ttran88: Not even a plastic award? You guys must really dislike canon
Because the article was written *before* it was published, based on the briefing we'd had.
We only discovered it didn't shoot Raw at the point of announcement. At least, that's how I remember it.
Mlumiere: The reasons why I bought this video camera are, broadcast quality video in a compact, self contained package, including a 305-Mbps 4:2:2 video codec, a 24mm-280mm zoom lens, and access to the same color profiles used on Canon's professional Cinema EOS cameras at a reasonable price. The XC10 is capable of delivering very good video results.
Hybrid is justified. Just as in cycling you can get hybrid bikes that are toughened-up road bikes and hybrids that are lightened mountain bikes, here we have a high-end video camera that tries to shoot stills (rather than the stills cameras that try to shoot video that we usually encounter).
However, we agree that 'Bridge' isn't the same concept in this case and have removed it from the article. (I'd only seen it in the headline and thought it was referring to it having a 10x zoom and looking a bit like an old DSLR-like superzoom).
ThePhilips: In FireFox and Chrome the "Scoring" is not visible, and the score of XC10 is also not displayed in the "recently reviewed" pane on the right.
Hmm. We're not sure how that happened.
It should now work.
nathanleebush: You guys were much too delicate with this monstrosity. "Not so good for: photographers who require RAW file support" .. What is this, 2003? How did the A6300, which seemed to fall from the heavens, only score 5 percentage points higher? It's half the price with 10x the features, and a nicer image to boot, for both stills and video! This emerged like a hot turd from the depths of hell, and will soon return whence it came.. Canon really needs to get it together, but they obviously are not aware of the internet, or they would have fixed their broken product development culture by now. It's amazing to watch them blow their massive video lead with disappointment after disappointment.
@James Booba - I wouldn't rule it out.
Bill Ferris: Meanwhile back in the real world, photographers who actually use cameras and lenses to make pictures they sell to earn a living are blown away by the D5.
Ultimately, these trips are often the only way of getting early access to the cameras that our readers want to know about. We can't *not* go.
However, we only have value to our readers if our reviews are useful and honest. The stupidest thing we could do is write a misleading review and undermine the trust of our readers.
At the moment I'm being criticised for being too positive **and** for being too negative in our a6300 review (which was not even written by the person who went to the shooting trip that gave us the first chance to use the camera, I should note).
stevevelvia50: Aside from the a6300, I really think that the D7200 should have received the gold award for no other reason than being the camera that set such a high benchmark with its sensor technology. Not to mention that it is an all round amazing photographic tool along with being reasonably light and compact for a DSLR.
The problem is that the D7200, while very strong in some areas, isn't stand-out better than most of its rivals if you consider a broad range of uses. Our awards have to be based on a generalized use-case (to be meaningful for the broadest number of people looking at cameras in that part of the market).
The D7200 would be a Gold with the proviso 'if you're only interested in DSLRs and don't want to shoot video' which limits its meaning to too small a group of people.
If you're in that group of people, then I understand why you think it would be a Gold. But looking at what the cameras at that price can do, the D7200 isn't as *all round* amazing as you say.
JackM: Conclusion: Gold award now meaningless.
If cameras with class-equalling image quality, class-leading AF and class-leading video don't deserve Gold, what does?
webrunner5: Anyone notice that there are like vertical strips on the back wall between the picture frame and the lamp of the black and white area of the old women in a rocking chair, with the a6300, a6000, a5300 and it is not present in no other camera I can find. There is even horizontal stripes on the woman's standing face.
That's the lovely thing about that part of the test scene: it has lots of different frequencies that are prone to aliasing (higher frequencies than can be correctly rendered appearing instead as false patterns within the domain that the camera can render).
To get a clearer idea of what it really looks like, you can always check against our current [reference camera](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=phaseone_iq180&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=35&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=318&x=-0.6412577826012452&y=0.325344543796609).
Pikme: Since when have 'bridge' and 'hybrid' come to mean the same thing?
'Bridge' has always referred to cameras that 'bridged' the gap between (D)SLRs and point and shoot cameras. 'Hybrid' referred to cameras that were equally good as video and still cameras. Different terms with different meanings for different cameras.
Although a camera can be both hybrid and bridge, that doesn't make hybrid aka bridge, nor the reverse. Unless all this changed somewhere along the way and I missed the memo?
That was the original meaning but, as they developed, they increasingly didn't bridge that middle ground. Instead they just became compact cameras that were sort-of DSLR shaped and had long zooms.
On that basis, with the 10x zoom this has aspects of a bridge camera. But yes, the title also hints at the idea of bridging the gap between video and stills. At the end of the day, though, it's only a headline.
No matter what you think of this as a stills camera, there is a word of difference between this and the a6300.
The a6300 is a consumer stills/video camera with a bunch of professional setting options on it, but it still produces consumer-grade video. Really nice consumer grade video but not [broadcast quality]( http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/03/31/newsshooter-sony-a6300-ebu-lab-test-by-alan-roberts-surprising-results-not-suitable-for-use-in-general-broadcasting/).
