thekillergazebo

The canon M is trash for a mirrorless camera. It does video well only because of the dual pixel AF. Other then that not worth it. I’ve owned the Sony a6000 and still own the a6300 and have used my buddy’s fuji xt2 a lot and if you want a great APSC and don’t plan on shooting fast moving objects the fuji is the way to go. Their lenses are better then what Sony has to offer and at least in the xt2 the film simulators are amazing. You can apply the look after to take the shot. Hell he can even edit photos in camera, which still blows my mind. The ergonomics are better then sonys for sure as well. The fuji feels like a really well thought out and complete camera. Now Sony, I absolutely love them and I’m a bit of a fanboy, but their lenses arnt that great all around for what you pay compared to fuji. They sent horrible but not totally their if you going to be investing a lot of money. Their lack of weather sealing is frustrating to no end. But they are smaller then the fuji and have better AF. They also have a larger selection of lenses if you consider the full frame lenses you can get which are of amazing quality. Honestly sonys got a deal going on for their full frames in the USA where you can pick up a Sony A7ii for 1k with a kit lens I think. I’d go for that.  That way as you evolve you have access to better quality lenses and the body is better for portraits and landscapes then the other two cameras I menstioned. The a7 is cheaper I think it’s going for $700 or something now. Avoid that one!

I’m in a very similar situation with my a6300, my plan is to sell and go for a7m3. The a7m2 has a poor autofocus so going from your current camera will be frustrating at times. Also what’s driving me to full frame is sonys lack of higher quality crop sensor lenses. Also I use to have a two camera setup and it turned out to be a waste for me. I never fully utilized both and as time goes on the value on sonys bodies drops, so I would only keep one. On top of that you have two camera with different sensor sizes so unless your doing sports or wildlife do you really need the crop sensor? Oh and the full frame Sony with 24-70 f4 is about th same as my a6300 and 18-105. The body is a bit bigger but the lens is smaller so really about the same.

They say it’s fixed. I know on mine I don’t have an issue but I’m not shooting a lot of video. I’m also in Florida and have shot video in the sun without a problem. They also have an override which just tells you it’s hot and won’t shut it down. Funny thing with video I’ve never had an issue but when I was shooting stills of birds doing burst in the Everglades I got the over heating thing. It didn’t do anything but just say it’s hot and didn’t change performance. 

Def the a6300. I faced the same question a year ago but with the a7ii and for me the a6300 was better. I wanted something to do photos mostly and video part time and found the a6300 holds up better. The a6300 AF is better and it has better time adapting lens then the a7 or a7ii. The kit lens isn’t bad for video since it’s a power zoom and as a upgrade the 18-105 is another good video lens that doesn’t cost much. 

Oh keep in mind you can use your phone with sonys app to do touch focus and as a monitor when in video or doing stills. I’ve seen a lot of others use it since the screen doesn’t flip around to film them self’s and see the framing of the shot.

Yeah I didn’t think about it but yeah the a6500 is awesome for video and I would say better for stills then both. Also I’d look at the 10-18 for wide video shots. It’s is really awesome and has great AF in video. The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is also a popular video lens I see Sony users buying. A friend has it and uses it for most of his video and stills work.

Yeah I didn’t think about it but yeah the a6500 is awesome for video and I would say better for stills then both. Also I’d look at the 10-18 for wide video shots. It’s is really awesome and has great AF in video. The sigma 18-35 f1.8 is also a popular video lens I see Sony users buying. A friend has it and uses it for most of his video and stills work.

You do realise you need stuff like lenses, tripods, batteries, storage media, bags etc.?
 
So, Assuming you already have every accessory I mentioned above, or you budgeted them separately, then, both would suck for photography given the amount spent, both would be excellent for video. The gh5 has a tiltable screen, which is optimal for vlogging, but its AF is crap. The Sony's is better, but no tiltable touchscreen. Sony is FF, therefore, better in low light, dynamic range etc. shallower depth of field, Gh5 sensor is tiny, but that means lenses can be smaller etc. I would probably go for the sony personally due to the AF being useable, which is very important when vlogging, and the GH5's MFT sensor will be much worse in low light. 
 
But as I said, neither are worth it for photography. 
 
You could also look at the a6500, which has advantages over both, larger sensor than the gh5, AF capability, touchscreen, smaller than either, better for photography than either, costs less and I would expect you'd be able to get some reasonably priced lenses. Mind you, you will also need a portable battery bank, since Sony cameras have infamously bad battery life. 
 
I assume you are in the US, therefore, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1349267-REG/sony_alpha_a6500_mirrorless_digital.html something like this should be within your budget . (That's an a6500 +18-105mm f/4 IS+ some other small accessories, for (1996$)) 
 
After that, I'd get a gorillapod and a shotgun mic: 
Joby gorillapod SLR Zoom- 41$: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633362-REG/Joby_GP3_BHEN_Gorillapod_SLR_Zoom_Flexible_Mini.html
Rode videomic go- 101$: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1017550-REG/rode_videomic_go_on_camera_shotgun.html
 
If you are concerned with going overbudget, maybe look for a used a6500 and 18-105 on ebay, or alternatively the 16-70mm should also be fine, if you can find one. 
 
Sigma has just started releasing some primes for the Sony system which you may wanna take a look at. They are very cheap, well made and would be great as a second portraiture lens. Apart from that, to be honest I don't really like the lens options for Sony, which is why I usually recommend people forget about 4K, get something like an 800d or d5600 and invest in glass.
 
