Which is better? Pentax K-50 or Sony A6000?

[handymanshandle]

I like that the Pentax is a DSLR with a CMOS sensor rather than what ever kind of sensor the A6000 has but I like that the A6000 is lighter.

So which is ultimately better? Or in the under $600 range is there a better option. 

[handymanshandle]

 I would choose the Pentax, but you have such a limited number of lenses to fit the K mount it's unbearable.

There aren't any adapters for k mount cameras?

[NicekillBG]

Nikon

[handymanshandle]

Nikon

Please expand. Any specific model?

[NicekillBG]

Please expand. Any specific model?

For the money i think a 7100 will suit you i just think they are better i have used my teachers one and its really good

[handymanshandle]

For the money i think a 7100 will suit you i just think they are better i have used my teachers one and its really good

I recall Nikon does use quite nice sensors in most of their products but that D7100 is spendy and for that much I'd suspect that spending an extra 1k and getting a Sony A99 or Canon EOS 7D Mk II would be more worthwhile and though my intention is to eventually get a Sony A99 I feel that a <$600 mid tier dslr or compact dslr would be a decent. Though the Nikon seems okay but meh idk I kinda like the K-50 even if it has a crappy selection of lenses as I personally am more interested in a camera's ability of producing shots that are either warm, or the background is practically obliterated and possibly underexpose the photo (I know not recommended but I would do it because it often gives the photo a characteristic that properly exposing doesn't do even though the image looks more lively being exposed properly.)

Though I'm sure the Sony A6000 allows me to play with the field of depth some how a DSLR seems more captivating than a point and shoot on steroids (A6000) albeit the A6000 having some features that the DSLR may not have.

[NicekillBG]

I recall Nikon does use quite nice sensors in most of their products but that D7100 is spendy and for that much I'd suspect that spending an extra 1k and getting a Sony A99 or Canon EOS 7D Mk II would be more worthwhile and though my intention is to eventually get a Sony A99 I feel that a <$600 mid tier dslr or compact dslr would be a decent. Though the Nikon seems okay but meh idk I kinda like the K-50 even if it has a crappy selection of lenses as I personally am more interested in a camera's ability of producing shots that are either warm, or the background is practically obliterated and possibly underexpose the photo (I know not recommended but I would do it because it often gives the photo a characteristic that properly exposing doesn't do even though the image looks more lively being exposed properly.)

Though I'm sure the Sony A6000 allows me to play with the field of depth some how a DSLR seems more captivating than a point and shoot on steroids (A6000) albeit the A6000 having some features that the DSLR may not have.

Ok you choose you have a point there too

[handymanshandle]

Ok you choose you have a point there too

Though would of the Nikon camp a D3300 be either a better option then the aforementioned or about comparable because really what I'm looking for a cheaper (<US$600) DSLR or similar I find it hard to justify the extra $600 or so for the D7100. Though from the sample images the 7100 is a nice shooter too. (Rightfully so in accordance to its pricing )

 

Edit: Browsing Canon's website I noticed the EOS Rebel T5 similar story would it be comparable or better than any of the aforementioned.

(K-50, A6000, D3300)?

[Fate]

Though I'm sure the Sony A6000 allows me to play with the field of depth some how a DSLR seems more captivating than a point and shoot on steroids (A6000) albeit the A6000 having some features that the DSLR may not have.

Depth of field is affected by your sensor size (the bigger, the smaller depth of field; less in focus), your lens' aperture, focal length, and distance from the subject. 

I would recommend the A6000 if you're just a casual shooter.

In the end, it doesn't matter what camera you have if you're bad at photography. I use a $300 camera (Canon T3) and couple hundred dollar lenses (50mm 1.8, 70-200 F4 L, 18-55, etc) to create beautiful images, and if I had a $3000 camera and a $1000 lens(es), the pictures would be very similar.

 

BTW, Nikon/Sony generally have better sensors than Canon but Canon has much better lenses (which are very expensive; their L-series).

[RandomTechnologyGuy]

A6000 just purely because you can get more lenses for it and it is in my opinion a better and more widely used camera which is better because if something goes wrong you have more people to help you troubleshoot and sort out the issue. 

[handymanshandle]

A6000 just purely because you can get more lenses for it and it is in my opinion a better and more widely used camera which is better because if something goes wrong you have more people to help you troubleshoot and sort out the issue. 

Oh come on where is the fun in having a more widely used camera then you get to be unique and while hard it is possible to get a non K mount lens on like a K-50.

Another benefit that at least here in the US we have Target which had this camera and what caught my attention was

a.) It came in White and Black which will match my future build and it's a nice contrast

and b.) My local Target had it of course I could check out another near by store carrying tech stuff which is Best Buy or some other camera shop in Minnesota. Though thanks @Fate for clarifying whether it was mostly the sensor or lens that affected the depth of field. Since I can't really afford nor really have the need for a large army of lenses so it's fine if my selection doesn't have have a ton of lenses because most likely when I got into a more professional camera whatever cheaper camera I went with the lenses from that camera will most likely be better off being replaced anyways.

So from as I collect.

If I want a casual, widely used camera and more lenses go A6000.

If I want generally more control over the camera and a bigger sensor for producing small depths of field then go K-50 or similar.

[handymanshandle]

Comparing the K-50 to some offerings from Canon I have noticed that the T5i and T3i seem to have overall better image and video quality than the the Pentax but meh idk  

T5i/T3i or K-50?

Guessing probably the Canon's just because a bigger selection of lenses and the sensor being better.

[Kereplaz]

I would consider canon 100d with 18 135 stm. Its a good little dslr. For the price tho, there is not much competitive choices. A6000 is very good. For my money id go for canon still.

[handymanshandle]

I would consider canon 100d with 18 135 stm. Its a good little dslr. For the price tho, there is not much competitive choices. A6000 is very good. For my money id go for canon still.

What about the T5i/700D?

I mean the T5i/700D is out of my <US$600 range but by not too much (less than a D7100).  The SL1/100D is a little too petite imho.

Though what are some reasons I shouldn't get the K-50 besides lens options (even though it seems that on Rioch/Pentax's website that there are plenty of lenses to choose from)

[Kereplaz]

What about the T5i/700D?

I mean the T5i/700D is out of my <US$600 range but by not too much (less than a D7100).  The SL1/100D is a little too petite imho.

Though what are some reasons I shouldn't get the K-50 besides lens options (even though it seems that on Rioch/Pentax's website that there are plenty of lenses to choose from)

Pentax is a little outdated, complicated to use, has poor battery, video features are sub par. Lenses if you find them, are not as good in general, more noisy and slower. As a camera for pure photography Pentax is ok. About the 700d - its just a awkward camera. Its does not have enough more features to justify higher price than 100D, it even lacks some from the 100d. Its way better to get a 100d + more accessories like batteries and lenses and a tripod than to get the 700d, forget that thing. If you dont care about the videos and size at all (to be honest camera size can matter ALOT when travelling) Pentax is a viable option. Although id say Canon would be a more future proof investment, perfectly balanced kit with the 18 135 for anybody and with budget to spare for moar accessories like tripods lenses (50mm 1,8) cards batteries remotes flashes etc. And let me say that having a lot of accessories versus having a expensive plain camera, is WAY MORE fun and productive.

[handymanshandle]

Pentax is a little outdated, complicated to use, has poor battery, video features are sub par. Lenses if you find them, are not as good in general, more noisy and slower. As a camera for pure photography Pentax is ok. About the 700d - its just a awkward camera. Its does not have enough more features to justify higher price than 100D, it even lacks some from the 100d. Its way better to get a 100d + more accessories like batteries and lenses and a tripod than to get the 700d, forget that thing. If you dont care about the videos and size at all (to be honest camera size can matter ALOT when travelling) Pentax is a viable option. Although id say Canon would be a more future proof investment, perfectly balanced kit with the 18 135 for anybody and with budget to spare for moar accessories like tripods lenses (50mm 1,8) cards batteries remotes flashes etc. And let me say that having a lot of accessories versus having a expensive plain camera, is WAY MORE fun and productive.

T3i/600D? The 100D just is small and insubstantial.