Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions

If the subject is a non moving interview the a6300 has great video, the rolling shutter messes up the video when the camera moves or the focus point moves. Making video useless for any action, the small rx100 IV is better.

Mar 21, 2016permalink

Camera Newton

With the (now hacked) NX1 rolling shutter was bad in 4K mode, but with 1080p it had the least amount of rolling shutter of any ILC and most video cameras in general.
Can't do that with the A6300 because for some reason all the 1080p modes produce artifact filled low resolution video.
There are no 60 or 120p 4K options so the user must resort for 1080p for those, and on the A6300 they are really really bad.

Mar 21, 2016permalink

Emadn13

are you just blind in nx1 after iso 3200 deatil is gone,white colour turn to yellow,same as G7 i think you want just bash this camera
:D

Mar 28, 2016permalink

joe6pack

I don't know why dpreview staffs make a big deal out of ACR support for XYZ camera.

This little trick lets me open A6300 raw file with my 5 years old DXO Optics 8 Pro. I bet the same will work for older ACR too:

exiftool -Model=NEX-6 -IFD1:Model=NEX-6 ~/Downloads/DSC00026.ARW -o .

And it looks identical to the one posted in dpreview.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

yahoo2u

It is a one trick pony...fast fps/tracking, that's it.
The marketing hype (by all the manufacturers) is superb :)

Mar 20, 2016permalink

bovverwonder

Wow the the a6300's 3200 ISO is comparable to Fujifilm X-PRO 2's ISO 12800. X-PRO 2 has the best APS-C sensor at the moment. It's that stupid good.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

The building in that picture feature is ISO 5000 and is not recommended for APS-C. DxOMark always say that APS-C can go up to 1600 ISO as almost relatively clean then when it goes over that, it gets noisy while Trans-X like Fuji has much less issue problem with high iso to compare. FF can safely go up to 3200 or more in ISO that is almost relatively clean and then it gets noisy after that. It still a long way to go. I bet on the money that Pentax latest MF 645Z I think that is will still be the king of the high ISO and super wide dynamic range at the moment, even better than stupidly expensive Mamiya or Hasselblad. I have to regret with that Trans-X is the image come out softer than APS-C sensor as usual in JPG quality. Seen comparison of T1 and A1. It clearly shows that.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

Not sure about all xtran sensors but if you turn the noise reduction all the way down -4 on the xp2 any softening issue is gone. I think people with Fuji are looking at their smoothing out of noise which can be turned all the way down. And with decent light the xtran seems to pull out a little more detail than the a6000. Second in medium format, my mamiya has great low light details with very little noise. But any of those cameras are too large and heavy to carry around. They also do not have an autofocus system that works well on moving targets, tracking isn't a big option in this format like it is on my d4s. So every format has a purpose.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6300/noise.shtml

Although just had a look at new XP2 preview and partial review, etc. which is impressive in quality (A huge improvement over Xpro 1). The sharpness had gotten better so far though. This is a quality camera which is everyone should be looking at. Very promising from Fuji. I know people criticise some Fujifilm image of contrast with darker shadow. But you can take picture with RAW and develop to your own taste and recover shadow. Sony does the same it use quite aggressive contrast and shadow so best to use RAW file instead.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

ijustloveshooting

Xpro2 is owned by A6300 at high iso , under real life lowlight conditions..now chill.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

Camera labs states the Fuji is clearly better high ISO.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

ijustloveshooting

lol...check iso3200 shots, although fuji iso3200 gives 1/1250 and sony iso3200 give 1/1600s, sony still has more details, very clear..just look at the comprasion.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

Are you sure your looking at the right photos, the Fuji has much more detail left. It has clear edges on the palm branches, along the pool. The Sony has a great deal of artifacts and is almost unusable at 6400, forget anything above.

Mar 21, 2016permalink

bovverwonder

@ijustloveshooting stop smoking crack THEN look at the photos again and you'll see what pkcpga is talking about.

Mar 21, 2016*permalink

Exactly! Not sure why you still don't agree cos I had a good hard look and it looks great from Fuji at high ISO as I am amazed. It has improved so much in newer Xpro 2. And even video feature is sharper than Sony A7 for example which I own Sony A7. I know Fuji has habit of darker contrast so when taking RAW image and edit with Capture One or so you can recover shadow. It still will look good. That camera has better build quality than Sony is.

Mar 21, 2016permalink

brendon1000

I am a Sony user and that link clearly shows the Fuji is retaining better detail at high ISO.

That said upto ISO 6400 the differences aren't that high to make one greatly better than the other.

And the A6300 is a much cheaper camera than the Xpro-2 with better AF, better video and in a much smaller package.

Mar 21, 2016permalink

Even Fuji Xpro 2 noise is better than Sony A7 at ISO 6400 or above both RAW and JPG. The A7 noise is too coarse which is hard to fix compare to Fuji Xpro 2 is easy to fix with much finer noise grain. In Raw file Xpro 2 looks cleaner than A7.

Mar 21, 2016permalink

Charrick1

Thanks for the out of camera JPEGs and the RAWs. However, it seems that they are labeled the opposite on their thumbnails... i.e. the pictures that say "RAW" on them are actually OOC JPEGs.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

sillen

There are many comments about this camera getting press. The camera brings new technology innovation which makes it interesting and is opening for new possibilites, perhaps beyond the specific model.
I think Dp make an excellent job covering new equipment technology, I really appreciate their articals.
Perhaps the perceived "press problem" is that some brands bring less innovation and therefor provides less news value. Whats to write about the sameness?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

SmilerGrogan

There's an academy for parkour. Who knew?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

MrTaikitso

Test (Sorry, commenting system wasn't' working under a different news item, so I am testing here. Seem to work, odd.)

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

ManInTime

Dont think i have ever seen such an average cameras being pushed and pushed again and again to the main page for no good reason. some heavy marketing job is being done here.

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

sillen

I suppose you have a camera that is smaller and do more fps and has higher resolution and has better 4k movie and has higher dynamic range and has faster AF and eye focus and is cheaper?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Don't think I've ever seen such average comments pushed again and again....

Mar 19, 2016permalink

ManInTime

Well... sillen and jonath you are both right.. but still... how many more times are we going to see front page news about the a6300? ... its getting boring.

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

evangelos k

Make up your mind...is it the "average" camera that "bothers" you or that it is seen again and again? Because average it is not. It never seizes to amaze me: the immaturity of some people with an agenda for no reason... Actual reason, that is. Because behind it all, it is p...s envy. Let's talk crap about every other make except the one we have, and wish we had.

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I ask myself, in 5 years, will we look back and say "Now, this camera was a game changer" or "this has become a cult camera, and with good reason." Make that 2 years.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Well at least it isn't like the car magazines that blather on about BMW, Mercedes, Porsche and Ferrari ad nauseum.
This camera is not an average camera, it is an enthusiast camera but not at the top of the price heap.
I would be sad if we had to read endless pap about Phase One and Hasselblad.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

jcbmemphis

Seems to be getting a whole of press -

but it is amazing tech.

The images are not overwhelmingly good to me. They are good but not up to fuji or nikon d810 quality.

What I hated about my old sony was the menu system....the GUI was terrible.

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

Chronis

If all this publicity makes canon take notice and produces something decent before we all either move to fuji sony panasonic or die then its all worth it...

Mar 20, 2016permalink

yahoo2u

@sillen...you said...."I suppose you have a camera that is smaller and do more fps and has higher resolution and has better 4k movie and has higher dynamic range and has faster AF and eye focus and is cheaper?"
.
1. smaller?...irrelevant
2. more fps?...yeah, that's right, you all go and shoot sporting events for a living with an A6300...wake up dreamer
3. higher resolution....lol
4. better 4k video....really?
5. faster AF...that's it, the one trick.
6. higher dynamic range... lol, do you know how to use a camera?
7. cheaper?... I'm sure it will only be available to Dentists soon, it's that good.

Mar 20, 2016*permalink

ManInTime

just to make one thing clear - i don't have anything against Sony - on the contrariety - i hold a lot of respect to them.
they made some game-changing cameras in resent years, and no doubt they are pushing the limits!
i just feel awkward when all front page news on all big websites revolve around one product...
i don't own an a6300 (wish i did.. honestly) but i don't think its the only thing going on in the world right now... is it? or maybe it is and i am just wrong ;p

Mar 20, 2016*permalink

How about announce Canon 80D? I heard good things about dynamic range improvement! (I like old Canon camera battery it last forever and take hundreds of shot though) I was a previous Canon camera owner back then.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

ozturert

If my A6000 was not chewing on batteries, and if low light focus was as good as, say, 70D, and if shutter sound was not as loud, I'd not sell it.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

sillen

The amount of comparrisons to DLSRs and towards the full range of mirrorless cameras shows how broad photo and film usage this camera adress.

"It doesn't have as many cheap telephoto lenses as DSLR brand X".
"It doesn't have as many small lenses as M43 brand Y".
"It doesn't do more fps than the most expensive sports DSLR"

Those writing the really negaitve comments seems to feel challenged about their own equipment choices.

Here we have a camera that deliveres high quality foto and 4K video, that has very fast AF and still being small. That is great news!

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Michiel953

Why? That should be normal. And what's so great about its image quality?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

arbux

Commenting on obvious issues doesn't mean anyone feels challenged. It a simple response to heavy marketing push. A6300 is everywhere, but people are wondering what it is exactly bringing to the table? What I challenge is your quetoes comments.
- it deson't change any telephoto lenses
- it doesn;t ahve any quality small lenses (all 3 panckaes are terrible)
- it doesn't have as many fps as best mirrorless and it doesn;t keep them in focus as DSLR

For me lack of touchscreen, lenses and awful buffer limitation (cannot change settings when pictures are saved to sd card) make it no buy. It can have great 4k video quality, but that's an nice addition for me.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

photogeek

Don't know why they bother. APS-C is definitely a dead end in Sony lineup. To make it otherwise, Sony needs smaller, APS-C specific lenses for these cameras, and given that they can't even be bothered to produce a full lineup for their $3K+ bodies, I just don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever. This is coming from a former NEX-7 owner. I liked the body, but the lens lineup was inadequate, so when the first A7 came out, I saw the writing on the wall and got rid of NEX-7.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

meanwhile

Building a system takes time. This camera will take wonderful photos, with lots of quality lenses available for it. Which part is the dead-end? The lenses that will continue to work? The accessories that will continue to work? The batteries that are shared with the A7 series? The RAW files that will continue to work?

Theoretically, you may be correct. But to what end? What's the difference? You take your shots with what works for you now and into the near future (it's electronics).

If you can't find lenses that work for you with the mirrorless systems, that's your issue, not the cameras. Three quarters of a century of lenses work beautifully with them, from some of the best quality native AF lenses through to pre-War sonnars.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

arbux

@meanwhile - it seems to take much longer time for sony than all the competition, including now dead Samsung NX. There is no quality APS_C lenses except few primes from raneg 24-50. That's a very limited selection. There is no "lots" of quality lesnes - unless someone want to use expensive FF lenses on aps-c body. Then i'd question his sanity.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

meanwhile

"including now dead Samsung NX"

Perhaps that's what happens when you rush.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

arbux

@meanwhile - sure. then sony will last 1000 years with their current pace.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

meanwhile

Arbux, that's a load of twaddle. Internet time just runs faster than actual time.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

bluejaguar

"Building a system takes time." - Sony had more than enough time.
I also got out of Sony e-mount when the a6300 with THREE G Master FF mon$ter lenses was announced. Trying to say it's the users fault that Sony has not bothered to make a solid line of affordable and ergonomically appropriate lenses is hyperbole. People using compact bodies do NOT want to have to use lens adapters.

Mar 23, 2016*permalink

AprilW

.ARW files?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Revenant

That's Sony's raw file format.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

curiosifly

I returned my A6000 last year because of the following reasons:
1. lack of fast lens (or lack of lens within my budget)
2. low light auto focus (I feel it is worse than panasonic's dfd)
3. iso 6400 image noise is a little high, I wish there could be another 1/2~1 stop improvement
So, with the A6300, I read the following reviews online:
1. Now with Metabone or Fotodiox adapter A6300 can support AF-C with fast and accurate result when paired with canon or sigma lens
2. ok, I can't find any reviews about its low light auto focus comparing with A6000
3. very mixed review about iso performance. some claims significant improvement over A6000 (even by 1 stop), some says there is very little difference.
If anyone has first hand experience, could you please comment on the above three aspects? Overall, despite disappointed by its lack of IBIS and direct control, I'm still very interested in what it offers such as 8 fps continuous live view and 120 fps 1080p video.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

curiosifly

trying to move my question to a different forum but didn't figure out how. So first sorry about the repeated post.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

bmwzimmer

It looks like 1/8 stop better noise performanc tops. To get a full stop you'd have to switch to FF or be a delusional fanboy

Mar 19, 2016permalink

clicstudio

Is it me or the jpgs look better than the raws? Still both look pretty bad to me.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

avicenanw

Yes, that is what I feel too. Good jpgs from Sony. Mostly no need to post process and mess things up.

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

Its you. The JPGs are desaturated, dark and excessively contrasty in comparison to the RAWs.
Not radically different but enough that a side by side shows the RAWs to be subjectively better.
And that is the real issue: subjectively. For me, the RAWS beat the JPGs but apparently many prefer what they are used to in color and contrast.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

virgil1612

But what I see (look for example at that hotel and the palm trees) is no loss of detail and no jpeg artefacts. It looks like a raw picture. The noise is raw-like noise. What jpegs are these?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

In the photo you mention, the JPEG is mushy with noise reduction issues. And still darker and more contrasty to boot.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

virgil1612

I'm sorry but I don't see any mushyness and no noise reduction. And it's the raw that is darker. Are we looking at the same pictures?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

The RAW has more green colour than the JPG. The raw file itself do not have more saturation than JPG. It is just a raw file should come out flat, soft, nothing process at all. Adobe cooked that RAW file when first open so it has more green to it.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

@virgil1612, I am referring to the two hotel images at the beginning shot at dusk. The one converted from RAW is clearly sharper and better rendered than the JPEG. Use the loupe feature and look at the detail in the palm fronds.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Thats right Photomonkey Sony still use too aggressive noise reduction in JPG unfortunately. :\ Thought could have improved in new BionX engine but its not looking like it at all. Still same aggressive noise reduction.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

ttran88

Why this camera is no good:
it doesn't have all the lenses you will ever need.
It has funny skin tones even in RAW.
It has very bad jpegs for a $1000 camera.
It overheats with 4k video especially in the hot sun.
The photos are terrible in the DPR image gallery when compared to its predecessor.
It has lossy RAW to top it off, who in their right mind will buy this camera?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

PVCdroid

And... You can't afford it right now so you decide to bash instead.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

ttran88

No actually I'm just trying to talk myself out of buying this camera. I was hoping that by bashing it I can resist the temptation.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

BklynBill

Good luck with that! However, I see an a6300 in your future and a very happy owner of said camera. Sorry I couldn't help you out.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

DGYu

Join the lemming train. No IBIS and horrible rolling shutter, don't buy it, don't buy it.
Probable buy it.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

photo perzon

Skin tones not looking so great. The model came out OK but her RAW was not good.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

I do realised that some of raw edited images are too green from Adobe whereas JPG looks more neutral green. So it still same habit of Adobe Raw processing software adding too much green to image since years ago. Why can't this be eliminated at all? I compare to the JPG and the JPG looks much neutral colour to me and I like that way it should have been, its real Sony colour not the Adobe colour. Perhaps would be good to make your own DCP profile to make it as close as Sony, that would be nicer.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

I agree the raws are not so great looking, I thought Sony fixed this a short time ago. Maybe their needs to be another update. There are also weird color artifacts in shadow areas and highlight areas. Maybe if DP could try using Capture one instead to convert the raws.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

RubberDials

Raws look excellent to me. Beautiful processing.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Eric Hensel

There's no accounting for taste...

Mar 18, 2016permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

The green is from the 12/11+7-bit compression, visible when you raise shadows. It can be avoided by using Single shot mode, which starts with 14-bit (some say 13-bit), preserving shadow colors. One of my favorite improvements over the A6000.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Chris Crevasse

If the raw gets compressed to 11+7 regardless, does it matter whether you start with 14 or 12 bits?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

RubberDials

@eric Hensel
What the hell does that mean? You think dpreview don't know how to process a raw file?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Eric Hensel

Just the opposite -I was disagreeing with the OP. If I were speaking to you I would have used your name...Normal thread procedure.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

BlueBomberTurbo

@Chris Crevasse The final RAW gets compressed, but does not lose the shadow color detail. It also takes longer to write to the card, so there is definitely more data being compressed than the 11+7 mode. Like Nikon, compressed, uncompressed, and lossless do not define the final bit depth, only the method of discarding or keeping data.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

deskbound

thanks for that explanation. very helpful

Mar 19, 2016permalink

RAW file is cooked when first open in Adobe ACR so Adobe add too much green to it. It should be opened as flat, less colour, unsharp etc to allow you to process better way and more flexible. Sad to say ACR cooked it so badly. It should be opened as exposure -1.35, contrast -33, Black +25, custom flat curve, zero sharpness etc. So it looks like real raw file opening as a flat one and you can edit more further. That should have been. Also ACR does cook the highlight tone that gets blownout in some Sony and Pentax raw files.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0187176019/photos/3414007/dsc00026 < Trying to be as close as JPG. But impossible though. Adobe still add a bit too green to it but the skies look better, less green tinge, more real natural blue skies similar to JPG.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

From capture one is http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0187176019/photos/3414026/dsc00026_1

So far it is still not good image cos you took photo with very large aperture of F1.8 and very high ISO of 5000 is not recommended in APS-C sensor.

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

Mister Joseph

The e-mount 10-18 f4 is pretty good though, especially with the small form factor of the body and the nice tilting screen.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

IQ-wise the Sony 10-18/F4 is really behind the cheap 10-18/4.5-5.6 STM EF-S Canon lens...check the photozone review.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

? They don't compare the two lenses in the review or the narrative, one gets 3 stars (Sony) the other 3.5 (canon) both get very positive comments for IQ, note that Sony is also tested on the notoriously fussy Nex-7 body too... Please tell me what I'm missing?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

The NEX-7 isn't that bad...that means the sensor, tell me what i am missing...also, the 10-18/4 OSS got 2 1/2 to 3 stars, the Canon 10-18 STM 3 1/2 Stars...

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41642573

What are you missing?.... I'm wondering if you read Photozone, or just look at the pictures. If you read Photozone, then you'd know their opinion of the NEX-7, nice sensor, true, but a very fussy camera that is difficult to design good lenses for. Look here, from the forum on this very site, you'll need to read though (sorry).

Secondly, your OP now makes sense, Photozone didn't really say that the Canon was better than the Sony, you looked at the pictures of 'stars' (oooh, shiny) and didn't read the narrative, please do, star marks are, after all, meaningless without the narrative, as for reviews... here's another one with a different conclusion, which one should we believe? Funny but I can guess which one you would trust. :-)

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-E-10-18mm-F4-on-Sony-NEX-7-versus-Canon-EF-S-10-18mm-F45-56-IS-STM-on-Canon-EOS-7D__1084_736_1368_619

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Mister Joseph

Well, the Canon 10-18 is an EF-S lens... Might as well stick with my bulky Nikon SLR setup

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Nikolausz

Photozone is a joke.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

@Jonath

Are you kidding or trying to insult me? I consider Photozone for all my lenses i've bought during the past 7-8 years, and never had a bad lens because of their comprehensive reviews. No offence. DxO...i don't trust them much, because these are statical, not real-life, -world tests. Anyway, i'm happy with the IQ from the "cheap" 10-18 STM on my APS-C DSLR bodies.
About the DxO Comparsion: You should compare to the 7D II, as the 7D is way old tech (2009, and also with the very old, well-known 18 MP APS-C sensor, Canon had put into more than >12 different DSLR / DSLM Bodies now alltogether) It's clear that the Sony scored a bit better from DxO, because the Sony Sensor tech is better.

Good light.
Marc

Mar 19, 2016permalink

The NEX-7 and 7D were both contemporaries and represented 'best in class' APS-C products from each manufacturer at the time (ignoring the A77) the NEX-7 is 5yrs old, 7D is 7yrs - so I think it's a fair comparison. 7D MKii is only 18 months old.

As I said earlier, it is no surprise which review site you would favour. We're all entitled to do that, just accept that they are prone to bias too. NOTE: I've bought lenses from DXO reviews before and been happy with them.

Anyway, back to your OP. I think you're insulting all of us when you say something that is patently untrue. I've read and re-read the reviews, and it doesn't say or imply anywhere that the Sony 'is really behind' the Canon. You're drawing this conclusion yourself and the narrative simply does not support your statement. So why post it?

Mar 19, 2016permalink

@Jonath

why you post it? Sony Sensors do have an advantage over Canon, also the Nikon-designed Sony Sensors, pretty clear since 2007, when the D3 & D700 came out, Canon was lost in DR terms. Besides that, EF-S compared to E-Mount is like comparing Oranges & Apples - the Canon lens is just way cheaper, and a great UWA Lens alternative, that's why i've post it (If one is using APS-C EF-S lenses here, too). So why do you post your own conclusion? Everybody does have another point of view, and different people do have different needs - i do use mostly adapted MF lenses on my eMount Bodies (A3000, NEX5/6 & A7)

Mar 19, 2016*permalink

We are entitled to our own opinions yes. I just wish you'd said it was your opinion instead of implying that you were citing a 3rd party site. Note, I haven't actually given my own conclusion, simply shared those of others.

If I were to give a conclusion I'd say the Canon lens is good value for the quality of optics it has. In fact, Photozone says its also as good optically as the twice as expensive Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM if you read the conclusion. So yes, its a good lens for the money.

Is the Sony 'really behind'? in IQ? On the balance of reviews I've read, no it isn't. More expensive yes, its certainly made out of less plastic than the Canon, but not 'really behind' and no more expensive than the similarly priced Canon as stated above which is also similar optically.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Luddhi

When I look at the Gallery the photos labelled RAW in the thumbnails show as OOC Jegs in the sidebar—and vice versa.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Luke Kaven

Noticed the same here.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Richard Butler

The Raw tag only tells you that there's a Raw file available for download. We probably need to re-work this to make it clearer.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Greg VdB

Here's an idea, Richard: just put a "JPEG" tag on, you know, OOC jpegs, and a "RAW" tag on, you know, developed RAWs ;-) It's usually plain to see from the Gallery bar or grid overview which photos are jpeg-raw pairs. And if you also introduce similar overlay tags for "iso" and "aperture" series, there can be no confusion.

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Revenant

A developed raw file is also a JPEG, just not created in-camera. The RAW tag means that an actual raw file is available for download.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

princecody

Is it better than the GX8, EM1, Pen-F?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Cameracist

In some ways probably yes, in some ways probably no:-)))

Mar 18, 2016permalink

princecody

Explain @camerar

Mar 18, 2016permalink

The Photo Ninja

All the other cameras you mentioned have better menses and more choices.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

The Photo Ninja

Lenses I meant.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Cameracist

princecody: Each of the cameras has its strenghts, be it full weather sealing, more lenses, better handling etc.
The Photo Ninja: I hate it when my camera has menses. You say all the three cameras handle menses better than my Sony?:)))

Mar 19, 2016permalink

Revenant

It's a very simplistic question. Better in what respect? For what use case? You need to specify your question.

Mar 20, 2016permalink

princecody

C-AF :)

Mar 20, 2016permalink

@TheWhiteDog
Spot on the lens comment.

While many people think the A6300 is up for sports and wild life shooting. Many tend to forget the lens FL of Sony stop at 240mm(360 on crop). For those kind of shooting such FL can still be short.

