Thoughts on Sony α6300, α6500??

[CaptJacksFamily]

Originally Posted by carolina_yankee

That's a thought. I think April is the 2 year mark on the 6300? I don't really need a new system until May, given current plans.

Dirk

Isn't the 6500 and upgrade to the 6300?

FYI a couple of forums I like to lurk on:
http://www.fredmiranda.com. This is primarily a Canon site but has a Sony section that is getting bigger.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com

[CaptJacksFamily]

Originally Posted by carolina_yankee

Since I shoot RAW, I wonder how much that would be an issue for me given that Lightroom provides the post-processing? It would be nice to shoot jpg, though, and be happy with the results. I've never been fully satisfied with Canon's jpgs, though that could be monitor issues rather than camera issues.

Dirk

I shoot RAW + Jpeg. I can quickly look at the jpegs and decide if the picture is worth more work and I feel if all of my picts are in RAW (which is brand specific) at some future time there could be backward compatibility issue with RAW converters. The buffers / writing to card are good enough that I can still burst shoot and it doesn't slow down. Also I like to use smaller CF cards in case one gets corrupted or lost I don't have all of my eggs in one basket.

One other disadvantage of the Sony A6XXX series cameras is that they do not do Geo Tracking. You can tether to your phone as a work around but there is not a native GPS system.

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by CaptJacksFamily

Isn't the 6500 and upgrade to the 6300?

FYI a couple of forums I like to lurk on:
http://www.fredmiranda.com. This is primarily a Canon site but has a Sony section that is getting bigger.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com

I knew about fredmiranda.com for reviews, but haven't used the forums. It's telling that the Sony forum is getting bigger.

Same thing as happening at photography-on-the-net.com, which is very active and Canon specific, but with an increasingly active Sony section as people add to their kits or switch kits altogether.

I should take the discussion there but professional photographers and devoted enthusiasts intimidate me, while MouseOwners don't.

Originally Posted by CaptJacksFamily

I shoot RAW + Jpeg. I can quickly look at the jpegs and decide if the picture is worth more work and I feel if all of my picts are in RAW (which is brand specific) at some future time there could be backward compatibility issue with RAW converters. The buffers / writing to card are good enough that I can still burst shoot and it doesn't slow down. Also I like to use smaller CF cards in case one gets corrupted or lost I don't have all of my eggs in one basket.

One other disadvantage of the Sony A6XXX series cameras is that they do not do Geo Tracking. You can tether to your phone as a work around but there is not a native GPS system.

My work flow for my last 3 vacations has been to shoot RAW, import to iPad, then import from Photos into Lightroom after I do an initial cull. Once they're in Lightroom, I delete from Photos. I then edit, sort into albums, and send my faves back to Photos for social media and the Apple eco-system.

Now that Lightroom CC has full cloud back-up, the RAW files are safe in the cloud right away and available for editing on any connected device.

RAW still takes a long time to off-load, though and jpg is more useful right away. I did RAW+JPG once by mistake and couldn't tell the files apart, which annoyed me. I think both Photos and Lightroom Mobile have fixed that.

I like GeoTracking, but I forgot to turn it on the last two vacations and had to add it after the fact in Lightroom. What is the work around for Sony? Lightroom CC now only lets you add city/state rather than precise location (though that will probably come back).

Hadn't thought about backward compatibility - something to consider though surely Canon and Sony (Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, et al.) would be safe from that. Photographers would be SCREAMING!!

Dirk

[dmaxphil]

I have a love-hate relationship with Sony. If you were deciding between a A6xxx models I would most certainly spring for the a6500. Stabilization and touch screen would be enough to justify the upgrade.

The big reason I will probably never go back to Sony is the lens selection. Not bad, just ridiculously expensive for the better copies - but I'm mostly referring to the full frame versions. At last check, Sony didn't really seem too focused on providing pro quality APS-C lenses. This is IMO.

[D C]

Now I want to upgrade my a6000!

I absolutely love it, and am technically on my 2nd one. The shutter count on the first was around 70k (I pre-ordered when they came out) when it had to go in for warranty service. The repair company managed to lose it (they previously had lost a lens for it). So I have a new body and lens with under 5k on the clock.

I've literally traveled for weeks in Europe with that thing over my shoulder. I love how light it is (though I've never owned a full frame).

The sealing is definitely an issue though. I would seriously consider an upgrade for that alone. It's NOT a good camera for taking videos of planes taking off on Maho Beach. I proved that.

