Sony A6300 first impression

Came home from work, to an Amazon box waiting for me...

I'm far from ready to post a full review. I haven't gotten to try the camera in daylight. And lightroom doesn't support the raw files yet, so I've only looked at jpegs.

But some first impressions:

DSC_6408.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

First off, it is definitely heavier than the A6000. Noticeably. The moment I took it out of the box, even without the battery, it was heavier than I expected. First I put the 50/1.8 on it, and put on the Optech cross body strap. It's a good combination, and overall lightweight and compact. I think I chose the right strap for the camera... I prefer cross-body. And this is cross-body without being too bulky, and attaches to just 1 side of the camera, without having to use the tripod socket.

In the shot, above, I was testing the feel with the 70-200, which i also just got. I feared the 70-200 would be too big and balance poorly on the A6300... But it seems to be a good combination. I wouldn't want to go any bigger, but it balances pretty nicely, especially WITHOUT the tripod collar and hood.

The autofocus does indeed seem exceptional, especially eye-AF in AF-C mode. In the past, I do 90% of my shooting in AF-S, so I can focus and re-compose. But I suspect I'll leave this camera in AF-C, without ever needing to re-compose since I can focus anywhere on the image, and can use eye-AF to get the eye without re-composing.

Now while it's good... I was using it at night, indoors -- so very low light. And it eventually got focus almost every time, but at times, it hunted very slowly before getting focus.

The EVF is great.... the 8 fps live view truly works. But the buffer SUCKS. And clears really slowly. Granted, I was shooting Raw+jpeg. But it felt like the buffer filled very very quickly, and then took a very long time to clear.

I don't want to comment much on IQ until I test in daylight, test with RAW, etc... But preliminary findings: ISO 25600 is surprisingly good. ISO 6400 is pretty bad. Yes, I know that sounds crazy. And this is just preliminary looking at a few jpegs... But here is what I mean:

IQ takes a quick turn down at ISO 6400. A couple ISO 6400 portraits looked really bad. And certainly, higher ISO portraits would be equally bad. But from 6400-25600, you do get usable non-portrait images. (I have a higher standard for portraits). Not images I would blow up. But images that look perfectly fine for sharing online, etc.

Eventually, I'll do side by side with the Nikon D750.. full frame. I have no doubt that ISO 6400-12800 will be far better on the D750 than on the D6300. But at super high ISO.. 25600... The A6300 may be pretty close. I'll need to test more.

On a side note, the 70-200 does indeed seem like a great optic. But I need to test it in good light. Still, excellent build. Good match to the A6300. And the IQ seems excellent.

Not exactly an impressive shot --- But with the 70-200, at ISO 25,600, and still looks ok:

DSC00039.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

A fuller review to come eventually

Did you order it body only?

Dave

Did you order it body only?

 

 

Dave

Yes, I have no interest in kit lenses. But I think my native lens collection is complete for my intended purposes (and I'll adapt a couple Nikon lenses).

I have:

10-18

24/1.8

50/1.8

70-200/4

So my full range is pretty well covered. And if I skip the 70-200, the camera bag is darn small. And even with the 70-200, it's a smaller camera bag than typical with my full frame camera+lenses.

So some continuing thoughts:

Looked out the window for something to shoot this morning, expecting some birds on the nearest trees, but instead I saw a wolf walking through the woods:

DSC00071.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Despite all the branches in the way, focus grabbed well. Yes, I lost many shots to focus on the branches instead, but that will happen with any camera. So once again, I'm happy with the AF.

I am not thrilled with the OOC jpegs. This was at ISO 2500

Let's pixel peep a bit:

DSC00071.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Especially if my lens only goes to 200mm, I need the ability to crop extensively. ISO 2500 isn't that high. But at least in the jpeg rendering, the noise reduction and sharpening are ugly. Paint-by-numbers effects. As I looked more closely in other images, it really starts to get ugly at pretty low ISO... Again, I haven't done enough testing to draw any serious conclusions. But above ISO 800, maybe even above ISO 400, things start to suffer.

Now, of course I'm comparing to full frame... So it's not a "fair" comparison. In theory though, full frame should give about 1 stop of improvement. I don't know how much of it is full frame, and how much might just be better jpeg processing, but I find the OOC jpegs from the Nikon D750 far superior, and at much higher ISO.

But really, I rarely shoot jpegs. Maybe I'm imagining the difference and need to do side by side comparisons.

And once lightroom updates, I'll go back to raw. And then I'll be able to judge the differences better. I suspect I'll be happy with ISO 2500 when I process raw myself. (It was fine on the A6000, so shouldn't be any worse). But I really really don't like the jpegs at even medium ISOs.

Another complaint... and I had the same issue with the A6000. It is the same body, after all. I hate the memory card placement, where and how it is placed in the battery compartment. It makes it rather awkward to remove the memory card. (And I don't use USB to upload.. I always just insert the card into my computer).

I'm not meaning to be negative. Just sharing my impressions as I go. Overall, it is certainly a great camera. I suspect I'll appreciate it more, when I go back to raw. And also when I take more advantage of the AF system.

Play around with your JPEG compression level, noise reduction, sharpening and saturation/contrast settings. It made a significant difference in my OOC JPEGs on all my Sony cameras.

Yes, memory card placement sucks. I always depress it, then let it flick itself out under the spring pressure. It takes some practice to gauge the amount of ejection force (and a few instances of crawling under the desk to find the ones that got away) but I hate the card removal less than before.

Dave

Play around with your JPEG level, noise reduction, sharpening and saturation/contrast settings. It made a significant difference in my OOC JPEGs on all my Sony cameras.

 

Dave

That's probably true. But I'll be shooting primarily raw, soon enough. I may play with the jpeg settings this weekend.

Yes, memory card placement sucks. I always depress it, then let it flick itself out under the spring pressure. It takes some practice to gauge the amount of ejection force (and a few instances of crawling under the desk to find the ones that got away) but I hate the card removal less than before.

First off, I'd recommend using SD cards and not Memorysticks - the larger SD cards are a bit easier to slide out of that narrow slot.

Second, my method which has been working pretty nicely, is to depress and let it pop out (I face it up so it's not springing all the way out, but only partially up), then rather than trying to grab the card by the edges which is next to impossible with it being so close to the door, instead use your thumb on the raised flat surface of the SD card to slide/pull it upwards - I find it comes out quite smoothly and easily this way.

Definitely not a very good design to stick the card slot so close to the open battery door when it only opens to 90 degrees...but the thumb slide method solved my annoyances early on and I've always removed my cards that way since.

Ok Justin when is your A6300 coming?

Get mine this Tuesday, we need to give the 70-200mm a real work out lol.

Tom :cool:

I haven't got a shipment date on my order yet. :(

But...did some research on selling the A77 and the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma and a few other bits to finance some lens upgrades. Crap prices with the e-mount so dominant now. Sooooo....$325 will convert the A77 to infrared and open a new door to photo fun. Maybe I can still eBay the sigma for $500 or so and put it towards the SEL70200G.

Camera soap operas, eh?

Dave

I'm going through an entire soap saga right now. I'm possibly looking at picking up two new cameras, keeping two current bodies as backups, trading in 3 bodies no longer needed as backups, and maybe selling some rarely-ever-used lenses (3 lenses). I know you don't get much on trades, but at this point they're just taking up space, and they can provide some funds to offset the new purchases. I haven't placed any orders yet as one body isn't yet for sale, and the A6300 is out of stock everywhere I look.

After discovering the new A68 body WILL have micro-focus adjust and focus-field limiters just like the A77II, I think that picking up one of those will be the simplest, cheapest, and best ways to still have full usability of my long Alpha lenses for birding. I was tempted on the A6300 with LA-EA3, and may still play with it, but without IBIS, long lenses will be challenging. The A77II was just too much money to pick up for something I'm only going to use for weekend birding...the A68 strips away stuff I don't need and lightens the price almost in half - yet still has the exact same 24MP sensor and focus system.

Then, I'd also pick up the A6300 to upgrade from my A6000. I'd keep my A580 and A6000 bodies as backups, but I currently have 3 camera bodies sitting around in their boxes as backup/emergency cameras now - so I could sell/trade those: another A580, an A550, and a NEX-5N. Because my Alpha mount system will primarily be a birding/weekend system, I really don't need all the lenses I have for it now - my A6000 has already taken over most travel/general/walkaround duties. So I'm thinking of selling my Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 30mm F1.4, and Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro from that system. I'll keep the 18-250mm as an all purpose, my Minolta 300mm F4 and TC, and my Tamron 150-600mm.

So - $600 for the A68, $1000 for the A6300, then maybe $500ish back for the traded gear...might all come out reasonable in the end!

I'm going through an entire soap saga right now. I'm possibly looking at picking up two new cameras, keeping two current bodies as backups, trading in 3 bodies no longer needed as backups, and maybe selling some rarely-ever-used lenses (3 lenses). I know you don't get much on trades, but at this point they're just taking up space, and they can provide some funds to offset the new purchases. I haven't placed any orders yet as one body isn't yet for sale, and the A6300 is out of stock everywhere I look.

 

After discovering the new A68 body WILL have micro-focus adjust and focus-field limiters just like the A77II, I think that picking up one of those will be the simplest, cheapest, and best ways to still have full usability of my long Alpha lenses for birding. I was tempted on the A6300 with LA-EA3, and may still play with it, but without IBIS, long lenses will be challenging. The A77II was just too much money to pick up for something I'm only going to use for weekend birding...the A68 strips away stuff I don't need and lightens the price almost in half - yet still has the exact same 24MP sensor and focus system.

 

Then, I'd also pick up the A6300 to upgrade from my A6000. I'd keep my A580 and A6000 bodies as backups, but I currently have 3 camera bodies sitting around in their boxes as backup/emergency cameras now - so I could sell/trade those: another A580, an A550, and a NEX-5N. Because my Alpha mount system will primarily be a birding/weekend system, I really don't need all the lenses I have for it now - my A6000 has already taken over most travel/general/walkaround duties. So I'm thinking of selling my Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 30mm F1.4, and Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro from that system. I'll keep the 18-250mm as an all purpose, my Minolta 300mm F4 and TC, and my Tamron 150-600mm.

 

So - $600 for the A68, $1000 for the A6300, then maybe $500ish back for the traded gear...might all come out reasonable in the end!

For birding, what would hold me back about the A68 is potentially the frame rate and buffer. No word on the buffer yet, will need to wait testing. But I can tell you the A6300 buffer isn't great. And the A58 buffer is simply horrible-- According to imaging-resource, the A58 buffer can only hold 8 jpegs, and then needs 4 seconds to clear -- RAW is even worse. So I'd wait to see the buffer before buying the A68. I've seen the A77ii used for $750... So for only about $150 more, could get a far better camera, but used without warranty.

I have gone through the buy and sell.

Sold one of my A6000's and 18-55mm, The lens sold so I can get the A6300 and 16-50mm lens now and not have to wait, from B&H, only one the had in stock.

Ebay and been my life saver for selling.

Think I am set

70-200mm F4

18-105mm F4

10-10mm F4

16-50mm

18-200mm

Rokinon 8mm fisheye II

I prefer the zoom, guess it's old age for me.

Tom :cool:

Before I post some sample photos, some thoughts:

The new auto-ISO implementation is very good. I have been spoiled by my Nikon. Being able to set shutter speed parameters, even in A-mode, makes A-mode much more useful. Especially when you have a non-stabilized body... some lenses you may want to shoot faster than other lenses. Anyway, the new auto-ISO implementation is very very good.

Second, Big HOORAY for the return of the level. It is one of the best features of an EVF, in my opinion. Without realizing it, it's amazing how much I can tilt the camera back and forth. The full X-Y level right in the middle of the frame, really really is super helpful.

Next, a mixed bag... Where you previously had a customizable AEL button, that button is now attached to a dial. By default, it is MF/AF, or dial it to AEL. Or you can customize both. In theory, that's great. And I have already mapped eye-AF to the button. The problem is, the way the button is in-laid into the dial, it can actually make it a bit more difficult to push the button. Will definitely need to get used to the feel of it.

So in my 5 minutes of shooting today, there were lots of black birds circling in the sky a few hundred feet away. Against the bright sky, I really only got black bird shapes. So not exactly great bird photos, and I was quite distant. But it was a great test of the AF system, and it was VERY VERY impressive. I stuck to expanded flexible spot, AF-C. With the new 8 fps live stream, it was MUCH easier to follow the birds, than with prior EVF cameras. A surprising number of my shots with the 70-200/4 got perfect focus.

A few examples:

DSC00102.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC00098.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC00094.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

These are all basically 100% crops. If I had RAW support, I could probably pull out quite a bit of detail in the bird bodies. So this isn't a great judge of IQ, but the AF was mostly really a winner, especially with the 8 fps live view... EXCEPT..

Yes, there is an except. At first, I was shooting in single shot. Stopped down to F8. Quickly and accurately got focus. Then switched to 8 fps... At F8, I had a surprising amount of AF hunting, especially considering it was a sunny day, and I was shooting a high contrast subject. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I recall, when shooting in high drive mode, the camera may keep the lens stopped down, instead of acquiring AF wide open (anyone know if this is true?) Thus, at F8, it seemed to hunt quite a bit for AF, even in good light. I opened up the aperture a bit, and AF returned to being snappy. I'd like to test this a bit more. But for shooting sports and wildlife, I really want to be able to get great AF at F8 and 8fps.

Next, really boring, I just wanted to check the sharpness of the 70-200 at base ISO.

These are 100% crops:

200mm, at F4, center of the frame:

DSC00087.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Tad soft, but not bad at all.

Stopped down to 5.6, 200mm, the center of the frame is excellent:

DSC00124.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

I wouldn't quite say tack sharp, but excellent for a zoom lens.

The corner at 5.6 (shooting the same sign, moving the focus point):

DSC00125.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

It's a little soft, but not the worst I've ever seen. I suppose I should have stopped down a bit more and tested the corner again .

So hopefully this weekend, I get to do some real testing.

Last update of the day:

More A6300 first impressions..

Some high ISO indoor portaits!

And because I love unfair comparisons, I simultaneously did portraits with my D750. So Sony A6300 + 50/1.8. The camera chose ISO 6400. On the D750, I used the Tamron 45/1.8 and moved closer to the subject for somewhat similar framing. Knowing the DOF would be much narrower on the D750, I stopped down just a teeny tiny bit (still leaving less DOF on the D750). Shutter speed was just slightly faster on the Sony.. but I would have expected the Nikon to use higher ISO. Instead, the Sony went with ISO 6400 and the D750 went with ISO 5000. Still, that's only a fraction of a stop apart.

These are SOOC Jpegs from both the Sony and Nikon. I would expect very different results if processing RAW.

(for full disclosure, my daughter wasn't thrilled to pose)

First the Sony:

DSC00137.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Now the Nikon:

DSC_6409-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Comments thus far:

I greatly prefer the white balance on the Nikon. They are VERY different. Maybe I'm just used to the Nikon after shooting it for a year and a half.

I used continue eye-AF on the Sony. And it really really really is fantastic for portraits. No need to recompose. On the Nikon, I moved my AF point over the eye. No need to do that. And the AF was more accurate on the Sony.

Now let's pixel peep:

Sony:

DSC00137-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Comment: Since the focus was truly perfect with eye-AF, it really does help. I changed NR to low after my earlier shots, and it does look a little better. Still pretty noisy, with jpeg artifacts.

Now the Nikon:

DSC_6409.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

To me, its very hard to judge sharpness comparisons at high ISO, since you are also looking at noise, sharpening, noise reduction. Does appear the Tamron 45/1.8 is sharper than the Sony 50/1.8 -- no big surprise. But the 50/1.8 does well. And the noise and noise reduction is a bit uglier on the Sony -- Again, no surprise since we are comparing to full frame. In fact, while the Nikon is clearly better to my eye, the difference isn't necessarily that massive. I'd like to do a RAW comparison, so I could compare both images, at their best.

Anyway, I continue to be impressed with the A6300, but it's definitely not perfect. And I hope to do some real testing this weekend.

Came home from work, to an Amazon box waiting for me...

 

I'm far from ready to post a full review. I haven't gotten to try the camera in daylight. And lightroom doesn't support the raw files yet, so I've only looked at jpegs.

 

But some first impressions:

 

DSC_6408.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

First off, it is definitely heavier than the A6000. Noticeably. The moment I took it out of the box, even without the battery, it was heavier than I expected. First I put the 50/1.8 on it, and put on the Optech cross body strap. It's a good combination, and overall lightweight and compact. I think I chose the right strap for the camera... I prefer cross-body. And this is cross-body without being too bulky, and attaches to just 1 side of the camera, without having to use the tripod socket.

 

In the shot, above, I was testing the feel with the 70-200, which i also just got. I feared the 70-200 would be too big and balance poorly on the A6300... But it seems to be a good combination. I wouldn't want to go any bigger, but it balances pretty nicely, especially WITHOUT the tripod collar and hood.

 

The autofocus does indeed seem exceptional, especially eye-AF in AF-C mode. In the past, I do 90% of my shooting in AF-S, so I can focus and re-compose. But I suspect I'll leave this camera in AF-C, without ever needing to re-compose since I can focus anywhere on the image, and can use eye-AF to get the eye without re-composing.

Now while it's good... I was using it at night, indoors -- so very low light. And it eventually got focus almost every time, but at times, it hunted very slowly before getting focus.

 

The EVF is great.... the 8 fps live view truly works. But the buffer SUCKS. And clears really slowly. Granted, I was shooting Raw+jpeg. But it felt like the buffer filled very very quickly, and then took a very long time to clear.

 

I don't want to comment much on IQ until I test in daylight, test with RAW, etc... But preliminary findings: ISO 25600 is surprisingly good. ISO 6400 is pretty bad. Yes, I know that sounds crazy. And this is just preliminary looking at a few jpegs... But here is what I mean:

IQ takes a quick turn down at ISO 6400. A couple ISO 6400 portraits looked really bad. And certainly, higher ISO portraits would be equally bad. But from 6400-25600, you do get usable non-portrait images. (I have a higher standard for portraits). Not images I would blow up. But images that look perfectly fine for sharing online, etc.

Eventually, I'll do side by side with the Nikon D750.. full frame. I have no doubt that ISO 6400-12800 will be far better on the D750 than on the D6300. But at super high ISO.. 25600... The A6300 may be pretty close. I'll need to test more.

 

On a side note, the 70-200 does indeed seem like a great optic. But I need to test it in good light. Still, excellent build. Good match to the A6300. And the IQ seems excellent.

 

Not exactly an impressive shot --- But with the 70-200, at ISO 25,600, and still looks ok:

 

DSC00039.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

A fuller review to come eventually

I'm reading some great things about the new generation, even played with the latest A7 recently. For small midrange F4 zooms and primes these are a home run, when you shoot a lot with longer fast zoom and say need to take thousands of shots the advantages all but evaporate and the ergo is just terrible....

Today's test...

Side by side, the Nikon D750 with Nikon 70-200/4 and the Sony A6300 with Sony 70-200/4.

According to DXOMark:

The D750 combo should be a fair bit sharper than the Sony.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D750-versus-Sony-FE-70-200mm-F4-G-OSS-on-Sony-A6000__1071_975_1246_942

(the scores are much closer if you test the Sony lens on a Sony full frame body... I don't fully understand why a lens would be sharper on a FF body than an APS-C body, but it seems true of all lenses. Maybe someone can explain it to me)

Anyway, my testing confirmed the DXO maps. I did a little boring testing at F5.6. I shot the Sony at about 100 and 140, and the Nikon at 150 and 200, to get similar field of view.

So here is some pixel peeping:

The Sony in the center, may actually be just a tiny bit sharper than the Nikon.

Now at 140/200:

Sony looks very good:

DSC00144-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

DSC_6413-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So center, I give the edge to the Sony. Of course, I'm using shorter focal lengths on the Sony, and shorter focal lengths are sharper on those lenses as well.

But looking at the corners/edges, you see a clear advantage to the Nikon, even though it is full frame:

Sony:

DSC00141.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon:

DSC_6412.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon:

DSC_6413.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:

DSC00144.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

So at least for low ISO jpegs... you get similar center performance, with the Nikon having the edge at the edge.

To be continued...

Let's take the A6300 to do some birding.

On paper, the A6300 is a fantastic birding camera. APS-C camera, with fantastic AF, 8 fps with live stream.

But any serious attempt at birding brings out one of the big remaining deficiencies in the Sony system -- Their longest decent lens is 200mm. (or the superzoom 24-240, but that is slowly and inferior). If you are going to do birding with a Sony A77ii, Canon 7dii, Nikon D500: You can choose between a 70-300, an approximate 100-400, some Tamron/Sigma lenses that go to 500/600mm, 300-500mm primes (though Sony A-mount is also a bit deficient here). With the crop factor, in other words, you can pretty easily reach 450mm to 900mm in rival systems. If you want to stick with native lenses to maximize the A6300 AF system, you are limited to an effective reach of 300mm. EVENTUALLY, Sony will release their 70-200/2.8gm with 2x teleconverter, which will get you to 600mm, but it will weigh a ton, and it will likely cost $3500-$4000 or more (for the converter and lens). Plus, stick a 2x teleconverter on a 2.8 zoom lens, you usually get pretty marginal IQ.

I don't have long zooms in my Nikon system, but I do have the 300mm/4. PF prime. It is smaller and lighter than the Sony 70-200/4. But would give APS-C reach of 450mm. It can be paired nicely with 1.4 teleconverter (primes play nice with teleconverters than zooms do), and get 630mm of reach.

So in other words, the A6300 may be a great camera body for wildlife and birding, but in practice it's only good for very close birds and wildlife, until they really expand the telephoto lineup. And there remains a question of how well their AF systems work with long lenses. They need 3-4 additional telephoto options to be serious for wildlife and birding: Relatively lightweight 300mm and 400mm primes would be nice. A native version of their 70-400. And maybe something like Nikon's new 200-500/5.6.

Now on to my experiences with some backyard birding. I put the 70-200/4 on my Nikon D750 and on my Sony a6300. Set both cameras around F8 and 1/800, to get enough shutter speed and DOF for the unpredictable movement of birds. Shot in the early morning, so there was good sunlight but also a lot of open shade. Easiest way to capture birds was my neighbor's birdfeeder, but it was in the shade. That drove up ISO. And I'm sad to say, I continue to be disappointed in the medium to high ISO JPEGS out of the Sony A6300.

I managed to capture this same bird with both cameras. Remember, the Nikon version had to be cropped 50% more, to get the same field of view.

So here is the Nikon, at ISO 7200:

DSC_6418.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Here is the Sony, with less cropping, at ISO 6400:

DSC00221.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Yes, the Nikon is full frame. But looking at SOOC JPEGS of each, with the Nikon cropped 50% more than the Sony was cropped, the Nikon ISO 7200 is far superior to the Sony ISO 6400. Here are some 100% crops of the same images, to make the point even more obvious:

Nikon:

DSC_6418.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:

DSC00221.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Nikon:

DSC_6429.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Sony:

DSC00180.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

To be continued...

Now enough of the bad news, time for the good news:

The AF system is indeed fast and accurate. Including when shooting continuously at F8.

And when I was in the sun as opposed to the shade, keeping ISO at 3200 and lower, I did indeed get some very very nice results from the Sony:

(unfortunately, I had to pull some of the shadows on these, and there isn't a huge amount of room on jpegs to do it):

DSC00263.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Realizing the poor quality I was getting at high ISO, I opened up the aperture to 5.6, and got this at ISO 3200 in the shade, much better than the shots above:

DSC00260.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

ISO 800 in the sunlight:

DSC00234.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

ISO 1000 in sunlight, but had to pull shadows in jpeg:

DSC00160.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

I certainly would have been able to pull shadows more effectively in RAW files. The AF system was indeed magnificent, and the 8fps live stream works very very well. There does still seem to be a tiny bit of lag compared to OVF, but very very tiny. The buffer clearance is pretty poor. If I shot a burst of 10 images... it felt like the camera was locked up for an eternity afterwards, and I couldn't even review my images while it cleared.

I was reminded of one pretty big negative of the A6000/A6300 as I took these shots -- the viewfinder eyecup is nearly impossible to use with glasses. Need to take off my glasses to shoot.

So how do I rate the A6300 for birding/wildlife?

- Camera body/performance/AF etc: A-. Loses a few points for the hard viewfinder eyecup, the buffer clearance time, and poor battery life. But overall, great.

-System suitability: C-. The 70-200/4 is a nice lens, a decent size, high IQ. But that only gives you a reach of 300mm. Right now, there are really no other decent native options. And there are really no great practical options on the immediate horizon.

-Image quality for birding: JPEGS: B-. You need to crop heavily when birding, even with a long lens. And you often need high ISO, as you may want to stop down and you need a good shutter speed for birds. Keep the ISO under 1600, and you're doing pretty well. But anything over 1600/3200 range gets progressively ugly. IQ in RAW files remains: TBD. I'm hoping I can raise my overall assessment of IQ once I truly process some raw files.

Don't have time for a long post right now...

But with the 70-200, ISO 2500 looking pretty good:

untitled-100.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Pixel peeping, not perfect.. but certainly acceptable for ISO 2500 jpeg:

untitled-100-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

The more I look... seems if you nail focus and exposure, things are pretty solid up toe ISO 3200, but you need to be cautious going any higher than that.

For birding, what would hold me back about the A68 is potentially the frame rate and buffer. No word on the buffer yet, will need to wait testing. But I can tell you the A6300 buffer isn't great. And the A58 buffer is simply horrible-- According to imaging-resource, the A58 buffer can only hold 8 jpegs, and then needs 4 seconds to clear -- RAW is even worse. So I'd wait to see the buffer before buying the A68. I've seen the A77ii used for $750... So for only about $150 more, could get a far better camera, but used without warranty.

I'm not terribly worried about the buffer - though I do at least expect it to be higher than that of the A58, which was indeed horrible. The buffer on my A580 and A6000 are both plenty for my needs, and I'd expect it to land in that region - 25-35 JPG is about all I need. I rarely shoot BIF in RAW - once I tune my camera's JPG settings I tend to shoot birding in JPG so I don't have to do any processing afterwards except cropping. I"m not one to just hold down the shutter button and let the frames run to the buffer - when shooting BIF using continuous frame rate, I'll typically shoot in the 5 to 6fps rate, not the higher 8, 10, or 11 frame rates...and I usually only shoot shorter bursts of maybe 3-8 frames at a time, releasing then reengaging along the way. The most I'll really use in any burst is around 15-20 JPGs...even most entry-level cameras can handle that in their buffers. So I should be OK.

But indeed if I get the A68, and test it, and find I can only shoot 5 or 6 JPGs and the buffer fills, that camera will head right back to the seller!

Ship date from Amazon....Finally!

Dave

I keep checking B&H - the A6300 is always listed out of stock, no matter when I check. The A68 was supposed to be available for sale at 11am today...which it did become available - but unfortunately they were being tricky, as they just opened for 'pre order' and aren't available to ship until March 19. I think I may still bite on the A68 now, and just keep checking for the A6300 availability.

Guess I lucked out, B&H mailed mine on the 10th, said expedite shipping, (lol) get it tomorrow. I like to shop Amazon, but here in Florida we have to pay tax, so stay away from high dollar items. Noticed some good vendors selling on Ebay, but they go fast.

David thanks for the heads up on A6000 update rev 3.1.

Tom :cool:

Yep - the Florida tax is the precise reason I have been going with B&H lately. I've bought almost all my past camera gear from Amazon, until they started applying taxes...now, for anything over a hundred or two dollars, I try to find alternate sources. On the A68, B&H is $606 shipped (they charge for shipping on some items), versus $635 shipped from Amazon with free prime shipping. While $30 isn't going to fund my retirement, it's still the cost of a few nice memory cards or a spare battery. With the A6300, the difference is even wider, at nearly $60 difference in taxes. Sad, because I like Amazon and used them for nearly all of my purchases for years. I still use them a lot, but big ticket items I tend to get elsewhere now.

As I continue my running impressions of the A6300, let me discuss a true strength:

Family candids. The AF system is mostly remarkable. As long as the camera is on and active, it is super fast and responsive. The amazing live view, and the automatic switching between the LCD and the EVF, makes is super easy to frame and snap yoru subject at any time. No awkward kneeling to capture your subject, no reverting to a slow dSLR live-view just to use face detect or to be able to hold the camera away from your eye.

And when capturing candids, you almost don't even need to worry about what focus mode you're using. AF-C with face detect, and just watch to make sure the face you want is green. If you really want to nail focus, hold down the eye-AF, and the camera does a pretty good job of following the nearest eye. Add in the pretty good wifi sharing, and it makes sharing family candids darn easy.

If there are negatives about using the camera for candids: It is slow to turn on the camera or wake the camera. Thus, if the camera has fallen asleep, or been turned off, you can't instantly capture the candid. Second negative, if you do need to move focus points, there is no touch screen or joystick/thumb stick. Using the back dial to move the AF point can be slow and a bit annoying. I often find myself often clicking it incorrectly as I'm moving the dial, accidentally changing the aperture or whatever... So fast movement of the AF point isn't great. But if you primarily are relying on the face detect, it's not a big worry.

I wouldn't say that the camera performed miracles -- Focus is not nailed in every shot. But I got a very high percentage of keepers.

So some candids from yesterday, with the 50/1.8 and the 70-200/4:

untitled-72.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-58.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-41.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

untitled-2-3.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr