You lost me with the whole comment about the Obama presidency, as it has nothing to do with the current discussion. If there's any relevant observation to make about those 8 years, with regards to the current topic of this conversation, it's that the level of respect for the office of the president suddenly dropped precipitously once Barack was in office. The daily inundation of unfair and mostly inaccurate criticism, outright mockery and vile hatred leveled at this person was comically disproportionate to his actual words and deeds (sound familiar...) and exposed the latent racial hatred simmering just under the surface of white society and obscured by the thin veneer of American political discourse and popular culture at large. Political correctness is mostly a waste of time, and partly a threat to free speech, but people who repurpose appropriate and justified criticism of overly sensitive and highly aggressive social media enforcers as a platform to then rationalize or even promote genuine bigotry and discrimination are as misguided as they are missing the point. Just because a great many people (myself included) have turned on the cultural critics and twitter police for their extreme intolerance of relatively benign public discourse, or their bullying of so many comics and celebrities for relatively harmless provocative language, doesn't mean we also share a resentment towards women and minorities or get that extra level of satisfaction from racially or sexually tinged comedic material. It is possible for a person to BOTH hate PC culture AND like and promote the interests of diversity and equality. Pretending like they are mutually exclusive ideas is like branding a scarlet R on one's arm. It's an inadvertent and transparent admission of ignorance and bigotry.

I think he means tonality and pigment aren't scientific or technical terms. They aren't measurements of color bit depth, filter array processing protocols or compression or encoding level or procedures. Criticism of a camera's image is often cloaked in non- technical terms, based on subjective perceptions that aren't informed by actual hardware limitations. This camera records in raw with full color bit depth, so the only limitations versus larger more expensive cameras with larger sensors is mostly due to differing post processing workflow, or inferior in-camera encoding algorithms or image processing chips...data processing capacity inside a camera is due to differences in image processing hardware and firmware precision, so it's best to keep comparisons between cameras to tangible material and technical differences, not intangible artistic terms like tonality...

Wow, no mention of the Fuji XT-20 (a good competitor to the a6500, especially at only $1,200 with a very good 18-55mm kit lens), or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ2500, which added increased focal length, touchscreen, built in variable ND, V-Log, No Recording Time Limit, higher bit (200mbps) encoding options and 10-bit clean 4K HDMI output to the already high performing FZ1000...(and all at a price point of $1,200 to boot).

I prefer both to the Nikon, which doesn't even do 4K video...and that is super lame, considering the number of affordable 4K options out there and since, at this stage of the game, pretty much every Panasonic cam has 4K now, including options as cheap as the $397 ZS60 or FZ80.

I'm going to get the FZ2500 as my A cam, and two FZ80s as my B-Cams. I'll probably get the XT-20 as an alternative A-cam, and as a low light option with a super fast prime.

4K video is getting better and better, at lower and lower prices as people scramble to adopt 8K. I think 8K will eventually be what 4K is now for us part timers and low income guerrilla style shooters...but 4K is all you need right now and for the foreseeable future.