Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Cameras' started by izTheViz, Feb 3, 2016.
How enticing, isnt it ?
For me, these new releases seem slightly redundant with existing products I already declined to invest in (but perhaps now will as some users unload their older, slower optics for the latest & greatest).
For Canon & Nikon with their stranglehold on the "pro" market, this seems like an unmistakable shot across the bow!
I'm just happy there is a new APS-C E-Mount.
Sent from my SM-N920P using TalkEmount mobile app
I'm very happy to see teleconverters. Happy to see an 85/1.4 and the 24-70/2.8
I can afford none of it!
I already have the 70-200/4. Would love the 2.8, but that's not going to happen. Maybe some used 24-70/4 will show up cheap. Just glad to see more lenses, but sad it's another series place above "expensive" oh well
a6300 is an amazing camera from an AF perspective. Again, can't afford it, but maybe in around 18 months it's my upgrade from the a6000.
One thing this proves -- SAR has no reliable sources at all.
Same boat. All is great, but my lens cap is $400.00 and my body cap is $700.00 Just my reality.
I tend to agree. I think Sony want to put to bed the notion that the A7 series will not be a pro system without 2.8 zooms and a fast 85. Too large and too rich for me though.
85mm will be mine. Then maybe I'll dump my 5Dmkiii for the 70-200mm.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some samples with the lenses:
Field Test: Sony G Master 24-70 F2.8 & 85 F1.4 Lenses
Sony Press Event 2/3/70
See the first real-world images from Sony’s new G Master lens series!
First Impressions: Sony 85mm f1.4 G Master Series (Sony FE) - The Phoblographer
Samples from the new Sony 85 1.4 GM and 24-70 2.8 GM lenses!
Thanks for the links, Serhan!
Loving the output of the 85.
Good to know even Sony-gods get the occasional dust spot...
That 85mm looks "wow".
Not enticing to me. A $1000 camera without IBIS and with the feature set of A6000, slightly expanded. Makes A6000 a no-brainer, unless they miraculously get superior IQ or low light performance in A6300.
The "improved" AF is nothing without lenses that can utilize it. I don't think there are many - if any - APS-C lenses in Sony lineup that can take advantage of this. Besides, even my Nex-6 has sufficiently fast / accurate AF for the vast majority of situations.
It's good that they are not abandoning the APS-C market, but they either missed the boat, or are consciously trying to push more people towards FF. However this also makes other APS-C systems look more attractive. Otherwise, if I need to carry a large camera, I might just as well go back to DSLR, spend less on body, and more on lenses.
I don't think I'll buy any of these lenses, but they're an interesting addition. If the 2x telecon and 70-200 is as good as Canon's mark II lens and latest TC, it should finally provide a good native real telephoto option for folks who are interested.
Me? I'd buy the Batis over the Sony G any day - although what I really want is a Zeiss 135/2.0 Batis...prefer that focal.
The GM85 certainly has made the Batis seem compact and affordable!!!
Sony never promised IBIS, they are clearly fine with OSS in the lenses.
The A6300 is clearly the next step, but nothing leaps and bounds over the A6000, unless you were waiting for 4K.
I've said for a while that once this category settles down, we won't see the massive strides forward that the NEX-6/7 and A6000 brought us.
Well, they never promise anything.
However, I can bet that IBIS was the most requested new feature.
Correct me if I am wrong, but A6000 release price was $650 body only. A6300 is $1,000 body only. $350 more. That's a whopping 54% price increase.
This is especially damning if you look at the yen vs dollar chart. The yen exchange rate has been in a freefall since 2012. So today each dollar brings more yen than at A6000 introduction, yet they want 54% more dollars for A6300 with very little improvement in specs for stills, and some improvement in video.
I honestly don't see how this camera is going to compete even with A6000. Unless they are hiding some great new trick inside those specs, they would need to discount a heck out of A6300 to get people buy it over a used A6000.
Basically, they seem to be willing to bet that they can successfully goad the majority of their APS-C users into FF, leaving a body for video freaks that's expensive enough to make FF still look appealing.
In the meantime, Nikon bought Samsung's mirrorless tech, and Canon seems to be waking up and putting some money into EOS-M development. So perhaps A6300 is the final hooray for Sony in that segment of the market ?
The specs of the A6300 with the mag body and better EVF, are more in line with the Nex-7 which body only was $1,000. In addition you get a huge upgrade in video with 4k and a host of other capabilities that are making video guys all tingly.
If you are using legacy lenses primarily and don't care about video the A6000 makes more sense. If you want class leading AF, a sturdier body, better EVF with no lag and great video then the A6300 is hard to beat.
I hate to go around disagreeing with folks I respect on this great forum I've come to love (and have been away from a bit the past few months), but I'll point back to a post I just wrote in the similar "New A6300" thread: New A6300
While I see your point on the price difference between the new a6300 and the a6000, I think there are clear reasons for it. First is the new sensor with copper-wiring and 425 phase detect and 169 contrast detect AF points. It may not make a huge difference in AF over the a6000 to many of us, but it is new tech that undoubtedly costs more. Second is the full magnesium alloy body compared to the mostly composite one of the a6000. A little more cost there too. Third, is the extra processing "oomph" and heat dissipation needed for 4K video recording (which probably accounts for the added ~3mm depth of the camera body). And fourth, and likely the most costly of the bunch, is the higher resolution and faster EVF. So, while I find the $350 extra cost more than I am willing to spend for those additions, it seems somewhat understandable.
And then there's the inevitable $100-off sale come May (when it seems Sony always has a camera sale).
yes, it's disappointing for people who had unrealistic expectations for ibis, bsi sensor(??), higher resolution(ala nx1), etc., but sony has been very clear all along that you'll have to step up to ff if you want icing on the cake... investing in e-mount crop glass never had the potential that ff glass ownership has.
see above... beyond that, i'm wondering how well the af improvements will work with metabones ef adapters and the laea3, similar to how those things work on the a7rii, and to a lesser extent, on the a7ii.
the history of e-mount sony zooms is littered with poor q/c and outright design failures, like the fe24-70... at their best, sony zooms can be good, like the fe16-35, but even that zoom isn't playing in the same league as the tamron 15-30/2.8: Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8
there are a7rii owners who are choosing the metabones ef adapter and canon/tamron/etc. zooms over what sony offers, after owning and testing both options... if the a6300 af allows that to work like it does for the a7rii(??), it'll give people an opportunity to make a small investment in an e-mount body, pick basically any ff lens from any manufacturer, and use that lens immediately, with the intent of investing in a sony ff fe-mount body later down the line.
the 4k options with the a6300 appear to be pro-level upgrades, i doubt that you'll find all that on any canikon crop body?? this little camera has a lot going for it.
I love it when people are (politely) disagreeing with me, this is how the truth is born (or so they say).
The price of the new camera should be in line with it's appeal to users. If Sony decided to use gold instead of metal on the body, this could justify the price increase from the estimating point of view, but not from the marketing / sales perspective. The AF improvement doesn't come with lenses that can take advantage of it. So basically, we have an improved video at 54% cost increase. (The sale cost also has to be compared to the sale cost of A6000).
In order to be successful, it has to sell at about $650 (given that right now A6000 is $500). Because honestly, I just don't see more than $150 worth of improvements.
Many folks had their hearts set on getting IBIS and 4K. They got one of them.
As to the price, one of the reasons the A6000 sold so well is the amazing price. It will be interesting to see if the increased price will drop off a lot of folks.
Sent from my SM-N920P using TalkEmount mobile app
Separate names with a comma.