We've repeatedly criticised the lack of external chargers before in-camera charging became commonplace (which is the point at which its absence is deemed a 'Con'). If they listened to us, they'd include one.

A poll would show us that some people value internal charging and some people value an external charger. At which point, the absence of either of these will remain a Con. These aren't mutually exclusive, so there's no need to pick sides.

We will continue to highlight the absence of external chargers and to highlight the lack of internal charging. A camera is better if it has both.

Personally, i hate USB Charging, i hate when Gear is being sold without a Wallcharger. Why? What's about having a Camera, and plug into a USB cable to your PC or Laptop, charging it? Camera makers saving money by not providing a wallcharger, and charging much money for it.

It's the same, with many years ago, connecting your Camera to the PC via USB Cable, to transfer pictures, RAW files. That sucks. I use always a decent, fast USB quality Cardreader.

As for battery chargers, i do have usually a dual charger setup, so i can load at least 2 batteries at once, before going outside, to make pictures.

The trend from camera brands, to have only cheap internal USB charging, instead of a real AC Wallcharger, is horrible. A cost saving thing.

No, one doesn't have always a PC/Laptop or Powerbank with USB near, whereas you stay, but way much more a power connector via Wallcharger, in order to charge your batteries. This is a very cheapskate attempt from the camera industry.

Good Light.

A camera is not "end of life" if consumers can still buy brand new ones in the normal retail channels. "Launch" prices are mostly irrelevant; as we know, when a new product is introduced it will often be over-priced in order to maximize revenue from the wealthy "must buy the latest thing right now" folks. Most consumers will wait for the inevitable reduction to "normal" pricing which can take place only a few months later (see the original iPhone pricing). What is relevant is what the consumer can buy brand-new right now at current prices. For example, you can get a new Canon M50, which was introduced only a year ago, for $649 currently with a lens and yes it has the same size sensor and a better viewfinder than the 6100.

Lastly, if we expand our criteria to include cameras with mirrors, then we have dozens of models to chose from that all have viewfinders and are less expensive than the 6100.

> probably won't be relevant to readers if they arrive at the review in a few weeks or months

The G7 was introduced in 2015 but brand-new ones are still being sold today; ditto for the G85 introduced a year later. You can buy brand-new Sony A7IIs today even though it was introduced in 2014 ! Same for the Sony A7RII (2015), Sony A7RIII (2017), etc. etc. So it is a mistake to conclude that in a few weeks or months better priced and spec'ed older models will become unavailable.

Sony needs to update their APS-C lenses in general. But, yes, their kit lens is particularly bad.

If they had more compact, affordable lenses (I'm thinking a bunch of f/1.8 or f/2 lenses similar to MFT, but obviously slightly bigger due to the larger sensor) then I could be swayed to get a Sony A6600.

Their APS-C bodies are very appealing at this point. It's too bad I am not excited about the APS-C lenses. At least sigma has some good ones for E-mount.

There are many fast manual APS-C E mount lenses from China, and dirt cheap too. Performance varies but the point is they're very compact, and highly suitable for these bodies.
For example 7artisans 35/1.2: 36mm long, 43mm filter thread, 150g. Current price CNY950.
Against Olympus 25/1.2: 87mm long, 62mm filter thread, 410g. Current price USD1049. *rolling my eyes*

Yeah but those are not AF lenses if I am right???

I don't care about MF lenses. I want AF, and good AF because I shoot moving subjects while frequently only having one hand free.

Also, the Oly 1.2 is optically incredible. That's why it's expensive. The 7artisans is optically very mediocre (the performance wide open is terrible and there is purple fringing, field curvature, insane vignetting, ugly flare)

The 7artisans is cool for what it is, but it's not really comparable to the flagship 1.2 from Oly, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc.

I don't know, this lens is a compromise, it is the smallest and lightest standard (24-75mm) APSC zoom on the market. It is so ridiculously small and light that I am using my old A6000 with it as a compact camera, it is also stabilized and its electric zoom mechanism is absurdly fast. My copy is very good, extreme sharpness in the center, decent sharpness in the corners (except 24mm equiv. Which are somewhat loose), the only fault I can put is the strong vignetting, but it is so easy to correct without impact that it does not worry me. For € 50 that increases the price of the camera is a bargain. Anyway, if it's not enough, you have the 18-135 f3.5-5.6, 18-105 f4 G and 16-55 f2.8 G to update.

Oh the irony. Class leading AF but no suitable Sony lenses. Some one suggests manual focus lenses

@dccdp -- perhaps there is no "rigorous definition", but every experienced photographer can repeat after Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it". So what's wrong with Sony? They don't see it? They don't care? It's too difficult?

Rendering pleasing skintones - it's one of the hardest to fix technical aspects of the digital photography.
As matter of fact - only Canon and Oly are succeeded in achieving it completely.

Didn't they review the study? There it shows that the a6100 has significant improvements in skin tones, even compared to the a6400

Only If A6400 had not been released 8 months ago, $750 would have seemed less overpriced for A6100. Now it is hard not to recommend A6400 (for a more feature-proof body), G85 (for great IBIS and handling), or M50 (for ease of use and cheap lenses).

Richard does that make sense, given that those competitor products are on the market today at those prices? A lost sale is a bigger missed opportunity than not soaking a few more early adopters.

High entry level prices will shrink the enthusiast photographer community, because no one will have any incentive to leave the comfortable world of smartphone picture taking. People won't even know what it means to take pictures with a real camera, and won't care. This will in turn hurt the market, thus being a very bad idea for manufacturers. The field is niche enough already, so manufacturers are basically shooting themselves in the foot.

Of course, it will also transform dpreview in a cute smartphone "photograpy" site, well, boring... Why don't you get this, dpreview staff, and why do you continue to promote this suicidal raise in camera prices?

@Richard Butler

Well you can use that at launch argument I suppose... but these aren't lenses. These are bodies which sony unfortunately applied the continous upgrade cycle mentality to. So... if you want to compare it to the M50 you need to accept that fact that it is possible to get an M50 with a kit lens for about 550. That is what it is competing against.

This body is close to the M6II in price then, which is what I would compare it to. And... I would likely go with the M6II, if I had the choice.

And @dccdp has a point.

A reason why canon is still market leader has to do with their pricing approach. I still don't get why sony doesn't sunset their older cameras. The A6000 should be removed, and all their APS-C body prices pushed down accordingly.

Given that Sony has more expensive, albeit higher-quality lenses, than competitors (especially Canon), it seems more reasonable to low ball their bodies to attract beginners into the ILC world, just like they did with A7iii (the basic model).
However these Japanese cartels already get sucked into this vicious cycle in which they have to price gear higher to counteract the lowered sale and collude in specs in high-end bodies to make sure professionals buy into multiple system because NO PERFECT CAMERA IS ALLOWED TO EXIST.

This isn't about Sony, it's about the way markets and prices work. Let me demonstrate why I always use launch prices as a comparison.

All prices decline with time. They start at list price and some time later, depending on how much control the manufacturer can exert over sellers, will start to soften (prices begin falling much faster in Europe than the US, which is part of why EU launch prices tend to be a little higher).

They then chug along, declining slightly (maybe with a re-positioning or some special offers if they're not selling well), and then will drop off a cliff when the replacement model comes out. So let's have a look at what that means in terms of pricing strategy.

Let's say we have two very convincingly-named camera companies: Camicon and Photy. Camicon releases its mid-range D1. Then, a year or so later, Photy wants to launch a model targeting the same users...

This is what tends to happen:

)

The initial price of the Photy X looks high, compared to the depressed, mid-life price of the Camicon D1. Howls of outrage abound. Multiple comments saying 'this camera should have cost $500,' are posted. But the camera ends up dropping to a reasonable price and sells comparably to the D1.

The alternative is to launch the new camera to immediately compete with a camera selling well below its launch price, and with the profit margin already eaten away. )

You might end up getting more sales. Maybe enough to make up for the lower margin (but probably not). And then how should Camicon respond, with its new model?

Hi John

I've pitched an article about pricing but am currently up to my neck in camera reviews.

I'll definitely write something, it's just a question of what. I could either write about why we focus so much on launch prices or I could more broadly discuss price trends, differences between countries and why 'how much it costs to make' isn't especially relevant to the discussion. I need to work out which would be most interesting.

If I get into specifics about cameras, then it risks the article being outdated much faster.

But an article about 'should I save my money and go back a generation' is an interesting idea (personally I'd advise against a second-gen Sony at this point, which asks some interesting questions of how our scoring system should cope with cameras once the market has moved on).

Vanitas Photo: It's not so much that Sony's pricing strategies make no sense, it's that Europe is a much more competitive market when it comes to prices. I don't know the fine details of US retail, but the manufacturers appear to have a lot more sway over pricing.

So Sony launched the a6400 for €1150 with the 16-50, and the a6100 kit for €1000, but the a6400 price has eroded between the time of launch and the time of the a6100's launch.

If the price is similar, it makes more sense to buy the a6400.

UllerellU - It's an interesting point: an a7 III with 24-105mm F4 will offer very closely comparable image quality to an a6600 with a 16-55mm F2.8 (except in bright light, where you'll be able to drop to a lower ISO on the a7 if you have the same depth of field, and hence will get up to 1.3EV better tonal quality).

In low light, with those lenses, there'll be essentially no real difference (except the 24-105 goes to 105 instead of 83mm equiv).

A lot of the difference then comes down to size. The a7III and 24-105 is significantly bigger than the a6600 and 16-55. And if you want, say. an 85mm equiv for portraiture, then the Sigma 56mm F1.4 will give you an F2.1 equiv in a smaller package for around $150 less than the Sony FE 85mm F1.8.

The a7 III body handles better than the a6x00 series one... You quickly get into the weeds.

In general terms, if you need 'FF image quality' for most of your photos, go FF. If you only need it sometimes and value portability at other times: APS-C.

There is no raw color. Raw data is interpreted by the raw file converter, and color is added by a demosaic process.

And what is "better" color?

I think my 5t did too.
It had a cool movable OLED VF option too. It was much more easier to use than the current off center VF that I greatly dislike (as do many people).

yeah - 5N, then 5R then 5T all had touchscreens spanning 2011-2014 ... and the A6000 / A7 series didn`t get them until very recently . totally bizarre

While IBIS is the saving grace of M43, its unreliable contrast AF makes it unfriendly among beginners for both photo and video use.

Well for starters, not all MFT bodies use CDAF, the newer Olympus video AF is supposed to be quite nice with phase detection. And i can't speak for all other Panasonic bodies but my G9 since the last FW update and with DFD lenses is very good in video AF, i wouldn't call it unreliable by any means. I have shot many videos and it's very good.

It's not sports action fast like dual pixel is, but i don't need it to be. The wobble is virtually gone, very smooth transitions, no hunting issues like in past bodies. I suspect in the future some fanboys are going to be upset they can't name Panasonic video AF as a weakness.

Not that the average soccer mom will care about that. Now pros, yea i totally get they don't want wobble, but then pros are using MF anyway. And for photos, it's not unreliable either, it's very good even for action, more so if you use Panasonic glass. I say this as a previous owner of a D700 and D800.

IBIS is not the only saving grace for M4/3 if you look at those tiny and still sharp lenses and the weight of them and you just fall in love.
It so light to go around with them. It is like existing in a different world.
And than you go deeper and look at things like focus bracketing, like 6k photo mode when you can select focus after shooting, the best TimeLaps implementation, Stop motion video, and a great interface, the fastest high sped photo mode and the lot's of programmable button options options options... the only problem is that Pana cam's really need time and devotion to really learn using them.

