DPReview TV: Sony a6100 review

The IQ alone is going to be much better than the smaller sensor camera. If you're not making decent sized prints in which you want lots of detail and aren't wanting better high ISO performance (and also don't care about the versatility of being able to use more focal lengths and have access to more shallow DOF options), then I agree, a smaller, pocketable, cheaper camera would be the way to go...

And how do you suggest they squeeze that APSC sensor into the phone; you know, so your photos don’t come out looking like the blobby mess.

@chadley_chad I don't know about putting a APS-C sensor into a phone, then again my Pixel 4 is bigger than is wider and taller than my Ricoh GR III, anyway Sony among other in the mobile scene of photography have been making great strides with what they have now. The IQ is starting to be more than "good enough", but imagine if Nikon and Canon contributed, i'm sure things would be far more incredible when paring what they know with say Google or what have you. Another-thing I'm sure they could do a lot with a 1 inch senor, didn't Samsung mention something about a 1/1.33-inch ISOCELL?

Rob890 - "The IQ is starting to be more than 'good enough', but imagine if Nikon and Canon contributed"

What could they contribute? Smartphone photography is an entirely different beast from conventional point-and-shoots and ILCs. Companies like Google, Apple, Sony, Nokia, Samsung, etc. have been knee-deep into smartphone photography, smartphone image sensor optimization, smartphone lenses, smartphone camera software, etc. for years now, and they have considerably more knowledge/expertise in the field of smartphone photography than Canon or Nikon. If Canon and Nikon were to get into smartphone cameras, it would be they who would have to turn to these other companies for assistance, knowledge, expertise, and technology. It's like expecting a typewriter company to jump into the laptop market. Yes, fundamentally a laptop is the modern-day replacement for the typewriter, but the differences beyond that basic similarity are quite significant.

Back in 2014 I had an A6000. The AF was great, but I sold it because the 16-50mm kit lens was rubbish and the only alternative lens was very expensive (the 16-70mm).

It seems that nothing has really changed in those 5 years.

It's the unuseable screen in sunlight that's killed the 6500 for me, currently negotiating a return.
Question: does the rx100.7 screen dim in 4k? I know the later 6xxx don't.

@Veselin Gramatikov- I wouldn't say they are "far" better. I've used the Sony 18-105/4 G OSS, 10-18/4 OSS, 35/1.8 OSS, 50/1.8 OSS and I have been extremely pleased with all of these APS-C lenses. I think these lenses could "match" Fuji lenses fairly well. You can get good lenses for both systems. People also have to consider that Sony has more 3rd party lens support. But Fuji has the advantage/disadvantage of being an exclusively APS-C system. The advantage is that Fuji can concentrate exclusively on APS-C lenses. The disadvantage is that you are limited to APS-C format. There are pros and cons on both sides.

They haven't disappointed there is a full review from DPR here;
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6100-review
Enjoy.

Why watch? Because the two guys who do these reviews are fun people and it’s enjoyable to spend 4 to 6 minutes with them learning their thoughts on various cameras. And unlike other reviewers (who shall remain nameless) they don’t seem to have an axe to grind.
And since DPR took the numbers and measurements out of their reviews the written reviews they’re useless.

I wouldn’t normally read reviews of cameras that don’t interest me; but that’s all changed since Chris and Jordan have come along. Love the reviews, very entertaining; and even if they’re not relevant to my tastes, I still watch for entertainment purposes ... and actually learn something I wouldn’t have learnt before! I have to say, those who moan about these videos are, imo, miserable old gits! 😃

I am not complaining, just bitching a little bit...

Same here. I don't watch them.

Red tail: you’re missing out!

I was at WalMart last night where they've recently moved the photo section from the front of the store to back in the electronics section, where it reasonably belongs anyway. The small display was full, mostly bridge cameras and compacts. The only interchangeable lens camera was a Canon, $350 with kit lens.

Now *that* is entry-level.

Which cheap DSLR you are comparing with? The one with 9 AF points or the one with 11 AF points? Or the one that have no AF in video and no 4K, or the one that have 4K crop and no AF in 4K? Or the one with 6 FPS or the one with 5 FPS?
If you do not get it I am talking about SL3/250D and D3500. Canon have even cheaper but I am not sure if they are considered cameras......
Maybe Sony just do not have competition at this price point and performance wise?
BTW I know speed, AF in photo and video and 4K are not the things that real photographer need but anyway..........

