Canon SL2 or Sony A6000

[ritak]

Hello, I'm looking to buy a new camera. I had a Canon 60D, but it fell and broke. I'm thinking about buying either the Canon SL2 or the Sony A6000. I will need it for fashion blogging and shooting singing videos. Please help!

 

[bjornl]

For videos go mirrorless. They AF better during video than a DSLR. Note that the a6000 has a very short battery life. Bring lots of batteries (3 times as many as you needed on your 60d).

 

[ritak]

Thank you so much for your help! The Sony A6000 should work for shooting good pictures too?

For videos go mirrorless. They AF better during video than a DSLR. Note that the a6000 has a very short battery life. Bring lots of batteries (3 times as many as you needed on your 60d).

 

[bjornl]

It is ok. It will be a difficult adjustment going from the twin dial 60d to a single dial (and weird layout) of the a6000. Ergonomics of it are also odd. Not good for extended shooting. Pair it with decent glass if you want decent results.

 

[Danepena]

Thank you so much for your help! The Sony A6000 should work for shooting good pictures too?

For videos go mirrorless. They AF better during video than a DSLR. Note that the a6000 has a very short battery life. Bring lots of batteries (3 times as many as you needed on your 60d).

I'm sorry but that comment is misleading about video autofocus, For Vlogs canon SL2 will be your best choice here. It has canon's DUAL PIXEL AUTOFOCUS which is the best video autofocus in the market, google it. The SL2 also has a microphone output for better audio(the a6000 doesn't have it). And the a6000 is popular for OVERHEATING when recording. SL2 has a flip screen(not on the a6000) for monitoring. Picture quality of the SL2 is on par with canon's 80d. Hope this helps.

 

[bjornl]

Thank you so much for your help! The Sony A6000 should work for shooting good pictures too?

For videos go mirrorless. They AF better during video than a DSLR. Note that the a6000 has a very short battery life. Bring lots of batteries (3 times as many as you needed on your 60d).

I'm sorry but that comment is misleading about video autofocus, For Vlogs canon SL2 will be your best choice here. It has canon's DUAL PIXEL AUTOFOCUS which is the best video autofocus in the market, google it. The SL2 also has a microphone output for better audio(the a6000 doesn't have it). And the a6000 is popular for OVERHEATING when recording. SL2 has a flip screen(not on the a6000) for monitoring. Picture quality of the SL2 is on par with canon's 80d. Hope this helps.

The Dual-pixel video focus is better than the previous phase-detect only system. But it doesn't AF as fast as a mirrorless. I've used it side by side with a Panasonic and Sony and the Canon was the slowest. This is absolutely not the fastest video focus on the market.
The a6000 overheating during video was somewhat lens specific. It tended to overheat after around 22minutes. This is improved with a faster SD card. Also based on DP posts, the overheating was not universal as some did not have the issue.

An SL2 can record 12 to 29 minutes depending on how the SD card is formatted.

 

[Danepena]

Thank you so much for your help! The Sony A6000 should work for shooting good pictures too?

For videos go mirrorless. They AF better during video than a DSLR. Note that the a6000 has a very short battery life. Bring lots of batteries (3 times as many as you needed on your 60d).

I'm sorry but that comment is misleading about video autofocus, For Vlogs canon SL2 will be your best choice here. It has canon's DUAL PIXEL AUTOFOCUS which is the best video autofocus in the market, google it. The SL2 also has a microphone output for better audio(the a6000 doesn't have it). And the a6000 is popular for OVERHEATING when recording. SL2 has a flip screen(not on the a6000) for monitoring. Picture quality of the SL2 is on par with canon's 80d. Hope this helps.

The Dual-pixel video focus is better than the previous phase-detect only system. But it doesn't AF as fast as a mirrorless. I've used it side by side with a Panasonic and Sony and the Canon was the slowest. This is absolutely not the fastest video focus on the market.
The a6000 overheating during video was somewhat lens specific. It tended to overheat after around 22minutes. This is improved with a faster SD card. Also based on DP posts, the overheating was not universal as some did not have the issue.

An SL2 can record 12 to 29 minutes depending on how the SD card is formatted.

Panasonic is known for its video autofocus problems, GH5 , G85, G7. In fact the only problem I can find in the GH5 is video autofocusing, it's a big drawback. Sony has a great video autofocus don't get me wrong but never as smooth and accurate as dual pixel. Once dual pixel is on your face it won't come out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3crRnyz-t8

there is a perfect example of dual pixel. It's almost as if there was someone behind the camera. Not a single Panasonic will keep you in focus like this ever. I want you to list the Panasonic video autofocusing cameras that can do it accurately.

Don't take my word or his word for it look for it, research a bit more.

Peace

 

[ritak]

Ok, thank you both. Appreciate your feedback on this! If we're comparing the SL2 to the Sony A6300 would you still do Canon for picture and video? I know A6300 has the 4k video, but I've heard the files are pretty large and I don't think my old Mac could handle it.

Thank you so much for your help! The Sony A6000 should work for shooting good pictures too?

For videos go mirrorless. They AF better during video than a DSLR. Note that the a6000 has a very short battery life. Bring lots of batteries (3 times as many as you needed on your 60d).

I'm sorry but that comment is misleading about video autofocus, For Vlogs canon SL2 will be your best choice here. It has canon's DUAL PIXEL AUTOFOCUS which is the best video autofocus in the market, google it. The SL2 also has a microphone output for better audio(the a6000 doesn't have it). And the a6000 is popular for OVERHEATING when recording. SL2 has a flip screen(not on the a6000) for monitoring. Picture quality of the SL2 is on par with canon's 80d. Hope this helps.

The Dual-pixel video focus is better than the previous phase-detect only system. But it doesn't AF as fast as a mirrorless. I've used it side by side with a Panasonic and Sony and the Canon was the slowest. This is absolutely not the fastest video focus on the market.
The a6000 overheating during video was somewhat lens specific. It tended to overheat after around 22minutes. This is improved with a faster SD card. Also based on DP posts, the overheating was not universal as some did not have the issue.

An SL2 can record 12 to 29 minutes depending on how the SD card is formatted.

Panasonic is known for its video autofocus problems, GH5 , G85, G7. In fact the only problem I can find in the GH5 is video autofocusing, it's a big drawback. Sony has a great video autofocus don't get me wrong but never as smooth and accurate as dual pixel. Once dual pixel is on your face it won't come out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3crRnyz-t8

there is a perfect example of dual pixel. It's almost as if there was someone behind the camera. Not a single Panasonic will keep you in focus like this ever. I want you to list the Panasonic video autofocusing cameras that can do it accurately.

Don't take my word or his word for it look for it, research a bit more.

Peace

 

[bjornl]

The Sony has a much better sensor than ANY aps-c Canon. Check DXOmark.com for raw sensor performance (this is the defacto standard.
Here is the DXO comparison of the sl2 (aka 200d) and the a6300:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-200D-versus-Sony-A6300___1171_1072
The overall score was 79 to 85, with the a6300 winning every category (color depth, ISO noise, and dynamic range). Canon has used less capable sensors going back a great many years. This is what prompted me to leave Canon back when the Nikon d300 was released, I compared to to a Canon 50d and well next thing you know all my stuff is for sale. Everytime I am about to a major upgrade I compare again. I keep two cameras for mostly video and one for mostly stills. Due to lens selection, the stills camera will always be a Nikon or a Canon (at least until Sony eventually cranks up the lens productions, and then maybe I'll include them in that comparison)

