Going Mirrorless

[brocksw]

Anyone have experience with sony a6000 or a6300 Mirrorless cameras? I'm thinking about going Mirrorless from an old Nikon D5000 for digiscoping. Can't quite afford a7r II yet so figured this might be a good step in the right direction. Be shooting with an Atx digiscoping setup and probably some landscapes and family stuff as well... Just seems like these little Mirrorless setups with aps-c sensors are great little cameras and get it done while being lighter and compact. Only draw can see is learning a new interface and lower battery life.

Anyone else have some input?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisS]

I have an A6300. They just released the A6500, but I'm not sure what the difference in features are other than a touchscreen. From what I understand the A6000 is almost dead equivalent to the A6300 except it can't do 4k video. It's a small camera and has good features and it can take a beating (I dropped mine from backseat height to pavement and it works like a champ). You can buy a bunch of batteries for fairly cheap (especially if you're going to do video) on amazon.

There's plenty of info at the Sony forum atdpreview.com and lots of photos on flickr if search for A6300.

I came from a Nikon DSLR and I like the camera, but I am by no means a pro or even a decent amateur. A couple of the cons: without a pancake lens, the camera body can seem a little awkward with a big lens sticking out front with a small body. The sony interface is cumbersome and there are a lot of submenus, but you can find some decent tutorials about settings. Some of the apps cost money. Timelapse on my phone is free, but for some reason it costs $10 on my $1k camera. I bought the time lapse one anyway and one other I think. It works pretty well especially for star time lapses. I need to spend more time with it, and I guess now that hunting seasons are pretty much over with I can.

 

[brocksw]

I have an A6300. They just released the A6500, but I'm not sure what the difference in features are other than a touchscreen. From what I understand the A6000 is almost dead equivalent to the A6300 except it can't do 4k video. It's a small camera and has good features and it can take a beating (I dropped mine from backseat height to pavement and it works like a champ). You can buy a bunch of batteries for fairly cheap (especially if you're going to do video) on amazon.

There's plenty of info at the Sony forum atdpreview.com and lots of photos on flickr if search for A6300.

I came from a Nikon DSLR and I like the camera, but I am by no means a pro or even a decent amateur. A couple of the cons: without a pancake lens, the camera body can seem a little awkward with a big lens sticking out front with a small body. The sony interface is cumbersome and there are a lot of submenus, but you can find some decent tutorials about settings. Some of the apps cost money. Timelapse on my phone is free, but for some reason it costs $10 on my $1k camera. I bought the time lapse one anyway and one other I think. It works pretty well especially for star time lapses. I need to spend more time with it, and I guess now that hunting seasons are pretty much over with I can.

Wow 10 bucks for time lapse... That's kind of goofy... Wonder if a Canon M5 series would be a better option for a more intuitive interface and I presume "free" apps.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[maverick]

If you look at the top digiscopers in the birding world most of them use mirrorless cameras. It looks by far the preferred camera is the GH4. Its getting old and some of the newer and cheaper Panasonics are out performing it now. I would take a look at the Panasonic G80. I have the G7 with a 25mm lens and it works great. Google Tara Tanaka? and look at her work.

 

[brocksw]

If you look at the top digiscopers in the birding world most of them use mirrorless cameras. It looks by far the preferred camera is the GH4. Its getting old and some of the newer and cheaper Panasonics are out performing it now. I would take a look at the Panasonic G80. I have the G7 with a 25mm lens and it works great. Google Tara Tanaka? and look at her work.

I may be ill informed or just ignorant on the subject, but I have the impression I should stick with aps-c sensors or bigger to offer larger images. I can't afford the Mirrorless full frame and My adapters are also made for aps-c or above as well.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[dah605]

I spent a lot of time recently looking at mirrorless cameras for both photos and video. I ended up going with a Sony A6300 kit and added a 24-240 lense. The 24-240 lense is full frame, so if I ever upgrade to the A7R II or A7S II, it will work fine.

I went with the Sony for the following reasons:
- The sensor size (APS-C) vs the GH4 being micro four-thirds, which is smaller
- It has a great ISO range up to 25,600.
- Batteries are cheap.
- USB rechargeable
- Decent number of lenses at a variety of price points
- Fast autofocus

At this point, the only less than ideal things are that it doesn't have a headphone jack and the screen is a little harder to open when a tripod mounting place is installed.

-David

 

[Jordan Budd]

Anyone have experience with sony a6000 or a6300 Mirrorless cameras? I'm thinking about going Mirrorless from an old Nikon D5000 for digiscoping. Can't quite afford a7r II yet so figured this might be a good step in the right direction. Be shooting with an Atx digiscoping setup and probably some landscapes and family stuff as well... Just seems like these little Mirrorless setups with aps-c sensors are great little cameras and get it done while being lighter and compact. Only draw can see is learning a new interface and lower battery life.

Anyone else have some input?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I've played with an A6300 on multiple occasions but never in the field. I'm very impressed with it! It's so compact and light, when comparing to a Canon with similar features that I've used extensively in the past. Like stated here as well, when you decide to bump up to the A7r ii everything adapts over without issues. I just bought the A7s ii as I do mostly video. I integrate the canon lenses with it with the metabones smart adapter, and has worked great. So you can find a wider selection of lenses (some cheaper) and pair them with the adapter. However if I was on a tighter budget I would lean very far towards the A6300! Let us know what you end up with.

 

[74 Bronco]

We have a couple 6300's in my shop (military photographers). We really like the capability they offer but hate the Sony menu systems and absolutely abhorrent battery life. if you can deal with the menu system, make sure you buy at least four batteries. Otherwise, both photo and video quality is great.

 

[jackwagon]

A6000 and A6300 aren't weather sealed, the new A6500 is.

 

[brocksw]

6300 and 6500 are both weather sealed as well as a portion of the a7 series. However, these are minor dust and weather resistance features and Sony says right on their website that they are not waterproof or splash proof. Lenses must also be weather sealed for it to really work as advertised. For durability and weather resistance there are better options. However, I'm not aware of any cameras that offer the picture quality of a Sony in an aps-c sensor that are fully waterproof and in my budget. Cameras in my budget seem to take a big hit in sensor size and other features when going to a fully weather resistant housing, the Nikon 1 aw1 for example. Even cameras such as the Panasonics are micro 4/3s... Great cameras and loads of features but I need an aps-c.

The biggest draw back that I've heard is paying for standard apps in a Sony. But if they are one time buys and somewhat cheap it's nothing to fret over. Seems like Sony, even with some drawbacks like lack of software compared to Canon, paying for apps, and less intuitive OS compared to Canon, is still the best tool for the job.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[JAWZ]

The main difference between the 6300 and the 6500 is the 5 axis image stabilisation. This essentially turns any lens into a stabilised one.
Excellent feature for a digiscoper

 

[greentimber]

I bought the first of the (then) new Sony mirrorless cameras when they came out about five years back. Can't recall the model. Ended up returning it due to the unacceptable lag in the electronic view finder. Made it impossible to track moving targets over a long series of shots. At the time, outdoor action was my primary focus. Just FYI. No idea if they're still that way.

 

[brocksw]

Then again... once you start talking about paying for a 6500, it almost makes sense to fork over little bit more and to get into an full frame a7ii. Haha... Oh brother.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

I bought the first of the (then) new Sony mirrorless cameras when they came out about five years back. Can't recall the model. Ended up returning it due to the unacceptable lag in the electronic view finder. Made it impossible to track moving targets over a long series of shots. At the time, outdoor action was my primary focus. Just FYI. No idea if they're still that way.

They are not. Those cameras were TERRIBLE in that respect


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tipsntails7]

A6000 will be best bang for the buck.
A6300 is an upgrade but not worth the price hike over the A6000, especially if you don't film.

The A6500 is the cats ass and if you adapt Manuel lenses it's even better, its expensive though.

Downfall is, Sony's lens lineup for APSC is GARBAGE. They have great lenses that are very expensive but are designed for full frame, so you end up with weird focal lengths in APSC. Although the 28 F2 is a great lens at a great price and they just came out with a cheap 50 that would be a good portrait focal length.

You will never use iso 25,000 as the image quality will be terrible for anything but internet posts.

If the a6500 is on the table I would jump to the a7ii. While not as good for fast moving things such as birds in flight it's a full frame sensor, which brings with it all the benefits it is known for. If strictly digiscoping a6500 is probably a better choice though.

Sony's and most all other camera makers "weather sealing" is a joke, and whatever happens you will be paying to repair water damage unfortunately. Pentax is the only exception to this in my experience, Olympus a distant second.

What size prints are you trying to make? Plenty of guys make a living off micro 4/3's images. I've got 18x24 prints on my wall and I doubt you could tell what sensor they came from.

Battery life on all mirrorless cams is terrible when compared to their DSLR counter parts, but you can carry a DSLR and 2-3 batts or an A6000 with 5 batts and your still ahead on size and weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rifles And More]

Look into the A7.

The A7II adds image stabilization which will have to be shut off on a tripod anyway. The A7RII is a Mpxl monster, but how big are you wanting your images to be?

Jordan was right about the adapter, it opens up a whole world of lenses to you.

Also, don't be afraid of used equipment. I've got some good used and open box stuff from the big NY retailer and it has been as good as new.

-Dustin

 

[Vargasm]

Hey Jordan
How much video can you shoot off a single charge with the a7s ii?

 

[Jordan Budd]

Hey Jordan
How much video can you shoot off a single charge with the a7s ii?

Suppose to be a little over an hour if your on a tripod (because of the image stabilization taking power) and if the wifi capabilities are turned off. It definitely eats battery faster than my Canon but I haven't been able to have it on a hunt yet where I'm taking a ton of clips. Aron said with his r ii he used like 2-3 batteries for every 1 he does with his canon. We'll see, I do have a battery grip for it and quite a few extra batteries.

 

[FURMAN]

I have the a6300 but have just started playing with it. Obviously the 6500 is better but you will have to decide if it's worth the money. It was not for me. I chose the a6300 over the panasonic for the 4k video reviews.

 

[Tsnider]

i just got an a6000 ob ebay about 2 months ago for 350 with the shitty kit lens! i really like it. i bought it for outdoor use so i wanted something lightweight and that could do high quality video.

my fiance is a photography graduate, and she is really impressed with the Sony line. she even mentioned selling her Canon Mkiii to get one of the top of the line Sony mirrorless cameras after she got a chance to use her friends.

the a6000 battery life does certainly suck. if you get a used one make sure to update the firmware, its supposed to help with the battery issue, as they used to draw a little power when off.

if you plan on getting the big dog Sony at some point, id try to find a cheap a6000 and see how you like it.