Sony Alpha A6000 vs Sony Alpha A3000

Winner
Sony Alpha A6000

100

Sony Alpha A3000

70

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha A6000

Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.70x
High true resolution
True resolution
24 MP
Movie continuous focus
Movie continuous focus
Makes it easy to get in-focus movies
External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha A3000

Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
279 ms shutter lag
Battery life
Great battery life
480 shots
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Lens

competitors

Sony Alpha A6000 Competitors

Sony Alpha a6300

Sony Alpha a6300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$748 - $794 body only

$848 with 16-50mm lens

High-speed framerate Records high-speed movies
Weather sealed Weather sealed
Viewfinder size Significantly smaller viewfinder
Sony Alpha A5100

Sony Alpha A5100

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$398 body only

$448 with 16-50mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Sony Alpha a6500

Sony Alpha a6500

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,198 body only

$1,298 with 16-50mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Weather sealed Weather sealed
Image stabilization Worse image stabilization

Sony Alpha A3000 Competitors

Nikon Coolpix B500

Nikon Coolpix B500

Super zoom

$199 - $257

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Screen flips out Has a flip-out screen
Viewfinder No viewfinder
Nikon D3300

Nikon D3300

Entry-level DSLR

$405 body only

$349 - $397 with 18-55mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Lens availability Much more lenses available
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Samsung NX Mini

Samsung NX Mini

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$279 body only

$406 with 9-27mm lens

Startup delay Much less startup delay
Battery life Much longer battery life
Image stabilization No image stabilization

discussion

Sony Alpha A6000
Alpha A6000
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Alpha A3000
Alpha A3000
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments