Opinion Poll: Sony A6300 / A6500

[webrunner5]

6 hours ago, Deadcode said:

There are stores where you can find pretty decent prices. Go for the A6300. With Sony E lenses there is no difference between the a6500 and a6300, the touch screen not wort the extra 300 eur.

So 750 eur for a6300 +16-50. 150 eur for Sony E 50 1.8 oss. 300 eur for Sony E 35 1.8 oss. In summary for 1200 eur you will have full lens setup for almost any cases, awesome 4K video, decent 1080 if you set up your sharpening settings properly, and class leading RAW photo dynamic range, nice AF, shallow DOF.

You want to give up IBIS and a Touchscreen doing weddings?? WoW you have some great big Cahonies LoL. ?

[Mark Romero 2]

One other thing: The kit lens is no bueno. You will have to stop down a couple of stops if you want it to be sharp.

People like the new 18-135 a lot, but I think it is about $600, which is pretty pricey for a kit lens (especially since it is not a fixed aperture lens).

The 18-105 might be good for you, since it is a fixed f/4, but it too is $600 and some people say the IQ is only slightly better than the kit lens

I would try and contact the people who run the youtube channel gear, gadgets and glasses since they shoot weddings with sony https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6-NdwwgCY-DFaFDeEGr6BA

I think they are currently using a7 III, but I know they have shot weddings in the past with a6300 / a6500

@IronFilm makes a good point about monopods. Wonder if you could make some sort of monopod / shoulder rig / quick release contraption that would make sense???

One other thing:

Are you left eye or right eye dominant???

I am left eye dominant so I almost never use the EVF of my a5100 / a6000 / a6300 / a6500 cameras

[webrunner5]

Now I will admit I used a Hasselblad with no IBIS and No Touchscreen to do weddings, so I guess it could be done. But I only took like 50 to 70 shots tops back in the day, all pretty much staged, linked to strobes, on and on. They don't do that anymore. No way I am shooting a wedding without lights for the cake cutting, group photos, on and on also. You sound like you would charge 200 bucks for it. I charged probably 2500 bucks or more at times in today's money for my shoots. One year I did 44 of them with my wife helping. And was just Photos. If they had video like they have now it would be 4000 bucks at least for me to do it. Weddings are a Ton of work. And you loose your entire weekend doing them. And you have to have damn good gear and spare gear, up to date gear, to shoot them.

A lot of people still use Canon 1DC's to shoot weddings. Just think what a pair, or even 3 of them cost to buy when they were new. I had 5 Hassy bodies and 12 lenses for them.Think what they cost. I always had a body up in New York getting cleaned and oiled, checked for problems. Rotated them to make sure they didn't fail. But they did last longer than the newer digital cameras out now. They didn't get outdated fast.

You can't just start off charging 10,000 bucks, but I found the less you charged the less jobs you got.  How good is some jackass charging 399 bucks to do my wedding thing! If you charge big money people Assume you are damn good and will pay it. And you better damn well produce, and that takes skill and gear to do it, and a lot of luck on your side. You never get over the jitters doing it, and that is a good thing. Once you relax and think you got it you screw up. It isn't for the meek trust me. It is a hell of a fast paced way to make a buck. You sweat bullets at the wedding and you sweet bullets editing it, and hell the Darkroom stuff was even more scary back in the day.

I would Really be afraid to shoot a wedding without a camera that has dual card slots. Man you loose a card your goose is cooked!

[BTM_Pix]

My view as a recent reluctant joiner to the Sony party via the A6500 is that as you are going to be spending a significant amount of timing cursing it and ploughing through endless menus shouting "Where the f** are you, you little f***" to hunt down and change a setting then you might as well spring for the A6500 over the A6300 as at least you'll be getting a bit better reward for your quests

[Mark Romero 2]

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

My view as a recent reluctant joiner to the Sony party via the A6500 is that as you are going to be spending a significant amount of timing cursing it and ploughing through endless menus shouting "Where the f** are you, you little f***" to hunt down and change a setting then you might as well spring for the A6500 over the A6300 as at least you'll be getting a bit better reward for your quests.

While it's true that it can be a hassle, I have found that I can cut down on my cursing significantly by utilizing the M1 and M2 functions, optimizing the Fn menu, and customizing the buttons.

Heck, in theory you could have five custom memory functions (three of them are recorded on to the SD card), but since I tend to format my memory cards, I am not sure whether the three that are saved to the SD card would remain (kind of doubt they would, but the sony cameras allows you to deleted multiple images by date without formatting the whole card so maybe there is a work around).

Takes a lot of work to get it right, but it does help cut out a lot (although not all) of the frustration.

[BTM_Pix]

Yeah, I'm probably going to have do something radical and download the user guide.

And actually read it.

Oh the humanity !

[Mark Romero 2]

30 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Yeah, I'm probably going to have do something radical and download the user guide.

And actually read it.

Oh the humanity !

Some People swear by the Gary Friedman books,

http://www.friedmanarchives.com/ebooks/index.htm#Sony_Books

I haven't read them though, but have checked out a couple of his free videos on youtube. I have no relation to him. However, I am notoriously cheap, so I would start with downloading the user guide as well.

