vintage 1950s but a sharp, fast glass.
    So, will the collapsing mount interfere with the sensor? My M-3 body is pretty thin.
     
  7. It is the comparison of features versus cost between the 6300 and the 6000 that is of interest.​
    fancy-schmancy AF system and 4k video are the main differences. Hard to say from here whether that's worth the cost differential for you.
    Usage? Initially just family snaps in the Rockies this June.​
    my question may have been misread. what i meant to say was, why the A6000 over another camera? Seems like a lot of possibilities could suffice for 'family snaps,' at potentially lower cost, or better IQ for the same cost. The problem with the A6000 is the body is fairly inexpensive, but the kit lens doesnt do the sensor justice. Which means you're looking at a better lens, which doubles the cost. and do you care about video at all? if not, i would consider a Fuji XT10+18-55/2.8-4. if you just want something compact for hiking, i would look at the Sony RX100 line or even a Panasonic LX100. What i'm saying is that in buying an A6000, you're buying into Sony's E-mount system. So be sure that's what you really want, and more importantly, carefully research lens options and cost/benefit.
     
  8. I use the Sony a6000 with a fixed length Sony 35mm 1.8 lens I used Leica M for over 50 years and sold all that I had accumulated over the years about 4-5 years ago. The Sony a6000 with the 35mm 1.8 Sony (52.5mm equivalent) lens is my digital replacement for my M Leicas at a fraction of the cost. For me the a6300 doesn't make sense as an upgrade.
     
  9. Coming from large format, you should also consider a full-frame digital camera if your interest lies with Sony. That's where the development money is going, in both cameras and lenses. While the collapsible Summicron screw-mount (LSM) can be adapted to any E-mount, it would have the field of view of a mecium telephoto (75 mm) on an A6000/6300 with an APS-C sized sensor. Except for the Scheimpflug Effect, you might wonder whether it's worth while to continue shooting large format. Even that can be emulated in software (focus-stacking).
    The A7ii has 24 MP, and at $1500, is about what you expected to pay for an A6200 (?), but offers many advantages over the A6xxx cameras, including in-body image stabilization and a far better selection of lenses. The A7ii is very close to the M3 in size and weight.
     
  10. Wow . . .I have been away a long time. This is the discussion thatwas hop ed for.
    I will continue with large format view cameras as I enjoy the decision making and manipulations of that creative work flow (Ok, enough of that Art Show BS). In plane terms, I like jacking with the camera.
    In the early 2Ks we had a higher-end Olympus Stylus P&S at 5-8 MP which was pretty good for 2004-07. Liked it as a shirt pocket or purse camera. What is like that now?
     
  11. shirt pocket or purse camera. What is like that now?​
    we are now in the age of the high-end compacts. in terms of shirt-pocketability, you're looking at the Sony RX100 line, maybe the Fuji X100 line, Ricoh GR. anything with interchangeable lenses is gonna be more pokey, but there are some smallish options, from 1" sensors to APC-C all the way to ff mirrorless. I agree with edward that if you're talking about throwing $1500 into Sony, you'd at least want to consider the A7 series, as a long-term investment. in the short term, an RX100 would blow the socks off any early-2000s P&S. Olympus still makes a stylus, but now its a 12mp, 10x zoom mini-dslr body with a hotshoe. personally, i wouldnt spend that much on a tiny sensor cam, but YMMV.
     
  12. Everyone: Thanks for the feed-back:
    I understand the issues involved with sensor size and the trade off in convenience with a zooming fixed lens on a shirt pocket camera and the versilitity of interchanagable lenses.
    Someone has mentioned something about the limitations (complications?) of Sony;s "E-Mount" kenses —for C-sensor cameras—vs another line of lenses for(I think) full frame cameras. What is the significance of that?
     
  13. Quite simply, Sony is putting their efforts into E-mount (FE) lenses for full frame cameras. For Sony, at least, APS-C is about as dead as the Sony/Minolta A-mount cameras. Still there are some excellent APS-C lenses for the A6xxx from Sony and Zeiss (Touit line), The E and FE mounts are identical, so any lens designed for a full frame camera (and there are about 20, many world-class), will fit. Voigtlander and Samyang have introduced several native FE lenses, mostly wide angles as short as 10 mm.
    The Sony/Zeiss FE 16-35 f/4 is a very good lens. While it is full-frame, the equivalent focal length, 24-52, makes a nice mid-range zoom. It is a constant f/4 rather than f/2.8, at half the weight and cost. Unlike many wide zoom lenses, it is highly resistant to flare and sun spots.
    Sony is into the E mount for the long haul, even if APS-C gets short-shrift from them.
     
