A6000

Well done - I look forward to seeing the results!

Good luck Phil
I've loved (& still love)my a6000 & think it's a great little camera, only bad point is that pesky rotary dial on the back, not good with my clumsy fingers !! The batteries are so small, light & cheap just get a couple of spares & carry them with you - just in case !
Enjoy
Richard T

Lets look at the CIPA ratings:
A6000: 360 (same as NEX 6)
A6400: 410
A6600: 810
A7r2: 290
A7r3: 650

Comparing your cameras:
A58: 690
A77: 470

Figures from Dpreview. With the A6000 I never felt the battery was to small, with the A7r2 I felt it was borderline. With A7r2 I always brought a spare battery, with the A6000 I usually brought a spare and with then A6400 I seldom bring a spare, just when it is below half. YMMV.

The battery life with the APS-C cameras is noticeably better then with the A7 cameras with the same batteries. But be aware, the way you use your camera makes a huge difference. I use manually switching between the EVF and screen (which is a pain with the A6000). It improves battery life compared to the automatic switching because when I remove the camera from my eye, the EVF shuts off, with automatic switching the screen turns on and still draws power. Like always, YMMV.

BTW, the FW battery is nice and small, easy to bring a spare. Not bringing one is of course easier.

It is weird what they left out of the A6600. It is not an A77III. It supports screw-drive with the LA-EA5, but there's no A-mount Lens Compensation. It has a durable but rather slow (1/160 s sync speed) mechanical shutter. The A1 has Lens Compensation for DT lenses and a 1/500 s sync speed in APS-C mode--twice as fast as the A77 cameras. The A6600 does have 5-axis IBIS and the Z battery.

Edited by QuietOC - 14 May 2021 at 14:43

There's definitely a trade-off between features and battery life. The A5000 was pretty decent with the little batteries. The A6000 less so. The A7RII can drain them in an hour. The A7III could last a week with the Z--A7RIV not so much. I need a second Z battery.

I have no interest in vlogging, but if it makes a camera I'm interested in fall in price I'm all for it. I guess it would also mean more used 6600s on the market - even cheaper.

If I spent the extra £350 on a 6600 I'd be spending it on LA-EA5 compatibility as well as the IBIS (worth a fair bit to me). The bigger battery is a bonus, but not as big a pull, perhaps as interesting for the better grip as the battery life. However, I have no experience of any of the A6xxx bodies, is battery life as bad as Kilkry found with his early FF bodies?

Phil Wood wrote: The A6600 is way more tan I was planning to spend (about 3 times) - though not as expensive as I'd anticipated. In every other way it seems better. I guess it would replace my A77 for APS-C use as well fit with my holiday camera plan.

I feel that the A6600 is overpriced compared to the A6400. When I look at Harrisons it is 843 GBP for the A6400 and 1199 GBP for the A6600. That is 350 GBP for IBIS and a better battery. But then, just get the A6100 for 679 GBP with lens.

Why not wait for the A6700/6900 that is expected shortly?

Edited by addy landzaat - 14 May 2021 at 07:33