|Quoting Kaphias (Reply 5):|
I understand why this would be a concern for more serious photographers who either have lenses already or would be looking to greatly expand their collection, but I'm not in that situation. Not being a serious photographer, I don't for see ever truly wanting more than 200mm, nor a $500+ lens. I'm just not that into it, a point made clear by the fact that I've stuck it out with a $150 full-auto point and shoot for the last 5 years. The bigger, SLR-style cameras certainly have their advantages, but I really want something that I can put a small lens on and stick in my jacket pocket. Aviation is a large part of what I shoot, hence the need for a decently long lens, but its far from all, and being able to take a smaller package on hikes, walking about town, or even up the ski hill is something I'd like. I think the a6000 is probably about the limit as far as that goes.
I was more replying to the OP, who was using a Canon SLR, but those are valid concerns. I use the RX100 as part of my arsenal but I do not use it for moving subjects. I use that as my "go anywhere" camera. But if you plan on going beyond 210mm, the a6000 will be tough. As long as you're OK
with staying around that focal length, it'll work great. It has excellent AF
performance with native glass. While not for aviation, the eye-tracking autofocus is brilliant. Inside places like museums and air shows, the APS E-mount cameras are stealthy and provide great IQ
with minimal weight.
When it comes to telephotos, there's only two real E-mount options, which are the 55-210 and the 70-200 G. Any other option required adapted lenses, which do not function at all with PDAF
on the a6000. You'll need an LA
-EA4 to use any A-mount lens with any telephoto reach. But that does open up several good options, like the Sony 70-300 and 70-400 G lenses.
The 18-55 is a better lens optically than the 16-50, but the 16-50 is much more compact. Neither one is always the correct choice, but it is important to keep it in mind.
|Quoting clickhappy (Reply 6):|
The a77 is like 3x the price of the a6000, why bring it up at all? Completely irrelevant in this conversation.
Body only, you can get an a77mk2 for $850 at reputable dealers, which is only $200 more than an a6000 and an A-mount 18-55 is only $100 more on top of that, and the A-mount 55-300 is cheaper than the E-mount 55-210. In terms of performance, it is a screamer of a deal. If you get a kit with the 16-50 f/2.8, which is a premium lens, yes, it will cost three times the price, but that lens is not mandatory and is only one option of many. even then, it was only one part of my post as showing an alternative option if long lenses were of a concern.
I'm just mentioning the potential alternatives, that's all. It's not irrelevant to know what else is out there, because you're buying into a system, not just a camera. My larger point is that right now, E-mount is really tough on telephoto lens selection, and anyone buying into the system must be aware of that. This doesn't take away from what the cameras can do, it's just something people need to know and be OK
with before going in.