Maybe Sony need to make one crippled version of a6100 as Canon usual do? Ohh wait we have a5100 and a6000 on the marked since 2014 ......... And they both outperform this cheap DSLRs so ........ Ok at least SL3 have 4K......

Agree. $800+ is NOT entry level

A6100 is one of the most overpriced entry level cameras in the market.

@zxaar
Nikon APS-C cameras start at $400 (current pricing), and they have the decency to include a lens.

@Bobthearch yes you does not but dkeller did it to half priced DSLRs.
Seems like Sony are fine with this because there is nothing better at this range. And 5100 and A6000 are on marked. So they could allow it to start from higher price. At the moment we have:

A6400 - $998
Z50 - $996
X-T30 - $899
X-E3 - $849
A6100 - $848
X-A7 - $699.95
X-T20 - $699
SL3 - $649
M50 - $649
A6000 - $648
A5100 - $548
X-T100 - $499
X-A5 - $499
M200 - $499

Maybe A6000 and A6100 could be a little bit cheaper buuut ..... entry for Nikon is $996. Actually the very entry for Sony is A5100 and A6000 but without 4K.

@Bobthearch - Sony stilll sells the A6000 whose base kit is only $648. It sometimes goes on sale for even less.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=a6000&qid=1574102505&s=electronics&sr=1-3

" The only interchangeable lens camera was a Canon, $350 with kit lens. Now *that* is entry-level."

True. But you don't get face/eye AF, you only get a few focus points in the center of the viewfinder, you don't get the A6000/A6100's 11 frame per second burst rate (typically it's only 3-4 fps on these cheap Canon Rebels), and the buffering capacity is very low. So, yes, you pay less, but the specs are also a lot less too. Frankly, I think face AF and the wider focus point coverage alone is worth the extra money! As a former DSLR shooter who now uses mirrorless, I will never go back to using a camera that doesn't have face AF and wide-area focus coverage in the viewfinder. Face AF is a huge advantage.

@Video-vs-photo - "This cheap ILCs [DSLRs] are very slow and only for die hard photogs. Bad lens with bad performance will make people to stick to their phones. "

It's not just that. Today's smartphone users are accustomed to having real-time exposure preview, facial recognition AF, and focus points anywhere on the frame. DSLRs don't do that. DSLR OVFs are very primitive in comparison: no face AF, limited focus point coverage, no exposure preview. Even using Live View on a DSLR is a bit inconvenient (you have to press a button to flip up the mirror), whereas mirrorless cameras switch to the rear LCD automatically, no mirror flip-up necessary. I think that's why DSLR sales are plummeting at such a steep rate: they are very unlike smartphones and seem primitive in comparison. At least mirrorless cameras are much slower to the capabilities of a smartphone (full time live view exposure preview, face AF, etc).

@Prolenscamera - true story but all cameras was tested and neither brand was proven as very accurate !!! And not using vectorscope but making "custom" color grades which is how it used to be in photography has nothing to do with accuracy of colors! But with pleasant look from someones point of view. To add more on this usual people DO NOT WANT to look as real as possible in pictures! So color science in photography is real blah, blah.

@wwwuser: I like your comment about skin tones/colours. Independent tests showed that almost no one could tell what OOC JPEG picture was taken by what brand. They were not capable of telling what picture was taken by the brand they used. And many people took the "definitely not good" Sony colours as the ones that they liked best. That is telling how great the "canon colours" are.
This colour talk is getting a little old now, it is time to accept that all cameras are very good now and differences in colour, AF speed, etc. are not that important any more as for most people the speed and colours are more then good enough for their use.

@NemanRa

Alas, I cannot agree.
First, there is no EXIF in these pictures.
Second, where is the full size?
Third, instead of a yellow hue, we have red spots and a fiery red beard. It looks completely unnatural. Look how rough and sharp the tone transitions are.
And compare this painted picture from the camera for $ 3500 with a natural-looking picture from the baby Canon for $ 500:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5144667768/canon-eos-m200-sample-gallery/7491520410

P.S.
I'm nikonian, not a Canon fan-boy.

