peevee1: 10GB, huh? What it can do a $10 16GB USB stick cannot?
@peevee1 - I'll take redundancy wherever I can get it. And it's even better when it's automated redundancy, which happens without me lifting a finger. That's where the technology is headed. And none of this has to *replace* anything you're currently doing. It's a supplement. That's the point of *redundancy*. So stop freaking out. The addition of cloud storage doesn't mean someone is going to take away your local physical drives. It's like people who were so against adding video to cameras, because they feared it would somehow take away from still photography! All these things are *supplements*!!! Use it if you like, ignore it if you don't, but it's great to have these options! People are so paranoid, geez! As far as I'm concerned, another cloud storage option is just another "feature" I can use as I wish. But the "features" I currently know and love are still there. No one is throwing the baby out with the bath water! LOL.
Mark Forman: I have over 14TB of images and Canon offers just 10GB free.Let me see now. That means that I will have to pay for the remaining 13,990 GB of storage with them.I don't think so.I store backups in mirrored form and have offsite storage as well on Smugmug which has been doing this for years without issues.
You're being an "all or nothing" extremist. There's nothing wrong with using cloud storage to *supplement* local physical storage, especially if you are traveling and can't get to your physical backup storage. No one says you have to keep *everything* there all the time. If I'm on a trip, I love being able to upload a chunk of images to the cloud, to back up my local physical media, until I can get home and put it all onto mirrored drives. I'm not freaking out over the notion that I have to have 14TB's of cloud storage!!! Get some perspective, man! I'll take redundancy anywhere I can get it!
RichRMA: Buy 2, 3 terabyte hard drives for $150. One for images, one for back-up. To heck with the "cloud" and the hackers.
Local storage is okay, but local storage *plus* cloud storage is even better. You can never be too safe. There are plenty of people who have thought that their local back up was good enough--- until it wasn't. People who say "to heck with the cloud and the hackers" remind me of people who think it's better to keep all their money in the form of physical cash stored in physical locations (stick it all in a few mattresses!) rather than depositing money in a bank.
Time to join the 21st century, people. We're not living in the Stone Age anymore. We live in a connected world, with increasingly connected devices. Right now, as soon as I get home, my smartphone connects to my network and automatically starts uploading any photos or videos I too with my phone to the cloud-- all without me lifting a finger. That's what future cameras will be doing. Then, if you want to manually download your images to a local drive, you can do that, too. But wireless automation of cloud syncing is great!
Are you seriously comparing cloud storage to a USB stick? LOL. A USB stick, just like any physical storage device, is a single physical unit that can be lost, stolen, or destroyed. Furthermore, cloud storage is a means to supplement physical and local storage. Plus, you can share from cloud storage a lot more easily than you can from a USB stick. Also, the beauty of cloud storage services is that you can automatically back up or upload to them. As more and more devices become "connected" devices, these auto backups will be more and more a part of our regular lives. For example, when you get home, your camera can detect your wifi network, and it will automatically start uploading images to the cloud, without you lifting a finger. Auto backups are going to save a lot of time and hassle, not to mention a lot of photos that might otherwise be lost. A USB stick is still something you have to consciously plug in and transfer images to.
Leandros S: Polycarbonate is cheap **** (self censored). You really want metal. The lower price is a second hint that the megapixels may not be up to much.
Jeez, what century do you live in? Polycarbonate is a fantastic material. It's tough, shock resistant, and durable. Why do you think people buy polycarbonate protective cases to put their metal body smartphones in? LOL. Polycarbonate also feels better in the hand, IMHO. I *much* preferred how the iPhone 5C felt in my hand over the 5S. But I opted for the LG G2, which also has a polycarb body. It feels great in my hand. Very impact resistant. I'll take polycarbonate any day. Time to join the 21st century, old man.
Rod McD: Why is not having a touch screen a "con"? It's just a statement of fact. It seems that the position being adopted is that all cameras SHOULD have a touch screen. Sure some people like them. There are others who don't. I personally don't want a camera that does have one and this would put the A6000 higher on my list.
@new boyz - even if it did have a touchscreen that allowed you to choose the AF point, you would still be able to select focus points the "old fashioned way". So there's nothing wrong with giving users a touchscreen. And yes, touch focus is a *much* faster and more convenient way of switching focus points than the "old fashioned way." Touch focus + touch shutter is an even faster way to get a shot!
