nic22: Looking at the studio scene for the a6300 vs Olympus E-M10 (or Fuji XT10 or a6000), the Sony always looks worst. Whether it's with bright or low light, JPEG or RAW. The a6300 pictures look washed out and lack detail. Take a look for yourself if you don't believe me, in particular the playing cards in the upper right corner.
The a6300 only starts looking as good or better is when you jack up the ISO like crazy.
How is that possible given the differences in sensor size? How does this square with the good reviews I see around for the a6300??
It also depends what mode you are looking in. I tend to use COMP rather than FULL or PRINT.
That's a long way from "the Sony always looks worst". :-)
Faces have more detail, bottle label is better, money is better, and also, playing cards at the bottom are much better from the a6300. It's only the top cards where the E-M10 looks better.
You are right about the playing cards. For some reason the E-M10 makes a better showing with those. Looking at every other aspect of the scene though, the a6300 bests it by a decent margin. Corners are much better, text on the paint tubes is much better, sketch is much better. ISO100.
(unknown member): are you crazy to post pictures of people smoking ?
One can be a genius, and yet be foolish.
You, my dear, are a pedant. A time-wasting one at that.
"It's my body and none of your business. Same goes for the nanny state. Freedom, can you live it?"
If you smoke, you are an idiot. Plain, scientific fact. Freedom has zero to do with it.
Trump! Trump! Trump! Pack of whingers.
Awesome, so you'll be paying the 10's of thousands for the chemo drugs too. Freedom, can you afford it?
"I am not forgetting, the costs were calculated and the result is, obese people, people that smoke or drink, they cost the state less than the healthy people. Check the stats."
At no point did I talk statistics, but that's complete bulls**t anyway.
The human cost, having experience in oncology, is enormous. You can lie to yourself all you like, smoking is a stupid, pointless, selfish act.
Juck: As someone pointed out on thedigitalpicture site,,, the exif on provided samples pics prove the samples have been extensively, almost comically, photoshopped.
It was my grammar I was having a go at. :-)
"that's are available" ... awesome grammar me, bestest job.
So just download the RAWs that's are available ...
" They must not destroy their health so that they can stay alive and keep paying taxes"
It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat lung cancer. It's also a horrible, disgusting death. Intense pain, sorrow for the family, and wasted energy that could be used to treat patients that didn't get there through their own negligence and selfishness. But hey.
km25: The Nikon 105mm f2.5, that was a very sharp lens. This lens looks to be well make, at least in performance. I had a Leica R8 and there 100mm 2.8 micro. I had a picture very close to one you have here. I feel as if the Leica lens was sharper and had better out of focus the this lens, but not a great deal. seems like a nice lens. But so may companies are producing good lens now a days
And the Nikon 105mm DC (Defocus Control). Different lens than the Nikon 105/2.5 discussed here though.
sporanox: Iso 1600 appalling photos. Sony will not have my money.
Took the ISO1600 RAW into Capture One. It's beautiful. What's your issue exactly?
Mariusz Potocki: Great news! Sony here I come with my Canon lenses!Thank you Sigma!
Sigma and Canon mount *Sigma* lenses, and only 15 of those at this stage seem to be fully supported. It just depends what fully means.
I'm not sure that it supports Canon lenses. Does it, Rishi?
Gesture: Deconstructs? Tear-down? Disassembly?Not as titillating I guess.
Disassemble? DISASSEMBLE DEAD!
M1963: Why would I want a camera on my credit card?