Hands on with Sony's a6300 and G Master lenses

I am a long-time DSLR user who also now uses mirrorless. I recently took a trip to India with an A6000 kit. While I still had a camera bag for all my gear, the gear ended up being a lot lighter and a lot more compact than my equivalent DSLR gear. For example, a Sony A6000 with Sony 35/1.8 OSS weighs 498g total (344g for body, 154g for lens). My Canon 60D with Canon 35/2 IS weighs 1090g (755g for body, 335g for lens). Additionally, the A6000+35/1.8 OSS+hood mounted fits in the same slot in my camera bag as a 60D body alone! The A6000 is half the space and half the weight. It also looks far less obvious and noticeable when shooting with it than my DSLR. DSLRs stick out like a sore thumb.

Good points all. But don't you miss the grip on an SLR, and the viewfinder that shows what's really through the lens instead of an EVF?

Why do lenses need to be "pancake"? I regularly use my Sony 35/1.8 OSS on my A6000. This lens is very small, only 155g. In comparison, the Canon 35/2 IS lens about twice as large and twice as heavy (335g). The A6000 with 35/1.8 and hood mounted is smaller and lighter and take up less space than my Canon 60D DSLR body alone! I don't need or expect every lens to be a "pancake". Pancakes are often slower (f/2.8). Sony's lenses like the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are compact and light, even though they are not "pancake".

That being said Sony doesn't have the best reputation in regards to their weathersealing.

With some of their camera's(all A7 series) it should be taken with a grain of salt. The A99 and A77 bodies are properly constructed though.

I've shot with my A6000 out in rain. It survived just fine. It won't withstand shooting in a hurricane, but it can handle light moisture just fine. I'm sure the A6300 will do even better.

My K30 survived the downpour associated with a hurricane.
I was literally wet to the socks. Like jumping into a swimming pool with clothes on.

Did not put it away wanted to take images of the scenes with people running for cover.

It just didn't care wipe the screen wipe the front element and go.

2000$ is way too high price

Some people shoot to crop, some people frame their shots as closely as possible to their final output. I came from using APS-C, and yes, I used a Canon 70-200 on my 70D. It worked absolutely great for stage photography, and allowed me to take far closer shots than I could with a full frame body. You can argue by cropping the image to half its size on a full frame, you get the same results, but I generally intend for my images to more or less the same size when I shoot it. It doesn't mean I don't trim a shot for clarity, but I very rarely crop over 20% of my image unless I already know I don't have the reach and expect to crop over half my frame to get the intended image size.

Gee Ricky, my 7D2 and my 70-200/2.8II get along splendidly.

Gee jack 0ff I doubt that.

Right, like I've never heard that one. You doubt the 7D2 + 70-200/2.8 combo? You obviously don't shoot sports.

Eat me.

And it's not like I haven't been called Ricky before. Address folks by their names like you are half way adult and you won't have to endure return zingers.

If I were shooting sports or any type of action, I would not be screwing around with a 7D2.

Don't make false broad sweeping generalizations like a child and you won't have to endure return zingers.

Oh right, you'd go "full frame". BTDT. Have fun lugging huge lenses and multiple rigs. That is the domain of full-timers. Nice work if you can get it.

You look and talk like a complete idiot.

Why, because I pointed out you're wrong?

@Rick, I used a 70D and 70-200 f4 IS previously. That range is extremely useful for stage photography, and the IS means I don't need to raise the shutter speeds to unusable levels for indoors. In larger venues like auditoriums and open air concerts, the same lens on a full frame is still not long enough reach for close-ups. I'd only be able to get half-body shots at best. I want to be able to vary my shots in terms of distance and subject matter, so I can't snap wide and half-body portraits only for the entire show.

Crop sensor bodies from the last 5 years have done a lot of catching up to full frames, at least at lower ISO levels. At ISO 1600 and below, I can't tell the difference between a full frame or a crop sensor. The primary reason I switched to a full frame was simply because I shoot generally at ISO 3200 and up for stage photography, and the significantly better noise performance makes a lot of difference.

@Thermidor, my original comment concerned the use of new and expensive GM lenses on an A6300. Everyone's experience with other combos is irrelevant if we stick to the strict rules of debate. I stupidly got drug into a discussion about a format I haven't used since 2005. I've thought about getting a crop camera for the "reach" but with 42/50 MP FF cameras in consideration, the "reach" advantage is minimal or non-existant.

So, why would anyone even consider an A6300 and its downgrade in IQ over FF? An unrealistic expectation of improved AF notwithstanding, cost mostly. Your savings would be quickly overcome from buying a FF lens for double the price of your camera that you'd only be using a part of. It's the whole crop camera ownership thought process that I don't understand.

@Rick, you hadn't used a crop since 2005, which was what, the 350D era? I have only used small sensor bodies for the last 4 years before finally getting a full frame in December. Noise aside, I can't tell the difference at ISO 1600 and below between FF and APS-C, and I've looked at my pictures side by side.

