In part 2 of my just-created series entitled "How Much Low Light Capability Does One Really Need How Often?" I conclude Sony Senior Technical Manager Mark Weir was spot-on when he told me that the a6300 has an extra stop of low light sensitivity over the a6000. Not earth-shattering, but you know what? I think it's pretty amazing - and I think I will rarely need more. For now.

Maybe I just have low standards, or maybe I just don't get out enough. But this little a6300 [B&H|Amazon] continues to impress: in the accompanying video I found the footage (HD) was usable up to ISO 25600. For some of us, anyway. Tip: using high speed primes like the Sony 28mm f/2 [B&H|Amazon] helps.

Then again, if I were shooting close-ups of people in the dark, it might not be enough. Unless I used supplemental illumination like my new amaz-o gold standard in lighting, the Astra Bi-Color Soft 1x1 which I reviewed last week.

Of course the Astra costs more ($1,620 at B&H) than the camera itself - but even with the a6300 together they're less than an a7s II [B&H|Amazon], which I loved.

Ah - but then (if I were shooting in the field) I'd need a battery, too. The Anton Bauer Cine 150 is themost expensive battery ($576 at B&H) I've ever held in my not-so-small-and-only-occasionally-sweaty palms, but I'd get it if I got the Astra. And that brings them to rough price parity.

I'm having fun with this.

Sony a6300 with the Astra and Cine 150, or a7s II without? Not so obvious - 5-axis IBIS and viewfinder are outstanding advantages over the a6300...

What do you think?