Sony alpha A6000 £465 w/code @ Currys
455°Expired

Sony alpha A6000 £465 w/code @ Currys

42
Found 19th Nov
Use code imaging50 to knock £50 off price. Also not forgetting Sony cashback of £50 making this effectively £415.
It’s also the same price at amazon for those of you who prefer.

Top comments

r-c30 m ago

Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost …Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost comparable in terms of image quality but with a less bulky size. Despite being a few years old now it's still a good buy. Definitely research RX100 MKIII vs A6000 before buying though.Much better than a cheapo DSLR in my view.



Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as this camera with the kit 16-50mm kit lens with the advantage of being pocketable. However if you use a fast prime lens on this camera it will be quite a bit better. If you are only going to use the kit lens RX100 Mk3 will be better, it is only if you are going to use different lenses that you'll get the most out of this camera
42 Comments

Nice, I paid for this price a couple years ago.

I'm sure it's been mentioned before elsewhere but the UI on it is more for "engineers" than "photographers".
Friend had a fuji equivalent (sorry forgot model) and it was more intuitive than the a6k, but you'll get used to it.

I'd recommend this as a step up from the entry levels of dslr. Next step up from this is a7k (full frame, around £1k for body).

Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost comparable in terms of image quality but with a less bulky size. Despite being a few years old now it's still a good buy. Definitely research RX100 MKIII vs A6000 before buying though.

Much better than a cheapo DSLR in my view.
Edited by: "r-c" 19th Nov

r-c30 m ago

Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost …Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost comparable in terms of image quality but with a less bulky size. Despite being a few years old now it's still a good buy. Definitely research RX100 MKIII vs A6000 before buying though.Much better than a cheapo DSLR in my view.



Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as this camera with the kit 16-50mm kit lens with the advantage of being pocketable. However if you use a fast prime lens on this camera it will be quite a bit better. If you are only going to use the kit lens RX100 Mk3 will be better, it is only if you are going to use different lenses that you'll get the most out of this camera

Good price for an amazing camera, a great step up from a digital, super portable still.

Just been into Jessops Metro Centre store....same price there

Been around this price for years, upgraded to the a6500 now but this is still a seriously good camera. Especially for video so heat

Its a great camera but is let down by the lack of lenses of any decent quality. Sony haven't made any E-Mount lenses for years. The Sigma 19mm, 30mm and 60mm are excellent though.

r-c2 h, 55 m ago

Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost …Good deal. I personally prefer the RX100 line which I find to be almost comparable in terms of image quality but with a less bulky size. Despite being a few years old now it's still a good buy. Definitely research RX100 MKIII vs A6000 before buying though.Much better than a cheapo DSLR in my view.



hobsgrg2 h, 24 m ago

Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as …Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as this camera with the kit 16-50mm kit lens with the advantage of being pocketable. However if you use a fast prime lens on this camera it will be quite a bit better. If you are only going to use the kit lens RX100 Mk3 will be better, it is only if you are going to use different lenses that you'll get the most out of this camera


I've been thinking about getting a RX100 M1 for a while now, is there much of a difference between M1 and M3 in image quality? or does the M3 just have some extra features like a view finder, a 180 tilt screen and wifi/ NFC
The MK1 seems to have a better apperture, i'm no expert though
32476125-ysflq.jpg

loadsavmoney6 m ago

I've been thinking about getting a RX100 M1 for a while now, is there much …I've been thinking about getting a RX100 M1 for a while now, is there much of a difference between M1 and M3 in image quality? or does the M3 just have some extra features like a view finder, a 180 tilt screen and wifi/ NFC The MK1 seems to have a better apperture, i'm no expert though[Image]



The aperture is *significantly* better on M3, lower is better! There are some pros and cons between M1 and M3, M1 is lighter and has a longer zoom, M3 has a much better lens which performs much better in low light but less zoom range. The M3 has a tiltable screen and a neat pop-up viewfinder but they add to the cost and make it heavier.

hobsgrg12 m ago

The aperture is *significantly* better on M3, lower is better! There are …The aperture is *significantly* better on M3, lower is better! There are some pros and cons between M1 and M3, M1 is lighter and has a longer zoom, M3 has a much better lens which performs much better in low light but less zoom range. The M3 has a tiltable screen and a neat pop-up viewfinder but they add to the cost and make it heavier.


