Reading mode: Light Dark

May I buy a6300 over any APS-C camera, 1D X II & D5 for sports, indoor games and bird photography?

Go to last post
barrym1966 said:
one thing to consider though is the battery life, you only get 400 shots
Click to expand...
Remember, that's just a CIPA rated battery life...based on a specific testing routine involving spaced shots, flash use, image review, etc. Your actual performance will vary greatly depending on how you shoot. If you're accustomed to taking 3,000 shots in a single shoot, one would imagine you get more than the CIPA-rated performance out of your DSLR too. I know my DSLR is CIPA rated at 1,040 shots per battery, but on a wildlife/birding shoot with lots of burst shooting and no image reviewing, I can easily surpass 4,000 frames per battery.

The same goes for the A6300. When I go out birding with my A6300 each Saturday, I have been averaging around 1,000 to 1,200 shots per battery.
 
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
May I buy a6300 over any APS-C camera, 1D X II & D5 for sports, indoor games and bird photography?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course you may. It's a very high performing camera in this regard, is conveniently small and light, and is a very reasonable price. And it can do overall photography very competently.

However, of course it's not a 'pro' body camera. What you need to consider is whether you need a pro body, or are a professional shooter, which usually has a very different and specific set of needs and type of use than an enthusiast or hobby shooter. The A6300 is an enthusiast camera...not a pro body. Pro bodies tend to be overbuilt - they're designed to be used in the extreme - take high levels of abuse, have extremely good weather sealing, very strong buttons, can handle huge constant cycles of use day and night, huge buffers to handle lots of shots...and more importantly, usually have pro-support services which include fast repairs, loanable replacement bodies, shipping to exotic parts of the world, etc - that are needed by professional photographers earning their living based on whether they get the shot.

It does NOT mean, as some may like to imply, that using the A6300 will result in 'inferior' shots or not being able to get a shot. Your results can absolutely be just as good as they can be with a pro body camera...and the A6300 will perform much better than most mirrorless or entry-body DSLRs in regards to ability to maintain focus on a moving subject. The pro bodies are designed for maximum control - being able to set and control every single parameter of the camera, for someone who KNOWS how to do that...thereby providing them maximum photographic control over their shots and allowing them to maximize performance for a given situation. That same very skilled professional photographer can pick up the A6300 and capture some amazing shots...and even do so better than many other entry-level cameras, but he's not going to have nearly the control, the ergonomics, or the freedom from worry over any conditions or abuse the camera takes as he would be if he was shooting with the pro body.

Are you a pro photographer? If yes, you would probably want a pro body - not because it guarantees better images, but because it offers greater control and tends to be built to handle anything you dish out to it, and because it will come backed with professional level support. And you may still want to pick up an A6300 as a second camera to play with, for personal use, even to back up for occasional shoots...and yes, it very much can shoot action, birds in flight, etc. But it's just not a 'pro' body.

If you're not a pro photographer, then buying a pro body doesn't make you a professional, and doesn't guarantee you'll get better photos. An A6300 may be everything you'll need - and if you're a beginner photographer with low skill levels, the A6300 will be far more capable than you will be for years to come. You may still WANT a pro body - and that's up to you...but you probably don't NEED it. Likely, almost any camera would do fine for you - even entry DSLRs and other mirrorless cameras can handle the occasional non-professional sports shooting or birds in flight. The A6300 can handle those better than many of those, but still requires your skill and knowledge to get the shots. Things like birds in flight, or shooting a single player on a team-sports field, require skill, practice, and experience, no matter the camera.
 
zackiedawg said:
barrym1966 said:
one thing to consider though is the battery life, you only get 400 shots
Click to expand...
Remember, that's just a CIPA rated battery life...based on a specific testing routine involving spaced shots, flash use, image review, etc. Your actual performance will vary greatly depending on how you shoot. If you're accustomed to taking 3,000 shots in a single shoot, one would imagine you get more than the CIPA-rated performance out of your DSLR too. I know my DSLR is CIPA rated at 1,040 shots per battery, but on a wildlife/birding shoot with lots of burst shooting and no image reviewing, I can easily surpass 4,000 frames per battery.

The same goes for the A6300. When I go out birding with my A6300 each Saturday, I have been averaging around 1,000 to 1,200 shots per battery.
Click to expand...
 
That's the main difference.

The big Nikon will take marginally better photos. But the main thing is that it is more rugged and designed for pros. For example, the vertical grip built in, the metal frame and beefy design so that it can really take a hit. Optical viewfinder is also preferred by sports pros and night shooters.

You sound like not a pro, so go with your gut and get the 6300. The only other thing to check first is whether the lenses are priced in your range. Since you'd be saving $5k on the body, I'd guess lens prices are OK.

Go for it, and don't worry about the pro stuff. Even if you had both to choose from, you'd find that you couldn't tell the differences in the images, and so you'd opt to carry the smaller and lighter Sony in the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgb
Well said... and exactly why even though I'd consider myself very serious about photography I don't really covet "pro" gear. In just don't think that I'd see the improvement as far as image quality and all of the extra level of durability and features, capabilities, etc aren't something that would really improve what I do... There's often a sense that folks have that if they get some kind of pro level gear it's going to improve their game, but more often than not it isn't really needed. Buying better than entry level gear makes sense if you have higher standards of image quality and/or are photographing in any kind of challenging conditions and want an additional level of control.... but we can get much of this stuff much more inexpensively than if we get pro level stuff...
 
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
But DPR’s claim makes the confusion.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're so confused about. Suppose the A6300's continuous autofocus is about equal to the latest & greatest pro DSLRs ? Those are still pro DSLRs with their big, beefy build, weatherproofing, vertical control grip, extra battery life, dual card slots, customizable Auto ISO, deep buffer for continuous shooting at 12fps, FF sensors, buttons and dials positioned to allow you to changes settings without taking your eye from the viewfinder, powerful wireless flash control and ... probably most importantly ... lenses. People looking at a $6000 camera are interested in some or all of these things and aren't out shooting with a 70-300/5.6 or an adapted lens.

In other words, there are a lot of reasons to choose a D5 beyond autofocus speed. And for most of us, those reasons don't matter.

Of course you can shoot sports, wildlife and more with an A6300. People have shot those subjects for many years with AF that's vastly inferior to what the A6300 offers. And pros are still going to buy D5s because there's more to a high end camera than AF speed.

Personally, for sports and wildlife, I'd still probably stick to a DSLR for lens selection, though I might go with something like the D500 for it's automated AF fine tune ... shooting mirrorless has me spoiled by it's focus accuracy.
 
What do you want to shoot and what are your expectations?

If you wish to happen good things, perhaps the A6300 will suffice.

On the other hand, if you wish to happen great things, it might not.

Let me know where you stand.
 
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
chipmaster said:
If you are really asking this you really don't understand sports / action photography needs or the lense required for many of us, LOL.
Click to expand...
Then what about DPR’s claim?
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
You will be much happier and just get the a6300, its the best thing in the world for those that don't know what they need, and don't need to.

If you really do know, then no need to ask here. THis is the wrong forum for a serious discussion.
Click to expand...
pleas tell me which forum for a serious discussion.
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
As a novice who is serious, trust me don't short change your equipment decisions and think you can do anything on the cheap, the extreme photography, the best gear really does give you and edge. You wonder why the era of sports photography and photo journalism has died, its because great equipment mated to a rich novice can produce amazing results, show up with a A6300 and trust me you won't be coming back with the same pictures the other people with the Canon and Nikons will ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It looks like you are trying to buy the best camera possible on your first go around. You are reading a lot of reviews to be informed, but the problem is that camera strengths and weaknesses tend to be situational. You may buy a camera based on one review and never ever use the features that make it exceptional.

I recommend you buy an inexpensive camera in the 500-600 range like a Canon t5i/SL1 or Sony A6000 or whatever is equivalent from Nikon.

You should choose now based on ergonomics. Go into a store and handle each model and decide which one suits you based on your first-person impressions. Don't let a salesperson bully you into buying their favorite brand.

Once you have that camera, use it for 6 months to find out what you use most, what you like most and then what you really need to have better gear for. Only then can you really read these reviews and appropriately weight the advantages and disadvantages.

In this day and age, if you are a novice, you really cannot go wrong with any interchangeable lens cameras. All of the manufacturers you have heard of make fantastic products.
 
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
May I buy a6300 over any APS-C camera, 1D X II & D5 for sports, indoor games and bird photography?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests
Click to expand...
I would say that you have made a careful study of the review of the Sony camera. You have discovered that it is highly regarded by DPReview.

You have put the question concerning choices before the members of this forum. The generic replies have not satisfied you. The specific replies have not satisfied you, either.

My advice to you is that you stick to your intuition. You can probably disregard any claim that the Sony camera won't hold up to wear-and-tear in comparison to a top-line camera. Actually, it will break down, possibly catch fire, lose its LCD screen to the same degree that any other camera will. If you want to test durability, go ahead. You are as likely to have a problem with a "pro" camera as you are with this little Sony, if you are careless.

This Sony camera is as versatile as the most expensive piece of professional junk made by Canon or Nikon. The Nikon's Exmor image sensor may be a bit 'sweeter' than the Exmor found in the Sony, but since very little testing is done, you don't know how good or bad the image sensor in the camera that you end up buying happens to be, until you test it. Unless you have several cameras to compare and contrast, you may find engaging in such analysis is difficult. You don't know what you don't know, and in the case of an image sensor, that may be a good thing.

Buy the Sony. In the hands of anybody other than a tyro, it will hold up to wear and tear as well as anything that Canon or Nikon may produce. Generally, these plastic pieces of junk don't hold up to the kind of abuse that a Canon F1 or Nikon F2 could withstand.

My experience with the Sony NEX class of cameras suggests that they are of adequate construction. The older Sony DSC-F828 and Sony DSC-R1 cameras are as rugged as anything Canon or Nikon has made with an image sensor installed. Save your money.
 
Last edited:
If you want to watch the sporting event while you are taking pictures, then an optical viewfinder (DSLR) is way better than an electronic view finder. An A6300 may be able to get better focus and expsore than many DSLR's, but looking through that viewfinder for a whole soccer game or skiing competition would drive me crazy.
 
David Bourke said:
If you want to watch the sporting event while you are taking pictures, then an optical viewfinder (DSLR) is way better than an electronic view finder. An A6300 may be able to get better focus and expsore than many DSLR's, but looking through that viewfinder for a whole soccer game or skiing competition would drive me crazy.
Click to expand...
Depends... For an APS-C sensor camera the EVF viewfinder image is likely to be much larger than the OVF - particularly ones with a pentamirrors, where it can feel like you are looking down a tube... A lot comes down to individual preferences.
 
Last edited:
Don't know anything about the 6300 so should keep my fingers shut. But I do own the a6000 and some dslr's. The a6000 takes great images, but so do the dslr's. Bought the a6000 for its form factor (size) and think it's in a class by itself for sensor size/image quality vs camera size. Autofocus is really good in good light espeially if there is plenty of contrasty things around - rivals dslr's here, but in low light and especially if there isn't much contrast it moves down completely out of comparison with my cheapest dslr body. Night and day difference. The a6000 many times just refuses to autofocus where my dslr's just snap in focus even on a solid color area. Don't think I would even attempt indoor sports with the 6000. But put it outside in fair to good light and it comes to life again. Almost as good as Sony says it is. And for me, the Sony is a kit lens only thing. Lens choices and prices are terrible. Choices are minimal and prices outlandish for us poor folk. If you've got lots of money maybe not so bad though.
 
Dear all,

So going through the comments, suggestions and other reviewing sites, I came to the fallowing conclusion. And, yes - came out of the novice mind set-up.

Sony a6300 is excellent for landscape photography, street photography, portrait photography, and good for sports photography in APS-C camera division.

A6300’s 4k video is excellent with rolling shutter issues and excellent lowlight video performance, but auto focussing and user friendliness is no match to 70d or 80d. But 70d has excellent 1080p/30fps & 80d has excellent 1080p/60fps video mode only.

Sony a6300 is a feature full value based camera with a poor kit lens and other lenses are pricy - may be a compelling business tech from Sony.

For sports, indoor games and bird photography Canon’s 7DMII and Nikons D500 are far better than A6300 considering continues autofocus reliability, better buffer clearance, user friendliness, availability of lenses etc.

The same way considering availability of lenses, better buffer clearance and user friendliness Canon’s 7D or to a certain level 70d/80d, Pentax K-3II and Nikons 7200 are better than A6300 for sports, indoor games and especially bird photography.

And it is no match to 1D X II & D5 for sports, indoor games and bird photography.

So as of now, I am compelled to forget DPREVIEW’s a6300’s Telephoto Continuous AF test “catching ups”- as an overhype review. If we are buying any camera based on a review site alone, then we are in a trap.

Sony a6300 is an excellent, compact, all round value based camera - to a certain level handicapped by availability of lenses, user friendliness, battery life and finally overhype reviews.

Some of the fallowing reviews sites, which helped me to the above conclusion.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a6300/sony-a6300A.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-80d/canon-80dA.HTM






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoNRXWFTFa4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RNNVO2U68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4f2drPwZvo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqsCRadQuHk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obRn__ZBq2A

that1cameraguy

Sigma MC-11 Adapter Updated Review with Video and Autofocus Samples on a6300

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP6bgeKlCbA

Elwes01 S wrote regarding Sigma MC-11 Adapter

I'm thinking perhaps DP Review and Brian Smith may over hyped the potential and possibilities and thus the reason why people now are more dissatisfied with the performance/results. Or maybe the right word is not over hyped but gave us eager beavers too much hope. And from all the reviews seen thus far, at least for me, it hasn't been as I had hoped as well.

Thanks to you all for your valuable suggestions.

In ALMIHTY's name wish to happen good things

With regards and love

--
pktk
 
Last edited:
Now you just need to post these findings in the Sony APSC forum or better yet start your own website to help people from falling in the trap.

Good things to come upon the noble.
 
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
So as of now, I am compelled to forget DPREVIEW’s a6300’s Telephoto Continuous AF test “catching ups”- as an overhype review. If we are buying any camera based on a review site alone, then we are in a trap.

Sony a6300 is an excellent, compact, all round value based camera - to a certain level handicapped by availability of lenses, user friendliness, battery life and finally overhype reviews.

I'm thinking perhaps DP Review and Brian Smith may over hyped the potential and possibilities and thus the reason why people now are more dissatisfied with the performance/results. Or maybe the right word is not over hyped but gave us eager beavers too much hope. And from all the reviews seen thus far, at least for me, it hasn't been as I had hoped as well.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is valid, as any other person's is...and a good bit of your conclusions are fair. I would at least throw in a word in disagreement for one particular part of your opinion - that the performance of the focus system is 'overhyped'. All of your other reasons sound valid - lens availability, buffer, battery life, etc - and keeping the comparison with pro bodies out of the picture as that's just an entirely different class of camera. But to say that the A6300 was overhyped and cannot perform for something like birding or sports is doing as much a dis-service as you feel Dpreview did, but in the opposite direction. The truth is in the middle. The AF performance, tracking capabilities, and accuracy of the A6300's focus system is overall quite excellent, and very much capable of keeping up with the fastest and most erratic of subjects, with excellent accuracy...IF the photographer has the skill and experience, and as long as the light is reasonable. In VERY low light conditions, it will fall down in comparison to high-level DSLRs, and in overall levels of user control it will also fall down in comparison for high-skill users.

I say this as a long-time wildlife and bird photographer, who shoots with the A6300 AND a DSLR. The A6300 can positively perform exactly as claimed by Sony and Dpreview's review - it's superbly accurate, has no trouble continuously focusing on small and large, fast and slow birds alike, at up to 11fps, and no matter the background. What it can't do is attach a native 400mm or higher lens, shoot 4,000 frames on one battery, shoot in a hard downpour for hours with no damage, or allow the photographer to set various focus limit parameters, focus 'stickiness', or as easily handle multiple settings at once due to the smaller body and fewer controls and dials.

But again, you are entitled to your opinion. I offer the above just to offer a counter-point to that one part of your conclusion which I feel you may be jumping a little too far in reaching.
 
zackiedawg said:
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
So as of now, I am compelled to forget DPREVIEW’s a6300’s Telephoto Continuous AF test “catching ups”- as an overhype review. If we are buying any camera based on a review site alone, then we are in a trap.

Sony a6300 is an excellent, compact, all round value based camera - to a certain level handicapped by availability of lenses, user friendliness, battery life and finally overhype reviews.

"I'm thinking perhaps DP Review and Brian Smith may over hyped the potential and possibilities and thus the reason why people now are more dissatisfied with the performance/results. Or maybe the right word is not over hyped but gave us eager beavers too much hope. And from all the reviews seen thus far, at least for me, it hasn't been as I had hoped as well".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The above said opinion in Italics from Elwes01 S - regarding Sigma MC-11 Adapter in the fallowing review - and I also felt it is true.

that1cameraguy - a Sony shooter, reviewer.

Sigma MC-11 Adapter Updated Review with Video and Autofocus Samples on a6300

zackiedawg said:
Your opinion is valid, as any other person's is...and a good bit of your conclusions are fair. I would at least throw in a word in disagreement for one particular part of your opinion - that the performance of the focus system is 'overhyped'. All of your other reasons sound valid - lens availability, buffer, battery life, etc - and keeping the comparison with pro bodies out of the picture as that's just an entirely different class of camera. But to say that the A6300 was overhyped and cannot perform for something like birding or sports is doing as much a dis-service as you feel Dpreview did, but in the opposite direction. The truth is in the middle.
Click to expand...
“This is a really impressive result: the closest we've seen to a 100% hit-rate in this test so far. The Canon 1D X II and Nikon D5 may well be able to match this performance, but there isn't a DSLR that can focus so far out towards the edge of the frame as this. What's all the more impressive is that there aren't any complex settings that need to be configured to get this result - it's essentially point and shoot.”

They didn't compared it to even 7DMII - My instinct can't accept this.

Dan Bracaglia of DPREVIEW wrote,
@Interestingness We obviously understand the need for a standardized set of AF tests and it is something we are working toward.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/can..._source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

So, we can’t rely on their AF tests – after so many cries, DPREVIEW agreed!

Any way I love this site and learned many things from here, so this opinion as a student.
zackiedawg said:
The AF performance, tracking capabilities, and accuracy of the A6300's focus system is overall quite excellent, and very much capable of keeping up with the fastest and most erratic of subjects, with excellent accuracy...IF the photographer has the skill and experience, and as long as the light is reasonable. In VERY low light conditions, it will fall down in comparison to high-level DSLRs, and in overall levels of user control it will also fall down in comparison for high-skill users.

I say this as a long-time wildlife and bird photographer, who shoots with the A6300 AND a DSLR. The A6300 can positively perform exactly as claimed by Sony and Dpreview's review - it's superbly accurate, has no trouble continuously focusing on small and large, fast and slow birds alike, at up to 11fps, and no matter the background. What it can't do is attach a native 400mm or higher lens, shoot 4,000 frames on one battery, shoot in a hard downpour for hours with no damage, or allow the photographer to set various focus limit parameters, focus 'stickiness', or as easily handle multiple settings at once due to the smaller body and fewer controls and dials.

But again, you are entitled to your opinion. I offer the above just to offer a counter-point to that one part of your conclusion which I feel you may be jumping a little too far in reaching.

--
Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
Click to expand...
Trying to be perfect is the instinct.

But, nothings can be 100% perfect, so different people, different ways. But to every doings, we are going to get it back.

I value your experience and openness.

But, going through different opinions and reviewing sites, my instinct forced me to that opinion. And I felt, it is my duty to do that.

In ALMIHTY's name wish to happen good things

With regards and love

--
pktk
 
Last edited:
David Bourke said:
If you want to watch the sporting event while you are taking pictures, then an optical viewfinder (DSLR) is way better than an electronic view finder. An A6300 may be able to get better focus and expsore than many DSLR's, but looking through that viewfinder for a whole soccer game or skiing competition would drive me crazy.
Click to expand...
EVFs don't appear to be a problem for videographers shooting sports for TV.
 
  1. Keep in mind that virtually EVERY site is instinctly biased towards dSLR's and against (new-technology) mirrorless. That was also obvious here.
  2. Mirrorless has MANY other advantages and FEATURES NOT POSSIBLE ON dSLR's because of the inherent limitations of their mirrors.
  3. This thread was limited to AF "tracking" (of moving subjects). The fact is that mirrorless has always been more ACCURATE (and as the review pointed out -- on ANY part of the image). That can be much more important in many situations.
  4. The fact is that AF "tracking" is virtually the only advantage remaining for dSLR's and the a6300, (and the Samsung NX1), illustrate it is indeed possible for mirrorless to dominate there also.
  5. One of the big features of mirrorless is your choice of using a rear-LCD instead of being forced to "eye" level without any AF penalty, (Nikon D3300 is 2-seconds in Live-View).
  6. Mirrorless can also have "zebras" for easy/fast exposure optimization via ETTR, (Expose To The Right), for lower-noise and better IQ.
  7. Mirrorless can also have instant image-REVIEW, (retention in either "eye" finder or rear-LCD). Note that dSLR "chimping" is often not possible in sunlight.
  8. Also note that many of the professional lenses referred to are very expensive and you would never need.
  9. The a6300 also has the shortest "blackout" during burst shooting. This is a BIG feature as well.
  10. The 4K-video FRAME-GRAB is a new paradigm in action/sports "timing" which can also be a big advantage for sports. I predict more sports photographers WILL be using the a6300.
PLEASE don't talk yourself out of it, it seems to me to be your best choice by far over much more expensive systems.
 
