Alaska is the only state in the country that’s home to three types of
bears: the polar bear, the black bear, and the brown bear. It’s why
photographers converge annually on the Last Frontier, hoping to document
ursine activity in the bears’ natural habitats, in such locations as
the Anan Wildlife Observatory, Katmai National Park, and Admiralty
Island, home to one of the world’s highest density of brown bears. Read
on for tips on photographing bears in Alaska while these magnificent
creatures eat, play, and interact.
1. Pack light
To gain entry into sections of certain viewing areas that offer
access to bear viewing, you’ll often have to take a seaplane. That means
there may be weight restrictions, so limit your gear to one or two
DSLRs or Mirrorless bodies with a couple of compact lenses. Add extra
batteries, memory cards, any filters you like to use, and rain covers in
case of inclement weather.
2. Make sure at least one of those lenses is a versatile zoom
You obviously want to stay a safe distance from the animals you’re photographing. The Tamron SP 150-600mm VC G2 lens
is one such lens that offers such flexibility, with an extra-long
reach. If you use that lens on a crop sensor camera, you’ll achieve even
more effective magnification. Bird photographers often use a similar combination for that very reason.
3. Plan your trip for optimal bear-watching opportunities
The best times of the year for bear watching in Alaska are June
through September. If you want the chance to photograph them catching
salmon in the rivers, July and August are your best bets. That’s the
peak of the salmon runs (when the salmon is sparse, bears will eat
things like clams and grass instead).
4. Head out early, stay out a little later
Although you’ll likely be able to spot bears at any time of day, they
tend to be out foraging for food early in the day and later in the
evening. Those times of day also happen to coincide with the best natural lighting.
That said, Alaska, during the summer months, enjoys nearly 24-hour
daylight. Between May and July, for example, some areas never get
completely dark, even between sunset and sunrise. So, don’t expect
traditional lighting conditions.
5. Respect the venue’s safety rules
Every park or preserve that features bears has basic guidelines to
protect both the bears and the visitors. You’ll likely be required to
stay a certain number of feet away from the bears. This means if the
bears approach you and block your path, you’ll be subject to what’s
known as a “bear jam.” You’ll effectively be stuck there until the bears
decide to move. That’s okay – that gives you plenty of time to take
more pictures.
6. Don’t feel you have to shoot in silence
In fact, the opposite is the case. While you don’t want to make
super-loud noises that startle the bears, you do want to make enough of
it, so the bears know you’re there at all times. It can be more alarming
for the bears if you’re trying to be stealthy and then suddenly emerge.
Some people will wear a bell attached to their knapsack, or just talk
very loudly.
7. Get on the bears’ eye level
There’s something more intimate about a portrait in which you feel
like you’re looking eye-to-eye with your subject. Crouch or kneel on the
ground or viewing platform to get as close to that angle of view as you
can.
If you’re out in a small boat, you’re practically at water level already, so if bears are frolicking nearby, you’re set.
8. Get a handle on your focusing
If the bears are on the move, shoot in AI Servo mode or AF-F (Nikon),
Continuous Focus (Canon), Continuous AF (Sony), so that your focus
continually adjusts as you’re tracking moving subjects.
9. Capture the bears interacting with each other
Part of what you want to accomplish when photographing wildlife
is to tell their story. Highlighting a sow cuddling with her cubs or
siblings tussling in the grass is a way to showcase their relationships
and create emotive photos.
10. Be patient
Wildlife is unpredictable, and there’s no real way to tell when a
real money shot, like a bear catching a salmon in the river, will
emerge. But when bears are engaged in an activity, they’ll actually stay
in the same place for a significant amount of time.
So, if you stick around, hunker down, and just keep taking pictures. You’ll be more likely to produce a bunch of keepers.
11. Prepare for the unexpected
Even if you time your visit for when the bears are expected to be
active and the salmon flowing, it’s Mother Nature – things don’t always
work out as planned.
The activity level is somewhat consistent, but it does vary from year
to year. If you get there and the bears are a bust, it’s disappointing,
but go to Plan B.
Photograph the amazing Alaska Peninsula landscapes,
or keep an eye out for the region’s diverse bird population. Look to
the dozens of other mammals in the area, including red foxes,
porcupines, beavers, and otters instead.
I hope you find these 11 tips for photographing bears in Alaska tips
helpful. If you have any other tips or bear photos you’d like to share,
please do so in the comments section!
Share this article.
Thursday, November 7, 2019
RAW Versus JPEG – Which one is right for you and why?
Most cameras today can shoot pictures in one of two main formats: RAW
versus JPEG. The debate about which format to use is as old as digital
photography itself and the internet is rife with articles, blogs,
videos, and seminars illustrating the differences between the formats as
well as opinions regarding which one to use.
Ultimately the question of which is the correct choice becomes
steeped in subjectivity. There is no single objective correct answer,
which is a lesson I learned over the course of many years. Instead of
asking which option is right, the real question should be which option
is rightfor you.
Straight-out-of-camera JPEG file.
Differentiating between the formats
Understanding the difference between RAW and JPEG file formats
is a bit tricky since both appear somewhat similar at first glance.
Afterall, when you load either file type into Lightroom or another photo
editor you see pretty much the same thing.
However, when you take a picture in RAW you are saving as much data
as your camera sensor can possibly collect. Whereas a JPEG file discards
some of the data in favor of creating an image that takes up less space
on your memory card and is easy to share. With RAW files you gain a
huge amount of flexibility in terms of editing the file, and a lot of
photographers prefer this as a way to get the most out of their images.
RAW is somewhat comparable to analog film in that RAW files can be
manipulated, massaged, and modified to bring to life details from dark
areas, recover crystal-clear clouds from what you thought was an
overexposed skyline, and improve images dramatically in almost every
way.
JPEG files don’t offer nearly as much flexibility, but they do have
some significant advantages in their own right. The most notable of
which is a much smaller file size and ease of sharing, since JPEG files
don’t need to be converted in a program like Lightroom, Photoshop,
Luminar, etc.
It
wasn’t RAW or JEPG that helped me get this photo. It was an
understanding, developed from years
of practice, of how light, aperture,
focal length, and other parameters can be manipulated to create a
compelling image.
The important thing to note is that neither format is inherently
better than the other and each has its uses. To illustrate what I mean
I’m going to share a bit from my own experience.
Starting from scratch
My own journey through the RAW versus JPEG continuum started shortly
after I got serious about digital photography many years ago, in a
manner not dissimilar from many photographers. When I got my first DSLR I
didn’t know anything about RAW and instead fiddled with different JPEG
settings in order to find a balance of quality and quantity.
I eventually settled on the Medium size and Medium compression so as
to make sure I could take well over 4000 images before running out of
space on my memory card. I had heard about the RAW setting but ignored
it since it would only let me fit a couple hundred shots on my memory
card which seemed silly compared to several thousand.
As months went by, I became intrigued with the flexibility offered by
the RAW format despite the larger size of each image file. I learned to
edit my pictures in Lightroom
by changing White Balance, boosting the shadows, editing color filters
in the black and white mode, and even applying Radial and Gradient
filters.
I soon realized that the trade-off in file size was worth it because I
could do so much more with my images in post-production. “Who wouldn’t
want to shoot in RAW?” I asked myself. I also often engaged other
aspiring photographers in the discussion of shooting RAW versus JPEG
while believing that RAW was clearly the superior format.
Original picture, shot in RAW format.
Finished
version after some editing in Lightroom. If the original was shot in
JPG I never would have
been able to get a final result like this.
It didn’t take much longer until I was shooting everything in RAW. My
kids eating breakfast, my family vacations, formal portrait sessions,
random nature shots of animals and leaves…you name it, I shot it in RAW.
Shooting in JPEG, I told myself, was for suckers who didn’t know any
better!
Each time I loaded yet another round of my RAW files into Lightroom
(while getting something to drink and finding a place to put my feet up
while the initial previews loaded) I knew that no matter what the
pictures looked like I had the absolute best photo quality money could
buy.
I was enamored with the RAW workflow and editing flexibility. Shadows
too dark? No problem, just lighten them with a few sliders. White Balance a little off?
Sky looking a bit too gray? Spots from dust on the lens? Too much noise
from shooting at ISO 12,800? All these worries could be erased with a
few clicks and sliders, and my images would be instantlyslowly transformed from adequate to awesome.
Cracks in the facade
As the years went on I found myself learning, growing, and changing
as a photographer, but ironically enjoying the editing process less and
less. I recall the distinct and overwhelming feeling of photographic
oppression settling in as I returned home from family trips only to load
my RAW files into Lightroom and be faced with hundreds of minor edits
to make on each one before I was satisfied with the results.
To combat this I made a develop custom preset
that contained basic adjustments such as highlight/shadows, sharpening,
and clarity and applied that to every single one of my pictures upon
import.
Weeks would often go by before I would be ready to share my pictures
because I was stuck in the rut of meticulous editing. Even a simple
birthday party for my son’s friend turned into a month-long wait because
I didn’t want to share any pictures unless they were adjusted to
perfection. With a family and a full-time job, the act of tweaking my
images became more of a burden than an enjoyment.
I did not like the idea of tweaking hundreds of RAW files just to enjoy pictures of my family.
What I came to realize after years of doing this was that I simply
wasn’t interested in reaping the benefits of shooting RAW for my own
personal photography. For client work, I continued to shoot RAW in order
to make sure the end results were as good as they could possibly be.
But
for nearly all of my own personal pictures, I got to a mental state
where I simply didn’t care about editing each and every single picture.
Occasionally I would make some cropping adjustments, but I realized I
was pretty happy with the results I was getting straight out of my
camera.
I didn’t dare shoot in JPEG though because Real Photographers Shoot RAW…or
so I thought. I didn’t want to admit that RAW wasn’t really doing much
for me, and I thought shooting JPEG was tantamount to admitting I didn’t
know what I was doing. That I couldn’t handle the ropes of what it
meant to be a true photographer, a true artist.
A revelation occurs
This state of confusion and self-doubt continued until late 2017 when I came across this video from Tony Northup. (Please scroll down to the bottom of this article.)
Watching that was somewhat of a revelation and helped me realize that
I wasn’t any less of a photographer if I shot in anything but the RAW
format. While there’s certainly something to be said for capturing
images in the highest possible quality, there is also something to be
said for speed and convenience – both areas in which JPEG excels.
What I have realized as I looked back over my images from the past
several years is that I’ve gotten significantly better at the aspects of
photography that shooting in RAW can’t fix at all. I’ve learned about
composition, lighting, capturing emotions, when to shoot, how to ask for
permission from strangers, and even how to share images online in a
more effective manner.
I have learned to put my camera down and enjoy the moment, and I’ve
learned that not everything in life needs to be photographed ad infinitum.
RAW can’t help if my kids are out of focus or if my angles are bad, and
I’ve learned to pay better attention to my light meter and exposure
settings so I don’t need to recover highlights and shadows in post-production like I did when I started out.
Straight-out-of-camera JPEG.
Permission to be imperfect
More importantly, I have come to a place as a photographer where I
don’t need each and every one of my pictures to be perfect. When I look
through photo albums from when I was a kid almost none of the images are
ideal. Many are a little under or over-exposed, the framing isn’t
always right, and there’s plenty of red-eye issues that could use fixing
thanks to my dad’s copious use of his external flash. But it’s the
emotions, the feelings, the memories, and the people in those images
that really matter the most to me.
When I scroll through images from 15 years ago when all my wife and I
had was a cheesy little pocket camera, I don’t care that most of them
are low-res JPEG files. It’s what’s in the pictures that matter, and
nowadays I’d rather spend my time capturing good photos than editing my
RAW files.
A
photo of my friends and I on a high school trip to Disney World in
1997. It may not be perfect but
I don’t need it to be. It’s the people
and the memories I care about, not whether it was shot in RAW
or JPEG.
(Spoiler: it was shot on film!)
Enabling the JPEG option on my camera has felt like a breath of fresh
air, and I’m back to enjoying photography in a way I haven’t done in
years. I’m experimenting with my Fuji camera’s
built-in ACROS and Classic Chrome film simulations, and I’ve even
created what basically amounts to a Lightroom preset in my camera by
adding some highlight/shadow/sharpening adjustments using the various
menu options. It’s great fun, requires no extra Lightroom editing, and
I’m back to enjoying photography the way I used to so many years ago.
Choose both
Above all else, it’s important to understand that shooting in RAW
versus JPEG does not have to be a strict dichotomy. It’s taken many
years, but I now feel comfortable knowing when to use RAW, when to use
JPEG, and understanding the benefits and drawbacks of each. Even though I
mostly shoot JPEG for casual snapshots I’ll occasionally switch over to
RAW if I think the situation demands it.
I
chose to use RAW instead of JPEG for this snapshot because I knew I
would have to deal with some
bright highlights and dark shadows, and I’d
be able to finesse the image in Lightroom to get it how I
wanted if I
shot RAW.
Finding a solution that works for you
The reason there is no answer to the question of whether to use RAW
or JPEG is that every photographer must figure out his or her own
approach. For me, shooting JPG is just fine in most situations. One
could argue that I’m not getting as much out of my images as I could be,
and perhaps that is indeed true.
But if using RAW causes me to dread the process of editing and abate
my photography altogether then I would say shooting RAW actually results
in me getting less out of my photos than I could be if I were using
JPEG.
When
doing formal sessions for clients I always use RAW even if I think I
might not need it. It’s a
safety net that has come in handy far too
often.
I should also note that many cameras can offer the best of both worlds by letting you shoot in RAW+JPEG mode.
If you like the JPEG file, great! And if not, you have the RAW file
which you can edit to your heart’s content. If you’re on the fence this
might be an option to consider, but beware that it will fill up your
memory cards much faster than you might realize.
As I close I want to offer one final piece of advice, or rather,
reiterate a point I hinted at earlier. Don’t let anyone tell you that
your method, approach or viewpoint is not valid. If you like RAW, great!
Go ahead and use it. If you prefer JPEG, you are no less of a
photographer than someone who swears by RAW.
I would recommend learning as much as you can and experimenting with available options so you can make an
informed decision. But at the end of the day, if you like the results
you’re getting from your approach then, by all means, go ahead and do
it. Now stop reading, get off the internet, pick up your camera, and go
out to take some photos!
For a long time in photography, there has been somewhat of a debate
between shooting in RAW versus JPEG. Well, maybe debate is the wrong
word. Usually, it is a matter of experienced photographers encouraging
beginners to start shooting in RAW and stop shooting JPEG. There isn’t
much question that RAW files are superior.
Those who don’t edit their files probably don’t really see the point of
RAW files though. Therefore, there are plenty of people who shoot both
RAW+JPEG
Usually, this question gets presented as an either/or proposition. In
other words, you have to make a decision, looking at the pros and cons
of shooting RAW files and JPEGs. But if you could have the advantages of
both, however, wouldn’t that be the way to go? You can, actually!
Take a look at your camera’s Quality or Image Quality setting in the
menu. Most cameras will allow you to set you to put that setting on both RAW and JPEG. By doing so, aren’t you getting the best of both worlds?
Let’s take a look. But first, let’s review the advantages of RAW files versus JPEGs.
RAW+JPEG settings on Canon system.
JPEGs
When you take a picture, your camera is actually taking the data that
it receives from the image sensor and creating a file. In the early
days of digital, a group of experts got together and agreed on a file
format everyone could use. It is called JPEG and stands for Joint
Photographic Experts Group. The idea is that everyone would use the same
format and thus it would be easily shareable. And you know what? That
has worked out pretty well. JPEGs are more or less ubiquitous. If you
just pick up your camera and start shooting, you are creating JPEGs. It
is the default of virtually every camera. It is also the format of
virtually every picture you see online.
But when your camera creates a JPEG, a few things happen. The first
is that the camera compresses the picture data so that the file size is
smaller. A JPEG will only use about a quarter of the data that your
camera captures. That means that a large chunk of data is actually
discarded. Some of that is color data, which is done by reducing the
number of available colors (there are still a lot of colors available in
JPEGs though). Where you’ll see the biggest impact is in the highlights
and shadows, where some detail may be lost.
In addition, the camera will add some processing to the picture. The
camera manufacturers know that you want your pictures coming out of the
camera looking sharp and colorful. Therefore, they will add some
effects, like sharpness, contrast, and saturation to them at the same
time that the JPEG file is being created. That is nice in that the
pictures generally do look at little better, but the downside is that
you aren’t in control of the process.
And that brings us to RAW files.
The RAW advantage
In most cameras, you can go into the menu and change the file format
to something called RAW. No, there isn’t really some sort of universal
file format called RAW. Rather, each camera has its own way of bundling
the data that it receives from the image sensor when you take the
picture and creating its own proprietary file (NEF for Nikon, CRW or CR2
for Canon, RAF for Fuji, etc.), which is called a RAW file. Right away,
you can see an issue with this, in that these files are not easily
shareable. In addition, these files are huge, typically 3-4 times the
size of JPEGs.
So why does nearly everyone recommend shooting RAW then? Because they
are simply superior files. Whereas JPEGs discard data in order to
create a smaller file size, RAW files preserve all of that data. That
means you keep all the color data, and you preserve everything you can
in the way of highlight and shadow detail.
In addition, whereas the camera adds processing when it creates
JPEGs, that doesn’t happen when you create RAW files. That means you are
in control of the process. You can add whatever level of sharpness,
contrast, and saturation (and other controls) you want. The camera isn’t
making those decisions for you.
Sure, these files are bigger, but they are way better. Further, you can always create a JPEG from your RAW file later, which you can use to share online while still preserving all the underlying data of the RAW file.
RAW+JPEG in the Sony system.
Shooting both RAW files and JPEGs
So RAW files are the way to go, right? I mean, you are preserving all
that color data and highlight and shadow detail. And you are in full
control of the processing of your picture. But what about if you are not
going to process your photos at all? Wouldn’t it make sense to then
shoot JPEG since it is the file that looks best coming out of the
camera? Or what if you need to send the photo from your camera right
away?
Why not take both? Your camera will likely have a setting allowing
you to do both so that every time you take a picture the camera is
creating a RAW file and a JPEG. That would allow you to have all the
advantages of both file types. How might that benefit you? Here are a
few ways I see:
You can use a JPEG immediately: First of all, you
can use JPEGs immediately. Let’s say you have Wifi in your camera or
want to otherwise share the photo immediately. JPEGs make sense for
this. RAW files don’t. They aren’t easily shareable and they don’t look
the best coming out of the camera anyway.
Future-proofs the photo: What if you are creating
RAW files with your Canon camera and in 10 years Canon goes out of
business? Will your RAW files lose support over time? This seems
unlikely, but it is enough of an issue that Adobe has been pushing its
own cross-platform solution called DNG (digital negative). However, if
you have a JPEG, this will never be an issue. Everyone is shooting JPEGs
and they aren’t going anywhere.
You can see how the camera processes: If you have a
JPEG sitting next to your RAW file on your computer, you can see how
your camera decided to process your photo. In other words, you can see
how much sharpening, contrast, and saturation was added and, if you like
it, mimic that effect when you do your own processing. This can be helpful when you are just starting out and trying to decide how much processing to add to your photos.
LCD preview: When you look at a photo on your LCD, you are seeing the JPEG version of your photo. You can add different processing via the Pictures Styles.
That includes things like Black and White. So if you want to see
effects while maintaining the integrity of the RAW file, then taking
both can be beneficial.
Why not shoot only RAW?
But wait a second, you might think. Surely these are really minor
advantages. Why bother with all that? Why not just use the RAW file?
Yes, these are really minor advantages, but at the same time, what is
the cost? Virtually nothing. Over time, data has gotten cheaper and
cheaper. Adding a JPEG costs virtually nothing. Memory cards these days
hold hundreds or even thousands of pictures, and they are now pretty
cheap. You can now get a 64GB card for about $35. You can get hard drives that store terabytes of data for under $100.
These prices continue to come down as well. Compared to the RAW files
you are shooting, the JPEG just takes up a tiny bit of data. So while I
agree that adding the JPEG doesn’t add a lot, it also doesn’t cost a
lot.
There is one other aspect I haven’t mentioned though and that is
speed. Remember that your camera has to write all this data to your
card. If you are just taking a few pictures at a time (or one at a
time), this will not be a factor. But if you are someone shooting sports or wildlife
with a serious need for the maximum frames per second, then there will
be an additional cost. The time to write the additional file will slow
you down a little bit. In that context, I could definitely see foregoing
the extra file. But for most of us, this won’t apply.
Why not shoot just JPEG?
At the same time, there are some photographers who will think to
themselves, “Well, I don’t process my pictures, so I might as well just
shoot JPEGs to get the best looking file I can straight out of the
camera.” To those that don’t process their pictures, I would first say,
“You should be.” You don’t need to make dramatic changes or make them
look surreal, but you can do wonders with some tweaks.
In any case, just because you don’t do any processing of your pictures now doesn’t mean you won’t ever
process your pictures. In a year or two, you might change your mind.
When that happens, you don’t want to be kicking yourself for not having
obtained the best files possible.
Best of both worlds
I have been shooting RAW+JPEG for several years now. Do I actually
use the JPEGs? Admittedly, almost never. I always edit the RAW files and
usually don’t touch the JPEGs. As mentioned, however, the JPEGs don’t
cost me anything so I am sticking with this setting. In addition, there
were few times when I was on the road and wanted to send photos straight
from my camera so having the JPEG turned out to be useful.
So that’s how it works for me. But ultimately the decision on what
type of files you want to create is up to you. What do you think? Is
shooting RAW+JPEG the best of both worlds of a waste of space?
