Thinking of a Sony a6000...tell me about your experience

Hi guys, I have a nice Canon 5d3 which I love but frequently find too large for just snapping some quick shots. Thinking of a Sony a6000 being under $500 for just carrying in my bag.
What's your experience? Tell me about it.
For serious shots I use my 5d3 but just for some quick snaps with no moving subject am I thinking in the right direction? I have a lot of Canon L lenses and a stack of old FD ones.
I would love to hear your stories. Thanks.

I don't have an a6000, but I did come from 5D3 and many years of Canon. I say can't hurt to try. Especially if you purchase from somewhere with an easy return policy, then you can look at it as a no risk trial run. I did that with the A7Rii, skeptically, almost expecting to hate it. Not sure if you were thinking of just sticking with Canon glass, but I'd say if you can swing it, pick up at least one compact native lens so you can really enjoy the small form factor when you want. Being able to adapt Canon lenses is wonderful, but really does cut into the size/weight advantages

itsallart wrote in post #18212878
Hi guys, I have a nice Canon 5d3 which I love but frequently find too large for just snapping some quick shots. Thinking of a Sony a6000 being under $500 for just carrying in my bag.
What's your experience? Tell me about it.
For serious shots I use my 5d3 but just for some quick snaps with no moving subject am I thinking in the right direction? I have a lot of Canon L lenses and a stack of old FD ones.
I would love to hear your stories. Thanks.

I bought the a6000 while I still had the 6D, anticipating a complete switch to Sony but wanting to start basic. I knew I was going to change over completely when I took some family pictures before Christmas--one to be used for a local magazine cover--and found myself preferring the Sony files in spite of shooting with a kit lens ( I had a 50A on the 6D).

The a6000 has been a great take (almost) anywhere camera for me that I've shot sports, landscape, events and portrait with. I've seen them used and like-new on Adorama at your price point and below. It is probably overkill for what you need, which isn't a bad thing.

As far as adapting lenses, the a6000 is certainly capable even if it is something I don't do a bunch on that body. I did shoot a Spring Training baseball game last year using a Minolta 200mm lens while manually focusing, and my results were better than I thought they would be. The third image was taken through the netting, about 8 rows back.

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …157666775627906​/lightbox/

st3181602

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …157666775627906​/lightbox/

st3181609

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …157666775627906​/lightbox/

st3181605

I got an a6000 about six months ago for travel and general walk around photography and I am very pleased with it. When used with a good lens it more then matches my Canon crop cameras with one exception. It isn't the best camera for action photography. The Sony menu also drives me crazy. I can take a small bag with three lenses and it weighs less then one of my Canon bodies.,

[QUOTE=Larry Weinman;18213238It isn't the best camera for action photography. QUOTE]
Nobody will confuse an a6000 with a D500 or a 7Dii, but it is a body you can get professional results from even when shooting sports.

http://pmrphoto.blogsp​ot.com …0-gridiron-challenge.html

http://pmrphoto.blogsp​ot.com …in-dark-at-10000-iso.html

http://www.lensshark.c​om …-sony-mirrorless-cameras/

and we even have had someone on this forum, whuband, use the a6000 50 1.8 combo as a baseline camera for major college basketball. While most of the shots wouldn't make it in ESPN the Magazine for a full-page shot, what he produced is good enough for newsprint PJ and web use.

https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=14091​81&page=14

Larry Weinman wrote in post #18213238
I got an a6000 about six months ago for travel and general walk around photography and I am very pleased with it. When used with a good lens it more then matches my Canon crop cameras with one exception. It isn't the best camera for action photography. The Sony menu also drives me crazy. I can take a small bag with three lenses and it weighs less then one of my Canon bodies.,

Thank you. I appreciate it. My objective is to take quick still shots without having to carry a lot of gear. I've heard that the menu is weird

It should do exactly what you expressed you wanted it to do. Since purchasing a used A6000 I rarely pick up my 6D anymore...unless I'm getting paid. I picked up a $15.00 adapter and dusted off my 35+ year old Pentax lenses and am having a lot of fun with them. Sony's "focus peaking" works quite well with vintage (manual focus) lenses.

If you are going to adapt the canon lenses on your A6000 and you think you will still be using your canon, I would highly suggest you going with the A6300 at least. As this will have great auto focus with your canon lenses with the right adaptor. Sadly the A6000 will not auto focus with any adapter.

Other than that, the A6000 is a very capable camera. I actually sold my T5i to be replaced with the A6000.

The comment of not the best for action i would question,

It's just 'different' and needs adapting to.

I moved through several canon cameras including 1D mk3, 7D, 6D, 5D2 etc
Ended up with Sony a6k and loved it. Light, compact, Convenient, I shoot drifting, drag racing, inline skating, and equine and the camera hasn't missed a beat.

