Am I crazy?

So my photography has morphed over the years from casual, to owning a portrait business and now mostly travel and landscape work.

I went from Alpha series to Canon and now to E-Mount. I currently have the a7ii and a6000 w/ the 24-70/4FE and 70-200/4FE lenses.

I'm considering selling off both bodies and picking up the new a6300 and the 10-18/4 emount lens or 16-35/4FE lens, and possibly the 35/1.8.

Since I'm only shooting the landscape/travel and my kids sports I'm thinking this might be a good move, keep things light and have a great package.

Thoughts?

dpreview.com has not tested this model. In the preview, it raises some questions to consider while evaluating whether or not this camera is for you.

"A hit-for-six, slam-dunk, home-run?

"If it's successful in its attempts to step up from the performance of the a6000 then the a6300 could be sensational. However, there are three questions that we'd like to see addressed. The first relates to handling: why does a camera costing this much only have one dial that you can access without changing the position of your grip? The rear dial isn't the worst we've encountered, but at this price point, we'd usually expect to find a dial under the forefinger and another under the thumb while maintaining a shooting grip.

"The second relates to lenses. Sony is bundling the a6300 with the 16-50mm power zoom that's far more notable for its convenience than its optical consistency, a move that's likely to raise the question of what other lenses to fit. Sony offers a handful of reasonably priced APS-C-specific prime lenses as well as some more expensive FE-compatible full-frame primes. However, in terms of standard zooms, you're currently limited to the inexpensive 16-50mm, the older 18-55mm at aftermarket prices or considerably more expensive options such as the 18-105mm F4 or the 16-70mm F4 Zeiss that costs around the same amount as the camera again. The success of Sony's full frame a7 cameras is only likely to improve third-party lens availability but there's a risk that Sony's focus will be on those full frame users for the foreseeable future.

"Our final concern is the lack of joystick or touchscreen to re-position the AF point. This may be mitigated during stills shooting if the lock-on AF system works well enough (starting AF tracking and then recompose your shot in the knowledge that the AF point will stay where you want it), but it appears to be a real omission for refocusing while shooting video. The a6300 is improved over previous models, in that pressing the center button on the four-way controller toggles into AF point selection mode, a decision that's retained even if you turn the camera off and on again. We'll see how significant all these concerns turn out to be, as the review unfolds."

As for how well face focus tracking works as a solution to the AF point selection, consider this https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17944892

dpreview is pretty honest about its concerns after testing cameras, whereas many 'reviews' are scarcely more than a marketing summary by the camera company and fail to disclose any issues.

thanks for the thoughts. I honestly don't use DPreview to much as I've never cared for their reviews, but they have seemed to get better over the last few years. I have watched countless videos of the a6300 in real world use from everyday people and Sony artisans to get both perspectives.

I personally prefer the full frame lenses on the aps-c sensor as you get the best part of the lens being used (center) and full resolution. That is one reason I'd consider the 16-35/4FE as my third lens possibly over the 10-18/4 emount.

The tests of focus tracking seem pretty good, better than the a6000 which isn't bad in my use. Also a boost in low light performance is better as well.

Tests like dpreview should always be viewed as a catalyst for MY OWN consideration of what is an issue for me vs. what isn't. A review should NOT be read as 'my conclusion' because each of us has our own criteria of what is good or bad feature...that is why you might love a KIA and I might love a Mazda, even though on paper they might be quite similar choices.

Wilt wrote in post #17951846
As for how well face focus tracking works as a solution to the AF point selection, consider this https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17944892

dpreview is pretty honest about its concerns after testing cameras, whereas many 'reviews' are scarcely more than a marketing summary by the camera company and fail to disclose any issues.

I originally replied to your post on the linked page, but its sort out of context there.

but with regards to face detect....

If you're taking a group shot, then it doesn't matter which face the system selects if you want all of them in focus.

If you want to selectively focus on a specific face within a group of people, you can still do so AND benefit from accurately focus down to your subject's eyes. Face detect is linked to the designated AF area, so if you need to selectively focus on someone, toggle the AF point over to them and face detect will only AF on the face within that area. I tend to use a wide AF area to find my subject's face wherever it is in the frame so don't have to mess with AF points, but I do selectively choose where face detect should focus when needed. I don't always want a fully automated AF selection method, but I do always want a high degree of AF accuracy.

I've been using the 50L lately...this lens is infamous for being an autofocus nightmare on DSLR's, but is extremely accurate on my a7rII.

50L wide open, with kids who at ages where they don't sit still.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EDJB​eR

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FiAC​qf

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EPeA​1h

DagoImaging wrote in post #17951825
So my photography has morphed over the years from casual, to owning a portrait business and now mostly travel and landscape work.

I went from Alpha series to Canon and now to E-Mount. I currently have the a7ii and a6000 w/ the 24-70/4FE and 70-200/4FE lenses.

I'm considering selling off both bodies and picking up the new a6300 and the 10-18/4 emount lens or 16-35/4FE lens, and possibly the 35/1.8.

Since I'm only shooting the landscape/travel and my kids sports I'm thinking this might be a good move, keep things light and have a great package.

Thoughts?

If you don't find yourself shooting at high ISO, it seems like a good move IMO. Should not see a material difference at base ISO as Sony's APS-C sensors still have loads of DR at ISO100. Plus the continuous display viewfinder is a pretty significant upgrade for your kids sports. The a6300 is on my short-list...waiting for the first round of price cuts.

I do shoot my sons swimming events w/ the a6000 and feel the a6300 would be a step up as it shows better detail at higher iso...based on sample shots I've seen. The improved AF and tracking is what also is driving this.

I like my a7ii but don't find it overly impressive for higher iso and the slower burst rate makes it the backup for sports. I'll most likely keep buying FF glass as at some point I see an a7rii in the plan.

DagoImaging wrote in post #17953367
I do shoot my sons swimming events w/ the a6000 and feel the a6300 would be a step up as it shows better detail at higher iso...based on sample shots I've seen. The improved AF and tracking is what also is driving this.

I like my a7ii but don't find it overly impressive for higher iso and the slower burst rate makes it the backup for sports. I'll most likely keep buying FF glass as at some point I see an a7rii in the plan.

Yeah the a7II sensor isn't particularly great for a FF sensor, particularly compared to what Canon and Nikon can do with their low light oriented models. On the flip-side, the a6300 looks to be exceptional in low light for an aps-c sensor, so the disparity between the a6300 and a7II in low light may not be too significant.

DagoImaging wrote in post #17953367
I do shoot my sons swimming events w/ the a6000 and feel the a6300 would be a step up as it shows better detail at higher iso...based on sample shots I've seen. The improved AF and tracking is what also is driving this.

I like my a7ii but don't find it overly impressive for higher iso and the slower burst rate makes it the backup for sports. I'll most likely keep buying FF glass as at some point I see an a7rii in the plan.

I've been doing some reading on the a6300 sensor, and though its not a BSI design, it does use copper wiring like the a7rII, and appears to do similar signal processing at high ISO than the a7rII ans a7s(II) does. If it behaves anything like the a7rII and a7s, the a6300's sensor should be a significant upgrade from its predecessor...particul​arly in terms of high ISO dynamic range and color fidelity.