So where exactly is the color in this example? I see washed away skin which look not very natural. Also low contrast. Bring back saturation and contrast on Sony and you will get same "colors". Not to mention very different lighting conditions - shade and direct light.......
So we do not have same scene shoot by two different cameras and no one from us was there to see with his eyes. So what exactly we are comparing here? You liked this picture, OK! Me no. no.
To be able to really compare you need to shoot print and compare at same light. Everything else is just farce!!!
Just to stress again photography is far away from REAL colors! There is just missing knowledge and tools to get there! If you need REAL colors you need to look at Television or Movie industry. People there use real tools to calibrate their cameras and equipment!!! Does not sit on Canon color science to get right color from every situation!!!

A6300/A6500/A6100/A6400/A6600 all have the same sensor, though the processor and logic that sensor is feeding are different on the newer models.

It's a competitive sensor for mechanical shutter stills, though the e-shutter and video suffer from worst-in-class shutter.

EVF/LCD resolutions: A corporate apologist would love to point to PenTile AMOLED vs. classic LCD sub-pixeling and the need to differentiate (or confuse?) https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8ftluc/why_manufactures_should_advertise_the_amount_of/

Similarly, the perenial Foveon vs. Bayer pixel count http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon/foveon-vs-bayer.html

Net: Vendors often try to "dispell [competition] myths", while remaining opaque about their own. Eg., we never've seen yet a benchmark between Bionz, Digic and Expeed (speed, energy) as in phones and PCs...

Great: "for the love of god redesign that kit lens. if 16-50mm is too ambitious with the budget, go 18-48mm or whatever that can be pulled off with less compromise."

+1: It's not only optically the worst kit(s) i've ever used (5+ copies 16-50 and 18-55 on 7 Alpha bodies), but the PZ is also a battery hog. Make it manual, small and 15-45 or 12-35, or 18-45mm... whatever, but just update this embarrassment.

Peer pressure is the only emotion that corporations can feel ;)

„Someone somewhere in the marketing department starts with it because [...]“

Reminds me of this „full“frame-bs (sad for m43 with it’s emptyframe-sensor), but that‘s another story.

I am curious to know why cameras have much smaller batteries than cellphones, considering even thise that are smaller than cameras and also thinner.

Looks like mirrorless dont have even 2000mAh. Even those batteries used by toys, tv control and clocks have more capacity than ones used by cameras.

I *think* their voltage is twice as high so energy in watt-hours is better than you'd think.
Smartphone has 3.7V * 3500mAh
Sony a6100 is 7.4V * 1020mAh (up to 1950mAh?)

(misplaced post)
A corporate apologist would love to point to PenTile AMOLED vs. classic LCD sub-pixeling and the need to differentiate (or confuse?) https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/8ftluc/why_manufactures_should_advertise_the_amount_of/

Similarly, the perenial Foveon vs. Bayer pixel count http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon/foveon-vs-bayer.html

Net: Vendors often try to "dispell [competition] myths", while remaining opaque about their own. Eg., we never've seen yet a benchmark between Bionz, Digic and Expeed (speed, energy) as in phones and PCs...

Great: "for the love of god redesign that kit lens. if 16-50mm is too ambitious with the budget, go 18-48mm or whatever that can be pulled off with less compromise."

+1: It's not only optically the worst kit(s) i've ever used (5+ copies 16-50 and 18-55 on 7 Alpha bodies), but the PZ is also a battery hog. Make it manual, small and 15-45 or 12-35, or 18-45mm... whatever, but just update this embarrassment.

Why be bothered viewfinder resolution are pretty standard across all manufacturers. Because only a few manufacturers like Epson and Sony are producing them.

1.44 Mdot = 800x600
2.36 Mdot = 1024x768
2.76 Mdot = 1280x720 (16:9)
3.6 Mdot = 1280x960
4.4 Mdot = 1400x1050
5.76 Mdot = 1600x1200

As far as I know, all OLED EVFs use 3 subpixels per pixel, so no pentile matrix here. LCD EVFs sometimes are "field sequential" having only one subpixel per pixel, which changes color rapidly. (in the spec sheet they still count that as 3 subpixels)
But pretty much everyone has moved towards OLED. Only low end Panasonic models still employ field sequential LCDs. And Olympus is the only other company still using LCDs.

Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Leica and high end Panasonic cameras all use OLED panels.

In Canada the A6100 body costs $1000 CAD. The A6400 is $1250. A worthwhile savings.
Possibly, the price of the A6100 will come down when they run out of A6000 models to sell.

It`ll need to almost half in price in the UK, lets face it , it`s little more than an A6000 with fancy AF added