Sony has a new version of perhaps the world’s best small camera with interchangeable lenses. The best minds of marketing have decided that this will be the “A6300”, a vastly superior name to the “A6000” that it replaces. The dpreview article highlights improved autofocus and high-speed capture as well as 4k video. Sony also has announced three new presumably amazing full-frame lenses (dpreview). Everything is available in March.
What are the financial rewards to being the world’s most innovative camera company in the smartphone age? See “Sony’s Image Sensor Business Hits a Wall, Sees Major Drop in Sales” and “Sony camera and sensor business units report drop in sales in 2015”.
Can we blame Facebook and its low-res image storage for this? The generally overwhelming number of images available 24/7? (Why invest $$ and time in taking a picture of an elk in Yellowstone if you can type “elk in Yellowstone” into a browser and see hundreds of great images?)
Note that the A6300, like the A6000 and NEX-6, should be a great camera for older parents and/or grandparents. The flip-up screen lets you hold the camera at a child’s level and take pictures without bending over. Your back will thank you for buying this camera!
Could it be that, like desktop computers, the improvements in the last couple of years have been entirely incremental, and everyone that wants one has a pretty good one? I use my iPhone a couple of hundred times for every time I even think about my DSLR.
The number one thing camera companies need to do is integrate their cameras with Facebook. They have no one but themselves to blame for their decline. Way back in 2011 Flip Video had a plan for Wi-Fi enabled video cameras that had a Vine / YouTube-like social system and interface. In the intervening year zero companies have attempted to do that.
For the vast majority of people images are ways of signaling. Image quality is not terribly important for that purpose.
… And I forgot to mention that the e-mount lens situation is still shit. Sony now seems to be all full frame, all the time.
It would be interesting to learn how many of today’s pictures are ever printed and how large. If not printing, is it *really* worth it to get a decent camera?
I’m an enthusiast but I don’t print so I’ve decided that an advanced compact camera is enough for me. I really appreciate all the qualities of the more advanced cameras, from faster focus to better dynamic range, bokeh, contrast and flare control etc etc etc. But is it really worth it having all that, spending a good chunk of money and possibly quite a bit of time in post processing raw images if all I’m doing is posting pictures on my website? Not to me.
Completely unrelated, but possibly interesting for those is a turbo-prop fetish: turbo-prop porn.
Some on dpreview complain about the lack of quality control by Sony, on their lenses, despite their use of the Zeiss trademark.
Their new lenses are as large, or larger in the case of the 85/1.4, as their Canon/Nikon counterparts.
The A6000 is fine camera to be sure, but I use it only with the 16-50 cheap zoom….which is fine for travel. But, yes, they are woefully behind in compact, fast prime lenses for the this line.
They’re missing a compact 35mm equivalent. What do they give us???…a pancake 20mm that equals a 30mm. Really?
With digital sensors, a bit of dust on the sensor can ruin hundreds of photos. And since the recommended procedure is to ship it off to the manufacturer to clean the sensor, none too convenient. Given this, in 2016, I question whether interchangeable lenses is really a benefit, or a deficit.
I’ve basically set aside all my DSLR equipment for a very compact, pocketable 30X zoom and my iPhone 5. Works great for family photos. The DSLR only comes out when I need a powerful flash.
Of course, professionals and people with specialized needs still need interchangeable lenses. But for 90% of the market, I am not so sure.