Share this article.
HEIF Files: Do They Mean the End of the JPEG Format?
During a recent meeting about the recently announced Canon 1D X Mark III with Digital Camera World, Canon product intelligence specialist David Parry dropped a bombshell:
“We’ve moved on to HEIF files,” Parry said.
While Canon later walked back the statement, claiming that they “have
no plans to abandon JPEGs,” but instead wish to “give users a new image
option” in the Canon 1D X Mark III, the comment got plenty of people
talking. And the reason is clear: If Canon is adopting HEIF files
alongside its JPEGs, might we soon see the company scrap JPEGs entirely?
And what about Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, and Olympus?
In other words, does Canon’s move to HEIF files signal the end of JPEGs?
For photographers who have been using JPEGs for decades, this might
come as a shock. While HEIF files have been in the media for the past
couple of years, ever since Apple added them to their iOS devices and
Macs, no major camera manufacturer has adopted HEIF files – until now.
And
while some users may dismiss HEIF files as another overhyped “JPEG
killer” which will disappear in a few years, there is reason to believe
that HEIF files are here to stay.
To understand why, let’s take a closer look at HEIF files and what they offer over JPEGs.
HEIF files vs JPEGs
The biggest difference between HEIF files and JPEGs is their respective file sizes:
JPEGs are small, but HEIF files are tiny.
In fact, HEIF files are often billed as half the size of JPEGs, but
with the same (or better) quality. This means that you can store far
more HEIF files on a device than you can JPEGs, without a loss in
quality.
How is this possible?
Simply
put, compression has improved. JPEG files debuted way back in the
1990s, whereas HEIF is a relatively new image file format. So when it
comes to compression, what a JPEG can do, a HEIF file can do better.
And this results in smaller files with limited quality loss.
Compression isn’t the only area where HEIF files shine. HEIF files
can also store more color information than JPEGs, which means that your
HEIF photos will look better, and can avoid the unpleasant color-banding
effects that sometimes come with JPEGs.
And what about compatibility? Surely JPEGs are far more established than HEIF files, given their universal popularity?
Back in 2017, when Apple adopted HEIF files, this was a real
discussion. Some applications couldn’t deal with HEIF files, and that
was a problem.
But now, two years later…
HEIF files can be used by pretty much any program you’d need. The
compatibility issues are gone, and we’re left with a file format that
just seems all-around superior to JPEGs.
So while JPEGs are the file format of the present and the past, HEIF files are likely the format of the future.
Now I’d like to know your thoughts: Do you think HEIF files will replace JPEGs? And how do you feel
about this change? Share your thoughts in the comments below! And
respond to our poll regarding whether you’re happy about the shift to
HEIF files:
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Sony a6300 Mirrorless Camera – Thoughts and Field Test
Sony has spent recent years charging full steam ahead into the
full-frame mirrorless camera market. But they have also managed to
satisfy the desires of APS-C shooters, mainly through their
widely-popular a6000 mid-range mirrorless camera. In March 2016, just
two years after the debut of the a6000, Sony released the a6300 with
improved features, that still retain many of the characteristics of the
older model.
To be clear, Sony doesn’t intend for the a6300 to be a replacement
for the a6000, meaning the older camera is still in production and can
be purchased at a very attractive price point (around $549.00 for the
body only).
My Camera Background
Before diving into this review, I want to clarify my digital camera
experiences to make my perspective more apparent. The Sony a6300 is the
very first mirrorless camera I’ve owned, besides my very brief
experiment with the a6000 for comparison purposes. Until recently, I’ve
shot almost exclusively with Canon DSLRs, namely the 5D Mark III and 6D.
As a result, many of the a6300’s features such as its pop-out LCD
screen and electronic viewfinder might seem like standard features to
other mirrorless shooters, but for a Canon DSLR user like myself, these
are newfound novelties that turned my world upside down. With that being
said, let’s move on to the a6300’s specs.
Key Features of the Sony a6300
The main improvement with the Sony a6300 is a newly developed sensor
with a pixel count of 24MP (same as the a6000) that is packed with a
whopping 425 phase-detection AF points,
which is significantly higher than the a6000’s 179 AF points.
According to Sony, the a6300 has the greatest number of phase-detection
points to date, on an interchangeable-lens camera ,and makes the a6300
the camera with the world’s fastest autofocus.
Video is another aspect that Sony upgraded on the a6300, with the
inclusion of 4k video recording capabilities, the addition of a mic
socket, and the ability to record time code. Besides the autofocus and
video systems, the a6300 sees an OLED 2.36M-dot viewfinder, an
improvement from the a6000’s OLED 1.44M-dot viewfinder. Battery life is
also slightly improved at 400 shots versus 360 shots.
Physically, the a6300 is only 2 ounces heavier than its predecessor,
although it feels much more solid with its weather-sealed magnesium
alloy build, that was lacking on the a6000. An AEL button with an AF/MF
switch has also been conveniently added to the back of the camera, which
sports and action shooters should find handy. Other than these few
additions, the Sony a6300 doesn’t look or feel much different than the
a6000.
Overall, these added features of the a6300 clearly appeal to shooters looking to focus on action, sports, and video.
Sample action shot with a Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Pros of the a6300
While discussing the pros and cons of the a6300, it should be noted
that many of the same features are also available on the a6000.
Extremely compact
As a DSLR shooter, the a6300’s compact size was particularly
appealing. While testing the Sony a6300, I used both the kit 16-50mm
f/3.5-5.6 retractable zoom lens, and the Sony 20mm f/2.0 pancake lens,
and was amazed that both were incredibly lightweight and basically the
same size. There is of course, the trade-off of both lenses being made
of plastic and not feeling as robust as say a Fujifilm lens, but they
both perform very well and weigh close to nothing. Pairing either lens
with the a6300 makes for a very compact, low-profile camera system that
is perfect for travel.
An informal food photo taken at a restaurant table moments before consumption. Shot with a Sony 20mm f/2.8.
Silent Shutter
While many DSLRs offer a Silent Shutter that is still quite noisy,
the a6300’s silent shutter feature makes the camera so quiet you
wouldn’t even know a photo was being taken. It’s a great feature for
undercover or candid photography moments when you truly want no sound
associated with taking a photo. With that said, non-silent shooting on
the a63000 produces a very crisp shutter snap, especially when firing
away at the camera’s highest shutter speed of 11 frames per second.
Panoramic shooting feature that actually works (most of the time)
After consistently trying, and failing, to take advantage of
panoramic shooting on a variety of devices from point and shoots to cell
phone cameras, I was beginning to think that on-the-go panoramic
shooting was a myth, until I tried it with the a6300. Unlike other
devices, the a6300 will shoot and stitch together a near-perfect
horizontal or vertical panorama even when your manual panning isn’t spot
on. There were a few times when the camera insisted that I wasn’t
panning straight enough to make a clear pano shot, but most of the time
even my wobbly panning techniques were good enough for the a6300 to make
sense of.
Sample panorama shot with a Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Focus Modes + Face Recognition
Easily two of the best features of the a6300 are the Face
Registration and Eye AF (autofocus) features, which do pretty much what
their names imply. Activating Face Registration allows you to program
the a6300 to recognize and prioritize up to eight faces. This feature is
incredibly handy when shooting a crowd of people, and the a6300’s
accuracy of picking out the correct face is astounding. Eye AF works
very similarly, but without the need to register (program them in) the
eyes. Simply enable Eye AF on the a6300 and the camera will
automatically search for your subject’s eyes and track them using
continuous autofocus. This feature is so spot-on that the a6300 will
even lock onto artistic renderings of eyes, such as a painted portrait.
Sample portrait shot with a Sony 20mm f/2.8 lens.
Quick Wi-Fi connection
Like most newer digital cameras today, the a6300 has Wi-Fi and NFC,
to connect with smartphones and tablets for remote camera shooting, and
wireless image transfer via Sony’s PlayMemories Mobile app. Setting up
Wi-Fi on the camera is very quick and intuitive, and Sony’s accompanying
app also includes an array of other options that can further enhance
your shooting experience, such as time-lapse and multiple exposure apps,
among many others.
Built-in flexible flash
Thankfully, Sony kept one of the a6000’s best features on the a6300: a
built-in pop-up flash. Extremely compact and flexible, the little flash
can bend 45 degrees to tilt upwards, allowing for bouncing the flash
off the ceiling. Next to the pop-up flash is a hot shoe mount that can
fire Canon or Nikon Speedlight flashes when used with an adapter.
One accessory that can help fully utilize the pop-up flash are plastic bounce cards which attach to the a6300 via the hot-shoe mount, and hold the flash in an upright position.
Sample night shot with a Sony 20mm f/2.8 lens.
Sony Lens Options
Currently, there are over 70 Sony lenses that you can purchase to go
along with your new a6300 body. Options range from compact, low-priced
primes and larger, higher-priced zoom lenses. Cheaper prime options
include the 16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2, 30mm f/3.5 macro, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8,
all ranging in price from $249.99-$449.99. Wide-range zoom lenses,
without a fixed f-stop, are also somewhat affordable, such as the 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($749.99) or the 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 ($998.99)
Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($749.99)
However, Sony’s higher-quality lenses are much higher in price, which
may be difficult to swallow if you’re converting from a DSLR kit.
Larger, high-quality Sony primes such as the 24mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4, prices are upwards of $1,200.00 and more. The same is true for Sony’s versions of traditional DSLR lenses such as the 16-35mm f/2.8 ($2,248.99), 24-70mm f/2.8
($2,098.00), and 70-200mm f/2.8 ($2,999.99). If you’re a DSLR shooter
with an array of lenses, you can always invest in a converter to use
your DSLR lenses with your Sony camera body, but at the expense of
slower autofocus.
When you purchase either the Sony a6000 or a6300, you have the option
of buying it body-only, or with a 16-55mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount retractable
zoom kit lens, which is valued at approximately $260.99 if purchased
separately. For its size, range, and overall performance, the kit lens,
plus a Sony prime lens, aren’t a bad starter combination, especially if
you’re looking to keep your gear compact and lightweight, and aren’t
quite ready to invest in higher-priced Sony E-mount lenses yet.
ISO Performance
Sony opted to improve the a6300’s high-ISO performance by including a
native ISO range of 100-25,600 with the possibility of extending that
ISO to 51,200. While the ability to shoot at higher ISO is great in
theory, I found that ISO 6400 was the highest I could comfortably push
the a6300 in darker environments, without sacrificing too much image
quality. Even my RAW photos shot at ISO 6400 were a little too grainy
for my taste, no matter how much noise-reduction I did in
post-processing.
Cons of the a6300
Sony’s bloated camera menu
A common complaint among Sony shooters, that I have to agree with, is
that the camera menu is very difficult to navigate. It truly seems like
Sony outfitted the a6300 with so many features, and tried to stuff them
all into a menu, that it can take weeks for new Sony shooters to get
used to using the camera.
