Agreed completely. I’ve owned one for about a year and a half and am continually amazed with the photos that I am able to get with this camera. I don’t recommend many things, but I always recommend the a6000 to people looking to break into photography. - Ben Miller
I have that too. The fact that it’s been replaced by a6300 is actually adding the value. With the price discounted, it offers pretty much the same quality image if you don’t shoot sports and doesn’t matter the lack of weather protection. Image quality wise, since I used both, I can swear that it outputs similar noise and dynamic range profile as Nikon D700 even if it outputs more than twice the resolution. - redangel7
The only real disadvantage in going with a Sony is that you’re
locked into Sony’s proprietary lens system (correction: third parties like Sigma do make lenses for Sony cameras, but the ecosystem is still pretty small and expensive compared to Micro 4/3) which isn’t a cheap place to find yourself. So if you’re on a tighter budget, Micro 4/3 is the way to go, and many of you recommended the venerable Olympus OM-D E-M10.
There’s also an OM-D E-M10 Mark II available now which includes better stabilization (5-axis vs. 3-axis) and weatherproofing, if you’re planning on shooting in rugged conditions.