The a6100 is Sony's newest entry-level APS-C mirrorless camera. As Chris and Jordan highlight in their review, it features some useful upgrades over to the [apparently immortal] a6000.
Just checked 7457476999.jpg, 6268656680.jpg, 8790980906.jpg and 5823547979.jpg from gallery on vectorscope. Skin tones are almost perfect!!! Best regards to Canon color science :) .
Yes, someone who buys this camera wants to have interchangeable lenses. And a bigger sensor. You can put a Sony 35/1.8 OSS or 50/1.8 OSS on the A6100 and get a look (shallow DOF, good background blur, great for portraits) that is very different from what an RX100VII could ever deliver.
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...
I find it kinda stupid from Sony to omit the auto iso minimum shutter speed feature but actually the workaround mentioned by Chris in the video can save your low light shots. It's just that you will have to change the setting again from M or S to A during daytime to allow the camera to go to faster shutter speeds. It's like they artificially crippled the camera to punish you from not buying the more expensive ones..
Most manufacturers do that. I remember on the early Canon Rebel models, Canon disabled flash exposure compensation and the auto ISO range was limited to ISO 100-400. All of these were simply firmware restrictions. So, yes, manufacturers take away/disable some features on lower-level models to encourage you to buy higher-level models.
Sony try to copy from Canon's "best practice guide for crippling cheap models" and "made 10 models from one with one button/menu option best practice guide".
@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.
I never had trouble getting an eye focused on my A6000. The ISO improvement in low light is anecdotal and the touch screen horrible (I know from my A6500). The new AF is fine, but it's not something I would pay for, the AF of the A6000 is more than enough for anything other than professional sports photography. In my country the A6000 costs € 400, the A6100 € 899. Do not be fooled, for € 100 / $ more maybe it would be an option to consider, at the price that is not worth it, in this web portal they will always want you to update and spend money, seriously, I say it from experience, not worth.
Good points. Have used A6000 and A6300. A6100 much more like A6300 and at similar price. From this point I could say no big difference in image quality but A6100 will be much more responsive/fast to operate and has 4K and better AF tracking. Also need to be more stable and hard to overheat. Seems like not too big difference and maybe not worth for someone like you. But it is useful if you have small kids and/or pets moving around. It is good that A6000 is still available and bigger problems are with lack of range of native lenses.
I shot rallie tests with A6000 in AFC and it was very effective, I also shot my nephews with the 50mm f1.8 (at f1.8) while swinging at high speed the camera did not fail, and I checked my shots at 100%. The 4k of my A6500 is unusable (it is the same as A6100 / 6400/6600). The only advantages that I have noticed from A6000 to A6500 have been, IBIS (A6100 does not have it), better viewfinder that allows me to see the peaking with my manual lenses (A6100 did not improve it), a larger buffer (A6100 does not have it) and that the camera does not lock while releasing the buffer, slight improvement in DR and almost imperceptible in ISO performance (that if A6100 has it), but for the price A6000 is a bargain, it is still an absolutely capable camera in 2019 and nobody is going to convince otherwise. A6100 is very expensive for what it offers and is embarrassing and deliberately limited by software, do not give Sony the pleasure.
And why 4K is unusable? My experience is A6000 noticeable slow. But never tested if and how it will fail! As I said A6300 feels much more responsive. From what I see 4K is very good easy to say the best in class. But overheat!
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.
I updated my 16-50 by 18-105 f4, but my 15-50 copy was not crap at all. Very sharp in the center at all focal points, decent corners at f8 (even at f6.3 from 35 to 60mm equiv.) At all focal points except 24mm equiv. where the extreme corners are a bit disastrous. Light, comfortable and responds quickly. I use my A6000 with it always as a compact camera. Forget about shoot 4k with any Sony APSC camera, the sensor's reading speed is low Rolling Shutter, is an absolute disaster. There are thousands of best deals to shoot 4k.
I updated my 16-50 by 18-105 f4, but my 15-50 copy was not crap at all. Very sharp in the center at all focal points, decent corners at f8 (even at f6.3 from 35 to 60mm equiv.) At all focal points except 24mm equiv. where the extreme corners are a bit disastrous. Light, comfortable and responds quickly. I use my A6000 with it always as a compact camera. Forget about shoot 4k with any Sony APSC camera, the sensor's reading speed is low Rolling Shutter, is an absolute disaster. There are thousands of best deals to shoot 4k.
I sold my A6300 and moved to the EOS M6. Specs might be better for the Sony, but the Canon is nicer to use, more versatile, lower cost of ownership and (most importantly) delivers nicer, sharper and more often than not, more in focus shots.
Good to see someone mention lenses. That is the a6xxxx series Achilles heel. Nice cameras but let down by the glass. M43 is a much better option. The system’s great, and relatively cheap, lenses more than make up for the marginal iq difference. M43 or full frame. Size or absolute image quality. APS C scores on neither count.
@UllerellU - yes rolling shutter could be problem, if you shoot at 30p and above it is better with small crop. But to not long ago there was no other 4K camera on the market with working AF, full APSC sensor read out and this price ( a6300 not a6500)! And rolling shutter was not really better. So Sony was alone in this category for long time. Now we have some options but not really too much. And if you need to shoot 1080p most probably A6000 will deliver better picture quality compared to a6500.
@chadley_chad - I really could not believe that you will get better AF performance and sharpness from M6 VS a6300. Most probably you just need this Canon ergonomics and colors. Or maybe you have better lens for M6. Otherwise does not make sense.
I agree with lenses choice for Sony APSC but not only. In total APSC sensors does not have rich and affordable lens options. Sigma is really trying to change this.
Pietrox; I don’t agree. In my experience, I found any decent M43 lens to be comparable in price to APSC (not to mention the reduced IQ and DR M43 delivers against SPSC). I stopped using my Sony A6300 and Oly M43 in favour of the EOS M6. M lens are as small and light as M43, often cheaper and sharper. There’s also a good range and of course, the option to use cheap EF-S glass. My 11-22mm, 18-150mm and 22mm are tack sharp; with all 3 being purchased for less than £500! Adding something like the EF-S 50mm F1.8 only costs £99 and the results are stunning! Nothing can compare from both Sony and Oly camps from my experience.
Actually at this price point Fuji xt30 gives you much better kit lens build quality. Better image quality and video performance and slightly worse af and ergonomics. Not mention that it is close to grey market/slightly used xt3.
Are you talking about the XF 18-55/2.8-4 kit lens compared to the Sony 18-135/3.5-5.6 kit lens? I have both lenses (I shoot with both Sony and Fuji). I don't think there's really much difference in build quality. The real, practical difference is the specs. The Fuji lens is faster, but has a much shorter zoom range, the Sony lens is slower but has a much longer zoom range. I would make the decision based on that. The difference in build quality has more to do with perception. Both lenses are plenty durable and sufficiently well built.
@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.
in fact 18-105 f4 is more Sharp and economical than 16-80 f4 Fuji (a disappointment this fuji considering how great it is 2.8-4). Sony 16-55 f2.8 is higher than Fuji 16-55 f2.8 in everything except the price ....18-135 is similar but cheap.
THANK YOU!!! I was having exactly that same thought. So much time on these is spent with totally meaninless dialog that could be read in seconds. I don't want to get in a flame war, but can't hlp but wonder about the literacy levels that are making these things so popular.
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 just wondering when you speak about the : auto-ISO option , if the question should be : can the camera set the 'maximum allowable shutterspeed' instead of the 'minimum allowable shutterspeed' if you are afraid of motion blur? sorry for my shakey English.... still DPR best URL in any category ..................... regards Peter from Holland
This is used in meaning of minimum allowed speed = slowest speed to use = do not use long times for exposure. Not in the meaning of setting the shortest exposure which is high speed in this example. Which is exactly used to make camera to not fall below some speed for example 1/125. To not allow motion blur for example. From the other side it could be read as minimum shutter speed = short time = short exposure = high speed :) .
This has been a long standing problem with Sony. When their cheapest camera is this price and they see a DSLR Nikon or Canon for half the price or even less it take someone who already knows a lot about the camera to move towards it.
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.
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......
@Video-vs-photo I'm not comparing it to any other camera. It might be a good deal, an absolute bargain, considering the features. Maybe the A7R IV is a bargain also considering the functions and features. That doesn't make it "entry level."
@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:
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.
You and I and those who are informed know the value of the Sony lineup, but a newcomer to DSLRs goes to Best Buy and sees: Canon T6 + 18-50 + 75-300 for $399.99 or Nikon D3500 with those lenses for $449.99, (not $996). They don't know the difference and neither does the clerk. Then they go up a couple of models before they get to they A6000 price at $648. Often that first purchase determines what brand they will buy in the future as well. Yes, I know many won't move up--but Sony needs to get those who will.
" 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.
Guys check above my post A5100 is available at $548. But yes Sony have nothing for $499. Maybe they are out of stock from Nex-5/6/7 or a65/68 to sale them at under $500. About cheap things nothing cheaper than T6 and D3500. But this is very poor! Better for someone to start with second hand instead of this. PS: And maybe this is one of the biggest problems. This cheap ILCs are very slow and only for die hard photogs. Bad lens with bad performance will make people to stick to their phones. They need to sell them with cheap and good primes around 20-30mm/f2. So the one who will get them will get some good pictures. Otherwise just disappointment........
@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).
Yes! They are primitive! This are cameras for someone who really like to start from basics and manual operations. Which is exactly opposite to smartphone users! And epic bad lenses add more nails to their ark..... They just try to sell decent image sensor with totally outdated periphery and crappy lens.
Continuing from my previous comment, we must bear in mind that colors are a deeply personal taste preference, so much so it will always be a very debatable subject (surely depended on lenses)! The advent of Digital image sensors have made it so easy to adjust the image colors to one's like, exposure, distortions, etc, that IMHO the debate has become "philosophical"!
I would like to add that even though color is a matter of personal taste, the color accuracy of each camera can be quantified by comparison to the real world's colors.
To continue with, the camera's color metering, profile and sensor matrix can influence your shooting style and the time spent on editing (especially if good color rendition can make you use out-of-camera JPEGs for example).
@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.
@Video-vs-photo I agree that no camera excels at accurate color reproduction, though it does not mean we should not care about which is better or worse.
I tend to prefer a photo that initially has colors truer to life as it is easier to color correct afterwards (if a portrait photo is initially biased towards purple instead of the more true to life yellow-skin color, there is a chance I will spend more time on editing for example).
But I have to agree that up to a certain point and as you said, color in photography is undeniably influenced by taste and no camera has the potential to fully satisfy everyone's need.
Good review. However, I don't think it's appropriate to end up stressing about other camera brands as a better choice for having a better kit lens! This is a Sony A6100 review, if other cameras are to be mentioned/glorified this is a Comparison Review. I've dealt with photography for over 50 years, both as my main hobby or in assigned pro jobs. That’s given me the opportunity to use several brands of cameras, lenses, etc. I mention it because I keep reading about Sony's color not being very nice. I've moved into Sony since 2006 (A100) and since then all characteristics of Sony cameras' (as every other brands as well) have improved tremendously. With the A700 Sony achieved a mature IQ overall, including colors!
A review can help people to decide if they want a camera or not. A little information about other cameras can be very helpful. In the end I find it very useful to have a camera that focus well even with a lesser kit lens, then to have a camera with a better kit lens, but with OOF pictures more often. Others will have the opposite wish. This information is good t have, I think. And no it is not reserved for a comparison review, as that would have more information about the cameras and lenses.
with this new a6xxx lineup I just can't justify selling my a6000 to buy an a6400 for at least 500€ more just for the (vastly improved) AF (for my use). It will certainly become immortal as the article says..
that sigma lens is crazy. tack sharp. overall, excellent image quality. not so long ago, the $8,000 1Ds Mark III was the state of the art. its image quality was considered as good as it gets... nowadays, we have sub 1k cameras which easily surpass it... good times. regards
@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.
those look excellent to me. OOC is highly subjective. sony OOC is more accurate, canon's is more „pleasing“. for landscape, i choose sony anyday. because the green is much deeper and natrural, same for yellows and blue. canon has a magenta tint on the landscape photos...
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
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!!!
@wwwuser - downloaded and put them on vectorscope and guess what? None of them have the perfect skin tones. To be honest when I saw picture from Canon on big screen does not look bad but not from this I will print. What is the lesson from this example? If you need correct colors you need to calibrate absolutely does not matter the camera. Otherwise shoot raw or create pleasant for you profile for OOC jpg.
DPR, do you have any plan on when the M6ii review is going to be published? It's almost 2 months out in the stores. Why such a delay? Didn't Canon send you one?
ps. I know this has nothing to do with this article but I didn't know where else to write it.
Until Sony drops the price, the A6100 is too close to the A6400 to matter. It's not as revolutionary in 2019 as the A6000 was in 2014 and should be priced as a budget model. Sony already soaked A6400 early adopters like myself. ;)
Also 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.
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.
The 16-50 PZ is a better fit for the A5x00 bodies. Those have the zoom control around the shutter to control it. I prefer using the older Sony 18-55 OSS on the A6x00 bodies. Neither of these is the worst kit zoom in my experience. They aren't as good as the Sony FE 28-70 OSS.
The 28-70 OSS! SCNR, that is an underperforming Kitlens, which is okay for the A7S(II) Series. I didn't ever bothered to handle it, since i've bought my A7 back then. Even my 1998 Contax Vario-Sonnar 28-70 is being better, and faster from aperture, also.
https://opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/999-sony2870f3556oss "It's probably not coming as a huge surprise but the Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS just doesn't cut it. It may be a good lens on a Sony A7S (II) but the 42mp sensor of the Sony A7R II is clearly out of its league.
The Sony lens may be quite affordable especially when buying it as part of a camera kit but, honestly, it is not worth it - at least if you are targeting Sony's A7R class cameras."
It seems like Sony often sent the worst examples of their lenses for review. And maybe quality control was/is an issue. I only have my copy, which is very good--better than the many mid-range Canons and Minoltas I've had. How much was that Vario-Sonnar in 1998? I find my 18-55 OSS compares well to the best Vario-Sonnar 16-80 I own.
I no longer use reviews of single copies as any guide.
OpticalLimits get lenses not from Sony, but being bought by themselves, or lend of. The Vario Sonnar is quite good. The 18-55 OSS is not the FE 28-70 OSS, it's way interesting, how you try to shuffle Lenses here into this context, and whileas it isn't being bad, it's just an average Kitlens, and i've had 5 samples, and kept two, the better ones, from the 18-55 OSS. It's the bread and butter lens for the NEX-5, A3000.
You must be joking, besides LensRentals, no one else does do Lens reviews with 10 copies to each item, and you better should know it yourself.
I have had the opportunity to use/play with a Nikon Zed 50 for a few days and as a Sony shooter I was expecting a much smarter easier to follow menu system (interface) on the Nikon. First off I always turn the Sony menu tile function on and in the case of the A6400 I use the 'My Menu' setup and take advantage of the Memory Recall function. As a result menu diving is not something I have to do a lot of - initial set-up took some time but with the help of a Mark Galer FREE ebook it went well. So much to my surprise the Nikon menus weren't in my opinion any less complicated or easy to navigate. When I hear the whining about Sony menus I tune out. It is just something to say. The other thing I noticed is the dis'ing of the 16-50mm kit lens - and then we see in the same video a number of decently sharp images - knowing most of the post processing software has a profile to correct for any of other issues that cheap little kit lens may have...
I have made a couple good shots, with the 16-50 PZ. It's a 9 Lens Element Design (only) and it does give you for real here & over there some bit of 3D Pop, sometimes, depending on what you do shoot. But needless to say, electronical in-body digital correction comes at a price - it's not "lossless" in terms if Image Quality, as some do say.
When i do need a small Setup, i take the NEX-6 with it's 16-50 PZ. But i must say, dispite this, as for battery life, and a (back then) good EVF, i still prefer my Nikon V1 with the 10-30 PD instead, because the battery lasts so much longer, i don't need 2-3 spares to fiddle into my jacket, when using the V1 over the day.
Alas, only a CX/1" Sensor ! One would say...but i made some good shots with my V1/10-30 or 18.5/1.8 Lens, this thing never goes >ISO 400 here, and i do have slightly more than 10 EV DR hereby...which is for most shots enough.
To Sony - please create a 16-55/3.5-4.5 Kit Lens with better Image Quality !
Sony's answer to battery life was the double-size FZ100, in stead of moving their Bionz chipset from 22nm (or where it's sleeping at low cost/performance at high energy) down to 14 ->9 and hopefully to 7nm soon.
Such progress would enable the CP currently shunned by the 'real' cameras, besides improving the battery life - generally even worse for the other MILCs (a good excuse for Sony to stay put :-).
"To Sony - please create a 16-55/3.5-4.5 Kit Lens with better Image Quality !" Or a 15-45, or 18-55 etc... just make it better and semi-manual.
At least with a manual unlock, w/o consuming power just to stay unfolded --like an inflated sports arena, collapsing when the pump stops-- as the SEL1650 does (i get 40% less shots with it vs. the older 18-55 manual kit).
Chris says the high ISOs have improved at around 7:15 over the A6000 . what he meant was they`ve Baked in noise reduction to the RAWs , notice that the 6100 crop is sofer than the A6000 at ISO6400. RAW shooters who don`t need the fancy AF tracking or wobbly 4K video can save a fortune getting an A6000 (HALF THE PRICE NEW) and let the Converter handle the Noise with sharper results ...
All this review does is show how good the A6000 was when it came out and the only real worthy upgrade for those who don`t need Spray`n`pray AF was the 6500 with its IBIS for primes and adding 5 axis to OSS , shame they didn`t put a front command dial in though .
"show how good the A6000 was when it came out and the only real worthy upgrade for those who don`t need Spray`n`pray AF was the 6500 with its IBIS"
+1: Old, no longer the best, and yet my A6000 is still a favorite (vs. the a6400, which needs too much WB tweaking to get a decent OOC JPG). Personally i don't use the eye-AF for landscapes and travel, hence a non-feature to my style.
However, Sony's IBIS is nowehere as useful vs. the competition. Better than nothing, but could improve.
I`ve never tried the IBIS in the APS-C Sonys but, I was shocked at how good it is in the A7R2 with the Tamron 28-75 though ! , better I`d say than the OSS in the Zony 24-70 F4 let alone the pretty useless OSS In the Sony 28-70 kit lens in which all it seems to do is create random decentering - better than the two APS-C Kit lenses (16-50 / 18-55) also . Maybe the 6500 isn`t big enough to pack a decent IBIS in an APS-C camera? , it is smaller than a lot of Olympus M4/3 cams (the benchmark for IBIS)
Sigh... somewhat unrelated but I'm getting frustrated by these marketing shenanigans about the resolution of EVF and LCD. Is it dots or pixel? And what actual resolution in width and height is that?
Why not simply specify in pixel resolution as something like 720x420. It's time to stop hiding behind meaningless numbers show how terribly low res these displays actually are compared to smartphones.
Sorry for the rant.
Other differences: a6100 doesn't support 120fps in HD a6100 no HLG (HDR), S-Log2 and S-Log3 picture profiles a6600 Eye AF in video, headphone jack, bigger battery, IBIS
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?)
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.
That's also why I kind of hope the Sony A7IV will have ~40MP to downsample 4k video perfectly from 8k resolution. Not going to happen I know, but would be cool.
And yeah, a sharp, small but slow kit lens that is a bit wider would be great for vlogging and selfies. 14-35 f4 maybe.
Why be bothered viewfinder resolution are pretty standard across all manufacturers. Because only a few manufacturers like Epson and Sony are producing them.
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.
@User1234567890 - but also slooooow card readers and buffers!!! How much RAM memory cost this days that we need to wait buffers ?!?!? And yes some smartphones are expensive but you can get 3x camera device with large screen 6"+ and 128GB fast flash memory included! They just want to trow in 1$ cheap CPU, battery for 10$, screen for 5$ maybe EVF for 10$ and sell camera for 5000$........... Ohhhh how bad market is..................
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.
Sony's a6100 is the perfect entry-level camera for folks looking to step up their photography game to something more powerful than their phone. We've updated our sample gallery to give you a better sense of its capabilities.
This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2019 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2019 DPReview Awards!
Sony's a6x00 series (especially the most recent ones) are very good cameras. Yet our in-house contrarian, Richard, isn't convinced their design is well matched to any one type of user.
DJI has officially entered the world of FPV (first-person-view) drones. Combined with long flight time, DJI safety features and OcuSync 3.0, DJI's FPV drone puts you in the driver's seat of a high performance aircraft.
The Panasonic Lumix S 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 Macro O.I.S. is a moderately sized, moderately far-reaching and optically-stabilized telephoto zoom lens for full-frame or APS-C L-mount cameras. Read our review to find out how it performs.
When Olympus released the E-M1X sports camera in late 2019, the company also released a modern editing app called Olympus Workspace. Is it fully featured and fast enough to replace an Adobe-based editing workflow? Let's find out.
Being cooped up inside doesn't mean you have to take a break from photography. If you've got negatives from way back when, what's the best software around to scan them? Check out our in-depth comparison to find out.
The Sony Alpha 1 is Sony's flagship mirrorless camera for, well, just about anything. With a 50MP sensor, it gives you tons of resolution, but it also lets you fire off burst images at 30 fps for fast action sports. Add in 8K video capture and you have a really impressive package.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Whether you make a living out of taking professional portraits, or are the weekend warrior who knows their way around flashes and reflectors, you'll want a camera with high resolution, exceptional autofocus and a good selection of portrait prime lenses. Click through to see our picks.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2500? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2500 and recommended the best.
DJI has officially entered the world of FPV (first-person-view) drones. Combined with long flight time, DJI safety features and OcuSync 3.0, DJI's FPV drone puts you in the driver's seat of a high performance aircraft.
Kenko Tokina has announced it will enter a business alliance on April 1 that will see it become the new source for sales and support of Carl Zeiss equipment in Japan.
Laowa didn't waste time at CP+ 2021 to unveil what it's been working on. The company has five new lenses on the way, including three for full-frame camera systems, one for APS-C camera systems and one for Micro Four Thirds camera systems.
Genealogy company MyHeritage has launched a new AI-powered service, Deep Nostalgia. The AI tech, licensed from D-ID, analyzes the faces in photographs and uses deep learning to apply animation sequences.
The Panasonic Lumix S 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 Macro O.I.S. is a moderately sized, moderately far-reaching and optically-stabilized telephoto zoom lens for full-frame or APS-C L-mount cameras. Read our review to find out how it performs.
Chris and Jordan shot this colorful sample gallery with the Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN while filming their review of the lens for DPReview TV. Check it out and judge image quality for yourself.
When Olympus released the E-M1X sports camera in late 2019, the company also released a modern editing app called Olympus Workspace. Is it fully featured and fast enough to replace an Adobe-based editing workflow? Let's find out.
The Sony FE 28-60mm F4-5.6 is a compact, retractable zoom lens that's bundled with the a7C and is also available separately for $500. Check our sample gallery to see what kind of image quality you can expect.
Last week we published a video about the Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K, and comments came swiftly. We heard your feedback and re-shot the episode to replace some questionable footage. Here's our new and improved version, with Jordan at the helm.
Following the success of the Pentax KP J Limited in 2019, the Japanese camera maker is back with a new J Limited product, this time in the form of the K-1 Mark II J Limited 01. The handcrafted camera is available in four colors and is currently available only in Japan.
FiLMiC, makers of apps including FiLMiC Pro, Double Take and Firstlight, has patented a new image rendering technology, Cubiform. The new tech uses color look-up tables to perform significantly faster editing and rendering.
Yasuhiro Osone, General Manager of the Product Planning Department at Sigma, revealed the news in a mirrorless lens development live stream shared earlier today.
Color slide film can produce images that are brighter and more vibrant than standard color print film, but with far less exposure latitude, there's little room for error. Here's everything you need to know about color slide film.
As we put the final wraps on our Nikon Z7 II review, we couldn't help but take it out for some neighborhood photos during some relatively rare Seattle snow – check out how it performs at ISO values high and low in our gallery update.
A few days after Sony Nordic revealed the details of the 2.00 firmware update for the Sony a7S III, the firmware update is now live and ready to download.
Billed by Sigma as 'a more compact but still high-performing alternative to the existing 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN | Art' its new 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN is indeed considerably smaller and lighter than it's 'Art' series contemporary. Click through for a closer look at Sigma's newest zoom lens.
The sensors in the Phase One XF IQ4 camera system is currently the largest medium-format digital camera sensor on the market, and we've just put the 150MP model in front of our studio test scene. Want detail? You've got it. Check out how our new reference camera fares.
Pentax has released updated versions of three of its prime lenses, adding improved coatings and a more rounded aperture diaphragm for smoother bokeh. The updated 31mm F1.8, 43mm F1.9 and 77mm F1.8 'Limited' lenses will be available in April.
NASA's Juno spacecraft has been orbiting Jupiter since 2016. A recent image captured by the spacecraft and processed by a citizen scientist gives us a beautiful look at the gas giant.
Last year, Isaac Lowe-Anker, younger brother of photographer Max Lowe graduated from college, but like a whole generation of students in 2020, his graduation was virtual. In this video, Max takes his brother on a celebratory road trip across the Olympic Peninsula.
The GN2 builds upon the foundation Samsung's GN1 sensor offers with new and improved features and capabilities thanks to its Dual Pixel Pro and Smart ISO Pro technologies.
The Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN is small, but how does it perform optically? Chris has the answers. Meanwhile, Jordan begins his stint filming episodes with the Pentax K-01. Let the fun begin.
The Sigma 28-70mm DG DN F2.8 is a compact standard zoom for full-frame L- and E-mount bodies. We've been shooting with the lens on the Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R so you can get a first look at its image quality.
Sigma has introduced its 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary lens for L- and E- mount bodies. This small and light lens has numerous special glass elements, plus weather-sealing, and will be available in March for $899.
After landing on Mars on February 18, Perseverance has been busy. In addition to its first images, Perseverance has captured a 360° view of Mars using its pair of onboard 20MP Navcams.
Comments