Jump to content

Question about a6300


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

I'm looking into buying an a6300, I have a question.

 

I have an 11,000mah external battery with a 5V, 2.1A USB output. Will this charge the camera's battery? I understand it only charges when the camera is off?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

"As long as the power is on, the battery pack will not be charged even if the camera is connected to the AC Adapter." -page 17 of the a6300 manual.

 

Unfortunately you cannot charge the battery while the camera is on. If you connect an external USB charger while the camera is off, it will charge the battery. If you connect while the camera is on, the camera will run power from your USB power source and not the Sony camera battery (except under "certain usage conditions" it may still drain a little bit of battery power according to the manual). This is still great because at 11,000mah your USB charger will last 239,635,091 times longer than a Sony a6300 battery. 

 

 

The a6300 will not work without a "sufficiently charged" battery. So it'll need a battery with at least some charge in it to turn on, even when plugged into a USB power source. Also, if you ever have trouble with the camera charge working via a portable USB device, try switching out micro USB cables. I've had issues with ones in the past to run it off of a portable USB charger, but I know the official Sony cable works. I think it's a rare but if you do have problems, try switching out the micro USB cable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely, they thought the USB charger was charging their camera's battery because they weren't losing battery life, but what was actually happening is the camera wasn't losing battery life because it was running off of the the USB power. 

 

If you have any links to videos I'd really like to see someone charging while in use. Maybe there's a trick that I'm missing. I haven't been able to do this with my a6300. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sony mirrorless camera’s will not turn on without a battery that has some charge in it (or a dummy battery inserted). You cannot turn on an a6300 or a7 or a7rii without a battery inside of it. 

 

In this video Lok is connecting a USB charger to his a7. So while the camera is on, it is draining the USB charger’s power, not the internal battery (well it is but very slowly). It is not charging the a7’s battery. The a7 will only charge the battery via USB while the camera is off. When it’s on and connected to a USB power source such as a charger, it will just use that as it’s power source.

 

Example: if you put a half charged battery into an a6300, and connect it to a fully charged portable usb charger, after an hour of use the usb charger will be drained but the a6300 battery will remain at half full. If the a6300 was off, though, then the usb charger will have been charging the camera so the usb charger will be drained but the a6300 battery will be full. 

 

Hope that makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Hmm that's pretty dreadful indeed... My 18-105 for sure is sharper than that. If I have time tomorrow I'll shoot an example with mine at 40mm f/8 side by side with the 16-55. Sold my kit lens when I bought the 18-105 so can't compare those anymore.
    • Thanks for the very useful information. The 16-55 tempts me, I can live with the absence of stabilisation, what holds me is the price tag. As always, there is not such a thing like a free lunch in life. The Sony gives performance at a reasonable size but with no stabilisation and higher price tag, the Zeiss is compact, stabilised and reasonably priced but lower performed, while the Tamron provides performance at very good price and stabilisation at the expense of bulkiness. 😀 All in all, I think I will give a try to the Tamron, once I have taken in my hands. Here are two cutouts taken close to the center of the picture. The sharper one is the kit zoom, the other is the 18-105 mm, at approximately the same lenght around 40 mm at /f 8. The difference is impressive and more impressive for me is that all the lenses in the shop had the same behaviour on two different cameras. At this point looks like a whole batch and not just a lens.  

      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!

    • That's a pity and certainly doesn't match with my experience with the 18-105: mine is definately on par with the 16-50 kit lens (which on its own was as decent as I could expect from such a cheap lens). Sure, dont expect sharp corners especially wide open, but in the center my 18-105 left little to be desired across most of the zoom range. The 16-55 does beat it in every regard except zoom range though. The Tamron 17-70 trades blows with the 16-55 and might be the better choice in some cases. I went for the 16-55 because of the smaller size (I also found the 18-105 too bulky most of the time) and slightly wider FoV. My camera has a stabilized sensor so stabilized optics was no requirement for me. As you noted, I kept the 18-105 on my old A6000 for the occasional video project.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...