marc petzold: The A6300 really deserves optically from IQ-terms a much better "kitlens" than the average, mediocre SEL-1650P Powerzoom lens. Please, Sony! It was already not a good match onto the A6000 & NEX-6 predecessors.
I like my 16-50 too. It is super compact, which means I can get it into the Lowe bag (with shoulder strap and belt loop) that will otherwise only fit with the 35/1.8. This means I will actually have the camera with me when I'm out with the family and I still have both hands free when I need them. The best camera is the one you have with you and for me the 16-50 makes a meaningful difference in size to the point where I will actually take the camera with me. If I want better quality and/or shallower depth of field and/or better low light, I use a prime lens. I also have a RX100, which is quite a bit more compact and has higher resolution sensor. It too has it's place, but the picture quality of my Nex-6 with the 16-50 is perceptively better, which makes it a worthwhile choice if size is not at an absolute premium
vidcam: I bought 3 of these when they came out. My intention was to use them for shooting inside of cars on reality shows. I thought I could rig these up and shoot scenes using this camera as I would use a go pro for dialogue scenes. Well I was disappointed, it only records for about 20 minutes before it overheats and shuts down. That may seem like a long time, but I have never worked with a "reality" producer that says cut. So 20 minutes just does not work for my needs. The record button for video is poorly designed. The kit lens is difficult to use and not very good. The menu is more difficult to use than any camera I have put my hands on. When your in manual there are still functions that are operating on auto. I am sure I could get better at it, but overall I am very disappointed. I really wanted to like this camera, but to use it requires a large investment of time to learn the menu and navigate quickly.
A lot of production crews shot with the original Canon 5D back in the day. It would overheat within a matter of minutes and so they kept a cooler with a bunch of bodies nearby to be able to swap them out as needed. You are faulting this camera for it's known limitations. Is there another camera that does what you are asking and does it better? Maybe you should accept the limitations and learn the menu. Ultimately, that's what any photographer/videographer should do. And while you are at it, customize the buttons to make it your own. It might help to take it with you throughout the day, shoot some and tinker with the menu until you are familiar with it. If you don't want to deal with any of this, stick with the go pro. That's what it is for.
Hmm, might still be early days for the EF lens line-up but this is shaping up rather nicely. Give it a few more years and it will be one heck of a full frame system. Let's hope that they will keep on expanding the E mount lens line-up with some bright quality glass as well.
Jonathan F/2: What's the point of mirrorless if the lenses are the same size as DSLR lenses? Sony doesn't even have proper pro-oriented repair facilities like Nikon or Canon. At most these will be expensive toys for the well-heeled, amateur tech geek who likes to match their Sony TV, PlayStation 4 and Sony Alpha camera! Their idea of serious shooting entails sipping Starbucks ordered at the drive thru and shooting urban blandness of generic suburbia!
@nologoeither Zeiss ZM or Leica Rangefinder lenses work great on E and EF-mount Sony bodies so no need to reinvent these lenses - they already exist.
Peter Mathews: The a6000 was popular for one major reason. It was cheap for what you got, almost a giveaway. Will the new a6300 be as popular at it's introductory price? Time will tell but, my speculation is that it will face head winds of resistance.
Th RX100 justified a premium price based on the fact that it had no real competition. At the a6300 price point, one has to consider many more options such as the Nikon D5300 and Canon 760D DSLRs which are smaller and more feature rich than their predecessors, not to mention recent offerings from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic that have more sensible lens lines.
The lack of a competitive kit lens in the Sony line will hurt sales dramatically. Buying an a6300 with the 16-50 kit lens is like buying a new Jaguar with bias ply tires.
I'm just curious if any of the people that constantly comment about the 16-50 kit lens being optically challenged actually use it and speak from first hand experience. I use the kit lens for general purpose and it's fine. My biggest complaint with it is the fact that it distorts a lot. I shoot raw and correct in Lightroom, but even corrected some pics look unnatural along the edges - overall it's not a big deal, though. If I wanted a better zoom lens, I would buy the Zeiss 16-70 of G 18-105, but so far, I didn't feel the need. I might get the 16-105 for the longer reach eventually. When I shoot portraits of my kids or do more dedicated work, I put a prime lens on and the quality of the pictures leaves nothing to be desired. It seems that Sony/Zeiss has most of the common focal lenghts covered with relatively fast and decent prime E-mount lenses that are comparatively small so that you can have a few with you and swap them as needed. Not sure what these people are complaining about.
fact is amateur tech geeks like to sip Starbucks ordered at the drive thru and shooting urban blandness of generic suburbia
Had some coupons at Best Buy that were about to expire and couldn't figure out a thing to get there, so decided to get this camera for snow/beach play and other fun stuff with/by the kids. Was hesitant with built in battery, but then again, I still use the original battery in most of my cameras after years of use and they still perform OK, so I decided why not. And yes, I mounted it on a helmet (and on an off-road RC car). It's a ruggedly built fun toy and does nice little clips at a fairly high resolution that entertain the kids. It's very intuitive to use and for my purposes it works great.
FL0: ....or you could build a system around a mirrorless ILC (either micro 4/3 or APS-C) with respective (not FF) lenses to keep bulk down and keep it as a second system alongside the FF you might or might not buy in the future. I find that unless you need very shallow DOF or need to shoot low light/high ISO, or are a pixel peeper, there is no need to schlepp around a FF body/lens these days. And unless you are on a professional assignment (and maybe even then depending on what it is and what your client expects you to have) the advantages of a lighter more compact system can outweigh the slight compromise in picture quality that goes along with it. You can always keep the FF body/lens in the car (Mercedes, BMW or Audi preferrably) to show that you are a professional and/or can afford it. And if you can afford the FF system you surely can afford a RX100 to have on you pretty much all the time for the casual snapshot and such. The best camera is the one you have with you.
yes. my comments were based on using APS-C sized sensor as a starting point. APS-C makes a lot more sense to me in smaller mirrorless bodies than in DSLR sized bodies. There is a significant bump in quality (and a noticeable reduction in noise at all iso) when going from 1" (largest compact) sensor to APS-C, more so than when going from APS-C to FF IMO, but you may disagree. I often carry both when I'm on vacation or out with the family, a compact RX100 to cover standard zoom range and a Nex-6 (APS-C) with a prime lens for portraits and such. It's still a lot less bulk than carrying a single FF DSLR. Shooting RAW and with a little tweaking in Lightroom I am usually happy with the results either way - happy enough to take a wait and see approach to other formats for the time being.
....or you could build a system around a mirrorless ILC (either micro 4/3 or APS-C) with respective (not FF) lenses to keep bulk down and keep it as a second system alongside the FF you might or might not buy in the future. I find that unless you need very shallow DOF or need to shoot low light/high ISO, or are a pixel peeper, there is no need to schlepp around a FF body/lens these days. And unless you are on a professional assignment (and maybe even then depending on what it is and what your client expects you to have) the advantages of a lighter more compact system can outweigh the slight compromise in picture quality that goes along with it. You can always keep the FF body/lens in the car (Mercedes, BMW or Audi preferrably) to show that you are a professional and/or can afford it. And if you can afford the FF system you surely can afford a RX100 to have on you pretty much all the time for the casual snapshot and such. The best camera is the one you have with you.
My personal decision came down to OM-D vs. NEX-6 as I was looking for a pocketable solution that maximizes picture quality and minimizes bulk. I opted for the NEX-6. I know it didn't even make the short list here and I know the arguments for the OM-D. But after learning first hand what the NEX-6 can do, I am convinced it was the right choice for me. Focus peaking with MF lenses works like a charm, it has enough customizable buttons, dials and screens to not have to deal with the menu (which isn't all that bad after all) and you can use your cellphone to share files instantly via email/text/Instagram or any other app you can think of. That's not to mention its video capabilities or the open system that allows you to use virtually any lens (legacy or otherwise) via adapter. No other camera I know of shows this kind of versatility. Here's to hoping Sony/Zeiss will put their money where their mouth is and come out with enough quality (PDAF capable) lenses to make this a quality system.