It is very frustrating to see this A6300 announcement ..... because it looks like a great camera and yet the APS-C lens selection from Sony is so underwhelming. Lens selection was the big issue when I had an A6000 and nothing has changed even now. It works fine as your second camera with a couple of primes. However if you want to use it as your main system camera its far too limiting. Interestingly the full frame FE lens lineup is looking a lot more complete in a short amount of time (apart from the price) whereas the APS-C lineup has been mostly stagnant despite starting many many years ago. Given what they have done with the FE lineup in a short amount of time they obviously have the ability to build a good APS-C lens lineup if they put their mind to it. However they only seem to focus on building bodies on the APS-C side with lens development way down the priority list.
joelR42: Wait. You an't use the touchscreen to navigate or review images? That seems really odd.
@Stones420: I am as big a fan of the rear wheel as anyone and it is indeed the fastest way to scroll I have experienced on any camera (and I have used virtually all brands). Where the touch screen works very very well in playback is not for scrolling. Rather it is a much faster way to zoom to a specific point of the image and/or to move around to go to different parts of the image when it is zoomed. It is much faster and more direct than using the physical controls. There are many areas where manual controls work better. This is however one area where touch screen is superior and Canon already has a great implementation of that on some of their cameras. So it is a strange omission. Btw with all due respect the fact that you have been a 27 year pro doesn't mean much when we are talking about a feature you have never tried :)
@Stones420: But joelR42 is not talking about stills shooting, he/she is talking about using touch screen during image playback. It is very odd why they would not allow using touch screen at that point. Specially considering that some of the lower-end Canon's including the EOS-M have very good implementation of touch screen in image playback.
QuarryCat: class leading AF-performance?You never tried a Panasonic GH4 with tele, or Canon 5DSR with tele or Nikon D4s with tele....
Samsung AF was a step forward but it is by far not class leading.
QuarryCat: Class leading means it is being compared to cameras in its class. Are cameras like Nikon 4Ds in its class? The cameras in its class are 7DII, D7200, X-T1, E-M1, GH4, etc. And while GH4 is great in single shot mode, it is not great in tracking which is where NX1 does much better
iAPX: the best EVF in it's class, but still a new technology called "OVF" offer no visible lag, 100% sRGB and 100% adobeRGB coverage, an incredible gamma curve (nearly that of an human eye), more than 20 IL dynamic range (!!!).
Anyway the NX1 is dead, at a price that is near Full Frame Canon & Nikon DSLR, without this incredible OVF technology, that help framing and shoot in the exact moment. Without lenses. Without any future.
PS: The NX500 based on the same exact sensor, but at a price competitive with the Sony A6000, is an incredibly great camera (as the sony!). This is *NOT* against Samsung or it's sensor, it's against crazy pricing of NX1, and arrogant behavior of Samsung that think it could compete with full frames without any lenses (and even with that, 28MP in APS-C size is a problem in itself in terms of noise and lens real-world resolution, the only thing perfectly resolved is sensor noise ,even at base ISO!).
I don't understand the price comment. It is $300 cheaper than 7DII , yet it matches the 7DII in AF performance, beats it in FPS, has similar buffer depth, has higher resolution. It also has a substantially superior sensor to 7DII, and matches the best APS-C camera sensor in D7200, which by the way also costs the same as NX1 despite having significantly lower specs than the NX1. And to top it off, it also has internal 4K recording, a feat matched only by Panasonic GH4 ($200 more), A7rII and A7sII. So we have a camera which combines together the capabilities of 7DII, D7200, and GH4 in a single camera and yet is the cheapest of them all, and yet you think it is expensive? I just don't know what to say on that.
Silmarion: 50K images in 1 year and not a single one that struck him. Well, he surely does something wrong then. Just from my last trip I got at least dozen that struck me. And BTW I wasn't even shooting staged scenes like this Von guy. I guess to someone photography is a competition rather than a hobby.
@Silmarion: Have you considered the possibility that he might have set higher standards for himself than you have set for yourself? It is not about competition. To really excel in a field you need to have that hunger where you don't easily get satisfied with small achievements and are looking to be the best that you could be. And yes the 50K images are the ones he shot in his first year before he found his style. As for being staged, yes they are staged. And it takes a lot of creativity and resourcefulness to envision, stage and execute shots like that. Talk is cheap. Come back after you have successfully executed a staged shot like that and then we'll see.
Does this mean that A7II will now do PDAF with LA-EA3 adapter? I would be much more interested in buying into the A7 system if I could use A-mount lenses on it with decent PDAF. (Not interested in LA-EA4 due to light loss etc).
ozdean: With that viewfinder overlay dial and all the other goodies this has to be the innovation of the year.Release will be March I'm guessing they are waiting for sony to release the 42mp BSI to themKnobs are placed so you don't have to take your eye from the viewfinder to adjust overlay settings - all we asked for and more.
Traditionally both Nikon and Pentax have extracted noticeably more out of Sony sensors than Sony does in its own cameras. So lets hope they get their hands on the 42MP sony sensor and take it to its fullest potential.
Lofote: Oh my good that second mode dial to select what to change (ISO, HDR, etc.)... Why does anyone think this is a good control? I mean, there is a reason Sony stopped this after Minolta did it for upto Sonys own (still largely Minolta developed) A100... It is not practical, as it is not good to use blindly.
@Lofote: You are missing the point that the many of the controls on that dial still have their dedicated buttons such as ISO, exposure compensation, drive mode etc. It is not taking away any of those traditional controls, but adding even faster access to some of the controls.
Marcelobtp: Hybrid viewfinder rumor?
@Digimat: The issue is not placement of the LCD. The LCD can be anywhere. The issue is that the sensor itself is behind the mirror. So the light can't reach the sensor if the mirror is down. You could either get the Optical viewfinder path or the main sensor live view, but not both. Unless, of course you use a semi-transparent mirror or a light splitter to get some of the light to the sensor and some of it to the OVF path. But again you will have the same issue of dim viewfinder, and also get sub-optimal sensor live view.
@Digimat: The basic principle that you are describing was used by Sony in some of their alpha DSLRs (I am not talking about the later DSLTs, but some of the earlier DSLRs). IRC they called it secondary sensor live view. It was neat (I had it in my Sony A580 DSLR), however it had a couple of major disadvantages. First some of the light had to be taken away from the optical viewfinder and directed to the live view sensor. That meant that the optical viewfinder had to be smaller and/or darker. Second issue was that since the live view was not coming out of the main sensor so it was low resolution. Which meant specially that if you want to zoom in to say do accurate focusing, you couldn't. A third issue was that unlike the main-sensor live view where you directly look at the captured sensor data and thus get 100% accurate focus if you use live view, in the secondary sensor live view, you face the same front/back focus issues as you get with PDAF.
Horshack: The universal mount is a Smartphone.
@T3, Horshack is trolling. As they say 'don't feed the troll'
String: Just waiting for the inevitable posts...
This guy knows nothing! No pro would EVER use an EVF, let alone a mirrorless!
@Temporel: The "real viewfinder" i.e. the OVF is actually a hinderance for studio work, not a plus. It is far easier to fine-tune your composition using the LCD. And you don't need adapters with mirrorless because they have native lenses like DSLRs do. However what Brian is talking about is that he had a large collection of lenses sitting idle with him because he couldn't use it any longer but mirrrolress has allowed him to put those to use.
BostonC: Is dpreview.com on a mission to save Samsung? If you have any input, tell your korean buddies to make the NX more attractive but not cheesy. Definitely not clunky. Add dont forget add a good evf on NX700.
No they won't. You probably don't get what I am describing. I am talking about keeping the camera down at your chest or waist level instead of hanging it up in the air. Thanks to the flip LCD you can still look at the recording. So your body is now between the camera and the people behind you so no one gets disturbed. And the camera is also no longer between you and the performance. So you are free to enjoy the performance and at the same time record it without disturbing any one. This is how I capture my daughter's ice skating shows for example.
The LCD on cameras like NX500 (and A6000) swivels up and offers a better solution. Instead of holding up the camera with LCD facing people behind you, you can flip the LCD up and look down at the LCD while capturing the video. Again I would much rather have the ability to look at the performance with my eyes as well while making the video, instead of having to watch the performance through the EVF all the time as I make the video. And being able to look at the entire scene is a great plus when recording a large performance with multiple performers. We all have our preferences, but after years of using EVFs, I have developed a preference to not use them very much.
I have used a large number of mirrorless cameras starting from the first mirrorless Panasonic G1, going through olympus, samsung, canon, all the way to my current Sony A6000. In terms of controls and ergonomics I rate the Samsung mirrorless as being towards the top in the group. In past they lacked in sensor performance and AF / general operation speed. Now that they seem to have fixed that, I would rate NX500 as a highly desirable mirrorless camera. As for EVF - well I was an early EVF adopter with Panasonic G1/GH1. However over time I now think EVF is overrated. I prefer the greater flexibility of using an LCD where I can keep eye contact with my subject and still look at the LCD for composition, instead of having to hide behind the camera looking through the EVF. I would gladly take the beautiful LCD displays of the samsung cameras over the small LCD of my A6000. I rarely use the EVF of my A6000, and when I do it is mostly because it offers a larger view than the small LCD.
Jokica: Why would owners of A7R II needed SpeedBoster anyway. Why would they need adapter with PDAF ???
CDAF is generally superior to PDAF for accuracy. Mirrorless cameras with on-sensor PDAF typically use a hybrid scheme where they use PDAF to quickly get in the vicinity of the right focus point and then use CDAF for final adjustment to get high accuracy.
iAPX: I don't understand the choice between uncompressed/losslessly compressed/lossy compression of Nikon. At this point, only Losslessly compressed as sense.
Sony seems to like to offer wrong choices only: uncompressed/lossy compression. You either loose at lot of storage space (and have impact also on continuous shooting), or image informations.
There should be one and only way, losslessly compression. And 1 menu item less to understand :)
Hopefully dpreview could confirm with Sony if there is indeed a lossless compression option?
"Sony's cameras have only recorded compressed Raw files which can have a visual impact on some images" ...
@DPReview folks: you guys know enough to recognize that it is not compression that causes visual impact, rather it is the "lossy" compression scheme used by Sony which causes the visual impact. What we need is not an uncompressed RAW, rather a loss-less compressed RAW which reduces file size without throwing away any data.