[Dustin]

@BTM_Pix that cracked me up! I am already used to working around camera quirks since cough Nikon cough. I feel like I’ve seen enough videos that when I went to the store yesterday I was able to set it up in around 5 minutes how I wanted to shoot it. Plus I would probably pick up a guide or two like Caleb Pike’s 6500 guide and Andrews EOSHD Lut/profile package.

I appreciate everyone’s thoughts! No matter how I stack it the a6500 is still coming on top. I just can’t deny that the used a6300 could be had probably with a gimbal for the cost of a new a6500. I’m just gonna keep looking on eBay until a listing catches my eye or the gear wins lol

[BTM_Pix]

6 minutes ago, Dustin said:

@BTM_Pix that cracked me up! I am already used to working around camera quirks .

Thats what I thought before I went hunting for the EVF/LCD switch option.

Spoiler Alert :::: There isn't one so kiss goodbye to one of your function buttons  

[mercer]

No question, I’d go with the a6500 over the a6300. But also be prepared to have a hard time seeing the LCD screen in daylight if using sLog and be prepared to get an on overheating warning. I can’t say much about the AF because I used old manual focus lenses with it. The 4K is insanely detailed and sharp, especially when downscaled to 1080p. And for me, the color was kinda wonky, but I’m sure a better colorist would do fine with it.

With that being said, if you research online, there’s a reason why the lion share of wedding videographers still use Canon cameras.

I honestly don’t believe in recommending cameras any more. I’ll discuss my experiences with them based on my limited skill set, but these choices are so personal to individual needs, one really has to decide what specific spec or specs get them hot and bothered and go from there.

Whatever your choice, good luck!

[webrunner5]

51 minutes ago, mercer said:

No question, I’d go with the a6500 over the a6300. But also be prepared to have a hard time seeing the LCD screen in daylight if using sLog and be prepared to get an on overheating warning. I can’t say much about the AF because I used old manual focus lenses with it. The 4K is insanely detailed and sharp, especially when downscaled to 1080p. And for me, the color was kinda wonky, but I’m sure a better colorist would do fine with it.

With that being said, if you research online, there’s a reason why the lion share of wedding videographers still use Canon cameras.

I honestly don’t believe in recommending cameras any more. I’ll discuss my experiences with them based on my limited skill set, but these choices are so personal to individual needs, one really has to decide what specific spec or specs get them hot and bothered and go from there.

Whatever your choice, good luck!

Yeah I have a woman friend of mine that is a Pro photographer and she still uses a Canon 5D mk III for all her work. And she does any and all that comes by shoots wise. She is not really a Wedding photog, but she has done them. She likes a few weekends off.  ☺️

[Dustin]

@mercer I agree man right camera for the right job!

As for me I’m obviously still evaluating. As far as my needs/wants the line gets blurred a bit, I believe I have settled on IBIS if nothing else to add some stabilization to the couple manual primes. Also my experience with the d5200/d5300 while I have made quite a few videos I’m proud of, doesn’t meet my current run and gun shooting style. If I’m on a tripod for an interview, I don’t mind the Nikon. If I’m on vacation or somewhere trying to get a good shot fast, I don’t want to be fiddling with settings. This includes focus which is why I’ve decided good AF would be a good benefit to my style. I was already impressed yesterday like I said playing with the a6300 AF.

Im also wanting a more flexible image and 120fps which the Sony offers. That said if the G85 had Sony/canon level autofocus- I would be buying it in a heartbeat and could live without the 120fps.

I hope that makes sense! I do understand the limitations of the Sony system but with my needs I can’t think of anything else that meets in and is ALSO in my price range. Besides maybe the m50.

Edit: @mercer the overheating warning does bum me out as I’ve never had to deal with that before. I don’t really shoot much long form video anymore but obviously shooting weddings or events would affect that. I’m also starting to think maybe purchase as an introduction into the Sony eco-system and if I like and get serious enough, I could always use as a b-cam. (Or sell and switch to another system).

[webrunner5]

Yeah the whole Sony line up is Really hard to pass on. They have really pushed for a lot of great ideas on their cameras. I know people complain about the menus, but it is complex because the cameras have a lot of complex things they can do that a lot of cameras, particularly DSLRs can't do.

Other than if you need 10bit, which is nice no doubt, and are into Anamorphic big time, Sony has a camera that is probably not going to be beat by others. The newest A7 mk III has really good colors now right OOC and really good AF from the A9. And the face and eye focus alone is worth it. Not counting Clear Zoom, on and on..

[Dustin]

I agree they pack a lot of specs for the money. But then pack gotchas like screen dimming, overheating (okay understandable for the body size) etc. I now have to contend whether the image and new features outweigh the cons. I think they do, at least for what I want to do...

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

You want to give up IBIS and a Touchscreen doing weddings?? WoW you have some great big Cahonies LoL. ?

I've done countless weddings without either of those. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

 

I am left eye dominant so I almost never use the EVF of my a5100 / a6000 / a6300 / a6500 cameras 

I also find it very hard to use the EVF on the a5100 ?

