A6000

2manycamera wrote: Phil Wood wrote: I'm still looking and pondering - saw an A6300 + 16-50 go on ebay for £430, and now wonder if it is worth the extra (silent shooting really attracts me for classical concerts). Then there is the prospect of a little windfall - should I blow it on an A6600 and be able to use the LA-EA5? Decisions, decisions. When I bought the a6600 to replace the a6300, my reasons were; the much better AF system, IBIS and the larger battery, in that order. The LA-EA5 wasn't even being discussed. When the LA-EA5 did become available I got it and primarily use it with the a6600. It's brilliant with the 100/2, CZ135/1.8 and 200/2.8 HS. Doesn't get as much usage with shorter focal lengths, except for the Tokina 11-16/2.8, a lens I almost sold, but new life on the a6600! So much will depend on the lenses you'd adapt. For my stable of screw-drive A mounts it was a no brainer.

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.

The A6300 works pretty well with the LA-EA1/3/5. What screw-drive lenses do you want to use?

I'd want the 18-135 OSS with an A6x00.

pegelli wrote: I have and like the A6000 which gets used a lot more than my NEX6, better menu (like the A7's I also use) and a better sensor. AF is also a slight improvement. Only thing I find dearly missing from the A6000 is the spirit level, the NEX6 and later A6xxx models have it, but not the A6000 I've never used a NEX7, so I can't compare it against the NEX6 or A6000

On the downside for A6000 or NEX7 compared to NEX6 are:
NEX6 has a higher resolution viewfinder (2.3 vs. 1.4 Mpixel) and the the NEX6 and 7 have a metal alloy body, whereas the A6000 has a plastic body.
(if 16 Mpixel sensor is good enough for hiking)
I agree the menu system of the NEX6 is a disadvantage.

Aavo wrote: My idea was to replace aps-c 24/1,8ZA with FF35mm prime. The lens for low light shooting.

That will work. There are many larger 35's available. The GM is the easy choice.

Aavo wrote: The idea of my reply is - I was not enough patient. As A6500 sells today much cheaper and second hand lot cheaper, I do not see I can replace A6500 with A7c (body) so often. I am little bit unhappy, because full frame can be used with higher ISO. Edit: it was logical, that alike A7c is coming.

A larger sensor doesn't help in low light. Except when lenses allow shallower depth-of-field than those available for APS-C. It is the larger lens that matters not sensor size. Larger sensors require higher ISO to capture a similar image. That difference is not an advantage (or disadvantage).

The Sony E 35 F1.8 OSS seems to be the softest 35 mm lens ever. I find the lowly Sony FE 50 F1.8 better on full-frame than the normal APS-C primes. The recent full-frame 35's like the GM offer better optical performance for APS-C, but they are large, expensive, and lack stabilization.

The lowly Rokinon 35 F2.8 convinced me to invest in a full-frame body instead of trying the E 24 F1.8 ZA. I am sure it is a nice enough lens.

Edited by QuietOC - 27 April 2021 at 11:54

Wouldn't the corresponding APS-C model not be the A6600? - because the A7C has, of course, IBIS.

The A6600 with 35/1.8 OSS weighs 504+154gr and the combo is €1730,- at Amazon.de.

Full frame is about a stop better yes, but....

The A7c with 50/2.5 weighs (509+174) 683gr at €2500,-
The A6400 with 35/1.8 OSS weighs (403+154) 547gr at €1338,-

These two combinations are equivalent, one is APS-C, the other full frame - but the APS-C set is cheaper and noticeably lighter. And the full frame low light advantage is negated by the f/1.8 aperture of the APS-C set.

With the 50/2.5 we at last have a true equivalence set and it proofs the place of APS-C: cheaper and lighter.