Camera gear discussions

@Thad E Ginathom those are good points, I was mostly looking at the 6400, but I was under the impression that the 6300 was also a noticeable step up in autofocus performance vs the 6000, as well as having a newer generation sensor, so I was thinking of the 6300 as the baseline model to get in that series. There are some good deals on used a6000s though

 

Yes, for concert AF, the 6300 is basically where it starts. It's a very worthwhile step up from the A6000. You get a lot of good stuff, and the lower light AF capability is a lifesaver.

I guess I can say with a straight face that I've shot the NFL from the sidelines with nothing but a manual tele lens, but I've also been a bit of a Leica whore and masochist at that, and for me dealing with bad AF is worse than trusting your own hands with MF. So YMMV but still, maybe avoid the A6000.

 

@SoupRKnowva, in the end, it is going to come down to budget and spending priority, but please bear this in mind: it is always cheaper to spend once.

That rule, I have just broken in a big way, by buying the a6000, and, less than two years later, buying the a6500. Simply, the a6500 was what I really wanted (although I was uncertain as to how enthusiastic I was actually going to get about revisiting real-camera photography, which made it look more expensive). It is a mistake that cost me as much as several hundred dollars.

The message is, according to what you want, spend as much as you can. And if you can envisage buying something better in a mere year or five, save up the extra, wait a bit longer, and buy it now. You'll still be using it all that year or five, and it will cost you a lot less.

My day-to-day photography (still snapshots, really, but I'm improving) is classical Indian music. Room-level lights, some extra on the stage (but they certainly never thought of photographers when they put it there), but absoluteley no flashing, multi-coloured, effects stuff. Just ordinary, but often uncomplimentary, light. And I do not use flash.

Nothing new to more-experienced photographers, but I still get a real thrill when I put an f/1.4 lens on the camera, look through the viewfinder, and it seems like I shone a torch on the room! Most of the time I have an f/1.8 Sony 50mm OSS (stabilisation) lens on my camera, and to get unblurred singing faces, I am using it pretty-much wide open most of the time (sitting 15 to 20 ft away from the artists). Money priorities: it doesn't matter how good the autofocus algorithms are if you can't actually get a pic of the guy because he's leaping around! an a6000 and some fast lenses might do a better job of that than the more recent models, with cheaper lens(es) for the same total price.

Unless it is for holiday snaps, I don't think I'm ever going to buy another lens less than f/2.8. Even if it takes me several years to save up for it. The Zeiss Batis 85mm is next on my wish list: maybe this time next year. The longer fast primes and the fast zooms, from Sony at least, may never be economically possible for me. But the f/4.5-6.3 stuff (the 55-210 I got with the a6000 is, otherwise, quite a nice lens) does not cut it for me; so it is a waste of my money. For my usage... and I suspect that yours may be more demanding, not less.

The 6500 is a 6300 plus stuff. The 6400 looses some 6500 stuff, but adds some more sophisticated tech.

Or . . .

Forget all that, read Sony Alpha Rumours every day, and wait for expected new "High-End" APS-C camera," which Sony have promised will "exceed customers' expectations" (Paraphrased). And, I guess it is going to be priced more like an A7 series camera.

Sure, I might end up buying three times , but I'm not waiting for that. I got the a6500 because the price fell to an offer I couldn't refuse. I'm not not in the market for brand-new-high-end-model prices.

 

Keep in mind you can also get a faster manual focus (!) lens, stop it down 1-2 stops depending on your needed depth of field, and zone focus. In concert venues you're gonna have to push the ISO up to 3200+ any way. So ensure that whatever camera you decide on does well with higher ISOs.

Also, ISO was really a film speed measurement; they call it the same, but with digital cameras ISO is really a measure of applied gain (amplification) of the sensor signal.

 

I feel all that, and if there was a camera out with the af of the 6400 and the ibis of the 6500 I’d probably get that, cause a lot of the third party lenses don’t have image stabilization, so the ibis would be great.

I guess the other option is to wait haha maybe they’ll even make a rumored a7000 maybe with a ff sensor. But alas, you can wait for new tech forever

 

I'm not as familiar with Sony's but this is more general photography related. If you are trying to capture motion on stage in a "dark" scene, image stabilization is not going to help. You need fast glass, f stop of 2.8 or lower and probably less than 1.8, and/or high ISO. The latter the Sony cameras do really well.

Also, what is the end target for the photos? Are you printing? what size? a lesser camera can do really well for Instagram or FB photos while you'll need the better equipment for poster prints.

Have you thought about renting what you want to buy? I've rented a bunch of lenses and cameras before buying and in a few instances, saved some money when I realized it wasn't the right choice. No affiliation, but https://www.lensrentals.com has been awesome.

