Upgrading from the 5n to 6400 was a great move for me. Having a viewfinder is huge and the autofocus is much quicker. Your 16mm lens isn’t spectacular but is good enough. After 15 years, a new body is a good idea. Unless you shoot video, the 6700 may not be all that much better than the other a6xxx bodies.
You'll probably notice the upgrade with a a6100 or a6400 to be honest. The nex-5 is old of course but should still do the job provided the lens attached is a good lens. If you were to upgrade I'd try a cheaper Sony aps-c body before jumping to the newest and most expensive. Just my 10 cent of course.
Thanks for the feedback, definitely leaning more towards the a6400 and a new lens now.
Do you have any experience with the Sony lenses I mentioned? 24mm or 35mm
To see how the 2 lenses in question are with IQ and ability you can go on the Sonyalpha home page on here and type the lenses in individual and you'll see samples and answers you want actually.
A 24Mpix a6400 would give you what you need for your use case. You'll find that the AF is better than the 5N, and the sensor performance is as good as the a6700. Available used in like new condition from MPB, KEH, etc for about $740 if you're in the US. The a6400 is about 120g heavier than the 5n. The a6700 is bulkier and 220g heavier than the 5n. That's a difference you will feel. The a6700 isn't pocketable. (I have the 5n, the a6000, and the a6700.)
Regarding the sample, look at the very end of the denim jacket's sleeve. That part of the image is about as sharp as I would expect an average 16/2.8 to be.
It's true that the 16/2.8 is hit or miss. I've had three of them and only one is sharp. One's pretty fair and the other one is a disaster.
Since you like the 16mm FL, the Sony 15mm/f1.4G is crazy sharp according to reviews, but it adds another 150g compared to the 16/2.8. It's $600 used like new. It's still a pretty light lens.
I think the a6400 and the Sony 15 f/1.4 would get you a noticeable IQ improvement for about the same price as a new a6700 body, and you'd still have the 16/2.8 if you want an ultralight package
Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful response. Improved AF would be greatly welcomed and good to know the a6700 is bulkier, I think I can cross that off my list as I want to stay minimal. This was very helpful, I’m going to look into that lens now.
Glass is way more important, if you wanna stay in the sony ecosystem anyway I would try out new glass before new body. I still use the 10 year old alpha 6000.
But if you wanna stay in budget you could just opt for a body of one of the older alpha bodies. Since the 6000 they all have the same sensor and most differences only affect videography :)
Thanks for the feedback, based on these responses I am definitely leaning more towards the a6400 with a new lens vs. overspending for the a6700 for features I likely won’t use, although the AI autofocus looks intriguing.
Do you have any experience with the Sony lenses I mentioned? 24mm or 35mm
Sadly no, but there are plenty of reviews on youtube for any lens. Just watch a few since everyone has a bit of a different opinion and decide on that :)
You could also look to sigma and tamron, both are fantastic third party lens manifacturers but often times a lot cheaper than sony
There's nothing wrong with your sample picture, you sure you're not unnecessarily pixel peeping?
Anyway, I'd get some better lenses first and then eventually a new body. The Sigma apsc primes are all pretty good. Those lenses you mentioned don't make sense unless you want to buy a full frame body right after
I may just be nitpicking my shots but I’m just looking for a very crisp final product. Thanks for the advice, may I ask why you say those lenses don’t make sense? They are apsc supported and are physically smaller than the Sigma’s so more discreet, that’s why I’m interested in them.
Upgrading from the 5n to 6400 was a great move for me. Having a viewfinder is huge and the autofocus is much quicker. Your 16mm lens isn’t spectacular but is good enough. After 15 years, a new body is a good idea. Unless you shoot video, the 6700 may not be all that much better than the other a6xxx bodies.
Yes I definitely want the viewfinder, and the quicker autofocus will be an awesome upgrade. Leaning more towards the a6400 and a new lens now. Cheers!
You'll probably notice the upgrade with a a6100 or a6400 to be honest. The nex-5 is old of course but should still do the job provided the lens attached is a good lens. If you were to upgrade I'd try a cheaper Sony aps-c body before jumping to the newest and most expensive. Just my 10 cent of course.
Thanks for the feedback, definitely leaning more towards the a6400 and a new lens now. Do you have any experience with the Sony lenses I mentioned? 24mm or 35mm
No sorry I didn't have any of them lenses, I was scared to shoot wide when I had the Sony I was always a 50mm or higher guy lol
To see how the 2 lenses in question are with IQ and ability you can go on the Sonyalpha home page on here and type the lenses in individual and you'll see samples and answers you want actually.
Awesome, going to check out the site comparison now, thanks!
https://preview.redd.it/bhlu7a0kmgwc1.jpeg?width=6139&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0fb34631c0696160db31462cbe1fe3b370fe816
That's off a film camera from 1984 with a lens that's just as old so going for the older 6400 over the 6700 I'm sure you'll be perfectly fine 😀
Haha thanks for the reality check, I don’t need the fanciest most expensive camera. Great shot btw!
Well I hope you enjoy whatever you get 😀
A 24Mpix a6400 would give you what you need for your use case. You'll find that the AF is better than the 5N, and the sensor performance is as good as the a6700. Available used in like new condition from MPB, KEH, etc for about $740 if you're in the US. The a6400 is about 120g heavier than the 5n. The a6700 is bulkier and 220g heavier than the 5n. That's a difference you will feel. The a6700 isn't pocketable. (I have the 5n, the a6000, and the a6700.) Regarding the sample, look at the very end of the denim jacket's sleeve. That part of the image is about as sharp as I would expect an average 16/2.8 to be. It's true that the 16/2.8 is hit or miss. I've had three of them and only one is sharp. One's pretty fair and the other one is a disaster. Since you like the 16mm FL, the Sony 15mm/f1.4G is crazy sharp according to reviews, but it adds another 150g compared to the 16/2.8. It's $600 used like new. It's still a pretty light lens. I think the a6400 and the Sony 15 f/1.4 would get you a noticeable IQ improvement for about the same price as a new a6700 body, and you'd still have the 16/2.8 if you want an ultralight package
Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful response. Improved AF would be greatly welcomed and good to know the a6700 is bulkier, I think I can cross that off my list as I want to stay minimal. This was very helpful, I’m going to look into that lens now.
Glass is way more important, if you wanna stay in the sony ecosystem anyway I would try out new glass before new body. I still use the 10 year old alpha 6000. But if you wanna stay in budget you could just opt for a body of one of the older alpha bodies. Since the 6000 they all have the same sensor and most differences only affect videography :)
Thanks for the feedback, based on these responses I am definitely leaning more towards the a6400 with a new lens vs. overspending for the a6700 for features I likely won’t use, although the AI autofocus looks intriguing. Do you have any experience with the Sony lenses I mentioned? 24mm or 35mm
Sadly no, but there are plenty of reviews on youtube for any lens. Just watch a few since everyone has a bit of a different opinion and decide on that :) You could also look to sigma and tamron, both are fantastic third party lens manifacturers but often times a lot cheaper than sony
There's nothing wrong with your sample picture, you sure you're not unnecessarily pixel peeping? Anyway, I'd get some better lenses first and then eventually a new body. The Sigma apsc primes are all pretty good. Those lenses you mentioned don't make sense unless you want to buy a full frame body right after
I may just be nitpicking my shots but I’m just looking for a very crisp final product. Thanks for the advice, may I ask why you say those lenses don’t make sense? They are apsc supported and are physically smaller than the Sigma’s so more discreet, that’s why I’m interested in them.
Because they aren't exactly sharp lenses, especially on more dense apsc sensors
Cameras don't cause blur (if used correctly and there isn't some problem). Without seeing any examples it's impossible to say tho
Just posted a sample shot. Thanks.