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by D C

Now I want to upgrade my a6000!

I absolutely love it, and am technically on my 2nd one. The shutter count on the first was around 70k (I pre-ordered when they came out) when it had to go in for warranty service. The repair company managed to lose it (they previously had lost a lens for it). So I have a new body and lens with under 5k on the clock.

I've literally traveled for weeks in Europe with that thing over my shoulder. I love how light it is (though I've never owned a full frame).

The sealing is definitely an issue though. I would seriously consider an upgrade for that alone. It's NOT a good camera for taking videos of planes taking off on Maho Beach. I proved that.

Oh, man, I'd hate to hear that story!

Well, here's where I'm at. I rented the Sony a6500 with the Sony/Zeiss 16-70/f4 lens for a week and loved it. While I prefer to shoot RAW, I found the JPGs very acceptable with RAW giving me just a little more post-processing capacity for the extra zing.

So, my plan is to get the a6500. I occasionally get lured back into thinking about just keeping my Canon system (full frame 6D with 2 L lenses and one one standard 70-300, which is huge in itself), but I quickly remember that size and weight really are barriers for my use.

Currently, I'm selling old gear and iDevices on eBay, which should allow me to get a new Sony a6500 with kit lens and 55-210 zoom. Then, when I decide on which lens upgrades I want, I'll sell my 6D, 24-105L, and 17-40/L to get them.

My one concern is the quality of the Sony lenses compared to Fuji, so I occasionally think about going Fuji instead (XT2) even though it's a little more expensive. However, the a6500 has in-body image stabilization and a focus system that seems to be regarded as the best in class. Plus, it's smaller and both sensors produce the same image quality. So, it may mean just being very choosy with lenses.

My two big lens questions right now are deciding between"

• Sony/Zeiss 16-70/f4 and Sony 18-105/f4. The Sony is half the price and the Zeiss isn't regarded as one of their best, but the best in its range for Sony. However, the Sony isn't is wide and it's not as sharp as the Zeiss.
• Rokinon 12/f1.8 manual focus and Sony 10-18/f4. The Rokinon is very sharp, much faster, and manual focus doesn't seem to be too difficult on the a6500. The Sony is wider, works with the auto-focus system, but is three times more expensive.

For now, it looks like the 55-205 will be just fine for the telephoto end of the range. I don't do much with that.

I'm also more open to some primes this time around, but I still want a really good walk-around zoom.

Dirk

[dmaxphil]

Back years ago when everyone in the world was jumping on the a6000 bandwagon I went with Fuji. In the process I turned into a bit of a gear junkie and have owned or used most of the Fuji-Sony cameras and lenses in the process.

The more expensive Sony lenses are very high quality, on par with Fuji or in some cases better IMO. The user experience is very different. Fuji is an absolute joy to use. Every XF Fuji lens I've used has impressed me. Well, maybe not the 18mm so much.

If you haven't tried Fuji, I'd strongly recommend you start with a used X-e2 or x-t1 and buy the 18-55 and maybe one of the 35's. I really like the 1.4 but most people seem to think the f/2 is better. This will will give you a good introduction to Fuji for very little $$. The 18-55 IMO is a better lens on APS-C than the 16-70 F4. F4 zoom for $1000???? This is part of what bothers me with the Sony lineup.

The x-e2/x-e3 + 27mm pancake is an awesome street combo. FWIW

The big negative with Fuji over the years is the difficulty processing RAW files in LR to get them to look as good as the SOOC Jpegs. If you print your photos, or post on Flickr this will never be an issue. If you spend your days in LR zoomed in at 300% then yes, it may bother you a bit. If you are a Jpeg shooter Fuji is the best camera I've ever shot.

[disney65]

Originally Posted by carolina_yankee

Oh, man, I'd hate to hear that story!

Well, here's where I'm at. I rented the Sony a6500 with the Sony/Zeiss 16-70/f4 lens for a week and loved it. While I prefer to shoot RAW, I found the JPGs very acceptable with RAW giving me just a little more post-processing capacity for the extra zing.

So, my plan is to get the a6500. I occasionally get lured back into thinking about just keeping my Canon system (full frame 6D with 2 L lenses and one one standard 70-300, which is huge in itself), but I quickly remember that size and weight really are barriers for my use.

Currently, I'm selling old gear and iDevices on eBay, which should allow me to get a new Sony a6500 with kit lens and 55-210 zoom. Then, when I decide on which lens upgrades I want, I'll sell my 6D, 24-105L, and 17-40/L to get them.

