Hugo King: DPReview is good at killing GAS. I thought this might be a nice camera, but there is nothing I've seen that makes this a worth the price. Time will tell if noise is as bad as it looks in the samples on all these sites, but the pictures overall are not good looking at all. If the tones and backgrounds are grain are always going to look like that, forget it. Sony is great a gadgets, but still don't understand the art of Photography.
Not just AF, the video quality as well.
Those images are already using the "best-in-class optics", does the image quality looks best-in-class for you? It certainly doesn't look that way for me. I agree about the gadget thing.For eg, the A7Sii was design for video, but see how it compares with another camera.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXtVEZyyzss
Absolutic: However the image quality is not in the same league with rivals which have LP filter removed: Fuji XPRO2, Samsung NX1, Nikons D7XXX. And Sonys own full frame cameras. I am talking about sharpness and detail, and talking from experience of shooting over 20,000 shots with A6000 (I don't see pic quality improvement in first samples of A6300 posted). At web sizes reduced for facebook sharing, this probably is not as critical, but for pixel peepers, the image quality of cameras like XPRO2 is quite striking in terms of overall sharpness and detail.
On the other hand, from AF stand point, there are very little of any rivals.
Now, if Sony could remove the low pass filter, this would be a monster!
In reasonable light, the AA filter-less Samsung 28mp BSI is actually as sharp if not sharper than my Sony A7. So yeah, sensor without the AA filter is good stuff.
DannyDoi: Sony A6000 vs Sony A6300 vs Fujifilm X-Pro 2
completely different focal range. Also the test is more about comparing lens than sensor.
PKDanny: Who buy Samsung NX system???? DPR buy?? LOL.
I do. Along with Sony A7 and Fuji XE1, but I use Samsung NX500 the most, imagine that. Even stranger still, I actually found the image quality the best of the three. Weird world indeed.
Emadn13: sony a6300 photos are so impressive,this new sensor is so amazingbut i think DPR cant take picture,go and check other sites and photographers samples
Here are some from IR, also with G lens. It looked a bit better but nothing screams quality in those images. I think the G lens can not resolve the small pixels from the apsc sensor while it might be ok for a FF which is what its design for.http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6300/sony-a6300GALLERY.HTM
jcbmemphis: The beach picture at the top of this list is almost fuzzy looking on my spot sharp iMac....not sure why, but all of the images look only so so. Wanted to like this camera so much....a family member had been saving up for it and is really unhappy with what these look like.
I wouldn't say fuzzy, but its a far cry from being very sharp. Considering its from a G lens and the price, this photo sample is really screaming "Don't get this lens on the A6300"
2eyesee: Dear Sony,
This looks like a nice camera, but I'm not sure why you bothered because you can't seem to offer a kit lens that I can use with it that isn't complete crap.
If the idea was for me to purchase bulky and costly FE lenses, then you really have completely lost the plot.
Aggrieved APS-C e-mount customers
Samsung also has a 16-50PZ. Here is my test A7 kit and Samsung PZ kit test. The PZ match the A7 kit in center sharpness and outshine it at the edge.https://www.flickr.com/photos/80630092@N07/albums/72157658933267806
Why not compare it to Fuji and the now uncertain Samsung. Both have some high quality zoom. Even the lowly Samsung kit can kick the Sony FE kit, and the Fuji kit zoom is even better.
Marcelobtp: 16-70 f/4 terrible quality. Noise reduction is kicking bad on 1600 up.
Here is a test on A7 & FE28-70 vs NX500 & 16-50PZ, the center is similar but the edge goes to the Samsung small zoom. So the FE kit can hardly be call excellent.https://www.flickr.com/photos/80630092@N07/albums/72157658933267806
If you check DXO Zeiss 35/2.8 drops to only 11mp when put on the A6000, this is the same sharpness as the Sony 35/f1.8. Why would one pay so much to use a FF lens but same results as apsc lens?
Yeah, the FE28-70 is pretty bad at the corners, I've done a test on that. But how is the FE 28-70 great on the A6300? DXO shows it only gets 8mp sharpness on the A6000, hardly call great and same as any other kit lens. I don't see a point of using it on an apsc camera.
RJB138: $1148 for body + 16-50mm kit lens??? Add $350 for 55-210 = almost $1500!. Glad I am not an early adopter.
I bought the a6000 with 16-50mm lens + 55-210mm in early December - $700! That also included extra Sony battery, Sony charger, Sony screen protector and $50 gift card, worth about $180. Money saved helps pay for trips to actually use the camera and take photos.
G lens is for Sony FF. There is little point of getting a FF lens on an APSC sensor.
Hugo King: YUCK.Sony must have the worst jpeg engine these days. Colors are awful and high ISO lost all detail to mushy NR.I know the limited # of enthusiasts will should RAW, but I bet over 90% buying this camera will exclusively shoot jpeg. This camera's jpeg engine will do them a great disservice. If Sony doesn't improve it, there are numerous cheaper cameras and other mirrorless cameras which will produce better jpegs for those prospective buyers. I don't care what features it might have, if the OOC images are worse than other $1000 cameras, forget it.
For the lens, I believe uses the best lens available. Sony Zeiss and G lens, and still ...
thx1138: The high ISO jpg's are frankly appalling, painterly mush. The RAW's better be 10x better.
I agree, the high ISO are not great. I wonder if it's like Fuji, the increase in MP also increases the noise. While Samsung 28mp sensor uses BSI to mitigate the noise problem due to smaller pixel.
piratejabez: Might just be ACR, but I'm really not a fan of the color rendition...
Neither am I. Adn I have the A7. Imagine-Resource shows Sony has a fairly high Hue Error. I wish DPR would test color as well. At least for the Standard JPG.
Any reason there are no landscape shots at 24mm? Just wonder if it has the same edge softness problem as the Zeiss 24-70mm at 24mm.
Looking over those images, it might be me, but there seems to be something lacking in those photos. The rendering of the images seems a bit flat for a full frame sensor. The contrast/microcontrast and color doesn't really standout either.
King of Song: I don't understand why Sony would bother to develop this lens, when the super excellent Zeiss Batis 85mm 1.8 is available?
Sony should be working on some longer much needed focal lengths that are absent from the line up. How about a 300 2.8 Sony?
For APSC, actually there is the Samsung NX 85mm f1.4.
nerd2: Fake ISO helps.
Let's just say if I use M mode and use the same aperture/shutter I would get a darker image from the Fuji.