AggieOutlaw
Active member
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 534
Sold all my canon DSLR gear for a Sony mirrorless. Haven't looked back...a great way to capture images/videos in the backcountry
DSLR with Video Capabilities?
- Thread starter OhHeyThereBen
- Start date
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Dredging this one back up after it's been a while as we're finally almost ready for the purchase.
I am looking closely at the Sony a-series that Randy mentioned, and am wondering if anyone has used both the a6300 and a6500? From what I can tell, the main difference is image stabilization for videos, a touch screen LCD screen, and something called Buffer/Continuous Shooting. If any of you have tried both, would you mind telling me if it's worth the extra several hundred bucks for the upgrade? Also, if someone wouldn't mind telling me what the Buffer/Continuous Shooting differences mean I'd sure appreciate it. I would assume that it's something to do with the image quality of the videos? I'll list them below:
a6500
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 233 Frames in JPEG Format
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 301 Frames in JPEG Format
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 107 Frames in Raw Format
Up to 8 fps at 24.2 MP
Up to 6 fps at 24.2 MP
Up to 3 fps at 24.2 MP
a6300
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 21 Frames in Raw Format
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 44 Frames in JPEG Format
Up to 8 fps
Up to 6 fps
Up to 3 fps
I am looking closely at the Sony a-series that Randy mentioned, and am wondering if anyone has used both the a6300 and a6500? From what I can tell, the main difference is image stabilization for videos, a touch screen LCD screen, and something called Buffer/Continuous Shooting. If any of you have tried both, would you mind telling me if it's worth the extra several hundred bucks for the upgrade? Also, if someone wouldn't mind telling me what the Buffer/Continuous Shooting differences mean I'd sure appreciate it. I would assume that it's something to do with the image quality of the videos? I'll list them below:
a6500
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 233 Frames in JPEG Format
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 301 Frames in JPEG Format
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 107 Frames in Raw Format
Up to 8 fps at 24.2 MP
Up to 6 fps at 24.2 MP
Up to 3 fps at 24.2 MP
a6300
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 21 Frames in Raw Format
Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 44 Frames in JPEG Format
Up to 8 fps
Up to 6 fps
Up to 3 fps
LaSportsman
Well-known member
Nikon guy here so I can't answer Sony but can answer buffer. Love the appeal of mirrorless but I'm for $7500 in Nikon lenses. Need to get around to posting on the other hobby topic. 
Buffer/continuous refers to still shots at a particular resolution. You can shoot at a certain speed for certain number of shot shots until the buffer is full. After that, the speed slows down to a slower set continuous speed.
This has nothing to do with the exposure (aperture and shutter speed). This is about how fast the camera can write the file to the memory card before it can take another photo. The top speed is limited by the shutters capability.
So: Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 107 Frames in Raw Format
You can shoot 11 frames per second for 107 images. After that the speed will slow to something less than 11 fps until the memory card is full. This is for an image in RAW format which offers the highest quality. I shoot only RAW and recommend you do the same.
11 fps is pretty fast. I shoot a Nikon D600 which is an old body (see my investment in lenses) and it's nowhere near 11 fps and I'm happy. But I once shot a D70 that was around 5 fps for 10 frames and then 3 fps continuous.
Buffer/continuous refers to still shots at a particular resolution. You can shoot at a certain speed for certain number of shot shots until the buffer is full. After that, the speed slows down to a slower set continuous speed.
This has nothing to do with the exposure (aperture and shutter speed). This is about how fast the camera can write the file to the memory card before it can take another photo. The top speed is limited by the shutters capability.
So: Up to 11 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 107 Frames in Raw Format
You can shoot 11 frames per second for 107 images. After that the speed will slow to something less than 11 fps until the memory card is full. This is for an image in RAW format which offers the highest quality. I shoot only RAW and recommend you do the same.
11 fps is pretty fast. I shoot a Nikon D600 which is an old body (see my investment in lenses) and it's nowhere near 11 fps and I'm happy. But I once shot a D70 that was around 5 fps for 10 frames and then 3 fps continuous.
AggieOutlaw
Active member
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 534
I can tell you that the A6500 was a major upgrade from the A6000 which I had before. Can't speak to the A6300...but I would go with the best you can afford. The 6500 also has 4k video and 120fps @ lower resolution, if that makes a difference.