Then there is the ISO limitation, with a fast shutter speed and small aperture of sony long lens. This body stands almost no chance in low light sports/wild life.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Compared to what exactly? What are you even talking about?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Compare to a DSLR with a Sigma 120 300 2.8, oh there is also TC that make this lens even longer.
There are also the cheaper 150-600 and the Nikon 200-500. None of these choice is available on E mount. Yes you can use the adapter but sure not fast enough for sports or wildlife.

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

And there are 1.4x and 2x TC's for the 70-200mm GM, making 280mm f4 and 400mm f5.6 respectively.

Ever used an adapted lens on an A6300? Doubt it.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

mosc

Sigma's releasing an adapter to use it's 150-600 as a native e-mount lens. That's 900mm equiv on the A6300 soon enough.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Wouldn't the 70-200 be 400mm f8 and not f5.6 with the 2x converter?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

The sigma adapter looks a good solution. Focusing performance is another question. Only time will tell.

The iso performance is still a problem. Given the relatively small aperture of mid range telephoto lens and the necessity of high shutter speed for sports and wild life. It's a very simple numbers game and I just don't see the A6300 will cut it in low light. Good daylight of course no problem, any modern camera body with fast enough FPS and focusing tracking will do well, just not low light....

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

"Wouldn't the 70-200 be 400mm f8 and not f5.6 with the 2x converter?"

No, it is 2 stops. F2.8 to f5.6.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

"The iso performance is still a problem. Given the relatively small aperture of mid range telephoto lens and the necessity of high shutter speed for sports and wild life"

Still. Makes. No. Sense.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Sorry didn't realise you said GM!

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Abortabort

I am surprise the comment from you if you are who I think you are.
Fact.... You are not going to have those fast telephoto on this body, you have those lens you buy a D5S. So you are shooting at F4/F5.6 max, sports/wild life I would not go below 1/250 shutter. Even normal in door lighting, you will be still AT LEAST 1 stop under @ iso 12800, and I am sure this body will just hit @6400.

Now that make sense?

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

mosc

sooo if you have a FF 70-200 f2.8 and a 2x adapter, you're at 400mm f5.6 FF or 600mm APS-C. If you're talking ISO performance of a FF body and an APS-C body over the exact same crop (600mm or longer in this example) meaning you care nothing for the image beyond that angle of view you could potentially capture, the APS-C body is a perfectly reasonable choice and it's ISO performance will be equal given equivalent resolutions. A6300 ISO 12,800 over 600mm is giving you 24mp to downsample. From say an A7m2, the same lens gives you a 400mm angle of view so you're only capturing with 42% of the FF sensor or about 10mp over that same 600mm viewing angle. The APS-C image on a PER PIXEL basis is much noisier but downsampled to 10mp it should match the A7m2 10mp crop at ISO 12,800 pretty closely.

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

@ Serious Sam -
"Fact.... You are not going to have those fast telephoto on this body, you have those lens you buy a D5S."

There is no D5S. And why can't you have fast tele lenses on this body as a matter of 'fact'? Pretty sure the 70-200 GM doesn't go on a D5. I take it that nobody is going to put fast lenses on a D500 then, according to the same standards you are making up.

"So you are shooting at F4/F5.6 max, sports/wild life I would not go below 1/250 shutter. Even normal in door lighting, you will be still AT LEAST 1 stop under @ iso 12800, and I am sure this body will just hit @6400."

What indoor sports are you shooting at 600mm equivalent? Indoor wildlife? Doesn't sound much like wildlife to me. And why are you shooting 600mm at 1/250th? Also what combo are you using instead that is faster with better ISO performance? It must be your D5S + 600mm f4 combo no?

"Now that make sense?"

Nope.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

https://youtu.be/KDpL_A0aPwA

I mean to type D4S.....

As for the rest of the argument, I will borrow Tony and Chelsea's first three minutes of the review to do the argument.

Mar 20, 2016*permalink

BklynBill

Excellent RAW processing Dan, the cameras JPEGs definitely tend to the cool side and the camera seems to underexpose a bit. But the RAW files certainly have lots of DR to work with. I'm sure the camera will be a big hit, SONY needs to show a bit more support in the way of new lenses though(G Master FF lenses don't count.)

