Your opinion on the A6x00 bodies?

Kilkry wrote: Am kind of glad this thread arrived at this hour, for have been thinking about something for tele since I like my a7rii for most other things. The A6400 is a given, almost, as per most reviewers, what with the better AF..but I just used the MC11 and Sigma 100-400 on my A6000, where three of my piano fingers curl around and down along the small grip. It felt OK, the Sigma is eminently holdable, but then I put the same adapter and lens on my A7rii and the primary thing I felt when picking the combo up was relief (for the right hand fingers). There are cages+wooden grips for the A6400 but haven't see one yet that looks as if it'd fit in a jacket pocket. (Though neither does a tele lens) Great AF is great but it matters less if you don't want to pick the AF up. (Suffer from a bit of rsi in the arm).

There is now an interesting line of cages and L-brackets for the A6X00 series by smallrig.

Sorry for distracting from this thread's topic: I would welcome to see some pics of the Sigma 100-400!

pegelli wrote: nandbytes wrote: Also I do agree that the model numbers is all over the place. For someone who doesn't follow sony as closely as we/I do its confusing as hell. Is A6300 better than A6100? is A6500 better than A6400? etc etc Was recently speaking to someone about it and in the end I just told them go with Fuji as it was too much effort to explain it all over a coffee. Much like the A7 line they should have gone with Mk1, Mk2 etc. You think the Fuji naming/numbering is easy? Well as someone who doesn't follow Fuji I never know what I'm looking at X-T with one, two or three digits following, X-A, X-pro and IBIS sprinkled at random (so it seems to me) on some bodies but not all. I agree that A6X00 could better distinguish the lower series without IBIS and the higher series with IBIS but as long as you know everything below 6500 has no IBIS and above 6500 has IBIS and that a higher number is better within those groups I don't think it's hard to explain. My only APS-C body is the A6000 (and an older NEX6). I really like the A6000 and never felt the need to upgrade, either with or without IBIS. Body ergonomics are fine for me and the grip is large enough. My style of shooting doesn't require fast or tracking AF. I was at a tennis venue yesterday and the A6000 with FE70-300G worked like a charm and I got some real good shots of Nadal and Tsitsipas battling it out on court from about 10 rows up in the general public places. I'll post some shots once I have time to process them.

what I think does not matter. What matters is what prospective buyers think. I follow most brands and I can easily differentiate most bodies within a brand. But anecdotally I believe more folks find fuji easier to follow.

actually that's a nice way to explain, I never thought about it. But then the issue comes when I try convincing people A6400 and even A6100 might be better than A6500 for them.

Not at all jealous of your tennis exploits
Look forward to seeing them.

Kilkry wrote: It felt OK, the Sigma is eminently holdable, but then I put the same adapter and lens on my A7rii and the primary thing I felt when picking the combo up was relief (for the right hand fingers).

Well, I find both cameras cumbersome with this kind of big and heavy lenses. I think the trick is not to try to hold the camera, but just use it to aim. But I agree, in this situation the A6x00 cameras are less well suited. I find the A6x00 is very good with my small lenses like the 16-70/4 or 35/1.8 OSS. I find the A7r2 nice with lenses like the 16-35/4 and 85/1.8 - I am therefore not compelled by bigger lenses. For bigger lenses I find bigger cameras (A99m2 or bigger) are much more suited. Maybe mark 3 and mark 4 cameras are better.

I see room for an A7000 - basically an APS-C with a mark 4 like body: bigger grip and central viewfinder for the sport/wildlife/aircraft spotters among us. For street and general photography I think the A6x00 cameras are brilliant.

For the A6x00 naming scheme, it is not that difficult:
Entry level: lesser build, lesser functionality - A6000 (older) A6100 (newer)
upper entry/mid level: better built, added functionality - A6300 (older) A6400 (newer)
Upper mid level: added IBIS - A6500 (older) A6600 (newer; with bigger battery but no flash)
In general the newer cameras have better AF.
Easy to explain me think

Looking at the Fuji line-up:
Can you easily explain the difference between the Fuji X-T3 and X-T30?
How does the Xpro3 fits among those two? And the X-H1?
Why is the X-A7 more expensive then the X-T100? It adds 30p 4K but looses the viewfinder.
Confusing IMHO

I think Nikon has the easiest system: just one camera, the Z50

nandbytes wrote: Well then you need to explain why A6300 is different. Then you need to explain why IQ wise they are all the same apart from A6000 which uses older 24mp sensor.

And what's difficult about that?

nandbytes wrote: You'll be surprised I think, many people don't realise why they are buying what they are buying

Not my experience , but even if you're right a different naming convention wouldn't make any difference in that case either.

QuietOC wrote: The Touit 1.8/32 on APS-C is not as good as the maligned FE 1.8/50 on full-frame.

This is complicated. I do not want to start an equivelance discussion (you can do that here) but you cannot just compare formats. Also, the FE 50/1.8 is not so much maligned, but, as Optical Limits stated: "It has its moments but there's also darkness." The Zeiss 32/1.8 for sure is not flawless. Optical Limits thinks the Sony 35/1.8 OSS is noticeable better, DxoMark thinks the Zeiss is (slightly) better. Probably both only used one lens. I like my Sony 35/1.8 OSS, it is not the best lens I have but it is a good standard prime.

Anyway, it is all not that relevant. If somebody is happy with the offered options, better for them

QuietOC wrote: waldo_posth wrote: I have a very good experience with some of the dedicated APS-C lenses for E-mount (non-Sony): I think the Zeiss Touit F/1.8 32mm is a stellar one (and became available very early, e.g. much earlier than the Sigma F/1.4 lenses). The Touit 1.8/32 on APS-C is not as good as the maligned FE 1.8/50 on full-frame. I was looking for a normal APS-C prime when I happened to get a used Rokinon 35/2.8, and found it to be better than the APS-C offerings. I personally want faster AF and stabilization for my normal prime.

I would like to buy an APS-C 2/12 with AF (and OSS as my hands become more shaky with age). Unfortunately this lens isn't on the market yet.

If I had to make a choice today whether to give up all my gear and keep one camera and one lens ... I would keep the NEX6 and the 18-105 and drop the rest in the ocean. So much fun using this system. It is alway travelling with me. Really, really love this little camera. It is a wolf in sheep clothes.