the a6300 price issue

[K E Hoffman]

I was amused to see the early A6300 adopters in this thread justifying their expenditure and responding like a cheer-leading squad, when the OP is obviously concerned with Sony marketing practices and when he can save a few bucks on this new camera. No doubt, the A6300 is a better camera than the A6000 in a number of respects. However, for most photographic purposes the A6000 is more than adequate. It is a very good little camera and does what most photographers need from this style of camera. Needed more for this market than an improved camera body is a stable of improved APSC lenses with OSS. Full-frame lenses do not generally perform as well on the smaller APSC sensors with higher pixel density. I expect that Sony will sooner or later get back to the APSC lens market, which, after all, was the Sony pioneering effort in mirrorless.

I am amused at how quickly anyone not sad, morose and just depressed about a new camera is called names on this site.. "justifying" "cheerleaders" when talking about real use vs those test site pixel peepers who seem to need to attack a camera they have never touched, but clearly "have the more informed opinion"

I love my new camera because it has capture shots in low light at an important event that as much as I also like the A6000 it would not do was well.

Simple REAL LIFE shooting needs vs Test Pixel peeping..

have fun trying to drag people down .. Me I have been having too much fun with the new camera.

This is my kid.. in an important moment she has been prepping for 6 months at freeking ISO 12800 in a $998 camera and a kit lens.. I guess I should be sad because ......?







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

 

[357mm]

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

Crazy good image for ISO 12.8K.

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodge_rock/

 

[val1]

val1 wrote:.

6) Bit depth is the same as the a6000

7) ISO is not really better than the A6000. Why oh why did they not go BSI? Sony was afraid this camera would eat into the A7ii market.

A6300 RAWs start off at 14-bit. That may be reduced depending on what drive/shutter/NR mode you're in. Easy to check when lifting shadows. No more green noise in 14-bit mode.

Please go read the posts on how sony handles raw image data. The 11+1 is just odd and the ability of so many modes and settings to monkey with the actual bit depth is just nuts.

Low ISO is generally the same as the A6000. An observation people made when the A6000 was released in reference to the A7. Low ISO is already excellent on most cameras at this point, so you can't expect much of a difference there.

I tend to agree. All the current camera's area great at iso 100

Going to high ISO, you'll get nearly a full stop of improvement by the time you reach the top. Tied with the A7 II at high ISO, so no, Sony's not afraid of anything. Barely any purple noise and nicely reduced chroma noise allow higher ISOs to be used with minimal NR smearing the image.

I think this is actually not really true. The apparent ISO performance you are mentioning is not because the sensor is grabbing more light etc but rather because the chip has a dual gain setting. Check out Kasson's blog if you have any questions. I was pretty sure they would use this design since they have been using it in some other designs for sometime. Considering the camera is pretty much ISOless the iso gain boost is cute but nearly as helpful as what would be available with a BSI design.

 

[buchacho]

OP, here's the price history for the a6000, looks like it corresponds with what others are saying, with the biggest drop for the Christmas holiday.

 

[val1]

For video, XAVC S format video is close to 4k video on A6300.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the A6300's 4K outside of YouTube...

I had Panasonic FZ1000 4k but sold since the 4k video in pany compare to A6000 XAVC S video is not quite different. Also 4k file is quite large so it is very difficult to make edition.

Well yeah, the IQ of a small sensor point and shoot will be different from a large sensor ILC. Sharper image, more dynamic range, better color, cleaner high ISO (especially in 4K Super 35), more customization, etc. You can also drop the bitrate if you don't want huge files, but the point of high bitrates is to improve IQ (like in the A6000's XAVC S update).

Almost all commercial camcorder's sensor size is less than 1'. Video is different from still: you need larger sensor but not for video.

This depends on the price range. THe less expensive camera's use smaller chips often with a global shutter. SOme use a smaller 1 inch sensor but rather than use a bayer filter they use 3 sensors.. with one for each other and a dichroic to split the light. For example the canon xf300 uses a small 1/3 sensor BUT it has three of them and no bayer mask. The bayer usually eats about 50-80% of the light. So in terms of light gathering, this approach will usually do better in low light than a full frame sensor. This is the same approach found in the sony HDW-F900R. So when you consider a smaller/larger sensor the details do matter.

 

[jimhughes]

I'm the OP. What I should have said was that the price, for ME, is too high to justify as an upgrade from the a6000. I don't care about video, I don't shoot sports. I didn't mean to suggest that the a6300 is overpriced. It depends on what you already have, and what you need or want.

The big thing is obviously 4K video (about which I couldn't care less). At first it seemed like this would guarantee big sales, but now we see that it overheats rather readily, so that may reduce its appeal.

For me, having a a6000, there just isn't enough there to justify the price as an upgrade and I suspect many a6000 users will agree. Looking at the sample raw files on DPR, I see a small difference in noise above ISO 3200, which means just about nothing to me as I never shoot high ISO. So I'd like to see it come down before I buy. I'm also clinging to the hope that Sony has an even better APS-C camera in the works, for the near future. But it's probably too late in the year for that too happen.

 

[Almazar80]

I bought an open box unit from Best Buy that somebody used to take twenty seven images. My first test shot was number twenty eight. And I bought it for $140 less than list price. Add a gift card that I had lying around and the price became palatable. I am really enjoying using this camera. If it ever drops to $600, I may replace my remaining A6000 with it. These two cameras are great.

 

[K E Hoffman]

val1 wrote:.

6) Bit depth is the same as the a6000

7) ISO is not really better than the A6000. Why oh why did they not go BSI? Sony was afraid this camera would eat into the A7ii market.

A6300 RAWs start off at 14-bit. That may be reduced depending on what drive/shutter/NR mode you're in. Easy to check when lifting shadows. No more green noise in 14-bit mode.

Please go read the posts on how sony handles raw image data. The 11+1 is just odd and the ability of so many modes and settings to monkey with the actual bit depth is just nuts.

Low ISO is generally the same as the A6000. An observation people made when the A6000 was released in reference to the A7. Low ISO is already excellent on most cameras at this point, so you can't expect much of a difference there.

I tend to agree. All the current camera's area great at iso 100

Going to high ISO, you'll get nearly a full stop of improvement by the time you reach the top. Tied with the A7 II at high ISO, so no, Sony's not afraid of anything. Barely any purple noise and nicely reduced chroma noise allow higher ISOs to be used with minimal NR smearing the image.

I think this is actually not really true. The apparent ISO performance you are mentioning is not because the sensor is grabbing more light etc but rather because the chip has a dual gain setting. Check out Kasson's blog if you have any questions. I was pretty sure they would use this design since they have been using it in some other designs for sometime. Considering the camera is pretty much ISOless the iso gain boost is cute but nearly as helpful as what would be available with a BSI design.

actually the new copper conductor system lets a lot more light to the diode than previous designs.

So its not BSI but still using larger diodes and light gathering area per pixel

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

 

[ttan98]

This may be naive but I do not anticipate my income stopping or needing to stop working. I work with a man who just turned 92, works when he wants (7 days a week on his case) making over 6 figures, and is very happy with what he does. He is attempting to set me up for the same success. He's a health freak much like myself, exercises every day, has beaten two types of cancer, and I expect him to live to over 100. I hope to follow a similar path. I do not plan on taking on major expenses like a large house and our family has never had to hire a contractor or mechanic for any work because we do everything ourselves (mostly thanks to my father's knowledge that he is trying to pass on to me). This prediction may be overly optimistic but I'm the type of person who lives for the moment while my friends, colleagues, and family members seem to suffer from stress every day by overworking themselves.

I do appreciate the advice and receive it often. I will certainly start saving something soon, but I'm very happy with the way my life is going right now. New A6300 comes in today and I'm hoping to take a trip out of the state this weekend to test it out

--
www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/

I just hope what you are doing and don't regret it many years down the trek. Give it a your deep thoughts because your future is not really too far away.

BTW I opt not to purchase the A6300 even though I can afford it. Enjoyment of a new toy is not my priority at this stage.

 

[PC Wheeler]

I was amused to see the early A6300 adopters in this thread justifying their expenditure and responding like a cheer-leading squad,

Being pleased with our new cameras is hardly "chear-leading"; nor is believing the camera is fairly priced. Nothing to justify, my boy!

 

[PC Wheeler]

Needed more for this market than an improved camera body is a stable of improved APSC lenses with OSS. Full-frame lenses do not generally perform as well on the smaller APSC sensors with higher pixel density.

Where on earth did you come up with this astounding optical myth?

 

[AlphaPhotography]

I was wondering the same thing. I'm thinking maybe he's stating that full frame lenses work better on full frame cameras, which is true in terms of resolving power. However, it came off as if full frame lenses work worse on APS-C cameras than APS-C lenses do, which is not only not true, but often the opposite.

 

[Euell]

Needed more for this market than an improved camera body is a stable of improved APSC lenses with OSS. Full-frame lenses do not generally perform as well on the smaller APSC sensors with higher pixel density.

Where on earth did you come up with this astounding optical myth?

 

[Euell]

I was amused to see the early A6300 adopters in this thread justifying their expenditure and responding like a cheer-leading squad, when the OP is obviously concerned with Sony marketing practices and when he can save a few bucks on this new camera. No doubt, the A6300 is a better camera than the A6000 in a number of respects. However, for most photographic purposes the A6000 is more than adequate. It is a very good little camera and does what most photographers need from this style of camera. Needed more for this market than an improved camera body is a stable of improved APSC lenses with OSS. Full-frame lenses do not generally perform as well on the smaller APSC sensors with higher pixel density. I expect that Sony will sooner or later get back to the APSC lens market, which, after all, was the Sony pioneering effort in mirrorless.

