Pentax K-30 vs Sony Alpha NEX-6

Winner
Pentax K-30

46

Sony Alpha NEX-6

43

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-30

Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Built-in focus motor
Badge
Autofocuses with more lenses
Phase detection autofocus
Badge
fast and accurate
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha NEX-6

Size
Really small
Mid size (120×67×43 mm)
Screen flips out
Flip-out screen
Great for movies
Viewfinder size
Large viewfinder
0.71x
Panorama
In-camera panoramas
Stitches together multiple photos into a panorama

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

$343 body only

$590 - $630 with 18-135mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Pentax K-3

Pentax K-3

Entry-level DSLR

$699 - $739 body only

$999 - $1,100 with 18-135mm lens

Screen size Larger screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Size Slightly larger
Pentax K-5

Pentax K-5

Entry-level DSLR

$639 body only

$1,368 with 18-55mm lens

External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Startup delay Less startup delay
Supports 24p No 24p support

Sony Alpha NEX-6 Competitors

Sony Alpha A6000

Sony Alpha A6000

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$548 body only

$698 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

$784 body only

$740 with 18-55mm lens

3D Takes 3D photos
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Focus points Fewer focus points
Sony Alpha a6300

Sony Alpha a6300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$998 body only

$1,148 with 16-50mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Focus points Many more focus points
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder

discussion

Pentax K-30
K-30
Pentax

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

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments