The Best Budget Sony Cameras You Can Buy in 2021 For Beginners, Amateurs, and Professionals

Sony mirrorless cameras have now become some of the most popular options on the market. The extensive features and fantastic autofocus have caused many photographers to switch over to Sony. In this article, we will be looking at the best budget options from Sony for photographers at every level.

Best Sony Cameras for Beginners

Sony Alpha a6000


Key Specifications

Price: $648
Sensor Type: APS-C  
Resolution: 24 megapixels
Lens mount: Sony E
Screen: 3 inch tilting LCD, 921,600 dots
Max burst speed: 11 fps
Max video resolution: Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 24.00p/29.97p/59.94p

Kit Lens

Focal Length: 16 to 50mm (35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 24 to 75mm)
Maximum Aperture: f/3.5 to f/5.6
Weight: 116 g

With a combined total weight of only 460 g, the Sony Alpha a6000 truly is a small but mighty camera. The Sony a6000 is a more expensive camera compared to options from other manufacturers; however, it does offer a great deal more in terms of value. For instance, the Sony a6000 can shoot at a rate of 11 frames per second. This is significantly higher than most other cameras around this price point. Along with its 24-megapixel sensor, the Sony a6000 could prove to be a great option if you're starting out. 

The kit lens included with this camera covers a wide range of focal lengths, making it useful for many photography genres. And if the kit lens doesn't suit your requirements, the Sony E mount has the widest range of mirrorless lens options currently available.

All in all, the Sony a6000 is quite possibly the most capable camera that any beginner can purchase. 

For: 

  • Small and lightweight form factor, you can take this camera almost anywhere. 

  • A huge selection of lenses available for the mount. 

  • Can accommodate both full-frame and APS-C lenses from Sony. 

  • Compatible with a wide range of accessories. 

  • Can shoot at a whopping 11 frames per second. 

Against:

  • Relatively expensive considering entry-level options from other manufacturers. 

  • Can be difficult to autofocus in low-light scenarios.

  • High-ISO performance could be better. 

Sony Alpha a6100


Key Specifications

Price: $848
Sensor Type: APS-C  
Resolution: 24 megapixels
Lens mount: Sony E
Screen: 180° tilting touchscreen LCD, 921,600 dots
Max burst speed: 11 fps
Max video resolution: UHD 4K (3,840 x 2,160) at 24.00p/25p/29.97p [60 to 100 Mb/s]

Kit Lens

Focal Length: 16 to 50mm (35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 24 to 75mm)
Maximum Aperture: f/3.5 to f/5.6
Weight: 116 g

If you can stretch the budget a little beyond the Sony a6000, you have the option of purchasing a camera that is a huge upgrade. The Sony a6100 is a camera that offers high-end features that rival much more expensive cameras. The autofocus features alone make the Sony a6100 worth the extra cost in comparison to the Sony a6000. Autofocus features such as eye detection work on both humans and animals eyes, meaning you can comfortably capture your furry and non-furry loved ones. 

The Sony a6100 also offers high-end UHD 4K video that is of a similar quality to cameras that cost more than double. The video features coupled with the 180-degree tilting screen means you can easily film yourself and others. In essence, the Sony a6100 is probably the greatest value for money camera that you can purchase. 

For: 

  • Incredible value for money.

  • High-resolution 4K video.

  • One of the best autofocus systems on the market.

  • Includes wireless features via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

Against:

  • The price point is leaning a little into larger-sensor territory. 

  • Battery life could be better, especially when filming in 4K. 

  • The kit lens could end up being somewhat of a bottleneck on this camera. 

Best Sony Cameras for Amateurs

Sony a6600

Key Specifications

Price: $1598
Sensor Type: APS-C
Resolution: 24 megapixels
Lens mount: Sony E
Screen: 180° tilting touchscreen LCD, 921,600 dots
Max burst speed: 11 fps
Max video resolution: UHD 4K (3,840 x 2,160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p [60 to 100 Mb/s]

Kit Lens

Focal Length: 18 to 135mm (35mm Equivalent Focal Length: 27 to 202.5mm)
Maximum Aperture: f/3.5 to 5.6
Weight: 326 g

The Sony a6600 is the current most premium APS-C camera from Sony. Although the camera continues with a similar 24-megapixel sensor as the Sony a6100, the implementation is different. For instance, the body of the a6600 is larger and has a more substantial grip. Ergonomics are important, and the a6600 offers a better experience in that regard. Another improvement in this camera is the higher resolution viewfinder, although the biggest improvement over other APS-C models mentioned in this article is the in-body image stabilization. Having built-in stabilization from the sensor prevents motion blur when shooting at slower shutter speeds and can help reduce shake when filming. The Sony a6600 also comes with a headphone jack, which is crucial for monitoring audio when filming. 

Speaking of filming, the Sony a6600 does not have time limits for recording, and with the significantly larger battery, it can film for much longer too. Along with the S-Log and HLG profiles, the Sony a6600 is a highly capable stills and video camera. Ultimately, the Sony a6600 is the most refined and capable APS-C camera that Sony has produced. 

The kit lens that comes with this camera offers a huge focal range, making it one of the most well-rounded lenses on the market. The downside is the smaller aperture at the longer end of the focal range, which may limit it with a camera as capable as the A6600. 

For: 

  • Significantly improved build and design.

  • Huge upgrade in battery life.

  • No limit on recording video.

  • Log profiles for increase dynamic range when filming. 

  • Includes wireless features via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

Against:

  • Kit lens may hold back what the camera is truly capable of. 

  • Price point pushes it into full frame territory.

  • Single card slot means there's no redundancy.

Sony Alpha a7R II

Key Specifications

Price: $1,496-1,996
Sensor Type: Full frame
Resolution: 42.4 megapixels
Lens mount: Sony E
Screen: Tilting LCD, 1,228,800 dots
Max burst speed: 5 fps
Max video resolution: UHD 4K (3,840 x 2,160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p [60 to 100 Mb/s]

Kit Lens

Focal Length: 24 to 70mm
Maximum Aperture: f/4.0
Weight: 426 g

As we start to move onto the more "serious" cameras, we now have our first full frame system for this list. The Sony a7R II is a remarkably capable camera considering its price point. Not only is the sensor much larger than the APS-C options listed above, but it also offers a great more resolution. The extra megapixels mean that the Sony a7R II can capture a great deal of detail and offer more flexibility in post. In addition to the high-resolution files, the Sony a7R II offers a fantastic dynamic range and impressive high ISO performance. 

Another benefit of the Sony a7R II is that it has in-body image stabilization. The sensor can compensate for certain movements, allowing you to shoot at slower shutter speeds. 

In essence, the Sony a7R II can produce some of the best image quality around this price point. The downside is you may need to update your computer system too if you plan on performing any serious edits on such large files. 

The Sony a7R II can also film in UHD 4K at up to 30 frames per second using the full width of the sensor. This means that when you switch between video and stills, and there's no real crop factor to adjust to. The only issue with this camera is that its autofocus system is not as capable as some of the other cameras on the list. 

For: 

  • High-resolution sensor.

  • Full frame 4K video.

  • Incredible dynamic range.

  • Includes wireless features via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.

Against:

  • Kit lens is likely to bottleneck what this camera is really capable of when it comes to image quality.

  • Battery life can be a little poor, especially when filming. 

  • The autofocus system won't keep up with many of the other options in this list.

  • Can overheat when filming 4K video for prolonged periods. 

  • Single card slot means there's no redundancy.

Best Sony Camera for Professionals

Sony a7 III


Key Specifications

Price: $1,998 ($3,096 with suggested kit lens)
Sensor Type: Full frame
Resolution: 24.2 megapixels
Lens mount: Sony E
Screen: Tilting touchscreen LCD, 921,600 dots
Max burst speed: 10 fps
Max video resolution: UHD 4K (3,840 x 2,160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p [60 to 100 Mb/s]

Kit Lens

Focal Length: 24 to 105mm
Maximum Aperture: f/4.0
Weight: 663 g

The Sony a7 III is one of the most well-rounded camera systems currently on the market. It's a camera that can do almost everything really well. The build and design are similar to high-end professional cameras without the price tag. The image quality is excellent both in normal shooting environments and low-light scenarios. In fact, when shooting at higher ISOs, the Sony a7 III is superb and comfortably the best in this list. 

Although it may not have the resolution of the Sony a7R II, it makes up for it with a better build, a significantly better autofocus system, far better battery life, and high-speed burst rates. 

Along with the camera, there is the option to purchase the Sony 24-105mm f/4.0 G lens. This lens produces fantastic results both due to its highly capable optics. 

Ultimately, if you're a professional and require a camera that can keep up in almost any scenario, the Sony a7 III is probably the best choice. 

For: 

  • A low-light king of a camera. 

  • Full frame 4K video. 

  • Dual card slots for extra redundancy. 

  • Much better battery life in comparison to the a7R II. 

  • Probably the most well-rounded camera system on the market. 

Against:

  • A little pricey when coupled with the suggested kit lens. 

  • Lacks a fully articulating screen, which could prove more useful when filming

  • Lower-resolution sensor when compared to the a7R II. 

Log in or register to post comments

55 Comments

Tom Reichner's picture

When I saw the word "budget" in the title, I got excited. Why? Because friends of mine have a teenage daughter who is interested in photography, and would love to get a starter camera (digital, not film) and learn photography, and hopefully be able to take some photos for her high school yearbook.

Their budget is a total of $120, which must cover everything including camera, lens, memory card, card reader, battery, and charger.

While reading this article, I kept seeing prices that don't seem to be "budget" prices at all, at least not for a kid who is just starting out. All of the items this article talks about are way, way, way over anything this family could possibly ever be able to afford. And, living in an economically depressed area, I fear that very few of the people who live in my region could ever afford any of these cameras.

It would be great to have a similar article, but one that is about real true budget cameras, in the fullest sense of the word.

Bjarne Solvik's picture

Sounds like the budget is a smartphone or something used if she wants a real camera, Nothing wrong about a smartphone, but even there 120 usd does not go far, sorry to say.

Tom Reichner's picture

Of course, she already has a smartphone that has a built-in camera that she currently uses, but she is looking to get something with a LOT more capability and interchangeable lenses.

chris bryant's picture

Olympus E-300 with 14-45 and 40-150 for around 120. Around 80 with just the 14-45. Plenty of capibility and lush colour.

Jacques Cornell's picture

Expecting all this for $120 is...how shall I put this?...extremely unrealistic. My first ILC, back in 1979, was an all-manual bargain-basement Yashica FX-3 that had - WOOHOO! - a built-in light meter (but zero automation) and a dirt-cheap 50mm f2 prime. It cost me the grand sum of $150 of my own lawn-mowing and snow-shoveling money when I was 15 years old. I'll say it again - this was in 1979. $120 today is basically a Cracker Jacks prize.

Jonah Prisament's picture

Sony a5000 goes used around 120$ and I used it for professional work

Charles Mercier's picture

Thanks. I always want to have a good, super light, budget pocket camera handy. Yipe. But they go for double that.....

W Mitty's picture

Wanna bet? It is realistic and it is done. All it took was a few people who, instead of arrogantly proclaiming from the mount that mere mortals should not deign to aspire, rolled up their sleeves and said, "don't tell me why it can't be done, tell me how I can help make it happen".

There is infinitely more humanity in encouraging, than in discouraging.

Jacques Cornell's picture

What on earth are you talking about? Are you even addressing the right person?

Jerome Lovell's picture

I’m thinking that the OP left out a zero (0) regarding the budget. Anyone who’s a member of this site, knows it’s impossible to get that for $120. It’s ridiculous to even engage otherwise.

Usman Dawood's picture

Yea Sony is an odd one. Unfortunately their very entry level cameras are a little pricey in comparison to many other manufacturers. Sony tends to offer better value as you go up in segment but seemingly not great at the lower end of the price points.

Budget in this case is relative to Sony's other cameras.

I'll try and produce an article which covers the best entry level cameras to purchase at various price points. I think that might be a better idea cause I can include all manufacturers.

Thanks for the great suggestion.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

For $120 for all those things you're needing included, best to hit eBay or the used sections of KEH, Adorama, BH, etc.

Here's a listing from eBay just to give you an idea of about prices:

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=dslr&_sacat=31388&LH_BIN=...

Listing from KEH:

https://www.keh.com/shop/cameras/digital-cameras/dslr.html?product_list_...

So, your budget goal is most likely possible. It just won't be new.

Tom Reichner's picture

Thanks for the tips. I've been looking on ebay for her, specifically for an old, well-used Canon 30D or 40D. But the prices are still significantly too high. I was thinking I could find an old, battered 30D, 40D, or 50D for about $30 or $40 (with battery and charger), but no one is letting them go for a reasonable price like that.

I think I'm going to tell her Dad that she'll just have to save up and wait for another 6 months or another year until she has $200 or $220. $120 just doesn't seem like it is capable of bagging an interchangeable lens camera and the other things necessary to take and download photos.

Of course, she already has a smartphone that has a built-in camera that she currently uses, but she is looking to get something with a LOT more capability and interchangeable lenses.

Marinos Herodotus's picture

Sorry, I replied below before reading this. This is the difficult conversation I meant that you might have to have. I recently sold a 40D, with a Sigma zoom, batteries, recharger, memory cards, and reader for $450. I advertised it for $650, hoping to at least get something for the lens, but offers were not that high. I took an offer that was reasonable, but I would not have gone to $120, I would have done better selling items individually. Times are tough, hence the $120 budget, but times are tough, hence the high asking prices too. Best of luck helping her out.

Jacques Cornell's picture

"50D for about $30 or $40 (with battery and charger), but no one is letting them go for a reasonable price like that."
You have a highly uninformed notion of what constitutes "reasonable".

W Mitty's picture

You, sir, have selective edit-isis and I think it is unfortunate that you responded in a demeaning fashion. I believe his quote was a battered 30D, 40D or 50D. A battered 30D for less than $50 does not seem unreasonable with some persistent hunting. At MPB, in good shape, a 30D goes for $80. This would suggest to me that Tom is informed. Bargain bin at a local repair shop might have such a find.

Marinos Herodotus's picture

Sometimes the best thing you can do for a friend is tell them what to expect. With a budget of $120 which "must cover" a memory card and a card reader, I get the feeling that this young lady probably doesn't have a laptop that can handle the files she'll produce. Maybe an honest conversation about digital photography and the gear required is in line. It may not be the easiest conversation, but if you help them find a $120 kit that fits her current needs, you'll be helping them find a $45 laptop next, then $10 flash, then a $2 tripod. If you have a camera to loan this friend, you'd probably be doing them a bigger favor as they will quickly start to realize that it doesn't end with the items on the 'must cover' list.

I hope they find something for her, I would love to see more young people move away from the phone to a camera, but I also wanted to advise caution as the search may become a part of your life too. :)

Matt Williams's picture

I think discouraging "conversations" like this help no one - including us photographers. Who says she doesn't have a computer capable of editing files from an older camera?? Most people prioritize having a decent laptop over a camera. That's a bizarre assumption to make.

The idea that if you help them find a $120 kit that it will somehow lead to them wanting other cheap stuff is pretty insulting, to be quite frank.

Marinos Herodotus's picture

What part of "I hope they find something for her" was discouraging.
And where in the original request did you read that she does have a computer that can handle any editing? I said "I get the feeling". Are we not even allowed to get feelings anymore.
All I did was warn that this request, while it is one I hope she can achieve, may be a rat hole for OP.

You read WAY more into my post than I said, and you read way more into the OP's post than he said too. I'd love to know which of us had the right assumption regarding the laptop, but I never discourage conversation, I asked the OP, in my opening line, to "tell them what to expect" - that is sort of the definition of having a conversation.

Like this conversation, you may not always hear what you want to hear, but you should at least listen, or in this case, read.

Tom Reichner's picture

I would love to loan her one of my old cameras. Or, more accurately, just gift one to her. The problem is that all of my old DSLRs are malfunctioning, because I use them until they wear out. The only two cameras I own that are functioning properly are the two that I use on an everyday basis.

Her parents have a computer that should be good enough to handle the jPegs that she will be shooting. When she gets a shot that she is really excited about, and she wants to edit, then I have told her that she can email it to me and I can edit it on my computer for her, or if her parents are okay with it, she can come over and I can show her how to edit the photo.

If she ends up really loving photography and wants to get into it even more, then she can think about getting a computer and editing software at that time. I think at this point, it is best to keep it really simple and inexpensive so that she and her parents aren't just overwhelmed to the point of giving up before she even gets going.

Matt Williams's picture

I bet whatever computer they have could even handle RAW files from the cameras I offered. Especially the Nikon, since it's a bit lower resolution. Her phone could almost certainly handle the RAW files, if she has a decent camera in her phone like I think you said she does.

But yeah, always best to keep it simple and cheap at first. Stepping stones and all that.

Michael Krueger's picture

I've got no problems editing 24mp files from a D750 using lightroom on a Surface Pro 3 from 2014 with a 4th Gen 1.9Ghz Dual core I5 and 4GB RAM, also edit photos on a 2017 Samsung Note 8 with Lightroom Mobile. Whatever this teenage girl has access to will be able to edit a RAW file. Maybe it won't be the fastest but it will work.

Matt Williams's picture

If you're interested, I have a Nikon D200 that I could sell and throw in a lens. I have a lot of cameras I've picked up over the years and I have no use for this one anymore.

Also, have a Sony a380 that I could sell with a lens thrown in too.

Can toss in a memory card for either as well. Plenty of those around here. And a card reader - I have half a dozen card readers whether it be SD or CompactFlash.

Just wanted to offer. I have no plans to use them and if she's really wanting something other than a phone, I think that's admirable and would happily support that at her budget.

Tom Reichner's picture

This is so awesome of you, Matt! I got your PM, and responded to it.

Jonah Prisament's picture

Get her a sony a5000. I got mine for around 100$ or a little more with the kit lens on Craigslist and it’s a great starter camera!

Terry Manning's picture

You might try the used areas of KEH or Adorama and look for an older Nikon 60D or early Canon Rebel with a used kit lens for that amount of money. You don't want to give a young person a higher-level camera that's beat all to hell. It will repulse them.

Gary Pardy's picture

As someone who has shot with all these bodies except the a6600, I completely agree with your list. The a6000 is a great low-budget alternative to the a6100. The a7rii is tremendous value with respect to image quality and features, though lacking in the buffer/high fps department. Anything more than the a7iii is just showing off ;)

Andy Day's picture

B&H says the a6000 is back ordered with more stock expected to become available on June 21. Given that it was discontinued last November, I wonder if they will arrive.

Matt Williams's picture

That has to be the most profitable camera model of the entire digital era. That thing has been near the top of the best-sellers charts for 7 years. It was like 3-4 years ago I bought a new one (graphite version) on eBay to convert to IR. I can't believe it continued selling at retail price years later.

Jacques Cornell's picture

Sony probably makes about $10 on each one sold, if that. It's a loss-leader whose entire function is to get people into the Sony system so they'll upgrade later.

Matt Williams's picture

If they're only making $10 on a camera that's $650 and been selling since 2014, there is something seriously wrong there.

Jacques Cornell's picture

Not if they make money on the upsell. The term "loss-leader" was coined long ago for a reason: this is a common marketing method.

Matt Williams's picture

I understand what a loss leader is. Cameras aren't usually the loss leaders. Kit lenses are an example of loss leaders.

Certainly more money, as a percentage, is made on selling one $3500 camera than a $600 camera (with some exceptions, obviously, like Leica or Phase One, who don't make nearly as much as the big guys dollar for dollar). People who buy those are also more likely to shell out more money for lenses

From my POV, Sony didn't keep selling a completely antiquated model for 7 years for no reason. I really think it's the other way around - it was consistently selling so well, why should they not continue making it? Stuff like that also explains the lack of innovation as far as their APS-C cameras go. The technological advancement of their full-frame line has outpaced the APS-C cameras by a number so great it isn't even funny.

Maybe I'm wrong, I could easily be. But I think Sony makes (or made) decent money off the a6000. Even if selling an a7R III would net them four times the profit of one a6000 sale, if the a6000 is selling 5 cameras for every one a7R, then it's more profitable.

Jacques Cornell's picture

"Stuff like that also explains the lack of innovation as far as their APS-C cameras go."
OTOH, another thing that could explain it is that the a6000 is their loss-leader steering folks into buying the REAL money-makers - the 35mm-format gear. Why should they make the other a6xxx models good enough to obviate the need for an a7[x]? The unwavering refusal to put a front dial on the a6xxx line is a dead giveaway.

Matt Williams's picture

No that's completely correct. Wait, did I already respond to a similar comment elsewhere? Feel like I did.

Anyway, yeah, plus they also get to sell full-frame glass since they hardly provide any APS-C glass. Canon and Nikon were the same with their DSLRs.

Charles Mercier's picture

Remember, the big expense is tooling up for manufacture. Once the machines are paid off, the profits roll in. The problem of course being the sales dramatically slow as people want the latest/something else.

Matt Williams's picture

Well that's how I look at it. Most of the expense was 7-8 years ago. Since then, they've been making the same thing and it's been among the best selling cameras year after year - even 7 years later. I'm not sure any other digital camera has ever done that.

Chris Fowler's picture

As someone who bought into the Sony lineup with a pre-owned a6000, I quickly learned that "budget" and "Sony" rarely go together. But, it also means the re-sale value is good, and I subsequently upgraded to an a6400 and will sell that when the a6600 gets refreshed as it technically has almost everything an amateur could want, as your article correctly stated.
I have two wishlist items for the a6600 successor before they get my money: Active Image Stabilization, and maybe more megapixels (because for the same price, you can get a Cannon M6 II with a 32mp sensor).

Jacques Cornell's picture

One glaring Against that's missing for the a6xxx series - no front dial. Boo, hiss. Sony could at least have cribbed from Panasonic and made the rear dial switch functions with a press. This is one of the main issues that prevents me from adopting an a6400 or a6600.

As for the a7RII, this is the one that comes first to my mind when I think of Sony bargains. Hardly a "budget" camera - especially after you factor in lenses - but for the committed amateur, or even pro, who wants to make really big prints of very detailed subjects like landscapes, it represents tremendous bang for the buck. Can't recommend it for even slow action, though. Thought I'd sell mine when I got an a7III and two a7RIIIs for my event work, but wound up keeping it specifically for WA venue/architecture shots on a tripod. The other three with primes ride on my body for low-light action/candids.

Matt Williams's picture

It's unbelievable to me that there isn't a decent APS-C body from Sony. My first mirrorless was the a6000 and I came to hate that body design later (after using other mirrorless cameras) and it has barely changed! Grip is bigger, which is nice, EVF improved, stuff like that... but how do they not have one with a front control dial?? Or, even better, one with a centered EVF in an a7-type body (but smaller maybe). Hell, do any of the a6xxx bodies have a native vertical grip available? It used to be you had to buy a third-party grip, but maybe they've changed that at least.

The updates that they throw at consumers every so often with new models is frankly insulting at this point.

Jacques Cornell's picture

They're trying to extract as much money as possible from amateurs who will NEVER go 35mm-format while pushing everyone else to go 35mm-format, which is where the real money is. Not putting a front dial on the a6xxx series is their way of splitting these two markets and maximizing profits from each.

Matt Williams's picture

oh I completely understand that.

But I guarantee it loses them some customers - either those who like to have both an APS-C and FF camera in the same system or those who don't like the bodies/lack of lenses and just go over to Fuji instead.

Jacques Cornell's picture

They lost me. I've got Sony FE for pro use, but I'll never buy 6xxx as a casual/lightweight complement, because it's clearly the unwanted stepchild. I have an MFT kit that's a much better complement to FE.

Matt Williams's picture

Yeah I also use FF and M4/3. I find you have to really jump up two sizes to really see the differences/advantages for each system. I love my Olympus bodies and M4/3 glass.

Jacques Cornell's picture

2X is my standard for various upgrades. For example, I upgrade my computer when I can realize a 2x improvement in processing power and speed (particularly batch processing). Yes, I do see an improvement in detail from my GX9 to my a7III, but it's not enough to be the decisive factor in which camera I use when I'm out walking in good light. (I have the a7III specifically for low-light event work.) OTOH, the jump from my 20MP GX9 to my 42MP a7RIII is sufficiently large to be decisive when I'm hoping to make really large prints or sell stock.

As for MFT vs. Sony APS, I've set a minimum IQ threshold for my small-but-serious kit that the GX9 meets but my lightweight alternatives - an FZ1000 and LX100 - don't. APS could fill this role, but there's no equivalent to my Panasonic 14-140/3.5-5.6, 12-32/3.5-5.6 or 35-100/4.0-5.6, so it ends up being a bigger kit - sufficiently so that I'd rather just take my a7RIII and 24-105/4 instead.

Jonah Prisament's picture

Get her a sony a5000. I got mine for around 100$ or a little more with the kit lens on Craigslist and it’s a great starter camera!

Michael Krueger's picture

Personally I wouldn't recommend anyone on a tight budget to buy Sony. Sony has been exiting the entry level markets and eliminating their cheaper products. The budget friendly A5000 line is gone, Sony no longer has a product in that price range. Sony had the cheapest FF camera available a couple years ago when the A7 sold new for $799 but eliminated it and didn't bother to drop the A7 II price anywhere near as low. Even their point and shoots have gone up in price as they eliminate older models.

Sony sells premium cameras with a premium price. I'm not even a Canon fan and they have Sony consistently beat on value in every category.

Tom Reichner's picture

But if someone wants a true budget camera, for just a couple hundred bucks, and is okay with only using old, used vintage lenses, then I don't see a 10 or 15 year old Sony DSLR as a bad option at all. Non-current gear is perfect for a lot of the photographers out there!

grgurb's picture

Currently a Sony A7ii owner with an assortment of E Mount lenses looking to buy a backup camera like the 6000 series. How do the full frame lenses perform on the aps-c bodies? At the current price points would I be better off just spending a tad bit more and getting another A7ii?

Chris Fowler's picture

I have used full frame e-mount lenses on my a6400 and the image quality is great. The downside to this is that the FE lenses tend to be larger & heavier than their APSC equivalents which sometimes makes the a6xxx unbalanced in your hands, especially since these camera's don't have a big grip. Honestly, unless you wanted to specifically downsize your gear for travel/portability, I'd say stick with the full frame bodies.

More comments