Anyone trade down from A7 to A6000 for size/weight reasons?

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Cameras' started by ggibson, Mar 4, 2015.

  1. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    Sep 1, 2011
    Hey all, I moved to an A7 after using a m4/3 camera for years. Now that I've had the A7 for 9 months or so, I kind of miss the small size and weight of my m4/3 kit. I'm wondering whether I would have been better served sticking with m4/3 (maybe the E-M5ii) or going with an A6000 since I could pair that with the 20mm or 35mm APS-C lenses. For that reason, I've been hesitant to sell my m4/3 lenses (currently still have the 9-18, 20, 45, 45-175).

    I do a lot of photography on vacations and hiking, so keeping my setup minimal is important. I'm loving the 55/1.8 on the A7, but the other FE lenses are a lot less appealing to me due to the large size. Anyone make the switch to the A6000 from the A7? Experiences/opinions?
  2. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    The A6000 size is my limit, I have no interest is larger systems.

    The real consideration is if you will miss the slight advantages the A7 brings.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    Sep 1, 2011
    Yeah, I'm not so sure I need the extra image quality, though I love the DOF control that the A7 gives.

    I'm asking at this point because I'm sick of seeing my m4/3 gear sitting in the closet and at the same time getting the itch to add the 16-35mm to my FE kit. But I'm not positive I won't regret having such a bulky setup at times. Meh.
  4. Tapper

    Tapper New to TalkEmount

    Jul 1, 2012
    Since you have m43 lenses, get an EM5II, and use that as your small kit. Bring the A7 out when light is lower or when you specifically want that small DOF. Lots of people have that combination (A7 and OMD).

    I have an EM5II and some great Olympus lenses for it, but today I got to play around with an A7 II and it was amazing. Someday I can see myself adding an A7 series camera to pickup where M43 leaves off.
  5. MAubrey

    MAubrey TalkEmount Top Veteran

    I have a two body kit with an E-M5 and an A7. The A7 certainly gets most of the use, but I only have MF lenses for it, so the E-M5 with the 9-18mm, 25mm, and 75mm come out for AF requirements. My sister has an A6000 and it is simply too small for me.
  6. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    Having moved from m4/3 to APS-C to FF, I can't see myself moving backwards. When a camera system is so big that it no longer fits in a jacket pocket, then the only real issue for me is weight. And the A7, no matter which lens you slap onto it, is always going to be smaller and lighter than the DSLR equivalent. So I see no advantage (for me) in something like the A6000, or any other APS-C camera. Yes, the lenses are smaller and lighter. But I'd still have to carry the kit in a camera bag. So then we're talking a few grams here or there. Would I be willing to part with the substantial difference in dynamic range, high-ISO capability, and DOF control to save myself from another 100-200 grams of weight? No, I would not. But your mileage...
  7. Rollin

    Rollin TalkEmount Regular

    Jul 2, 2014
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    I have the a6000 & a7S - I really like the a7 body layout with one more input dial than my a6000, but that just depends on how you like to shoot how important that will be to you. The fast AF on the a6000 is wonderful and the small size/less weight. The 55/1.8 is also wonderful on the a6000. I have the 16-70/4 & 70-200/4 and both wonderful on the a6000.

    I've been doing some test prints from jpegs from dpReivew's comparison tool and the a6000 is very good.

    After doing some new reading seeing that unfortunately the a7/a7 II has an bit older sensor and the newer sensors - MFT, APS or FF - are performing very well.

    Yes the a7 has a bit more dynamic range than the a6000, however just found reviews and found their Output Quality section very interesting to compare camera's print size capabilities which should answer if the a6000 will work for what you want in your final images (Bottom of these pages):

    I find my a6000's images very good to ISO 5000, then they get noisy which does not bother me, but it might some folks.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    I have the a6000 and A7. I always said I thought I wanted smaller and lighter. I do have some issues with my back, so that is a driver for me. That said, I hope the A7 doesn't become an issue when I begin to hike again this spring. After using the A7, it would really be hard to go back to the a6000 for me. Right now I hardly use it unless it is a backup or I need to capture action like my girls basketball games.

