Sony A6300

[havoc315]

I added an A6300 to my bag of cameras. As mentioned in another thread I bought the kit version with the 16-50 lens and was surprised to see there were no end or body caps included. Easy enough to solve, but coming from the DSLR world a but surprising. Ditto the lack of an external charger (even my AW100 came with an external charger now that I think about it). I'm not a fan of using the USB port to transfer and charge (charging via laptop was painfully slow, the wall-wart is a must) so I need to find a hopefully multi slot external charger.

 

I bought the 70-200 f/4 which I'm thinking I should've opted for a slightly longer lens over (see the 70-300 thread by tommui987).

 

I also have the kit 16-55 lens, which while I like it's length (both focal range equiv and compacted size) I'm less than thrilled with its speed and sharpness.

 

Theres also a 16mm f/2.8 and a fisheye extender kicking around but I haven't tried those.

 

For a pomegranates to hand grenades comparison I'm going to compare the A6300 and its lenses against my DSLR, a D800E.

 

Size: The A6300 wins this hands down. Even with the 70-200 its much lighter in the hand than the D800 with vertical grip and 24-70.

 

Capacity (battery): Due to the vertical grip the D800 wins this, though the method used on the D90 was far more logical (D800 has 1 battery in the body and 1 in the grip, grip has to be removed for body battery access d'oh. D90 both batteries were kept in the grip, so no need to remove for battery changes).

 

Capacity (storage): Due to having dual slots the D800 wins this. It would've been nicer if both slots were of the same format however.

 

Shot speed: No contest. The A6300 is 11fps while the D800 shoots was it 4-5?

 

Autofocus tracking: Again the A6300 is faster, plus it has face registration, face detect and eye detect. I found eye detect didn't work on my brothers midget minions (4yr old and an 18 month old) that or they're too fast for it.

 

Built in flash: Not a fan of either. Even though the flash on the A6300 was set to "fill" I wound up with this:

 

Focus: I don't know yet if its my error or the AF system but the camera has said things are in focus and yet the shot didn't turn out tack sharp (or maybe it's the cheap lens). So far the D800 wins this.

This was supposedly in focus:

 

Noise: Even at 1600 ISO when pixel peeping in lightroom there seemed to be an excessive amount of noise on the Sony. Nikon wins this.

When pixel peeping this originally it looked noisy to me.

 

Price: Sony.

 

Manual: Nikon. The printed Sony manual seems to be a cliff notes version to just barely get the user up and running.

 

As I said this was a pomegranates to hand grenades comparison and I don't mean to seriously compare the two against each other. I will get out and shoot the A6300 to see if some of the focus issues aren't due to too slow a shutter speed. I'm wondering if the real issue I'm having is Im used to the D800 sensor and now anything else seems fuzzy/not as sharp.

 

I am happy overall with the camera I just have to hurry up and test that 16-50 lens more.

 

I'm in a similar boat, owning a d750 with some premium lenses, and then the a6300 with generally sub-premium lenses.

For the most part, you can't really make direct comparisons --- not because it's mirrorless versus dslr. But it's aps-c vs full frame, and it's premium glass vs consumer glass.

So of course the full frame has superior noise performance. The tech charts will claim it's a one stop difference but I see far more. Even ISO 400/800 on the a6300, the shots can be great, but the IQ is already being diminished. On the d750, I feel the IQ is nearly perfect till you hit 1600/3200 range.

Colors and AWB are better on the Nikon.

But the a6300 holds its own surprisingly well as ultra high ISO. Yes, at 800-6400, the d750 is far superior. But if I really need to hit ISO 25,600 or higher, the a6300 isn't really worse than my d750.

 

The 16-50 is crap. It's tiny, that's where it's strength ends. It's slow, mediocre sharpness. I'd stay away from it. Shoot with primes instead.

 

Also look at adapting your Nikon lenses. You can get cheap MF adapters and use them with focus peaking.

Then there is the Commlite adapter -- it works moderately well with some lenses, horribly with others. I wouldn't use the adapter for shooting action but with some lenses, it does well with landscapes and portraits.

I have the Tamron 45/1.8 for the Nikon. I adapted it on to the A6300 -- in AF-c, it has trouble stopping down the aperture. But it works pretty well in AF-S. Using face detect, I got some incredibly sharp shots at 1.8.

[pierces]

The 16-50 is crap. It's tiny, that's where it's strength ends. It's slow, mediocre sharpness. I'd stay away from it. Shoot with primes instead.

 

 

I suspect there is a unit-to-unit variance in the 16-50PZ that accounts for a lot of the negative press. I have found that if you work within it's limitations, it is actually capable of capturing excellent images.

 

 

 

 

It will never out-resolve a prime and falls behind the 18-105 f/4 but I have no problem using it as a compact alternative to either when size matters. Admittedly, I am not an obsessive pixel-peeper and I have never enlarged an image shot with the 16-50 larger than 24x36 but as I said, if you are aware of it's limits (and get a good copy?), it is a great little travel lens.

 

Dave

Edited June 28, 2016 by pierces

[havoc315]

I suspect there is a unit-to-unit variance in the 16-50PZ that accounts for a lot of the negative press. I have found that if you work within it's limitations, it is actually capable of capturing excellent images.

 

But that's the thing... EVERY lens made today is capable of capturing excellent images, if used within their limitations, if you don't pixel peep, etc, etc.

 

We are all evaluating lenses differently. Personally, I admit I'm a bit of a glass snob. To me, a good lens can capture a tack sharp image at semi-wide apertures, with perfect sharpness even when pixel peeping at 100%.

If you need to stop down to F8 to get a sharp image, it doesn't meet my *personal* standards.

And yes, to some degree pixel peeping is a ridiculous endeavor. But not entirely... it gives you freedom to crop extensively. If you have a super sharp image, you can crop extensively and still get a great image. If you do extensive cropping of a softer image, the softness becomes evident very quickly.

 

 

It will never out-resolve a prime and falls behind the 18-105 f/4 but I have no problem using it as a compact alternative to either when size matters. Admittedly, I am not an obsessive pixel-peeper and I have never enlarged an image shot with the 16-50 larger than 24x36 but as I said, if you are aware of it's limits (and get a good copy?), it is a great little travel lens.

 

Dave

 

As I said, it's really pretty subjective how you rate a lens in isolation. It's how you rate it in comparison to others. As you said, it falls behind primes, it falls behind the 18-105/4. I know you've used the 16-50/2.8 for A-mount, I'm sure you find that it falls behind that.

So what modern lens is it better than?

You're an optimist, and I applaud that. It's hard for me to call a lens "great" when I can't think of a single modern lens that is any worse.

 

I do agree the lens can indeed be very useful. It's tiny and compact, making it great for travel or when you need to go very compact. And I agree with you, if used properly, in the proper light, it's capable of very nice images.

 

But would I shoot a professional wedding portrait to hang over a mantle with it? Not really. (It might be the only lens I own that doesn't meet that standard).

[pierces]

But that's the thing... EVERY lens made today is capable of capturing excellent images, if used within their limitations, if you don't pixel peep, etc, etc.

 

We are all evaluating lenses differently. Personally, I admit I'm a bit of a glass snob. To me, a good lens can capture a tack sharp image at semi-wide apertures, with perfect sharpness even when pixel peeping at 100%.

If you need to stop down to F8 to get a sharp image, it doesn't meet my *personal* standards.

And yes, to some degree pixel peeping is a ridiculous endeavor. But not entirely... it gives you freedom to crop extensively. If you have a super sharp image, you can crop extensively and still get a great image. If you do extensive cropping of a softer image, the softness becomes evident very quickly.

 

 

 

 

As I said, it's really pretty subjective how you rate a lens in isolation. It's how you rate it in comparison to others. As you said, it falls behind primes, it falls behind the 18-105/4. I know you've used the 16-50/2.8 for A-mount, I'm sure you find that it falls behind that.

So what modern lens is it better than?

You're an optimist, and I applaud that. It's hard for me to call a lens "great" when I can't think of a single modern lens that is any worse.

 

I do agree the lens can indeed be very useful. It's tiny and compact, making it great for travel or when you need to go very compact. And I agree with you, if used properly, in the proper light, it's capable of very nice images.

 

But would I shoot a professional wedding portrait to hang over a mantle with it? Not really. (It might be the only lens I own that doesn't meet that standard).

 

We are not really in disagreement. I just shot a wedding last weekend and the 16-50 stayed in the bag. On the other hand, I have always been the MacGyver type and would shoot the wedding with it if it was the only lens that I had.

 

I have never been overly flush with discretionary income (cruising being a staple), so I gave up worrying about what-if's and wish-I-hads ages ago and have learned to work with what I have. Working with the real world, I have seen a wide assortment of tack-sharp, technically perfect images that were just crap and another slew shot with a phone that were simply captivating. I guess I just love photography and the stories it can tell more than camera gear. :)

 

The picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't and the best camera is the one you have with you when something beautiful happens!

 

Happy shooting...with whatever suits you!

 

Dave

[havoc315]

We are not really in disagreement. I just shot a wedding last weekend and the 16-50 stayed in the bag. On the other hand, I have always been the MacGyver type and would shoot the wedding with it if it was the only lens that I had.

 

I have never been overly flush with discretionary income (cruising being a staple), so I gave up worrying about what-if's and wish-I-hads ages ago and have learned to work with what I have. Working with the real world, I have seen a wide assortment of tack-sharp, technically perfect images that were just crap and another slew shot with a phone that were simply captivating. I guess I just love photography and the stories it can tell more than camera gear. :)

 

The picture you take will always be better than the one you didn't and the best camera is the one you have with you when something beautiful happens!

 

Happy shooting...with whatever suits you!

 

Dave

 

I agree with every word of that. Great glass is a small part of the equation, far outweighed by the photographer's skill and talent.

But in the hands of a skilled photographer, a better lens makes a difference.

 

I try to tailor my response to the specific poster. To a novice or casual photographer, I'll usually say the kit lens is very capable.

When I feel I'm speaking to someone more accustomed to premium gear, I tell them not to expect much from the kit lenses.

 

As you have often said, it's a great time to be a photographer. One can capture great images with an iPhone, or with any modern lens.

 

My self... I'm going to Universal Orlando this weekend. On many rides, cameras are prohibited unless they fit in a pocket. I'll be carrying the a6300 with 16-50. Because as you accurately stated, the picture you take us better than the one you don't. I wish I could shoot noting but my d750 and prime lenses, but that's not always realistic or convenient.

[pierces]

I agree with every word of that. Great glass is a small part of the equation, far outweighed by the photographer's skill and talent.

But in the hands of a skilled photographer, a better lens makes a difference.

 

I try to tailor my response to the specific poster. To a novice or casual photographer, I'll usually say the kit lens is very capable.

When I feel I'm speaking to someone more accustomed to premium gear, I tell them not to expect much from the kit lenses.

 

As you have often said, it's a great time to be a photographer. One can capture great images with an iPhone, or with any modern lens.

 

My self... I'm going to Universal Orlando this weekend. On many rides, cameras are prohibited unless they fit in a pocket. I'll be carrying the a6300 with 16-50. Because as you accurately stated, the picture you take us better than the one you don't. I wish I could shoot noting but my d750 and prime lenses, but that's not always realistic or convenient.

 

Amen.

 

:)

 

Dave

[c230k]

Using the new Sony FE 70-300mm, this might help with the weigh balance while shooting. Just released new Meike MK-A6300 pro battery grip. Made for the A6300.

 

Here a youtube review

 

 

Tom :cool:

[pierces]

Linking to the post I just did on the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 over on the A6000 thread:

 

Heckuva lens for under $300!

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=50488598&postcount=901

 

Additional samples:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showpost.php?p=50488609&postcount=902

 

Dave

[pierces]

Firmware Friday!

 

A6300 v1.10:

 

https://esupport.sony.com/US/p/model-home.pl?mdl=ILCE6300&template_id=1&region_id=1&tab=download#/downloadTab

 

 

For some reason it is listed under the "Action Cam Movie Creator" dropdown.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

I did something really bad to my shoulder..... sofor my cruise+land vacation in 2 weeks, it looks like I need to lighten my load. I was planning my typical 15-20 pounds of camera gear, including the Nikon D750 with a couple of lenses and the A6300 with a couple of lenses (plus adapter for the Nikon glass). But with my busted shoulder, I think I'll need to leave the big guns at home.

 

Which will be easier on my shoulder...

Untitled by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Untitled by Adam Brown, on Flickr

[tommui987]

I did something really bad to my shoulderQUOTE]

 

Looking at your photos, I assume the answer is evident!

 

Better head for your friendly physical therapist or licensed massage therapist to work on your shoulder.

 

best wishes,

Tom-2

[shootr]

Here's a topic for discussion:

 

Would you take your a6300 to Ireland in May and not stress about an occasional drizzle hitting it?

 

Will be going to Ireland/England/Scotland next year and am STILL looking for any semi-viable excuse to upgrade from my a6000. (The a6000 does everything I could ever want - but it is getting on 2+ years old by the time we go and a little extra weather protection can't hurt).

 

I have a Maxpedition bag/holster/case thing so it would be out of direct rainfall, but might have to pull it out time to time to capture a castle or something in less-than-optimal weather. I can see it getting some drops then.

 

Not a fan of the rain sleeves...

 

Other option is a pretty decent waterproof P&S, but eh, that's not turning me on...

 

Just wondering your thoughts...

[Victress2007]

Some people are more risk averse than others!

 

 

Vic

[pierces]

Here's a topic for discussion:

 

Would you take your a6300 to Ireland in May and not stress about an occasional drizzle hitting it?

 

Will be going to Ireland/England/Scotland next year and am STILL looking for any semi-viable excuse to upgrade from my a6000. (The a6000 does everything I could ever want - but it is getting on 2+ years old by the time we go and a little extra weather protection can't hurt).

 

I have a Maxpedition bag/holster/case thing so it would be out of direct rainfall, but might have to pull it out time to time to capture a castle or something in less-than-optimal weather. I can see it getting some drops then.

 

Not a fan of the rain sleeves...

 

Other option is a pretty decent waterproof P&S, but eh, that's not turning me on...

 

Just wondering your thoughts...

 

Drizzle, not an issie. A recent visit to our friend's in Hawaii put me in a drizzle-rich environment with my A6300 and the 18-105G. I was smart enough to buy a hotshoe cover or two prior to the trip and my rig never had a hiccup.

 

Shot in significant drizzle:

 

 

top center - you can see the raindrops frozen in mid-fall.

 

 

It was raining lightly and i leaned out the window of the car to shoot this. It's not really a testament to weather-proofing but it was funny....

 

 

The A6000 is my dedicated backup and is still the workhorse it always was. I didn't sell it because I needed a second body and I get a lot of alternate-to-the-walkabout-lens shots that I never would if I had to pause and switch lenses.

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

My A6300 has been out in the rain quite a few times...I do live in Florida after all, where it can go from perfectly sunny clear blue sky day to downpour in 1.3 seconds...and rains virtually every day through the summer. While I do tend to always have a light rain sleeve or Ziplock freezer bag in a back pocket for those caught-in-a-downpour moments, I usually don't even bother to pull it out in those light drizzles or sprays...and even in the big downpours, I often get a few drops on the camera and lens before I can get it in the bag. So far, no problems...just a basic careful blotting off of the water with my shirt when the rain stops, and basic precautions like covering the camera back with the top of my hand and walking with the lens pointed down, using lens hoods to avoid getting water on the front element, and tucking the camera under the rim of my shirt when walking along...has worked like a charm.

 

Sometimes the shot opportunity is too fun to miss, even when it's raining, so I've taken shots in pretty steady rain before - light drizzle has never been an issue, and in heavier steadier rain a simple rain sleeve works wonders (cheap rain sleeves like the Op Tech ones can be folded up and stuck in a back pocket, so you have one with you without even noticing it until you need it).

 

Taken with a rain sleeve on:

 

No rain sleeve needed, just a light steady rain:

 

Even my A6000 has been exposed to the rain, and it wasn't as weather-resistant as the A6300 was:

 

And in a rain sleeve:

[pierces]

The Luminous Landscape posted a review of the A6300 in use in Alaska.

 

He loves the camera, hates the menu. Shots are pretty awesome.

 

https://luminous-landscape.com/sony-a6300-review-field-great-bear-camera/

 

 

Dave

[Emperor Norton]

Bummer. The article is behind a pay wall.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

[pierces]

I connected to it via my news reader this morning but can't access it now. Maybe they backdoor it for the newsreaders for a few hours to lure paid subscribers?

 

I have had them on my news reader for years and read their articles pretty regularly. I remember seeing that the site was going to a membership only model but never gave it much thought since the articles kept showing up (though less frequently, which I suppose supports my lure theory). I suppose the $12/year is pretty reasonable it makes it hard to share articles with others.

 

Oh, well....sorry for the mix up.

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

BTW - link worked fine for me.

 

I wonder if he knew, when complaining about his hand accidentally bumping the F-stop, about the dial/wheel lock button? While it won't lock all buttons, it will prevent any accidental dial/wheel movement from adjusting your settings - might have been useful for him! (Once dial/wheel lock has been set to 'lock' in the menu, you just need to press and hold Fn button until screen says 'locked').

 

I can't say I agree with the menu critique, but probably because I've been with the E-mount line almost since the beginning, and I can still remember with a shudder and a chill down my spine those gawd-awful NEX tile menus and the complete lack of so many basic menu options and controls...hearing a complaint that the Sony menus are far too large and extensive almost makes me laugh, because that's what I wished for so badly back in the early days. Now, Sony does indeed give you control over just about anything and everything, but you have to do some deep menu diving to find it all. Fortunately, all you need to do is pick the 12 things you need to access most and stick them in the Fn menu, and the 8 items you need instant access to and assign them to the custom buttons...Voila! 20 controls at your fingertips with no menu dives...that way, the extensive menu rarely needs to be accessed but you know whatever you need is probably in there somewhere.

Edited September 2, 2016 by zackiedawg

[Victress2007]

 

Sometimes the shot opportunity is too fun to miss, even when it's raining, so I've taken shots in pretty steady rain before - light drizzle has never been an issue, and in heavier steadier rain a simple rain sleeve works wonders (cheap rain sleeves like the Op Tech ones can be folded up and stuck in a back pocket, so you have one with you without even noticing it until you need it).

 

 

What size do you use? Are the small ones big enough?

 

Vic

 

Save

[Emperor Norton]

Update: I hit the pay wall from my laptop but not when using the link via Tapatalk.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

[zackiedawg]

What size do you use? Are the small ones big enough?

Save

 

The smallest size would likely be fine for almost any lens with the A6300 body. I use the long zoom lens version from Optech, mainly because I use the same rain sleeves whether I have my A6300 or my DSLR - so it has to fit up to my Tamron 150-600mm lens. When I use it on my A6300 with FE70-300mm lens, there's tons of extra room - which doesn't matter much since I just 'scrunch' it up to fit the length needed. The rain sleeves can be cinched up on the lens end so it fits around a lens hood, and has a diagonal opening at the back that you can stick your hand through to grip the camera - allowing you to shoot in the rain. They come in packs of 3 - and I've been able to reuse one for a few years - so they're hard to beat for the price...and even the very long large bags made for big birding lenses can fold up so thin and tiny that they can slip into a back pocket.

 

If you just want rain protection, any large ZipLoc freezer bag will do fine - I keep one of those in a pocket or small bag when I travel or go to Disney, so I can just toss the camera with attached lens, plus my wallet and iPhone in there, and zip it up until the rain passes - I don't care if I get wet as long as the more sensitive stuff or devices don't!

[wmjivey]

Heads up Amazon prime members, in acouple hours the Neewer 35 1.7 manual lens for Sony emount will start should be under $100

 

MM

[tommui987]

I have been fooling around with the video feature on the A6300.

 

Does anyone have experience with Roxio TOAST 12 as an editor?

 

I'm going on a cruise in Japan/China and taking two bodies with three or four lenses, the 12mm, 35mm, 18-105mm, and the 70-300mm (the last three are Sony). No flash and still debating about a monopod.

 

As my mobility is questionable - I often use a rollator or scooter on cruises, any comments on my choices (other than I am going on a cruise)?

 

Tom2

[pierces]

I have been fooling around with the video feature on the A6300.

 

Does anyone have experience with Roxio TOAST 12 as an editor?

 

I'm going on a cruise in Japan/China and taking two bodies with three or four lenses, the 12mm, 35mm, 18-105mm, and the 70-300mm (the last three are Sony). No flash and still debating about a monopod.

 

As my mobility is questionable - I often use a rollator or scooter on cruises, any comments on my choices (other than I am going on a cruise)?

 

Tom2

 

No experience with the video other than the couple of tests I did looked really good.

 

As for your lens choices, I have settled down to traveling with the 18-105 on the main camera and the 12mm Rokinon on the other. (In San Francisco, I actually put the 8mm Fisheye on the second body and was pretty happy with the odd perspective.) That covers about 99% of everything I ran into. It would be a different story if it were Alaska or some other wildlife destination with a longer lens as the main or backup instead of the 12mm.

 

Looks like you made some good choices.

 

Dave