Please offer some advice.

[andrewbrooks]

Hi all,
A Happy new Year to you!

I'm after some advice;

I'm new to the forum and this is my first post

I have been looking at the A6000, my local stockist is still selling them and are offering a deal on the body plus 16-50mm kit lens.

I am (well have been) a user of Nikon DSLRs (D80 & D200), I have the usual kit lenses and some fast prime and zoom lenses, plus I have a FM2 with a few lenses. I used to to take low light photos mainly concerts etc. These days I don't use any of them enough and when I do find them very bulky for what I want it for.
I do a lot of travelling with my job and rely mostly on my mobile phone and on occasion take the D80 with a 35mm lens. But I really fancy something smaller and lighter. Outside of work I spend time in the outdoors, so smaller is good to fit in backpack.
A bit of research tell me that I can use my Nikon lenses with an adaptor.

So to my questions;
Is the A6000 a good buy?
Should I go for the A6400 with the weather proofing?
Is the stabilisation of the A6500 worth the extra money?
Should I just purchase a body only and an adaptor and solely use my Nikon lens?

Any advise given will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Andrew

 

[Drd1135]

I just ordered an A6000 body because they are ridiculously cheap right now. It seems many people still find the original A6XXX perfectly usable. I figure that now that I have an A7R3 and a growing set of FE primes, I could make use of a small extra body. My plan is to put the Samyang 35 2.8 on it.

 

[andrewbrooks]

@Drd1135 Thanks for your reply, I'd go for a prime too but in the UK there's not enough saving for dropping the kit zoom in favour of anything else.

 

[bdbits]

I had an A6000 up until I bought my current A7ii (full frame). The A6000 is a great little camera at a great price. If buying new, though, I would choose one of the newer models like that A6400 you mentioned, if budget allows. Better AF coverage and features, more recent firmware features, 4K video, better body - just an overall improved product (as you would expect).

The usefulness of IBIS is somewhat debated, and to some degree depends on lenses being used and lighting. I am quite certain it helps with low-light on my A7ii. I do not have anything longer than 110mm but they say it helps a lot on long telephoto lenses. The 16-50 has on-lens stabilization (OSS) I believe, so less of an immediate concern (though IBIS would enhance the OSS).

The 16-50 kit lens is alright for a kit lens. I am guessing it is pretty cheap with versus without so you might as well go with that to start with. You may eventually want something better, so something to think about longer term. Sony has a lot of lens choices these days, and third-party lenses as well. There are a number of (former and current) Nikon users here and I will let them address those lenses.

I think you will find any of the A6xxx bodes a significant upgrade over the D200, given the advances in sensor technology.

 

[Richard Crowe]

The A6000 is a perfectly viable camera which is offered at a great price. I would, however, seriously think of another lens rather than the APSC kit lens.

However, if your budget can take the additional cost, the A6400 is, IMO, head and shoulders above the A6000, especially in the area of AF... Just the Eye-AF and Animal Eye-AF makes the extra money well spent. There are of course, other advantages to the A6400 over the A6000...

 

[TedG954]

The A6000 is a fine camera and I own one. But, I believe the best "bang for the buck" is the A6300. My A6300 delivers great performance. They are currently discounted and are a good buy.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

As a former D80 owner and as a present Nikon lens user, I'd say get the best camera your budget will allow. IBIS will never hurt you if using manual focus lenses, it can only help. Get one with it if you can.
When you do get one, take a picture of the FM2 you've got. I've been jonesing for one of those for a long time but since I don't shoot film I've held off on that impulse. [I had one, but traded it before I really appreciated what I had. Hindsight...always 20-20. Happy New Year!]

 

[DaveC]

I have an A6000, it's a good camera, but if I had to replace it, I would probably go for a A6400. This is based on the pricing here in Australia, and the camera features. Only you know your budget, and what features you need. For me, I find myself looking enviously at the cameras with Eye AF. The kit 16-50 lens is compact and light, but I find it a bit frustrating, there are some much better lenses for not much more in price.

