Need opinion on my trip photos? New to a6300.

[airstram]

Hello, I hope this is the correct forum for this.

 

I recently migrated from a Canon 70D with a variety of basic lenses and I got decent at using that, however I wanted to enter the 4k Video Market and portability market for vacactions/trips. I love to travel.

 

So I got the a6300 a week ago with the kit lens 16-50mm and wanted to see if anyone would be willing to look at my photo gallery and tell me what you think. I'm still learning all the proper exposure/settings/iso/apeture etc, by no means am I advanced.

 

I keep reading the a6300 is super sharp and far superior than the 70d but out of the 4 days of photos I've shot I'm not happy with any of them and debating whether to take the a6300 back for a refund. This is my last ditch effort to get some advice on why my photos all look pixelated when zoomed in, super grainy, etc. Or if it's just the kit lens, I shoot in manual mode mostly because I really want to understand it better. Thank you.

 

 

not sure on rule on posting links so if you want to browse my site index of the photos please let me know I will post it, thank you so much.

 

 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The Canon 70D has very good noise handling. So, I think you're used to clean images straight from camera. Sony images sometimes have more noise out of the camera. However, if you use noise reduction software, you will get results that are clean and detailed. I suspect that the 70D in fact applies more noise reduction, even to raw images.

 

Also, the kitlens 16-50 is really poor, which will affect image quality. In fact, artefacts could be a result of the in-camera optical corrections. Try disabling all image "enhancing" functions in the camera menu. They usually make things worse.

 

If you want better optics without paying too much, you can look at the Sigma 19/30/60 f2.8.

[Canujiony]

Haha, welcome to the world of the Sony lie/marketing machine!

 

I'm in the same boat as you - totally regret my decision of going from Canon to Sony and will be moving back to Canon shortly.  From what I gather the Sony's only get comparable when you spend SERIOUS money on lenses in comparison to Canon.  So bend over and pay wayyyyyy more for top glass or go back to Canon where the prices are more civilized.

 

And I totally disagree with Jaf-Photo above - Canon RAW/jpeg is very natural looking including shot to shot, my Sony RAW's look like they have all sorts of stupid processing going on in them - different white balances across the image, heavy handed noise reduction, and that processing can change shot to shot of the same scene, etc...  I'm still new to Sony as well Airstram but so far I've found that I have to spend a *LOT* more time on each and every keeper image getting it to look 'right' than I did with Canon.  And like I said in that last sentence, I get the vibe that the Sony is doing quite a bit behind the scenes processing to the images but at this point I really don't care to do more testing/comparison, this is just a seriously overhyped system.

 

Cheers!

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

You need to separate cause and effect.

 

Many people feel that Canon has better photos straight out of camera. This is because they skew the colours towards magenta/blue, which makes them appear more pleasing and punchy to the eye.

 

I have used Canon cameras and even owned a 70D for a while. I am certain that it had in-camera sharpening and noise reduction. This is because edges were very sharp but fine detail was smoothed over and largely absent. The images also looked flat with no 3D feel, which is a common result from sharpening/noise reduction.

 

With regards to Sony's colours they are less skewed that Canon's. But a huge factor is that Adobe's raw conversion is not so good at reproducing Sony colours. If you use Capture One for Sony, you immediately get better colours.

 

Another factor is that Canon's files are more or less set out of the camera. But with Sony you can make a lot of changes in post processing without ruining the image quality.

 

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that Sony can achieve files that are as Clean as Canon's but with more detail, if you dial in noise reduction and sharpening in post processing.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Wrong post.

[Username]

`         

   

   

I find Jafs remarks about colors, friendliness to processing, etc etc 

to be very reasonable based on my methods, which center around 

an expectation to edit/process every shot worth keeping. And this 

expectation is not about any camera's ability to produce killer SOC 

files. I run my cameras at low contrast and slightly reduced color in 

order to capture more editable material. IOW, I think of all my SOC 

output as not very different than a rolls of process negative film, not 

much to look at but ready for the darkroom ... or "lightroom" [not the 

Adobe LightRoom, just the generic "digital darkroom" concept].  

    

That said, having 5 brands of cameras on hand, I am astounded by 

Nikon SOC jpegs. Not surprisingly, Nikon files are 2X to 3X the size 

as files from other cameras with same or very similar MP count. 

   

If I hadda choose a very worst brand for SOC files, from among my 

various Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic cameras, the  

SOC files from my 3 Canons are the worst, and the least tolerant of 

the extensive editing, and are the most in-need of extensive editing. 

   

YMMV

[Canujiony]

Haha Username, Canon is among the worst eh?  So what you're saying is the brand that has the best colours and most pleasing skin tones known in the industry, according to you, has one of the worst?  

 

Riiiiiiight.

 

This is 'the Sony lie' that I got sucked into when I chose the A6000 over the M5 - you hear all this rubbish (many by paid shills?) that come into every thread on every forum on every website and when someone says they aren't happy with their Sony, they make a statement along the lines about how they use/used Brand A and now they are happier using Brand B.