I'm wondering how much people learn about photography, using a smartphone camera.

However, there are a few of us who don't use the camera that is in it. The more advanced in age, the less apt to use the camera in the phone; has been my observation. Of course, I know quite a few older people.

You're being "groomed", my friend ~ you and I have been for quite some time.

Most kids seem to be very results oriented ~ hence, part of the popularity of cell-phone cameras in that age demographic.

I like to put a camera in a kid's hands and have them snap the shutter (on Automatic is just fine). Then I point out that (s)he just stopped time and recorded it. No-one in all of history has ever captured that exactly image, at exactly that moment, and no one ever will, again. Sometimes that registers with their young imaginations and egos.

Most post-modern 14-year-olds are so computer/cellphone savvy that they'll not be as intimidated by the Sony 6xxx-series, as many of us appear to be. And, they seem to really like the 11-frames/sec, or whatever the current claim is....

I have a friend with a 17-year-old son ~ bought a used a6000 w/the kit lenses ~ I loaned him a couple of Chinese primes ~ within a month, he was able to instruct me, and I've owned one for several years.

So, why should we accept wikipedia and Snopes as purveyors of the absolute "truth, and nothing but the truth"?

I don't know if this lady is "real", or not ~ or, whether her narratives and indictments are factual ~ but, if not, she deserves an Academy Award. I've been interviewing people (several a week), since May of 1970, and she's very convincing.

Post deleted.

You must wear a very big shirt, Tom.

Because the Sony a6000 series is so flexible and versatile, I have a feeling you'll be reaching for your a6100 more often than you might believe, at this point.

A fine camera being used up in true and treacherous "service". One of the most enjoyable posts on this thread; THANK YOU!

Precisely!

I wonder if the Nicanonites hated it when it was Minolta, too.

(forgot to press the Quote button ~ this was a response to markwilliam1's "Is it because Sony is now treading on Sacred Ground?")

Not unusual; the thread tends to wander away from your masthead question; "Best Kit Lens?" As you probably know, most digital camera makers fit their products with a mid-range "kit zoom", usually of adequate ability to capture images of adequate quality for most neophytes....except Fujifilm. My photography subject matter is very similar to yours, and here was my "camera (lens) picking methodology":

From my camera journal:

When shopping ON A TIGHT BUDGET for a travel/street MILC; on April of 2014, I purchased a "used" Sony Alpha a6000 body + PZ 16-50mm OSS kit zoom for $400 from a local semi-pro owner. Then began collecting Sony E-mount prime lenses. With the right prime lens that (a6000) camera system captures almost anything that moves. Within a year or two, I became dissatisfied with the Sony APS-C zooms that I could afford.

On, October 23, 2016; purchased a near-new Fujifilm X-E2 with 18-55mm "kit zoom" on eBay, because the "Zony" 16-70mm f/4 midrange zoom was expensive and had a poor quality control record.
IMHO, the Fujifilm X-cameras are the easiest cross-over from the SLR/DSLR world, because the menu and controls seem so "familiar" -- later added a near-new 27mm "pancake" lens for every day carry, and recently a 35mm f/2 "Fujicron" to make the X-E2 a "Leica wannabe".

So far, my very enjoyable Fuji primes have cost me less that $200, apiece. Now, if I can just find a used 56mm f/1.2 for that price!

Just my rookie thinkin', Ed ~ but, I'm wondering if people will begin holding onto this lens, now that Fujifilm is fitting their premium X-H and X-T series cameras with "In-body Image Stabilization", as that was the question mark in a number of minds about this otherwise splendid lens (that I have yet to acquire).