Pentax K-30 vs Sony Alpha NEX-6

Winner
Pentax K-30

52

Sony Alpha NEX-6

48

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-30

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Almost no delay when powering up
Startup delay
1100 ms startup delay
Barely any delay taking photos
Shutter lag
162 ms shutter lag
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha NEX-6

Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.71x
Weight
Light-weight
287 g
HDR
In-camera HDR
Combines multiple exposures

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-30.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Sony Alpha NEX-6.

competitors

Pentax K-30 Competitors

Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$350 body only

$418 with 18-55mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Pentax K-70

Pentax K-70

Entry-level DSLR

$599 - $615 body only

$858 - $897 with 18-135mm lens

Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Weight Slightly heavier
Pentax K-5

Pentax K-5

Entry-level DSLR

$639 body only

$830 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Overall image quality Slightly better image quality
Supports 24p No 24p support

Sony Alpha NEX-6 Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$626 - $648 with 16-50mm lens

Image stabilization Image stabilization
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Sony NEX-7

Sony NEX 7

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$460 body only

$802 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Focus points Fewer focus points
Sony Alpha A5000

Sony Alpha A5000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$437 body only

$379 - $399 with 16-50mm lens

True resolution Higher true resolution
Size Slightly smaller
Screen resolution Lower resolution screen

discussion

Pentax K-30
K-30
Pentax

Report a correction
Sony Alpha NEX-6
Alpha NEX-6
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments