A6300 - my first impressions

[Reinhold_1]

A few days ago I received my A6300. After my impressions SONY has taken a big step forward with this camera. I am most impressed with the new AF system and the (opposite the A6000) even higher image quality. And (together with the LA-EA3) my Sony A DT 2.8 / 16-50 mm SSM awakens to new life!

The example image has been created with the E PZ 4,0 / 18-105 mm G OSS.
Image data. F / 11 - 1/350 sec (-0.5) - ISO 100 - focal length 70 mm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Reinhold_1]

Just back from botanic garden:

 

Sony A6300 + LA-EA3 + Sony A DT 2.8 / 16-50 mm SSM,

A-Mode - f/19 - 1/60 sec. - ISO 100 (-0,5) - focal length 45 mm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Pittiplatsch4]

I got mine about 10 days ago and was really impressed about how much better it handles in action settings when compared to the A6000. The new EVF and live action shooting modes are a lot responsive and UHS2 support is nice for clearing of the buffer after continuous shooting. Also I got the feeling that the ISO performance has increased slightly. 

 

Got the chance to shoot some women's football on sunday to test it out: https://goo.gl/photos/4NNJcY8fBzHiiu4x8

 

(I know the pics aren't that great, was just playing with the camera a bit) 

[Touko]

I'd love to see someone compare the a6300's copper-connects sensor with the RX100m4's BSI sensor.  Aside from being able to swap lenses, I'm not sure if the a6300 takes better stills under what conditions.

[BlueBomberTurbo]

I'd love to see someone compare the a6300's copper-connects sensor with the RX100m4's BSI sensor. Aside from being able to swap lenses, I'm not sure if the a6300 takes better stills under what conditions.

Even the A6000 was better. I had both, and the A6000 was cleaner with much more DR at low ISO, way better at mid ISO, and still usable at high ISO where the IV was mush. The A6300 is very similar to the A6000 up to 1600, then starts to pull away up to 6400, and is in a different league past that.

[Touko]

Even the A6000 was better. I had both, and the A6000 was cleaner with much more DR at low ISO, way better at mid ISO, and still usable at high ISO where the IV was mush. The A6300 is very similar to the A6000 up to 1600, then starts to pull away up to 6400, and is in a different league past that.

Thanks, that helps