My one concern is the quality of the Sony lenses compared to Fuji, so I occasionally think about going Fuji instead (XT2) even though it's a little more expensive. However, the a6500 has in-body image stabilization and a focus system that seems to be regarded as the best in class. Plus, it's smaller and both sensors produce the same image quality. So, it may mean just being very choosy with lenses.

My two big lens questions right now are deciding between"

• Sony/Zeiss 16-70/f4 and Sony 18-105/f4. The Sony is half the price and the Zeiss isn't regarded as one of their best, but the best in its range for Sony. However, the Sony isn't is wide and it's not as sharp as the Zeiss.
• Rokinon 12/f1.8 manual focus and Sony 10-18/f4. The Rokinon is very sharp, much faster, and manual focus doesn't seem to be too difficult on the a6500. The Sony is wider, works with the auto-focus system, but is three times more expensive.

For now, it looks like the 55-205 will be just fine for the telephoto end of the range. I don't do much with that.

I'm also more open to some primes this time around, but I still want a really good walk-around zoom.

Dirk

Last yr I did consider buying a6500 but I got better price on a7rii so end up buying second a7rii body (I was buying Sony for switch-over)

I have f/4 FF lenses but they are not sharp enough, yes they are very light.

If you do get a6500, I believe 16-70 has better reviews then 18-105.

You should be able to get 55-210 used very cheap.

[disney65]

Originally Posted by dmaxphil

I have a love-hate relationship with Sony. If you were deciding between a A6xxx models I would most certainly spring for the a6500. Stabilization and touch screen would be enough to justify the upgrade.

The big reason I will probably never go back to Sony is the lens selection. Not bad, just ridiculously expensive for the better copies - but I'm mostly referring to the full frame versions. At last check, Sony didn't really seem too focused on providing pro quality APS-C lenses. This is IMO.

Welcome back Phil.

[carolina_yankee]

Originally Posted by dmaxphil

Back years ago when everyone in the world was jumping on the a6000 bandwagon I went with Fuji. In the process I turned into a bit of a gear junkie and have owned or used most of the Fuji-Sony cameras and lenses in the process.

The more expensive Sony lenses are very high quality, on par with Fuji or in some cases better IMO. The user experience is very different. Fuji is an absolute joy to use. Every XF Fuji lens I've used has impressed me. Well, maybe not the 18mm so much.

If you haven't tried Fuji, I'd strongly recommend you start with a used X-e2 or x-t1 and buy the 18-55 and maybe one of the 35's. I really like the 1.4 but most people seem to think the f/2 is better. This will will give you a good introduction to Fuji for very little $$. The 18-55 IMO is a better lens on APS-C than the 16-70 F4. F4 zoom for $1000???? This is part of what bothers me with the Sony lineup.

The x-e2/x-e3 + 27mm pancake is an awesome street combo. FWIW

The big negative with Fuji over the years is the difficulty processing RAW files in LR to get them to look as good as the SOOC Jpegs. If you print your photos, or post on Flickr this will never be an issue. If you spend your days in LR zoomed in at 300% then yes, it may bother you a bit. If you are a Jpeg shooter Fuji is the best camera I've ever shot.

Thanks for the tips on the other cameras. In fairness to Sony, their 16-70 f4 zoom is roughly the same price as Canon's 24-105 f4 and both cover the same focal range.

The only viable Sony zoom alternative is there 18-105 f4. It's not as sharp, and the Power Zoom comes off as annoying for photography while loved for video. I have to figure out if the extra sharpness of the Zeiss is worth the extra $$. I may end having to test both before committing the $$$. At least i know I can buy used for a reasonable savings!

Something I haven't considered is that the Sony a6500 auto-focus works very well with Canon and vintage lenses with either a Sigma or Sony adapter, which isn't true with older models. That broadens my lens options considerable, which is good because I have a Canon ef-s 60mm 2.8 macro, and Sony doesn't have an alternative that's as fast. The whole world of vintage primes would also be very interesting to explore - there's supposed to be some amazing glass out there for little money.

A professional photographer attended a recent baptism at my church. He said I would be happy with either Fuji or Sony, and that both had their plusses and minuses. He went with Fuji because Sony wasn't there yet, but now he said it would be a very hard choice! I guess it's kind of like deciding which is better, Magic Kingdom or Disneyland.

Dirk