Why don't you own a A6300?

It's still a shit ass crop sensor.

Getting an RX-1 instead.

>>2787721
Unless you try to put a lens on it.

>>2787727
Just as long as you buy Sony you are good.

>>2787729
Well meme'd.

>>2787730
Unless, of course, you are doing serious photography.

>>2787721
Is it iso invariable? I'm definitely considering buying one.

>>2787741
Yes, get one.

Quality thread. Let's see some pics you took with it, OP?

(I know you don't even own one and this is just Sony Pretend Shill Guaranteed Response Thread #827, but still)

>>2787745
Mate the camera isn't even out yet is it? This is just hype lol not an actual user review.

>>2787745
I don't like sharing my work here as it's used in the design agency I work for. I would get into many legal issues as we deal with a wide range of of clients and major brands.

File: mC4M3hjfRQEfF9LfQReQ_double dutch fail.gif (2MB, 320x254px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x254px

>>2787749

File: Stan The T.rex.jpg (33KB, 500x342px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x342px

>>2787751
Ok ok, here's one of my product shoots. I can vouch for this product too!

>>2787748

i know m80, see the second line.

>>2787749

What a shocker. Never saw that coming.

This should be the end of the thread as you've already outed yourself as a retard phony, but because this board is a shithole it'll hit 200 replies.

>>2787748
It's a preview of user reviews. They are that predictable

>>2787755
Nice mate. I myself do fashion photography.

Who here is excited by all the professional video features? Makes the gh4 look like a toy.

Fast AF bait thread.

>>2787777
>implying sony has fast autofocus

I might buy this just for that dynamic range on slog files.

>>2787765

I love all those professional features! I especially love the exclusive ones like

>moire
>rolling shutter
>8 bit

It's a good thing that it makes a 2 year old camera look old, though. It would be embarassing if the GH5 came out with native 6k and made it look bad.

>>2787721
How many shills left till you get that ps4 your Mummy won't buy you?

>>2787799

Except that the a6300 doesn't have any of those 3?

>>2787830

It's got all 3. Read the previews homeslice.

>>2787835

Like you even use 10bit

>>2787799
>moire
if you shoot 1080 120fps

>rolling shutter
like every other camera?
wait for global shutter.

>8 bit
you should mention 8 bit 4:2:0

>>2787721
Really? From what I saw it is very weak in shooting action and wildlife, also the EF adapter can't focus reliably over 80mm. That and the new lens are focus by wire, kit lens is not WR, I'd say this camera is a wallet bait, making you spend a lot more to actually able to use the added features.
I wouldn't say it is a DSLR killer, in fact it is far from it. It is king in it's own catergory which is a being a mirrorless Sony camera but I wouldn't recommend it for enthusiast/serious hobby use. It is however great for generic instagram shooters, female siblings and generic no real care in the world people with disposable income. The Auto features will benefit them.
For the serious hobbyists, enthusiasts and professionals there is still Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Fuji suiting their needs much better.

File: Bokehlicious.gif (937KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

937KB, 300x169px

>>2787759

Want to try video with my Canon 50D.
It is possible to use it with 30MB/S Sandisk CF cards? I've read they should be 1000x with at least 80-90MB/S - but maybe there is some bitrate configs to lower requirements ?

>>2787936
This is the Sony circlejerk thread. The video thread is here >>2775806

>>2787936
You should be able to use such cards as ML offers extensive Bitrate settings.

Source: My old 600D with ML on it, 5 years ago.

>>2787936
Not at all ideal, and won't work shooting RAW. Will work okay shooting h.264 (I think is the standard format?) but you need a card with atleast a 75MB/s write speed to shoot RAW. A SanDisk Extreme from eBay works fine.

>>2787937
Haha, good one!

>>2787799
No slog
Gh4/gh5 still have rolling shutter.
Not even 24 megapixels
Dynamic range not as good.

>>2787799
That's not much to brag about when the ghx costs 400 more.

Because I'm not a faggot.

>>2787986
Wow i didn't know camera choice dictated your sexual orientation. Stop being such a homophobe. I'm not even supporting this shitty camera but you need to stop.

>>2787988
fag enabler.

>>2787990
Could you not bring your bigoted Trump tier statements into here? It's not relevant on a photography board.

>>2787721
The time has come for us to move on to the Sony system.

Resistance is futile.

>>2787721
Why would I get an A6300 when the A6000 will drop to £300 soon?

>>2787999
It has many improved features. It's alright if you get the A6000, if it's got what you need it is one of the most solid cameras below 800 dollars.

>>2788000
I'll probably wait for a comparison video, but the a6000 seems solid enough for my needs.

>>2788007
Either way you'll get a camera that performs better than all APS-C cameras on the market.

>>2788010
You don't have to shill Sony cameras to me, anon, I'm already buying one.

>>2788011
It's not shilling, it's the truth.

File: 1446267921102.png (38KB, 245x237px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 245x237px

>>2788010
>Either way you'll get a camera that performs better than all APS-C cameras on the market.
lel. Enjoy your lack of lenses, 1/4000 shutter, and 1/160 sync speed.

>>2788016
>lack of lenses
>every relevant focal length covered

Shut up, faggot.

>>2788020
inb4 >Sony lenses

>>2788016
Don't forget menus, lack of proper controls, and that the lenses they DO have are large, slow, and expensive!

>INB4 here's an adapter the size of a can of coke with a tumor on the side this isn't uncomfortable or ridiculous at all!

>>2788025
>lack of proper controls
What do you even mean by that? Not enough confusing dials for you?

>>2788028
Why would a dedicated shutter speed, aperture, and EV comp dial be confusing? Menus and function buttons that don't do what the print next to them says they do is confusing (and slow)

>>2788028
>confusing dials
If you find dials confusing, you may have brain problems.

Just, promise me one thing.
Promise me you'll never get in a car or on a bicycle. Okay? Especially not in an aircraft.

Muh fuji dials.

>>2788068
Muh professional point and shit.

>>2788072
>Viewfinder
>Full manual controls
>Interchangeable lenses
>Weather sealing
>Not usually that small

82% of my daily allotment of wat.

>>2788072
Muh bejewled evf

>>2788074
>Viewfinder
Point &Shoot and compacts have these too
>>Full manual controls
wat
>>Interchangeable lenses
redundant
>>Weather sealing
Redundant. There are tough compacts
>>Not usually that small
The A6300 is pretty regular sized doe a camera.
>>2788075
nice

File: 6H8MLFNzSH6cMlJDbDjK_Kickboxing Fail.gif (5MB, 510x317px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 510x317px

>>2788078

>>2788078
Some of you fags are complete idiots.

>>2788083
It's one guy dude. Report it and go on with your day. Even if the mods never come to rescue us, at least his shit will be minimized for you after you report it.

>>2788084
>>2788083
>>2788081
le one guy
It's not. Exactly the same way that a lot of the Sony posts showing up in gear threads aren't one guy.

Nice way to not add anything to the A6300 discussion. This isn't even about Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sigma or Ricoh. Enjoy your APS-C body that costs more than the last gen Full Frame mirrorless from the same manufacturer.

>>2788086
It offers a lot of features that that last gen full frame doesn't, which took a lot of money to design and implement. Why would it not cost more?

YFW all APS-C sensors are Sony sensors which have been tweaked.

Yes got, keep buying Fuji and Nikon. Your doing your part in advancing Sony technology which will soon BTFO all these companies.

File: 1396614077426.gif (1MB, 480x470px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x470px

>>2788092
Anon, you're trying too hard.

>>2788092
Which is fine, because in the camera world. sensors are the only thing Sony is good at,

File: 1815.jpg (891KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 2000x1125px

>>2787721
Because I prefer full frame
Pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Motorola
Camera Model	XT1254
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5248
Image Height	2952
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:08 11:27:30
Exposure Time	3261/50000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	Unknown
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1125
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84

File: shill.jpg (486KB, 1439x786px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1439x786px

>>2787721

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:08 17:34:31
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1439
Image Height	786

>>2788116
Best episode in a long time

File: 1456874620069.jpg (281KB, 1304x892px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1304x892px

>>2787721

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	95 dpi
Vertical Resolution	95 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:23 22:12:37
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1304
Image Height	892

>>2788116
That made me fucking chuckle

>>2788109
If these two are yours, which one do you find yourself using more?
If you had to choose just one to take when you're on a hurry out the door, which one do you grab?

>>2788173
A7Rii

>you still have to press a button to access ISO and shutter speed and aperture.
>1/160th flash sync

Sony is great at making sensors, and I'm sure the camera is a lot of fun.
I need direct access to everything I need while shooting. The more layers you put between me and shooting - like autofocus, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and autofocus points - the more I have to fiddle with the camera to get it to do what I want. Fiddling with your little plaything camera wastes time. Time wasted means shots missed. If your camera misses shots because it isn't designed well enough, it isn't a good camera.
Nowadays all cameras have good sensors that can take good pictures. Aside from other sensor stuff like noise performance and dynamic range, it all comes down to ergonomics and speed of use. Sony's don't seem like very fast cameras to use when compared to others.

For me, the bare (absolutely bare) minimum a camera must have for me to buy it is:
>Autofocus joystick
>Direct access to aperture speed, but I would prefer both shutter and aperture (does not include foolish toggle hold adjustment)
>Direct access to exposure compensation
>Weather sealing
>Two card slots of some kind
>Eye or face tracking autofocus
>At least 1/200th flash sync speed
> At least 7 FPS

It doesn't take much to make a camera that does at least all of that, but unfortunately those things go beyond the interest of people who like cameras more than pictures, so it falls into the realm of 3000k+ professional cameras, with a few scattering hopefuls in lower bracket prices.

For me, even though I'm just a lowly artist, I require my cameras to be as tough as me, because I don't want to have to miss a shot because I don't think my plasticy little consumer camera can make the trip. So it's just a waste of time for me to mess around with cameras that aren't sealed. Luckily, this camera is.

Sadly though, I feel it will get in my way more often than not. I stick with Fuji and Canon.

>cash shop
>in your camera
>sony

File: 08_X-Pro2_BK_Top_35mm_White.0.jpg (122KB, 2000x1070px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 2000x1070px

>>2788183

>>2788183
>>you still have to press a button to access ISO and shutter speed and aperture.


post invalidated, as you obviously never used an a**** series camera

>Direct access to aperture speed, but I would prefer both shutter and aperture (does not include foolish toggle hold adjustment)
>Direct access to exposure compensation
>Eye or face tracking autofocus
> At least 7 FPS

try again once you've actually used one of these cameras

>>2788198
>post invalidated, as you obviously never used an a**** series camera
Can you change your EV comp, ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, all without pressing a button first? Really?

>>2788183
> 1/160th flash sync
With the internal flash again, right?

Or did it get slower? The A6000 was 1/250 with an ISO hotshoe flash + had the option to do HSS...

>>2787721
You're a goat.

>>2788198
Of course I've never used one. I've never wanted one because they don't have what I need.

As for the list of things a camera needs before I buy it, I was very obviously talking about cameras in general, not specifically the Sony camera. Of course I know what the Sony can do, and it can do quite a few of those things. It would have been obvious to an observant person I was not listing things the Sony doesn't have, since I listed direct access to exposure compensation, and every single picture of the Sony makes it very clear that it has a dial for that.

Sony cameras still aren't up to my standards. I'll never use one since I don't often go to camera stores. Just because someone hasn't used something doesn't mean they can't figure out if they don't want it.

>>2788177
how come you have the a7s then?

File: DMC-FT5.jpg (45KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 550x412px

>>2788074
>Viewfinder
nope
>Full manual controls
yup
>Interchangeable lenses
nope
>Weather sealing
yup
>small
yup

This camera is only missing two things that you require to have a non point and shoot. Interchangeable lenses is the biggie that's missing. Viewfinder is the only important one.
Maybe you should rethink your standards.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Paint Shop Pro Photo 12,01
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:01:05 16:04:44
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	550
Image Height	412

>>2788254
Comment says that Fuji's aren't that small, so that would be three points, out of five.

How do YOU define a point and shoot? Because if it's a camera you can put in full auto mode, that's pretty much every digital camera ever made...

>>2788267
I only replied to the point and shoot part. I don't care about your console war. No-one cares if the Sega Genesis or SNES is better m8.
>>2788267
>How do YOU define a point and shoot? Because if it's a camera you can put in full auto mode, that's pretty much every digital camera ever made...
That's true. How would you define full manual controls?

>>2788267
not them but personally i'd define a point and shoot as a camera with a smaller sensor but a larger zoom lens to compensate, slightly limited functionality compared to a more expensive camera but much cheaper, and easier for a person who has never used a camera to just pick up and use

but i have to throw this definition out the window for something like an X100T, Leica D-Lux, or the RX1R II

>>2788279
>but i have to throw this definition out the window for something like an X100T, Leica D-Lux, or the RX1R II
Those are just compacts. Premium compacts, like they had in the days of film.
You can't stop someone from taking the bait and responding to every retard though.

>>2788278
>How would you define full manual controls?
Quick access knobs (or buttons) allowing speed convenient access to basic parameters like ISO, aperture, and shutter speed.

>>2787865
5dcinema says its rolling shutter is even worse than the a7s (check their last article). AF in videomode is still not reliable enough for video production. Moire shouldn't be a problem I guess, unless like you said you shoot at 120fps or at very moire-inducing images.

8 bit whatever, still a premium feature that we won't see for years at this price level, not in my priorities.

I honestly would buy it if I didn't already own an a7s. I mean with the price difference I would be able to afford a new lens but my current camera will mantain a stable price for longer in the second hand market, I prefer to wait the next A6xxx

>>2788126
I have a sony camera but I have to admit that fucking faggot can't be saved anymore, he's gone man

File: battle-of-the-giants.jpg (4MB, 3936x3967px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3936x3967px

>>2788297
>I have to admit that fucking faggot can't be saved anymore, he's gone man
There's only one entity that can save him from his faggotry.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016-02-29T09:28:18
Flash	No Flash Function
Image Width	3936
Image Height	3967

>>2788310
>pentax dead

So true.

>>2788243
The one who replied wasn't me.
I'm the one with the S2, the R2 belongs to a friend of mine who actually is a photographer.
Long story short, he got the R2 cus he needs to sell prints, I got the S2 cus I do indoor modeling stuff for the low light and video. Also I don't deal with print at all, for web images 12mp is more than enough

>>2788118
It really was. Finally Kai didn't look uncomfortable as fuck

>>2788282
>AF in videomode is still not reliable enough for video production.
Implying any video production uses autofocus. Video AF is for shitty vloggers and soccer moms.

>>2788493
>Long story short, he got the R2 cus he needs to sell prints, I got the S2 cus I do indoor modeling stuff for the low light
Interesting. Most people I've met that bought the S wanted it for video. Hardly ever come across those that buy it with low light photography as a main consideration.

If I lived in a safer area, I would love to pick up an S, 1 or 2, just for night photography.

>>2788736
That being said, I just don't think it would be worth it for me since I probably wouldn't be touching the videography element the camera seems to be at least half geared for doing.

As it stands, a white guy wandering around in the middle of the night in a 3rd world country with expensive AV equipment is asking for trouble.

File: DSC00320.jpg (650KB, 668x1000px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 668x1000px

>>2788736
>>2788737
Pic related, I know I need to shop out the upper left corner, but you can even see the clouds in the sky. Carrying this with the 35mm f2.8 is small enough most people wouldn't think it's too expensive. But I would highly recommend the S2 for wandering night shots for the stabilization, and get the R2 too if you use it without a tripod at all, 40mp makes every little shake visible. S1/R1 are good if you use the stabilized lenses, but the more compact ones are not.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7SM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4240
Image Height	2832
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:09 08:01:43
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	668
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2788846
r1 is not good.
get the a7. if a7s, just up the iso.

>>2788871
That's what I meant, I'm telling the person to get s2 or r2. Only get the 1st gen body if he's getting a stabilized lens

>>2787721
This is poised to be camera of the year for sure.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/7832469254/keeping-up-with-the-action-shooting-the-sony-a6300-in-miami

Face it SLR fags, it's over.

>>2788736
Am I retarded if I tell you I really like the noise of the a7s? Or maybe I'm becoming a Sony sith, I don't know

>>2788953
No, it's pretty common to find the noise of a lower resolution sensor to be more pleasing. The "chunks" look larger in relation to the final image, so they look less like the noise that we're used to, and more reminiscent of film grain. People used to talk up the noise on the 5Dc like crazy for just this reason.

>>2788917

"camera of the year" isn't even a real thing you fucking retard shill.

>>2788961
The awards for the A7Rii don't lie.

>>2788964
They do mislead, however. There are so many awards out there, and most cameras win a lot of them.

>>2788917
That award is normally for a full frame camera I think.

So unless the A7 mark 3 pops up out of nowhere with a lot of magic feature, the awards will probably go to the 1DX mark 2.

File: 8k.jpg (2MB, 7680x4320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 7680x4320px

>>2789013
>A7 mark 3 pops up out of nowhere
haven't heard SHIT about this despite the a7II being from 2014!! Just wait, it will literally pop out of nowhere within 6 months.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2789013
>>2789022
Wait the A7III is coming out? Then it's truly over for us nikon/canon folk. It's been a pleasure shooting with you gentlemen, may we not be forgotten.

>>2788961
Actually it is. It's subjective of course but lots of people give those awards out.

File: Sony tears.png (1MB, 1400x710px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1400x710px

A6300 BTFO

>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_A6300/outdoor_resolution.shtml

>>2789088
Ideally you would use something like a Zeiss Touit across all three cameras if you wanted to test sensor differences.

File: Fuji tears.jpg (73KB, 945x300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 945x300px

>>2789088

>>2789104
>Saying Fuji is better isn't fair, because they are better. If you want a REAL comparison, make the Fuji just as shitty as the Sony offerings, and see how shitty it is THEN!

I know it's hard for Sony users to understand, but when you buy a body, you're buying into an ecosystem. Testing the lenses you can and will actually use with the body is a completely fair setup.

AA filter and Sony's processing BTFO (as expected)

File: 1439923227222.gif (89KB, 256x256px)

89KB, 256x256px

>>2789158
>when you buy a body, you're buying into an ecosystem. Testing the lenses you can and will actually use with the body is a completely fair setup.
Nah m8.

You don't buy a Sony to buy into the "ecosystem" as there is barely any ecosystem. You buy a Sony for the status it brings. For the "best APS-C on the market" .

Every camera should be test with a Leica 35mm f1.4. EVERY camera. If it's not Zeiss or Leitz then it's a bunch of shite.

>>2789189
>>2789158
There is too much hate and grudge in you to be useful or helpful

For what it's worth, I don't really mind which of them have better iq.

File: 1454731475892.jpg (53KB, 476x687px)

53KB, 476x687px

>2006 : Canon vs Nikon

>2016 : Sony vs Fuji

>>2789219
Fuji isn't a Sony competitor, their price range is too different.

On the APS-C side, there is really only Pentax vs Sony.

>>2789088
> I tested a 16-70mm zoom lens on its weak 16mm end against a 10-24mm in its almost always strongest middle range.
Holy shit, so clever!

>>2789203
>There is too much hate and grudge in you to be useful or helpful
kek
>For what it's worth, I don't really mind which of them have better iq.
Good for you. Who gives a damn if a camera has a sensor by X or Y, Is made by one company or has X feature. Unless you use SAID feature.

Go out, shoot, enjoy. If you can't do that then you may be in it for the gear and there are certainly more interesting tech products to be into if you're a gearfag.
There's no need to shill your own camera system every thread because you feel some attachment to the brand or the money you spent on a body/lens. A camera is a tool.

>>2789233
I don't even understand why you are saying all that. I was trying to have a discussion with a guy who tried to compare sensors in a flawed way, and don't see how your post is in anyway brings up anything relevant.

File: 1443557193083.jpg (158KB, 624x800px)

158KB, 624x800px

>>2789241
>I don't even understand
Clearly.
>I was trying to have a discussion with a guy who tried to compare sensors in a flawed way
How was it flawed? Wait. Don't answer. It doesn't matter.
>don't see how your post is in anyway brings up anything relevant.
>For what it's worth, I don't really mind which of them have better iq.
I was agreeing with you. It doesn't matter which camera has the better IQ. It's a tool. I gave you a reply to satisfy you, but I'd advise you to not take every comment as aimed exactly at you in the future. The only part that was really aimed at you was >kek.
In which case, I totally agree, me replying with kek did not add to the discussion. Instead it was meant to represent that you had misjudged my own intentions and possible mixed me up with someone else and I am not hateful nor do I hold a grudge against any one manufacturer.

I hope your autism was satisfied by my post.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:09:29 15:02:04
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	624
Image Height	800

>>2789249
>It doesn't matter which camera has the better IQ
Noooot so fast you. What I meant was: It doesn't matter which brand has better IQ.
In terms of which _camera_ has better IQ, the preferred answer is usually the one you own.

My point all along was: It's nothing new if Sony doesn't have the best IQ, ever since the NX1, even Samsung had better stuff.

I fucking hate m43 but I have to admit, they have much faster and better lenses that are also SMALLER and equate to less noise, easier bokeh whoring and sharper images than the A6300 with the garbage kit lens or the zeiss F4 zoom that doesn't deserve its badge. Sony APS-C is only saved by the ability to adapt AF lenses and retaining matrix metering and full on-sensor PDAF.

>>2789256
>It doesn't matter which brand has better IQ.
Exactly
>In terms of which _camera_ has better IQ, the preferred answer is usually the one you own.
Not in my case. I don't give a fuck about image quality as long as I can capture what I need. A point and shoot can do the same job in a lot of situations.
>My point all along was: It's nothing new if Sony doesn't have the best IQ, ever since the NX1, even Samsung had better stuff.
Who gives a fuck about IQ apart from nerds?

You may have guessed that I wasn't the IQ anon btw, and you may have confused us for the same person.I only replied because you responded to me.
>every camera should be tested with a Leica 35mm f1.4
This was hyperbole and a poke at gearfags, Same with the Sony shittalk.

I have 0 interest in MTF charts, image samples or perceived resolution. I just want a camera that works and doesn't drop out of my hand :^)

>>2789273
>Not in my case.
Liar. If a genie offered you a wish that could change any camera to have the best IQ, you would always with it for the one you own.

>>2789276
>Liar. If a genie offered you a wish that could change any camera to have the best IQ, you would always with it for the one you own.
Lies.

If a genie offered me a wish, I'd wish for robot arms over image quality.

>>2789276
What if that "better image quality" was only on paper, or with lenses that don't fit your needs, or if it meant that to get it, you had to do all your operations through a graphing calculator? What if that better image quality didn't really show up in the final result?

>>2789296
Then the genie gave you the cat in the bag.

But that's besides the point. It would simply be irrational and dumb of you to waste that wish on some camera model you didn't own. That's just how it is.

>>2787727
>RX-1
top lel dude.

>>2791259
Is this shit out yet? I want the 6000 to drop down in price a bit more.

>>2791823
it's not the a6000 replacement.
the a6300 is even priced higher, $1000.

Is this the sony gear thread?