If you don't mind a larger format than the a6300, the gh3 and gh4 are in the same price range and are far and away better at video than either the Sony or the Canon.
I rented a gh4 and gh3 intending to buy the gh4. At the time the price difference was enough for a couple of decent prime lenses. I tried 4k video and hated working with it. It takes soo long and soo much storage for a fairly minor image bump unless you're on a event sized screen (in which case 1080p looks very fuzzy). The video focus speed of these two, was unmatched. Not because some yayhoo on youtube that no one has ever heard about, but because actual experts in the field tested it and have said so over and over. I use our GH for commercial events viewed by many 1000s.
Right now the gh3 is just under 500 at amazon. The gh4 is just under 900. Both will kick the Canon's and the Sony's butt in video. Both will finish 3rd in still image quality due to using a smaller sensor (m4/3 vs aps-c). The newer gh5 will about tie the Canon (overall raw sensor score of 77 vs 79) this despite being a much smaller sensor. Neither can compare to the Canon lineup for lenses (except Nikon, which has slightly more).


Here is the summary text from the DPreview.com review of the SL2.
Not good for those taking photos of subjects moving quickly or unpredictably. Moviemakers who want a decent set of video capture tools. This is because the video AF is not very good compared to its competitors.
The pro's were about it being small and having an optical viewfinder (which you can't use during video recording)

While on the a6300.
"Anyone wanting a tool that will let them take excellent images or 4K footage in a wide variety of circumstances."
The con's were about the menu system being complex.

SL2 78% over all, a6300 85% overall. Neither was at the bottom, the SL2 got a silver award while the a6300 got a gold.
These aren't fanboys with an axe to grind like the other fella here. But the most respected photography site.

Summary from gh4: (Score 85% and a gold medal)
Good for: Enthusiast film makers and anyone who cares as much about their movie footage as their still images.

Good for from gh3: (Score 79% and a gold medal)
Anyone looking for top-quality video as well as stills.

 

[Danepena]

The Sony has a much better sensor than ANY aps-c Canon. Check DXOmark.com for raw sensor performance (this is the defacto standard.
Here is the DXO comparison of the sl2 (aka 200d) and the a6300:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-200D-versus-Sony-A6300___1171_1072
The overall score was 79 to 85, with the a6300 winning every category (color depth, ISO noise, and dynamic range). Canon has used less capable sensors going back a great many years. This is what prompted me to leave Canon back when the Nikon d300 was released, I compared to to a Canon 50d and well next thing you know all my stuff is for sale. Everytime I am about to a major upgrade I compare again. I keep two cameras for mostly video and one for mostly stills. Due to lens selection, the stills camera will always be a Nikon or a Canon (at least until Sony eventually cranks up the lens productions, and then maybe I'll include them in that comparison)

If you don't mind a larger format than the a6300, the gh3 and gh4 are in the same price range and are far and away better at video than either the Sony or the Canon.
I rented a gh4 and gh3 intending to buy the gh4. At the time the price difference was enough for a couple of decent prime lenses. I tried 4k video and hated working with it. It takes soo long and soo much storage for a fairly minor image bump unless you're on a event sized screen (in which case 1080p looks very fuzzy). The video focus speed of these two, was unmatched. Not because some yayhoo on youtube that no one has ever heard about, but because actual experts in the field tested it and have said so over and over. I use our GH for commercial events viewed by many 1000s.
Right now the gh3 is just under 500 at amazon. The gh4 is just under 900. Both will kick the Canon's and the Sony's butt in video. Both will finish 3rd in still image quality due to using a smaller sensor (m4/3 vs aps-c). The newer gh5 will about tie the Canon (overall raw sensor score of 77 vs 79) this despite being a much smaller sensor. Neither can compare to the Canon lineup for lenses (except Nikon, which has slightly more).


Here is the summary text from the DPreview.com review of the SL2.
Not good for those taking photos of subjects moving quickly or unpredictably. Moviemakers who want a decent set of video capture tools. This is because the video AF is not very good compared to its competitors.
The pro's were about it being small and having an optical viewfinder (which you can't use during video recording)

While on the a6300.
"Anyone wanting a tool that will let them take excellent images or 4K footage in a wide variety of circumstances."
The con's were about the menu system being complex.

SL2 78% over all, a6300 85% overall. Neither was at the bottom, the SL2 got a silver award while the a6300 got a gold.
These aren't fanboys with an axe to grind like the other fella here. But the most respected photography site.

Summary from gh4: (Score 85% and a gold medal)
Good for: Enthusiast film makers and anyone who cares as much about their movie footage as their still images.

Good for from gh3: (Score 79% and a gold medal)
Anyone looking for top-quality video as well as stills.

a6300 is on a different league. The a6000 on the other hand... The thing is, autofocus in video works in a different way than the regular 9 af points for stills; dual pixel AF uses almost 80% of the sensor for focusing. Question was about video mainly and images on the side, DXO is a reference for image quality. I won't argue a6000 has better dynamic range, or stills quality. I'm saying:

-lack of mic jack
-lack of flip screen
-lack of touch screen
-lack of affordable lens lineup
-possibility of overheating

makes the sl2 better for the mentioned uses for video, cinematic focusing and quiet stm lenses.

 

[ritak]

Thank you so much for all of the helpful info! I think I'm going to go with the Sony A6300!

The Sony has a much better sensor than ANY aps-c Canon. Check DXOmark.com for raw sensor performance (this is the defacto standard.
Here is the DXO comparison of the sl2 (aka 200d) and the a6300:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-200D-versus-Sony-A6300___1171_1072
The overall score was 79 to 85, with the a6300 winning every category (color depth, ISO noise, and dynamic range). Canon has used less capable sensors going back a great many years. This is what prompted me to leave Canon back when the Nikon d300 was released, I compared to to a Canon 50d and well next thing you know all my stuff is for sale. Everytime I am about to a major upgrade I compare again. I keep two cameras for mostly video and one for mostly stills. Due to lens selection, the stills camera will always be a Nikon or a Canon (at least until Sony eventually cranks up the lens productions, and then maybe I'll include them in that comparison)

If you don't mind a larger format than the a6300, the gh3 and gh4 are in the same price range and are far and away better at video than either the Sony or the Canon.
I rented a gh4 and gh3 intending to buy the gh4. At the time the price difference was enough for a couple of decent prime lenses. I tried 4k video and hated working with it. It takes soo long and soo much storage for a fairly minor image bump unless you're on a event sized screen (in which case 1080p looks very fuzzy). The video focus speed of these two, was unmatched. Not because some yayhoo on youtube that no one has ever heard about, but because actual experts in the field tested it and have said so over and over. I use our GH for commercial events viewed by many 1000s.
Right now the gh3 is just under 500 at amazon. The gh4 is just under 900. Both will kick the Canon's and the Sony's butt in video. Both will finish 3rd in still image quality due to using a smaller sensor (m4/3 vs aps-c). The newer gh5 will about tie the Canon (overall raw sensor score of 77 vs 79) this despite being a much smaller sensor. Neither can compare to the Canon lineup for lenses (except Nikon, which has slightly more).


Here is the summary text from the DPreview.com review of the SL2.
Not good for those taking photos of subjects moving quickly or unpredictably. Moviemakers who want a decent set of video capture tools. This is because the video AF is not very good compared to its competitors.
The pro's were about it being small and having an optical viewfinder (which you can't use during video recording)

While on the a6300.
"Anyone wanting a tool that will let them take excellent images or 4K footage in a wide variety of circumstances."
The con's were about the menu system being complex.

SL2 78% over all, a6300 85% overall. Neither was at the bottom, the SL2 got a silver award while the a6300 got a gold.
These aren't fanboys with an axe to grind like the other fella here. But the most respected photography site.

Summary from gh4: (Score 85% and a gold medal)
Good for: Enthusiast film makers and anyone who cares as much about their movie footage as their still images.

Good for from gh3: (Score 79% and a gold medal)
Anyone looking for top-quality video as well as stills.

 

[bjornl]

Thank you so much for all of the helpful info! I think I'm going to go with the Sony A6300!

You're welcome. It is a very good camera, one you're sure to enjoy (provided you work with it enough to learn to get the best out of it).