home News forums Reviews Trade links

Go Back   The DVC Boards at MouseOwners.com - the place to talk DVC and Walt Disney World > JUST FOR FUN > Photography and Technology
 Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 01-01-2018, 04:36 PM   #1
carolina_yankee
Administrator
 
carolina_yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 27,061
Default Thoughts on Sony α6300, α6500??

I'm starting to off-load my Canon gear in preparation for switching to the Sony e-mount mirrorless system. I'm looking at the α6300 and α6500. However, I'm not sure I need what the α6500 offers over the α6300 more than I need the $400 difference, especially since I need to build up a new glass collection.

My bias is to go with the α6300 knowing that I'm going to replace it after one or two upgrades and focus on getting glass that I will keep.

Anyone here shoot with either model? I'm interested in your thoughts, as well as recommended lenses. I'm sure I'll buy the kit-lens combo with 16-50 and 55-205 for the cost effectiveness, but I'm going to quickly add others:
  • Sony 12-18mm
  • Sigma 32/2.8 prime
  • Sony 50/1.8 prime
  • Either Sony 16-70/f4 (Zeiss) or Sony 18-105/f4.

For the last I would prefer going with Zeiss for reputation, but the lens gets some bad reviews for sharpness so the Sony 18-105 might be better, considering it's half the price and I do like the constant f4 aperture.

BTW, I'm stepping down from a Canon 6D. The reason is that I'm tired of carrying the weight and choosing to leave the camera in the room as a result. The iPhone is a decent point & shoot, but not that decent.

The 6D is a great camera, and I've got some great glass; but Sony has improved tremendously, and I'm likely to get as good or better image quality with the newer mirrorless than with my older 6D with the right glass for the shooting I like to do.

I know I can get adapters to use my Canon glass, but that defeats the point of the switch and it's not a perfect solution, anyway. Plus, I can get most of what I payed for the glass so not really a $$ loss there by selling it.

I've researched Fuji and Olympus as well, but the higher cost doesn't seem to be justified in terms of results, and I'm not going to go Sony Full-Frame for same reasons that I'm migrating away from the Canon 6D.

If I shot for $$, I'm sure I'd reconsider, but it's a hobby.

Dirk
__________________
carolina_yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2018, 09:21 PM   #2
disney65
Add-on Aficionado
 
disney65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SouthEast, CT
Posts: 5,670
Default

Dirk, you know that I migrated to Sony FF and also have a6000.

I would not suggest Sony mirrorless. I had better results with Canon then Sony. Most Sony lenses and bodies are not weather sealed. Once you move to 2.8 lenses weight is same.

I did end up buying 5dm4 and using both (Sony a7rii and 5dm4) many times. Cost of each Sony lens is way higher then canon. Also keep in mind if you are not happy with Sony, you will loose lot of $$$ selling Sony after a year or two.

I do use Sigma MC 11 adapter with Sony body and canon glass, not same result.

Newer Sony works better with adapter then old.
__________________
Home Resort: Aulani, BLT, VGF, BRV (VWL), BWV, AKL, OKW, SSR, HHI

My Trip Reports


2015 Spring Poly/VGF
Wishes in Pics
Christmas 2014 HHI
2015 Christmas HHI and AKL
2016 - Atlantis Spring break
disney65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2018, 11:16 PM   #3
carolina_yankee
Administrator
 
carolina_yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 27,061
Default

Ugh. Youíre not making this easier! I know Iím not using my gear now as much as I might, weight and size being the reason.

I like what I see of Sony sample shots and reviews. It seems that the 6300 and 6500 are a major improvement over the 6000, hence my interest.

Dirk
__________________
carolina_yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 12:06 AM   #4
Goofygrl
Add-on Aficionado
 
Goofygrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,291
Default

I've long had Sony but have the a6000 for the e-mount. Very enjoyable camera and IMO the pictures are excellent. I can't help with the models you are looking at though. When I have something very special to photograph I tend to I get out the a99 but that's in good part due to having more controls at my finger tips and what I'm shooting would require quick adjustments on the fly. And I can't say that I always do that. But I also have most of my $$$'s into my full frame glass from prior to mirrorless. But the a6000 gets much more use and I can carry the lenses more easily and I have thought about paring down my full frame lenses and getting a couple better lenses for the e-mount and seeing how my camera choice goes then. It's way above a camera phone and although those are nice because it's always with you for anything more than ideal conditions it's compromised compared to something like the Sony e-mount.

In the end the best camera is the one you have with you. If you enjoy photography it really should be something more than a phone.
__________________
Three Little Circles
Goofygrl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 08:15 AM   #5
CaptJacksFamily
Grand Villa
 
CaptJacksFamily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Socal now, WDW soon
Posts: 1,771
Default

Dirk,
I transitioned from Canon to Sony a few years and current have an A6000, and a A6500. The reason I transitioned was more for the physical size difference than the the weight. We ride a tandem bike and camera easily fits inside the runs on a rack in the rear with room left over for Jackets and snacks. With a pancake lens it will even fit in a Jersey pocket.