This could be easily solved if Sony allowed users to customize the
menu a bit more, so that frequently-used features can be quickly
accessed. As it stands, Sony only allows assigning custom functions to
the camera’s physical buttons, and there aren’t nearly enough of those.
With
that being said, the trick to making sense of Sony’s menus is to
customize as much of the camera’s settings as possible. Presently, I’ve
customized the buttons and settings on the a6300 set to shoot almost
identically to the way I shoot with my Canon 5D Mark III, making it
easier to switch from one system to another.
Sample action shot with a Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
LCD screen sometimes blanks out
When it comes to the a6300’s LCD screen, I was grateful for its
pop-out rotating feature, something that has been sorely lacking on
Canon DSLRs. Some other reviewers complained about the a6300 lacking a
touch screen LCD, but again, this is something I’ve never had on a
camera, so the fact that it’s missing doesn’t bother me.
One feature of the a6300’s LCD that was troublesome, was its
occasional blackouts, which usually occurred right after rotating the
screen. Oftentimes, the only way to get the LCD working again was to
turn the camera off and on. With that said, using the electronic
viewfinder (EVF) always worked without fail, even when the LCD blanked
out.
Over to you
Do you already shoot with the Sony a6300, or are you considering
making the move? What do you love about it, or what hesitations remain?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Sony a6300 Mirrorless Camera – Thoughts and Field Test
Sony has spent recent years charging full steam ahead into the
full-frame mirrorless camera market. But they have also managed to
satisfy the desires of APS-C shooters, mainly through their
widely-popular a6000 mid-range mirrorless camera. In March 2016, just
two years after the debut of the a6000, Sony released the a6300 with
improved features, that still retain many of the characteristics of the
older model.
To be clear, Sony doesn’t intend for the a6300 to be a replacement
for the a6000, meaning the older camera is still in production and can
be purchased at a very attractive price point (around $549.00 for the
body only).
My Camera Background
Before diving into this review, I want to clarify my digital camera
experiences to make my perspective more apparent. The Sony a6300 is the
very first mirrorless camera I’ve owned, besides my very brief
experiment with the a6000 for comparison purposes. Until recently, I’ve
shot almost exclusively with Canon DSLRs, namely the 5D Mark III and 6D.
As a result, many of the a6300’s features such as its pop-out LCD
screen and electronic viewfinder might seem like standard features to
other mirrorless shooters, but for a Canon DSLR user like myself, these
are newfound novelties that turned my world upside down. With that being
said, let’s move on to the a6300’s specs.
Key Features of the Sony a6300
The main improvement with the Sony a6300 is a newly developed sensor
with a pixel count of 24MP (same as the a6000) that is packed with a
whopping 425 phase-detection AF points,
which is significantly higher than the a6000’s 179 AF points.
According to Sony, the a6300 has the greatest number of phase-detection
points to date, on an interchangeable-lens camera ,and makes the a6300
the camera with the world’s fastest autofocus.
Video is another aspect that Sony upgraded on the a6300, with the
inclusion of 4k video recording capabilities, the addition of a mic
socket, and the ability to record time code. Besides the autofocus and
video systems, the a6300 sees an OLED 2.36M-dot viewfinder, an
improvement from the a6000’s OLED 1.44M-dot viewfinder. Battery life is
also slightly improved at 400 shots versus 360 shots.
Physically, the a6300 is only 2 ounces heavier than its predecessor,
although it feels much more solid with its weather-sealed magnesium
alloy build, that was lacking on the a6000. An AEL button with an AF/MF
switch has also been conveniently added to the back of the camera, which
sports and action shooters should find handy. Other than these few
additions, the Sony a6300 doesn’t look or feel much different than the
a6000.
Overall, these added features of the a6300 clearly appeal to shooters looking to focus on action, sports, and video.
Sample action shot with a Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Pros of the a6300
While discussing the pros and cons of the a6300, it should be noted
that many of the same features are also available on the a6000.
Extremely compact
As a DSLR shooter, the a6300’s compact size was particularly
appealing. While testing the Sony a6300, I used both the kit 16-50mm
f/3.5-5.6 retractable zoom lens, and the Sony 20mm f/2.0 pancake lens,
and was amazed that both were incredibly lightweight and basically the
same size. There is of course, the trade-off of both lenses being made
of plastic and not feeling as robust as say a Fujifilm lens, but they
both perform very well and weigh close to nothing. Pairing either lens
with the a6300 makes for a very compact, low-profile camera system that
is perfect for travel.
An informal food photo taken at a restaurant table moments before consumption. Shot with a Sony
20mm f/2.8.
Silent Shutter
While many DSLRs offer a Silent Shutter that is still quite noisy,
the a6300’s silent shutter feature makes the camera so quiet you
wouldn’t even know a photo was being taken. It’s a great feature for
undercover or candid photography moments when you truly want no sound
associated with taking a photo. With that said, non-silent shooting on
the a63000 produces a very crisp shutter snap, especially when firing
away at the camera’s highest shutter speed of 11 frames per second.
Panoramic shooting feature that actually works (most of the time)
After consistently trying, and failing, to take advantage of
panoramic shooting on a variety of devices from point and shoots to cell
phone cameras, I was beginning to think that on-the-go panoramic
shooting was a myth, until I tried it with the a6300. Unlike other
devices, the a6300 will shoot and stitch together a near-perfect
horizontal or vertical panorama even when your manual panning isn’t spot
on. There were a few times when the camera insisted that I wasn’t
panning straight enough to make a clear pano shot, but most of the time
even my wobbly panning techniques were good enough for the a6300 to make
sense of.
Sample panorama shot with a Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Focus Modes + Face Recognition
Easily two of the best features of the a6300 are the Face
Registration and Eye AF (autofocus) features, which do pretty much what
their names imply. Activating Face Registration allows you to program
the a6300 to recognize and prioritize up to eight faces. This feature is
incredibly handy when shooting a crowd of people, and the a6300’s
accuracy of picking out the correct face is astounding. Eye AF works
very similarly, but without the need to register (program them in) the
eyes. Simply enable Eye AF on the a6300 and the camera will
automatically search for your subject’s eyes and track them using
continuous autofocus. This feature is so spot-on that the a6300 will
even lock onto artistic renderings of eyes, such as a painted portrait.
Sample portrait shot with a Sony 20mm f/2.8 lens.
Quick Wi-Fi connection
Like most newer digital cameras today, the a6300 has Wi-Fi and NFC,
to connect with smartphones and tablets for remote camera shooting, and
wireless image transfer via Sony’s PlayMemories Mobile app. Setting up
Wi-Fi on the camera is very quick and intuitive, and Sony’s accompanying
app also includes an array of other options that can further enhance
your shooting experience, such as time-lapse and multiple exposure apps,
among many others.
Built-in flexible flash
Thankfully, Sony kept one of the a6000’s best features on the a6300: a
built-in pop-up flash. Extremely compact and flexible, the little flash
can bend 45 degrees to tilt upwards, allowing for bouncing the flash
off the ceiling. Next to the pop-up flash is a hot shoe mount that can
fire Canon or Nikon Speedlight flashes when used with an adapter.
One accessory that can help fully utilize the pop-up flash are plastic bounce cards which attach to the a6300 via the hot-shoe mount, and hold the flash in an upright position.
Sample night shot with a Sony 20mm f/2.8 lens.
Sony Lens Options
Currently, there are over 70 Sony lenses that you can purchase to go
along with your new a6300 body. Options range from compact, low-priced
primes and larger, higher-priced zoom lenses. Cheaper prime options
include the 16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2, 30mm f/3.5 macro, 35mm f/1.8, and 50mm f/1.8,
all ranging in price from $249.99-$449.99. Wide-range zoom lenses,
without a fixed f-stop, are also somewhat affordable, such as the 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($749.99) or the 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 ($998.99)
Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 ($749.99)
However, Sony’s higher-quality lenses are much higher in price, which
may be difficult to swallow if you’re converting from a DSLR kit.
Larger, high-quality Sony primes such as the 24mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4, prices are upwards of $1,200.00 and more. The same is true for Sony’s versions of traditional DSLR lenses such as the 16-35mm f/2.8 ($2,248.99), 24-70mm f/2.8
($2,098.00), and 70-200mm f/2.8 ($2,999.99). If you’re a DSLR shooter
with an array of lenses, you can always invest in a converter to use
your DSLR lenses with your Sony camera body, but at the expense of
slower autofocus.
When you purchase either the Sony a6000 or a6300, you have the option
of buying it body-only, or with a 16-55mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount retractable
zoom kit lens, which is valued at approximately $260.99 if purchased
separately. For its size, range, and overall performance, the kit lens,
plus a Sony prime lens, aren’t a bad starter combination, especially if
you’re looking to keep your gear compact and lightweight, and aren’t
quite ready to invest in higher-priced Sony E-mount lenses yet.
ISO Performance
Sony opted to improve the a6300’s high-ISO performance by including a
native ISO range of 100-25,600 with the possibility of extending that
ISO to 51,200. While the ability to shoot at higher ISO is great in
theory, I found that ISO 6400 was the highest I could comfortably push
the a6300 in darker environments, without sacrificing too much image
quality. Even my RAW photos shot at ISO 6400 were a little too grainy
for my taste, no matter how much noise-reduction I did in
post-processing.
Cons of the a6300
Sony’s bloated camera menu
A common complaint among Sony shooters, that I have to agree with, is
that the camera menu is very difficult to navigate. It truly seems like
Sony outfitted the a6300 with so many features, and tried to stuff them
all into a menu, that it can take weeks for new Sony shooters to get
used to using the camera.
This could be easily solved if Sony allowed users to customize the
menu a bit more, so that frequently-used features can be quickly
accessed. As it stands, Sony only allows assigning custom functions to
the camera’s physical buttons, and there aren’t nearly enough of those.
With
that being said, the trick to making sense of Sony’s menus is to
customize as much of the camera’s settings as possible. Presently, I’ve
customized the buttons and settings on the a6300 set to shoot almost
identically to the way I shoot with my Canon 5D Mark III, making it
easier to switch from one system to another.
Sample action shot with a Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
LCD screen sometimes blanks out
When it comes to the a6300’s LCD screen, I was grateful for its
pop-out rotating feature, something that has been sorely lacking on
Canon DSLRs. Some other reviewers complained about the a6300 lacking a
touch screen LCD, but again, this is something I’ve never had on a
camera, so the fact that it’s missing doesn’t bother me.
One feature of the a6300’s LCD that was troublesome, was its
occasional blackouts, which usually occurred right after rotating the
screen. Oftentimes, the only way to get the LCD working again was to
turn the camera off and on. With that said, using the electronic
viewfinder (EVF) always worked without fail, even when the LCD blanked
out.
Over to you
Do you already shoot with the Sony a6300, or are you considering
making the move? What do you love about it, or what hesitations remain?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