 

I think that is on the way, for real, and fairly soon. What would piss me off is if it turns out to be an a6600, rather than an a7000. IE, something, with all that extra 6400 stuff, plus IBIS. 6600 would be to 6500 as 6500 was to 6300. But follow the rumours site. High-End has been mentioned by Sony people.

About the current state of the mirrorless market, I have the following impression, and wonder if others would agree:

Sony: Most advanced all-round
Fujifilm: Most like a traditional camera, best look and feel
Olympus: Best stabilisation
Nikon & Canon: trying to catch up
​

About my new a6500... It is overwhelmingly more than the a6000. Small changes that add up to make buying a book necessary! In some ways, it has me confused.

But when I'm not confused, it takes some great pics. Does the a6500, in the hands of the same person, take better pics? Yes!

The downer is that I seem to have an intermittent hardware fault. Big downer. mailed the dealer: we'll be talking. The guy has a good reputation for service.

 

Dunno about "most advanced all-round", but those Sonys sure are popular. I agree about the Fujis, people still always ask if I'm shooting film. I prefer those because no antialiasing filter, the film simulations, colour rendition, and the camera controls. I don't know anything about the Olympus, and yeah Nikon and Canon's first entries in mirrorless are way behind the leaders.

I would definitely say Sony & Fuji are the top two; but others that focus more on video could certainly disagree with that. I think Panasonic is kind of a leader for video.

LOL, it's the brain behind the camera that makes the pics. The camera just wants to make a dull 18% gray-averaged scene every time.

 

I could screw that up. This camera is a little harder to screw up the pics with

And, sorry, I forgot about Panasonic. And probably several other brands too!

 

Trying to pick out lenses when you dont have a bunch of experience is tough! I think I've decided on the Sony f1.8 35mm OSS for wider shots at shows as well as a general purpose lens for everything else, and then the Sony 85mm f1.8 for anything more zoomed in at shows, like shots of individual people, it's also one of the nicest lenses you can get for the camera and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

I was originally looking at the 50mm f1.8 OSS from sony or the 56mm Sigma 1.3, but I dont really see them fitting in there, maybe at some later point, but they dont seem to serve a purpose for shows.

I guess the right answer is to rent a bunch of them for a week and see whats up

 

Too right! If I came across the words crop factor before I bought my a6000, it did not really register. For APS-C, it is an easy sum: 1.5.

So, the 30mm is equivalent to 45 --- almost 50mm "standard" lens. And the 85mm will "give you" 127mm.

I'm still concerned that a camera of this cost would have hardware/software issues at all, but mine seems to have to over its refusals to recognise lenses. I'll give it a week.

I continue to be delighted with the actual results from my a6500: One day, I'll be able to take photos this good, which will leave the camera free to move to the next level! I'm sure it will always be ahead of me. The IBIS seems to cope with my manual 90mm. I wish they'd give us a functionality firmware upgrade with the a6400 features, like the A9 is getting --- but I'm happy that I chose IBIS and the a6500.

Derrr... as long as it goes on working. And did I mention the titanium body? Titanium? Hmm... Magnesium alloy. perhaps. Any way, it feels good. Rigid on the outside, stable on the inside.

 

That's really gonna be the key thing. Those focal lengths sound good, although the 35mm might not be wide enough, depending upon how close to the stage you are. If you're very close, you may have to go to 24mm or as wide as 20mm.

Keep in mind also, that these days nearly every lens made is very sharp in the center region, and only go soft at the edges or even just the corners. For concert photography, that's usually gonna be black any way, so you lose nothing. The point being, don't be afraid to look for a decent zoom that covers the entire range you'd like to capture, prolly somewhere around 24-36mm, or 35-70mm. Those are usually still pretty small lenses, especially if you're using mirrorless APS-C and those are equivalent focal lengths.

 

Yep. 35mm won't be "wide" at all: it will be standard-lens equivalent. For wide, I think you need to go 20 and less.

The kit lens is either the 16-50 pancake, or the 18-135. In my humble opinion, the 16-50 is rubbish. I've got one and keeping it: one thing is it is small enough to make the camera pocketable (if you have very big pockets. Baggable at least. But I don't think it takes better pics than a cell phone!

I suggest asking the youtube critics. Technology Mafia is a good channel for these alpha lenses.And you can see the coverage and comparisons. And Mrs Technology-Mafia is a super-lovely model

I think the 18-135 would be a really useful range, and make a great over-the-shoulder lens. but still only
f/3.5-5.6 which is not going to get you far in a dark concert hall.

By the way. Concerts? Assuming rock: darkness and weird lighting. right?

