Disappointed A6300 High ISO

[rich07]

I would check your monitor

Then your eyeglass prescription.. Seriously my eyes had drifted over the years and when I got mine they become the most important optical upgrade I have made. Period. My wife had same issue were she didn't think there was a big difference between SD and HD TV.. her prescription had drifted..

The A6300 is about one stop better in noise at HIGH ISO..

It is meeting some FF DSLRS that are a couple years old..

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F ! Also my eyesight is fine thank you.

To sum up this thread -

IMO DPR test scene for this camera does not show as much high ISO improvement as I was expecting.

BUT

There are quite a few people on this thread who have the A6300 in their hand, who are saying it's on a par with the A7 series.

SO

I'll reserve final judgement until I have one in my hand, so I can evaluate for myself.

Thanks for the input,

Rich

 

[rich07]

Take a look at the comparison here, esp the word "GREEN" and the next "BLUE-GREEN" on top, and flip the right side to ISO 800, you'd see A6300 has at least 1/2 a stop improvement:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...&x=-0.37501852968932214&y=-0.6895993259335716

BostonC - change ISO to 100 and see what happens.

This is not a noise issue.

 

[Stflbn]

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F !

No way it meets A7rii or A7sii, but I can assure you that the A6300 is producing noise/grain that is right on par (or better) than my A7ii. Currently I'm only grabbing the A7ii when I know I need IBIS for handheld lower light with lenses without OS on them like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8

 

[BostonC]

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F !

No way it meets A7rii or A7sii, but I can assure you that the A6300 is producing noise/grain that is right on par (or better) than my A7ii. Currently I'm only grabbing the A7ii when I know I need IBIS for handheld lower light with lenses without OS on them like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8

--
Sony A7ii A6300 A7s A7r
28 FE f2 | Sony 55 FE 1.8 | 70-200G FE F4 | 24-240 FE | Sony 90mm FE Macro
http://501concepts.com

I thought you wanted to talk about high ISO... In any case, noise is easy to deal w in PP while lost details is not. If you prefer pre-denoised RAW files, get a xpro2. Take that back, get xpro1 instead, that does even a better job at denoising.

 

[rich07]

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F !

No way it meets A7rii or A7sii, but I can assure you that the A6300 is producing noise/grain that is right on par (or better) than my A7ii. Currently I'm only grabbing the A7ii when I know I need IBIS for handheld lower light with lenses without OS on them like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8

--
Sony A7ii A6300 A7s A7r
28 FE f2 | Sony 55 FE 1.8 | 70-200G FE F4 | 24-240 FE | Sony 90mm FE Macro
http://501concepts.com

I thought you wanted to talk about high ISO... In any case, noise is easy to deal w in PP while lost details is not. If you prefer pre-denoised RAW files, get a xpro2. Take that back, get xpro1 instead, that does even a better job at denoising.

I am talking about high ISO noise but you were the one who posted the following:

Take a look at the comparison here, esp the word "GREEN" and the next "BLUE-GREEN" on top, and flip the right side to ISO 800, you'd see A6300 has at least 1/2 a stop improvement:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...&x=-0.37501852968932214&y=-0.6895993259335716

If you change to ISO100, you will see the clarity/legibility of the text is pretty similar between base and higher ISO's, indicating you are confusing the issue.

 

[K E Hoffman]

I would check your monitor

Then your eyeglass prescription.. Seriously my eyes had drifted over the years and when I got mine they become the most important optical upgrade I have made. Period. My wife had same issue were she didn't think there was a big difference between SD and HD TV.. her prescription had drifted..

The A6300 is about one stop better in noise at HIGH ISO..

It is meeting some FF DSLRS that are a couple years old..

 

[PVCdroid]

Edited by moderator.

 

[rich07]

I would check your monitor

Then your eyeglass prescription.. Seriously my eyes had drifted over the years and when I got mine they become the most important optical upgrade I have made. Period. My wife had same issue were she didn't think there was a big difference between SD and HD TV.. her prescription had drifted..