The A6500 has MUCH better build quality than the A6000 and since I believe the A6300 is the same as the A6500 without the in body stabilization I would assume it also has a better build quality. The A6500 is suppose to have some level of weather resistance and we just returned from a trip to Germany in December, I shot several days in snow and rain the 6500 didn't skip a beat. On previous trips to colder weather (January in Yosemite) my 6000 did show some effects from the cold.

I tired an adapter on my A6000 for a Canon 70-200 2.8L series 1 and the auto focus didn't work at all. The problem was that the lens was an older series 1 and people are report very good luck with the series 2 len. Most seem to think the fancy auto focus setting still work better / faster with native Sony glass. If you are going in that direction I would suggest buying the converter from someplace you can return it in case you have issues.

I have the Zeiss 16-70/f4 that you are thinking about and love it, I also have a 100-400 G F4 which is scary sharp (but big and heavy). With the stabilization I was able to shoot pretty slow hand held in Germany. We are going to do an inside passage small boat cruise in Alaska later this and I expect that is were the 100-400 will really get a workout.

It seems several feel the Canons have a little better "pop" from the color and I would probably agree with this. That being said it is really hard for my eye to catch so it is hard to tell if it is the camera or just the conditions of the day. Overall I am happy with the color out of the Sony's. I didn't really think about it until a conversation on this forum (I believe it was disney65).

I am really glade I made the system switch to Sony, with the size of my Canon (and it was a smaller 40d) it was spending most of the time at home. It only made the trip if there was something specifically I wanted to shoot. Now the Sony is back to being a constant companion on the trips (well maybe not the 100-400 lens) but certainly the 16-70. I would suggest not being tempted by the cheaper price of the A6000 and get at least a A6300 just for the build quality. Is the in body stabilization of the A6500 worth it? Depends if you plan on buying lenses without stabilization or if Sony stops putting stabilization in new lenses.
__________________
- Richard
Mod 82
CaptJacksFamily is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:16 AM   #6
disney65
Add-on Aficionado
 
disney65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SouthEast, CT
Posts: 5,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJacksFamily View Post
The A6500 has MUCH better build quality than the A6000 and since I believe the A6300 is the same as the A6500 without the in body stabilization I would assume it also has a better build quality. The A6500 is suppose to have some level of weather resistance
Yes, my understanding is same. a6500 has some weather sealing but lenses also needs to be weather sealed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJacksFamily View Post
I tired an adapter on my A6000 for a Canon 70-200 2.8L series 1 and the auto focus didn't work at all. The problem was that the lens was an older series 1 and people are report very good luck with the series 2 len. Most seem to think the fancy auto focus setting still work better / faster with native Sony glass. If you are going in that direction I would suggest buying the converter from someplace you can return it in case you have issues.
Adapter works only in a6300 and a6500, a6000 not good with adapter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJacksFamily View Post
It seems several feel the Canons have a little better "pop" from the color and I would probably agree with this.
Canon skin tone is much better out of camera then Sony. Even my 24-70 2.8 GM/a7rii can not compete with Canon setup. You can probably fix this in post but you may have to spend some time to get it right.
__________________
Home Resort: Aulani, BLT, VGF, BRV (VWL), BWV, AKL, OKW, SSR, HHI

My Trip Reports


2015 Spring Poly/VGF
Wishes in Pics
Christmas 2014 HHI
2015 Christmas HHI and AKL
2016 - Atlantis Spring break
disney65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:21 AM   #7
disney65
Add-on Aficionado
 
disney65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SouthEast, CT
Posts: 5,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carolina_yankee View Post
Ugh. Youíre not making this easier! I know Iím not using my gear now as much as I might, weight and size being the reason.

I like what I see of Sony sample shots and reviews. It seems that the 6300 and 6500 are a major improvement over the 6000, hence my interest.

Dirk
If you want to switch then consider only a6300 or a6500.

Also keep in mind Sony puts out new camera's almost every yr, so new in a6000 series should be coming out anytime soon.
__________________
Home Resort: Aulani, BLT, VGF, BRV (VWL), BWV, AKL, OKW, SSR, HHI

My Trip Reports


2015 Spring Poly/VGF
Wishes in Pics
Christmas 2014 HHI
2015 Christmas HHI and AKL
2016 - Atlantis Spring break
disney65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:30 AM   #8
CaptJacksFamily
Grand Villa
 
CaptJacksFamily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Socal now, WDW soon
Posts: 1,771
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disney65 View Post
Yes, my understanding is same. a6500 has some weather sealing but lenses also needs to be weather sealed.
100-400G is "moisture and dust resistant" for what that is worth, I am not sure about the 16-70 Zeiss. I have had them both out in snow and rain (but I do try and limit exposure ) and haven't had any issues.