As LaSportsman said, the buffer and rate describes how many and how fast you can take them. It's a huge feature if you plan to shoot action (e.g., kids or sports or wildlife).
Finally, the biggest improvement is the in-body image sensor stabilization. This is HUGE. It means you get additional stops of performance regardless of lens. It's an incredible feature for low light hand held shooting. I would highly recommend it.
As LaSportsman said, the buffer and rate describes how many and how fast you can take them. It's a huge feature if you plan to shoot action (e.g., kids or sports or wildlife).
Finally, the biggest improvement is the in-body image sensor stabilization. This is HUGE. It means you get additional stops of performance regardless of lens. It's an incredible feature for low light hand held shooting. I would highly recommend it.
ChrisS
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2016
- Messages
- 122
Yep, the only major difference is in the in-body stabilization. The touchscreen isn't all that great and it's only used for a few things.
I just upgraded from the 6300 to the 6500 this last month.
I just upgraded from the 6300 to the 6500 this last month.
We have a 6300 and a 6500. I am thinking about adding a 6400, due to some of the cool new autofocus and IS features.
ChrisS
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2016
- Messages
- 122
I'd probably still have the 6300 if the upgrade wasn't really forced on me as a result of a baggage theft. Thankfully, Delta paid the claim, so I have a fancy 6500.
Randy, you guys are just using the mounted rode mics, right? Do you hook up any kind of wireless lav mic?
Randy, you guys are just using the mounted rode mics, right? Do you hook up any kind of wireless lav mic?
No lav mics on the mirrorless, just Rode mics.
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
So would you guys say that the extra ~$500 would be worth it on the a6500? I would rather spend the money now if it would be something that I would want to upgrade in the future. However, spending half again what a a6300 costs just for image stabilization (if I understand correctly many lenses have it built in) and slight audio differences seems like a bit much. I'm not too worried about shooting over 44 pictures in a burst either. I appreciate everyone's responses.
AggieOutlaw
Active member
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 534
Ben,
The A6500 is getting to be quite old. It is, IMO, the best APS-C mirrorless on the market but I suspect that is going to change in the very near future. The future is full frame mirrorless. These cameras are going to get more affordable. You can't go wrong with an A6500 but if you invest heavily in glass, it could be a gamble if you ever want to upgrade to full frame. Canon is finally committing to the mirrorless game. And their new full frame looks promising too.
With mirrorless, the magic is in the software. Assuming Sony continues to support the A-series, I think you'd be better off getting the latest hardware. Sony might be able to firmware update some incredible new feature (unlikely but who knows) that is only available if you have the best hardware.
As far as buffer and frame rates, it may seem like 44 photos is a lot. But trust me, 4 seconds of continuous shooting goes by faster than you think when your kid has the ball. And there's a big difference between 44 and 200+. When I had an A6000, it had a relatively abysmal buffer. And it would jam up the camera a few seconds even if I didn't fill it up. I can't speak to the A6300, but I haven't had that problem with the A6500.
I'm biased. I love the A6500. I don't even use the 4k video. I don't think the image quality is any better than the A6300. So maybe I'd be happy with the 6300. The focus system is fantastic tho. Much better than the A6000 (dont know about the 6300). It has facial recognition and eye detect and tracking. It's incredible. I sold all my Canon full frame DSLR kit and don't regret it.
I use everything from cheap korean manual focus primes to the Zeiss zooms. I'll say that sensor image stabilization is a real game changer. It's worth $500 in my opinion...but it's just my opinion. It allows you to benefit IS from cheap lenses. That alone can save you money.
Good luck with your decision. I don't envy you because I know how hard it can be to drop serious cheddar on camera gear.
-B
The A6500 is getting to be quite old. It is, IMO, the best APS-C mirrorless on the market but I suspect that is going to change in the very near future. The future is full frame mirrorless. These cameras are going to get more affordable. You can't go wrong with an A6500 but if you invest heavily in glass, it could be a gamble if you ever want to upgrade to full frame. Canon is finally committing to the mirrorless game. And their new full frame looks promising too.
With mirrorless, the magic is in the software. Assuming Sony continues to support the A-series, I think you'd be better off getting the latest hardware. Sony might be able to firmware update some incredible new feature (unlikely but who knows) that is only available if you have the best hardware.
