Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I got an A6000 for the same reason as you, to try mirrorless. I decided I do like mirrorless although not to replace my DSLR, and I found the A6000 good enough that I have no desire to upgrade. Hope that’s helpful.

bob44044 Loc: Ohio

Battery hog, big time. I have everything turned off I can, but still have to carry 4 batteries for the day.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

I bought an A6000 18 months ago and I love it! I think it is a put-down to call it an entry level camera - it is an extremely capable machine capable of great work. There are better cameras in the 6000 series for Video, if that is your thing, and it lacks the image stabilization of those cameras, but if video is not important to you you get virtually nothing for the additional expense. There are a huge number of lenses available for it, especially if you use adapters on legacy lens you can buy for peanuts on eBay. And the 30 mm f 1.4 Sigma is fabulous.
It is a great piece of equipment.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Someone else mentioned the 'chessy' user manual. It really serves as a table of contents to the free e-manual from Sony. It is very brief, though. I bought the Friedman paper manual before stocks ran out and it provided a free download e-version. Have it on my iPad and like it better because the paper manual is thick. Busch's manual was only on e-version. They both have e-manuals on the a6300 and, likely, the a6500. Seems the only differences between the a6000 and a6300 is plastic body vs metal body and better arranged menu in the a6300. Otherwise, same size and pixel counts. By the way, if you set Airplane mode to 'off' battery life will drain within a month when camera is 'off.' Notice the 'stair-step' discharge pattern with the Sony battery.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

The 6300 and 6500 were not out yet when I got my a6000. It has become my "go to" travel camera from the same reason as you. The camera with the PZ16-50 fits in one pocket and the 55-210 in the other. This camera does amazing things. It compliments my awsome a99ii and my a7s. It also will accept any of my old film lenses.
It is not the "first release" as some one stated. the NEX series was and then the next generation was the a5000 series. and now the a6000 series. It does a lot of stuff newer cameras from other companies don't do. As with any "technology item" get what you like today because something newer and maybe better will be introduced tomorrow. Tough to go wrong with this camera.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Seeing your comment about having Canon and reading the rest of the thread without noticing where anyone went into the issue of adapters for Canon lens, I thought I'd step up and toss in a word or two since I have the a6000 and a6500 and as a long time Canon shooter, I also have a little collection of "L" lens. I got the a6000 to give me a crop sensor to use with my Canon lenses. I also got the 16-50 and 55-210 Sony lens so I would have some native lens for less demanding use than with the bigger, heavier, "L" lens. It has worked out well and has given me versatility beyond my expectations. The 16-50 and 55-210 are above average lens is you avoid shooting them at either max end of aperture or zoom. I usually shoot them at f/5.6 to f/11, auto-ISO, in aperture preferred mode for casual shooting and mount Canon lens when I want images as good as I can get, EF50mm f/1.8 or another fast Canon lens when light demands it. For casual shooting in decent light I mount the 55-210 Sony as a "walk-arouind" lens and stick the 16-50 in my pocket or if I want to conceal the camera, I mount the 16-50 and shove it in a jacket pocket and put the 55-210 in the other pocket. Otherwse, I a Canon EF100mm f/2.8L IS II Macro when needed, and for or wildlife and sports, the EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, an EF400mm f/5L non-IS and my EF1.4x II TC works well with the 70-200 and 400.

For adapters, I tried a few early and/or inexpensive ones that were said to facilitated autofocus, metering, etc., but the reality was pretty "hit and miss," more miss than hit The $400+ metabones adapter is rumored to be the best out there until the relatively recent release of the Sigma MC-11 which I bought and with which I am very happy. With the MC-11 mounted my "L" lens focus as rapidly as my Sony lenses do or perhaps faster. I've been so happy with the a6000 body and Canon lens that I got the a6500 so the "in-body-image-stabilization could give IS to my 400mm lens which it does, along with 4k video and a few other features. I do want to caution that, while in "still" shooting with Canon lens, almost all of the handy features function but are lost when shooting video, autofocus, follow-focus, etc. If you want to shoot video with the a60?? with all the handy features, I'd suggest just getting a body only and matching it up with the Sony 18-135 which would restore all the auto features the body is capable of. You can certainly shoot video with Canon lens but you'll be pulling focus manually which, in many cases, induces shake and blur. The a60?? line does offer focus peaking assist for manual focus and it is very effective and offers good results.

I recently did a little impromptu test of the distance shooting capabilities using my 400mm lens and 1.4x TC. The Sony has a 1.5x crop factor so the 400 gets 600mm field of view, adding the 1.4x TC raises the field of view to 840mm. Adding in the Sony's 2x Clear Image Zoom (CIZ) factor yields a field of view of 1680mm with only one stop of light loss from the TC and I'm shooting at 1680mm f/8 and 1/2000 with auto-ISO floating up some based on the available light and I still have autofocus with the a6000. Mounting the a6500 with its 5-axis in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS) and my 400mm non-IS suddenly can be reasonably well hand held at 1680mm with autofocus. If you aren't familiar with CIZ, it allows you to zoom even a prime lens up to 2x and rather than just magnify the pixels and leaving gaps, onboard software does a "content aware" fill-in around the pixels so there is very little loss of image quality (IQ). Below is a url to a thread I posted in the UHH earlier "Birds in Flight" forum, if you're interested in seeing a couple of examples, bearing in mind that I'm much more a tinkerer than a photographer and at 81 I'm lucky to even be out shooting anything. The shots were made with my a6000 of a Blue Heron a while back with my EF400mm and 1.4x TC at around 100 yards using one of the early adapters and manual focus, f/8, 1/2000, auto-ISO. CIZ was not used on these shots. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-431787-1.html

