Smolakid6X

Hello out there. I am considering upgrading to an Alpha6500 from an Alpha6000. I currently do not shoot video, just still photos.
Is the $ difference worth the upgrade? I thought about the A7series but do not want to buy new FF lenses. Thanks for your input.
I also have an embarrassing question, how do I place my picture on this site for all to see my smiling face? I should know this, don't.

the hiker Loc: San Diego

go to the top of the page click on my profile go to where it says avatar find the picture you want to use and post it.

HOT Texas Loc: From the Heart of Texas

Personally I don't think it's worth the upgrade unless you are shooting a longer lens, Then the stabilization of the A6500 really comes in handy, having said that you can always use a tripod.

You didn't say what kind of photography you like to shoot and that plays a major factor in your choice.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

It would be worth it to move up to the A6500 if you can afford it. The biggest differences are more focus points, an all or mostly metal body that is moisture and dust resistant, and In Body Image Stabilization. The processor is an upgrade as well. I have the A6300 and am more than satisfied with it. For me, I'll stay where I am. But it's up to you. I suggest you get online and google some comparisons between the two cameras. Camera Decision is a pretty complete and comprehensive comparison.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Deleted

AlohaJim Loc: Retired. Hawaii >> N. Arizona.

I test drove the A6000, A6300. Glad I waited. The A6500 is an outstanding camera. In body image stabilization. Focusing is very very quick. If I were in your position and money was not a problem, I would get it.

User ID

As I already enjoy an a6000, the cost of the
added benefits of the 6500 looked very steep
to me. The two benefits I care about are IBIS
and the totally silent mode. Finding an open
box special on a 6500 finally pushed me over
the edge. I have zero intentions of selling the
6000 to recoup some of the expense. I have
no regrets of the expense, many weeks into
using the 6500.

May not matter to all, but other than IBIS
and silent mode, the AF of the 6500 works
quite well with my 10-22 Canon EF-s which
was strictly manual focus on the 6000, so a
possible third benefit there for anyone using
a Canon lens adapter.

repleo Loc: Boston

I struggled with the same question for a long time after the A6500 came out. I had to wait too long to even get my hands on the A6500 so I bit the bullet and got an A7Rii. I have added some great lenses for the A7Rii, but I still keep the A6000 for travel and family events. The A6000 is a great camera. I would suggest you look to your lenses before upgrading the body. The 18-105 OSS G is my favorite and the 24mm f1.8 ZA is a beautiful landscape lens. If you already have great E lenses, by all means upgrade to the A6500. Don't go to FF unless you are really convinced you need it and are committed to getting good lenses for it.

tripsy76 Loc: Northshore, MA

If you have kids or like to shoot fast subjects, it may be worth looking into. While the a6000 is still a really good camera, the a6500 is a fairly large improvement especially when considering the tracking and focusing.

If you’re not shooting video, then it would most likely just come down to what you want to spend your time shooting. Remember that money could also be put down on some awesome glass too!!!

lamontcranston

For my use, the A6000 fills all of my needs for an excellent travel and street camera.
Here's a good comparison of the 2 cameras. If you need the added/improved features found on the A6500 and don't mind paying an extra $550, the A6500 may be the way to go. Only you can decide.

https://cameradecision.com/compare/Sony-Alpha-a6000-vs-Sony-Alpha-a6500

SonyBug

I have both of the lenses you quote above. I upgraded a a6500 to the a7III and use those lenses, including a FF 75-300 f4 I also have. The aps-c lenses work just fine in the FF camera and the quality of photos is so close to the FF lens that I decided to keep them and not buy a FF lens for the shorter distances. BTW, the 24 mm is great for people too, as I gives the skin a very nice warm tone.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'm satisfied with my A6000, which is my "when I need a compact" camera. I couldn't justify spending more for the upgraded versions. You have to decide if the added features are worth the added cost.

(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

wireloose

I upgraded from the 6000 to the 6500; its my travel camera for when I dont want to bring my big Canon, but It works far better with my Canon glass. The a6000 with an adapter might work but at best was slow; with few exceptions, using the Sigma adapter with the 6500 its fast and accurate. That also allows me to use it as a second body when needed, I sold my 7D body when I realized I virtually never used it. Others have commented on the other benefits. I think the 6300 is pretty much the same if you dont need the IS- for me thats a big plus, especially with old and new manual lenses

gessman Loc: Colorado

1

Depends on how, what, and why you shoot. I occasionally shoot some wildlife and for many years I've had a very sharp non-IS Canon 400mm "L" lens and the a6500's in-body-image-stabilization (IBIS) gave me IS which elevated the value of that lens alone to a place that way more'n justified the added cost over the a6000 I owned already which I bought over larger, heavier, more expensive Canon bodies because it gave me added features like 11 fps in a pocket camera I could put my long Canon lens on at a fraction of the cost of Canon bodies of which I already had two slow ones, one FF and one APS-C. The a6500 shoots 4k video up to 120 frames per second (fps) which you can then extract excellent 8k images from for some pretty great stop-action shots, if you like to shoot action. Canon lens work really well using the Sigma MC-11 adapter as stated previously by others.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

I had, used and really liked the a6000 but the 6500's phase detect AF is worth it for most shots that have to be quick, most especially birds and critters.

Speaking of shooting subjects which may not like you, the silent shutter of the 6300 and 6500 is worth it. There was one time, in Tasmania, when we were in a night-time situation with food drawing Tasmanian Devils and I was forced to stop using my legacy 50 mm F 2.0 because even through glass, the noise scared them away. I had to use, instead, my Sony 70-200 F 4.0 which gave up a full two stops with only a 60w bulb on the porch for illumination. Silent is better! The Sony lens is superb but I had to use video, too, in order to eliminate noise. I am not skilled enough to use a legacy lens with a "dumb" adapter for video.

As for the stabilization, if you are using native Sony E lenses then the additional stabilization may not be "worth it" but IMHO you can't have too much stabilization. Exception: it is either useless or worse at very high shutter speeds and that appears to be true of all or nearly all brands. The a6500 is a much sturdier and better sealed camera but a bit heavier. The lens mount is especially notable for being stronger and tighter, at least comparing my two.

I like the advice above: if you can afford it, then do it. Of course, you could wait a bit for the a6700 in case they improve the sensor.