a6000/6500 or Full Frame?

[trailrunnerdave]

Hi All, I'm curious about your opinion of the a6000.

 

I currently have the basic a5000 and, honestly, have been impressed with its performance using a 55-210mm lens. I can get gorgeous images with terrific bokeh, I like the size, and I'm not bothered by some grain. I currently have the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses, which have served my photo avocation needs just fine, and would like to continue using them with a better camera.

 

I've been looking at the A7, A7ii, a6500 and a6000. I'm not crazy about the idea of having to start buying full-frame lenses for the A7 and A7ii, although I understand both will accommodate my current e-mount lenses. So right now, interestingly, I am leaning toward the economical a6000, mainly because it has an optical viewfinder, fast 11 fps continuous shooting, hybrid AF, and the 24 MP sensor.

 

I tend to shoot a lot of close-ups and portrait shots, not usually in low light. Do you think I need the full frame sensor to "take my images to the next level?" And do I need the internal 5-axis in-body image stabilization in the a6500? My impression is that the Optical Steady Shot stabilization in my lenses is good enough. Would they be notably better with in-camera stabilization too? Thank you!! 

 

Here's are a couple of pictures I shot yesterday:

 

butterfly

 

cemetery

 

sunset

 

[Username]

You have OSS lenses that you are happy with. 

IBIS and OSS are about equal, and combining 

the two adds nothing in my experience, which 

is limited to one lens, an OSS mid-range zoom

on an IBIS body. I've used OSS-only, IBIS-only 

and also tried combining them. No benefit that

I can detect from the combination.  

   

Unless you need the totally silent mode of the 

a6500 you should consider that they're almost 

giving away the a6000 these days ... at cheap

enuf to avoid making a big decision right now.

So you can kick the can down the road at very

little expense today, by getting an a6000. 

   

An 6000 is a great camera, and the 6300 and 

6500 are essentially the same camera, with 2 

or 3 appealing extra features ... but at quite an 

extra cost. The 2 or 3 features are all related

to camera operations, NOT to imaging. As far 

as imaging, all a6XXX are identical. 

[lamontcranston]

 

An 6000 is a great camera, and the 6300 and 

6500 are essentially the same camera, with 2 

or 3 appealing extra features ... but at quite an 

extra cost.

 

That pretty much sums it up. The A6000 is an excellent camera.  Go to some of the "camera comparison" websites and compare the A6000 to the A6300 and A6500 and you will see there is not a great improvement over the A6000 for the money.  The best buy in my opinion is the A6000.  It is a huge bargain at today's prices and would be a good upgrade over the older A5000..

[jccash]

I have two cameras and it's not apples for apples.

 

a6000 with both kit lenses. Fun little camera. Bought it for my wife. Take it with me every where and use it to take shots of jobs we do.

 

My favorite camera is my Nikon D500. I use it on hikes taking shots of birds and other wildlife. I use the Nikon 200/500 lens. The D500 is fantastic.

 

But for the money the a6000 is a deal. If you have extra cash you can buy the Sony a6500 with image stabilization. Or for almost that much a Nikon D500 or D750 refurb.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Crop sensors are good enoght for portraits. The lens is more important. You shoul look to get a f1.4 lens with at least 50mm focal length. That way you can get good focus transitions and background blur. That effect will be more pronounced on a full frame sensor but it's not like night and day.

[formermember]

...

   

An 6000 is a great camera, and the 6300 and 

6500 are essentially the same camera, with 2 

or 3 appealing extra features ... but at quite an 

extra cost. The 2 or 3 features are all related

to camera operations, NOT to imaging. As far 

as imaging, all a6XXX are identical. 

 

I totally agree with this, and purchased an a6000 last year with absolutely no regrets. The money I saved went towards lenses and flashes. I don't need the 6300/6500 features... besides maybe continuous focusing with Eye AF. Although, I hear that sucks in continuous until you jump into an a9.

 

My shallow DOF depends on fast primes, and I suspect I would be less happy with zooms due to smaller apertures combined with crop factor. Here's a shot with a 50 mm Sony f/1.8 on the a6000 and you can fine a few more portraits here, all on the same combo. I have to say, I love that little 50 (75 mm equivalent). I absolutely hated everything I took with the kit lens. It's a paper weight.