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
zackiedawg said:
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
So as of now, I am compelled to forget DPREVIEW’s a6300’s Telephoto Continuous AF test “catching ups”- as an overhype review. If we are buying any camera based on a review site alone, then we are in a trap.

Sony a6300 is an excellent, compact, all round value based camera - to a certain level handicapped by availability of lenses, user friendliness, battery life and finally overhype reviews.

"I'm thinking perhaps DP Review and Brian Smith may over hyped the potential and possibilities and thus the reason why people now are more dissatisfied with the performance/results. Or maybe the right word is not over hyped but gave us eager beavers too much hope. And from all the reviews seen thus far, at least for me, it hasn't been as I had hoped as well".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The above said opinion in Italics from Elwes01 S - regarding Sigma MC-11 Adapter in the fallowing review - and I also felt it is true.

that1cameraguy - a Sony shooter, reviewer.

Sigma MC-11 Adapter Updated Review with Video and Autofocus Samples on a6300

Thuravi Kumaaran said:
Your opinion is valid, as any other person's is...and a good bit of your conclusions are fair. I would at least throw in a word in disagreement for one particular part of your opinion - that the performance of the focus system is 'overhyped'. All of your other reasons sound valid - lens availability, buffer, battery life, etc - and keeping the comparison with pro bodies out of the picture as that's just an entirely different class of camera. But to say that the A6300 was overhyped and cannot perform for something like birding or sports is doing as much a dis-service as you feel Dpreview did, but in the opposite direction. The truth is in the middle.
Click to expand...
“This is a really impressive result: the closest we've seen to a 100% hit-rate in this test so far. The Canon 1D X II and Nikon D5 may well be able to match this performance, but there isn't a DSLR that can focus so far out towards the edge of the frame as this. What's all the more impressive is that there aren't any complex settings that need to be configured to get this result - it's essentially point and shoot.”

They didn't compared it to even 7DMII - My instinct can't accept this.

Dan Bracaglia of DPREVIEW wrote,
@Interestingness We obviously understand the need for a standardized set of AF tests and it is something we are working toward.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/can..._source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

So, we can’t rely on their AF tests – after so many cries, DPREVIEW agreed!

Any way I love this site and learned many things from here, so this opinion as a student.
Thuravi Kumaaran said:
The AF performance, tracking capabilities, and accuracy of the A6300's focus system is overall quite excellent, and very much capable of keeping up with the fastest and most erratic of subjects, with excellent accuracy...IF the photographer has the skill and experience, and as long as the light is reasonable. In VERY low light conditions, it will fall down in comparison to high-level DSLRs, and in overall levels of user control it will also fall down in comparison for high-skill users.

I say this as a long-time wildlife and bird photographer, who shoots with the A6300 AND a DSLR. The A6300 can positively perform exactly as claimed by Sony and Dpreview's review - it's superbly accurate, has no trouble continuously focusing on small and large, fast and slow birds alike, at up to 11fps, and no matter the background. What it can't do is attach a native 400mm or higher lens, shoot 4,000 frames on one battery, shoot in a hard downpour for hours with no damage, or allow the photographer to set various focus limit parameters, focus 'stickiness', or as easily handle multiple settings at once due to the smaller body and fewer controls and dials.

But again, you are entitled to your opinion. I offer the above just to offer a counter-point to that one part of your conclusion which I feel you may be jumping a little too far in reaching.

--
Justin
galleries: www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
Click to expand...
Trying to be perfect is the instinct.

But, nothings can be 100% perfect, so different people, different ways. But to every doings, we are going to get it back.

I value your experience and openness.

But, going through different opinions and reviewing sites, my instinct forced me to that opinion. And I felt, it is my duty to do that.

In ALMIHTY's name wish to happen good things

With regards and love

--
pktk
Click to expand...
My advice would be to try all options in your hands and look through the viewfinders - anything you get will be fine, but you might find some options suit you more than others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top