Thanks but i'm a bit confused about the aperture, i'm no photographer, all i have is a smartphone but from this article it seems as though they capture the same amount of light (f1.8, the maximum aperture)

This is what i read about aperture:

"Every lens has a limit on how large or how small the aperture can get. If you take a look at the specifications of your lens, it should say what the maximum (lowest f-number) and minimum apertures (highest f-number) of your lens are. The maximum aperture of the lens is much more important than the minimum, because it shows the speed of the lens. A lens that has an aperture of f/1.2 or f/1.4 as the maximum aperture is considered to be a fast lens, because it can pass through more light than, for example, a lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.0. That’s why lenses with large apertures are better suited for low light photography.

The minimum aperture is not that important, because almost all modern lenses can provide at least f/16 as the minimum aperture, which is typically more than enough for everyday photography needs.
"

Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a DSLR/Other brand the way to do? I want to photograph mainly coins and antique maps, so I'll need a 100mm ish 1:1 macro lens too.

And what is the advantage of this one over the A6300 for £579 ?

Not bad. But also not a lot less compared to when I got mine over two years ago.

Might be worth a weeks wait, this was a £399 'bargain' last Black Friday

hobsgrg3 h, 28 m ago

Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as …Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as this camera with the kit 16-50mm kit lens with the advantage of being pocketable. However if you use a fast prime lens on this camera it will be quite a bit better. If you are only going to use the kit lens RX100 Mk3 will be better, it is only if you are going to use different lenses that you'll get the most out of this camera


I still have my RX100 mk1 one of the best cameras i ever used dont forget it is great for videos as well...i also have a fujifilm XT10 and Panasonic GX7 with a 17mm pancake lens you cannot beat that for portrait shots

hobsgrg1 h, 4 m ago

The aperture is *significantly* better on M3, lower is better! There are …The aperture is *significantly* better on M3, lower is better! There are some pros and cons between M1 and M3, M1 is lighter and has a longer zoom, M3 has a much better lens which performs much better in low light but less zoom range. The M3 has a tiltable screen and a neat pop-up viewfinder but they add to the cost and make it heavier.


The M3 uses the BIONZ X processor as well, i'm not sure how much that improves the image quality, i just hope someone on here posts a RX100 M3 during black friday so i can get a bargain
Back on topic anyway the Alpha looks like a good camera but if i'm going to upgrade from using my phone it needs to be convenient (pocket sized and no large lenses)

Same price as amazon and actually £16 cheaper in Dixons Heathrow.

hobsgrg4 h, 9 m ago

Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as …Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as this camera with the kit 16-50mm kit lens with the advantage of being pocketable. However if you use a fast prime lens on this camera it will be quite a bit better. If you are only going to use the kit lens RX100 Mk3 will be better, it is only if you are going to use different lenses that you'll get the most out of this camera


Can you tell me what fast prime lens you are referring to pls? I have a500 and not a clue about lenses!! Ta!

oowl2 h, 1 m ago

Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a …Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a DSLR/Other brand the way to do? I want to photograph mainly coins and antique maps, so I'll need a 100mm ish 1:1 macro lens too.And what is the advantage of this one over the A6300 for £579 ?

Where did you find a A6300 for £579?

oowl2 h, 3 m ago

Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a …Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a DSLR/Other brand the way to do? I want to photograph mainly coins and antique maps, so I'll need a 100mm ish 1:1 macro lens too.And what is the advantage of this one over the A6300 for £579 ?

Where did you find a A6300 for this price?

Original Poster

sjd19819 m ago

Where did you find a A6300 for this price?


Probably a typo mate. If it was that price I’d be all over it like flies on s***

loadsavmoney3 h, 57 m ago

Thanks but i'm a bit confused about the aperture, i'm no photographer, all …Thanks but i'm a bit confused about the aperture, i'm no photographer, all i have is a smartphone but from this article it seems as though they capture the same amount of light (f1.8, the maximum aperture)This is what i read about aperture:"Every lens has a limit on how large or how small the aperture can get. If you take a look at the specifications of your lens, it should say what the maximum (lowest f-number) and minimum apertures (highest f-number) of your lens are. The maximum aperture of the lens is much more important than the minimum, because it shows the speed of the lens. A lens that has an aperture of f/1.2 or f/1.4 as the maximum aperture is considered to be a fast lens, because it can pass through more light than, for example, a lens with a maximum aperture of f/4.0. That’s why lenses with large apertures are better suited for low light photography.The minimum aperture is not that important, because almost all modern lenses can provide at least f/16 as the minimum aperture, which is typically more than enough for everyday photography needs."



The M1 only has a "slow" lens because it quickly drops down to f/4.9 if you zoom in at all whereas the M3 never drops below f/2.8. This means the M3 is capable of letting in a lot more light so it doesn't have to use a high ISO which makes photo a grainy mess.

