Sony alpha much better than rx100

Ian will probably chime in on the technical aspects of the a6000. He’s pretty knowledgable.

I have owned a RX100i for 4 years. It’s an awesome camera for backpacking. When I bring it I usually carry it in one of the pockets in my hiking shorts — its that compact.

Last year I asked my wife to buy me a Sony a6000 and a couple lenses. I had no intentions of taking it backpacking — it’s too big and I don’t want to deal with lenses on backpacking trips. But for the money, its probably the best value for the money of any camera like it. I go backpacking for the fun, not to take pictures. On many backpacking trips I don’t take a single picture and the camera becomes unnecessary weight. For other people, photography is an important part of the experience and that’s a-okay.

So far, I can’t say the a6000 produces significantly superior pictures. Not that I’m any great shakes at photography, but I think the person operating the camera is more important than the camera itself. Compose the picture ahead of time and you can get a fabulous picture with a cheap point & shoot, IMO.

With both cameras I only shoot RAW and I edit in Lightroom or Photoshop. I have an older version of Photoshop and it doesn’t read either camera’s RAW files so I only edit in Photoshop after I convert the RAW files to JPEGs with Lightroom. I never shoot RAW and JPEG because it uses up too much memory and it isn’t necessary to have both.

Yosemite OS and Windows 8.1 did not recognize the a6000 RAW files. I had to install patches. Lightroom 4 didn’t recognize the a6000 RAW files either. I had to purchase an upgrade to Lightroom 6, which kind of ticked me off as both the RX100 and a6000 create .RAW files and I assumed the a6000 files would be compatible.

The a6000 was really easy to learn. Its operation is almost the same as the RX100i, other than I can changes lenses and do a few other things with the a6000. For me the big plus of the a6000 is the electronic view finder. My RX100i doesn’t have one and it is the only draw back. But I’m not willing to spend a grand on a new RX100 just to get a view finder.

I have gone on a couple camping trips (we have a big travel trailer) and took both cameras. I used the RX100 most of the time because it is so compact — not because I am familiar with it, since the a6000 works just about the same.

So why did I get the a6000? When I was young I was into photography. Owned several cameras, developed my own negatives and pictures, and even earned money in high school selling my pictures to the local newspaper and a few small magazines. I want to get back into photography and have the ability to choose different lenses — but not when I’m backpacking.

So… I guess you have to determine how much you value light and compact vs. a few more options with a larger and heavier camera. Size and weight become significant when you bring an extra zoom lense. Quality of pictures between the two? I don’t think it is that great a difference, but then I’m not printing 14″ X 17″ pictures either. Also a new RX100M4 costs more money than a new a6000 with the two kit lenses included. I can’t speak to the video. The only video I have shot with the RX100 is when I accidentally hit the record button. You won’t accidentally hit the record button on the a6000.

For most backpacking purposes, unless you are planning to blow up your pictures to at least a couple of feet across, you won’t notice much difference. The RX100 series take very good pictures and its hard to beat for the weight. In lower light situations is where you’ll start to notice the A6000 series pulling away the most. I really enjoy using our RX100iiis (we have many of them, for drone mapping) for work purposes as general photography cameras, and get good results all the time from them. I don’t find them as inspiring as other cameras I’ve used (eg DSLRs, or especially Olympus models, or manual lenses shooting street style…) but its easy and does the job.

Consider that if you don’t carry your camera because it is too heavy, or have to keep it in your pack (and not in a more accessible pocket) because it is bulky, then you will take far, far fewer shots with it. I’m not even talking for action shots (eg animal nearby and you only have a few seconds), I’m talking landscape photography too.

“With both cameras I only shoot RAW and I edit in Lightroom or Photoshop. I have an older version of Photoshop and it doesn’t read either camera’s RAW files so I only edit in Photoshop after I convert the RAW files to JPEGs with Lightroom.”

If you convert to DNG instead of JPG, you’ll preserve the RAW information. There’s a free download:

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

but I think you can also click a tab and do it within Lightroom when you import.

I don’t do much wildlife photography. There have been a few times I could have gotten some awesome pictures of eagles and big horn sheep, if I would have had a large zoom lens. If you want to do a lot of wildlife, then the Alpha is a better choice.

One thing I have notice so far is that when editing I always need to make adjustments to the white balance with the RX100 RAW files, not so much with the Alpha files.

Perhaps these pictures will help…

Christopher,

I only owned the RX100i for a week before I had to return it due to some mechanical issues.  I’m not overly qualified to compare it to the A6000 I’ve owned for a couple years now.

If all you were interested in was still photography, there’d be little reason to upgrade from the A6000 (unless you feel five axis in body stabilization is worth a near $1000 price increase to go with the A6500).  Edit to add: There are increased opportunities to adapt lenses and use auto focus on the A6300/A6500 that you can’t with the A6000 due to firmware issues.  Plus you can use an external charger with the A6300/A6500 during long timelapse shoots which you can’t do (easily) with the A6000.  Also, there’s a notable performance improvement with the buffer of the A6500 over its predecessors.  For me, these aren’t features I’m willing to pursue at a $1000 premium but your needs may be different than mine.

It appears that you’re interested in the video performance on the A6XXX line, and I can give a little insight on that.

Sony has a real overheating problem with their A6xxx line that they failed to remedy with the A6500.  There are a few things you can do to mitigate this, and the A6500 has a setting where it will allow you to continue shooting video when the temperature sensor would’ve shut down the A6000/A6300, but it’s still a real problem.

Once you hit that wall, you are sitting there with a brick in your hand until it cools down again.  I’ve had my A6000 overheat on me in a climate controlled 70*F auditorium after only 15 minutes of 30fps video at 1080.  Shooting 4k at higher frame rates will only make this problem worse.

I’m personally going to buy a Lumix G85 for my video work.  It has a smaller M4/3 sensor, and auto focus and low light performance isn’t quite as good as the A6300.  For me, I’d rather get the shot that has a little noise in it or have the camera search for focus occasionally (I’d default to manual focus on a static target anyways), than miss the shot entirely because I’m waiting for my camera to cool down.

If I didn’t think I’d shoot more than five minutes at a time, then I’d upgrade to the A6500.  But, I do want to have the ability to film interviews and concerts, so I’ve written off the A6xxx line until they fix this issue.

It’s my hope that Sony will someday release a prosumer APSC camera that has a large enough heat sink to handle the video work, two SD card slots, and a headphone jack.  Until then, the G85 (possibly G7… or the new G5) looks like the direction I want to go.

Edit to add: It’s also worth mentioning that the Sony A6xxxs are notoriously inconsistent with this issue.  Max Yuryev and Jordan Drake got their hands on a few A6500s and compared them to the A6300 and the results were all over the map.  I’ve compared my findings with the A6000 with other A6000 users, and some are doing much better, and others are doing much worse.

I have RX100 IV and took A6500 for a test drive. RX100 does everything well and is smaller, lighter, cheaper. I was going to buy and keep A6500 until i got my hands on RX100IV.

A6500 even with G glass wasn’t any better than RX and in some situations was actually worse.

Now i have two RX100 and A7II. First one is for travel, second for anything where output quality is of the highest priority regardless of lighting and where i don’t care about weight.

Since my last post back in January, I think my RX100i takes better pictures than the a6000 with the standard kit lens. However, I have a feeling a higher quality lens would make the a6000 much better, but I’m not in the market for an expensive lens. For non backpacking trips when weight isn’t an issue I am really appreciating being able to use the larger zoom lens and some of the other features of the a6000, but I find myself dropping the RX100 into a pants pocket when I take the a6000 and end up using both cameras. Perhaps because I have owned this little camera for almost 5 years (got in Dec 2012) and have taken probably close to 10,000 pictures with it I might be biased. I bought a shutter remote control for the a6000 that’s pretty cool. Battery life on the a6000 sucks compared to the RX100 even after I went through the menus and changed settings on stuff like turning airplane mode on. Every time I want to use the remote I have to enable WiFi in the camera. The controls on both cameras are very similar but the alpha can do much more and I haven’t learned everything about this newer camera even though I’ve had it nearly a year. If my RX100 were to die, I’d probably get a RX100iii to replace it, the only upgrade I’d want is the eyepiece viewer. For me the RX100 is a perfect backpacking camera.

Agree with most comments.  I’ve since picked up an A7rii and A6500.

The rx100 is unbeatable for size/weight IMO.   The a6500 w/kit 16-50 lens is just slightly better than rx100.   However I think the a6500 w/ a good prime or better zoom is far superior.  Bokeh, low light performance, Astrophotography capabilities, and autofocus are vastly improved.  But yeah, as mentioned earlier, the battery life is pretty terrible.  Not too different from my big A7rii actually!  I burn 3 batteries /day.   My rx100 went almost 2 days on a single battery.

I’m not an expert by any means.  I’m actually pretty new to cameras, so take this with a grain of salt.  But I’ve spent the last 8 months or so researching and testing and here’s what I recommend:

1.  Lightest.  Better than average stills/video:  rx100 (Mark IV or V)

2.  Heavier.  Pro quality stills/video:  a6500 w/ 18-105mm (daytime hiking) and 28mmF2 (nighttime and milkyway shots)

3. Heaviest.   Exceptional stills/video:  A7rii.  Sony 24-70mm and 10-18 for hiking during day.   50mm 1.8 for intimate shots, 28mm F2 for dolly shots, Batis 18mm for night, milkyway, and in the tent.  Amazing, but NOT UL!!

I did a couple trips with Sony A900 + 24-70mm f2.8. A900 has the biggest glass prism of DSLRs i believe and has full metal body. Paired with f2.8 glass it was an anchor in my pack and getting it out to take a shot (since it was wrapped in my jacket inside the pack) was a pain.

Any A7 is an improvement over it, but the biggest change comes in glass – better to take a small prime or even two – still should be lighter than my original system. However, with RX100 – i don’t need a need for FF on such trips.

The RX100 is small enough to fit in a front pocket of my Patagonia Baggies shorts and not notice it is there.

The a6000 isn’t super big with the standard kit lens, I’ve seen people carry it in a shoulder strap pouch, but it’s too big to put in a pocket.

Prices on Amazon run around

• RX100 IV $850
• RX100 V $1,000
• a6000 with two lenses and a bunch of accessories $1,000
• a6500 with two lenses and a bunch of accessories $1,700

To me, if you are primarily a backpacker who wants to take a few high quality pictures, the RX100 is ideal.

If one is a more serious photographer and want to do more wildlife than one who is primarily just a backpacker, then you would probably want to upgrade to a more serious camera with multiple lenses and the amount of photography and video “seriousness” would dictate a a6000, a6500, or a7 depending on budget. Someone like Bob Gross or Christopher Smead is probably willing to carry 10lbs of camera gear, I’m happy with an 8 ounce RX100. When we are camping in our trailer, then my a6000 with two lenses and accessories isn’t a burden… heck I often take my 8″ Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope on camping trips.

OMG I’m in the same category as BG!

Yeah the camera weight is a real challenge and I don’t recommend carrying that much unless you are really passionate about cameras.  Funny part is that this has pushed me further into being UL to make up the difference.  I went no-cook on my last trip, and also gave up some of the luxuries I used to cling to, and I’m glad!  (3rd pair of socks, water bladder system, down pants, etc).

That said, I miss going truly UL, and will be bringing my rx100 only for the next trip.  Maybe my a6500 and a single lens if I’m up to it.  I’ve got enough footage from my Rae Lakes project and High Sierra Trail documentaries to keep me busy editing for a while.