Sony a6500, an all-in-one lens recommendation needed

I have one Wasabi battery, which someone gave me and is an emergency emergency backup - and I have 4 total Sony batteries including the one that came with my A6300, plus the ones that came with my A6000, NEX-5N, and one spare I had purchased for the A6000. So no battery shortages for me! Fortunately, I also still have the battery charger that came with my A6000 - at the time they were still shipping the cameras with an external charger - a very compact, wall-pluggable one...so I never worried much about them switching to USB charging, though I would have been a little more annoyed if I didn't still have my external. Last year, I put a dual battery charger on my Amazon wishlist for Christmas, for the convenience of being able to charge more batteries at once - and got the Neewer dual battery charger, which is sold under a few names...it works fine, as fast as the Sony-branded one, and can charge normal or fast (I don't use the fast charge as it can be hard on batteries, but is there if needed for emergencies when you need to charge quickly). Previously, I could charge one battery on my Sony external, and plug the camera in to charge the other - and had to remember to swap out those two and charge my other two, before a big shoot or trip. Now I can charge 2 on this charger, one in the camera, and one in the Sony external, and have 4 fully charged batteries in a few hours...which is nice.

When I go out wildlife and bird shooting, I always bring at least 3 charged batteries - but rarely ever use more than 1 1/2...that's taking 1,200 to 2,000 shots. When shooting rapidly, and using continuous burst often, you can pull off well over 1,000 shots on one battery. With mirrorless cameras, the battery life tends to be tied more to 'on' time than actual number of frames...since most of the draw is powering the displays. That's why video use tends to burn through battery much faster than still shooting, and why those who are just walking around taking occasional shots may only see 400 shots on one battery, but someone shooting sports or birds/wildlife who is taking a lot of shots with very little break can see 1,200 shots on one battery.

got the Neewer dual battery charger, which is sold under a few names...it works fine, as fast as the Sony-branded one, and can charge normal or fast (I don't use the fast charge as it can be hard on batteries, but is there if needed for emergencies when you need to charge quickly). .

And people ask why I rely on Adam/Justin/Dave for advice!

Thanks much - I only use my Sony external charger - but I'll get the duo-battery charger for insurance!

Yes would've been nice if an external charger was included. Great battery/charger info, everyone!

I read a couple of reviews that mentioned turning the camera's wifi off saved battery power. Has anyone tinkered with this? The reviews said the camera is always looking for a wifi signal, which causes more battery use, so turn it off when just taking pictures and video, turn back on when actually needed.

Yes would've been nice if an external charger was included. Great battery/charger info' date=' everyone!

I read a couple of reviews that mentioned turning the camera's wifi off saved battery power. Has anyone tinkered with this? The reviews said the camera is always looking for a wifi signal, which causes more battery use, so turn it off when just taking pictures and video, turn back on when actually needed.[/quote']

 

Significant drain as it hunts. I keep Airplane mode set to "On" except for the few times I need to transfer a shot to my phone.

 

Dave

Significant drain as it hunts. I keep Airplane mode set to "On" except for the few times I need to transfer a shot to my phone.

 

Dave

Thanks for confirming! Airplane mode it is then.

If I decide to fiddle with filters before our trip, between uv, nd, and polarizer--which for the 18-135mm and which for the 12mm wide angle lens? Is the answer just "yes" ;)?

Considering what I'll be aiming for--glaciers, mountains, wildlife, landscapes, many with my family in the foreground, I'm trying to narrow down what I buy before vs after the trip to Alaska.

I just got back from a British Isles cruise and 90+% of my pictures were taken with the 18-135. I may never take that lens off my camera! I got the A6300 last month, but have been using a 6000 for the last couple years.

Edinburg, back of Scottish Parliment building.

I think you're on the right track with everything - specially listening to most of the people on this board. I took 2 photo tours on this cruise, one in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh. I enjoyed the Glasgow tour more, but learned a ton about shooting manual on the Edinburgh tour. My biggest complaint is it was a lot of walking for comparatively few shots. If you have time to take a photo tour locally - it would be a great way to practice and learn about your camera.

Vic

If I decide to fiddle with filters before our trip' date=' between uv, nd, and polarizer--which for the 18-135mm and which for the 12mm wide angle lens? Is the answer just "yes"?[/quote']

I wouldn't bother with a polarizer for the wide angle. As Pierces'/David's article about CPL filters states: "If you are using an extreme wide-angle lens, this can lead to odd effects in the sky." I would definitely consider it for the 18-135mm.

 

UV filters (or clear filters) just protect your lenses from spray/dust. Useful on both lenses, but more useful on the lens you use the most. Instead of having to clean your lens at a an inconvenient moment, you can remove the dirty filter and start fresh.

 

For the graduated ND filter (and I'm specifying because that's different than an ND filter), I would say it depends on your planned trips. In my experience, I have only wanted a graduated ND filter when the sky is bright and the ground is dark ... which mostly occurs at sunrise/sunset. I strongly prefer shooting the sunset at focal lengths of 50mm+. At focal lengths of 25mm or less, the sun looks far too small for the photo (in my opinion).

 

However, if you're taking an excursion where you'll actually end up standing on a glacier, you could conceivably have the bright ground with a darker background (like the side of a mountain) behind it. I still think the issue is more likely to arise at 50mm+, but I can't honestly rule it out at shorter focal lengths.

 

Considering what I'll be aiming for--glaciers' date=' mountains, wildlife, landscapes, many with my family in the foreground, I'm trying to narrow down what I buy before vs after the trip to Alaska.[/quote']

Does your camera have a HDR setting? If you end up taking pictures of your family when they're back-lit, it may be a useful setting to understand.

 

I can't think of a situation where you'd want a filter for wildlife. Usually you want to get a wildlife shot fast, before the wildlife goes away. You also want to reduce the risk of motion blur, which tends toward "no filters," since the CPL and graduated ND filters reduce incoming light, which increases the length of time the shutter is open.

I just got back from a British Isles cruise and 90+% of my pictures were taken with the 18-135.

Vic

Vic:

Fascinating picture of Edinburgh - wonder who was the architect!

Do you have a website showing off your photos?

Fascinating picture of Edinburgh - wonder who was the architect!

Architects: Enric Miralles, Benedetta Tagliabue

Vic:

 

Fascinating picture of Edinburgh - wonder who was the architect!

 

Do you have a website showing off your photos?

This is the only public place I post photos. Edinburgh is a great city for photographers. These are from the park in front of the parliament building. They are bike racks.

What you see.

What you can find..

What you can find if you keep looking. Thanks to my husband! :D

Vic

Recommendations: Has anyone been on a guided photo shoot excursion in the French Polynesia islands,

Hello all. I was hoping to post a review in early July about our Alaska trip and my new camera. Unfortunately we couldn't go. I was diagnosed cancer in mid-June. I'm in the midst of chemotherapy now. I'm praying to be able to beat this terrible disease quickly. And re-book for 2020. I feel most terrible for my young son. I need to be here for him as he grows up. There's so much more I want to do with him. I'm praying to have many more quality years with him. He and I are best friends. Everything I do is either directly or indirectly for him. I can't even look at the camera right now. Once I get some good news about my health, I will feel comfortable planning again and learning the camera to capture the all-important memories with my son. I'm struggling emotionally for him as much as I am physically.

Hello all. I was hoping to post a review in early July about our Alaska trip and my new camera. Unfortunately we couldn't go. I was diagnosed cancer in mid-June. I'm in the midst of chemotherapy now. I'm praying to be able to beat this terrible disease quickly. And re-book for 2020. I feel most terrible for my young son. I need to be here for him as he grows up. There's so much more I want to do with him. I'm praying to have many more quality years with him. He and I are best friends. Everything I do is either directly or indirectly for him. I can't even look at the camera right now. Once I get some good news about my health' date=' I will feel comfortable planning again and learning the camera to capture the all-important memories with my son. I'm struggling emotionally for him as much as I am physically.[/quote']

 

I am so sorry to hear this. My prayers that you beat this awful disease.

Hello all. I was hoping to post a review in early July about our Alaska trip and my new camera. Unfortunately we couldn't go. I was diagnosed cancer in mid-June. I'm in the midst of chemotherapy now. I'm praying to be able to beat this terrible disease quickly. And re-book for 2020. I feel most terrible for my young son. I need to be here for him as he grows up. There's so much more I want to do with him. I'm praying to have many more quality years with him. He and I are best friends. Everything I do is either directly or indirectly for him. I can't even look at the camera right now. Once I get some good news about my health' date=' I will feel comfortable planning again and learning the camera to capture the all-important memories with my son. I'm struggling emotionally for him as much as I am physically.[/quote']

 

 

 

I am truly sorry! Praying for your health, but also for your son. Cancer is horrible for everyone involved. God bless you and your family. [emoji120]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Dave (pierces)...Your comments about the A6300 were very helpful to me as all your posts are. I greatly appreciate all of the information you provide.

May I ask when using the A6300 with the Sony 18-135 lens how did the overall weight feel if you compared it to say a Nikon Camera (eg,. Nikon 7100 or Nikon 810 or a similar Canon model).

My impression is it will be lighter but just wanted to see if you could comment on that.

Thank you.

Keith

Dave (pierces)...Your comments about the A6300 were very helpful to me as all your posts are. I greatly appreciate all of the information you provide.

 

 

May I ask when using the A6300 with the Sony 18-135 lens how did the overall weight feel if you compared it to say a Nikon Camera (eg,. Nikon 7100 or Nikon 810 or a similar Canon model).

 

My impression is it will be lighter but just wanted to see if you could comment on that.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

Keith

Victress2007 has recently started shooting with the 18-135 so maybe she can jump in and give her opinion as well. I still have the older 18-105G which was on the A6300 pretty much full time since I got it back in early 2016 until the A6300 was re-purposed to the second body when I got An A7M3 a few months ago. It was large for an APS-C daily driver lens but had great range and excellent sharpness. From what I've seen, the 18-135 is not only lighter but matches or bests the image quality. I switched to mirrorless from my A77 (similar to the D7100 in size and weight) because of the size and weight advantage and even though I gave a little of of that back by moving to full-frame, the A7M3 plus the A6300 makes for a very compact two-body, five-lens kit that still fits in an under-seat camera backpack.

For size and weight comparison, I used camerasize.com to research the following:

A6300 + E 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 OSS - 729g/25.7 oz

D7100+ DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR - 1185g/41.8 oz

EOS 7D + EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - 1525g/53.8 oz

I'll add the images from the comparison search I did (displayed in the same order).

Hope this was helpful.

Dave

Dave, you are amazing. This is a very big help to me. I can't thank you enough.

And also thank you for mentioning the name of the website. I wasn't aware of that one.

Thank you again.

Keith

I sold the 18-105 and bought the 18-135. It is smaller and lighter and sharper than the 18105. I'm hoping they bring out something in the 200-250 mm range in the near future because I'm not all that happy with the full frame 24-240 on my 6300. I bought it used). I've been at the beach this week - no good meteors or lightning storms, but lots of new family pictures.

Vic

Keith - that combo is definitely lighter and smaller. I picked up the 18-135mm as soon as it was released, for my A6300. It's barely larger than my old 18-55mm kit lens, and quite light, and optically very nice...compared to a similar 18-135mm lens on an entry-level DSLR, it's quite a bit smaller overall, much less bulky, and lighter. Obviously compared to any full-frame camera, it's a significant reduction in all weights and dimensions.

Keith - that combo is definitely lighter and smaller. I picked up the 18-135mm as soon as it was released, for my A6300. It's barely larger than my old 18-55mm kit lens, and quite light, and optically very nice...compared to a similar 18-135mm lens on an entry-level DSLR, it's quite a bit smaller overall, much less bulky, and lighter. Obviously compared to any full-frame camera, it's a significant reduction in all weights and dimensions.

Thank you so much for the additional information.

There are two different Sony camera's that I think I am going to order and this is one of them.

The fact that it is much lighter than so many of my other DSLR's has become important to me.

Thank you so much for reaffirming this for me.

Keith

Back when I bought my a6000, Sony's 18-200mm lens was pretty much the only "walking around" lens with a broad reach (the 18-135mm did not exist yet). I've been using it since then, but it's pretty big and heavy, and on our most recent trip, I concluded that it's getting to be a bit too much. I'd checked the specs on the 18-135mm, and knew it was about 7 ounces lighter than the 18-200. But what I had not really appreciated until I actually held it in my hands yesterday was just how much less chunky and cumbersome it is.

So I am now another proud owner of the 18-135mm. :D (I appreciate all the very positive things I've read about this lens on this board.)

On 5/12/2018 at 8:28 AM, pierces said:

Without a lot of niggling details, here ar my thoughts:

 

Movie shooting - Unless you do a lot of video blogging, extended interviews or product demos, you will never experience overheating on either camera. I haven't shot a total of 10 minutes of video in the two years since I bought the A6300, so you can guess that video overheating wasn't a major decision point for me.

 

Performance. A6500 has a bigger buffer but both shoot at the same burst speed. (I have never filled the buffer on my A6300 while shooting action.) AF performance is pretty much the same. A6500 in-body stabilization is a big plus but recommended all-in-one lenses like the excellent new 18-135 have optical stabilization. If you plan on using legacy lenses or some of the unstabilized Zeiss primes, this may matter. I shot our entire London trip with the A6300 and the stabilized 18-105 zoom last year and had no issues. Link HERE

 

All-in-one? Hands down the new 18-135 Sony. Light, sharp and stabilized. I have shot for a long time with the 18-105 and find that I almost never take it off the camera. Were I in the market today, I would choose the 18-135 over the 18-105 for it's size alone. It may also be a bit sharper. If I were going to Alaska and planning wildlife tours, I would likely buy or rent a long zoom for that purpose.

 

Bottom line for me is that both cameras are exceptional with the stabilization being the major difference.

 

I guess that I never felt the need to upgrade to the A6500 over the last couple of years (until recently and that is a whole different story) is the bulk of my recommendation. Unless you absolutely need one of the A6500's features, the A6300 leaves you with a few extra bucks for a super-wide angle lens like the Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 or put it towards a good telephoto.

 

Here is the review of the A6300 that I did when I got it back in early 2016.

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/reviews/A6300_frame.html

 

Awsome little camera.

 

Dave

Dave, several months ago I saved this thread and your post about the Sony A6300.  We have some cruise coming up and I didn't want to lug around one of a couple of Nikon Cameras I have so after reading your comments on this and a few other threads and reading the technical specs and other reviews I went ahead and have purchased this camera.

I also wanted a simple and small point and shoot and got the Sony RX100 V1 camera a few months ago and have been pleased with that for something I can just put in my pocket.

I wanted to thank you for all of your informative posts and also some of the other contributors on this thread and on the Photo Board.  

The irony for me is that over the years I have mainly used Nikon Cameras; once in awhile supplementing them with another vendor but typically not Sony and now for an upcoming trip I will plan to have these two Sony's with us and no other cameras other than the camera feature on an iPhone.

I will be sure to post about our experiences with the Sony cameras and hopefully a few photos.

Many thanks.

Keith