I am amused at how quickly anyone not sad, morose and just depressed about a new camera is called names on this site.. "justifying" "cheerleaders" when talking about real use vs those test site pixel peepers who seem to need to attack a camera they have never touched, but clearly "have the more informed opinion"

I love my new camera because it has capture shots in low light at an important event that as much as I also like the A6000 it would not do was well.

Simple REAL LIFE shooting needs vs Test Pixel peeping..

have fun trying to drag people down .. Me I have been having too much fun with the new camera.

This is my kid.. in an important moment she has been prepping for 6 months at freeking ISO 12800 in a $998 camera and a kit lens.. I guess I should be sad because ......?



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

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, but was not criticizing the A6300, which is obviously an improvement over the A6000 (they could not sell them otherwise). The OP was asking about Sony marketing practices and when he might be able to save a few bucks on the A6300. In response, many of the commenters who recently acquired the A6300 responded how the camera was worth the current price. That, of course, is a matter for individual opinion. In any case, these answers were non-responsive and sounded in some cases like a boastful "I got mine and it's better than yours." Well, it undoubtedly is better, but so what? If the OP wants to wait for a better price (and there will be a better price eventually), then why rub his nose in it?

 

[Euell]

I was amused to see the early A6300 adopters in this thread justifying their expenditure and responding like a cheer-leading squad,

Being pleased with our new cameras is hardly "chear-leading"; nor is believing the camera is fairly priced. Nothing to justify, my boy!

 

[Euell]

I was wondering the same thing. I'm thinking maybe he's stating that full frame lenses work better on full frame cameras, which is true in terms of resolving power. However, it came off as if full frame lenses work worse on APS-C cameras than APS-C lenses do, which is not only not true, but often the opposite.

 

[Euell]

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

Crazy good image for ISO 12.8K.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dodge_rock/

A little noisy, but looks like it's been cleaned up in post. I wonder.

 

[AlphaPhotography]

Needed more for this market than an improved camera body is a stable of improved APSC lenses with OSS. Full-frame lenses do not generally perform as well on the smaller APSC sensors with higher pixel density.

Where on earth did you come up with this astounding optical myth?

 

[Euell]

Needed more for this market than an improved camera body is a stable of improved APSC lenses with OSS. Full-frame lenses do not generally perform as well on the smaller APSC sensors with higher pixel density.

Where on earth did you come up with this astounding optical myth?

--
Phil

Perhaps I wasn't clear, so I'll be more explicit:

Premise 1: Higher pixel density is more demanding on lens resolution than lower pixel density.

Premise 2: Because APSC sensors are smaller than full-frame sensors, packing the same number of pixels into the sensors of both sizes results in higher pixel density in the APSC sensor.

Conclusion: Assuming the same number of pixels in a full frame sensor and an APSC sensor, lenses must have better resolution for the APSC sensor than the full-frame sensor in order to produce files of the same quality.

This rather basic actually.

Euell

The interesting part is that full frame lenses often perform better on APS-C sensors than APS-C lenses do, due to generally higher quality (and often more expensive) optics, as well as using the central portion of the lens. This varies widely however.

--
www.flickr.com/photos/sonyartisan/

Yes, and the FE lenses lack OSS. Too bad that. Some of Sony's FE lenses are pretty good and some not so much. In any case, APSC uses shorter focal lengths for equivalent field of view. The focal lengths of Sony's FE offerings are designed for FF not surprisingly, as in the field of view of a 28mm FF lens becomes a 42mm equivalent on APSC. It might surprise you to know that many FF lenses perform not too well on APSC.

 

[Juhaz]

I calls 'em as I sees 'em, but was not criticizing the A6300, which is obviously an improvement over the A6000 (they could not sell them otherwise). The OP was asking about Sony marketing practices and when he might be able to save a few bucks on the A6300. In response, many of the commenters who recently acquired the A6300 responded how the camera was worth the current price. That, of course, is a matter for individual opinion.

Individual opinion notwithstanding, the camera is worth what people are willing to pay for it and Sony tends to be quite aggressive about adjusting pricing according to demand, so - it'll get cheaper if/when it no longer sells very well at the current price and not a second sooner.

I suspect that might take quite a while given that it's currently a bestseller, and once the reviews start rolling in they will likely prolong that status (assuming, of course, that they will be as positive as the first impressions by pretty much everyone seem to be).

For the record, I don't own the camera and I don't need to justify anything.