The A6300 is about one stop better in noise at HIGH ISO..

It is meeting some FF DSLRS that are a couple years old..

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F ! Also my eyesight is fine thank you.

Which FF? If I put it up against 2 year old cameras D800 it looks the same..

If I put it up against current generation Sony FF No because they also moved at least a full stop from the previous tech.. I would say the Nikon FF have actually been ahead of Sony for many reasons on noise issue so the FF recent Nikons 810 are still a bit better.

If I put ISO 12800 A6300 vs ISO 6400 A6000 it looks the same.. One stop.. Noise improvement. With pretty much the same detail. If they are doing some onsensor or even post sensor NR at high ISO it is good because I don't see the grain merging at 12800.. I have seen in RAW NR in past. The extended ISOs are not so good.. I would use those rarely for say a night sporting event where action needs allow for noise as it always has..

To sum up this thread -

IMO DPR test scene for this camera does not show as much high ISO improvement as I was expecting.

You started a thread for all to read based on expectations that don't match any historic improvement in sensor tech I know of. It actually beat mine because I have seen a camera generation bring in much lower improvement

The camera is half to 2/3 better in RAW Noise at ISO 800 and near top of natural range it is close to a full stop in ONE Generation... For one generation in the same size and pixel count that is pretty good.

BUT

There are quite a few people on this thread who have the A6300 in their hand, who are saying it's on a par with the A7 series.

SO

I'll reserve final judgement until I have one in my hand, so I can evaluate for myself.

I have had one in my hand.. If beats my A77m2 in all but the grip size. with slower lenses it is pretty much focusing in low light almost the same speed. Way better than A6000.

Thanks for the input,

Rich

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

This looks the same to you does it?

Okay then......

Perhaps respectfully, you sir are the one who needs to check prescription.

 

[PieterB]

Owning an a6000 since release, and a7ii since release, and now owning an a6300, I personally feel there's something 'not right' with those test scenes. The A6300 noise and grain is drastically improved from the A6000 in my opinion looking at files from the 3 side by side and being very familiar with them from day to day use and thousands of files processed.

 

[K E Hoffman]

I would check your monitor

Then your eyeglass prescription.. Seriously my eyes had drifted over the years and when I got mine they become the most important optical upgrade I have made. Period. My wife had same issue were she didn't think there was a big difference between SD and HD TV.. her prescription had drifted..

The A6300 is about one stop better in noise at HIGH ISO..

It is meeting some FF DSLRS that are a couple years old..

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F ! Also my eyesight is fine thank you.

Which FF? If I put it up against 2 year old cameras D800 it looks the same..

If I put it up against current generation Sony FF No because they also moved at least a full stop from the previous tech.. I would say the Nikon FF have actually been ahead of Sony for many reasons on noise issue so the FF recent Nikons 810 are still a bit better.

If I put ISO 12800 A6300 vs ISO 6400 A6000 it looks the same.. One stop.. Noise improvement. With pretty much the same detail. If they are doing some onsensor or even post sensor NR at high ISO it is good because I don't see the grain merging at 12800.. I have seen in RAW NR in past. The extended ISOs are not so good.. I would use those rarely for say a night sporting event where action needs allow for noise as it always has..

To sum up this thread -

IMO DPR test scene for this camera does not show as much high ISO improvement as I was expecting.

You started a thread for all to read based on expectations that don't match any historic improvement in sensor tech I know of. It actually beat mine because I have seen a camera generation bring in much lower improvement

The camera is half to 2/3 better in RAW Noise at ISO 800 and near top of natural range it is close to a full stop in ONE Generation... For one generation in the same size and pixel count that is pretty good.

BUT

There are quite a few people on this thread who have the A6300 in their hand, who are saying it's on a par with the A7 series.

SO

I'll reserve final judgement until I have one in my hand, so I can evaluate for myself.

I have had one in my hand.. If beats my A77m2 in all but the grip size. with slower lenses it is pretty much focusing in low light almost the same speed. Way better than A6000.

Thanks for the input,

Rich

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

This looks the same to you does it?

Okay then......

Perhaps respectfully, you sir are the one who needs to check prescription.

No the 610 looks a bit muted and processed in this shot. also it seems to beat a lot of other Nikon offerings so it is a great camera to Cherry pick when you want to WHINE about about an APS camera that is less than half the release price.. and if you read I said Nikon has always been a bit better than Canon or Sony in FF noise levels.. IE the rule that FF is always 1 stop better is not true some times it is more then one stop between makers and between technology shifts etc. So its a false idea that since the A6300 can't beat the D610 it can actually be as much as a stop better than the A6000..

But lets look at some FF comparisons first with A6300 again $998 release price APS vs FF that some released at more than TWICE that Price.. Then I will do an A610 FF comparison just so your level of CHERRY PICKING .. is clear..

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

 

[pegelli]

Sorry, didn't see that.

Who cares? I'm sure Bill doesn't.

Data beats amateur clairvoyance any date. Just look on his website, second line below the graph. It shows that Bill does care about this.


pegelli

 

[rich07]

I would check your monitor

Then your eyeglass prescription.. Seriously my eyes had drifted over the years and when I got mine they become the most important optical upgrade I have made. Period. My wife had same issue were she didn't think there was a big difference between SD and HD TV.. her prescription had drifted..

The A6300 is about one stop better in noise at HIGH ISO..

It is meeting some FF DSLRS that are a couple years old..

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

No way 1 stop, no way meeting F/F ! Also my eyesight is fine thank you.

Which FF? If I put it up against 2 year old cameras D800 it looks the same..

If I put it up against current generation Sony FF No because they also moved at least a full stop from the previous tech.. I would say the Nikon FF have actually been ahead of Sony for many reasons on noise issue so the FF recent Nikons 810 are still a bit better.

If I put ISO 12800 A6300 vs ISO 6400 A6000 it looks the same.. One stop.. Noise improvement. With pretty much the same detail. If they are doing some onsensor or even post sensor NR at high ISO it is good because I don't see the grain merging at 12800.. I have seen in RAW NR in past. The extended ISOs are not so good.. I would use those rarely for say a night sporting event where action needs allow for noise as it always has..

To sum up this thread -

IMO DPR test scene for this camera does not show as much high ISO improvement as I was expecting.

You started a thread for all to read based on expectations that don't match any historic improvement in sensor tech I know of. It actually beat mine because I have seen a camera generation bring in much lower improvement

The camera is half to 2/3 better in RAW Noise at ISO 800 and near top of natural range it is close to a full stop in ONE Generation... For one generation in the same size and pixel count that is pretty good.

BUT

There are quite a few people on this thread who have the A6300 in their hand, who are saying it's on a par with the A7 series.

SO

I'll reserve final judgement until I have one in my hand, so I can evaluate for myself.

I have had one in my hand.. If beats my A77m2 in all but the grip size. with slower lenses it is pretty much focusing in low light almost the same speed. Way better than A6000.

Thanks for the input,

Rich

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

This looks the same to you does it?

Okay then......

Perhaps respectfully, you sir are the one who needs to check prescription.

No the 610 looks a bit muted and processed in this shot. also it seems to beat a lot of other Nikon offerings so it is a great camera to Cherry pick when you want to WHINE about about an APS camera that is less than half the release price.. and if you read I said Nikon has always been a bit better than Canon or Sony in FF noise levels.. IE the rule that FF is always 1 stop better is not true some times it is more then one stop between makers and between technology shifts etc. So its a false idea that since the A6300 can't beat the D610 it can actually be as much as a stop better than the A6000..

But lets look at some FF comparisons first with A6300 again $998 release price APS vs FF that some released at more than TWICE that Price.. Then I will do an A610 FF comparison just so your level of CHERRY PICKING .. is clear..

--
K.E.H. >> Shooting between raindrops in WA<<
Don't Panic!.. these are just opinions... go take some pictures..

