Olympus and Pentax a Moment of Contrast

One of the biggest developments in the camera industry occurred a few weeks ago when Olympus (after months of denial) announced a pending deal to sell their camera division to equity capital firm Japan Industrial Partners (JIP).

Of course this is the cause of much uncertainty and angst amongst the Olympus loyalists, but has been an occasion of near celebration for Olympus’s detractors and other critics of the MFT format. To be certain though, Olympus has a long, illustrious, and innovative history as a camera manufacturer and it is sad to see them go, and go they will joining the ranks of Minolta, Konica, Yashica, Contax, Polaroid, Bronica, Mamiya, and may others.

Most people who are in the photography world want to know Olympus’s future. Especially those heavily invested in the Olympus system. Most likely Olympus will become a very small regional brand mostly offered for sale in Asia, where they have one of the highest market shares of any brand, and some parts of Europe and South America where JIP has had previous success.  A sad end to what once was a highly innovative camera company that offered somewhat revolutionary products. That is exactly what happened to the Vaio computer brand that Sony sold to the same company years ago. It’s a shadow of its former self.

olympusMost of Olympus’s innovation though, was in the golden age of film photography from the late 1960’s through the 1980’s. Admirably they followed their own ethos in design and engineering rather than just jump on the bandwagon of the next big thing. Unfortunately, as a result, they didn’t adapt to the autofocus revolution of the late 1980’s and were slow to enter the DSLR market in the early 2000’s and when they did, they chose the 4/3 sensor format and relentlessly pursed that format continuously until now and, probably will, into the foreseeable future. Olympus has also been heavily invested, since the 1990’s in the consumer camera market which has been all but obliterated by the smart phone. Take these ingredients and add in a major financial scandal that lead to major losses some years back and include three recent consecutive years of zero profits from their camera division and you have a recipe for ruin.

Meanwhile there’s Pentax. Another camera manufacturer that has had a very similar arc to Olympus. 


Much like Olympus, in the digital era Pentax has been a niche company relying on brand loyalty rather than quantum innovation. Pentax offers competent technology with a range of innovative features including (like Olympus) high quality weather sealing for both bodies and lenses, and class leading image stabilization.

Pentax recently doubled down, in a news release, not only on their commitment to the digital camera but also, in the era of mirrorless camera market dominance, committing exclusively to the DSLR, which by the assessment of most internet pundits and self appointed experts is a dead technology. 

I find this fascinating as both are niche companies with a very small share of an ever shrinking camera market. One appears to be thoroughly committed to serving their market share while the other has thrown in the towel.

Why the difference? Olympus was the only photo-centric company to exclusively embrace the micro four thirds format. To be certain Panasonic was exclusively MFT for years. Until the development of the full frame LUMIX S1 and entry into the “L-mount Alliance” with Leica and Sigma, and even before the S1, LUMIX, while offering incredibly competent photo cameras were widely known and embraced for their video capabilities. Olympus never cracked that market. They were known primarily as the MFT option for the stills photographer. Ironically Pentax has never been a real contender in the video arena either. The difference, if it makes a difference, is they offer both APS-C and full frame sensors.

So why then does one fail and the other continue? Both are divisions of larger companies that maintain a significant presence in other areas of imaging, specifically medical and industrial applications. 

Perhaps Olympus could not recover from their past financial issues? That may be playing a part. I don’t think that it is their relentless insistence in supporting the MFT format exclusively. Real photographers know better – MFT is perfectly usable at every level – yes even for professionals. It is, in fact, the preferred format for photographing birds, wildlife, and some action sports due to the crop factor. 

Perhaps in retrospect, they had too diverse a product line? Currently Olympus offers at least six different camera models aimed at everyone from the casual user to the serious working photographer. Some models are currently offered in two iterations like the OM-D E-M1 which is currently for sale in both the Mkll and Mklll versions at the same time. The MK lll being almost prohibitively priced at some $1700.00 (ish) USD. Pentax offers their Full Frame K1-ll at the same price point. While in MFT LUMIX offers their comparative G9 for $700.00 less and Olympus, competes against themselves offering their OM-D E-M1 Mkll at the same G9 price point. For the person entering the Olympus ecosystem, this is confusing at best.

Pentax, however, in a much simpler marketing scheme offers but four bodies all DSLR, three APS-C and one Full Frame. A much more streamlined product line that offers two sensor size options while also offering enough variations and options to suit just about any photographer that is inclined to buy into the Pentax system. This appears to be a much more sensible marketing approach in an uncertain industry.

Olympus and Pentax, two historically similar companies that for decades followed the same basic path, then diverged. On survives (at least for now) and one doesn’t. 

– stay safe, see the world through your own eyes, and thanks for reading.

Masks for Dummies in the Era of COVID-19

Well this isn’t a photography related post but it is an issue that is in the forefront right now and I think needs to be addressed.

No doubt we currently live in strange times. As I write this we are experiencing an upswing in Covid-19 cases and my state has made wearing masks or ”face coverings” in public mandatory.

Of course there are still members of the great illiterati that have a sufficiently low IQ so as to think that mask wearing is somehow a sign of weakness or represents a lack of masculinity or some other bit of ridiculousness. Well let me dispel that for you. If you aren’t worried about getting COVID-19 fine. I’m pretty certain that the rest of us don’t really care if you do or not. Guess what? This isn’t about you.

Wearing a mask is a sign of strength and the best way to “man up”. In case you didn’t notice, the mask is not necessarily supposed to protect you. That’s a side benefit. It’s for the protection of others, like your family. So don’t wear a mask and bring the disease home to your family and let them suffer. Oh, make sure that while a loved one is in hospital on a respirator that you remind them that you are the one who made them sick – so that they can further bask in your masculinity and strength.

Masculinity or manliness (if you like that word better) is not about taking chances and posturing. It is about taking care of those that you care about. That’s not a point for debate. Taking care of your loved ones usually requires sacrifice. It requires you to put others above yourself. So if you refuse to wear a mask when you need to, that actually is the ultimate sign of weakness and selfishness – in short you’re acting out and behaving like a petulant child.

Let’s address another bit of stupidity. I had a customer at my workplace recently who wasn’t wearing a mask and his response was “I won’t bow to tyranny” at which point we asked him to leave and told him he could call from the parking lot and we would be more than happy to help him that way.

Ok .. I almost get it. You don’t want to be told what to do. In a broad sense, neither do I, however this is a stupid hill on which to plant your flag.  I am pretty sure that you have auto insurance, wear a seatbelt, and pay income tax. The ship has already sailed on the whole “bowing” thing, dumbass. This is the stupidest position ever. 

Nowhere in the history of natural rights is the premise that you have the right to potentially harm someone else through negligence.

Are you one of those morons that thinks COVID-19 is a hoax of some sort? Get a grip. It is not a hoax. Stop the stupidity right there. COVID-19 is real, it exists, and people get sick and die from it. Statistically you probably don’t know anyone who has it – right now only one in about 450 Americans has it. If you don’t know anyone who is infected, it does seem nonexistent. Of course the problem here is that just because someone doesn’t show symptoms, doesn’t mean they aren’t infected and contagious. So, I guess if you want some sort of proof that it is not a hoax, go ahead and not wear a mask – that way, sooner or later you or someone you know will have it. 

So in the end, wearing a mask and social distancing are steps that work to reduce the spread of the coronavirus. It’s been proven, it works – period and it is the responsible thing to do.

– stay safe and see the world through you own eyes and thank you for reading.

The 5 Best YouTube Photography Channels in 2019

I spend quite a bit of time on YouTube. Like most people, I suppose. I typically watch content that pertains to my interests. I really don’t watch cat videos or lifestyle videos.

Being an avid photographer I tend to watch mostly photography related content and I recently took a good look at my subscription list – which was at 67 different photography related YouTube channels. I unsubscribed from about 20 of them that I no longer watch at all, and that got me to thinking; if I had to narrow it down to only five, which ones would make the cut?

First I need to establish some criteria – what, exactly makes for a good channel?

This is what I came up with:

  • Quality content. More than just reviews of the latest and greatest gear. Gear reviews can be good, but they get old real fast. Content related to technique, composition, history, and style is much more interesting in my opinion.
  • Engagement. The host needs to be engaged in the practice of photography (or videography) outside of just YouTube content creation. Be a working photographer and create projects – for pay or personally it doesn’t matter just actually be a creator outside of YouTube and share with your audience.
  • Non-controversial. If they have strong opinions – great. Don’t just create controversy for clicks and please try to minimize the click-bait titles. Really, the online photo community can be toxic enough without this.
  • Have an engaging personality. Be genuine and personable. Be someone that I might like to go out and shoot with and maybe have coffee with. Be confident and knowledgeable, and  present in an interesting way.

So there are the four points I used to cull out what I think are the five best YouTube photography channels in 2019 and here are my picks for “The 5 Best YouTube Photography Channels in 2019”.  Click on the titles below to view their content.


Tube logo


The Art of Photography – Hosted by Ted Forbes who has a serious background in art, education, and photography/videography. He is fairly humble yet funny and puts out quality, informed content with a few gear reviews sprinkled in. His CV includes producing “The Artists Series” , a series of long form documentaries about some of the great photographers of our time. The series is, of course, available on his YouTube channel, and on Amazon Prime which gives it some pretty solid credibility.

Three Blind Men and an Elephant – Hosted by Hugh Brownstone who has a solid background in photography and video. He currently runs a production company, of the same name with his wife Claudia, that creates commercial video and photography projects, and hosts workshops on street photography. He is an Alan Rickman lookalike with a buttery smooth narrators voice who is a genuine pleasure to listen to as he exudes a rare and seemingly heartfelt enthusiasm for his subject matter. He currently produces two short form documentary series available on his YouTube channel Called “What were you Thinking” and “Good World Gone Bad”.

Sean Tucker – Not as prolific a creator as the two above, but certainly no slouch. Very few gear reviews for the sake of clicks. The majority of his videos that I’ve seen so far are very much long form videos that are either educational or documentary in nature. He has a great “on camera” presence and seems extremely knowledgeable in the subject matter. His videos are produced to a very high quality standard and are informative while, also, very enjoyable to watch.

Mattias Burling – This eponymous channel is mostly gear reviews, but done in a way that doesn’t seem like gear reviews.  Watch for the production quality and the interesting choices in gear to review— and the dog. Not to mention he creates some pretty amazing street photography. Really, this Swede, who is employed in the creative arts, has an amazing channel with a strong following that is entirely controversy free and well worth watching.

Steve Huff – This photographer from the Phoenix Arizona area is a pleasure to watch, though sometimes a bit longwinded. He has a seemingly amazing ability to acquire just about every new high end camera for testing so, he is primarily a gear channel. But, I watch for his personality and (cough, Leica) content.


Jared Polin“Fro Knows Photo ……..dot COM! Sarcastic, sanctimonious, and opinionated, no one can create controversy like Jared. From his pedantic preaching about shooting RAW to arguing with other YouTubers, you will either love him or not. Granted this Philly native is pretty brash and “in your face” but watch for the content and his personal photography projects like “Six Degrees of Photography”. He is also a professional concert and music photographer that has been published in Rolling Stone.

So there you have it, my choices for the 5 best Youtube Photography channels in 2019 and a bonus choice.


Feel free to add yours in the comments.

Thanks for reading.

Welcome to Think-Photo!

So welcome to … Regarding Photography!

To the three or four people that have read my posts thus far and to anyone who stumbles across this, let me explain a few things;

The idea behind … Regarding Photography is really simple. After reading some of the bigger online photography blogs and watching a lot of YouTube content I have come to the conclusion that most (not all) of it is repetitive tutorial content or gear reviews. In fact very little has to do with the actual discussion of the philosophy or practice of photography. Actually, there is very little actual thought or in-depth consideration involved.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. In prehistory (before the internet) the photo magazines of the time were the same way – gear reviews, beginner tutorials, and processing articles over and over, month to month. Rarely did you have much written about the practice of the craft or the history or practitioners of the craft.

These old periodicals and today’s web content have much in common as they are/were profit driven (read advertising) and, there’s nothing wrong with that per se. When it is the overall driving force at the expense of quality content and becomes so obvious as to be intellectually insulting, well then there is a problem.

Two of the greatest photo magazines ever, in my opinion, were Shutterbug and American Photographer (which eventually became American Photo). Both of these have gone out of print and are now completely web based and only shadows of what they were in their glory days – and that’s the case with print media across the board. In a sea of mediocrity though, their print content was exceptional.

Time well spent. Unfortunately, that’s the last print issue of Shutterbug on the top.

So what I think is that, photography, like any other art form, requires as much thought from the creator as it does practice and, frankly, when you are obsessing over the latest and greatest equipment – it’s hard to think about the craft or practice the craft.

So, am I saying gear doesn’t matter? No. it’s just not all that matters.

I do intend to offer some camera reviews at some point. Not of the latest and greatest but how tried and true cameras fit into todays world. Maybe even exploring the current state of film cameras from time to time.

I intend to offer a lot of opinion, as you’ve seen already.

I’ll also throw in some technical material, history pieces, and of course, publish some of my own original photography work. I will have some posts about photographers that have influenced me and also some travel pieces. I do intend to post content on a regular basis – every Sunday for the foreseeable future and hope to build a strong reader base and learn a few new things along the way.

Comments and ideas are more than welcome!

Thanks for reading.

The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera”

– Dorothea Lange

Computational Photography is Not The End of The World!!

Computational photography is a term that seems to be coming up more and more often lately in photography related conversations. If you don’t know what it means, it refers to mobile device photography – smart phones in particular, referring to how the app developers are now using programming code to create various effects like shallow depth of field (bokeh) that require knowledge and equipment to create in a camera. 

In other words, you select the effect or mode then you just shoot and save the photo instead of choosing a lens, calculating exposure, taking the picture, then refining it in post production.

This seems to have a lot of people upset and they’re talking about the death of photography yet again. It seems that some of the online photography gurus think that somehow their digital camera is substantially different from, and far superior to a smart phone camera. Yes the phone has a much smaller sensor and less exposure control (as a rule), and doesn’t’ have interchangeable lenses, but that’s about it.

Here’s the truth – Most photography is computational, and it doesn’t matter in the least.

I’ll let that sink in for a minute.

comp photo cameras
Examples of computational photography equipment in 2019

You see, If you shoot film, there are some variables but, essentially you are exposing a chemically covered media to light which, after being treated with other chemicals, leaves a latent negative image that can then be printed onto light sensitive paper as a positive image. No computers required. In film’s purest form there is nothing digital or computational about the process, but very few people print traditionally in a dark room anymore. That is the only non-computational form of photography there is, or ever was. 

So then if you shoot film and send it to a lab for processing, the lab will likely send you scans of your shots on maybe a disc or thumb drive. They might even upload your images as digital scans to a cloud based service and give you a password or PIN to access them. They may or may not send you your negatives. More and more often, they won’t. 

Even film has been pushed (pun intended) into the digital era of computational photography.

This is one of the ironies of shooting film in the digital era – you start with film and, ultimately end up with a digital product that you then process on a computer before sending it to a printer (if you actually print photos instead of just posting them online).

If you shoot digital images instead of film, you are exposing a digital sensor to light. The camera’s internal software and processor then create an image. If you want to print it, you either use a home printer connected to your computer, or you send it to an outside printer (with better equipment) who will create a print from your digital file. Of course you can just view the image on the camera’s screen and call it a day. The process, however, relies on digital, computational technology from front to back.

What about camera RAW files? Well, sorry, it’s still computational. A RAW image isn’t really an image. It is essentially just a string of software code that tells the camera’s processor how to make an image. It just leaves out some of the corrections (and compression) that the camera is programmed to process into a JPEG, and every camera processes the information differently. This is why we get the various arguments about Canon’s color science vs Nikon’s vs Sony’s ad infinitum. Raw is not a photo until it is displayed on a screen. 

Most people then use Lightroom or another Adobe product to post process and edit their RAW images – so you don’t really even get to see the real RAW data. You get Adobe’s interpretation of that data. That’s precisely what Adobe Camera RAW is for and Adobe RGB is their own, specific color interpretation. 

There’s nothing wrong with Lightroom or Photoshop, I use both for virtually all of my digital post processing and I think they are well suited to the task, but I understand what they are and how to best use them for my personal purpose. (By the way, the same principal applies to any other brand of post processing or image editing software, it’s computational by its very nature.)

The good news is, it doesn’t matter. Really.

Photography has changed over the last hundred or so years by an order of magnitude. We have evolved from the Daguerrotype to the JPEG and from the large format View Camera to the Smart Phone. At each interval, the photographic community has condemned the changes as being the “death of photography” and criticized them as being “not really photography” yet, in retrospect, it didn’t matter and the technological progress actually advanced the art and science of photography. Photography has continued and advanced, and changed, and evolved, but it hasn’t died because of any new technology.

I don’t expect it to die any time soon either, especially just because the process is becoming even easier.

Thanks for reading.

5 Reasons to Buy Used Gear!

I am a big believer in buying used equipment. As a matter of fact, the most current camera I own is a Sony A6000.

Why? Because I thoroughly believe in the value both financially and practically that used equipment offers to photographers of all levels.

So, without further ado, here are the five reasons I think you should buy used photo equipment:

1. Value for money. Really, buying used is all about getting as much for your hard earned money as you can. Right now you can buy a brand new Sony A7 with the 28mm-70mm kit lens for $998.00 USD from Amazon or B&H Photo. IF you shop used, from any of the reputable used camera dealers like KEH or mpb, you can get the same combo for around $850.00 USD. Leave off the kit lens and upgrade to the well reviewed FE 85mm f1.8 and you are still probably under $1k. You could probably beat that on eBay.

Going further you can get, what at the time of introduction, was a cutting edge camera – the Canon EOS 5D (original/classic) for around $350.00 USD. Add a 50mm f1.8 for around $125.00 and you have, arguably, one of the best DSLRs of all time—for under $500.00 USD.

Of course, these are both examples of full frame cameras. You can do even better with APS-C cameras.

No matter how you slice it though, it equals extreme value for money.

Let somebody else take the depreciation.


Canon EOS T3i Originally Purchased used with the 18-55mm kit zoom, the 75-300mm add on lens, and a LowPro sling bag for $350.00. I added the battery grip and the 10-18mm EFs lens

2. You can buy better glass. The money you have saved on the camera can go toward purchasing better lenses. 

A lot of people tend to buy the highest spec camera that they can afford, then put a cheap lens on it. Um, no. We all know that this should be the other way around and buying a used camera can accomplish this. 

If you shop diligently you can also find similar value on used, high end lenses and put the glass your camera deserves in front of its sensor.

3. Ecosystem. As time has passed, all the major camera manufacturers have added compatible accessories to their inventory like speedlights, battery grips, and remote releases. Third party companies have done the same. As the camera models have evolved, so have the accessories, and many times, the older accessories show up on the used market at deep discounts. Sometimes the newest accessories are completely backward compatible with the older models.

Also, most major camera companies still support their older models with utilities and PDF manuals.



Canon EOS 50D with EFs 18-135mm lens. Purchased used in 2016 with battery and charger for $450.00

4. Lower anxiety. If you are in any way, serious about photography, you have some serious money invested in gear. If you reduce the amount of the investment then loss, damage, or theft isn’t as painful. If your gear is insured (which it should be) the premium will be lower as the replacement value is lower.

5. Ease of use. Older used cameras have fewer features. This is a good thing especially if you are new to cameras or you are starting in a new system — say, a Canon shooter moving to Sony.

Fewer features means a shorter learning curve and most of the newest models have features that aren’t really absolutely necessary to the average photographer. If, after some time passes, you decide to move to a newer model, you already have the foundation in place. So, instead of learning a complex camera from the “ground up”, you just have to become comfortable with the newer features.

So, now that you know why to buy used equipment. The next question is where do you find good used equipment?

Well the first thing that comes to mind is eBay. Now, this is not for the faint of heart, after all, the internet is full of stories about fraud victims and people just plainly being scammed on eBay purchases. 

The very first thing if you are contemplating eBay, is to be knowledgeable enough about a specific item to ask the right questions of the seller. Beyond that, there are a lot of resources  on the internet to advise you on what to look for in an eBay seller such as feedback ratings and return policies.

I have been buying and selling on eBay for almost twenty years and I think that as a platform, their best days are behind them. However, there are still good deals to be found from good sellers if you do a little research.

Next are pawn shops. These can be a real gold mine. Two of my three current cameras have come from pawn shops and were really good deals. Most reputable pawn shops offer some kind of refund policy. The shops I bought from give two weeks money back and one month store credit returns on digital cameras.

Thrift stores are more uncertain. The employees don’t really know the difference between a camera and a toaster so, there is no discrimination as to what is put on the floor for sale and generally no guarantee or refund policy.

So far we have really been into “buyer beware” territory. The next option is preferable but a little pricier.

Web based used camera dealers. KEH camera and mpb.com are the two big ones. Full disclosure: I am not sponsored by either company nor have I received any compensation for mentioning them.

I have purchased from KEH and it was a seamless, gratifying experience.  When I am shopping for gear, they are one of my first stops. (As a price check if nothing else.)

Both of these companies offer tested and graded gear with limited warranties and the ability to purchase extended warranties at check out. You do spend more with this option, but you gain peace of mind.

So buy used gear, save money and have fun.

New Mirrorless Cameras, or why I just don’t care anymore.

Enough with the new cameras!

I’m suffering a bit of burn out.

Last week Olympus dropped the OM-D E-MX1. A new “pro level “ Micro 4/3 camera.

Who cares any more?

This silliness all started last year, before Photokina, with the much hyped and overly dramatic build up by Nikon to introduce the Z 6 and Z 7 full frame mirrorless cameras that turned out to be kind of meh.

Then Canon introduced the much less hyped but still eagerly anticipated EOS R (again, a full frame mirrorless camera) and, again meh. Then, during Photokina, Panasonic announced a three way partnership with Leica and Sigma to create the S1 and SR1 full frame mirrorless cameras, but from a pioneer in Micro 4/3s format, leading many to believe that MFT is dead, again. Don’t fret. It won’t be available until March. Of course, last week Sony dropped the anticipated yet ultimately confusing A6400.

I don’t care anymore. None of these Cameras is even remotely compelling enough to entice me to spend two thousand dollars or more to buy a camera that will probably be obsolete in one to two years. None of them even remotely resemble real value for money.

So. Can we just stop now?

Sony A6400

Sony just introduced a new camera! The A6400. Which is kind of surprising. Not surprising that Sony dropped a new camera – they seem to do that with incredible frequency – but they introduced a new APS-C camera. It has seemed, for a very long time that they had all but completely abandoned their APS-C line in favor of their multiple models and frequently released iterations and updates of the A7xx series of full frame cameras.

a6400 screen


Not to say that a new APS-C camera hasn’t been expected. The internet has been very busy with rumors of a new Sony APS-C camera for a while now, but most expectations were for an A7000 or A6700. In other words, some form of a successor to the A6500 not only in model designation but in evolution.

So, is the A6400 an evolution? Well, no and yes. It uses the same short life W battery and the same 24.2 megapixel sensor as other members of the Alpha series, specifically the A6300 and A6500. It has the same ergonomics and the same 921,000 dot LED screen as its APS-C brethren. New is the Bionz-X processor along with 11 FPS continuous shooting (with 8 FPS max in silent, electronic shutter mode). For video shooters and vloggers they have added the flip up screen from the old A5100 (not full articulated a’la Canon or Panasonic), and an external mic input (though no headphone jack for audio monitoring). I would not call this camera an evolution as much as an attempt by Sony to address some of their previously perceived  shortcomings.

Auto focus claims to be the fastest ever with a purported focus acquisition time of 0.02 seconds. The A6400 also offers the first continuous subject tracking focus (definitely useful for sports and action photographers) made possible with 425 focus points which virtually fill the entire viewfinder from edge to edge and top to bottom. 

The coolest new feature on the A6400 seems to be “Auto Eye AF”. It’s pretty much accepted that Sony has the best eye AF in the industry and has traditionally been a feature that was activated via a custom function button. The new “Auto Eye AF” works in conjunction with Sony’s facial recognition.  It’s active the entire time a subject is in the frame, and works cooperatively with continuous subject tracking. The new focus modes work for both video and stills which, is some fairly impressive tech.

Coming soon, supposedly, is “Animal eye AF”. I suppose this would be useful for wildlife photographers – if the Sony APS-C line of cameras was well suited to wildlife photography. However, it isn’t, mostly due to the lack of affordable good, fast, long glass for Sony crop sensor cameras. Actually, “Animal Eye AF” is supposed to be in a firmware update that is also applicable to the Alpha series of full frame cameras, including the A9 (which could be a good wildlife shooter).

Overall this isn’t the new camera we were expecting. It does show that Sony still has some interest in supporting their APS-C line and is priced attractively at about $900.00 USD (body only).

My impressions are based on what I’ve seen and read as I’ve not had the opportunity to go hands on with this camera.

So, should you buy it if you already own an A6500 or A6300?  Maybe, if the focus features are worth it to you otherwise, I think it’s kind of a non-starter. Me? I’ll pass.