As far as buffer and frame rates, it may seem like 44 photos is a lot. But trust me, 4 seconds of continuous shooting goes by faster than you think when your kid has the ball. And there's a big difference between 44 and 200+. When I had an A6000, it had a relatively abysmal buffer. And it would jam up the camera a few seconds even if I didn't fill it up. I can't speak to the A6300, but I haven't had that problem with the A6500.
I'm biased. I love the A6500. I don't even use the 4k video. I don't think the image quality is any better than the A6300. So maybe I'd be happy with the 6300. The focus system is fantastic tho. Much better than the A6000 (dont know about the 6300). It has facial recognition and eye detect and tracking. It's incredible. I sold all my Canon full frame DSLR kit and don't regret it.
I use everything from cheap korean manual focus primes to the Zeiss zooms. I'll say that sensor image stabilization is a real game changer. It's worth $500 in my opinion...but it's just my opinion. It allows you to benefit IS from cheap lenses. That alone can save you money.
Good luck with your decision. I don't envy you because I know how hard it can be to drop serious cheddar on camera gear.
-B
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
That's exactly what I wanted to hear. I really appreciate it! I think we're going to go with the a6500 and not look back. There seem to be some pretty stellar lens options (Sigma) that are cheap but don't have image stabilization, so that's where the decision is being made I think. I watched a few videos comparing the 6300 and 6500 and even with a stabilized lens the 6500 was a touch better at stabilizing. Now it's just deciding which lenses to go with... I'm thinking the Sigma 30mm f1.4 for some portraits, landscapes, and night photos then one of the Sony zoom models (18-105 or 18-135) for all around stuff. Any recommendations when it comes to those? At this point we won't go into the telephoto lens category because I'd want to make sure we have the best glass we can afford, and I'd honestly rather have a spotting scope so I can use it for hunting...
LaSportsman
Well-known member
Buy 2.8's if you can afford it for zooms. I don the know the quality of the 30mm/1.4 but if will offer flexibility for low light without flash especially combined with higher ISO
AggieOutlaw
Active member
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 534
The Sigma 16mm f1.4 is my favorite lens. I sold my 30mm because I just didn’t use it enough. I personally don’t find the 45mm focal length particularly interesting. But for portraits it would be perfect.
I have the 18-105 F4 and it’s good. But the fast primes are better value for the money.
Definitely get the 16mm or a Rokinon 12mm f2. Both are fantastic wides.
I haven’t found an equivalent value for telephoto lenses.
You won’t regret the 6500 or any of these lenses
I have the 18-105 F4 and it’s good. But the fast primes are better value for the money.
Definitely get the 16mm or a Rokinon 12mm f2. Both are fantastic wides.
I haven’t found an equivalent value for telephoto lenses.
You won’t regret the 6500 or any of these lenses
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Really appreciate it you guys. I think we'll get it ordered here soon and I'll hopefully get something to post in the photo section someday soon.
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Whelp... I pulled the trigger. We bought the a6500 with a 18-135 Sony lens and the Sigma 16mm. Thanks for spending my money for me guys.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
Post up some pics when you get to play with your new toy!
Look into getting some decent memory cards as well - faster memory cards mean your buffer will clear faster, getting you more photo opportunities. This isn't necessarily a must-have, though you'll need the faster memory cards if you ever want to record in 4k.
I switched from Canon to the a7iii (and have dabbled with the a6000 and 6300). For what you want to do, the a6500 should be a great option!
AggieOutlaw
Active member
- Joined
- May 22, 2016
- Messages
- 534
Two of my favorite lenses on that platform. Congrats and enjoy!
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
We ended up going with some Sandisk Extreme Pro cards and some cheaper ones just to have around. Says the speed is 95 mb/s which seems to be better than average. I've just done some small dabbling so far but they seem to write ok. I really don't know crap about those cards though. They just seemed like a good, better than average card that was recommended by some reviews I've read/watched.
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Thanks again everyone for your input. I shot some pictures of my friend and his fiancee this weekend for their wedding invitations and they turned out really great! I won't post them up on here because they're not outdoors related, but they honestly look amazing. That Sony lens is going to be really nice for outdoors shooting and the sigma is going to be great for landscapes and macro-ish shots.