I agree, with a high megapixel body you could just crop, but I like framing my shot exactly as I see it. It minimizes my post-processing, plus it's good practice. On a full frame, even my 80-200 f2.8 doesn't feel enough reach sometimes. Which on APS-C, wouldn't be a problem. And for sports and nature photography, APS-C works better if you don't want to carry a longer lens than a 70-200.

I don't crop my pictures too much for work, as I don't want the client questioning severe discrepancies between image sizes. Some of my shots end up being used for publicity work, so I prefer for people to have as large a file to work with as possible than not enough.

As for expensive lenses, it's true, they're not cheap brand new. But if you hunt around, you can find used lenses for much cheaper. I got both my previous Canon 70-200 f4 IS and my current Nikon 80-200 f2.8 at very good condition, and at a steal. They are professional grade lenses, and therefore built to last so long as you treat them with respect. So I have no qualms getting it used. More so with the Nikon as it's screw-driven, so I don't need to worry about wear and tear in an internal motor.

Besides, while there are cheaper APS-C equivalents of a 24-70 f2.8, the only APS-C fast telephoto zoom is the Sigma 50-150 f2.8, which costs almost as much as their 70-200 f2.8 version. It's optically superior, but APS-C lenses don't fetch good resell value if you ever decide to move to full frame. And like I said, the reach of a 70-200 can give you an edge that a 50-150 doesn't.

Reasons to use crop over FF for sports are cost, FPS, and a 70-200 becomes a 112-320 (or 105-300). To get that reach on a FF camera that isn't the latest and very expensive 42 or 50mp, you are looking at either a dearly expensive and massive 300/2.8 (been there done that), or you compromise on a 300/4, a third-party (and still expensive and massive) 120-300/2.8, or a slow 70-300 or a slow 100-400. Choose a prime and your take-home rate plummets due to no zoom. Choose a lens slower than f/2.8 and you basically lose any FF advantage, and your AF diminishes. By putting a 70-200/2.8 on APS-C you lose a stop of DOF and add a stop of noise - no big deal (yes I shoot night sports). Your AF performs at 100%, and you have an f/2.8 zoom. Calling that a waste is idiotic.

I get your point @JackM but I would like one of the gurus that grow on trees ( or climb out of them ) in this forum to address my question about the illusory reach advantage of a crop sensor camera.

Cropping the full-frame photograph gives the same zoom (or reach gain ) effect as a crop-sensor, does it not ? I would guess all sports photographers crop most of their photo's most of the time, anyway.

Please don't muddy this point with comments on the difference between FF/crop in image quality, in the cost/weight of telephoto lenses/cameras and the effect on work-flow. Pixel density is a no-no, too.

Is there truly a reach benefit in a crop sensor camera ?

@Dynaxx excerpt from the Digital Picture 5Ds review

"No longer is the 7D Mark II's pixel density an advantage for reach reasons – or for angle of view reasons."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5Ds.aspx

Maybe a 24 MP camera has a slight advantage. If I know how to calculate pixel density on a sensor, I could make a stronger statement.

The 7D2 and 5DS/R have basically the same size pixels, so there is no reach difference. Take the ~50mp of the 5DS/R, apply the crop factor, and you are left with ~20mp, same as the 7D2. (50/1.6/1.6)

If you can afford a 5DS or 5DSR, and you don't mind shooting at 5fps, then there is no benefit to the 7D2. But if you can't justify the cost and/or you want 10fps, the 7D2 offers a huge benefit.

Kinda (Better the OVF) is some ways, others not.

It all depends on how fast mirror-less gets it together. Like EVF. Sony is trying hardest.

Leaving DSLR waring behind, it is a good question to ask.

I have never had the calibration problem and if I did I would do it myself.

As far as the other things, less weight is good; but not if IQ suffers. Like color sensitivity FIRST.

Of course it would. But the professionals and "serious photographers" are the ones who would pay lots of money for expensive cameras and lenses, that's where the money is, and a pro photographer does not like to be mistaken for a casual tourist, so he needs a huge camera and lens to differentiate, and Sony listens :)

Well, Size advantage has been less of a highlight recently (24-240 bigger than 28-300 from SLRs, or Macro 90 bigger than similar lenses for SLRs, 70-200/4 bigger than Canon 70-200 F4, Sony 35 1.4 bigger than Sigma which is big on it's own) and now with these lenses it's clear there will be no size advantage anyways... BUT, If Sony takes these mirrorless and give them a bigger body with better ergonomics, more buttons, an aux. info LCD and tilting-rotating screens, it would make some sense to keep using mirrorless.

But keeping mirrorless bodies small doesn't make sense anymore with these lenses.

Because big is not pro. Pro is big and small and so is anything else.

You don't need to differentiate yourself with huge camera bodies. That's unrealistic. While a huge and fast super tele lens for FF can certainly have a bigger model for that; less weight and easier portability gets the camera with you in the field.

But why make all small camera stink(or lesser). That's dumb.

Larger photo-sites and so larger sensors (and processing) out today are going to have better color sensitivity and for video too. This is the balance to smaller cameras today.

Best option is to look specifically at your favourite lenses for your Nikon DSLR and see if there's anything similar, then buy your body based on that.

The old adage goes, you date your camera but you marry your lenses.

(That said, I wouldn't marry an overweight lens if I wasn't planning on using it on a matching body in the short term. The myth of the upgrade path is a dangerous one that will lead to expensive, sub-par results in the mean time).

You do not mention if your nikon body is an apsc or full frame.
Using ff lenses on apsc caméras means you crop 1.5. So a 35 mm for FF fitted on a apsc camera Will be a 52 mm. There is no very good Sony apsc lens and this is thé major Sony problem. Thé two most curèrent zom lenses (16-50 and 16-70) are thé worst Sony lenses even tested. So,better think about thé whole System bedore investing in a body.

Thanks everyone for your replies. @dansclic definitely answered my question. And your right - it's all about the lenses. I'm also surprised after reading a number of pre-reviews that Sony isn't pushing the fact that they're selling this as a weather sealed camera.

@ ekaton - The D5500 is an entry-level DSLR. It only shoots 5fps, has only 39 AF points, doesn't do face detection while using the viewfinder, doesn't do 4K video, etc. The A6300 has a full magnesium alloy body, while the D5500 only has superficial top and back magnesium plates.

My main street shooting setup is a 35mm f/1.8. Look at the size comparison of the D5500 vs A6300. The A6300 is significantly more compact and less obtrusive. And weight-wise, it's 112g lighter, with considerably better specs and performance.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#580.333,656.410,ha,t

To go smaller and lighter with DSLRs, you have to use entry-level bodies like the D5500 or Rebel bodies. What the A6300 offers is a full high performance, high-spec APS-C body comparable to something like a Canon 7D MKII or Nikon D500, both high speed sports cameras capable of 10 fps and fast AF tracking that are MUCH heavier and larger than a lowly D5500.

i can live with that,,,current 135 F1.8 is loook so small to me after looking at it's samples....

The Sony/Zeiss 135/1.8 has pretty harsh bokeh, as expected for such a super-sharp and super-fast lens. It gives the possibility of super-shallow DOF, but that's not "good bokeh", any lens can look good in such conditions.

Just any ol' 135mm f1.8 lens, eh Magnus? Dime a dozen, those lenses...

Fair enough on the dirty hands, but I haven't found it to be an issue in practice. I use a Spigen screen protector, just like I do on my smartphone. Cheap, quick and easy to replace when it gets scratched up.

And I would suggest that the latter case is only true on the most bare-bones of entry level cameras. The fact that the D5, D500, 1DX II, NX1, E-M1, GX8 and GH4 all have touchscreens but all have many more direct physical controls than the A6300 (and even the A7 series in some cases) puts the lie to that.

The lock-af and recompose makes much more sense since it will keep tracking once you selected it. If they made it much better more power too them its the focus & recompose of the future :). I don't see how a touchscreen would be faster then this and you can keep your eye to the view-finder.

Daniel.

The 16-50 is indeed tiny and lightweight. Unfortunately this results in a lens that is so delicate that it is almost unusable. In fact the whole system lacks robustness, partly due to the horrible articulated screen which destroys the camera body's integrity. A simpler camera without all the featuroids and attendant controls would have been so much more, particularly given the a6000's amazing IQ.

Thorgrem, you are absolutely right. I have Nex 7 as a pocket size camera but lack of good lenses is real pain.
I would be happy to buy something about 18-55/70 at f2.8
as a walk around camera to get a good pictures, if I don't carry my more heavy staff the Nikon D810 and holy trinity + others.
I will probably sell the Nex7 and move to the new Fujji.

They sell primary bodys with this cheap crappy 16-50 shard... Most users don't take it off anyway! So why not selling this camera for a very expensive price with this very cheap lens... good deal... for Sony at least it is!

Becouse it's still bloody fast. And this crappy lens is barely good enough for 8mp 4k video.

That makes it an half decent deal. Some available primes would make it a solid deal.

The 18-105mm powerzoom for video makes it a god damn steal. Just compare it to the "big deal" XC-10

What EV is it at f/4 (fe24-70 f/4 lens)?

Well, that's a mixed up argument. Mirrorless can encompass Nikon1 to Sony A7. The size of the lens is dependent on the size of the image circle it has to produce. Hence Nikon1 lenses are the size they are and Sony A7 lenses are the size they are. It's physics. If you want small and FF, then you compromise on IS and AF being present and stick on a M-mount lens.

Ilza even though that is true there is no 70-200mm F2.8 for the A6300 yet. No date nor price available either.

So for now it's the 70-200mm F4. Which is an 105-300mm F6 equiv.
So it actually beats the Sony option...........

First: initially, you were discussing weight of f/2.8 vs weight of f/5.6. As I said: it was making no sense.

Second: 70-200mm F/4 is FE (as is [going to be] 70-200mm F/2.8, btw). So you do you now say that F/5.6 beats F/4?

And since NOW there is no 6300 either, is not what you are doing a strawman argument?

… Oups: I see that “you” in my “you were discussing” is an error.

Sorry!