SmilerGrogan: When is Sony going to produce a sensor that does 16-bit images. We're never going to compete with the medium-format people using our mediocre 14-bit pictures.
pkcpga, the difference isn't due to 16 bit. The difference is due to larger sensor on MF (more light) and larger pixels.
You will not see any improvement even on FF (let alone on APSC) by moving to 16 bits. See this article
16-bit is just waste of space (cards) and speed (slower buffer and slower burst) for zero gains.
You won't see any difference in image quality as 14 bit is more than enough to record all the data captured by the sensor
Sony, Red, and others also have 16-bit video cameras but that too is just pure marketing. Nothing more.
jazzblueAE: Cons: "USB charging makes it hard to keep a spare battery charged"
Am I the only one that doesn't understand this being listed in so many camera reviews as a con? Even if they HAD included a stand-alone charger (which would admittedly charge much faster), you still can't charge two batteries simultaneously, and is equally as inconvenient. If you choose to buy spare batteries, you should be buying spare chargers as well or it will always be "hard to keep a spare battery charged."
The only consideration I could see is if you are shooting with the camera, and a spare is charging at home, but then that's not very useful as a spare battery, is it?
Richard Butler wrote: "Being able to USB charge can be handy but if the camera doesn't include an external charger, then you can't have a second one charging while you shoot"
This sentence is bogus, dude. The camera doesn't also include a second battery so you don't even have a second battery that you need to charge. If you are planning to buy a second battery, you can buy a charger with it as as both the battery and charger are about $10
pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.
pkcpga, you are posting nonense. As far as image quality goes, Nikon isn't better than A6300. In fact, Nikon isn't even that better than 2010 cameras like K-5 and Nex5n. As I said, there hasn't been that much jump in image quality with bayer sensor since 2010.
If the reviews were only about image quality, why would you need a camera review anyway? Just read the numbers on dxomark, and take a note that D7200 is better by 1/3 compared to 2010 cameras, a difference that isn't perceptible to human eye.
DPR has posted this bogus con for years now. Anyone who buys extra battery can buy a charger with it. Third party ones are 10 dollars and include extra battery.
You won't see any difference with 16 bits as even for A7R II (much larger sensor than APSC) 14 bits is enough to capture all the DR at pixel level. See this article:
HowaboutRAW, This says a lot about your credibility if you think A6300 is 2 stop better than cameras like D7000, K-5, A580 when even D4 is hardly 2 stop better than these 2010 APSC cameras. Given you believe something this stupid, tells us a lot about your credibility.
However, you have always been a clown on this website, given you also think lenses produced color and that D4 is a stop better than A7s. You have no credibility. You are simply a clown on DPR.
The difference between 2010 sensor and 2016 sensor isn't more than 1/3 stop. We are at peak of what can be achieved with a bayer sensor so it's idiotic to expect much change in image quality, and indeed there is just 1/3 stop change since 2010.
pkcpga is clueless if he expected a big jump in image quality.
No, you are the joke. There has not been a lot of change since 16 MP sensor of 2010. The difference at best has been around 1/3 stop.
NickyB66: Not as good as the X Pro 2 in most areas, but a decent effort by Sony.
X Pro 2 weighs 1 ton? I won't buy it. It's useless. Too heavy even for my truck.
Cameras are not rated on image quality alone. Image quality on cameras have not changed much (at best 1/3 stop according dxomark) since 2010. Even more importantly, if cameras were only rated by image quality, most cameras will score same as most cameras use the same Sony flagship sensor. It was same story 5 years ago with 16 MP Sony sensor that was used in 20 or so cameras by different companies.
There is a a lot to a camera than just image quality.
Also, we are at peak of what can be achieved with bayer sensor, so its idiotic to assume if you expect to see a large jump in image quality when that has not been done for 6 years.
jesus_freak: Sony is marketing this as having "pro-grade" video capabilities, but the usability regarding focus is anything but.
A fly-by-wire manual focusing ring, CDAF, and no touch screen make it difficult to do ANY follow focus/ focus pulling effects (manual or auto).
Pro video people don't use AF.
cgarrard: That is something Sony needed for a while now, too bad they couldn't have done this when they acquired Minolta :).
LOL @ A600. I remember that false rumor, clickbait, by cgarrard. Minolta cameras were already dead (1% marketshare) before Sony.
ttran88: If it weren't for Sony sensor advancements, Canon would have been perfectly fine offering their old sensors.
tkbslc, no 12 MP sensor had more DR than Canon and was rated higher on dxomark especially in cameras like D90, Kx and others.
Sony's 12 MP Exmor Cmos sensor (D300) was released in 2007. It was better than anything Canon.
rrccad: lol.. this story.
I don't know maybe the fact that they haven't released a new camera in over a year, and any new lenses in over 20 months may be a hint?
or the fact that they shut down samsungcamera.com in January?
or the fact they pulled out of photokina?
does anyone REALLY need to reach out to samsung and ask?
The Photokina website is not updated with 2016 exhibitors and booths. Even if it turns out Samsung would pull out, you are posting hot air from rumor sites.
No, he used a past tense to describe photokina. Samsung was at photokina in 2014? No one is wagering bets on future.
Siobhan A: "Most of what I shot using the 16-70mm was up at ISO 6400 or beyond and frankly, looked pretty noisy and unappealing."
Sony is still a long way behind where no defunct Samsung was 2 years ago. With no affordable F/2.8 zooms, and no sub-$1000 F/1.4 native lenses, they can't compete with a cheaper Nikon, Pentax, or even a higher resolution NX500 in low light. The $1000 A6300 body with those native F/4 zooms is comparable to cheaper M43 bodies with much smaller F/2.8 primes.
From what I have seen from unbiased reviewers so far the A6300 is still behind the NX1 and GH4 for action and not close do a decent Nikon.
If anyone is wondering, Siobhan A appears to be account of banned M4/3 troll (Everdog, JustHavingFun, etc banned) who uses several dozen accounts
That's his typical standard anti-Sony rant that he has been doing for 5 years.
2016 Photokina is in Sept. You are posting in March.
Admit mistake when you get your simple facts mixed up.
There was no photokina in 2015
yahoo2u: Interesting how this is marketed....1" sensor, no evf, with a high price....Nikon went down this road with the Coolpix A, a moderate fail... even though the A had a APSC sensor.
"it was competition to Rico"
No, it was not. Coolpix A was released first. Ricoh GR a few months later, with cheaper price, killing Coolpix A.
BigOne: I have to note one observation I've had over the years. I never saw a "Pentax fanboy". Pentax customers never start holywars about their cameras on any forums. They never brag about fastest this or largest this. They patiently wait for new models, pick lenses for the oldest mount on the market (since 1956!!!) and just enjoy what they have. That's what I call loyalty.
Not a single post from Pentax fanboy? LOL. Yours was the first . JimC1101 was next, and then 420deimos. There are tons of Pentax fanboys on DPR. I would even go and say that there are more Pentax fanboys than Nikon fanboys, despite Pentax having much lower market share. And it's been always like this for at least 10 years. Back in 2008 and 2009 a website did camera of the year poll, and Pentax fanboys went berserk and were promoting the poll on pentax forums and blogs like crazy.
Here were results:
2008 Pentax K20D - 70% | 11014 votesPentax K200D - 5% | 814 votesNikon D90 - 3% | 588 votesCanon EOS 5D Mark II - 3% | 555 votes
And same poll in 2009 for camera of the year.
Pentax K-x - 30% | 562 votesPentax K-7 - 23% | 432 votesNikon D3S - 18% | 341 votesCanon EOS 7D - 15% | 289 votes
"there are no Pentax fanboys on the internet" lol -- when things are total opposite.