By comparison the XC10 shoots 10-bit 4:2:2 video that means it is considered broadcast quality for 1080 shooting. If you're trying to deliver footage to a broadcaster, the XC10 might do the job, the a6300 won't.
Ignoring the fact that the a6300 is only half the price until you put a lens on it, for the job the XC10 is designed for, the a6300 can't be used as a substitute.
At the time we published that article last year we had been led to believe that the XC10 supported Raw stills capture. It was only *after* we published that the correct specs reached us. However, we generally don't un-publish things once they go live.
It's also important to clarify that that article an opinion on the concept of the camera, not a review or an endorsement of it.
pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.
As I say in the review, if the a6300 does have an AA filter, [it's very, very weak,](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a6300&attr13_1=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr171_0=off&normalization=full&widget=318&x=-0.197863713&y=0.292604625) given how similar its performance is to the D7200.
I wouldn't personally try to put numbers on it. An AA filter is designed to blur frequencies that the camera can't correctly capture so although there's a chance that it'll produce slightly sharper-looking images, you also risk aliasing that might bave a bigger impact on image quality.
Also, the main reason (other than cost-saving) that AA filters are being omitted is that the sensor resolutions are getting high enough that the lens ends up acting as a filter a lot of the time. So you'll only see that sharpness difference on rare occasions.
jazzblueAE: Cons: "USB charging makes it hard to keep a spare battery charged"
Am I the only one that doesn't understand this being listed in so many camera reviews as a con? Even if they HAD included a stand-alone charger (which would admittedly charge much faster), you still can't charge two batteries simultaneously, and is equally as inconvenient. If you choose to buy spare batteries, you should be buying spare chargers as well or it will always be "hard to keep a spare battery charged."
The only consideration I could see is if you are shooting with the camera, and a spare is charging at home, but then that's not very useful as a spare battery, is it?
Some things in life can have advantages and disadvantages. We list both perspectives so that the reader can decide which is most significant to them.
Being able to USB charge can be handy but if the camera doesn't include an external charger, then you can't have a second one charging while you shoot (or you have to worry about swapping batteries over in the camera the night before).
I've clarified the phrasing on the Con to make the distinction clearer.
Equally, the a6300 does allow a decent amount of customization. That's a good thing. But the fact that it's pretty-much essential to customize the camera to make it usable (I think Eye-AF can't be accessed at all with the default settings) is a con.
Yxa: After reading the review , with points like:Best-yet APS-C image quality: good JPEGs and extensive Raw dynamic rangeClass-leading low-light performanceImpressive AF subject tracking performance through the viewfinderAll AF points continue to work down to -3EVWide AF area with dense 51-point coverageWell-implemented Auto ISO feature also available in M modeSpot-metering linked to AF pointFlat Picture Control for more gradable video footageInterval shooting and time-lapse features, with exposure smoothingQuick and fairly simple Wi-Fi implementationVery good ergonomics and interface designExcellent battery lifeIn-camera Raw processingReasonably small, light body for a DSLR at this levelWhy didn't the D7200 get a gold award?
In which case I hope the review gave you enough information to make an informed decision.
However I hope that, equally, you can see why we can't review cameras on that basis. We can try to illustrate any differences in image quality and handling between cameras but we can't totally ignore one aspect of a camera's capabilities when we draw our overall conclusions.
"So basically you are willing to state you prefer the Sony a6300 to the Nikon d7200 for scoring purposes but professionally not use the Sony instead use a dslr."
No, I'm not saying that and I'm struggling to think what I've ever written that would prompt you to concoct that sentence.
At the point people are trying to put words into my mouth, I think it's time for me to step back and get on with my other work.
"the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon"
That's a very dubious statement on which to build a case.
Yxa: Nikon D7200 silver awardSony A6300 gold awardSome Sony bias here for sure
The a6300's image quality is essentially indistinguishable from the D7200 but as soon as you give consideration to any aspect of video (quality, handling, support features), the a6300 *crushes* the D7200.
Our scoring system doesn't give a lot of weight to video (because we don't think most of our readers do), but you would have to completely ignore that aspect of both cameras to think that the a6300 isn't more advanced.
HMF70: Richard, could you explain the ugly artifacts you get on the Sony A6000/A6300 from +3 to +5 EV @ ISO 100, if you look at the handle of the brush(lower right corner)? Nikon D7200 and Canon 80D doesn't show the same problem.
It should be mentioned in the text (and compared to the D7200). It's Sony's lossy Raw compression. It doesn't encode high-contrast edges with enough fidelity to recover them.
ttran88: Stay strong DPR, there's a whole lot of forum members here claiming DPR is a Sony shill and everything Sony is Gold. It's hard and at times lonely walking the rightful path but you must stay true. Don't succumb to the whining by fanboys.
We're also being told that we're being too harsh about the controls and putting too much (and, apparently, too little) emphasis on our concerns about the lens availability.
Jorginho: How unexpected!
1) It didn't take long2) It has got a gold award!
For a Sony? Seriously? Pentax K1 review I guess is still in the works? Makes sense since you review Pentax cams often too, last time only 2 years ago.
We don't have a K-1 yet. Believe me, we'll be doing our best to get that one out quickly, too.