@Max Iso

The MFT bodies with phase detect AF cost more than the a6100. The ones that are the same price as the a6100 have pretty poor autofocus in video.

I say that as an owner of both Panasonic and Olympus bodies.

Olympus and Panasonic have the IBIS and lens compactness/quality advantage over Sony, but Sony absolutely has the AF and sensor advantage for the price.

If we're talking about people buying a camera now, and not about people buying a hypothetical camera that doesn't exist yet, then the AF is much better in Sony's budget models than in MFT budget models.

Video and stills.

That's a horrible comparison, the A7III is clearly better in some respects, while the A6100 just isn't. There's no technical of runctional reason why someone would prefer an A6100 over an A6600

A6100 is better in size and price 🤦‍♀️

"Why would anyone get the A6100 instead of the A6600?"

Significant price difference for the targeted audience.

"Price is not a functional or technical difference."

OK. It's official--price has been deemed irrelevant so there's no reason for anything other than flagships to exist.

I edit a6000 raw files and iPhone jpg and raw files. When lighting conditions are not optimal, there is a huge difference in how much you can improve a file from an apsc sensor.

For that money no way. Just get a Eos RP for family photos and get the ability to use the wide selection of EF lenses.

In lens stablization is a "nice" route to increased cost and weight and complexity. Nice, increases margin for every lens sold.

IBIS means you can get some benefit for all lenses, but then that's be too useful.

Of course, the ideal is both, but that's too much to ask for.

The 16-50 has IS, genius.

Maybe because it DOES lack IBIS? Just because it comes with a crappy kit lens that has stabilization doesn't suddenly negate the fact that the camera itself is stuck in 2001.

Soccer moms buying this arent going to buy non stabilized primes.

Much better off with a flagship or mid-priced mobile. They beat out the 1" sensors these days IQ wise for many things, SOOC usually look significantly better regardless of sensor size, and so much easier to deal with sharing.

Well blame Sony for offering the a6100 and feel free to buy an overpriced a6600.

Flagship mobiles and mid-priced mobiles have a high annual cost of ownership - if viewed primarily as a camera - because they have a rough lifetime of about 3 years, the battery isn't economically replaceable most of the time.

IF you "need" a premium mobile for other things,then yeh, the camera does a creditable job, though not at the longer focal lengths where the rx100 shines. The rx100 is a great choice as a family camera which will do you travel including longer focal lengths.

1" sensors are pretty decent and perform well in low light.

Well, thankfully they don't only take pictures. Batteries also not so difficult to replace.

Standalone cameras have an even higher cost of ownership considering they only shine with zoom, generally have worse SOOC output, are an extra piece to carry around, and considering extra time involved in transferring to a point where they can be shared... And they're a one trick product.

With the coming of different focal length lenses on mobiles, the standalone camera really quite obsolete now.

Plenty of phones way less than that, that can take pics on par with the 16-50 lens.

Now it only needs a marginally competent photographer. Where can we find that? Maybe Sony should sell one along with the camera. ;-)))

The A7R2 certainly does so I`d expect all the following R models do also . I can`t remember if the Original A7/A7R did - the orig A7R was limited in some things by its D800 series sensor (such as PDAF) ao maybe that didn`t ... Handy but not a deal killer ............

The a6000 is as good now as it was when it was released there are just better cameras now...

If you got outstanding images when you first got it, you will continue to get outstanding images

There comes. Point where each new model released eventually becomes irrelevant because you reach a point where a camera does everything to perfection. Sony ofcourse will continue to push out new cameras every year but really that camera you bought several years ago will still produce awesome photos over the next 20 years

@Richard Butler
Moved on in ways significant for how many people though as a reviewer it must be very exciting? I am sure people must be getting jaded and impoverished by this constant upgrade frenzy. I wonder if the cost and confusion of buying perfection today which you know for a fact will be described as inadequate tomorrow by the same people is actually just going to lose the market and make people yearn for more fundamental photographic values with the advantage of money for other things.