ya I understand..hmm

but from what I see. example D5600 is smaller than canon. just maybe bigger than mirrorless. But the problem is once you put on lenses for both, the size difference is not that significant anymore. correct me if Im wrong

As I've mentioned above, yes, when I go for longer reach lens (ex 18-105) the size advantage of mirrorless is reduced. But I don't always have to go for that set up. For my casual use (75% of the time), I like to just carry my camera with the kit lens + Raynox DCR 250 (macro lens) for flowers and bugs that came across my path. Below is the size comparison, it is just a reference. If your heart is leaning toward dslr, by all mean. After all, it's your money.



This is nikon D5600 without kit lens vs Sony a6000 with kit lens



While the nikon model presented in this pic is not D5600, but it was the predecessor of D5600, which should give u a good estimate of D5600 with kit vs Sony a6000 with kit.


This post has been edited by Loseeker: Mar 13 2017, 11:35 PM

advicr taken. I'm surprised the kitlens for a6000 is so small.

Well....there is one big dslr advantage over mirrorless and that is battery stand by time. Imagine u walking down the street and you see a moment that only last few second. Turn off live view and dslr can last like forever even when it is on and you can instantneously take the moment shot without waiting for it to boot up. And you can take hundreds of shots without needing to charge for many days. It is one thing that i find mirrorless is lacking when wanting to take street shots and what even phone camera cannot do.

Bottom line, it really depends on preference whether you prioritise weight of a mirrorless or reliability of a dslr. I for one choose weight lol despite what i just said.

I don't know about you (kkk8787), but I always carry a bag something similar (actually a bit smaller than) to the picture shown below. With this kind of bag, I can put in my phone, tablet and my beloved a6000 with kit lens + flash (nissin i40) without much buldging at all. But I agreed completely with Daddy0 that the battery is way superior in dslr compared to mirrorless. But then again, I see no benefits at all for longer battery life if the size and weight of the dslr deter you from bringing the dslr out from your house.

p/s: I am fortunate to have good friend who was willing to lend me his D7000 for few months for me to try out. I guess, if I didn't had the chances to play with dslr first, I would end up buying a dslr but same with most of my friends, leaving it at home collecting dust most of the time after the initial excitement wore off.



This post has been edited by Loseeker: Mar 14 2017, 01:33 PM

+1 for this

U have to be very sure u can live with the bulkiness of a conventional DSLR
PnS to DSLR is a very big jump in terms of size

If you plan to bring your camera with you almost/everyday wherever you go then it could be quite troublesome to bring a DSLR. I'd get a RX100mk3-5 for that

However for me, I usually only bring out my DSLR when travelling or if there is something specific I want to shoot.

In the end, it's up to each person's intended usage.

DSLR always fit better with hand, but it also more bulky
If do street photography, when you holding a DSLR (no matter how small it is), it will attract people look it you and feel not so comfortable
However, with compact/mirrorless/phone, most of the time, people may just ignore of what you are doing

I carry a powerbank with my A6000, then I can shoot for whole day and no worry of low batt

Talking about 70-300, with D5600, crop factor of 1.5, that focal range, I really seldom will use with this focal

Imagine, I go travel with friends, when I want to help them shoot photo (travel photo), 70-200, I need to stand very far, so that can snap people with landscape together

When friend just next to me, I cant shoot her/him, too near....I need to walk far....

Yes, some scene see from far is nice, then can snap with 70-200, but, it only contribute about max 5% of my whole trip photos

70-300 is not a high demand lens, most probably u can see people selling online e.g. RM1500, but this is just a price, doesnt mean got people want to buy

What you may can do is, u can PM KLDSLR of ask him how much he can offer to take your lens (70-300)

My advice is, just get a camera that meet your needs will do. So, you must know what you want to shoot first....

Mirrorless is indeed convenient I think. But hmm...somehow reminds me of point and shoot. The quality is way above point and shoot right. Basically what u get on dslr u will get on mirrorless right.

That depends how u shoot. Without lens knowledge and knowing camera capability you might as well get an iphone that may get you a better shot. Just dont settle with auto only.

If mirrorless which will u all go for. I saw canon m5 and sony a6500 price both also way beyond even d5600

yupe I'm learning

A6000. This is still the best ML camera out there.

Both A6300 and A6500 is stupidly overpriced here... and not many new upgrades over the a6000 also. With their pricetag rather get a full frame or semi pro DSLR body.

if i can sell the 70-300 lens at even 1k for new, u think any taker. That will lower my cam price to 2.4k or lower.thats the price of an old 700d canon. Kan. And i still have the kit lens.

a6300 comes with 4k, magnesium alloy body, and more buttons while a6500 is like a6300 but with additional IBIS and Touchscreen. Iso performance on both are also better than a6000 in that if you lift the shadow area in a high iso shot, it definitely is cleaner. Eye af works in afc mode on a6300 and a6500 but doesn't in a6000 and other little quirks.

But if just taking photos, they are overpriced indeed. Money saved go buy better lens.

If we leave everything else out of the equation and just focus on the camera sensor, mirrorless can be better than dslr. It really depend on which model. Both dslr has entry level, mid range and high ends. It boils down to your budgets. But one thing for sure, for Sony a6000, it will be better than most (if not all )dslr at it's price point.

a6000 vs d5600?

a6000 seems ok priced still. but some told me the lens selection might be a problem later on?

Do you really need 4k? Even full HD recording now is sufficient. I've personally used the a6000 in low light conditions many times and perform very good already. I was amazed with the sensor's performance. Low light with high ISO also not much noise and no blur (refer unedited attachment)

Sony lens also not exactly cheap. You're stuck with what ever Sony gives you. Even 3rd party manufacturer's don't offer lot of E-mount lenses. Compared to the arsenal of lens available for Nikon and Canon. You're paying a premium for a crop body mirrorless camera.

[attachmentid=8593206]
F4
1/60
ISO 2500