Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Sony A6300  (Read 6970 times)

JayWPage

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
    • Jay W Page Photography
Sony A6300
« on: March 20, 2016, 01:10:13 pm »

I am thinking about ordering the new Sony a6300 and I would welcome any comments about what people think about it. Does anyone have a copy of it yet and how does it handle? What do you think of the images it produces. What about landscapes, is this a good candidate for a travel camera?
Logged
Jay W Page

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2016, 04:55:32 pm »

I am thinking about ordering the new Sony a6300 and I would welcome any comments about what people think about it.

I will upgrade as soon as it becomes available. I love my a6000, and a6300 provides few benefits w/o any downsides to them, so what's not to like?

What do you think of the images it produces. What about landscapes

DPR published their "studio scene" shots for a6300 recently, and while it's a minor improvement over a6000, I also compared it to 5D mark II that I also have (but essentially no longer use), and the difference is very-very noticeable, esp. at higher ISOs -- in favor of a6300.

Frankly though pixel peeping these days is for curious minds; pretty much all sensors are good enough.

is this a good candidate for a travel camera?

a6000 is the best travel camera I've ever had.

Was using it with 18-200 LE, then also got Zeiss 16-70/4, which is more compact, lighter, wider, and its noticeably higher quality allows to compensate some lack of reach with cropping. Second lens that I almost always have with me when traveling is 10-18/4.

It still amazes me how much more compact and lightweight is this kit compared to the Canon counterpart that I had to lug around.

Oh and then there's speed, which for me is more important than "raw IQ". a6000 had been amazing, and I fully expect a6300 to be even better. Especially with Metabones IV -- currently, when I try to use Canon 70-300 DO with a6000, AF sucks, big time. Hope this changes with promised PDAF with adapted lenses.
Logged

DaveCurtis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
    • http://www.magiclight.co.nz
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2016, 03:38:21 pm »

It will have a very good sensor and very good AF for a mirrorless. Also it is a nice light body and remains light with the kit lens.

On the handling side Im less impressed. Lack of decent input dials. The A7 series is bad enough.

Lens - Pretty much kits lenses or FE.  No decent/light dedicated lens system.
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2016, 09:37:10 pm »

It will have a very good sensor and very good AF for a mirrorless. Also it is a nice light body and remains light with the kit lens.

On the handling side Im less impressed. Lack of decent input dials. The A7 series is bad enough.

Lens - Pretty much kits lenses or FE.  No decent/light dedicated lens system.

A tad harsh I think, some of the native primes seem to get good reviews. Can't really speak for the zooms as I have little interest.
Logged

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2016, 11:14:29 am »

Jay, if you're considering using the 4K video much, you should read Andrew Reid's evaluation. The biggest flaw is a severe sensor overheating and shutdown problem (in winter, in Germany!), and a terrible menu implementation. Both unfortunately not new to Sony.

But it has marvelous video output, and outstanding high ISO performance. A very mixed, intriguing bag...

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/03/sony-a6300-review-rolling-striking-image-but-nagging-issues/

Pete
Logged

JayWPage

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 216
    • Jay W Page Photography
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2016, 10:22:49 pm »

Thanks for your input!

I don't take videos so those problems aren't much a concern, but I am looking for a good travel camera which can be used with a variety of lenses. A camera that will be convenient for street shooting when using auto focusing lenses, and yet will produce decent landscapes when on a tripod and using a good manual lens, i.e. a Zeiss Loxia. Also, the weight and portability of the whole kit is important for hiking, solo backpacking, 3rd world travel, etc.

I already own a Sony RX1 so I'm familiar with the Sony menus. I expect I will be able to set both cameras up so that they handle pretty much the same. And I'm OK with 24MP which I find is completely adequate for the printing I do (with a Epson 3880).

The pixel size is about 15% less than those on the A7RII so I'm not expecting quite the same DR but hopefully close to the A7RII. The high ISO performance seems good judging by the images published so far. The uncompressed 14-bit raw files should be an improvement over those from my RX1.

The a6300 with the kit lens has been shipping since sometime mid-March, maybe someone on LL has had an opportunity to try one out? I have placed an order for a a6300 body which has locked in the price (Sony price increases in Canada are rumored for April 1st), but it may be a couple of weeks before I have one in hand.

Cheers,
Jay
Logged
Jay W Page

happypuppy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2016, 02:31:31 pm »

I will be adding one as well. I like the form factor and the images. For a good inexpensive ( relative to all photo gear LOL) look at the cannon 24mm 2.8. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2016, 09:47:30 pm »

My most compact system for when I really need maximum versatility with a minimal amount of size is the a6300 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 as my standard lens with the Touit 12mm f/2.8 as my ultra wide and I will be adding the new 70-300 for when I need reach which will equate to 105-450mm as far as field of view is concerned.

My normal set-up is the a7R with a cadre of primes and zooms and my normal wildlife setup is a D720 or D810 with the Nikkor super tells.  But for when I need to keep it really small and light, it's the a6300 set-up above.  It's the best camera on the market at that size and weight point in my opinion.
Logged

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2016, 01:57:27 pm »

My most compact system for when I really need maximum versatility with a minimal amount of size is the a6300 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 as my standard lens

I am thinking about pairing my a7r2 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 (which I would have to purchase) to use as my lightweight backpacking camera.  I would carry 10 ounces extra weight but save over $1,000 not purchasing the A6300.  Any disadvantages to going that route?
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2016, 07:08:13 pm »

I am thinking about pairing my a7r2 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 (which I would have to purchase) to use as my lightweight backpacking camera.  I would carry 10 ounces extra weight but save over $1,000 not purchasing the A6300.  Any disadvantages to going that route?
Not really, I have that combo and used it a lot in the past with good results but now I have a lot of those Zeiss Primes and don't use that lens as much anymore.  The lens has been unjustifiably maligned on the internet and subject to the Internet Amplification Effect.  When it came out, the only thing one could compare it to was the Sony Zeiss 35mm and 55mm primes and of course it wasn't as good and so the internet latched onto that and made a pretty good lens (not a great lens but pretty good) into an awful lens.  It is approximately on par with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G for image quality.  Its biggest liability is distortion which is completely corrected by just about every RAW converter on the market.  Here is my original review of that lens:
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Sony-Zeiss%2024-70mm%20Review.pdf

And here is an article on using the a7R with this lens in the winter in Iceland:
http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Winter%20In%20Iceland%20With%20a%20Sony%20a7R.pdf
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2016, 07:57:56 pm »

I am thinking about pairing my a7r2 with the Sony Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 (which I would have to purchase) to use as my lightweight backpacking camera. 

Really?

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss

The 16-70 seems to be a very poor performer according to this report. Protozone is a very credible site with years of experience measuring lenses. Their results have always matched my experience.

Cheers,
Bernard

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2016, 08:45:42 pm »

The 16-70 seems to be a very poor performer according to this report. Protozone is a very credible site with years of experience measuring lenses. Their results have always matched my experience.

What camera/zoom lens combination that weighs no more than 2 pounds total do you suggest for backpacking?  I won't be carrying a tripod.
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2016, 12:38:50 am »

The Photozone.de review is from a single early sample of the lens....
One can not assume that no improvements in the production of the lens was made.  My 16-70 certainly does not exhibit most of the negative traits.  Sure the distortion is there but every RAW converter out there can correct that automatically and even with the correction off, it is much better than the brand new nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4 for linear distortions.  Their lens' chromatic aberration is also much worse than mine but again, ever RAW converter corrects that relatively well.  I certainly do not see anywhere near the resolution fall-off in the corners on my sample (which was produced a few months after their review).  They did say they sent the lens to Sony to make sure it was working OK but quite frankly, I don't think there is a Sony service center that has a single clue about how to even determine that - to them, if the lens mounts, and focuses, it's good.  I seriously doubt that they went in and checked anything beyond that.  Even as a member of Sony Imaging Pro Services, the biggest issue with them is their ability to truly correct issues and it's not a USA only problem.  If I got a lens like the Photozone one I would simply send it back and there would be a very good chance that the next one is better.

To John, Sorry I misread your earlier post and responded with info about the 24-70FE lens when you were asking about the 16-70 E lens.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 12:44:44 am by E.J. Peiker »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2016, 09:43:46 pm »

What camera/zoom lens combination that weighs no more than 2 pounds total do you suggest for backpacking?  I won't be carrying a tripod.

I agree that the a6300 is probably a good choice although I would personnally probably wait for the replacement of the a5100 (I currently own one, but have never used it for landscape work) that should offer most of its bigger brother potential in a lighter and cheaper package. This piece of advice should be taken with a grain of salt though since I have never done a rigorous spec comparison between the 2 to confirm that Sony didn't introduce some stupid articial limitation in the a5100 preventing it from being used for landscape work.

I would use this with a good prime lens, typically a 28mm for landscape work instead of the Zeiss (again, assuming that Photozone results are representative). If you want to go with the Zeiss, I would do very careful tests of your initial copy to confirm that it performs better than the one Photozone got because their results at least demonstrate clearly that this lens has huge quality control issues, if not a poor design.

Cheers,
Bernard

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2016, 05:56:58 pm »

I would use this with a good prime lens, typically a 28mm for landscape work instead of the Zeiss (again, assuming that Photozone results are representative).

Given the constraints of my trips (50 mile hike at altitudes above 10,000 feet), the fact that there is little time/energy for photography, and my need for many different focal lengths depending on subject and location, a fixed focal length lens won't work for me. A zoom is an absolute must, but I want the best quality I can get for a weight not to exceed about 2 pounds.  I may end up with the Sony Zeiss 24-70 and the a7r2 (about 37 ounces for both) as the best quality for an acceptable amount of weight, although even that may be stretching it on the weight side.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2016, 07:57:46 pm »

Given the constraints of my trips (50 mile hike at altitudes above 10,000 feet), the fact that there is little time/energy for photography, and my need for many different focal lengths depending on subject and location, a fixed focal length lens won't work for me.

Com'on, I used to do that carrying a 300mm f2.8 (true)! ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2016, 09:07:25 pm »

Com'on, I used to do that carrying a 300mm f2.8 (true)! ;)

Well, I used to carry a light tripod, ballhead and Canon 5D on some of the backpacking trips.  I paid for it even then, and that was about 10 years ago.  Having passed age 60, I have to pace myself a bit more.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2016, 08:12:39 pm »

Well, I used to carry a light tripod, ballhead and Canon 5D on some of the backpacking trips.  I paid for it even then, and that was about 10 years ago.  Having passed age 60, I have to pace myself a bit more.

Sure John, that was obviously a tongue in cheek comment. :)

Cheers,
Bernard

John Hollenberg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1185
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2016, 12:54:18 am »

Sure John, that was obviously a tongue in cheek comment. :)

I missed the wink, vision not as good as it used to be.
Logged

Zorki5

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 486
    • AOLib
Re: Sony A6300
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2016, 02:59:57 am »

Really?

http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex/901-sony1670f4oss

The 16-70 seems to be a very poor performer according to this report. Protozone is a very credible site with years of experience measuring lenses. Their results have always matched my experience.

Yes, Photozone is a credible source (at least, for non-Sony lenses), and that particular review forced me to think twice before purchasing 16-70/4. But I still did buy it, and have no regrets whatsoever. Fantastic lens, worth every cent (or should I say "ruble").

I do not know what is it with Photozone and Sony, but their latest 90mm macro review was the only one Sony lens review that ended with "Highly recommended" (in fact, I don't know of any other "recommended" for a Sony lens, "Highly" or not). Quite a while ago, the owner/editor of the site had horrendous experience with Sony support repairing his lens for many weeks (months?), so maybe that p!ssed him off? No idea.

What I do know is that I like every E-mount Sony or Zeiss lens that I own, and I own plenty of them. What's not to like about 50/1.8, for instance? Very sharp (scored highest at DxO), with OSS, great bokeh, for mere $250. The only thing one can reasonably complain about is focal length; for a portrait lens, 60mm would have been better. That's it, but still not "recommended" by Photozone.

I never based my purchase decisions on reviews on review sites, but did take them into account. After 16-70/4 purchase, I tend to completely ignore "professional" reviews -- all of them mentioned "decentering issues" with 16-70, all of them! As if publishers did not want to miss out on ticking a mandatory checkbox and stand out as not being thorough enough. Frankly, one is better off reading user reviews on Amazon/B&H/Adorama/etc...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up