Two big things that determine performance are sensor size and how fast the lens is, mobile phones only have tiny sensor, the RX100 has a one inch sensor which is massively bigger and delivers dramatically better results than smart phone. The M1 and M3 have same size sensor so the main performance difference between them comes down to the lens.

That is oversimplifying but that is the gist of it.
Edited by: "hobsgrg" 19th Nov

hobsgrg8 m ago

The M1 only has a "slow" lens because it quickly drops down to f/4.9 if …The M1 only has a "slow" lens because it quickly drops down to f/4.9 if you zoom in at all whereas the M3 never drops below f/2.8. This means the M3 is capable of letting in a lot more light so it doesn't have to use a high ISO which makes photo a grainy mess.Two big things that determine performance are sensor size and how fast the lens is, mobile phones only have tiny sensor, the RX100 has a one inch sensor which is massively bigger and delivers dramatically better results than smart phone. The M1 and M3 have same size sensor so the main performance difference between them comes down to the lens.That is oversimplifying but that is the gist of it.


ok thanks, maybe i'll have to spend a bit more to get the M3 then, the tilt-able screen and the view finder will come in handy, i probably won't use the wireless features but it's nice that they're there

oowl4 h, 0 m ago

Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a …Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a DSLR/Other brand the way to do? I want to photograph mainly coins and antique maps, so I'll need a 100mm ish 1:1 macro lens too.And what is the advantage of this one over the A6300 for £579 ?



Unfortunately Sony make amazing cameras but have a rubbish lens selection, you'd probably be better off with Canon/Nikon. You can only get a 30mm macro lens unless you are prepared to pay £1,079 for the 90mm macro lens which is intended for their full frame cameras but also works on this. Also an A6300 would be a complete waste for you as you will be shooting static objects so don't need super fast auto focus on the A6300.

loadsavmoney4 h, 46 m ago

Thanks but i'm a bit confused about the aperture


It is not easy, because there are two sides to it: relative aperture and absolute aperture.

The absolute aperture is the size of the aperture as seen from the outside, and it determines the possibly resolution and field of depth. The human eye has 1mm to 7mm depending on brightness, and anything in this range will give a wide field of depth, which feels quite natural. A larger aperture will blur more, which can be good for separating object and background.

But photographers usually use the f number as a measure of relative aperture. f/2.0 means that the aperture is half the focal length. Relative aperture is a good indicator for the brightness of the image, but to understand optical resolution and depth of field you need to find the absolute aperture. And the larger the focal length, the larger the absolute aperture tends to be - that is why medium format is more "artistic" than 35mm, and 35mm is better than a mobile phone camera. It is the absolute aperture that makes the difference, not the focal length.

So, when you are comparing systems, look at the absolute aperture. Mine is 29mm for my best prime lens, and 50mm for my tele zoom (and much less for other lenses).

tee_tee3 h, 12 m ago

Probably a typo mate. If it was that price I’d be all over it like flies o …Probably a typo mate. If it was that price I’d be all over it like flies on s***






e-infin.com/uk/…ox)

I've used this company before, and they are reliable. However probably best to email them to ensure it's in stock before purchasing.

uk.trustpilot.com/rev…com
Edited by: "oowl" 19th Nov

sjd19813 h, 21 m ago

Where did you find a A6300 for this price?


Quoting you for the comment above too.

oowl7 h, 10 m ago

Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a …Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a DSLR/Other brand the way to do? I want to photograph mainly coins and antique maps, so I'll need a 100mm ish 1:1 macro lens too.And what is the advantage of this one over the A6300 for £579 ?


advantage is this has a lens? not exactly a 'fair' comparison
grey import with no lens(kit box probably means its a split so is 'wrong' for the camera)
vs UK model with lens
sure the lens isn't great for macro but its still an item with value!

In the last week we have now had a deal on the A6500 and the A6000, just waiting for that A6300 deal....

Some of you guys might be interested in this deal I posted earlier

hotukdeals.com/dea…694

was looking to buy this but ultimately decided to opt for an Olympus E-M10 ii. Still waiting for a black Friday deal though.. almost got tempted by this but my will is strong. have some heat anyway

hobsgrg13 h, 52 m ago

Unfortunately Sony make amazing cameras but have a rubbish lens selection, …Unfortunately Sony make amazing cameras but have a rubbish lens selection, you'd probably be better off with Canon/Nikon.


The whole CSC segment is relatively new, and it suffers from a lack of lenses. Of course you can use an adapter, but then you are not making the most of the concepts. Canon is no different here, with only a few EF-M lenses on offer, and very few of them primes. I am still using my trusty 50/1.7 in manual mode, but it does have its limitations with high resolution digital sensors.
Edited by: "MrPuddington" 20th Nov

Some 'like new' on Amazon warehouse for £357 (20% taken off at checkout).

MrPuddington9 h, 32 m ago

The whole CSC segment is relatively new, and it suffers from a lack of …The whole CSC segment is relatively new, and it suffers from a lack of lenses. Of course you can use an adapter, but then you are not making the most of the concepts. Canon is no different here, with only a few EF-M lenses on offer, and very few of them primes. I am still using my trusty 50/1.7 in manual mode, but it does have its limitations with high resolution digital sensors.



Sorry to be clear I wasn't suggesting getting Canon CSC but a regular Canon DSLR where there will be plentiful lenses to choose from.

Sony have stopped producing new lenses for APSC and all their new lenses are full frame as that is where they are pushing because of the higher profit margin. You can use those lenses on this camera without needing an adaptor but they are big, heavy and expensive.

oowl19th Nov

Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a …Is this a good camera for predominantly macro photography, or is a DSLR/Other brand the way to do? I want to photograph mainly coins and antique maps, so I'll need a 100mm ish 1:1 macro lens too.And what is the advantage of this one over the A6300 for £579 ?


I would say yes but with an manual lens adapter. Generally you wont be using AF when shooting macro (certainly not with coins and maps) and there are so many excellent quality manual and AF/manual macro lenses out there for relatively little money that will give stunning results with this camera. Focus peaking, the nifty magnification feature in live view and the 180 degree flip out screen are much better implemented than similar priced DSLRs from the big two especially when mounted on a copy stand. I use a micro-Nikkor 55mm macro lens with PK13 extension tube (bought second hand) on my Metabones adapted Sony A5100 and the results are phenomenal. No point in buying an A6300 over this, save the money for a lens.

toaster2 h, 11 m ago

I would say yes but with an manual lens adapter. Generally you wont be …I would say yes but with an manual lens adapter. Generally you wont be using AF when shooting macro (certainly not with coins and maps) and there are so many excellent quality manual and AF/manual macro lenses out there for relatively little money that will give stunning results with this camera. Focus peaking, the nifty magnification feature in live view and the 180 degree flip out screen are much better implemented than similar priced DSLRs from the big two especially when mounted on a copy stand. I use a micro-Nikkor 55mm macro lens with PK13 extension tube (bought second hand) on my Metabones adapted Sony A5100 and the results are phenomenal. No point in buying an A6300 over this, save the money for a lens.


to clarify..a5100 has a 180degree flip screen, this a6000 doesn't

brilly32 m ago

to clarify..a5100 has a 180degree flip screen, this a6000 doesn't


For some reason thought it did, early onset no doubt, no big loss I guess (the camera not my brain).

I have this camera and it is awesome for that money

hobsgrg19th Nov

Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as …Yes I have RX100 Mk3 and the quality is just as good is just as good as this camera with the kit 16-50mm kit lens with the advantage of being pocketable. However if you use a fast prime lens on this camera it will be quite a bit better. If you are only going to use the kit lens RX100 Mk3 will be better, it is only if you are going to use different lenses that you'll get the most out of this camera


Load of balls!

If you can’t see a difference between this and the rx you should stick to point and shoot cameras

sparklehedgehog2 h, 52 m ago

Load of balls!If you can’t see a difference between this and the rx you s …Load of balls!If you can’t see a difference between this and the rx you should stick to point and shoot cameras



Purely comparing RX100 Mk3 and this camera with KIT LENS, in low light this camera needs to use a higher ISO than the RX100 Mk 3 in the same conditions as the RX100 Mk 3 has a faster lens. The additional noise introduced by the higher ISO cancels out the advantage of the higher sensor size so when you pixel peep the quality is pretty much the same.

If you use the same ISO then this camera is clearly better, but that's the point, the kit lens means it needs to use a higher ISO in the same lighting conditions.

hobsgrg5 h, 21 m ago

Purely comparing RX100 Mk3 and this camera with KIT LENS, in low light …Purely comparing RX100 Mk3 and this camera with KIT LENS, in low light this camera needs to use a higher ISO than the RX100 Mk 3 in the same conditions as the RX100 Mk 3 has a faster lens. The additional noise introduced by the higher ISO cancels out the advantage of the higher sensor size so when you pixel peep the quality is pretty much the same.If you use the same ISO then this camera is clearly better, but that's the point, the kit lens means it needs to use a higher ISO in the same lighting conditions.


I still completely disagree
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text