Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 First Impressions Review

The camera store did a u tube review with adapted canon glass trying to take water sport action. Aparently the adapted glass didn't hit very many shots on target, they were sharp it just chose water splashing or something else instead of the person. While with native glass they were very successful and most of their shots were great. They stated face dectect did not work well with adapted glass and continuous autofocus required you to constantly push the shutter button or it would loose focus completely between shots. So from the only review I've seen with adapters on Sony they still are only mediocre, while they can now focus faster they still don't work with face or eye dectect or continuous.

Faces have more detail, bottle label is better, money is better, and also, playing cards at the bottom are much better from the a6300. It's only the top cards where the E-M10 looks better.

Actually, could it just be because of the lens? Are these pics taken with the kit Sony lens? That could explain it.

That's a long way from "the Sony always looks worst". :-)

Pentax k3 resolution looks better on the divided test objects.
Why?))

You have the studio comparison right here. Switch to the low light mode by clicking onthe bulb icon and see for yourself. I woud agree with the 2/3 ev improvement reviews. The difference keeps increasing further you go up the ISO range. There is no artificial discolouring of the blacks even up to 25600 iso which makes it usable for certain applications. Big deal if you ask me.

It's kinda sad Samsung has pulled out of the business. Great product, commercial failure. Canon with mediocre products = undisputed leader. Sony should learn from Canon.

It's pretty sad, I just don't know how these people who have been buying these Sony cameras for the past two years take pictures?

Samsung 85 is a 1.4

ttran88 - I know what you mean, I have the a3000 converted to IR, and the a6000 and I'm really suffering making some of the very best photos I've every made! But it's something I'll just have to live with :-)

Jwkphoto - but just imagine how much nicer your photos could be if Sony had f2.8 zooms or the f1.4 primes, regardless if you need it or not. Just knowing that you can have it in the back of your mind will make your photos "pop".

As said elsewhere, I think no APSC camera will match NX1 up until 2018 at least. Besides, NX1 is being hacked right now (features are being added, like focus bracketing, and bitrate is being upped for video). Expect much more in few weeks/months.

Consider this: does having a relatively sparse selection of lenses for APS-C hurt or help a company?

If it pushes people to buy FF lenses and then (falsely?) convinces them that they've already bought their way along a path to FF, then who benefits?

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Name me an APS-C only 70-200 f/2.8 (real focal length) lens that is noticeably smaller than a FF lens with the same focal length.

Trick question and here's another hint: neither Nikon, nor Canon makes APS-C only 70-200mm lenses.

@TrojMacReady
No company making APS-C and FF with compatible mounts offers 2 sets of equivalent lenses. That would be an idiotic move business-wise.

The big difference is that Canon and Nikon don't make the size of their enthusiast-oriented bodies the key selling point. And they shouldn't, because D7200, D500, 70D and 7D are by no means smaller than FF bodies.

In the DSLR world this is fairly simple: you buy APS-C bodies, because you can't afford FF.

But Sony goes a different path. They tell us A6300 is small and travel-friendly. And it is - with rubbish lenses.

It must be said that even in the entry-level segment, where 3.5-5.6 zooms cover even over 90% of sales, Sony's offer is appalling...

TrojMac just smoked you guys.

I see it this way for mirrorless, Sony FF is the system and the 6300 is a crop body for that system. If you want APSC then go Fuji. If you want smaller, then go M43.

Sony have plenty of crop E-mount primes, that make it very compact in comparison to DSLRs.

So, yes, they market it as a portable system, this is best done with primes, and you can make it portable, when you need that.

They can do more, and hopefully will, ideally by adding a couple of crop zooms 16-50/1.8 and 50-135/1.8, but they have to also populate their full frame FE line, and in the last 4-5 years they've announced more lenses than any other company.

These are only their E-mount CROP lenses
E 10-18mm f4 OSS £579
E 16mm f2.8 £155
E 16-50mm f3.5-5.6 OSS £259
E 16-70mm f4 ZA OSS £576.55
E 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 OSS £185.32
E 18-105mm f4 G OSS £389
E 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OSS LE £539
E 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OSS £539
E 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OSS PZ £829
E 20mm f2.8 £225
E 24mm f1.8 ZA Sonnar T* £619
E 30mm f3.5 macro £165
E 35mm f1.8 OSS £309
E 50mm f1.8 £180
E 50mm f1.8 OSS £195
E 55-210mm f4.5-6.3 £199

Plus 4 great Sigma primes
19mm f2.8 DN £119
30mm f1.4 DN £230
30mm f2.8 DN £119
60mm f2.8 DN £119

@Pkosewski:
I clearly wasn't talking about equivalents. For shorter focal lengths, you can achieve a size difference for a given real focal length on a smaller format. See Kharan's explanation below. Which is why there are APS-C and FF versions of say 35mm and 50mm lenses, but generally not around 85mm and above. Example, Sony introduced two affordable 35mm and 85mm lenses for the A mount at the same time. The latter covered both formats, the former only APS-C.

Fuji uses Sony sensors, which they then customize with the X-Trans color array. Fuji and Panasonic are developing a new organic sensor which has been announced but not released.

Since Sony's amazing 16 mp sensor,I don't even need to check ISO capability of a camera anymore.

Fuji typically inflates it's ISO. At high ISO try the comparison with the a6300 at half the Fuji's ISO.

Fujifilm's ISO settings are between 1/3EV and 2/3EV lower than most, so a whole stop is unrepresentative.

Also, bear in mind that the Raw shots in our studio scene are taken at set exposures, so any difference in ISO (which is a JPEG-based standard, the way it's used on cameras), is cancelled-out.

There are two issues that get conflated here.

1] Fujifilm JPEGs are between 0.3 and 0.7EV darker than you would usually expect (though my understanding is that this is acceptable within the part of the ISO spec they use).

2] In order to offer more highlight headroom, Fujifilm (like most manufacturers), choose to position mid tones at a lower Raw value than the Saturation-based ISO standard that DxO uses for testing. There is no reason why the (JPEG) ISO figures on a camera should match the numbers that the Raw-based saturation standard gives.

The numbers you've given look a lot like they're comparing JPEG ISO with Saturation ISO, which means the higher settings (which use 'digital amplification' as well as analogue amplification), appear too low. This gives an insight into how the camera operates and how Fujifilm has chosen to balance highlights and noise, but it's arguably of academic interest rather than any practical value.

There's no reason why the JPEG-based ISO figure that a camera reports have to line up with Saturation-based Raw measurements and one camera should not be considered better or worse than another camera based on the difference.

It's not a problem that has really been solved, mind you. Sigma produced a small 50-150mm f/2.8 for APS-C, but the quality wasn't amazing. So, they introduced a newer model that is optically stunning, but almost the same size and weight than an FF 70-200mm f/2.8. Pentax has a great 50-135mm f/2.8, but is quite slow in the AF department.
The only choice is MFT, that comes with it's own set of compromises. Honestly, the f/4 lenses on APS-C aren't really a bad choice.

You can't beat physics. A small 70-200mm f/2.8 for example, doesn't exist for any APS-C camera and for a good reason.

I never said I want a "small" 70-200mm f/2.8 APS-C lens. I just want Sony to make a 70-200mm f/2.8 APS-C lens, period. My point is that I don't want to adapt or use a FF lens on the A6300.

I've said this so many times and I will repeat it here again, there will be no APS-C 70-200mm (true focal length), for the same reason neither Nikon, nor Canon has ever built one: there would be no meaningful size difference. As is the case for most longer tele designs when it comes to covering differently sized formats. A good example is the µ4/3 Olympus 300mm f/4 lens with OS. It's longer, larger in diameter and heavier than the Nikon 300mm f/4 with OS, the latter covering a 4 times larger image circle.

Now if you're really asking for a 50-135mm f/2.8 APS-C lens, fair point, but obviously fully unrelated to the fact that the 70-200 still serves a purpose, covering a longer focal length (thus by definition a fast telephoto lens that you said Sony doesn't have) on APS-C too.

That may be true, the Canon 300mm f/4 IS is smaller and lighter too, only by a very small margin, but not larger, as many would expect based on the common myth.

@Arkienkeli: the problem lies in the physical aperture of the lens, compared to the virtual aperture. In UWA, WA and normal lenses, the virtual aperture is typically much smaller than the physical one, especially in highly corrected designs. But in teles and superteles this doesn't apply nearly as much. A 200mm f/2.8 lens needs at least a 72mm front element diameter, and most designs in this class go for 75mm or thereabouts, simply for correction purposes. If you go that far, you might as well design the lens for FF, as there's no inherent advantage to an APS-C design anyways. I hope this makes sense.

@pkosewski: Which is why I said that in telephotos the PHYSICAL aperture limits the design, and there's only so much one can do about that (i.e. nothing really, for a given focal length and f-number).
But we agree on the basic fact.

@snapa
Except if you like OVF or the mirror sound. I like the mirror sound - who will forbid me?

KW Phua is talking about image quality and you're suddenly appearing with the size nonsense. Get a life.

Maybe that new cheap Rebel.

Good try at talking yourself out of this camera,

@fatdeeman re: focus magnification. You are not correct that you have to first magnify and then move over to what you want to focus on. At least on Sony and Olympus camreas a rectangle that you can move to desired area will pop up first, then you can magnify.

I have never had a camera with touch screen. Why do I need it? I hear this complaint all the time, so I guess I don't realized what I am missing.

With a camera with so many focus points but no joystick to select them a touchscreen would be a god send. On some Panasonic models for example you can use your finger to move the focus point around while the camera is still held to your eye. Even though you're using the the EVF the rear LCD will still respond to touch.

The other main appeal to me is when using legacy lenses. When you want to magnify the view to achieve critical focus you can just touch on the screen where you want to focus and the camera will blow up that exact area. Without a touch screen you have to first magnify the view and then scroll to your point of focus using the directional buttons. Having a touchscreen makes it a much faster and fluid process.

@fatdeeman re: focus magnification. You are not correct that you have to first magnify and then move over to what you want to focus on. At least on Sony and Olympus camreas a rectangle that you can move to desired area will pop up first, then you can magnify.

I forgot about that because I just touch On my Sony but it's still better with touchscreen, basically instant.

Yeah, I like shooting with the EVF on my a6000 and Fuji X30, but for my work shoots, I still need a DSLR, as it's just too tiring. The EVF is a mini TV screen after all. I'd really love to get the X-Pro 2 (it's really at the top of my wishlist), but I'd have to sell a kidney to afford one.

I really do enjoy mine, it's a fun camera. I will not state it's raw files are much different than any other camera using a Sony apsc 24 megapixel sensor but I think that's a good thing since Sony makes great sensors wether in the Sony, Nikon or Fuji. The Fuji is just very easy to carry and very intuitive to use. Hopefully you can get your hands on a used one shortly in your budget.

In Europe, the 6D is still selling for ~1500 € (~1700 $), whereas the 80D's MSRP is 1299 €, and will probably be sold for less. On top of that, I've got some good quality lenses (Tokina 11-16mm, Sigma 50-150mm) that will not work on FF, and would be expensive to replace. Finally, for shooting from a tripod, the 70/80D's articulated touch screen is a must. Here's hoping that the 80D will come close to image quality to the 6D...

The 7DmkII has a very low dark current...
http://www.clarkvision.com/reviews/evaluation-canon-7dii/index.html

There seems to be at least a stop and a half difference in dark current noise at higher ISO's between the 70D and A6300. I don't see the negative surprise here.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos70d&attr13_1=sony_a6300&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=12800&attr171_0=off&normalization=compare&widget=318&x=-0.15375590720663285&y=-0.9304243423577632

@Troj: care to present your objective way of measuring dark current noise from both images? If you have found a way to measure Sony dark currents, please let Roger Clark now, I'm sure he'd be interested in finally determining accurate sensor properties for Sony cameras.

Aside from the purely technical: no, I don't see a large enough improvement from the 70D to the A6300 to warrant a system change. For me personally, waiting for the 80D seems a better strategy for several reasons, as outlined above. Other people can have different criteria of course, and in no way am I saying that an A6300 is a bad camera.

I was reacting to your (negative) "surprise" in the context of the high ISO performance that you described.

If you were surprised, I wonder what you were expecting. >3 stops? ;-)

Deep shadows at high ISO are mostly limited by read noise, which is what the example posted represents. Dark current is part of that, but for astrophotography, the much more interesting test would be one with long exposures. So you're right, no one in here can conclude anything about that based on the source in question.

What's all the more questionable is that BSI is already offered on the 1" screens like the RX 100 Mark4. IMHO Sony is planning on a mirrorless aps-c signature successor to the Nex 7 which will have BSI,IBIS and touchscreen. They didn't come out with it now because they don't want to undermine the introduction of the Nikon D500, a camera made by one of their best customers. So they opted for a spruce up of the A6000 to keep it as competitive as possible. My opinion the new camera will come out before next Christmas, will have everything the 6300 has, plus the most upgraded video, most upgraded focus, IBIS and BSI. Will cost close to $1500 body only.

Just a small difference being Samsung bodies didn't sell very well and Sony A6000 was a best seller. Apart from that minor detail the situation is exactly same.

Yeah just the small factor of Samsung leaving the camera industry due to poor sales.

"Sony aps-c is on life support."

Interesting statement since the A6000 was and is one of the best selling ILC's, period.

I think Sony have been heavily concentrating on full frame recently because it has been so well received and they are determined to keep their hold on the market once the inevitable rivals start showing up. APS-C has been a little neglected as a result but now that the full frame line up is so strong I wouldn't be surprised if more resources are freed up for APS-C again. The A6000 was a best seller, Samsung is dead. I would be amazed if there wasn't new additions to the crop lens line up on the way, I think it has just been on the back burner for a while and judging by A6000 sales it doesnt look like it's done them any harm.

"Sony doesn't turn a profit off its camera sales (they make money off licensing their sensor technology to other brands instead), but the money made from a6000 sales reduces their operating costs and allows some of it to be channeled back into R&D"

Their financial report wholeheartedly disagrees with a healthy 12.3% operating income margin for Imaging and a 4.7% loss respectively for Devices (which is mostly semiconductors). With the following positively contributing to the result of Imaging:
"an improvement in the product mix of digital cameras
reflecting a shift to high value-added models"

I doubt the discounted price fighter that the A6000 currently is, is the main driver behind such a profit increase.

Essentially, sales from the a6000 represent a huge monetary value, but they're used to cover the costs of manufacturing other lines, like the RX1/10/100 series and A7II for example. The a6000 by far outsells any of said models, which aren't selling enough to cover back their production and R&D costs.

It's already stated here that the a6000 is Sony's best selling camera, and they're claiming it's the best selling mirrorless thus far. Someone I know working at Olympus claimed this as well, and there's little reason he'd want to share that information about a competitor if it wasn't true.

The a6000 sold very well because other than the triple dials, it was basically the NEX-7' with a betterfeature set at a lower price. As an APS-C system it was priced cheaper than any comparable M4/3 system (Panasonic GX7 and Olympus EM-10), as well as entry level Canon and Nikon bodies. The a6000 is still the best overall mirrorless for its price.

for a posing subject is good! Do not get me wrong. It is on events where people turn around and you want to focus on the head. Eye auto focus would not do that good in such cases.
A6000 is a nice series to have but try to understand the limitations as well.