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

Why don't they count? I guess none of the big teles for Canon / Nikon count also?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

BklynBill

Mainly because they are far too large for the body size of the camera(nevermind very expensive though obviously outstanding). One of the a6300 strengths is that it is small enough so that with a moderate kit it encourages mobility(especially important for video) and the balance with FF lenses way off. And that 24-70mm GMaster lens loses its purpose on a crop frame. a few primes plus a weather sealed, and perhaps optically improved (or more consistent) 16-70mm f4 would be nice. More weather sealed also, fits the mobile nature of the camera.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Which primes in particular?

Mar 18, 2016permalink

I agree with you both a little. I don't think full frame lenses should be written off but on the other hand Nikon and especially Canon's affordable lenses are better than Sony's.

The Canon IS kit lens is better than either the Sony 18-55 or 16-50 even of you get a good copy. In some ways the Canon kit lens outperforms The 16-70mm ZA. The Canon 55-250mm is truly a bargain and sharp right up to 250mm, that lens really bucked the trend for affordable teles being crap at the long end and it's even better with the latest STM version. The equivalent Sony 55-210mm is not bad if you get a good one but lacks the reach and is significantly more expensive.

The EF-S 18-135mm is a cracker. The EF-S 10-18mm is cheaper and optically as good as if not better than the Sony equivalent.

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

Then you have Canon full frame lenses like the 40mm 2.8 which is dirt cheap and high quality, the 50mm f/1.8 which is the same story.

The Sony 70-200 F4 G is a good lens but several hundred more than the Canon equivalent. You're left choosing between the thoroughly average 55-210 or the overpriced G.

With Canon, aside from the excellent 55-250 you also have the option of the non stabilised 70-200 mm f4 which while lacking stabilisation costs less than half the price of the Sony G and costs less than the Sony 18-200 mm!!

I really like Sony sensors and bodies a lot but Canon have a lot more in the way of affordable high quality lenses.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Canon also has nice pancake lenses both EF-S 24mm and EF-M 22mm are really great. Sony's 20mm costs twice the price and not even half as good. I agree with you on the 55-210mm front also.

But EF-S 10-18mm is not better, slower and also with adapter larger.

I don't expect Sony to be able to compete with Canon on price overall but they sometimes fail to compete on quality too which is the more annoying part.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

I thought I had put the 24mm in there, definitely meant to!

Mar 18, 2016permalink

Sony has always seem to think they can charge what ever they want. Their lens collection and price has long been criticised while canon and nikon constantly percent use with better value solution as a system. Very sad!!

Mar 18, 2016permalink

its just demand, supply and price.

canikon is definitely better value for someone looking to invest in a whole system with a lot of lenses and accessories. But there are plenty people who will just buy a body with the kit lens or two. For those people low price body like A6000 offers a lot for little money.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

RubberDials

Canon lenses are often cheaper than Sony's because they are old and have been on the market for a long time.

And it sure does get old listening to canon shooters banging on about how good they are. Nobody else thinks that much of them. Have you looked at the MTFs? Only a handful of Canon lenses are up to the level of the best Sony lenses and the G-master optics are in a class of their own.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

And have you looked the lenses we are talking about here - EF-S 24mm, EF-M 22mm, EF-S 55-250mm, EF 70-200mm f/4?

GM lenses could be best lenses ever made, but those aren't one (or the type of lenses) in question here. Not everyone can afford to spend that much money on lenses!

Mar 18, 2016*permalink

Robert Holloway

Yup Sony / Zeiss glass is more expensive. Weird though as I switched from Canon last year and have zero regrets. Nothing wrong with Canon, just prefer the output I'm getting today.

Mar 18, 2016permalink

TrojMacReady

For some reasons we're overlooking the excellent 19mm and 30mm Sigma, 24mm Sony Z, 28mm, 35mm OS, 50mm OS, 35mm Sony Z, 32mm Z, 10-18mm, etc. All relatively compact still and 5 of those can be had under $500 each, all of them for less than $800.

Mar 18, 2016permalink