EOS M3 VS Sony a6000

[cc143]

I want to invest in a mirrorless camera due to the sheer weight and size of my eos 50d (which I have been very happy with), and its lack of video recording capabilities. 

 

Video recording is just something that just needs to be there, I am more than happy with 1080p 30fps, nothing crazy is necessary. 

 

I am a canon fanboy at this point. I do not need to replace my 50d and will not be doing so, I will be carrying it with me if I have the capability to do so, but a small body that can go into my pocket instead is a very nice complement to it. 

Currently I own the 50d, with a speedlight 430 flash, battery grip, and the following lenses: 1.18-55 f3.5-5.6 kit lens, 2.90-300 USM lens, 3.28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and have the 17-40mm f/4.0L in my sights in the next 2 months or so, as well as an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8. I find it much easier to work with when I work as an events photographer (clubs and concerts), where I mostly take stills. 

 

The issue is that although I prefer the a6000, when I tested them in person, it is significantly more expensive than the m3 (I will be buying used so m3 @ 300gbp, a6000 @400gbp, both with their respective kit lens). Also the adapter to EF mount lens from canon ef-m is much cheaper than the sony one, which I would like to have since I have a selection of lenses and can use it as a secondary camera or carry my 28-135mm, which is quite versatile, if necessary. (so I will definately be buying one of those.) 

 

The main purpose is as a light, versatile travel camera. 

 

I also aim to upgrade my 50d in the next 2-3 years, depending upon canon's new releases, for something like a used 5d3 or 6d2, if both are too expensive perhaps the 7d3, so I do not mean to quit dslrs completely. (Its almost 8 years old now, so 10 years is I believe a fair investment.) 

 

Is the a6000 worth the additional 100gbp + 70gbp for a cheapo lens mount over the m3 in this scenario. Please keep in mind that I won't be spending the additional money lightly, and everything I purchase in this area is used and quite cheaper than new, so the cost benefit is of extreme importance to me. 

 

Thank you in advance for your help.   

[ALwin]

If you buy the A6000 and want a smart adapter for your Canon lenses, you will have to invest in an adapter that lets the camera body communicate with the lens and they can be pricey.  Some smart adapters (because they are mainly manufactured by third parties) can sometimes be buggy.  Even the expensive Metabones adapters, I've heard people experienced their adapters glitching out on the job when it was most important.

 

The A6000 technically should have "better" video recording capabilities than the EOS M, but then the word "better" is relative to your needs.

 

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

when I work as an events photographer (clubs and concerts)

If you've been using your camera for some work, then you should really know what you require in a camera.  If you're looking to upgrade/trade-in the 50D because it has become limiting then look for a camera which deals with high ISO and noise a lot better than the 50D and look to invest in some faster lenses.

 

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

a small body that can go into my pocket instead

Neither of those cameras will really fit in your pockets, more like a smaller bag.

[ShadowCaptain]

6 hours ago, cc143 said:

SNIP

Thank you in advance for your help.   

 

I prefer the A6000 as a camera, teh M3 is better than the previous models, but canon have not fully cracked the mirrorless camera world and the AF and other things are just not as good 

that said, since you already have a set of Canon lenses - it makes sense to go this route since they will work much better with the M3 without any worry


If video is not THAT much of a priority, and you want something pocketable, why not get a pocket camera like a G7x or Rx100 - they take great video and fit into your pocket for portable use and still take lovely photos and video!! they even do ok in low light and can even get a nice DOF shot

Then you can upgrade your canon camera in a year or so and get something like a 7d3 

 

if you go full frame, you  will have to replace your lenses

Alternatively - sell everything and move platform , but for £300 the M3 seems an ok deal as long as you feel the camera does what you want and are aware of the limitations  etc

 

 

 

[ALwin]

21 minutes ago, ShadowCaptain said:

I prefer the A6000 as a camera

Between these two, the A6000 is definitely better (at least according to the specs on B&H).

 

I agree, that if the OP wants a pocket camera then something smaller with an integrated lens will be better.  Otherwise an A6000 or M3 even with a pancake lens will not be truly pocket friendly unless it's a large pocket.

[cc143]

I prefer to go mirrorless because of the extra control you have over a compact camera, I'm the guy that always has the camera in manual or av, I tried getting a compact years ago and ended up never using it.

 

As far as lenses go, I can't see myself buying anything without a red ring on it from now on, although I will be content with a 24-105 on a full frame anyway.

 

Moving platform is really not an option, I adore canon, that said, my gear right now would fetch enough to maybe get a 5-6 year old full frame body without any lenses or apparel, the 50d is still better than anything apart from its own series x0d and beyond in the Canon lineup, with the 60d being an unworthwhile upgrade, and I bet other platforms will not have much more to offer.It is clearly not worth it.

 

Should I take it then that the a6000 is not worth the 90 quid (315 vs 405) over the m3, although it is a better camera?

[ALwin]

16 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Should I take it then that the a6000 is not worth the 90 quid (315 vs 405) over the m3, although it is a better camera?

That's up to you to decide.

[cc143]

4 minutes ago, ALwin said:

That's up to you to decide.

Thing is, I tried them out briefly at the airport a month ago, but was really pressed for time and had no chance to really see how much better the a6000 is, or if the m3 can redeem itself at any point. 

 

I adore the viewfinder on the sony, and I understand that its approx. 3 times faster at burst and has a much faster af system. 

The canon has better ef-m lenses and can be inexpensively adapted to EF mounts. and is 29% cheaper (yes i did the math!). 

 

I still can't decide what the tipping point is for those features though after 5 mins of testing while waiting for the gate announcement. 

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

snip

If the camera's ability to record video has, in some way, become more important to you than previously then the A6000 should be your choice.  Otherwise, you don't care if the camera can record video or not, than either camera should be fine.  Because both of them are designed to take photos.

[cc143]

20 minutes ago, ALwin said:

If the camera's ability to record video has, in some way, become more important to you than previously then the A6000 should be your choice.  Otherwise, you don't care if the camera can record video or not, than either camera should be fine.  Because both of them are designed to take photos.

Although recording was never something I was into, one can't be sure of the future. Whichever of the 2 I choose, it is going to be with me for 5 years or more. Video could be important in events and so on, since that is where I will have both cameras on me. Is the capability of the m3 in that respect by far superior to the a6000? does that justify even half the cost? If it does then the a6000 could be the better option since I believe I would buy it for the picture taking capability at say 350 instead of 405. So is the additional 55gbp justified? 

[ALwin]

1 minute ago, cc143 said:

snip

I already said it previously, the A6000 (at least on paper) has better video capabilities.

 

As for justification, you already stated you plan to upgrade the 50D eventually.  Perhaps consider a more "proper" camera for filming at that point.  I don't know what kind of filming or how you will plan to film things. Aside from looking at the technical specifications of either camera, because they share a similar form factor, if you plan to use either for filming you will definitely need accessories.

 

If you plan to film using a palm/handheld bare naked camera, then a camcorder will be much more stable than a DSLR/Mirrorless shaped camera. Because a camcorder more likely has a built-in gimbal style image stabilization system surrounding the internal lens housing and it's design is optimized for handheld filming.  With a DSLR/Mirrorless you need a bit of rigging, handheld will not be stable.

[cc143]

Filming is a secondary if not tertiary concern at this point, I just like to have the capability and perhaps use it for recording rarely when I have both with me.

A camcorder doesn't cover my picture taking needs and even if it did, it is bulkier than my 50d and much less versatile, with much less control than a mirorrless, I may as well use my phone at that point.