 

By the way, I spend a lot of my time shooting with photographers shooting FF DSLR's and only wish for their convenient external buttons. Would I get an a7/a9 if I could, heck yes, but now we're off topic.

[formermember]

Hi All, I'm curious about your opinion of the a6000.

 

I currently have the basic a5000 and, honestly, have been impressed with its performance using a 55-210mm lens. I can get gorgeous images with terrific bokeh, I like the size, and I'm not bothered by some grain. I currently have the 16-50mm and 55-210mm lenses, which have served my photo avocation needs just fine, and would like to continue using them with a better camera.

 

I've been looking at the A7, A7ii, a6500 and a6000. I'm not crazy about the idea of having to start buying full-frame lenses for the A7 and A7ii, although I understand both will accommodate my current e-mount lenses. So right now, interestingly, I am leaning toward the economical a6000, mainly because it has an optical viewfinder, fast 11 fps continuous shooting, hybrid AF, and the 24 MP sensor.

 

I tend to shoot a lot of close-ups and portrait shots, not usually in low light. Do you think I need the full frame sensor to "take my images to the next level?" And do I need the internal 5-axis in-body image stabilization in the a6500? My impression is that the Optical Steady Shot stabilization in my lenses is good enough. Would they be notably better with in-camera stabilization too? Thank you!! 

 

Here's are a couple of pictures I shot yesterday:

 

butterfly

 

cemetery

 

sunset

 

I really like your sunset photo. Nice colours.

 

A couple more thoughts:

If you like bokeh, you're right to think full frame cameras delivery slightly better results, however you should take that money and drop it on faster lenses first.

 

the a7 cameras are e-mount, and the lenses fit, as you wrote, however crop sensor lenses will show a pronounced vignette because the image circle doesn't cover the sensor.

 

The a6000 has an electronic viewfinder, not an optical. That's the mirrorless way, rangefinders excluded of course.

 

You said you don't deal much with low light, and you like to shoot wide open for bokeh, therefore stabilization isn't high on your priority list.

 

I already mentioned faster glass, but one more time, spend money on the glass! Oh, and if you like portraits, maybe you should jump into the Flashpoint/Godex wireless lights. Two friends have this with their Nikon D5/D800/D810 cameras and its very good (on par with my Phottix, but cheaper).

[Username]

`

   

   

All this bokeh mythology and nonsense does

get tiresome. This f:5.6 on a full frame. You'd 

see exactly the same effect at f:4.0 on APSC:  

     

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  

   

  

  

 

   

`

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Bokeh was oroginally associated with low light. Portrait photographers who were good at lighting, like Yusuf Karsh, usually shot with greater depth of field. Bokeh portraits were often associated with prople like Steve McCurry, who shot slow slide films in available light and therefore used wide apertures.

 

Personally I think that apertures under f2 are great for portraits because the focus transitions over a person's facial features create an added 3D effect which makes the portrait pop and feel more real. Being able to isolate a person from the background with a narrow depth of field is also important for striking portraits.

 

So, if portraits are your thing you should definitely have a f1.4 lens with a focal length equivalent of at least 50mm. If you shoot Sony E APS-C on a budget, the 50/1.8 OSS will provide good results at close range.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Double post

[SDJ]

I recently went through the exact same dilemma, I was previously shooting with a Nex 6 body which started playing up with a fault with the display going blank.  Was it time to jump to full frame and start again with building the lens collection or stick with the crop sensor line.

 

After lots of reading and debating with myself and almost going down the second hand full frame route I came to the conclusion that a compact size was most important to me and how I used the camera.  The additional features of the A6300 & A6500 weren't going to make me a better photographer but were going to cost a lot more money, I got a great deal on an A6000 body and I've been very impressed with it, the focus seems much quicker than the older Nex 6. 

 

For the price and quality of pictures from the A6000 it just seems like a steal when you've already got the lenses. If you choose to stick with the crop sensor I don't think you'll be disappointed with the A6000