 

[andrewbrooks]

Having checked the prices today, it looks like I’ve missed the boat on the sales.
The A6000 is £359 including lens
The A6100 is £749 including lens
The A6400 is £899 including lens
The A6500 is £1449 without lens

The A6400 was £150 cheaper a day ago, which kind of prompted the post.

looks like i have some thinking to do.

thanks for your help guys, much appreciated.
Andrew

 

[TedG954]

According to what I just researched, a new A6300 can be had on eBay for around 380 pounds. Read some reviews online. Unless you are going to take a lot of videos, this may be your best bet. The camera has been discontinued by Sony, so there are some good deals to be had. Being discontinued is not a negative reference. It was probably cutting into the sales of the more expensive models. And, I will always buy factory refurbished over new anytime.

Sony Alpha a6300 ILCE-6300 24.2 MP Ultra HD Digital Camera Body Only - Black

Authentic USA Model | 90-Day Warranty

Condition:
Manufacturer refurbished

“Backed by our 90-day warranty, this item has been refurbished by the manufacturer or an approved ”
... Read more

Quantity:
Limited quantity available / 4 sold

List price:
$1,149.99

   ---            

You save:
$650.99 (56% off)

Now:
US $499.00

 

[bdbits]

I nearly always buy used (not even refurbished). Due to Sony's relentless stream of new models (relative to other makers), even a single generation behind is often significantly reduced on the used market. I don't know what the UK version of ebay is like, but I have bought from the US one a few times with no problems. Just be sure to check out the seller thoroughly.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

My Nex-7 was bought used, as was my A7ii. I treated myself to a new A7iii for my birthday last year. I will be its caretaker until I leave the planet. It will get better care than my cars do, and I'm a car guy, so think about that. So far, the only new lens I've bought for it is the Sony 28mm and I can be counted among those who say if you can afford one get one. It is that sharp. And I've got some pretty sharp Micro-Nikkors to compare it to also.
There will be other sales in the future. Practice some self-discipline and save until they happen. You'll be able to afford a better camera by then.

 

[Richard Crowe]

I have a mint A6500 which I am selling/ PM me - it will be a god price...

 

[andrewbrooks]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I've spent the last hour looking through ebay (UK version) and various other sites for refurbished cameras and there doesn't seem to be much difference in price between new, refurbished or used. If I'm going to spend nearly the same for a used camera, I'd rather buy the new one for the warranty, we get 2 years on electrical goods.

I'm not gong to rush into buying at the moment, I'll wait for the right deal. Going to India at Easter, hopefully something will come up before then. If not I'll get some film and use the FM2.

Thanks again
Andrew

 

[bdbits]

Huh, that's very odd. Used is significant savings over new on this side of the pond. Oh well. Come back when you get one.

 

[Jeep Captain]

Hi all,
A Happy new Year to you!

I'm after some advice;

I'm new to the forum and this is my first post

I have been looking at the A6000, my local stockist is still selling them and are offering a deal on the body plus 16-50mm kit lens.

I am (well have been) a user of Nikon DSLRs (D80 & D200), I have the usual kit lenses and some fast prime and zoom lenses, plus I have a FM2 with a few lenses. I used to to take low light photos mainly concerts etc. These days I don't use any of them enough and when I do find them very bulky for what I want it for.
I do a lot of travelling with my job and rely mostly on my mobile phone and on occasion take the D80 with a 35mm lens. But I really fancy something smaller and lighter. Outside of work I spend time in the outdoors, so smaller is good to fit in backpack.
A bit of research tell me that I can use my Nikon lenses with an adaptor.

So to my questions;
Is the A6000 a good buy?
Should I go for the A6400 with the weather proofing?
Is the stabilisation of the A6500 worth the extra money?
Should I just purchase a body only and an adaptor and solely use my Nikon lens?

Any advise given will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Andrew

I went from a Nikon D700 & D7200 to a Sony A7II & an a6300. I thought the Nikon lenses I had would work with an adaptor. Some did work, some did not work. The lenses that did work were mediocre at best as far as auto focus goes. They were slow to focus and did a lot of focus searching. I eventually sold all my Nikon lenses and got some Sigma & Tamron lenses for Sony E-mount. If you can afford it, I'd get the a6300 or a6400 before buying the a6000.

 

[fractal]

Get the A6500 for stabilization if you do a decent amount of video or low light shooting that requires slow shutter speeds without a tripod.

Sell your Nikon lenses and buy Emount. You'll get all the goodies Sony put on it's sensor (AF, tracking, etc.).

If you shoot mostly primes - look at the Sigma series of 16,30 and 56mm 1.4's.

 

[Ziggy99]

Jeff's experience using adapted Nikkors is common.