This camera is the F..k up of the century. Terrible image quality. All shots of the music stage look solarized, no detail in color at all. Acceptable noise till 3600 ISO, at 4000 and beyond it is for the trashcan.
aris14: The only disadvantage I see in this cam is that's overpriced...
you get Pentax FF with kit lens for the same price, so what? Video you say ? FTV.
Dam' right, Sony's A6300 makes a better shot for much less money.
Ingo70: Wow, i expected so much more. I thought while 1600 ISO seems a little high, 51.200 should be ok.But even 12.800 or the examples of 8.000 ISO are worse than i expected.Taking pictures of people in the dark require high iso settings just because they move, even when setting the camera on a monopod.Sport also needs short shutter-times, sometimes 1/800 or shorter in dark environments.So may be my expectations where to high, but in my opinion even my Fuji can deliver more.So maybe 16mpix is the sweet spot for APS-C?In many ways for me the D500 could be a good or even perfect little cam, but not in the high ISO department.
Anything beyond 3600 ISO is for the trashcan. The 12000 ISO out of camera is Sony style washed detail processed. I am disappointed from what I see, i expected much better.
fatdeeman: Looks pretty good all things considered. Decent sharpness across the frame, nice colour and contrast, bokeh seems ok. Distortion is a bit much but software correction can sort that out if desired and with a lens this sharp you won't pay a large penalty in IQ. I see a lot of people mention the chromatic aberration but that's commonplace with lenses this fast.
Overall I think it looks very good for the money and I'm thankful to Sigma that this lens exists at all. They are on a roll with every lens they put out for mirrorless systems being excellent quality and value. In fact they are on a roll with every lens they put out full stop.
For me a 20 would be welcome, Sony seems not to be able to make the one they said to replace the "old" one.
All that makes this camera is the excellent AF system it contains. The 24 mpix sensor is long time overdue, it "grains" already at 3200 ISO, what is hilarious, so no real progression in this direction. When does Sony intends to bring us something in APS-C that could be called an innovation, with IBIS, Touch screen, and a sensor with a few pixels less and higher ISO ability. You can obtain the same resolution of the 36 mpix FF with just 18 mpix in APS-C, so WHY stick to this "old" 24 mpix sensor. I really think that Nikon did the right thing this time. Pixel peeping is over, Sony.
Progman: Again, very impressed with the high ISO capabilities of this camera!
Really ? It's rather poor to my opinion, it "grains" already at 3200 Iso. Nikon's D500 approach, to do a 20 mpix that "draws" 12500 ISO clean, was the way to go, Sony's 24 mpix sensor is overdue and good for the cemetery. All that "makes" this camera is the AF only.
Max Iso: The D500 is about the only crop camera i would consider replacing my D800 with. That AF sounds fun.
I agree, and I shoot Mirrorless since a few years now, but still have Nikon gear, but now, D500 seems a game changer to me. Nikon did what I wanted, less pixels, better high ISO ability, what is a bargain compared to Sony's A6300. There are many situations where i prefer a heavy camera, on others I prefer a light one, but in Mirrorless APSC, Sony has not what I look for, they stick to pixel peeping on one side and ridiculous low pixel count on the other while Nikon found just the right thing in between.
Mike99999: Some observations (disclaimer: I hate Ricoh with a passion).
1. Looks like a very nice body! And very fairly priced. And some of those primes (200/2.8 and 300/4 are really cheap!) Sony lighting a fire under every DSLRs ass has resulted in some nice affordable bodies, like the Nikon D750, and now this Pentax.
2. Sony's 36 mpix sensor seems to be a budget sensor now. I expect it to be popping up everywhere then... e.g. D620, A7III, etc...
Attractive camera, a real price breaker. For me, there are some things Ricoh could have made better, and I do not think that a touchscreen and a USB 3 module had made it much more expensive. For the rest, I has just everything one needs and doesn't needs.
Imagingfix: "tech that may challenge last remaining DSLR strongholds" Please DPReview is there really that many photogs that have issue with the AF performance of their DSLR? I would bet that less than 1% of all photographers would claim to hate their current cameras AF Performance.
I use a Fuji S5, thus with a D200 body and AF, for what I do, I never missed a shot so far. Then I use a NEX-7 with AF lenses and adapters only, and here too, i get what I want. Only problem I have is low light shooting ability, the S5 is far better than the NEX-7, and both not sensitive enough, and A6300 being better, but still not enough better, I will probably go for the D500 which seems to be a real good low light performer, but first I wait tests to get this confirmed. And, take that video crap out of photo cameras and sell them a few hundred dollars cheaper. It is a shame that photographers have to pay video facilities in cameras even if they never use it.
drivecancel: You can also pocket the X100 which has a VF so would still be my choice over these cameras.
With all the stupid things one sees in today's world, people won't even notice it.
kewlguy: I'm sure the X70 is a good camera but these samples are just ugly. Many not well exposed, not carefully taken photos. Pity, maybe because it's not a sony, no oh Wow kinda thing ;)
They are ugly and taken in high ISO settings, that shows us exactly and in all detail what a mess the X-Trans sensor is.
Wu Jiaqiu: i find them pretty grainy for a APS-C sized sensor
X-trans crap, Fuji should put that X-Trans in the garbage, that's the best place for it. Last good sensor I used from Fuji was there Super CCD.
bobfonte: "This site" disseminating information of a Sony engineer (“Distinguished Engineer”) demonstrates that is engaged deeply in Sony's product marketing. "This site" loses credibility and impartiality in its editorial line.
Well, if Sony wants us to stay with the 6 usable and the 2 useless APS-C lenses they offer in e-mount, there is an easy decision to take and that is that we just turn to another brand. Look the lens offer in 4/3 and in X-mount from Fuji, just to stay within mirrorless. Comparing A6300 and Nikon D500 DSLR, the choice between the both is fast done. If Sony stays with it's policy to improve AF only, without much better High ISO facilities, no IBIS and a few other details that could be improved like backside IR sense and touchscreen, no further affordable lenses for APS-C, it will end being just a marginal niche product that just few will buy. Then, why no make a cheaper body without video and improved MF facilities. It was manual focusing ability that brought me to NEX-7 once, so even the fastest AF does not make any sense to me. My MF lenses work for ever, some of therm do the job since more than 45 years now.
Raist3d: Richard- any news if the RAW is lossless?
RAW is compressed ARW 2.3, same as on all other cameras, there is no 14 bit lossless compression format provided, one more reason to forget it. It also has an USB 2.0 port, and 1/4000 th shutter limit, that is ancient stuff, Sony !!!
drivecancel: I see it still uses that awful eyecup...
Don't worry, you lose it within the first week and you forget it after that. They anyway will never learn at Sony, and 10$ for the piece of crap to replace it is robbery pure.
Siobhan A: Take away all the unproven marketing hype and the only real difference between this camera and the A6000 is 4K and 120FPS video. Since the A6000 has been on sale for $400 recently, one must decide if they want to pay an extra $600 for a similar camera.
What is the real deal breaker I see is the lens situation. For the past couple of years it hasn't improved and instead of the F/2.8 zooms and affordable portrait prime lenses, Sony is announcing rather large $1800, and $2400 lenses without IS. They'll work on a $400 A6000, but not many people with that camera want 2 really large lenses that lack IS and cost over $4000.
What Sony does at the moment is ancient Canikon patch work, same old stuff just dusted on some places and much higher price just for almost nothing. Nikon's D500 is to me a real improvement compared to D300, but it took long time to come, and I do not know if this new revided and redusted camera policy every 6 month that Sony does will pay off, specially not if they do not at first target a better APS-C affordable lens offer. Not anyone wants to run a an affordable system camera with lenses that only oligarchs can afford to buy.
TheWhiteDog: I know this is nuts but it could be a very viable idea. We know the weakness of this system is lenses, we also know that Fuji(with their brand new, 400 million dollar lens making plant in the Phillipines) has lots of lens making capacity, and, much more important, a line of highly regarded lenses. So, Fuji should make their lenses available in the SONY mount also, can you imagine how many a6300 users would buy the 56mm f1.2 lens? I know what you are thinking, this would be suicide for Fuji's cameras, but I don't think so. Those interested in the XPro2 or the forthcoming XT-2 I doubt would be interested in the a6300 and vice versa. The controls are so different and they are aimed at totally different buyers that I doubt this would have any effect on sales of either, the handling, menus, control dials etc couldn't be more different. SONY would get a cut of the increased lens sales and Fuji would have a great revenue stream(beyond INSTAX) for their photo division.
How about one single mount for all DSLR and one mount for all APSC MLC systems that just any manufacturer uses. If that happened, we would live a real competition in lens marketing, and all manufacturers could improve their sales in lenses. It is unbelievable that the 4/3 policy can not be applied to the other systems and an interchangeable mount will certainly not be a problem to realize so that one can use old mount system and universal mount on same camera, just the same as you change an adapter at the moment. This mount proper to manufacturer policy really sucks.
If I compare what A6300 has more than A6000, and if I look at what it has not and many awaited to find, I see not valuable reason to change from one to the other. Same reworked sensor for better AF, some improvements in VF, and moist sealing, is all it offers more, for a lot more money. And still no Ibis, no touch screen, no better high ISO values, no tri navy system, no bigger battery. Well, let's then wait and see, the real improvements all in all occurs at Nikon in this moment, D500 seems to offer more and since I ow both systems, i thing that my choice to upgrade goes towards Nikon, this Sony A6300 does no offers to me what I was awaiting from Sony. Possibly I am not the only disappointed one in this matter.
Adrian Van: Google the following - Mythbusters Episode 104 to show why all these photos can actually be all True. They examine all the critics with tests. Including reflectors left on moon by astronauts proven true in a laser test. Interesting read. Video of microgravity test also true and not high frame rate film slowed down for moonwalk, as the motion is different than high speed film slowed down. Love watching the Mythbusters show.
Looks like we made it! or at least a few select astronauts did!
Mythbusters, hahahahaha, you made my day, man.