I'm actually super-confused by the Sonly line-up now. A quick look at the site of a local seller shows the a6400 at a lower price than the a6300

And, as per the edit to a previous post, my vote now goes to the a6500, rather than the a6400.

Why:
a) the autofocus on the a6500 already works better than the autofocus on the a6000.
b) Tweeks to autofocus like better lock on and animal-eye do not trump IBIS. Unless you really and specifically need them.
c) IBIS rules, OK?
d) The 6500's magnesium-alloy body is gorgeous and I love to rub it against my sensitive bits
e) But not enough to set it on fire

 

Going to the camera store and playing with the camera and all of the lenses I was considering was super helpful, it cemented that I think the 35 and 85 would be the correct two focal lengths. The a6k series cameras are even tinier than I thought they’d be. I thought the a7 ones would be significantly larger than them, but they were barely bigger at all.

Anyways, I think I’ll be snagging the a6400, a Rokinon 35mm AF and the Sony 85mm 1.8 in the next week or so

 

Are you OK with no stabilisation? Because there is none in any of that. If you have rock-solid hands then go ahead: You will be happy! Wider-angle lenses with fast apertures can certainly do without it: I did not have a problem with my Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The Sony 50mm 1.8 has OSS. I could not hand hold my 90mm lens (granted: it is old and heavy and does not even autofocus) without an elbow planted on something solid. a6500's IBIS makes that lens hand-holdable, albeit with care.

But I'm a bit old, and my hands don't shake, but my whole body is not as steady as it was.

I wonder if the a6400 is a6000-size or a 6[35]00 size? edit: sort of in-between

 

Well I ended up not getting an a6400. I almost went downtown again to buy one friday after class, but decided I didnt want to spend all that money on something I didnt even really know if I would use. So i decided to hunt CL for a good deal on a 6300, and found one with the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for $770

Snapped a couple pics at a friends house of his adorable dog on my way home, first time editing RAWs, done in apple photos

 

On Saturday, it occurred to me that what I should have mentioned was auto-focus! Which, I think, would not be there on the non-Sony lenses you mentioned. SBAF was down in memory of sadly lost friends, and was feeling bad I hadn't pointed that out!

Well, that sounds nice. The Sigma 30mm seems to be universally loved by all reviewers. It does not have stabilisation, but even my hands can handle this fast lens. It does have autofocus. It should be compatible with everything your new 6300 can do in that department. Reviewers love it; I love it! Although I don't use it as much as my Sony 50mm f/1.8.

Apparently, there is something in the early Sigma firmware that makes manual focus really bad for video makers. It was fixed in an update. I have the earlier version. I don't do video. I'd update it anyway if I had a Windows machine, but I don't.

I also find this lens really good close up. Out in the garden, for flowers, it is good enough for me and means I don't have to fuss with extension tubes and do real-macro stuff.

The 50mm/1.8 is considered a really good-value Sony lens. Might be a good next buy?

And then something longer.

I have been hankering after the Batis 85/1.8. Built-in OSS, and I like the idea of the focus-distance/DOF display. But hugely expensive. More expensive than my new 6500! Yesterday, it hit me that I now have a 6500, with IBIS, and I don't need OSS in the lens. And the Sony 85/1.8 is hugely cheaper than the Batis. It is so much cheaper that the difference could buy another lens like the next thing on my wish list: a wide prime. Like the Sigma 16.

Congratulations on your new toys --- and on your lovely doggie pic!

I continue to be happy with my a6500 and its ability to take good pics in spite of me --- but I had it beat yesterday, taking some really dreadful pics of a dance performance. My excuse is that I don't often go to dance, and that is just a different world to pics of people who sit in the same place. Still: some really bad beginner's mistakes! Cutting off a dancer's feet is as bad as cutting of the tops of people's heads. Lessons learnt.

 

So this happened awful fast...



But now I have to be done buying lenses...Does anyone have recommendations for good, small, shoulder or sling bags for a small mirrorless and a couple(2-3?) lenses?

 

You're just getting started.

Anyway, as for bag recommendations, I'd go for this one:
https://www.onabags.com/store/messenger-bags/the-bowery.html?color=smoke

Small, compact, and fits your bill.

 

My go to bag is the Peak Design Everyday Messenger:

https://www.peakdesign.com/collecti...cts/everyday-messenger?variant=11607015194668

It comes in a 15-inch and a 13-inch version. I use the 15 but for a small kit the 13 is perfectly fine.

For something that's a bit more retro, the Nylon version of the ONA Brixton:

https://www.onabags.com/store/messenger-bags/the-brixton.html?color=nylon

I don't recommend the cloth and leather version because both are too heavy, especially the leather one.