BeaverTerror: I remember five years ago when some of the earliest mirrorless M43 cameras were coming out with touchscreens, and the legions of sheep on this site scrambling to point out that they'd never buy a camera with a touchscreen, that touchscreens were for smartphone plebs, and that physical controls were the only way to go.
And now, it's the other way around. Just goes to show that most people have absolutely no idea what they want or need.
You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
You do realise you are one of the sheep, yes?
Joseph Mama: Is it just me or do these new advantages seem really minor?
I mean, how often are you spamming shots and have a desperate need to be able to see whats going on withiin that 2 seconds before the buffer fills up?
Secondly, I guess my 179 Autofocus points was somehow insufficient on my A6000? Having 425 is gonna have a huge difference?
In the meantime, NO stabilization which seemed like a shoo-in feature considering the A7 mark 2. Also, considering many of these lenses dont have stabilization already.
I guess the good news is that I won't be tempted to "upgrade" this year...
"fallaciously misapply the word"
Enough that it no longer holds any meaning in and of itself - IN RELATION TO NAMING OF CAMERAS, LENSES AND OTHER ELECTRONICS - not in relation to it's original meaning.
Seriously, TN already answered all this in his first answer. You can't tell anything from a name.
"In this case, the word "mark" does mean "significant"."
No, it doesn't. In this case, or in your examples. It means line. Whether that line is a significant one, or not, is not included in the word.
I already had that.
Sometimes a MK II upgrade is minor, yes. Sometimes a full number upgrade is minor. Sometimes a small number upgrade is major.
Your perception of this is yours, it's not intrinsically built in to the model numbers.
e.g. My perception of the model number a6300 vs a6000 is that it's not a minor upgrade at all. A minor upgrade would have been a6100.
But that's MY perception, not automatic reality.
Adding Mark II really is no different to changing the last few numbers of a model number ... it's all just your own perception of what you think it means. How about a Mark II lens? That means pretty much exactly the same but slight improvements.
"most people would agree" has not really been the case about many things, ever.
"I mean, how often are you spamming shots and have a desperate need to be able to see whats going on withiin that 2 seconds before the buffer fills up?"
With the a6000, you kind of are just spamming. From the sounds of it (hard to know the truth of it yet) with the a6300 you will be able to accurately track it in real time. Makes it much less spray-and-pray.
"Secondly, I guess my 179 Autofocus points was somehow insufficient on my A6000? Having 425 is gonna have a huge difference?"
Pretty sure there are two main differences. One is the coverage, the a6000's are in the center third of the sensor, the a6300 covers the entire sensor. The other, from the videos anyway (hard to know in real use yet) is that it seems to use adjacent points in an intelligent way, "High-Density Tracking AF" as they call it.
How much of it is actual real-life advances, and how much is marketing bullish*t we won't know until it's out.
Does the a6300 break the card writing speed of ~35MB/sec that all the other Sony cameras seem to be limited to?
BostonC: The videos are nice. The tracking is the most impressive amoung MLI. But if in the middle of shooting video, you want to change the focus point, you have to use the thumb pad step..step left step...step down and recording all the garbage in between, w/o a touch screen to control the AF pt.
"or outright ignorance of its need altogether as is the case here"
Does that mean you discussed it with Sony and they didn't know what you were talking about?
humbala: I am confused.. Isn't a6000 can do 11 fps with continuous autofocus?
"Yes the a6000 can also do 11 fps with C-AF."-ish
meanwhile: Looks impressive.
They had time to incorporate a touch screen, and they should have. Even if it's only function is touch to focus, that would be fine.
"The touchscreen also fires the shutter on other cameras with this feature"
It's usually an option to do focus or focus+shutter, yep. Especially useful in video mode too.
It works great on other cameras benny, you are overthinking it.
CreeDo: Glad to see a lot of people still care about the distinction between composites and actual photographs, and aren't afraid to call this cheating. It's fine to make these images, but both the photographer and people running the contest need to make it clear to viewers, without expecting them to go through the fine print or stretch their definition of the word "photograph".
It's weird to me that anyone argues against this sort of disclosure, or argue that the process is irrelevant. Getting the shot without photoshop help requires planning and waiting, or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Doing it in PS is trivial and not particularly creative.
"Doing it in PS is trivial and not particularly creative"
Well ... there is a blurred line there (not in this example).
Did you see the moonlit landscape shots by Erez Marom in a recent DPR article? They were composites done in Photoshop, skies from one photo, foreground from another, background from another.
I'm not sure that makes the final shot any less worthy.
ttran88: RIP A-Mount and APSC E-mount!!
"APS-C E-mount never where profitable"
Because they kept developing and releasing body after body, new accessories, etc, etc. All that foundation is laid now, and they'll release new bodies and lenses more slowly, but they will be profitable because most of the R&D and tooling spend is done.
"Seems unfair to most of APSC user if they stop producing it."
They aren't going to, they have a huge NEX user base, and there will be cameras and new lenses released this year. They just took a break. 18 months ago people were complaining about how many bodies they were releasing.
"APSC is killed off by Sony."
APS-C E-mount hasn't gone anywhere.