Sony a6300 gallery updated with Raw conversions

Camera labs states the Fuji is clearly better high ISO.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

@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.

@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.

"including now dead Samsung NX"

Perhaps that's what happens when you rush.

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.

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

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.

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.

Raws look excellent to me. Beautiful processing.

There's no accounting for taste...

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.

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

@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.

thanks for that explanation. very helpful

? 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?

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...

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).

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

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

Photozone is a joke.

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?

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.

Lenses I meant.

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.

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.

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.

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

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....

"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.

"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.

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.

@ 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.