Sony pricing

[Bryan]

Prices taken from http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sony/Sony-E-Mount-Cameras

 

A6000 body £419

 

A6000 body and 16-50 lens £499 lens costs £80 - looks a bit of a bargain.

 

A6300 body £884.04 - price falling at last

 

A6300 body and 16-50 lens £1051.56 lens costs £ 167.52 if I have the sum right.

 

A6000 body and 16-70 lens £1099 lens costs £680

 

16-70 lens £789

 

16-50 lens £247.31 Ouch!

[John Mitchell]

Prices taken from http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sony/Sony-E-Mount-Cameras

 

A6000 body £419

 

A6000 body and 16-50 lens £499 lens costs £80 - looks a bit of a bargain.

 

A6300 body £884.04 - price falling at last

 

A6300 body and 16-50 lens £1051.56 lens costs £ 167.52 if I have the sum right.

 

A6000 body and 16-70 lens £1099 lens costs £680

 

16-70 lens £789

 

16-50 lens £247.31 Ouch!

 

Sony prices here in Canada are still lower than what you pay, even after a recent 25% rise. That said, there are some fairly good deals in your list.

 

You'll be seeing me in the used camera lineup (queue) from now on.

 

I paid $500 CAN (about £295) for a new Sony Nex-6 body a couple of years ago. Mind you, it was on sale at the time.

[davidhu]

Bryan, via Argos on EBay I picked up a manufacturer's refurbished A6000 with kit lens for £439. Apart from a battered box it is in pristine condition and in any event comes with a 12 month warranty. As a bonus I had a 10% EBay discount voucher, ironically because of a failed bid on a Nex 6, bringing the price down to £395. Result. Just need to figure out all the settings now.

[John Mitchell]

Prices usually drop considerably as Xmas approaches. I bought my NEX-6 in late November at about 40% off. It's probably worth living with the death rattle until then.

[Bryan]

Thanks gents, the rattle has not reoccurred, but it has set me thinking about a new camera body. 

 

Actually two symptoms were evident. First of all I was getting a message that "This accessory is not supported" or words to that effect, and I put that down to muck on the hot shoe - indeed cleaning sorted the problem. Then there was the dreaded death rattle. but, again, exercising the rear and top controls appeared to bring about a cure - presumably dirt on contacts.

 

I have also had problems with my Sigma 19mm f2.8 not auto focusing properly, or even not being recognised as existing - cleaning the contacts seems to have helped ( at least with the recognition issue, I still get occasional focusing failures). Finally my 16-50 kit lens is occasionally unwilling to play. Also possibly down to dirty contacts, but it has had a hard life, carried for miles on a bicycle, dropped etc. 

 

I've seen some nice shots taken with an a6000 and the extra pixels would come in handy. No rush to splash the cash however!

[Duncan_Andison]

I've got the 6300, very nice but I will probably change it for a A7iii when they come out, just for sensor consistency with the A7rii.

 

Unless you need 4k video, fast AF with no blackouts on continuous focusing & high refresh rate, I think the  A6000 will be a very good alternative, especially at that price! I have to admit, I've been well impressed with the AF speed with the A6300, impressive locking/tracking. That said, if you don't need that you won't miss it! Save the money and buy some nice glass to add to your collection!

[Bryan]

I've got the 6300, very nice but I will probably change it for a A7iii when they come out, just for sensor consistency with the A7rii.

 

Unless you need 4k video, fast AF with no blackouts on continuous focusing & high refresh rate, I think the  A6000 will be a very good alternative, especially at that price! I have to admit, I've been well impressed with the AF speed with the A6300, impressive locking/tracking. That said, if you don't need that you won't miss it! Save the money and buy some nice glass to add to your collection!

 

Interesting. Not sure whether to wait until the a6300 price comes right down or hang on for rather less time and buy an a6000. In the meantime the NEX is doing OK.

 

"Nice glass" remains a problem for the Sony APS/C cameras - the company is obviously putting its resource into FF. I would like a better replacement for my 19mm Sigma lens,  a half decent longer telephoto, and a really good quality walk around zoom, but none appear to have been forthcoming. 

 

An old, or not so old, ex rangefinder manual 20mm might be a possibility, but they don't come cheap!

[Duncan_Andison]

 

I've got the 6300, very nice but I will probably change it for a A7iii when they come out, just for sensor consistency with the A7rii.

 

Unless you need 4k video, fast AF with no blackouts on continuous focusing & high refresh rate, I think the  A6000 will be a very good alternative, especially at that price! I have to admit, I've been well impressed with the AF speed with the A6300, impressive locking/tracking. That said, if you don't need that you won't miss it! Save the money and buy some nice glass to add to your collection!

 

Interesting. Not sure whether to wait until the a6300 price comes right down or hang on for rather less time and buy an a6000. In the meantime the NEX is doing OK.

 

"Nice glass" remains a problem for the Sony APS/C cameras - the company is obviously putting its resource into FF. I would like a better replacement for my 19mm Sigma lens,  a half decent longer telephoto, and a really good quality walk around zoom, but none appear to have been forthcoming. 

 

An old, or not so old, ex rangefinder manual 20mm might be a possibility, but they don't come cheap!

 

 

I use the FE lenses with the A6300, I don't have any APSC lenses at all. I think you can adapt Canon lenses to it but to be honest, I don't muck around adapting lenses. Prefer to use Sony ones for speed etc. A little run down...

 

Sony Zeiss 16-35 works well as a 24-52 lens, sharp to the edges. Performs better at the long end on the A6300 than it does on the A7rii fast to focus and has IS.

 

Sony 70-200 f/4 spends a lot of the time on the A6300 and focuses fast, I used it on a few bike ride events. Good IS built in.

 

Sony 55 f/1.8 and the Batis 85 are both amazing lenses that perform as 85mm & 135mm on the A6300. The Batis has IS.

 

The Loxia 21 is ok on it in terms of IQ but you don't have any stabilisation on the lens or camera, but at 21mm, not a massive problem.

 

Sony Zeiss 35 f/2.8 makes for a very good 50mm/ish lens an no weight at all. It is tiny!

 

Sony G 90mm macro extends the reach of the macro lens on the A6300 and performs really well but, I still tend to use it mainly on the A7rii. It has built in IS.

 

The 55mm f/1.8 & 35mm f/2.8 are really worthwhile lenses for the A6300, even if you have no plans at all for going FF, amazing IQ.

 

If I was you, I'd be tempted to leave it a little longer, let the problem of sensor shortages clear up (due to earthquakes) as it has pushed up the price of all their cameras, including the A6300.

 

Differences between A6000 & A6300 as mentioned are mainly better AF speed and tracking, 4k video, EVF refresh rate, resolution and no blackout option plus, full metal body. The AF on the A6000 is supposed to be good so if you can live without the others, that will be a good option.

[John Mitchell]

It's interesting to see that the DxO scores for the Sony SEL 55-210 ($350) and the ones for the much more expensive ($1350) Sony 70-200 F4 on the a6000 aren't a heck of a lot different.

 

P.S. You can say that a little bird told you.

[Bryan]

Some pricey glass bring discussed here, not realistic for (my) stock shooting. Not keen on hanging FF zooms onto small APS/C body either. I've toyed with idea of buying a Canon EOS adapter, but don't want to carry heavy lenses around.

 

I played with both an a6000 and a a6300 today. The 6000 does have a bright viewfinder, but the degree of magnification appears less than on the NEX6. Couldn't fit any of my own lenses, had to rely on the dreaded kit lens.

[John Mitchell]

Some pricey glass bring discussed here, not realistic for (my) stock shooting. Not keen on hanging FF zooms onto small APS/C body either. I've toyed with idea of buying a Canon EOS adapter, but don't want to carry heavy lenses around.

 

I played with both an a6000 and a a6300 today. The 6000 does have a bright viewfinder, but the degree of magnification appears less than on the NEX6. Couldn't fit any of my own lenses, had to rely on the dreaded kit lens.

 

I agree, why break the bank. You do really well with your legacy MF lenses.

 

I find that I'm using my Minolta MD lenses quite a bit these days and enjoying them, as well as the results. I do miss image stabilization, though. as my hands don't seem quite as steady as they used to be. The 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.7 Minoltas cost me $40 CAN each. Now there's a bargain.

[Duncan_Andison]

It's interesting to see that the DxO scores for the Sony SEL 55-210 ($350) and the ones for the much more expensive ($1350) Sony 70-200 F4 on the a6000 aren't a heck of a lot different.

