kisvakoncl: OMG.. so impressive! I'm sold!I'm going to dump my snappy DSLR and all my top lens right now..<thinking...thinking>
Wait, no way! I might wait for the A6<insert actual numbers> Mk<insert actual re-realease mark with bugfixes & minor upgrades> end of this year, the easily another "Camera of the Month" by Sony!..with more 576 AF point and more 12fps burst, etc. which finally will make all DSLRs useless bricks.. LOL!
Fooled once, not again Sony, not again! :)Sorry Sony, my wallet remains closed.
Come on, you can do better!We all waiting for the A6666Rs+ MkIV to finally match up with DSLR's...
@kisvakoncl -"But those who still carry, carries with a good reason.. :)"
I see those reasons as being less and less with every passing year. Already, I don't use my DSLR gear much anymore.
"When they solve all the stupid problems of milc, maybe will be on pair with DSLRs.. but we are still far from there to be honest."
Still far from there? I've been conducting an experiment on myself, living with both DSLR and mirrorless gear for the past couple of years, just to see which gear I reached for the most. I overwhelming use my mirrorless gear the most often. My DSLR gear, not so much anymore. "Still far from there"? I think we're already there, or very close to there. In fact, one of the reasons I mainly use my MILCs is for the things that they can do that my DSLRs *can't* do (face detection AF, focus peaking, focus magnif, exposure preview, smaller size, etc). In many ways, DSLRs need to be able to "get there". That's been my experience.
vesa1tahti: Again a touch screen camera. The best property of touch screen is the fact that it can be turned OFF. When doing that, I believe this is a very good camera to use.
First of all, the A6300 doesn't have a touchscreen.
Secondly, there's nothing wrong with a touchscreen. A good touchscreen interface works great! We live in a smartphone and tablet world. Do you not have a smartphone with a touchscreen? Or do you turn OFF the touchscreen on your smartphone, LOL.
Olymguy: As I said before and there where many people having the opposite view (telling about camera is about heart and and Sony doesn't have it etc), Sony will take over the market from Canon and Nikon.
I remember people saying the saying dismissive things in the early days of the Canon EOS system: that a camera is about "heart" and Canon EOS cameras don't have it, while Nikon F cameras do. They dismissed Canon EOS cameras as being all about fancy technology, not about "heart". Now they are saying the same dismissive things about Sony.
bboy8888: So you buy mirrorless for the light weight and put a 2 lb 24-70 zoom on it?????
@ ekaton - The D5500 is an entry-level DSLR. It only shoots 5fps, has only 39 AF points, doesn't do face detection while using the viewfinder, doesn't do 4K video, etc. The A6300 has a full magnesium alloy body, while the D5500 only has superficial top and back magnesium plates.
My main street shooting setup is a 35mm f/1.8. Look at the size comparison of the D5500 vs A6300. The A6300 is significantly more compact and less obtrusive. And weight-wise, it's 112g lighter, with considerably better specs and performance.
To go smaller and lighter with DSLRs, you have to use entry-level bodies like the D5500 or Rebel bodies. What the A6300 offers is a full high performance, high-spec APS-C body comparable to something like a Canon 7D MKII or Nikon D500, both high speed sports cameras capable of 10 fps and fast AF tracking that are MUCH heavier and larger than a lowly D5500.
Neodp: Terrible menus, weak flash, over priced everything. Doofy style. Nay.
Way to kill some good new benefits.
@Neodp - time to take your meds. You're rambling. Or maybe you're self-medicating in a way you shouldn't be. Haha.
Jostian: so the lenses are weather sealed but not the camera... pity!
I've shot with my A6000 out in rain. It survived just fine. It won't withstand shooting in a hurricane, but it can handle light moisture just fine. I'm sure the A6300 will do even better.
Andy Galeati: No sense in having a small camera if their lens lineup doesn't have pancake like lenses. I understand one of its strengths is its small and affordable but I've never felt comfortable using a lens twice the size of the camera body. Im sure the line will be diverse in time.
Why do lenses need to be "pancake"? I regularly use my Sony 35/1.8 OSS on my A6000. This lens is very small, only 155g. In comparison, the Canon 35/2 IS lens about twice as large and twice as heavy (335g). The A6000 with 35/1.8 and hood mounted is smaller and lighter and take up less space than my Canon 60D DSLR body alone! I don't need or expect every lens to be a "pancake". Pancakes are often slower (f/2.8). Sony's lenses like the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 are compact and light, even though they are not "pancake".
GCHYBA: If it isn't pocketable, wouldn't an SLR make more sense?
SLRs are still a lot bulkier and heavier. It's still a significant factor even when carrying your gear in a bag. Your bag ends up heavier and bulkier.
Peter Mathews: The a6000 was popular for one major reason. It was cheap for what you got, almost a giveaway. Will the new a6300 be as popular at it's introductory price? Time will tell but, my speculation is that it will face head winds of resistance.
Th RX100 justified a premium price based on the fact that it had no real competition. At the a6300 price point, one has to consider many more options such as the Nikon D5300 and Canon 760D DSLRs which are smaller and more feature rich than their predecessors, not to mention recent offerings from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic that have more sensible lens lines.
The lack of a competitive kit lens in the Sony line will hurt sales dramatically. Buying an a6300 with the 16-50 kit lens is like buying a new Jaguar with bias ply tires.
@Jostian - the lens is removable. You can use other lenses with the A6300.
dynaxx: "And for its full-frame range, Sony introduced a new lens class: G Master. "
Just in case this comment above is taken literally, the 3 new "G Master" lenses will work well with any "E "mount camera including the A6300.
@Rick Knepper - why would it be a waste on the A6300? I come from the Canon world, and we regularly use premium full-frame Canon L lenses on Canon APS-C bodies. Canon doesn't make an APS-C 70-200/2.8 lens. Neither does Nikon. Neither should Sony.
A pity people don't read the article before commenting.
The lens is removable. When you don't need that particular lens, you can mount much smaller and lighter lenses, such as the superb Sony 35/1.8 OSS, which is small and weighs a mere 155g.
You also have to keep in mind that the A6300 has specs comparable to (or better than) something like a Canon 7D MKII. That camera weighs 910g. An A6300 weighs only 404g. Even with a big lens mounted, you're still going to have a much lighter and more compact camera than a 7D MKII with comparable lens mounted. In other words, you'll still enjoy an overall lighter-weight kit. That's why I've switch from DSLR to mirrorless, especially for travel. Even with big lenses such as the Sony 24-70/2.8, I'm still carrying less bulk and weight in my camera bag. You really have to consider the cumulative sum of all your gear. From personal experience, I can tell you that there is definitely a net size and weight reduction.
I think it's a bit silly to compare the A6300 to lower-level DSLRs such as the D5300 or the Canon 760D/T6s. Those cameras can't do 11fps into a 22 frame RAW buffer with continuous AF, nor do they have 425 PD AF points across its entire frame, nor do they have 4K video, etc. The A6300 is more comparable to something like a 7D MKII, which sells for $1500. As for comparing against Fuji, I don't think Fuji can compete with the Sony's AF and video performance. As for Oly and Panny...smaller m4/3 sensor.
As for the "lack of a competitive kit lens" hurting sales, I find the Sony 18-105 f/4 to be a really nice lens. And the kit lens is still a great option for general shooting. I have the Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 for me X-E1, and while it may be a "better" kit lens optically, I still find myself using my A6000 and 16-50 kit for more often because of its compact size and lighter weight. Not everyone is a pixel peeper. It certainly hasn't hurt A6000 sales "dramatically".
I own Fuji, Canon, Sony, and Olympus bodies. There are pros and cons to all their menus. There is no perfect menu. I don't find the Sony menu to be all that much worse than others. As for the "weak flash", I've actually bounced that little flash, and it does fine. In fact, there's a seller that even makes a bounce card for it:
But you'd have to be an idiot to dismiss a camera based on the power of its pop-up fash! LOL. As for it being "over priced", I think it's a fair price for the level of performance they pack into it. And as for "doofy style", not everyone buys cameras to be used as fashion accessories.
marike6: Oh wow, another Sony NEX E-mount body for almost double the price of the A6000, the same atrociously bad kit lens and perhaps the least inspiring lens lineup ever produced.
Sony E-mount has a good selection of lenses, especially when you also consider the high level of adaptability of Sony cameras. There are a lot of great manual lenses being made for E-mount (such as the SLR Magic 50mm f/1.1 for only $350). As for the kit lens, it's a kit lens. Great for general and casual shooting in a compact package. I've shot plenty of great images with the kit lens simply because it allows me to have the camera and lens with me most of the time thanks to its ultra compactness. In most cases, you'd never be able to tell that these images were shot with the kit lens, unless you are an anal pixel peeper who cares more about looking at corners at 100% magnification rather than looking at the entire image itself. As for the A6000, it's a great buy. But the A6300 is more on par with something like a $1500 Canon 7D MKII. After all, the A6300 is a powerhouse 425 AF point camera that does 11fps with continuous AF into a huge buffer, for only $1000.
Donnie G: Nice spec sheet, low price, and very vocal fan base. Now it's just a matter of how many people will actually buy this wannabe Rebel beater? Let the games begin. :))
Wannabe Rebel beater? It destroys any Rebel! I think it's more on par with a Canon 7D MKII. Considering that a Rebel T6i only does 5fps and can only buffer 6-7 RAW shots, it doesn't get you very far. The A6300 shoots 11 frames per second with continuous autofocus and exposure tracking, has 425 AF points, and has a huge buffering capacity. I think the A6300 would easily give the 7D MKII a run for its money, especially considering that the A6300 is $500 cheaper than a 7D MKII. And as a Canon user, I'll even be using some of my Canon lenses on it.
Favorable Exponynt: No touch screen. No sale. No ibis no sale, no battery life no sale really for $1000 they should be able to make a more complete camera. They don't even need to put a mirror or a pentaxprism in it nor 3 or four motors operating it all. Only the physical shutter still reminds of a real camera. :p
"Only the physical shutter still reminds of a real camera."
Because a camera isn't a real camera unless it has a touchscreen and IBIS?
Siobhan A: Take away all the unproven marketing hype and the only real difference between this camera and the A6000 is 4K and 120FPS video. Since the A6000 has been on sale for $400 recently, one must decide if they want to pay an extra $600 for a similar camera.
What is the real deal breaker I see is the lens situation. For the past couple of years it hasn't improved and instead of the F/2.8 zooms and affordable portrait prime lenses, Sony is announcing rather large $1800, and $2400 lenses without IS. They'll work on a $400 A6000, but not many people with that camera want 2 really large lenses that lack IS and cost over $4000.
Yeah, just ignore the stronger magnesium body, better AF system, new sensor, better EVF, silent shooting mode, etc! Sheesh.
But the A6000 is a great buy. For those who don't want or need what the A6300 offers, just get an A6000. Great camera for $500.
Your DSLR won't be "useless", but it will still be a "brick", at least in size and weight. :)
I'm a long-time DSLR user myself. I know my DSLRs have not been rendered "useless" by mirrorless cameras such as the Sony A6300. However, I have chosen to use them less and less, because I've chosen to opt out of carrying around the brick weight my DSLR gear. Just my choice.
Don Diafragma: Ok, by watching the video I know enough.Using this camera is like playing a videogame from the mid- 80's.
Its totally true that Sony camerass feel like operating a computer instead of a camera.
You sound like a grumpy old man.
I am a long time Canon DSLR user, and I also now use Sony mirrorless. As far as I can tell, they both operate like cameras and computer, because that's what they both are. If you really, really hate the notion of a camera being a computer, you should go back to using film. Digital isn't for you.