RSSrsvp

The all magnesium body of the a6300 is a better build quality, it has an improved (amazing) AF system and an upgraded viewfinder panel.

Also I have a grandchild on the way so the a6300 for shooting 4k video would be a plus.

As for lens selections I would rather buy just the body and invest in more expensive glass than what comes in the kit of the a6000 or a6300. At this point I am focusing (pardon the pun ) on which lens to begin with.

I am thinking of starting with either the 18-105mm F4 OSS or 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS and would be interested in hearing feedback on those two lenses plus any I might have overlooked.

PS, I looked at the Panasonic DMC FZ1000 again yesterday and have decided to focus on the Sony mirrorless line instead.

Dread Pirate Jeff

I've got very little experience with the 18-105. I was looking at both that one and the 16-70. Both are f/4 throughout the range. I looked at them in a camera store during a trip to Seattle last fall before I finally bought the 16-70. Ultimately, for me, it came to three points:

1: the 18-105 is simply bigger, and I wanted a good walk-about lens that was still small and manageable. The 18-105 is 1/2 inch bigger in diameter and a full 1.5 inches longer than the 16-70, and to me it felt more like I was holding a full sized SLR, not a mirrorless.

2: I do not like the digital zoom button thing that comes on some of the sony lenses like the 18-105. It's meant for smooth zooms when shooting video, but since I don't shoot video, I have no use for it and prefer nice big focus and zoom rings, which the 16-70 has.

3: The 16-70, to me, just felt more solid when I held it. That is really a subjective measurement, but for a good analogy, it felt to me like the difference between a standard Canon lens and an L-Series lens.

Of course, that's all subjective The reasons I picked the 16-70 were personal choice issues. I tend to use primes a lot with this camera, especially the 20mm f/2.8 and the 16-70 just had more of what I wanted in an "everyday" and "walkabout" lens.

It also helped a LOT that I found a deal and got my 16-70 as an open-box item for the cost of the 18-105 G new...

lhgreengrd1

From what I understand, the improvements are in 3 areas: Better low noise sensor, better EVF, and better high res video capability - but the Sony A6000 was already not a slouch in those areas anyways.

IMHO, the one highly desirable improvement to the body that's missing is the lack of in-body IS.

The main weakness remains the same - only a few high quality native lens choices, especially at the long end and those are pricey.

RSSrsvp

I totally agree about the lack of quality lenses and also lacking IBIS.

But it has a better build quality with an all magnesium body which accounts for the added 60 grams weight over the a6000.

Also while not waterproof or splashproof they upgraded the dust and moisture resistance. In addition the lens mount structure has also been reinforced to handle a longer and heavier lens which may be important to some people.

Troopers

If you a comparable camera to the a6300 with IBIS, quality lenses, water/dust proof, check out the Oly EM5-MII. It's a phenomenal camera...it's what I use for travel/street/casual photography. Only knock on the camera is weak AF-C (but I've learn to live with it).

getmethere

The 18-105mm F4 OSS on a A6000 is my travel combination. When in transit, I separate them and lay them side by side in a small messenger bag. I carry them assembled on my shoulder everywhere. A reasonable zoom range for streets and landscapes, very sharp. But very bulky and heavy (relative to the body) and only F4. The best compromise I can come up with, so far.

RSSrsvp

At this point I am leaning toward the 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS over the 18-105mm F4 OSS. I wish Sony offered a wider selection of decent quality glass for the a6000/a6300 cameras.

RSSrsvp

The 16-70mm weighs 1/3 less than the 18-105mm. Also the 16-70mm has better glass which is why the price is $400 higher.

broadwayblue

I love my A6000. Bought it with kit lense and a 50mm 1.8. The 50mm takes amazing shots...but it's a bit tight, particularly indoors. So I got the 35mm 1.8? but my photos just didn't have the same pop. Now I'm back to the 50mm.

RSSrsvp

I have done more research online and have seen that the 16-70 is getting many bad reviews on DP Review by pros and advanced amateurs who have purchased it and then returned it due to poor quality control. Because of this I am starting to lean toward the 18-105 and possibly putting the money I save not buying the 16-70 toward adding the 10-18 F4 OSS.

Also many people who own the 18-105 have said it isn't that heavy. I noticed you said that comparison was relative to the a6000's body. My question is whether the combination of the body & lens together is so heavy that I wouldn't want to carry it all day long?

bthotugigem05

Absolutely loving the a6300. Sold my a7 and got the 6300 as a backup body for my a7rII

RSSrsvp

Which lenses are you using on the a6300? Where they the full frame lenses from your a7rII?

RSSrsvp

By the way, there are many reports on DPReview of the a6300 overheating and shutting down after shooting 20 minutes of 4K video. Have you experienced this issue?

bthotugigem05

Yes, I'm using the full frame lenses from my a7rII. I plan on getting the Sigma 19mm as a walking around lens though.

RSSrsvp

Which lenses for the a7rII do you have and which are your favorites?
Also do you see any differences using them on the a6300?