2eyesee: Is anyone else getting rather cynical about Sony's habit of keeping old cameras on the market to justify charging a premium for their new tech?
There's no way this camera should be viewed as anything other than a replacement of the A6000. Just as the RX10 II should have been a replacement of the RX10 and the RX100M4 a replacement of the RX100M3.
I don't disagree that the A6000 is a bestseller, it clearly is, but there's a huge difference between sales and profits. Especially when the A6000 was relatively cheap to start with and received good discounts on top of that, vs cameras like the A7RII (also residing in the top 5 to top 10 of mirrorless bestsellers in the US since its introduction) which could easily have much much higher margins.
My point also is, the A6000 has been a bestseller for much longer, recent price cuts aren't going to explain a surge in profits. Increased sales in the FF market through new (higher margin at the start of the lifecycle) could.
"Sony doesn't turn a profit off its camera sales (they make money off licensing their sensor technology to other brands instead), but the money made from a6000 sales reduces their operating costs and allows some of it to be channeled back into R&D"
Their financial report wholeheartedly disagrees with a healthy 12.3% operating income margin for Imaging and a 4.7% loss respectively for Devices (which is mostly semiconductors). With the following positively contributing to the result of Imaging:"an improvement in the product mix of digital camerasreflecting a shift to high value-added models"
I doubt the discounted price fighter that the A6000 currently is, is the main driver behind such a profit increase.
racin06: I'm looking to jump into an APS-C system. I shoot video and action sport stills. The 6300 certainly fits my video needs and the C-AF technology and burst capabilities are up to par, as well. However, the problem is that Sony doesn't offer any fast telephoto lenses. Sure, I could go with the new FF f/2.8 telephoto lenses, but that defeats the purpose of portability and smaller size. Sony is failing miserably in the lens department.
That may be true, the Canon 300mm f/4 IS is smaller and lighter too, only by a very small margin, but not larger, as many would expect based on the common myth.
I've said this so many times and I will repeat it here again, there will be no APS-C 70-200mm (true focal length), for the same reason neither Nikon, nor Canon has ever built one: there would be no meaningful size difference. As is the case for most longer tele designs when it comes to covering differently sized formats. A good example is the µ4/3 Olympus 300mm f/4 lens with OS. It's longer, larger in diameter and heavier than the Nikon 300mm f/4 with OS, the latter covering a 4 times larger image circle.
Now if you're really asking for a 50-135mm f/2.8 APS-C lens, fair point, but obviously fully unrelated to the fact that the 70-200 still serves a purpose, covering a longer focal length (thus by definition a fast telephoto lens that you said Sony doesn't have) on APS-C too.
Camera Newton: Sorry, but High ISO is still not as good as the Nikon D7200 and not as good as the two year old defunct NX1. The D5500 looks better too. With no affordable F/2.8 zooms or F.1,4 primes, the A6300 still can't compete at high ISO unless one resorts to adapters and other system lenses with restrictions. But High ISO isn't the real problem. The RAW colors and JPEGs look poor at all ISOs.
The studio comparison doesn't really agree:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=nikon_d5500&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=318&x=-0.13284512843984211&y=-1.0420971735974722
You can't beat physics. A small 70-200mm f/2.8 for example, doesn't exist for any APS-C camera and for a good reason.
Greg VdB: In terms of high-iso performance (which I use for astro), there's hardly a reason to make the switch from my 3-yr old 70D. I must say this surprises me...
If the 80D lives up to the rumors of improved DR/high iso performance, I won't be making the switch to Sony APS-C anytime soon. (size is no deal-breaker for me, and the more versatile controls on the 70/80D actually are a big advantage when shooting astro/timelapse sequences from a tripod)
Jim is always a good source for info and I forgot about his finding regarding ISO 12800 and above, good point. At ISO 6400, it's still a bit over one stop in deep shadows, which I find significant (between sensor generations, typically running 2 to 3 years, there's usually less to be found), your mileage obviously varies.
I was reacting to your (negative) "surprise" in the context of the high ISO performance that you described.
If you were surprised, I wonder what you were expecting. >3 stops? ;-)
Deep shadows at high ISO are mostly limited by read noise, which is what the example posted represents. Dark current is part of that, but for astrophotography, the much more interesting test would be one with long exposures. So you're right, no one in here can conclude anything about that based on the source in question.
tsk1979: I think dpreview needs to redo the studio scene. The 55 1.4 lens seems to be de-centered. Without this, the noise comparison is useless!
To be fair, a good copy of the 55mm f/1.8 Z will offer stellar sharpness. Maybe this isn't a good copy, a notorious quality control issue for Sony.
JEROME NOLAS: Sony promised bette lenses long time ago. Where are they?
"Sony aps-c is on life support."
Interesting statement since the A6000 was and is one of the best selling ILC's, period.
There seems to be at least a stop and a half difference in dark current noise at higher ISO's between the 70D and A6300. I don't see the negative surprise here.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos70d&attr13_1=sony_a6300&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=12800&attr171_0=off&normalization=compare&widget=318&x=-0.15375590720663285&y=-0.9304243423577632
It's an f/1.8 lens and decentering doesn't really affect noise.
Gesture: Amazing how huge the DPReview staff now is. Is there a staff page giving each's bio, picture and sample of work. If not, please do so.
Good to see DPReview getting more ambitious with editorial content. Not worried about the next camera case or even tripod. Yet another 18-stop neutral density filter.
vscd: So, they may use the old sensor from the 7D again. That's really a pity and I don't want to defend Canon for this, but they made Pullitzer pictures with that cam back then. Everyone was wet for getting a 7D.... Why the hell shouldn't this be enough for an entry-level amateur body?
This is the lowest DSLR-Level you could get on Canon. What did you expect? A A7S2 Competitor? Good morning.
You're looking at the "screen" tab, which compares equally sized crop from different resolutions, the "print" tab compares at the same output size, where the D3300 was measured to have less noise and more DR up to an indicates ISO 1600.And that has nothing to do with bit depth, because that only helps at the lowest ISO's, provided that the read noise doesn't already limit output further than the bit depth can provide. And that's actually the case with the 7DII (thus those extra 2 bits contain noise really).
Benjamin Kanarek: Why buy this when you can get an amazing Nikon AF DC 105 f/2.0 or the Nikon AF DC 135 f/2.0 which I own. Way too slow to manually focus for my taste.
Here's a direct comparison:http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/135-stf-vs-nikon-135-f2-and-nikon-70200-f28_topic94551.html
Notice how the STF background is much smoother still. And also keep in mind that the Nikon DC only allows control over background orOOF areas, while the STF gives you both foreground and background smoothing.
Looks more like they did a better job of manual focusing for the 1200D shots.
Peiasdf: "...It’s a bit of a surprise that the IMX260 isn’t an Exmor RS sensor, as we’ve been documenting a lot of Sony design wins based on its 1st and 2nd generation Exmor RS technology. It seems the full chip PDAF functionality, which requires dual readout from each pixel, was implemented with a multi-chip solution rather than a stacked (CIS + ISP) solution."
So gained dual-pixel AF but have to give up being stacked. Bigger pixels reduce read noise but not being stacked increase read noise.
Stacked sensors mostly improve readout speed, less so regarding read noise. That's more impacted by backside illuminated tech. See the 3 1 inch sensors from Sony. First was frontside illuminated, second one backside illuminated (lower read noise at higher ISO's), third version stacked for higher speeds (similar read noise).
Catalin Stavaru: I am surprised that people do not realize why the 4:3 aspect ratio was chosen.
It is because in the same lens circle you can fit a larger area rectangle with 4:3 ratio than a rectangle with 3:2 or (even worse) 16:9 ratio.
For a circle of radius R, the area of a rectangle with 4:3 ratio is 1.92 * R^2. The area of a rectangle with 3:2 ratio is 1.84 * R^2. The area of a rectangle with 16:9 ratio is 1.709 * R^2. The area of a square is 2 * R^2, the maximum attainable.
So a rectangle with 4:3 ratio has 5% larger area than one with 3:2 ratio and 12% larger area than a rectangle with 16:9 ratio for the same lens circle.
So the 4:3 ratio maximizes the area occupied by the sensor in the lens circle.
Of course, Apple probably realized this first, then Samsung followed, but who cares :)
It probably has more to do with what's available from Sony. Samsung was already using 4:3 aspect ratio sensors in phones when Apple still had to build its first phone.