  14. to explain further, like Edward said, Sony's APS-C lens line is a bit neglected overall, although there are now a few 3rd party options from Sigma, Tamron, and Zeiss. Before buying into that system, i would make sure the lens selection meets your approval, and that you wouldn't be better-served elsewhere. It also won't hurt you to think about how far you want to go into the system. People i know who have an A6000 have either bought just the 16-50 kit lens or one of the available primes for it. If you're not planning on building a lens arsenal, the Panasonic LX100, Sony RX100, or Fuji and Ricoh fixed-focal compacts are also worth considering.
    One thing i probably wouldnt do is buy something like the 16-35 for an A6k series body. That lens alone costs 2x the price of an A6000 body, and somewhat defeats the purpose of having a smallish, compact camera kit. The reason to get a 16-35 is to use it on a full-frame camera where it can take advantage of the corner performance. But it's not particularly wide on APS-C and the zoom range is truncated compared to the kit lens and the 16-70/4. If i wanted an ultrawide for an A6K series body, i would pay $500 less for the 10-18 and get a truly wide zoom range while saving more than 50% of the weight.
     
  15. Ah good another large format shooter! The A6000 makes a great companion camera for LF. I have a Fuji XE1 which is very similar spec'd. A friend of mine has the A6000 (and his wife has one too).
    Its not worth he extra money for the A6300. With the A6000, you can get a kit with the extra zoom lens for $850, then add on the 10-18 for another 800 or so and be set.
    Get an adapter for whatever 50mm manual focus prime you already have and you are set.
    The cameras have some nice options for B&W visualization, such as red channel black and white which simulates having a red filter.
    00dxmj-563286484.jpg
     
  16. The Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 is very sharp in the center and shows no signs of "smearing" in the corners of an FF camera. Its performance on an APS-C camera would probably be exemplary. It does have about 3% linear distortion, which the Sony A7 corrects in firmware. The distortion is well-ordered, and easily corrected in Lightroom or a similar program. It also focuses very close, making it a useful "travel" lens.
    I have never purchased a DX lens, even though I used nothing but APS-C cameras (Nikon) for nearly ten years. In part it was because Nikon put much more of their development into FF lenses. IMO, it pays to look ahead when buying lenses. They stay in fashion much longer than bodies, and may constitute 80% or more of your total investment. 24 mm is not super-wide, a term I would reserve for 20 mm or shorter (in FF terms). However it is considered "very wide", and is about as wide as you need to go, short of special effects with perspective or use in cramped spaces.
    I'm not hawking the Sony lens, rather suggest that the OP consider all options in assembling a system.
    Cantigny Gardens - Sony A7Rii + Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4
    [​IMG]
     
  17. After years with Nikon, I started using the A6000 and like it a lot.
    I use most:
    - 50mm for portraits
    - 24mm (=35mm equivalent) for quality and low light
    - One of the kit zooms for all around convenience.
    A6000 is a great body. If you have doubts, start here.
     
  18. I'm currently researching this for myself. In addition to the 4K capability I've also found these differences.
    120 frame rate for slow motion video in 1080 on 6300. This is 4 times slower than the standard setting of 60 based on native 30 fps. It looks amazing but if your not into that it's a mute point.
    The body is metal on 6300 and weather sealed 6000 is plastic less solid and not weather sealed.
    High ISO low light performance is a little better, maybe 1 stop.
    There is no mic input on the 6000 but the 6300 has one, important for video shooters as audio is half the picture and you want to use an external mic in many situations.
    The 6300 can be powered with an external battery or cell phone charger for endless use. No worries over dead batteries while shooting. 6000 cannot do this.
    I believe there are also some HDR, pano and time lapse features in the 6300 absent in the 6000 but double check that. I've read so much lately I'm a bit foggy over it now.
    On the other hand, 1080 video is actually better out of the box with 6000. 6300 can be better but requires post work.
    6000 does not overheat like the 6300 but I think that only happens when shooting 4k video for extended periods like 20 minutes at a time.
    I hope that helps. I'm leaning towards the 6300 myself more because in my area the price difference is $550 vs $999 or double not triple. And I see the extra $450 as cheap insurance/futurproofing.
    I hope that helps someone.
     
  19. Happy with the A6000 and the Sony/Zeiss 24mm and 55mm lenses.
    The Sony kit lens is better than I expected, but the two primes are what I use most.
     

Share This Page