Jump to content

A6300


pilsburypie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Noob to the forum and noob to photography but have settled in on Mirrorless and Sony.  I'm just trying to figure out if I should go with the 6000 or the 6300.  Seems like I could use the money saved with the 6000 and put it towards some nice lenses.  On the other hand, video is important to me and I like the 4K and the 120 FPS 1080 options on the 6300.  Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?  Thanks!

I'd be inclined to the view that if you can accept the compromises (see Nomad's post) using the A6300 as a video camera then yes, it is indeed a very good option for stills and video.

There are better cinema cameras. There are better stills cameras. But at the price and with the convenience of size etc. then it is an excellent choice. If you don't want to play with 4k, get the A6000 (I suspect that you don't really want 4k... unless you really need it then I personally would avoid it.)

For an excellent review of the A6300, pop over to eoshd.com and read Andrew Reid's piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • I'd opt for a small zoom, but I must admit that there seems to be a dearth of lenses in the e-mount in the 24-50mm range -- for some reason.  I have a small 24-70mm, but that's an a-mount Tamron.  Maybe you can find something by looking at lenses slightly longer.  I have a heavy, but small 24-100mm a-mount, and Tokina made a 24-200mm a-mount.  Maybe there are similar lenses in the e-mount.  Kill three birds with one stone.
    • Well this! Thank you! I have been following suggestion after suggestion for the past 3 hours with my a7CR and never thought of removing the battery. Magic!
    • I recently got an a7cii and to pair with the compact body, I thought of getting 2 of the trio compact lenses, 24mm F2.8 and 40mm F4.0. (I already have a 70-200mm) However I stumbled upon the newly released 24-50mm F2.8 G. I'm not sure which to get - I like the small factor of the prime lenses ON the body because it's discreet and helps me blend in as an average tourist / doesn't make it obvious when doing street. But if I add the dimensions of the 2 primes together, it takes up more space in the bag than the zoom lens. BUT THEN, the weight of the 2 prime lenses is 110g lesser than the zoom lens. The zoom lens has the added benefit of being more versatile.   So now I'm stumped. Each has their pros and cons and I can't decide which to get. I'd like to hear the views of you guys who are more experts at this.   Edit: I'm a bit concerned about weight because the last time I went overseas my shoulders were aching from carrying too much. Which is why I was looking for small compact primes in the first place.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...