Okay, don't go having a heart attack on us, it's just a bit of camera chit chat to while away an afternoon...



Cheers,



Rich

 

[johnsmith404]

Hi,

I own an A6000 and have always felt the files could be cleaner at ISO 800 and above. So when the A6300 was announced (with hefty price increase), I was hoping for a significant improvement in this area.

However looking at the DPR studio test scene, I was a little disappointed to see only a marginal high ISO improvement. It still to my eye suffers from the clumpy colour noise of the A6000.

Infact the A6300 is still behind the class leading Nikon D7200.

With the introduction of the reasonably priced f/f 50mm f1.8 and the lack of APS-C lens development by Sony, I think there's an increasingly strong argument to go for the A7mkii over the A6300.

Why? In the DPR studio test scene, the difference between the a6300 and the a7II at 25600 is pretty minimal. In favor of the a6300. They use the same lens and the same exposure (a6300 1/2500 at -8EV, a7II 1/5000 at -9EV). The a6300 also looks better at 25600 than the NEX 6 at ISO12800, so that's more than 0.5 stops improvement per generation. That's more than most other manufacturers.

I think you're expecting too much.

 

[Russell Evans]

If you take a look at the two faces on the left side of the test scene, the a6300 at ISO 6400 looks about the same, (a little worse), as the a6000 at ISO 3200 when using the low light setting. If you look at the two cameras both at ISO 3200, the a6300 definitely looks better there. I would say it's not a full stop improvement, but pretty close to it.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Now if you move to right faces in the test scene, where there is a little more light, a6300 still does better than the a6000, but the difference seems a lot less, like 1/3 to 1/2 a stop.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

When you get into shadow noise, I can't really see a difference between the two cameras.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Thank you
Russell

 

[AlphaPhotography]

I'm sure he's just frustrated by your (unrealistic) expectations. His post proves that the A6300 is a step forward for Sony APS-C and matches or exceeds the rest of the APS-C market. I'm excited with what I've seen so far and can't wait to do my own testing.

 

[mcslsk]

But he also says "consider" which makes him a little less strict than you think, it seems.

 

[pegelli]

But he also says "consider" which makes him a little less strict than you think, it seems.

Where am I stricter then Bill? I've only pointed out what Bill asked on his free website, no more and no less.

Why do you make up that he doesn't care when he actually does? Because if he really doesn't care he wouldn't ask to consider it.

--
pegelli

 

[mcslsk]

Calm down and take some photos. He doesn't "require it" but only ask to consider. That makes a difference, doesn't it?

 

[boblu]

Hi,

I own an A6000 and have always felt the files could be cleaner at ISO 800 and above. So when the A6300 was announced (with hefty price increase), I was hoping for a significant improvement in this area.

However looking at the DPR studio test scene, I was a little disappointed to see only a marginal high ISO improvement. It still to my eye suffers from the clumpy colour noise of the A6000.

Infact the A6300 is still behind the class leading Nikon D7200.

With the introduction of the reasonably priced f/f 50mm f1.8 and the lack of APS-C lens development by Sony, I think there's an increasingly strong argument to go for the A7mkii over the A6300.

Cheers,

Rich

This is why Sony call it A6300 not A7000 IMO

 

[rich07]

Hi,

I own an A6000 and have always felt the files could be cleaner at ISO 800 and above. So when the A6300 was announced (with hefty price increase), I was hoping for a significant improvement in this area.

However looking at the DPR studio test scene, I was a little disappointed to see only a marginal high ISO improvement. It still to my eye suffers from the clumpy colour noise of the A6000.

Infact the A6300 is still behind the class leading Nikon D7200.

With the introduction of the reasonably priced f/f 50mm f1.8 and the lack of APS-C lens development by Sony, I think there's an increasingly strong argument to go for the A7mkii over the A6300.

Cheers,

Rich

This is why Sony call it A6300 not A7000 IMO

No doubt there's an APS-C BSI sensor ready to go with the A7000's name on it. Not yet though, don't want to compromise A7x sales.