 

6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

The 18-105 might be good for you, since it is a fixed f/4, but it too is $600 and some people say the IQ is only slightly better than the kit lens

I reckon my 18-105 is a great run and gun lens. Only probably is if you're using it on a much older camera such as the FS700 raw will lack the in camera optical correction that say a FS5 has. 

 

There is also the 18-110 which is a better lens but much much more expensive!

[Mark Romero 2]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I also find it very hard to use the EVF on the a5100 ?

 

Good catch.

5 hours ago, Dustin said:

I believe I have settled on IBIS if nothing else to add some stabilization to the couple manual primes.

The thing about that is you would need to use a "smart" adapter to communicate the EXIF to the a6500 body, otherwise, you will have to go into the menu system and set the focal length in the menu system for the IBIS to function correctly. Might be a pain if you switch lenses.

Here's the thing about Sony (and I shoot about 10 to 15 photo gigs a week, so I do have a bit of experience): The lenses are good (generally) but pricey, and a few real expensive ones seem to have quality control issues.

There is no native 16-50 f/2.8 E Mount lens, for example.

Minolta made some nice prime lenses with lots of... um... "character" and they sell somewhere between $15 to $100. You could put them on an LA-EA4 adapter and have autofocus with them (not great autofocus, but better than nothing I guess), or you could put them on an LA-EA3 and use them as a manual focus lens. I am about 90% sure that they would then transmit EXIF to the camera and that would give you IBIS for them, whether you used the LA-EA4 (autofocus) route, or if you use the LA-EA3 (no autorfocus) route. But double check this first.

Some sony users swear by their Minolta lenses, some swear AT them.

If you are going to use Nikon lenses and want the IBIS to determine the focal length automatically, you are going to have to use a smart adapter. However, the smart adapters are more expensive and the autofocus is pretty spotty. So you would be PAYING for autofocus but probably still end up using manual focus.

 

[Kisaha]

@Dustin 120fps in this camera is seriously bad. If this is a big selling point for you, try to see some footage first before buy. 

Coincidentally, I watched some clips - shot on a studio with lights - this very morning, and the results were unusable. With less than sufficient light, I have seen terrible stuff.

Andrew Reid had posted a high frame rate list of cameras, a  while ago, and he expressed a similar opinion.

[noone]

I find Sony lenses to be not that much different to Canon and Nikon when it comes to prices.     It is just that there are so many older ones from Canon/Nikon that you can get things cheaper and to be fair, there are some more cheaper models too.

My most expensive lens is a Canon and the biggest bargain I have gotten is the  Sony FE 85 1.8 I think (second biggest bargain is the Canon 40mm 2.8 STM for me).      Some Sony lenses are expensive for what they are but I guess it depends on what you want.     Take the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8.      People say that it is expensive for a normal 1.8 lens but if it was made by Canon, it would be labelled an L lens and cost as much but Canon simply don't make such a beast.

The 50 1.8 OSS lens is another bargain from Sony.     Not as needed with an IBIS body but for a while it was pretty much unique (stabilized normal/short tele prime).     I loved using it on my FF E mount cameras with around 15mm of AF extension tubes as a FF macro lens.       I also had no issues with the APSC kit lens and found mine was at least as good as the Nikon and Canon APSC kit lenses on Nikon and Canon cameras I have had and certainly more useful being a fraction wider (I have kept the lowly Canon APSC kit lens as it covers FF on my Sony from around 24mm and up).

 

As for A mount lenses, if using an APSC camera, you can also use the LA-EA1 and LA-EA2 (forget the 1 I think).     For VIDEO auto focus, the 2 and 4 would work somewhat and for STILLS auto focus, all four will work with lenses that have a lens motor (like the cheap but nice 85 2.8 SAM) and the 2 and 4 only for screwdrive lenses.     Some of that may have changed and it may be camera/adapter/lens dependent.

One thing with the LA-EA# adapters for video, it used to be that they would not open up faster than about f3.5 I think (not sure if that has changed with any combination).

Another point is you are using the AF of the adapter pretty much instead of the camera so a lot smaller focus area and number of focus points and low light AF limits drop (depending on camera- IE my A7s has better than -4 AF but with the LA-EA4 I had, it was around EV1 AF I think).

Really, I would not bother with A mount for video unless using manual focus and Canon makes a lot more sense (so many adapters from cheap to expensive).   For STILLS and AFS, I found A mount lenses to be good (I liked my 85 2.8 SAM but sold it as I have better dearer 85s) and I love my ancient Sigma 180 5.6 enough to keep it and hope to get another LA-EA4 sometime to use it (old screwdrive lens needs an adapter with motor in the adapter)

 

[IronFilm]

36 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@Dustin 120fps in this camera is seriously bad. If this is a big selling point for you, try to see some footage first before buy. 

Z Cam E2 is probably the way to go if a person wants 120fps (@4K too!!) on a low low budget. (Or the NX1? Or GH5/GH5S?)

[Dustin]

@Kisaha Wow I just found the YouTube test. The a7s ii looks a heck of a lot better than the a6500! Wow.

I was considering an a7s II but the prices are a bit too high for me. I just can't drop $2k on a camera right now. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aDrHfHVeiU