I own 3 canon bodies. Picked up this a6k, smoking camera. Just bought body. I separately purchased 28-70 a7 kit lense. Camera focuses fast. AF point lock's on people's faces like a cell phone.

I don't see the need to blow over $1000.00 for a 63 or 65. My opinion only. Good camera menu on back is long like my 5ds. If you own any flash point flashes for Canon you can use your canon trigger for off camera flash. Little toy camera will leave you shocked. Use it on manual takes some serious nice photos. It weighs nothing you can carry it around you won't notice is there.

Camera has lots of features like a new cell phone. Buy one you won't regret it.

Sample image below

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-FwrH48P-X3.jpg&lb=1&s=A

I have a wheelbarrow full of Canon bodies and lenses, but two years ago I picked up a a6000 with the kit lens as a walk about & travel camera. Frankly, I was tired of lugging around large heavy bodies and lenses. I bought two a6000 this Christmas for my two sons. I hope they enjoy the a6000 as much as I do. I can walk about with the a6000 in a jacket pocket, for me thats great. The image quality is fantastic, even with the kit lens (I also have the 50/1.8 & 55-250 zoom). I don't particularly care for the layout of the menu's compared to Canon, but I can live with that. I would welcome the ability to create a quick "my menu" like I have with Canon. I also just purchased an adapter to mount my manual focus Minolta MD lenses that I have had for many years and thought I would never use again.

I didn't say it was a bad camera for action, I just like other bodies better. The absence of long quick focusing telephoto lenses is something that keeps it from being a top notch
sports or birding camera.

My "main" camera is a 5D3. I really enjoy that camera and almost everything about it. I'm even okay with its size and weight, while using it. It's only when traveling (by air) that I don't enjoy it.

I also got the a6000 a little more than a year-and-a-half ago. For me, it fills a niche between my phone camera and my "big stuff".

Generally speaking, my "nicer" lenses have a purpose, a "feel". That lens design and feeling is optimized for a full-frame sensor. Yes, a 135/2 can be mounted on a crop-sensor camera, but it really isn't the same lens. For general purpose photography and a walk-around lens, it's pretty hard to beat the convenience of a phone camera. But the a6000 puts all the manual controls, and focus peaking, and real-time effects in the viewfinder, and (better) responsiveness into a camera that's not on the phone.

I think that full-frame mirrorless is kind of in a weird place. If you're looking for small or light, then full-frame doesn't do that. Why? Because it's all about the lenses. When you want good lenses (i.e., big), then the size and weight of the body quickly becomes irrelevant. If you're after the other features of mirrorless, then full-frame is fine.

So for mirrorless, I start with the lenses. Actually, for ANYTHING photography, I start with the lenses. Then pick a body to match.

Because I have a lot of Canon lenses, I also got the Metabones adapter for mounting my Canon lenses on the Sony body. Actually, I got both the "normal" adapter and the "Speed Booster". Autofocus DOES work with many of my lenses on the Sony. It's definitely slower than when using a Canon body, and sometimes a lot slower. But it often works. Some lenses work better with the "normal" adapter, and others work better with the "Speed Booster". It's really the kind of thing that you have to try each particular lens.

There are cheaper adapters, and I've borrowed and used a few, but I've had the best luck with Metabones. There have been improvements and new options that have appeared in the past year or so, so this may have changed.

One thing that I really like with the Sony is the frame rate. I shoot high-school sports for a couple of schools and for various sports. I actually don't use auto-focus when shooting some sports (and when using the Sony) because the focus-peaking is that good. I can do this for tennis and swimming. For football, soccer and lacrosse, I'll go with AF and use the Canon. But, when Sony fits and with 11 frames per second, I have a "sports body" that's a fraction of the cost of any mirrored option.

What I like (about the Sony):
- Small, lightweight for traveling when using small lenses.
- The sensor is good and high resolution.
- "What you see is what you get" in the viewfinder.
- Having a viewfinder (instead of "only" the live view monitor).

What I don't like:
- Already been said: the menus. Non-intuitive.
- Customization and custom modes. Not like Canon (and I like Canon). I want to be able to select C1, C2, etc. But the button assignments don't follow the modes. So *some* settings stick with the C1, C2, etc, but not all. For how I use that feature, it's "broken" to me.
- Control knobs are a little bit cramped, but that comes with a smaller device and not much space available to put them on.

My future plans:
- I still like the small form factor when using native lenses.
- I might switch to Canon depending on how well the AF works on the M5 or later models.

I haven't had any experience with Canon cameras for 20 years. I have had a A6000 for the past three years. I recently sold it to move on to full frame. I have been happy with it despite its shortcomings of which, some have been addressed in more recent Sony models: touch screen, better low light AF, more physical buttons and dials , IBIS.... However, pricewise A6000 can't be beaten up. Sony has certainly raised their camera prices. I actually think A6300/A6500 are somewhat overpriced.