New member hello!! Sony camera suggestions needed

First off hello. Coming here after some suggestions on a disney forum. Im new to photography my wife is pretty decent with her camera. Not great by any means or very knowledgable. We currently own a nikon 5100. With kit lens and 18-200 lens and 50 mm prime. I am looking to get my own camera or replace hers for both of us to use. This camera will be used primarily for our cruise/land tour of Alaska in May and our yearly trips to disney and of course pics of our young kids. Looking for something a little more portable than the 5100. Wanted to try and keep lens change at least to a minimum if not out completely however I'm not sure that is in my best interest. I know the A6000 has been suggested here and is on my short list. So I guess I'm looking for suggestions. Have not been to alaska so not sure what would best suit but for dinsey we would need decent low light for rides and parades and good Character meet and castle pics. Like to stay around 1,000 dollars. Cameras I'm looking at:

Sony A6000 2 kit lens (maybe add 35mm prime or 50 mm depending on deal)

Rx10

RX10II ( little over budget right now)

Panasonic-fz1000

Thanks guys looking forward to learning over the next few months prior to our trip.

Cameras I'm looking at:

 

Sony A6000 2 kit lens (maybe add 35mm prime or 50 mm depending on deal)

Rx10

RX10II ( little over budget right now)

Panasonic-fz1000

/QUOTE]

 

I'm prejudiced - I have the A6000. With the lenses I have, it is not going to fit in my pocket like the RX100! The Rxs have a larger sensor as does the Panasonic. And I have had Pamasomics up to the FX1999 which was a great travel camera with a big zoom - a bit bulky compared to the A6000.

 

That said, the ISO and speedy focus capabilities of the A6000 and the fact that it is, with the proper lens, not as limited as the RX100 with its 3X zoom.

 

As your wife is used to her various lenses, a 3x zoom will give her fits with its limited range.

 

For Alaska, you might consider the A6000 and the Sony 18-105mm and the 50mm lens.

The Sony A6000 two lens kit is n amazing bargain when you consider that the two kit lenses are actually very good. They won't stand up to dedicated primes or $1200 zooms but for the price, they come closer than most kit lenses.

These trips were shot primarily with a combination of the two kit lenses, the SAL5018 50mm and a dash of Rokinon 12mm f/2.0. All four lenses don't add up to $1k and I don't feel limited by them at all. When you add the fact that all four lenses, my A6000 and the NEX 3c (or NEX-7 depending on the trip) fit in a small shoulder bag that barely holds my old 70-200 f/2.8, the kit becomes even more attractive! :)

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/fallcolor

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/paccoast2015

http://galleries.pptphoto.com/allure

Another vote for the A6000

Dave

I'm a big Disney fan, and since I live fairly close, I'm up there every few months for 4-6 day trips...it's one of my favorite places to roam around and photograph. I have shot with many cameras up there, but since I got the A6000, it's been taking over as the solo Disney camera. I still sometimes bring my DSLR, but have been finding 90% or more of my shots being taken with the A6000, to the point where I don't find much need to bring the DSLR anymore, especially since I can bring far more lenses in a much smaller bag.

I'd consider a near-perfect Disney kit to be the following: A6000, kit lens, 10-18mm ultrawide, and 35mm F1.8 OSS. That will cover most needs...and the 55-210mm is fine as the longer-reach lens to use for parades and Animal Kingdom. Bring all 4 lenses in a smaller shoulder bag, or bring 3 lenses in a compact video or camera bag...depending on the park (most Disney parks don't really need reach very much - you'll find the low-light prime good for dark ride stuff, the kit for most walkaround stuff, and the ultrawide good for close architecture and landscape shots). The parades and Animal Kingdom are the two times when more reach tends to be most useful...so you can bring the 55-210mm lens on those days when you need it. You can get by without the 10-18mm - the kit goes down to 16mm, and you could pick up a cheap Rokinon 12mm for wider needs - the 10-18mm is a good investment if you know you'll be shooting wide often and really want the added flexibility of a zoom and the 10mm focal length.

My Disney galleries are here - I'd say 90% of the shots taken in each park of gallery during much of 2014 and 2015 will be with the A6000 - and a few other cameras may be sprinkled in (the cameras are listed below the photograph so you'll know what was taken with what). I also have the lens used in each shot for reference:

Justin's Disney galleries

would i see noticeable difference if i got a couple sigma primes to go along with the 2 kit lens? Hopefully in the next few weeks the kit goes back down in price.

would i see noticeable difference if i got a couple sigma primes to go along with the 2 kit lens? Hopefully in the next few weeks the kit goes back down in price.

The kit lens is really an excellent walkabout lens with decent image quality and a very useful zoom range. I have both the 30mm and 19mm Sigma primes and yes, they both outperform the kit zoom as well as having the f/2.8 maximum aperture (though the lack of stabilization offsets some of the value of the wider aperture). That said, I only use them occasionally when I have a target in mind like architecture or interiors on a ship for the 19mm or people or general street shots with the 30mm. If you don't mind the fixed focal length, they are both way better than their low price would indicate.

Here's a link to some sample images I took when reviewing the NEX-7 a few years ago.

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/nex7samples.html

You can click through to full size images on most of them.

Dave

Given the high price of the 35mm I could go with it but that would be it other than 2 kit lens. Or I could get the Sony 50mm, 2 kit lens and a 19 mm sigma lens. I have to choose one of those options. Unless there is a major price drop.

Try purchasing from greentoe.com.... I've had great success saving some money with them, while buying full warranty photo gear. I got the Nikon d750 for $200 less than anybody else was selling it for. I bet you could get the a6000 + 16-50 through greentoe for $500-$525.

ordered the a6000 with kit lens for my wife. Now I'm beating myself up over lens options. We will be whale watching privatly and doing the helicopter with dog sled. Some Atv excursions and who knows what else. I need a video camera for myself and am debating between a go pro and used rx10. My path here will determine what lens i get most likely. Suggestions

double post delete.

My all-in-one fun camera was the Panasonic FZ200 24-600mm 2.8 zoom. Now have the new FZ300 which is greatly improved and is water proof. Check youtube and the net for info on this camera. Like that fact you can create a still picture from your video shots. Another plus it has touch screen which can come in handy. Check out the forum here on the FZ200.

I did have the RX10, great camera put not enough zoom for an all-in-one. If you are a Sony person take a look at the Sony HX400V super zoom. I usually buy from Amazon, like their return policy and let me try it out

Tom :cool:

ordered the a6000 with kit lens for my wife. I need a video camera for myself and am debating between a go pro and used rx10. M

Good for you! You will notice that the Big Three (Dave, Havok and Tom) often favor the A6000

The A6000 takes decent videos.

The all-in-one camera most often mentioned in these columns is the Panasonic FZ200/300.

They have capable zooms and I have seen prints 11x14 taken with those cameras. I don't know how the photos would be enlarged to poster size. But those cameras can take fairly decent videos as well.

I use the A6000 as a primary camera and have a FZ200 which I have used as a "travel" camera in the past.

I have the Sony HX 300 and it only shoots Jpeg, not Raw. Also, in Auto mode, it won't let you select where you want it to focus. Two big drawbacks which are leading me to the new a6300. Don't know if Sony has corrected the deficits with the HX 400 - they might have - but read the specs carefully. I had no idea when I bought the HX 300 that I could not shoot Raw. It's buried in the tiny-print in the operator's manual (which BTW is aweful).

If I was in your position, Sony A6300 hands down.

Heading there rapidly...