[BigMackCam]

My son just received his Sony A6300 and knows just a little about photography (exposure, focus points, etc.). His first photos, shoot in the "auto" mode are absolutely fantastic. Much better than anything I have produced using my Pentax K-50 using the various priority modes, focus points, metering... quite jealous (in a good way). Kinda hard knowing that no matter what I do or know, there are cameras out there for a bit more money that raise the bar so high...

Hi Jack...

With enough knowledge of the K-50, a comparable quality lens to your son's, and the same shooting conditions, there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to get near-enough equivalent results, except in a few specific circumstances where the A6300 may trump the K-50 due to resolution, high ISO performance in low light, functions related to certain situations (perhaps focus tracking as an example) etc. In some instances the K-50 will actually be better than the A6300, in others (perhaps many) the opposite will be true - but the differences, to the casual observer, will be surprisingly small.

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of Auto mode - it's great for snapshots, and will usually produce an acceptable (often rather good) result in the right situation. When it does work well, getting an equivalent result using the other shooting modes (P, A, S, M) requires a good deal of understanding about how these modes, and the camera itself, operates, plus good technique. It's possible to get those equivalent results, for sure, and in most cases much better - but it takes learning and practice (you would know this for sure if you saw some of my shots when I first stopped using Auto!!! ).

I'm also not a great fan of Pentax's JPEG processing (specific beefs being the quality of its colour noise reduction at higher ISOs, to a lesser extent its luminance noise reduction, and the artefacts from sharpening), although many people here do get great results from it. I shoot all of my images raw, then process them in Lightroom 6. I use three Pentax cameras - K-5, K-3 and K-3II. I would challenge anyone to be able to spot which of my images were shot with which camera, except for very specific circumstances and at very large viewing sizes.

I also use a Hasselblad HV full frame camera which is based on Sony's excellent A99. It has some distinct advantages and disadvantages when compared to my Pentax cameras, but for the most part, the image quality - after processing - is largely indistinguishable between any of my cameras when the images are viewed at "normal" sizes.

I would recommend you and your son select equivalent lenses for your cameras, and then try taking the same shots, with similar settings, side by side to see what results you get. If you then post a couple of examples and explain the settings you were both using (preferably not Auto mode, and ideally using either the finest JPEG settings with all colour, sharpness and noise reduction set neutrally), we can try to help.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 04-08-2016 at 05:22 PM.

[Sliver-Surfer]

I never use the auto mode on my A6000 but I've tested it and it nearly always picks what I would pick for settings. I can imagine the A6300 is leagues smarter than the a6000. It also has the world fastest AF which will lock on to the object of your choosing and stay locked on to it. You know we are also our own worst critics so that could play into it..

[Racer X 69]

All I heard was
"blah blah blah... - time to buy a K1

Me too.

[dylansalt]

There are things that the A6300 will do that the K1 will find difficult to do - just as my iPhone 6 can give me a better panoramic picture than my D750 out of the box so to speak.

The 6000 series was designed to get brilliant pics,(out of the box so to speak) regardless of subject matter, by a novice photographer - and it does just that, in an age where people don't want to spend hundreds of hours learning.

The kind of person who would like the Sony are those who want to move up from say an iPhone camera, with the least amount of a learning curve

And in a skilled photographers hand it will easily deliver pics equal to any other camera on the market.

It's not quite my cup of tea but I can admire its technology and ability

[jeffryscott]

There are things that the A6300 will do that the K1 will find difficult to do - just as my iPhone 6 can give me a better panoramic picture than my D750 out of the box so to speak.

The 6000 series was designed to get brilliant pics,(out of the box so to speak) regardless of subject matter, by a novice photographer - and it does just that, in an age where people don't want to spend hundreds of hours learning.

The kind of person who would like the Sony are those who want to move up from say an iPhone camera, with the least amount of a learning curve

And in a skilled photographers hand it will easily deliver pics equal to any other camera on the market.

It's not quite my cup of tea but I can admire its technology and ability

It isn't just designed for novices to get good photos out of the box. I know several working professional photographers who dumped all their Canon gear (Canon users for over 20 years) to buy the A6000. Several are shooting sports with the little beast as well. That is why I initially jumped on the Sony bandwagon because of their recommendations. Alas, the camera delivered but it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to use for me.

[HopelessTogger]

It isn't just designed for novices to get good photos out of the box. I know several working professional photographers who dumped all their Canon gear (Canon users for over 20 years) to buy the A6000. Several are shooting sports with the little beast as well. That is why I initially jumped on the Sony bandwagon because of their recommendations. Alas, the camera delivered but it wasn't aesthetically pleasing to use for me.

I use the A6000 with FE 70-200/4 G OSS. It is a great combo for action in good light but Sony should have omitted the AA-filter.

[Sliver-Surfer]

In some instances the K-50 will actually be better than the A6300

Sorry, the k50 is a good camera, however I don't think this statement is true. K3 Maybe K1 yes but I can't think of anything that the k50 would be better at than the a6300.

[surfar]

My K50 is a better colour than all the a6300!

[normhead]

Sorry, the k50 is a good camera, however I don't think this statement is true. K3 Maybe K1 yes but I can't think of anything that the k50 would be better at than the a6300.

That why there is Imaging Resources... Pentax K-50 vs Sony A6300
That way, you don't have to depend on what someone thinks, (which can be pretty unreliable.)