 

P.S. You can say that a little bird told you.

 

I've used both. The 55-210 was used when I had a Nex7. Loved the weight and size but there was a tendency to miss focus a lot, ended up with a lot of SoLD shots. It manually focused just fine.

 

This may have been corrected by FW, both camera and lens but was one of the reasons I shifted from Sony To Fuji 3 years or so back. If it has, I'd love to hear as I would give it another go but if not, I'm not interested in adding lenses that can't be trusted 100% or increase work processing to correct/rescue photos.

[Bryan]

 

It's interesting to see that the DxO scores for the Sony SEL 55-210 ($350) and the ones for the much more expensive ($1350) Sony 70-200 F4 on the a6000 aren't a heck of a lot different.

 

P.S. You can say that a little bird told you.

 

I've used both. The 55-210 was used when I had a Nex7. Loved the weight and size but there was a tendency to miss focus a lot, ended up with a lot of SoLD shots. It manually focused just fine.

 

 

I've had the same problem with the 55-210, it can't be trusted on autofocus, plus mine was very soft down one side when new. That was fixed under warranty. Currently using an old Pentax 75-150 f4, which is very good at the short end, but sometimes difficult to get the focus right at the long end, while the lack of IS might also be a problem. I have veered between the two lenses over time and not really found a fully satisfactory answer. I also possess a Canon 70-200 f4, but, although tack sharp in the centre that also has edge softness issues, while it's far too big/heavy to hump around with the little Sony. 

[John Mitchell]

 

 

It's interesting to see that the DxO scores for the Sony SEL 55-210 ($350) and the ones for the much more expensive ($1350) Sony 70-200 F4 on the a6000 aren't a heck of a lot different.

 

P.S. You can say that a little bird told you.

 

I've used both. The 55-210 was used when I had a Nex7. Loved the weight and size but there was a tendency to miss focus a lot, ended up with a lot of SoLD shots. It manually focused just fine.

 

 

I've had the same problem with the 55-210, it can't be trusted on autofocus, plus mine was very soft down one side when new. That was fixed under warranty. Currently using an old Pentax 75-150 f4, which is very good at the short end, but sometimes difficult to get the focus right at the long end, while the lack of IS might also be a problem. I have veered between the two lenses over time and not really found a fully satisfactory answer. I also possess a Canon 70-200 f4, but, although tack sharp in the centre that also has edge softness issues, while it's far too big/heavy to hump around with the little Sony. 

 

 

It took me awhile to figure out how to use the 55-210 lens properly. I find that if I use 'flexible spot' AF and 'continuous' AF mode, I don't have any major focusing problems with the 55-210. It's a good lens IMO. Nice and light, well built, and sharp (enough) for an inexpensive lens. No big complaints here. De-centering seems to be a problem with Sony lenses. I wonder if they've cleaned up their act yet.

 

Not being much of a techie, I found this article on autofocus useful.

[Bryan]

 

 

It took me awhile to figure out how to use the 55-210 lens properly. I find that if I use 'flexible spot' AF and 'continuous' AF mode, I don't have any major focusing problems with the 55-210. It's a good lens IMO. Nice and light, well built, and sharp (enough) for an inexpensive lens. No big complaints here. De-centering seems to be a problem with Sony lenses. I wonder if they've cleaned up their act yet.

 

Not being much of a techie, I found this article on autofocus useful.

 

 

Thanks John, I'm prepared to give the 55-210 another try. Interesting article. If I can get it work reliably it might be another reason to upgrade to an a6000, whose powers of auto focus are alleged to be better than those of the NEX 6.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

It took me awhile to figure out how to use the 55-210 lens properly. I find that if I use 'flexible spot' AF and 'continuous' AF mode, I don't have any major focusing problems with the 55-210. It's a good lens IMO. Nice and light, well built, and sharp (enough) for an inexpensive lens. No big complaints here. De-centering seems to be a problem with Sony lenses. I wonder if they've cleaned up their act yet.

 

Not being much of a techie, I found this article on autofocus useful.

 

 

Thanks John, I'm prepared to give the 55-210 another try. Interesting article. If I can get it work reliably it might be another reason to upgrade to an a6000, whose powers of auto focus are alleged to be better than those of the NEX 6.

 

 

If I had paid $1400 for the 55-210 instead of $400, I'm sure that I would feel much differently.