    While the a6000 has many strengths, it feels like a toy in my hands now. Not because of image quality or capability. It's just that the smaller and lighter camera is actually more cumbersome in the field for me. I just didn't realize how much until I was using them side by side shooting landscape in 6 degree weather. The point was to use 2 camera and shoot twice as fast before I froze my... However, with my gloves on, it was impossible to use the a6000, with my gloves off and my cold fingers it was just as bad. The A7 was good either way. In the end, I gave up fumbling around with the a6000 and used the A7 exclusively. At that point, I realized the a6000 had always been small for me, I just didn't have a point of reference since I never shot anything bigger. So I would dread going back to a small camera exclusively, but everyone is different.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. MAubrey

    MAubrey TalkEmount Top Veteran

    I think WoodWorks is spot on here. If the size/weight is your only reason, then I'm not sure it would be worth it. The size/weight difference is nice, but I really think it would need to more than just that--for me, it's size/weight, AF, and the crop benefit for telephotos.
  10. mnhoj

    mnhoj TalkEmount Veteran

    Aug 19, 2013
    For me, the size difference in bodies and a few lenses is a wash.
    I think the complete lens kit intended should also be factored in.

    The A7, 16-35, and 55 would pretty much cover it for me. And a small legacy telephoto.

    Btw, I did switch. Not for size but for financial reasons.

    Good luck with your decision.
  11. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    Sep 1, 2011
    Yeah, originally I was considering the A7 with the 16-35, 55, and a telephoto option (90 macro, 70-200, 24-240 were possibilities). I felt like that would cover me similarly to my m4/3 9-18, 20, 45, 45-175. But I'm wondering whether I'll like the 16-35 as a walk-around/hiking lens since it's quite large. By comparison, the Olympus 9-18mm is downright tiny and the Sony 10-18mm is much smaller as well.
  12. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Echoing what David (WoodWorks) and WestOkid have said, I don't think I'd want to go back to the NEX-6 where I came from. If I'd buy an A6000 it'd be for the fast AF, not for its weight, and I'd keep the A7. Time and time again I have tried to find an acceptable solution in terms of image quality to carry a camera without some sort of bag and I failed invariably. So when I want to have a camera with me, I take a bag and I trim its weight to the occasion by selecting the lenses I take. Minimal weight is an A7 with either the FE 28-70mm or the Olympus OM 40/2, and that never bothers me. Yesterday I went out all day carrying the same bag (LowePro Nova 190) loaded with the A7, Olympus OM 40/2 and 24/28 and Minolta MD 85/2 and that was fine. The photos I took really benefitted from the A7's dynamic range and low-light capabilities and I'm sure they wouldn't have come out as good with the NEX-6.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    Sep 1, 2011
    Well, you guys convinced me to stick with the A7 for now. :)

    I was also able to check out my coworker's 16-35mm, and in person it wasn't quite as large as it looks on screen. Handling it was enough for me to decide to give it a go and see what I think with some use.
  14. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    All of the photos in this thread (except for the pint of ale) were taken with the A7 and 16-35. I've only had it for less than a month, but it's been hard to remove it from the camera.
  15. ggibson

    ggibson TalkEmount Regular

    Sep 1, 2011
    Great shots, David. I can imagine it's hard to remove from the camera. I did an evaluation on the focal lengths and lenses I had used for my top images over the last few years and a full 70% were from the m4/3 9-18mm or 20mm. The 16-35 can potentially replace both, giving me an ultrawide, as well as reaching a more "normal" 35/4 (close to the 20's equivalent 40/3.4). The 10-18mm doesn't quite get there, unfortunately, even though it's smaller. There's something to be said for only needing to carry a single lens and not switch, however :)
    • Agree Agree x 1