Any of you guys planning on buying one? [EXIF data available.

Not at the moment, but the IBIS is really nice.

Sigma might release more F1,4 crop lenses in the future, and those aren't stabilised.

>>2948688
Pentax user here, IBIS has always been nice. You guys missed out of the fun. Put some old ass lenses on it and enjoy active stabilization.

>>2948685
The price is a bit steep, otherwise I'd already have bought it.

As-is, I'll probably buy some 30mm DC DN and a TTL strobe and other stuff first and then decide.

>>2948688
IBIS also always has been interesting together with adapted autofocusing lenses.

>>2948836
> You guys missed out of the fun
Sure... though now you seem to be missing out on AF fun.

>>2948685
>Would I buy one

why would anybody ever buy Sony when Canon exists?

>>2948853
No camera maker is perfect. I didn't buy Canon because I didn't like their issues.
And Pentax APS-C bodies looked nice, but their top line cost way too much, so I went for the A6000 back then because it was only 500 dollar.

I'm obviously not the target audience for the A6500 either.

Probably would've wanted this instead of going fuji if I'd known it was coming down the line.

>>2948858
Dude, I got my K-3 for $600 used one and a half year ago

>>2948685
Seems more appealing to me than even their full frame bodies, so might get it + a speed booster.
Not on release though, I'll probably wait for a price drop like 6 months after it comes out or buy used

>>2948685
what lenses do you guys own/would buy for this (or any a6xxx)?

and what do you use them for?

>>2948931
I only have 2 lenses.

Sigma 30mm F1.4 is my everything lens. I also use it in darker evenings.
Rokinon 12mm F2 for landscape and starry sky lens.

>>2948931
>what lenses
those needed to photograph stuff

>what do you use them for?
....seriously? are you asking what to use a camera for? why do you think you need one in the first place?
goddamn stupid millenials

>>2948944
im asking specifically which lens do you use for which purposes, and what is available or recommended on the market atm.

i assume you personally just use your cameras to wank to over.

>>2948951
>im asking specifically which lens do you use for which purposes
You don't need a big boy camera. Use your phone.

>>2948952
sorry, i forgot that asking about lenses in a sony husbandry thread causes so much pain

why the fuck does Sony keep making their new cameras more and more expensive

Shouldn't the top-of-the-line APS-C body stay at a constant price while older ones get price drops?

Instead they get more expensive and the older models are dropped like 50 dollars if that

>>2948958
So the A6500 should be $600, while the A6300 should be $400, and the A6000 should be $200?

I hope you apply that same pricing demands on everybody and not just Sony.

>>2948959
That's all the Sony's are worth

>>2948961
Wishful thinking.

But with these cameras being so good, Sony can easily sell them at the current prices. It'll be a moment until the competition gets off their asses and prices drop.

>>2948958
>Why do new cameras with more features cost more money
>Why do economics hurr durr

>>2948967
>Why do new cameras with more features cost more money
Because people, who are more interested in pointless features than taking photographs, are stupid enough to pay for them

>>2948970
> pointless features
Like what?

>>2948883
One is 800 grams, the other is less than 350 grams.

If I wanted to carry an 800 gram beast I would have bought a D750 or something.

Nope.

>>>/gearfaggotry thread/

>>2948853
Canon has about 2 stops worse low light performance, and no ibis anywhere, which is an extra 3 stops handheld.

That's the difference between iso 800 and iso 25'600. Just go look at a 25k iso photo from canon, it's barely a photo anymore.

Also sonys bodies are smaller, lighter and with higher quality lenses available. You get 3 dials without breaking the bank and 9 customisable buttons. Canon can't compare in any metric except autofocus speed, but gets trounced at af accuracy.

>>2948931
I got my sigma mc11, canon 70-200 L f4 and tamron 28-75 f2.8 for a grand total of £415. Which will not only work fantastically on this body, but has the upgrade path for full frame. Uwa options are a bit more expensive, but the canon 17-40 is a good option.

If you have plenty of cash, just get the gm or zeiss native stuff, they're the best performing lenses in the world right now.

>>2948958
Because their sales keep going up and up.
Sony profiting big now, means they have more to invest in lens production. And lets face it, how much would you be paying for a canikon body with the same features and performance, if you could.

>>2948971
Ibis.

If canikon users don't need an extra 3 stops of low light, hand held performance, why would anyone else. It's a gimmick.

>>2948972
My K-3 with 35/2.4 lens weighs less than my friends NEX 5 with the shitty kit lens and his bag of batteries.

>>2949196
Nex 5, one battery, sd card and kit lens is 503g
K3 is 715g without battery, lens or card, 800g with battery and card, your lens is another 124g.

So 924g vs 503g, sony batteries are 57g a piece, so you're implying your friend carries 9 batteries with him at all times?

>>2949213
He implies he's too retarded to properly perceive weight difference by hand.

No, I'm buying a EM5-II, or might wait to see what the final price for the EM1-II is.

>>2948931
Kit+sigma 19mm+sigma 30 1.4+sigma 60mm. Cheap and good.

>>2949196
I didn't go for the older Nex-5. I went for the A6000 because it was the better value than Nex-5.

Sigma 30mm F1.4 K-mount is 435 grams or so.
Sigma 30mm F1.4 E-mount is 265 grams or so.Not to mention it's a higher performance lense and not to mention it's 160 dollars cheaper than the K-mount.

When you put body and lens weight together:
K3 + F1.4 lens: 1200 grams
A6000 + F1.4 lens: 600 grams
This is twice the weight for the Pentax system.

When you take into account the E-mount version of the Sigma lens is a newer optical design which is not only lighter and cheaper, but also better performance, It would be bad decision to not choose the A6000.

>>2949215
Or just chatting shit.

Every sony negger chats shit, it is known.

>>2949300
a7 + sigma 30mm f2.8 with rear baffle removed.
perfect poorfag foolframe setup.

>>2951744
>Sigma 60mm 2.8

this

Have had A6000 for a while.
Considered XT-2, as the 6300 wasn't enough for me.
But since the 6500 has released, although it still has a lot of flaws that stymie my purchase, it points towards Sony's next A7III line and the next APSC. The application/improvement of the touchscreen in a FF Sony body is appealing.
I'll wait one more gen for everything to mature.