Plus, your comparison to typing on a touchscreen isn't apt because typers generally like tactile feedback when typing (i.e., being able to feel the keys of a keyboard while typing), which a touchscreen keyboard doesn't give you. But that has nothing to do with selecting a focus point on a screen because there's never been any key pressing when selecting a focus point. It's always been about getting a particular area of the screen to "activate" for focus. And being forced to use a wheel or buttons to select what part of the screen you want to "activate" for focusing is arcane, and slow.
Jogger: With touchscreen on real cameras, you either go all touch or no-touch. The in-between creates a lot of headaches in practical use.. esp. with a built-in EVF. Commenters crying about lack of touchscreen have no intention on buying Sony in the first place.
This "all or nothing" attitude is non-sense. Sometimes, you want to use touch, and sometimes you don't. What's the big deal? If I'm shooting video or shooting stills off the LCD, I like using touch focus to change the location of the AF point. That's so much easier and quicker than trying to do with with fiddly secondary physical controls. Then, when I want to use the EVF, I switch to using physical controls. Again, what's the big deal?
BigJ2013: Who wants or needs a touch screen! Dumb thought to think that one is actually required. Even Audi & Lexus has done away with that annoyance and use other means of navigating the menus.
Yeah, and I can't wait until smartphones and tablets get rid of touch, too! LOL.
Touch is definitely *not* dumb. Your thumb is already right there next to the screen. It's totally logical that you should simply be able to touch graphical buttons on the screen...just like you do on a smartphone. What's "dumb" is that you have to use secondary controls (like buttons or dials) to interact with the primary information on the screen, when it would be easier just to interact with the screen directly.
caravan: Seems like a good product.pleased that it does not have a touch screen,biggest con for me is the articulating LCD.
Thanks for the review.
I think every camera should have a touchscreen, and eventually I think every camera *will* have a touchscreen. Touchscreens are a totally logical progression in human interface. Why use a secondary control interface (like a button or dial) to interact with the screen when you can interact directly with the screen? It reminds me of when ATMs and electronic kiosks didn't have touch and you had to use a track ball and buttons to navigate around the screen. Annoying! Imagine if tablets and smartphones didn't have touch, and you had to use a trackball or buttons to navigate around their screens! Yes, at one time we didn't have touchscreen technology, so we had to rely on secondary buttons and dials to interact with a screen's information. But that is no longer the case. At least give us the option of touch.
As for an articulating screen, if you don't need it, leave it closed. And when you do need it, just flip it out. It's a proven and reliable feature, just like a pop-up flash.
It's just a lot harder to do street photography when you're lugging around a big honking DSLR. DSLRs really sticks out like a sore thumb. That's what's so wonderful about mirrorless cameras. They are so light, compact, and unintimidating. It makes you less of a target for theft, too.
justmeMN: For comparison, the Canon SL1 /100D DSLR is 8% narrower, 5% shorter, (20% thicker), and weighs 7% less than the Samsung NX30.
So much for the size advantage of mirrorless, at least in this case.
I'd recommend you take a look at the top-down comparison of these two bodies:
What mirrorless does is get rid of the large "dead space" of a DSLR. i.e. that large central volume of space required for the reflex mirror and mirror box. As a result, the flange focal distance is only 25.50mm on the mirrorless NX, while it's a whopping 44mm on the Canon SL1. That's why, once you mount a lens, a mirrorless body feels so much more compact. That's because the midsection of a mirrorless body is so much narrower than that of a DSLR. So your numbers are a bit misleading. A mirrorless body can give still give you a fairly beefy grip, but still offer a slimmer body because the slimness is at the midsection (i.e. at the lens mount). The SL1 downsizes by sacrificing grip size, but you still have the fat central portion of the body required for the mirror box. As a result, once you mount a lens, DSLR ends up being so much larger than comparable mirrorless.
zerlings: 2 refinements would make this camera the perfect camera (maybe Mk4) for me:
1) 24-100mm2) touchscreen
@GodSpeaks - People who are against touchscreens should go back to 1999. I mean seriously, someone is actually against a touchscreen on a smartphone? LOL. Yeah, touchscreens on smartphones are so poor, they'll never catch on! As for your need to be "impressed" by a touchscreen, what do you need to be impressed by? A touchscreen is merely a surface that allows you to activate an action using touch. Do you also expect to be "impressed" when you touch a physical button or turn a physical dial? LOL. "Wow, I touched that button, and I was REALLY IMPRESSED" LOL. Buttons and touchscreens are a means to an end. And touchscreens are a far more flexible and adaptive means to multiple ends.
