PKDanny: Which lens you use?
Every photo has the lens info displayed on the right :)
dqnielg: No touchscreen? Very disappointing. One of the best parts of using a mirror-less with a touch screen is QUICKLY selecting the focus point for certain situations.
Same thoughts as me salsaguy.
The A6300 has most of the features I want while the A5x00 series does not. It's only missing a touchscreen, basically.
Zandalee's analogy is silly. It's not like I criticized a DSLR for having a viewfinder--it would make sense for the A6300 to have a touchscreen, while it wouldn't make sense for a 911 buyer to want 4 doors.
Eugene232: price is ridiculous.. who will by this camera for $1100 while Olympus PEN-F with smaller sensor costs $1200 or Fujifilm X-Pro2 costs $1700?
I see that a lot of people on here don't understand sarcasm.
No touchscreen? Very disappointing. One of the best parts of using a mirror-less with a touch screen is QUICKLY selecting the focus point for certain situations.
pannumon: These are cheaper alternatives to the excellent f/0.95 MF lenses by other manufacturers. Bravo!
And they'll probably be optically superior, to be honest.
Samyang has been making some great stuff, recently.
dqnielg: looks like a winner in almost all respects. i love the size, inclusion of more direct controls and an EVF, the improvement over the GX7 for video, and many other aspects of this body.
however, the rated battery life is atrocious. surely, with the improvements in power consumption seen in the mobile computing scene, we can expect some improvements in our enthusiast cameras. oddly shaped lithium polymer batteries that are engineered to maximize capacity while still fitting the constraints of a compact body would help, and i'd be willing to pay more for the extra R&D and production costs.
"I didn't say lithium polymer batteries could not power a camera."
they use less space than standard lithium ion batteries yet have the same capabilities when it comes to power delivery. you said "they also have to be able to produce and handle the required power for the application." i'm saying that's a straw man argument since they can handle the power requirements of a camera just fine.
"I'm guessing that that wasted space between battery cylinders is not significant enough to make any real difference especially considering additional costs."
your guess would be wrong, if the paradigm shift to their usage in portable devices is any indication. there's probably no market more critical of battery life and portability than smartphone users, so engineers in that market use them despite their slight added cost. they can pack greater energy density into small, ergonomically shaped electronics. mirrorless cameras would see the same benefits, so it would be prudent to follow suit.
"Cell phones use less power than cameras."
1. cell phones have faster SoCs, higher resolution screens that consume more power, and GPUs. so if cameras are consuming more power, we should ask why.
2. even if cell phones use less power than phones, how does that help your argument? lithium polymer batteries are capable of powering laptops and even cars; they can power a camera just fine.
"As I said, the battery compartment is already filled with the battery so if you are talking about molding custom batteries inside the camera that's just not feasible."
within the casing of a camera's l-ion battery there is wasted space; it's comprised of cylinders inside of a cuboid. in addition to wasted space within the battery itself, there is wasted space inside the grip of a camera because a grip is never exactly cuboidal. it's generally rounded or a trapezoidal prism. this, again, leaves wasted space that a cuboid lithium ion battery cannot occupy but a lithium polymer battery could.
"I'm not sure there is much they can do to maximize a camera batteries shape, it's already a tight fit."
they could do a lot, since the current batteries are essentially generic cuboids.
cell phones are smaller than mirrorless cameras, and yet can have batteries with 3 times the capacity. using lithium polymer technology allows uniquely shaped batteries that can fit the abstract contours of a camera's internals, which would maximize the capacity of the battery. there's a reason high-end cell phones and laptops have moved to LiPo.
looks like a winner in almost all respects. i love the size, inclusion of more direct controls and an EVF, the improvement over the GX7 for video, and many other aspects of this body.
I bet a lot of work (lighting, processing) went into making these shots passable. The same amount of work put into shots taken with a real camera would have resulted in much more appealing images.
really good timing.
Nathaniel George Weir: So heres the mega pixel count for Nikon cameras.clueless picture taker: d3200 24.2 Megapixelsamateur: d5100 16.2 Megapixelssemi-pro: d7000 16.2 Megapixelspro: d300s 12.3 Megapixelspro: d800 36.3 MegapixelsVery pro: D4 16.2 Megapixels
So why would nikon put an obsurdly large megapixels sensor in a $700 camera? Because Nikon know that people who buy these budget consumer cameras, shoot in the green box mode (auto), and are too stupid to understand that having so many megapixels doesn't make you take better pictures. Most people assume that if you have more megapixels, then your camera is better and you are a better photographer. 95% people that are in the market to buy a d3200 won't print photos that are bigger than 8x10. There's a reason that the D4 has 16 Megapixels. Because real pros that take great pictures don't need a camera that has 16 Megapixels. I have printed a 24x36 print from a 12 Megapixel and the print quality is fine. I doubt that people who will take
Now what, exactly, did he say in his harmless post that made you decide it was your prerogative to belittle him? This is just a discussion about camera gear- there's no need to insult anybody.
Ashley Pomeroy: It's a shame they couldn't build the wireless thing into the body. That's the way things are going. I've always maintained that entry-level photographers generally *need* pro-calibre cameras; they need fast, reliable autofocus to capture their kids, they need excellent high-ISO and flash metering for parties, and they need a built-in wireless transmitter to get the photos to Facebook. Until recently the only cameras that could do those things were pro-level, but now things are changing.
Entry-level camera buyers are essentially photojournalists, taking and sharing images of real life - maybe not whilst being shot at, but real life nonetheless. Something that future generations might relate to. Rather than boring seascapes and awful HDR rubbish that will die and be forgotten. The amateurs and the pros are alive; the people in the middle - with their tripods and graduated filters and waffling blog posts about their workflow - they're the dead ones. Dead inside.
I'd rather look at a picture of a seascape than a picture of somebody I've never known and don't care about. To each his or her own.
against it if even to preserve from extinction?