Jump to content

Sony a6300 and long exposure photography: My review

Batis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Batis Enthusiast

Batis

Posted
Posted

 

I review the Sony a6300 for long exposure photography. I can't tell the difference in image quality between the Sony a6000 and Sony a6300. Can anyone else comment on this? Am I crazy here? I am considering picking up an a5100 to compliment my a6000 because still image quality has a better bang for the $$$. 

 

Thoughts? 

 

Sony a6300

ISO 100

80 seconds

FE 16-35mm f/4 @ 16mm

Lee Big Stopper

No in-camera noise reduction

No post noise reduction

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Golem Mentor

Golem

Posted
Posted

The A6300 has better DR...

Not sure if you'd be able to tell at ISO 100 though? 

   

Similar thought crosses my mind: Not much

point in noise testing at ISO 100. If you can

find a difference between 2 nearly identical

cameras at base ISO, maybe you need to

get a life ? 

  

Now, if you HAVE a life, and life leads you

to a few after-dark events necessitating use

of elevated ISO speeds, THEN you might

report a meaningful check on image noise !

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
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • felipe
      Sony 16 mm f/1.8 G: Vea las primeras fotos tomadas

      By felipe · Posted

      Hola, parece que estan agotados, saludos Felipe 
    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...