So I guess you're predicting that touchscreen smartphones are a passing fad, huh? Because they are so "unmpressive", huh? Yeah, can't wait for the next generation of phones that are entirely comprised of physical buttons!
Eugene232: great but boriiiiiing camera
There are no boring cameras, only boring photographers.
Pat Cullinan Jr: EVF? Sold! Hope it doesn't fall off, though.
If the first iteration had offered an EVF, it would've been reasonably exciting. Can't help feeling that the III is mildly anticlimactic. Did someone say boring? With 9 digicams in the sock drawer, I'm jaded. I'm torn -- should I buy the III, or should I enter a monastery in the Egyptian desert?
Join the monastery.
Thomas Traub: It is typical for Sony that everything they can't do based on the knowledge of photography they do with an higher afford of technique.They built a great cam with great technical data.But in a slippery body.with a technical great viewfinder, but you have to pull it out and pull it back before you can use it - not comfortable and not fast for fast shoots.Also the flash: you have to put the cam from your eye and pull up the flash.
Sonys approach to photography is from the technical side, they have great technique and put as much as possible in the unit.
The approach of Nikon/Canon & Co is from the side of the photography, they first think on the photographer and than they develop a technique ....
That's the difference.
Beside my Nikon DSLR-Eyuipment I love to use my Fuji X10 because of the manuel zoom - that's also a realy fast lense that is fast to use and in the same way I use my DSLR - great from the point of view of a photographer (also it has not the same IQ than the Sony).
Of course, there are some people who will look for any excuse for why they can't take a good picture! Especially if every little thing on the camera doesn't happen automatically for them! "What, I have to pull up the flash?! That' makes it totally unusable! I can't take a photo if a camera requires that kind of work?!"
Kodachrome200: Its really cool but the problem with this and a lot of compact cameras is that here is no easy way to select a focus points. its either full auto or center point. It needs adirectional pad or a touchscreen or something that one could work with to focus it
Unless a compact camera has touch focus, I always just use the "center-point/focus-lock/compose" method. It's a tried and true, classic method that photographers have been using for decades. Plus, directional pads tend to be a bit tedious to use on small compact camera bodies, especially during shooting.
Robert Wise: Wonder why Sony have deleted the Mark 2 hot shoe on the Mark 3 version? I know the Mark 3 has a EVF but that is not the only reason for using the hot shoe.
It's not difficult to understand. Just look at the top-plate real estate!
The pop-up viewfinder takes up space. The pop-up flash takes up space. That doesn't leave any space for a hot shoe. There's just not enough room for the viewfinder, flash, and hotshoe on such a compact body. And of these three items, I think Sony realized that the hot shoe is the least used item amongst people who buy a compact camera. After all, the whole point of having a compact all-in-one camera is to have it all in a single compact camera. A hotshoe flash tends to be incongruent with this all-in-one-body ethos.
Leiduowen: Still no time-lapse recording? Sony, you're not listening!
Time-lapse recording? "There's an app for that." And that's how it should be: people should be able to download apps to their cameras to supplement or improve upon the OEM software/firmware.
chj: Does Sony not know how to make a touchscreen? Otherwise this looks to be an ideal street camera.
We live in modern times now, where many of us have come to realize just how nice it is to have a touchscreen. Touch focus and touch shutter are two very valuable features that I've come to appreciate. I find it particularly effective for street photography. It just looks like you're fooling around with the settings, but you're actually spot focusing and shooting.
RichRMA: With ISO capabilities what they are today, why would you need a tripod collar on a lens with a maximum 200mm focal length and stabilization? Night shots?
Comfort. For long spans of shooting, I like putting my Canon 70-200/4L on a monopod, using its tripod collar (which is an optional extra, just like on this Tokina). No need to hold the weight of the lens and camera. The monopod does it for you. And the tripod collar allows you to easily switch between vertical and horizontal orientations, which you wouldn't be able to do if you mounted the monopod to the camera's tripod socket. Plus, the tripod collar puts the monopod at a more balanced center-of-gravity location, which improves handling. I love having a tripod collar for my 70-200/4L. It was definitely worth the extra cost.