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

I agree. Had mine several years and it is the only camera I have kept that long. I also have the 18-55/55-210 combo and use several vintage manual lenses and along with the MC-11 adapter from Sigma, I can use my Sigma EF 150-600mm and it works great. It is a very versatile camera. As to the batteries, I keep several spares (third party cheapies). Also turning off the viewfinder when not using it will extend battery life quite a bit. I tried what this guy recommends and it works as advertised for me. Good luck.

https://youtu.be/rHHqo-tpfmU

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I love mine. This may help you decide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXwCGWb7Yg

Bigbeartom44

I bought the Sony a6000 over the newer cameras and I'm glad that I did. The newer cameras are much more costly but don't really add value that was worth to me. The 16-50mm lens is actually very good. Check it out on Flickr. The Sony lenses are costly for what you get. I bought an 8mm Rokinon fisheye, a 12mm wide angle Samyang and a 30mm f/1.4 Sigma, all better lenses that the equivalent Sony lenses. The telephoto lenses are way to costly. For that I bought a Nikon D5300 used from B&H and a Tamron 16-300mm zoom and both cost less that the Sony zoom lens and the Tamron has a wider zoom. I also bought the David Busch's Sony a6000 Digital Photography book. It is excellent and organized better that any other source that I know. The manuals from Sony and Nikon have you jumping to page to page for a simple answer while David Busch give you the answer in one place. Besides that it gives excellent general information about cameras in general. The best thing about the Sony a6000 it is half the size and weight of a DSLR and uses the exact same sensor as the Nikon. And to boot it has more capacity. Only down side that I have found is the battery doen't last as long as a DSLR. I solve this problem by buying an extra battery from Watson. Less than half the cost of the Sony battery and the same capacity.

dkeysser Loc: Minneapolis

I have the A6000 (two bodies) and the following lenses: 10-18, 14-70, 70-200, 90 macro, and 32 f1.8. I think this is an excellent system, especially at the prices you mentioned, with the capacity of growing your capabilities over time. I am considering the new A6500 (or maybe even waiting for the upcoming A6700), and the choice of lenses continues to expand. The Sony is well built, logical to use, has outstanding image quality, and is smaller and lighter weight than its rivals (especially the Fuji). I would recommend it without hesitation

cwhi1444 Loc: Orland Park, IL

Wow, you Hoggers are great for supplying info, thank you.

Way2slk Loc: Bluffton SC

What's so cool, is the ability to use your old lens. I am using a canon FD 50MM 1.8 and a tamron 90mm 2.5. Wonderful camera

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

gessman Loc: Colorado

Something I did fail to mention in conjunction with the older lens - the IBIS in the a6500 gives IS to the FD lens
just as it does older film era EF lens, and yep, you can bypass that feature difference the a6500 brings to the table by keeping your shutter speed above the focal length of the lens you're using but IS is not just only good for that but it also allows a non-IS lens to be shot at several stops lower light, enhancing your ability to shoot in much dimmer light. That is a major complaint about the EF400 non-IS lens I have and has kept many people from buying the lens even though it's one of Canon's sharpest lens for shooting wildlife. The IBIS in the a6500 turns a sharp 400mm lens that you can buy used for under $1,000 into one that is suddenly competitive with the 400 f/2.8 which costs $10,000 (new), no small matter for wildlife shooters on a budget.

The difference between the a6000 and a6500 being the IBIS and the several stops of light it buys a wildlife shooter is critical in that a lot of wildlife shots are lost within those few stops of light since wildlife is most often pursued in early and late light and you cannot always get your shutter speed above your lens length and hence a lot of shots are lost in lower light from camera shake. The IBIS is very important for shooting within that low light range by aiding in the stability you don't have in many cases without it. If a person has a non-IS longer lens for shooting wildlife in low light, the IBIS will permit shooting in much lower light than without it potentially giving you better pictures for a fraction of the cost of a faster IS lens. Add to that the ability to shoot 4k video in lower light than you can with the a6300 may be considered to be an advantage to some who might want to seriously consider the difference between a6000, a6300, and a6500. There ARE definite advantages with each model and the cost difference is well worth it if you need those differences in the way you shoot. The distinction in terms of dollars, in case it isn't immediately evident to anyone, lies in the fact that you can pay a few hundred dollars more for the a6500 over the a6300 or a6000 and save thousands on the choice of lens you can buy. The extra money for the a6500 is totally justified and a fantastic trade-off for a person wanting to potentially get exceptional quality images for the least amount of money. To me, that's a critical difference. Your mileage may vary. I'm not sure how many ways I can say that or how many times is necessary to get the point across but in re-reading what I've said above, it looks like I may have said it differently and enough so that nobody has an excuse for not getting it. I've been seeing a lot of people who say they can't justify the price difference between the a6000 and a6500 when what they're really saying is that they don't want to take advantage of what is likely the most economical way of getting better low light wildlife shots and are willing to accept whatever fate deals them without making a little more effort that can lead to enhanced success. The good part is that "everyone gets to choose their own poison." Happy shooting everyone - I wish you the best.

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

Great camera! I have one as a back up to my FF Sony. The files from this camera are as good or better than any other 24mp camera on the market plus it's very small and compact. I would recommend that you purchase the body only and invest in better lenses.

Randyb Loc: Houston

Got one for Xmas and love it. Always have been a Nikon guy but I love this camera. The technology is quite a bit better than my D7100. The body and 18-105 F4 weighs less and takes up less room for travel than my D7100 body only. Very easy to learn the new menu system also which had been one of my biggest concerns. Go for it!