Got a camera store quote for my Sony a6000
Jun 3, 2016 17:06:55 #
I asked my local camera store to give me a a6000 body to a6300 body quote and it was a mere $250. So I bypassed. The a6300 is now just a dream.
Jun 4, 2016 06:57:32 #
John_F wrote:
I asked my local camera store to give me a a6000 body to a6300 body quote and it was a mere $250. So I bypassed. The a6300 is now just a dream.
You can do much better on ebay, $500 minimum. the local store has to hope that someone walks in wanting that camera. ebay deals with thousands of people all over the world.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/Digital-Cameras/31388/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=sony%20a6000&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684
Jun 4, 2016 09:32:35 #
zigipha
Loc: north nj
are you saying that it would have cost only 250 more to upgrade a a6000 to a6300..should have taken it.
Jun 4, 2016 09:47:13 #
zigipha wrote:
are you saying that it would have cost only 250 more to upgrade a a6000 to a6300..should have taken it.
I agree. If that wasn't the case, check out what they are going for and offer it here on on craigslist or ebay. You may well get a bunch more although trading can be hassle free! Best of luck!
Jun 4, 2016 09:55:15 #
$250 to upgrade from a A6000 to A6300? That's cheap. Brand new A6000 body is less than $600. A6300 is more than $900.
Jun 4, 2016 10:17:25 #
I think he meant to say that they would only give him $250 as a trade in, not to go from A6000 to A6300. I was at a Hilary rally couple of weeks ago near Disneyland and the guy next to me at a A6300. We talked about it and he absolutely loves it. I have a NEX-6 for walkaround and it produces great images images although I am a Canon guy (formerly Nikon). I hope that the A6300 price comes down in the near future.
Jun 4, 2016 10:26:17 #
John_F wrote:
I asked my local camera store to give me a a6000 body to a6300 body quote and it was a mere $250. So I bypassed. The a6300 is now just a dream.
You can't expect a retail business to pay you "retail" prices now can you? As suggested, sell it yourself but when you can get a new one for such low price, what did you expect to get for it? I bet car dealers made a fortune on you over the decades.
Jun 4, 2016 10:28:09 #
John_F wrote:
I asked my local camera store to give me a a6000 body to a6300 body quote and it was a mere $250. So I bypassed. The a6300 is now just a dream.
John. I bought a new a6000 in March because I was about to take a road trip to Death Valley for the amazing wildflowers and the a6300 was not yet shipping. Then when the a6300 came out just after my trip, I bought one. So I'm about to put the a6000 up for sale. I've looked at eBay prices and they range from a low of around $450 without a lens to $650 with the kit lens. I wouldn't knock the camera store. They are gambling that they can make a few bucks after paying you and the landlord. But that is a pretty low price.
My a6000 is not yet listed on Hedgehog, but it will be in the next day or so. Shuttercount is only 824. I just can't afford to have it laying around unused. I'll make a good deal for it.
Jun 4, 2016 10:42:11 #
AntonioReyna wrote:
I think he meant to say that they would only give him $250 as a trade in, not to go from A6000 to A6300. I was at a Hilary rally couple of weeks ago near Disneyland and the guy next to me at a A6300. We talked about it and he absolutely loves it. I have a NEX-6 for walkaround and it produces great images images although I am a Canon guy (formerly Nikon). I hope that the A6300 price comes down in the near future.
The A6000 was/is cheap for the quality of camera it is but, at this point, the A6300 is too high for what it is.
Jun 4, 2016 11:33:55 #
zigipha wrote:
are you saying that it would have cost only 250 more to upgrade a a6000 to a6300..should have taken it.
No, the 250 was the towards number.
Jun 4, 2016 11:48:35 #
bkellyusa wrote:
The A6000 was/is cheap for the quality of camera it is but, at this point, the A6300 is too high for what it is.
I tend to agree with bkellyuse, because the sensor is still 24.3 Mpixels. The sensor is said to be better wired to the circuit board (copper) making for faster operations, like focusing. According to the specifications I have seen the pixel depth is still 8 bits, which means just 256 colors. My a6000 experiments show that a 6000 pixel by 4000 pixel RAW image occupies a bit over 24 Mbytes, that is 8 bits per pixel. When Adobe DNG Converter processes such an image it becomes a 24 bit per pixel image file. So is DNG manufacturing bits or was the original Sony ARW file somehow encrypted.
Jun 4, 2016 12:44:43 #
Each photosite (or pixel) only capture 1 color channel. The RAW converter creates 3 channel per pixel from the 1 channel pixels.
Jun 4, 2016 14:23:10 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Each photosite (or pixel) only capture 1 color channel. The RAW converter creates 3 channel per pixel from the 1 channel pixels.
Exactly. Suppose the color channel is red, what digital algorithm possibly guess the values for the green and blue channels. Lets do some guessing. Eight bits coukd be split into two for each color channel and two for black level. So the converter or some software opens the file and by some algorithm (mathematical procedure) creates two new bits for every one bit in the file. So how do we know that algorithm faithfully reproduces what we saw in the view finder?
Jun 4, 2016 18:53:28 #
John_F wrote:
I asked my local camera store to give me a a6000 body to a6300 body quote and it was a mere $250. So I bypassed. The a6300 is now just a dream.
An A6000 with one lens consistently brings $400 to $500 on eBay. I watch these things, as eBay has replaced my income from Computer Consulting... which I did for 25 years. eBay now 15 years.
Jun 4, 2016 19:12:50 #
John_F wrote:
I tend to agree with bkellyuse, because the sensor... (show quote)
You mean compressed, and yes, the RAW files are usually compressed. Otherwise, a 24MP image would take up 72MB at 8 bits per pixel.
As far as I can tell, the output is 12-bit (14-bit for the some or all of the A7's). There has been a lot written about whether Sony uses lossy compression; evidence shows that this is possible (image and file size comparisons). I don't know whether they have fixed this yet. Sony is one of the less transparent manufacturers (but only slightly, it seems).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.