Sigma and Tamron are doing amazing stuff for APS-C now, the 18-35mm f/1.8 and 50-100mm f/1.8 are amazing all rounders and I'm sort of jealous there's no real equivalents for Full frame, they are usually cheaper too. Problem is, with Sony you'd need to adapt, run into incompatibility, the glass is huge etc.  
 

I just got it with the extras $60 which isn't too bad. I've got some grand canyon pictures I took last summer that I still want to do so I'm looking forward to it.

I’m not sure you will find any lens to fit into your wish list. Most people I see with a zoom lens on Sony is the sigma 150-600 and use the mc 11. Your looking at about $900 to $1,200 new. Not sure the price used. Sigma did release the 100-400 but I think that’s about $700-$800 New. And because it’s new I don’t think your going to get a deal on a used one. Really only thing you can do is find something like a teleconverter that goes on the front of your 55-210. A guy I know got one and did the same thing for $100. It about the same sharpness if not worse and you get some bad vinetting. Also it doesn’t really compress the background like you will get with a proper lens. I think his was a x1.7
 
id say save your money till you can buy something decent. No point in buying something which doesn’t meet all your needs and your going to have to buy again. Also consider renting a lens that meets your needs when you have to have it. I just rent macro lenses when I know I’m shooting macro.

Um... buddy ... I got bad news. You might want to get checked. Any holes in a condom and you can get an STD. Also you might be sterile.... so that being said cheap tripods are not worth it. I was young and dumb and went raw dog with a cheap tripod and almost smashed my lens when the wind picked up. Also it broke after 3 months. 

500px? Instagram? 

Sorry to say I don't think their is a good option besides the sigma mentioned above. 

FroKnowsPhoto?  That douche?  I wouldn't recommend him to anyone.

So I have the a6300 and have shot 4K on it in south Florida and have had no issues. I will also add that they just had an update for the camera I believe 3 weeks ago or maybe a little more updating the firmware to solve overheating issues people had and I believe to allow the operator to override the warning. It's a fantastic little camera and well worth the money imo. The 4K looks great and combined with the 18-105 you get some smooth shots when you need to zoom in. The 10-18 also gives some great results to.

I have my complete Lr catalog on a external drive. (That I backup after every new shoot). Lr is such a slow program that I have not noticed any speed differences between having it on an internal SSD drive vs my external USB3 HDD. And my catalog is like 15000 photos so far. 

So your recommending the a7ii which for body alone in the US is about $1500 and with kit lens is about $1700. This dudes budget was $600.... 
 
my point of the a6300 being lighter is a point that one should consider if they wish to put a kit lens on and be able to put this camera in a pocket. I don't know if any combination where a FF Sony can fit in any pockets. You may think this is dumb but if your traveling this means you can travel light and also bring a camera into some restricted areas. Sony a6300 isn't really overpriced at all when you compare it to what canon or Nikon are offering for their APSC line of cameras and even to some of their lower end FF. They make a lot of great features in with a good sensor that holds its own even with some older FF cameras. 
 
Sony claims that you get 4 stops with the IBIS but I never found that to be realalistic. I would say at best 1 to 2 stops would be what I've seen. So basically on a FF 50mm you could shoot at 1/50 instead of 1/100 and not worry about blur. Could push it more but I haven't seen reliable results past that. 
 
The only FF that's Sony that could be in his price point is the a7 for $1000, but I belibe the a7 does not put preform the a6300 or the perks it has. Even then it's still pushing this guys budget. 
 
To bring this back back to the original question yes I think the a6000 is a great camera for your budget. If you research what the a6300 has over the a6000 and think it's worth it for you then jump on it. Sony has a sale in the US two times a year where their gear is a bit cheaper so if you can wait or use a price tracking site it could save you some cash on the deal.
 
 

A bit late to the game but this is my current setup when going out for a day of shooting. 

Also keep in mind that canon has a nice little lens bundle at Best Buy for super cheap. You get the 10-18 and 50mm for $250. So when you need some new glass for $250 it's hard to beat. 

Yeah for small travel video a GoPro is king unless you want a dslr for better control. If you do get the GoPro I recommend two things 
gopro 3 way grip 3 way grip link
peak design capture clip Amazon link
 
 

It's great to mount to bags. Like backpack or what not and can be used for larger camera if needed. Plus I found th chest or heat mount to be weird. They are both not comfortable to wear for long times and not super easy to put in and off in public without getting people's attention. But to each their own.

However you make the order/purchase, as long as you have it delivered to a location outside of NY state you don't have to pay the NY state sales tax.
 
I often need to order stuff from B&H because their prices are cheaper than buying something in Europe, so I just have my purchases shipped to friends who live in the US (outside of New York of course) and have them post it to me or bring over when they visit.

I would honestly agree that an a6000 body and a better lens if you only can afford the 16-50 kit. Or at least if you will be stuck with it for a year or so. It really isn't sharp at all. One idea could be to get two sigma f/2.8 primes. The 19 and 60 they cost under 200 and are so much sharper than the 16-50. I would add one of those if you go with a6300 + 16-50 so you will have at least one really sharp lens. 
 
Sure the 16-50 is managable and so. But it really sucks it is that soft. Its practically useless for portraits because of that. Or personally I only use it for wide shots at 16mm 

Motor damage could be serious. You don't want one of these things falling out of the sky from faulty motor. Could try and see if the store will take it back.

How else do the photographers here share their photos is my question. I personally just put my stuff in Instagram which I'm guess is why Micmac wants to know.