No arguments that the higher end Canon bodies and L lenses have a better build quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by disney65 View Post
Canon skin tone is much better out of camera then Sony. Even my 24-70 2.8 GM/a7rii can not compete with Canon setup. You can probably fix this in post but you may have to spend some time to get it right.
I can get them pretty close in post but typically not that far off to worry about. I am also not sure about the calibration of my monitor so I would have to start there if I was going to take them to print.
__________________
- Richard
Mod 82
CaptJacksFamily is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:47 AM   #9
carolina_yankee
Administrator
 
carolina_yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 27,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofygrl View Post
In the end the best camera is the one you have with you. If you enjoy photography it really should be something more than a phone.
Yep, that's getting to be where I'm at. The reality is that with all of these cameras and shooting RAW, you can get the best shot the lens provides. I do shoot RAW so in-camera processing isn't as critical to me, though I like what I see in the Sony compared to my older Canon.

Also, I don't have kids and my pets are slow and lazy enough that I don't need the super sharp sports capabilities in a long/fast lens.

I do have some Canon L glass, but the ranges aren't great for an ASPC format camera, and they're essentially entry-level Ls anyway (f4, not f2.8).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptJacksFamily View Post
Dirk,
I transitioned from Canon to Sony a few years and current have an A6000, and a A6500. The reason I transitioned was more for the physical size difference than the the weight. We ride a tandem bike and camera easily fits inside the runs on a rack in the rear with room left over for Jackets and snacks. With a pancake lens it will even fit in a Jersey pocket.
Yep, that's my situation. I don't mind the 6D on a hike, but for travel, parks, around town, it's a deterrent.

Quote:
The A6500 has MUCH better build quality than the A6000 and since I believe the A6300 is the same as the A6500 without the in body stabilization I would assume it also has a better build quality. The A6500 is suppose to have some level of weather resistance and we just returned from a trip to Germany in December, I shot several days in snow and rain the 6500 didn't skip a beat. On previous trips to colder weather (January in Yosemite) my 6000 did show some effects from the cold.
Good to know.

Quote:
I tired an adapter on my A6000 for a Canon 70-200 2.8L series 1 and the auto focus didn't work at all. The problem was that the lens was an older series 1 and people are report very good luck with the series 2 len. Most seem to think the fancy auto focus setting still work better / faster with native Sony glass. If you are going in that direction I would suggest buying the converter from someplace you can return it in case you have issues.
It sounds like even with the 6300/6500 that some of the auto-focus capabilities still don't work as well with adapters. I think it's the model that tracks a subject to keep it in focus.

With still subjects, not a problem, but it would be nice to have that capability for parades/shows at WDW.

Quote:
I have the Zeiss 16-70/f4 that you are thinking about and love it, I also have a 100-400 G F4 which is scary sharp (but big and heavy). With the stabilization I was able to shoot pretty slow hand held in Germany. We are going to do an inside passage small boat cruise in Alaska later this and I expect that is were the 100-400 will really get a workout.
That's really good to read. The complaints I've seen are that the 16-70 is very soft at the edges, but it seems to be the perfect replacement for my 24-105/f4 L.

Quote:
It seems several feel the Canons have a little better "pop" from the color and I would probably agree with this. That being said it is really hard for my eye to catch so it is hard to tell if it is the camera or just the conditions of the day. Overall I am happy with the color out of the Sony's. I didn't really think about it until a conversation on this forum (I believe it was disney65).
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.

Quote:
I am really glade I made the system switch to Sony, with the size of my Canon (and it was a smaller 40d) it was spending most of the time at home. It only made the trip if there was something specifically I wanted to shoot. Now the Sony is back to being a constant companion on the trips (well maybe not the 100-400 lens) but certainly the 16-70. I would suggest not being tempted by the cheaper price of the A6000 and get at least a A6300 just for the build quality. Is the in body stabilization of the A6500 worth it? Depends if you plan on buying lenses without stabilization or if Sony stops putting stabilization in new lenses.
I may get more than I thought for some of my stuff on eBay, so I might go straight to the 6500. The in-body Stabilization does give me more options, but I'm not sure it's $400 worth the difference considering the lenses I'm looking at are stabilized. My concern there is that as soon as I buy it, the next model comes out. I would have sunk less money in the 6300!

There is also the question of stabilization in future lenses as well as some 3rd pay lenses that are nice but don't have it. Right now, I'm leaning towards getting the best I can afford.

Dirk
__________________
carolina_yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 09:48 AM   #10
carolina_yankee
Administrator
 
carolina_yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 27,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disney65 View Post
If you want to switch then consider only a6300 or a6500.

Also keep in mind Sony puts out new camera's almost every yr, so new in a6000 series should be coming out anytime soon.
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
__________________
carolina_yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM.

© MouseOwners. "MouseOwners" is a registered servicemark. This is an unofficial fan site and is not affiliated in any way with The Walt Disney Company, the Disney Vacation Club, Disney Vacation Development, or any of their affiliates or subsidiaries. All Disney images © The Walt Disney Company.
Powered by Forum Software