Readers Digest?

So should they have said 2nd most popular ICLC acording to Amazon sales? Popular does not mean MOST popular.

Lemelisk - Depending on your source, this one for example shows both Olympus and Canon to be more popular than Sony mirrorless

BCN award/share 2017

AWARD 2017 Olympus(26.8%) Canon(18.5%) Sony(17.9%)
https://nikonrumors.com/2017/11/15/the-2017-bcn-camera-rankings-are-out-canon-is-up-nikon-and-sony-are-down.aspx/#ixzz53QCJaDIz

That aside, my comment was in relation to the A6300, I would hedge a bet the A6000 is more popular as a percentage of all Sony APSC sales. However my comment Was not so much about the camera but about the promotional style of journalism that suggests the A6300 is popular. My reading is ithe A6300 is a very good camera, but it is not popular in terms of absolute numbers.

@George1958
I'm not sure how to break this to you, George, but 'the popular α6300 camera', does not mean the camera is a big seller, or is widely used and populous, or actually in any way popular.

It's journalese.

The adjective has been chosen precisely because it has little or no meaning in context.

The magazine-style journalism that the news section relies on uses adjectives for its rhythm and pace. Adjectives in this kind of writing are better understood as 'beats'. They proceed all nouns, and are chosen for their sound and often neutrality/blandness.

So you have the 'respected' actor X, or the 'distinguished' politician or the 'well-known' entertainer - essentially meaningless descriptions that keep up the pace of the line.

Calling a camera 'popular' is just about the dullest thing you can say about it. Don't believe me? Imagine DPR wrote 'the popular D850'. The camera actually is VERY popular but it still sounds like an insult.

agreed i totally forgot :D for me em5 mk2 and pen f are on the top of the list for camera looks :D

Talking about third party is cheating, as you could bascially say that to all brands without those lens. Although those Sony lens are under 500$, most of them are grossy overpriced, compared to CaNikon, Tamron/Sigma/Tokina glass.

Those Sigma lenses are for m4/3 and Sony only and the Samyang is Sony only.

Canon and Nikon have a very small APS-C prime lineups and Tamron and Tokina make exactly zero cheap primes.

The only APS-C system that really beats Sony on affordable prime lens selection is m4/3 and that's mostly because you have two brands.

> Talking about third party is cheating

That's freaking hilarious!

Lens lineups for you serve just one purpose: compare which one is bigger. Not for actually taking images. DPR at its best.

FYI: Sony lens protocol is open and available to third-party manufacturers. So it's not like with Nikon, who can silently tweak something, and third-party lenses will stop working all of a sudden.

For the sake of completeness: one thing that is affected by lens being third-party is correction of in-camera JPEGs, which may be limited. If you shoot RAW, however, it doesn't matter as well -- editing software will pick lens profile just fine.

One of the most interesting Sony E lens selection articles I've seen (quite a while ago... but I saved the link) is this:

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a5100-great-lenses-sony-aps-c-review-sort/

Count how many Sigmas over Sonys this guy (a photographer, not an armchair expert) picked because they were cheaper, or lighter, or both.

The E-mount lens compensation data is stored in the lens. Micro Four-Thirds also does this. The bodies might get firmware updates to better support new lenses, but it is not to get lens compensation data.

@QuietOC

I just mounted Sigma 30/1.4 onto a6500, and went to Lens Compensations menu... The settings for Shading, Chromatic Aberration, and Distortion compensation are the same as for native lenses: Auto or Off. Nothing is grayed out, Auto is selectable.

So you must be right.

I did not know the particulars of Sony lens protocol... Things are even better than I thought. Thanks for the heads up.

I think the silver in the Pen F is better than the silver E-M1.

I liked my a6000, and I like my a6300. I could use a touchscreen but otherwise I have no complaints.

I also like the design and layout of the A6000. I have an A7RII and Canon DSLRs and can easily use all of them equally well.

So I suggest trying it again after beating your head against the wall a few times. What does your comment have to do with the camera being available in silver?

sony big mistake was not evolving the nex 7 tri navi design

i almost was gonna jump ship ... then sony dropped the ball for a few years

I like the a6000 range much more than I did my nikon d5200 and pentax slr

Itoo bad they didn't evolve the tri-navi design into the A6500.

The A6500 was the follow up to the NEX-7. High-quality metal construction etc. Sony said so themselves. A long time to wait for the follow up.

Oh, so you ARE serious about that whole "slap-in-the-face" thing? Wow, that's a really intense response to a simple color option, strong enough that I mistook it for sarcasm.
I'd recommend you to take up meditation, or at least getting a punching bag to release all that stress and inner turmoil :/

Look, if Canon had made the A6300, it wouldn't have had 4K, S-Log, mic port, a decent buffer or 8 FPS.
.
.
.
And it would've been released in 2019 :D
The reality of things is that Sony added 4K there by pushing the limits of that envelope - a dinky body with a large sensor and processor moving massive amounts of data. Instead of b*tching about an excellent feature that isn't all that stable, you should be thankful that they changed the whole game (along with Panasonic) by making affordable and beautiful 4K a reality. They couldn't have done this in an $800 camera without some compromises.

"Silver bodies have certain advantages over black bodies"
Which ones for example? Being silver?

My wife has a silver A6000 and I have a black one. It makes it easy to tell them apart.

[x] That's a valid one! ;)

Silver (and compact) cameras are less conspicuous and less intimidating to many people. This can help a lot when photographing in public areas (like in street photography). Moreover, in hot sunny days, silver bodies are less prone to overheating since they absorb less heat compared to black bodies. This can be helpful particularly because some Sony compact cameras have been prone to overheating.

@vscd....

Personally, I prefer silver, and there is a practical reason for it in addition to the obvious aesthetic bias.

Most high end cameras are made from grey colored magnesium or aluminium alloys and are painted over in silver or black. This mans minor scratches to the finish are much more visible on a black camera than a silver one.

Naturally, the exact opposite is true for cheap cameras that have black plastic bodies. In those cases a silver painted version looks horrible if it gets a few scratches on the black paint.

I hate to tell you this but it's not actually silver. It's just silver colored metal. If it was actual .999 polished silver, I think I'd go for one.

Quantum Scientist
If it would be .999 polished silver it would be black again after a few weeks on Oxygen.

@raminm
So when somebody told me that Sony cameras are "cool," did they mean something else?

Because canon colors don't please me (its subjective thing)

But then I discovered Fuji and its excellent Jpegs, dynamic , Ergonomics and prime lenses and I went over to Fuji....

Because being pleased with certain color or skin tones is subjective. Moreover, in a blind test between Canon, Sony and other cameras, some of these people may be surprised of their own choice. There are Youtube review videos that offer these blind tests. It's a good idea to give them a try. Some may be surprise of their own choice not matching their prejudice!

Karolly, do you have proof that silver has different properties in the infrared?

This forum has very poor signal to noise. There are far more trolls with worthless and spiteful comments than any Yahoo group I subscribe to (mostly astro oriented). Aside from the insolent brand loyalists there is also a disheartening number of xenophobic (e.g. China bashing), class-resentment (e.g. every Leica thread) and inappropriate political opinions that are often posed as personal insults (count the number of times "idiot" or "fool" appear in the posts). And the endless sarcastic "humor" posts that contribute nothing of value.

Ditto. None of the other forums. I frequent are anywhere near as negative. It's kinda weird, photographers I know are the exact opposite, friendly, helpful, interested in alternative techniques, equipment, respectful even when critiquing others work.

Well said, astroscan. and the others.

@ LFK !bingo!

something about the intersection of art and technology attracts a set of delightedly spiteful and proudly arrogant people

This section is largely unmoderated. It is full of trolls and astroturfers (paid trolls) who never post in the moderated threads where they would be quickly identified and banned.

When the A9 was released one individual posted 250 anti-Sony comments in 24 hours.

They spread FUD and erode serious debate. If enough people say 'I thought the 5D4 had eye AF - are you sure it doesn't?' eventually some people will believe that it does.

DPReivew needs to introduce some sort of enhanced registration system and weed these people out.

It's not happening in DPR , it happens in every board/forum/social media. Moderation cannot be applied since there are no specific guidelines/rules as to what it is considered acceptable. More than that moderation costs and affects both payroll and clicks, i.e advertisement income. As simple as that. Btw, as for 6300 it is obvious that some manufacturers pay minor concern in design.

"So I guess that you feel that bashing the bashers, trolling the trolls and criticizing the criticizers contributes "value"?"

Your bashing the supposed basher of the accused bashers typifies the noise on this forum. But I suppose all these silly and sometimes nasty posts create and sustain a clubby atmosphere that obviously attracts participants...

P.S. This post bashes the basher of a basher bashing bashers! Your turn. <g>

@aris
'Moderation cannot be applied since there are no specific guidelines/rules as to what it is considered acceptable.'

There are published guidelines on the front page of the site. Personal attacks and bashing is not permitted. Sometimes these comments sections are almost entirely bashing and personal attacks.

DPR could enforce their own rules. Call someone an idiot or a moron here and nothing will happen to you. Say; 'the sony fanboys are out in force to talk up their electronic toys' and nothing will happen to you. I reported a commenter about three months ago for calling Sony users 'unspeakable vermin'. The last time I looked the comment was still there. Do it in the forums and you will be moderated.

Treat these sections like the forums and clean them up. DPR is clearly embarrassed by them as they have now hidden them behind a button. To save the ad clicks - as you suggest. The comments no longer open automatically when you click on a story.

aris - I agree to a large extent, but how would you differentiate between a "fanboy [who] should be banned" and someone who is simply pointing out his/her opinion of the benefits of one model over another?

That's what review sites exist for.

Do you think that negative/positive comments about gear should be restricted purely to those made by the dpr reviewers?

Personally I think it's fine for anyone to debate the pros and cons of any camera, regardless of whether they own it, provided that they don't resort to insults or stupidity.

In the days of system cameras for film, we happily paid extra to get a black camera body, since most were silver. :-)

Magnar - "we happily paid extra to get a black camera body, since most were silver"

You speak for yourself. Black bodies on film cameras were notorious for the paint wearing away to show the brass underneath. People noted that cameras used by pros wore the paint away quickly (as they get much heavier use). So it became "desirable" to emulate the "pro look".

More sensible people continued to buy the sliver versions, which didn't wear, and thus retained their value much better. But the tide of popularity had turned, and manufacturers responded by producing black cameras, which nowadays suffer much less from paint wear.

So I ask again: If you are using a camera to take photographs, rather than as a piece of jewellery, why would you want it to stand out in a crowd by choosing a different colour paint? It makes about as much sense a buying a Leica just to get the red dot.

@ entoman:

Real world orientation about human behaviour: Buying a camera is also about personal preferences and taste - you buy what you like to look at, and what you would like to use. And what suits your needs. It is both!

Look at cars. If they were judged as "just for transportation", everybody would go for the cheapest possible that filled their needs. It is NOT like that at all! ;-)

Silver coating has an advantage over black coating when you shoot outdoor under a bright warm sun for a while. It reflects infrareds/heat when a black coating absorbs them...

"Why? A camera is a tool for taking photographs, not a piece of jewelry."

How is a silver version of the same camera less capable of taking photos?

@Karroly
Silver cams could cost you your life if it reflects light in a war-scene. Good for the sniper. Cameras for "Professional" use back in vietnam were painted in black or even olive because of that. The few degrees of temperatur aren't nearly measureable. Otherwise you would see white Nikon D5 / Canon 1DX bodies.

That brassy look under worn paint could be a cool finish on something like the Fujifilm X series. Just like Fender does with their Relic series of guitars. Yeah, I know cameras are tools, but they are personal tools not like a pole saw pruner, trench digger or open ended wrench.

@vscd,
"Silver cams could cost you your life if it reflects light in a war-scene"
I know that. But I do not think a sony A6300 will be used by a pro in a war-scene, even painted in black...
"The few degrees of temperatur aren't nearly measureable"
Totally wrong. Put one piece of silver aluminum and one piece of black anodized aluminum in the bright sun and touch them after a while, to check by yourself...

Karroly & vscd - Yes the reason why pros often prefer a black (or camouflaged) camera is that is less likely to attract attention.

Whereas some non-pros like to display their cameras in order to GAIN attention, hence titanium and gold Nikons, pretty red Leicas, and fake Sony's in Hasselblad wooden-gripped fancy dress etc.

Well there is no indication so far that the silver version will cost more and Sony had a long history of non-black NEX cameras as well.

Color choice in cameras is subjective for most situations, but I prefer silver top and bottom plates ala Fuji and Canon EOS-M6 instead of completely silver bodies.

@entoman I don't see how someone into something as frivolous and image driven as photography can't understand the value in a better looking device. Houses, cars, clothing, plenty of functional stuff costs more for better aesthetics. Why should cameras be any different?

vscd - I think the subject of whether white lenses are less prone to "overheating" is very dubious. Yes, white reflects solar energy better than black, but the fact that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron etc continue to make big long heavy black lenses that work perfectly well in blazing hot deserts, shows that white lenses offer no real advantage.

Look at it from another angle. Producing big white lenses was a fantastic piece of marketing by Canon. They already knew that they would sell these long-toms in droves to the vast hordes of pros who use Canon bodies, regardless of whether they were black, white or green! But producing the lenses in white makes their presence at major sporting events etc, extremely obvious. THAT is the real reason why the lenses are white - advertising.

Entoman: " But the tide of popularity had turned, and manufacturers responded by producing black cameras, which nowadays suffer much less from paint wear."
I disagree even though I may sound favoring a conspiracy theory (lol). It wasn't like people first favored black bodies and manufacturers just responded to that. This happened when AF cameras emerged and in fact, it was manufacturers who abandoned silver bodies and only produced the new AF cameras in black. Perhaps, they wanted to give the impression that AF cameras are professional tools in an era when people must have had the perception that an 'auto focus camera' is not a 'pro tool' because pros always manually control their devices and things like auto focus, auto exposure, etc.. are for amateurs and novices. Your other argument is also false:

"Yes the reason why pros often prefer a black (or camouflaged) camera is that is less likely to attract attention."
Maybe in the old times black bodies were catching less attention but this is not the case now. Carrying a big black camera body alerts and put nearby people into full alert mode. It catches more attention than a silver camera body. Pro's in this case are simply following the mainstream trend: other pro's buy big black Canon and Nikon cameras so I should buy the same if I am a pro". It's a value/prestige system. People's mindset is also set on the same thought nowadays .

ramin - I think black bodies are so commonplace everywhere nowadays that no one really even notices them. I certainly don't think it sends anyone into "full alert mode".

People who get alternative colours do so either because they just like the look of them, or because they want to be "different", or to be noticed.

I can assure you that no pro "follows the mainstream" just for the hell of it. We choose the tool that best does the job (within our budget).

Many pros, particular wildlife, documentary and war photographers, go to great lengths to camouflage white lenses or to cover any silver parts of their cameras with gaffer tape or camouflage tape....

...and those rare Leica users who actually USE their cameras rather than buy them as decorabilia or investments, very often tape over the famous "red dot" to disguise the camera!

My observations and experiences certainly don't match yours. Black bodies are immediately noted in human gatherings or public places and full alert mode raises. Of course I know if the actual conditions require using a certain tool, pros do follow the real requirement like in certain environments where a black camera is advantageous over a white or silver one (war zone, wildlife, etc.). I was talking about occasions where the real conditions don't dictate a necessary choice like when choosing between a black or silver body doesn't make a difference. In most cases it actually doesn't yet, most pros still go for a black body simply because it is the dominant trend. Obviously, they may not be aware of the real motif behind their choice. It's human nature to try to disguise the real motifs in many situations perhaps trying to give it a rational cover.

Karroly - As a wildlife photographer with a degree in ecology I can confirm that animals are more sensitive to movement than to colour, however almost all animals respond differently to various parts of the spectrum, and to coloured objects of differing shapes and sizes.

In actual fact the reason why wildlife photographers don't like silver cameras is nothing to do with the colour - it is because silver finishes are extremely reflective of sunlight, and many animals are extremely sensitive to bright reflections glinting from cameras or other objects.

Similarly the reason why we wear dark or camouflage clothing is that it is almost non-reflective. White or very pale clothing makes your presence much more obvious to animals, and enables them to detect your slightest movement very easily.

1 in 10 .... thats shameful

Yep. I have an excellent 16-70 and a good 16-50 that took only three attempts to find - the first two were dire. Maybe it was just third-time lucky :-)

The 16-50 image quality is not really up with the 16-70 but it's not at all bad. It's also tiny, weighs practically nothing, and cost next to nothing into the bargain. I like both, in their own ways.

My 16-50 must be among the majority of samples - it's only acceptable at 16mm.

I think you guys are merely too easily programmed by common norms to the extent that you have lost your ability to see beauty outside the mainframe.

Sony hasn't released a neon green APS-C body. Sony APS-C is dead!