Pentax K-50 advantages over Sony A6300


LENS SELECTION EXCELLENT vs GOOD Better lens selection gives you more options
LESS EXPENSIVE $149 vs $1148 Save money for lenses or accessories
BIGGER PIXELS ~ 4.81 vs 3.92 MICRONS Better low-light and dynamic range (all else equal)
IN-CAMERA IMAGE STABILIZATION YES vs NO Reduces the effects of camera shake at slower shutter speeds
LONGER STILLS BATTERY LIFE MORE INFO 480 vs 400 SHOTS Capture more photos
FASTER SHUTTER 1/6000 vs 1/4000 SEC Shoot wide open in bright light

[Sliver-Surfer]

That why there is Imaging Resources... Pentax K-50 vs Sony A6300
That way, you don't have to depend on what someone thinks, (which can be pretty unreliable.)

Pentax K-50 advantages over Sony A6300


LENS SELECTION EXCELLENT vs GOOD Better lens selection gives you more options
LESS EXPENSIVE $149 vs $1148 Save money for lenses or accessories
BIGGER PIXELS ~ 4.81 vs 3.92 MICRONS Better low-light and dynamic range (all else equal)
IN-CAMERA IMAGE STABILIZATION YES vs NO Reduces the effects of camera shake at slower shutter speeds
LONGER STILLS BATTERY LIFE MORE INFO 480 vs 400 SHOTS Capture more photos
FASTER SHUTTER 1/6000 vs 1/4000 SEC Shoot wide open in bright light

A6300 can mount pretty much any lens and has fully functional Electronic communication available to it with Canon, Minolta/Sony Alpha and E-Mount Lenses we've been over this.
Of course the K50 is cheaper..it's old -Umm where can you buy a new K-50 for $149
The Noise performance is better on the A6300 thats why we have sites like Image resource
Some Sony e Lenses have in Lens stabilization
Battery life has nothing to do with image quality
Yes the K50 is 1/2stop higher shutterspeed there you go

[normhead]

So which would you rather have, a K-50 for $300 and a $50 35-80 for $350, and $800 in your pocket, or an A6300 and no lens,and no money in your pocket?

You know dude, I didn't put that up there for you to argue point by pint. I put it up there so you can understand there are a lot of ways of thinking about this. Not just yours.
Personally, the only reason I went to 24 MP in my K-3 was I already had stable of really capable lenses. I can see that being relevant here.
But more than that, you have to ask, what kind of person would be surprised by this?

OK, don't like that comparison how about the K-50 18-55 and 55- 55-300 package for $549 compared to the Sony for $1207 plus and the Sony 66-300 for 248 for a grand total of $1450. With the K-50 you keep $950 in your pocket, and good good hands you'll do pretty much the same things. Need I go on?

Just say uncle and get on with your life.

In general people who compare one system to another system costing 3 times as much are like clowns. They make you laugh. We're trying to hold it in check here.

But if you keep this up, we're going to start laughing and partying here. Especially if your next post comes after 4 PM when I have my beer of the day. Then there will be no stopping.

Hey dude, my $5000 DSLr system outperforms my $300 point and shoot (unless they've both been dropped from 5 feet.). How surprising. Stop the presses.

I mean seriously, how long do you think we can keep a straight face with this nonsense?

Hey OP dude, guess what, my K-3 will also smoke you K-50 in many ways. If you want to talk $1100 cameras, let's talk $1100 cameras. A K-50 has nothing to do with that conversation. It wasn't more than $800 new off the production line initial price, 3 years ago or whenever it was.

Please don't try and come back with some kind of serious answer, this is way beyond anything resembling serious.

[bertwert]

I can't think of anything that the k50 would be better at than the a6300.

LENS SELECTION EXCELLENT vs GOOD Better lens selection gives you more options
LESS EXPENSIVE $149 vs $1148 Save money for lenses or accessories
BIGGER PIXELS ~ 4.81 vs 3.92 MICRONS Better low-light and dynamic range (all else equal)
IN-CAMERA IMAGE STABILIZATION YES vs NO Reduces the effects of camera shake at slower shutter speeds
LONGER STILLS BATTERY LIFE MORE INFO 480 vs 400 SHOTS Capture more photos
FASTER SHUTTER 1/6000 vs 1/4000 SEC Shoot wide open in bright light

BETTER VIEWFINDER: OVF vs EVF
MORE ROBUST
To add a few more...

[Sliver-Surfer]

BETTER VIEWFINDER: OVF vs EVF
MORE ROBUST
To add a few more...

OVFvsEVF is a matter of preference
what makes it more robust?

---------- Post added 04-11-16 at 03:28 PM ----------

My K50 is a better colour than all the a6300!

cool what colour is it.

---------- Post added 04-11-16 at 04:00 PM ----------

Hey OP dude, guess what, my K-3 will also smoke you K-50 in many ways. If you want to talk $1100 cameras, let's talk $1100 cameras. A K-50 has nothing to do with that conversation. It wasn't more than $800 new off the production line initial price, 3 years ago or whenever it was.

Exactly the K50 is a good camera but cannot compare to a $1100 k3 or A6300

[surfar]

The red K50 is the fastest Pentax(of that colour)ever!
Its as fast as my car(when its inside it)

[MarkJerling]

All I heard was
"blah blah blah... - time to buy a K1

Me too!
And, I don't like the Sony - a friend of mine has one and I've played with it extensively. It's got a terrible viewfinder, in my opinion.