Sony Alpha A6000 vs Sony Alpha a6500

Sony Alpha A6000
Sony Alpha a6500

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha A6000

Great image quality
Overall image quality
82.0
Large viewfinder
Viewfinder size
0.70x
Great color depth
Color depth
24.1 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13.1 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Sony Alpha a6500

Touch screen
Touch screen
Fewer buttons
Weather sealed
Weather sealed
Shoot in extreme weather
Badge
Phase detection autofocus
fast and accurate
Focus points
Many focus points
425

competitors

Sony Alpha A6000 Competitors

Sony Alpha a6300

Sony Alpha a6300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$849 - $898 body only

$978 - $998 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

$448 body only

$478 - $548 with 16-50mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Canon EOS M3

Canon EOS M3

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$391 - $429 body only

$470 with 15-45mm lens

Touch screen Has a touch screen
Autofocus Faster autofocus
Battery life Much shorter battery life

Sony Alpha a6500 Competitors

Sony Alpha a6300

Sony Alpha a6300

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$849 - $898 body only

$978 - $998 with 16-50mm lens

Battery life Longer battery life
Weight Lighter
Touch screen No touch screen
Sony Alpha 7 II

Sony Alpha 7 II

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,300 - $1,498 body only

$1,530 - $1,698 with 28-70mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
Viewfinder size Significantly larger viewfinder
Focus points Many fewer focus points
Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5

Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5

Mirrorless interchangeable-lens

$1,998 body only

$2,598 with 12-60mm lens

Screen size Much larger screen
Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Autofocus Slower autofocus

discussion

Sony Alpha A6000
Alpha A6000
Sony

Report a correction
Sony Alpha a6500
Alpha a6500
Sony

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments