ThomasFromBavaria: I have a question (maybe Richard Butler may answer):
Why had the A6300 shorter shutter-speeds in daylight-scene than the competitors?
Any competitor I have looked at (A6000 A7 D7200 XPro2)
ISO3200: 1/1600 vs 1/1250ISO6400: 1/3200 vs 1/2500ISO12800: 1/3200 9EV vs 1/5000 (or 1/2500 9EV)
In JPEG-mode, the difference starts at ISO400:ISO400: 1/200 vs 1/160ISO800: 1/400 vs 1/320ISO1600: 1/800 vs 1/640...
I always thought you do your tests in full manual mode to ensure ISO+Speed are identical. And then correct exposure in post.
I have a question (maybe Richard Butler may answer):
@dpreview:In sudio-comparison with daylight simulation, the A6300 has at each ISO setting shorter shutter speeds than other cameras. Can you tell me the reason, why?
adengappasami: common. Car that big, even original A7 will focus them in track. Just saying.
same awful music
ttran88: Recount!!! Canon 5D/S should have won!!!
It is a 4 year old camera with an updated sensor.But this year, D5mk4 will be a very good and promising candidate!!!
Jim F: What seems a little strange to me is that there is a 3-minute max on shooting 4K video with the D5, but the D500 can shoot for about 29 minutes plus at 4K. That said, the D500 4K files are split up if one shoots more than 3 minutes or something like that. Just curious that, if the processor is the same for both the D5 and the D500, why are 4K files handled differently?
I am aware that the 4K files are enormous and that there are some practical considerations for vile management and video editing that need to be met. With that said, just wondering why the two cameras handle 4K video a little differently. You would think the D5 would have less 4K video restrictions than the D500. Instead it's the other way around. I'm sure there's a logical reason for all of this, but, given I am no technical expert, the reasoning is lost on me.
funny - the Sony bodies are said to have the opposite problem: The body is too small and has too less surfaces to transport the heat away.
rhlpetrus: Sour grapes from Sonyites abound here. Weird, these are just great cameras, everyone that likes photography should be happy that there are still camera makers, venerable ones like Nikon, trying hard to improve their offerings. How about reading the short text above on AF tracking? This is high-tech at its best.
before reviewing D5(00), remeber: the D810 is still unreviewed........
borno: Ill wait for the D510 : )
Thanks for this post...I was already wondering about a possible name of the successor.D600/700/800 is already used ^^
ZeneticX: before anyone jumps on the hate train and starts saying this is a minor update compared to the 7RII..... thing is why should sony bother?
no camera currently in the market came close to the low light performance of the 7S. Changing the body and adding IBIS will do for now.
LOL - 4K for 45 minutes is not possible because you ran out of batteries much earlier
Makes totally sense.And if the location is blocked, the camera offers you to download an already taken picture instead.And of course you can download a software to fit in the heads of your friends you wanted to photograph...
FodgeandDurn: I'm not sure this is news to many people following Sony. I've long wanted to get a new APS-C E body but it's looking increasingly like a dead system. Sony have a habit of neglecting mounts, and this new jump in focus doesn't really do much to persuade me the new focus of the month/year is going to last. Nikon and Canon commit to a system for at least a decade, Sony could do with giving their other ranges some love, God knows they're making the money.
If I got it on credit I might be able to afford an A7ii, but I'd have to sell my organs to get more than one or two non Zeiss lenses.
Soon I'll have to sell my E mount kit and look elsewhere, their full frame 'upgrade path' just doesn't work for me, and I'm not going to pretend I'm not slightly bitter about the experience and dead-end investment.
@FodgeandDurn:Canon FD-mount existed from 1971 to 1990 - only 19 yearsCanon R-mount (R+FL+FD) from 1959 to 1990: 31 yearsSony A-mount exists since 1985 and even if dies 2016: 31 years
Dont't blame Sony for getting rid of old technology in the long run - Canon did it, too. Only Nikon still uses its F-mount since 1959. But now, F-mount has some disadvantages to Canons newer EF-mount like screw-drive compatibility and mechanic aperture control. Today it seems as it was a good decision of Canon to replace FD-mount with EF-mount.
Sony does the same right now and gives the possibility to adapt its old A-mount lenses. FD->EF adaption caused much more problems. There is no reason to blame Sony for neglecting mounts.
lumigraphics: I had an A850 and loved it. But the shift to EVF killed it for me. Not even considering going back unless they bring back an OVF.
IMO for most purposes EVF will be superior to OVF. Current disadvantages like display-lag will get smaller and smaller until it is negligible, the picture quality will raise, too.Only one drawback of EVF will remain for ever: Eating constantly battery! Not a big thing for casual shooters all. But for wildlife photographers, sitting in a hideout for hours, watching a place through VF, beeing ready for the right moment it is essential that there is as less battery eating as possible.