Sony A6000 with 16-50mm Kit Lens in Silver @ Amazon - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Another small price drop on the silver kit lens A6000 set.

Very well reviewed, great focus speed, resolution, video and low light performance. See full review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000

For me it was time to bite, so it's getting delivered tomorrow. Just got to find another 350 quid for the 35mm prime lens I want to use with it!
More From Amazon:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
Rustyk1 Avatar
2y, 4m agoFound 2 years, 4 months ago
Options

All Comments

(24) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
1 Like #1
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.
#2
BadPseudonym
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.

Thanks for the reply. I am upgrading from a A200 which I used an old Minolta 50mm F/1.7 on and loved it (along with an old Minolta 20mm for wide stuff). I am half tempted to get the 50mm and save myself £150, but all reviews say that 35mm is a more useful focal length. I guess I'm hoping I can cover both 20mm and 50mm use cases with the 35mm. What do you think?
#3
possibly the best value camera around imo, but why oh why did the downgrade the evf.

I own the a7 but the price and lens options isnt worth recommending to most ppl so this one is where it's at I think.
#4
quadpatch
possibly the best value camera around imo, but why oh why did the downgrade the evf.

I own the a7 but the price and lens options isnt worth recommending to most ppl so this one is where it's at I think.

Agreed. I told myself I would only upgrade when I could get a FF camera. I would love an A7 and could probably just about stretch to the price of the body. But I just can't handle the price of those lenses! I managed to convince myself that improved sensor tech will make up for the lack of FF. I hope I'm right!
#5
Rustyk1
quadpatch
possibly the best value camera around imo, but why oh why did the downgrade the evf.

I own the a7 but the price and lens options isnt worth recommending to most ppl so this one is where it's at I think.

Agreed. I told myself I would only upgrade when I could get a FF camera. I would love an A7 and could probably just about stretch to the price of the body. But I just can't handle the price of those lenses! I managed to convince myself that improved sensor tech will make up for the lack of FF. I hope I'm right!
I don't think you can go too far wrong with this. even if you want really shallow depth of field then speedboosters are really easy to find for this mount too. Adapting to the A7 is cheaper but it still isn't compact. I really hope Sony sort the lenses out for the A7 but there's no sign of it getting sensible soon.
#6
Rustyk1
quadpatch
possibly the best value camera around imo, but why oh why did the downgrade the evf.

I own the a7 but the price and lens options isnt worth recommending to most ppl so this one is where it's at I think.

Agreed. I told myself I would only upgrade when I could get a FF camera. I would love an A7 and could probably just about stretch to the price of the body. But I just can't handle the price of those lenses! I managed to convince myself that improved sensor tech will make up for the lack of FF. I hope I'm right!

how about an adaptor (LEA) and use A mount minolta/sony lenses ?
#7
J9STL
Rustyk1
quadpatch
possibly the best value camera around imo, but why oh why did the downgrade the evf.

I own the a7 but the price and lens options isnt worth recommending to most ppl so this one is where it's at I think.

Agreed. I told myself I would only upgrade when I could get a FF camera. I would love an A7 and could probably just about stretch to the price of the body. But I just can't handle the price of those lenses! I managed to convince myself that improved sensor tech will make up for the lack of FF. I hope I'm right!

how about an adaptor (LEA) and use A mount minolta/sony lenses ?

I did consider that, but a key benefit of the A6000 is the size. I'd rather not add size, mass and complexity to the camera unless I have to.
#8
someone has stuck the a mount 70300g on theirs here
#9
quadpatch
possibly the best value camera around imo, but why oh why did the downgrade the evf.

I own the a7 but the price and lens options isnt worth recommending to most ppl so this one is where it's at I think.

I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!
#10
Rustyk1
BadPseudonym
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.

Thanks for the reply. I am upgrading from a A200 which I used an old Minolta 50mm F/1.7 on and loved it (along with an old Minolta 20mm for wide stuff). I am half tempted to get the 50mm and save myself £150, but all reviews say that 35mm is a more useful focal length. I guess I'm hoping I can cover both 20mm and 50mm use cases with the 35mm. What do you think?
The difference on a the 3 lenses is only a step or 2 forwards or back from your subject. So think how you will use it?
If it's lots of indoor stuff walls tend to prevent walking backwards.
Outdoors walking forwards canned up being down the stairs or over a railing.
Obviously the 35mm is best of both to a degree. Also assuming this isn't full frame then the 35mm is the equivalent of an old standard lens.
#11
J9STL
someone has stuck the a mount 70300g on theirs here


Wow, that looks like an awful setup to use!
1 Like #12
Oneday77
Rustyk1
BadPseudonym
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.

Thanks for the reply. I am upgrading from a A200 which I used an old Minolta 50mm F/1.7 on and loved it (along with an old Minolta 20mm for wide stuff). I am half tempted to get the 50mm and save myself £150, but all reviews say that 35mm is a more useful focal length. I guess I'm hoping I can cover both 20mm and 50mm use cases with the 35mm. What do you think?
The difference on a the 3 lenses is only a step or 2 forwards or back from your subject. So think how you will use it?
If it's lots of indoor stuff walls tend to prevent walking backwards.
Outdoors walking forwards canned up being down the stairs or over a railing.
Obviously the 35mm is best of both to a degree. Also assuming this isn't full frame then the 35mm is the equivalent of an old standard lens.

Aaaand now I've bought the 35mm lens. Expensive month!
#13
Rustyk1
BadPseudonym
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.

Thanks for the reply. I am upgrading from a A200 which I used an old Minolta 50mm F/1.7 on and loved it (along with an old Minolta 20mm for wide stuff). I am half tempted to get the 50mm and save myself £150, but all reviews say that 35mm is a more useful focal length. I guess I'm hoping I can cover both 20mm and 50mm use cases with the 35mm. What do you think?

Hey Rusty,

I bought the 35mm 1.8 with the NEX 5R and it is a really top lens and you'll find it significantly sharper than the 16-50, which you would expect. I too was a little frustrated at its cost given the £200 price tag of the 50mm, but 50 really would be too long for everyday use, and you would find yourself squeezing into room corners to take shots. However, I do intend getting the 50 when I can afford, as having a prime at that length would be great!

Happy shooting :)
#14
pukenukem
Rustyk1
BadPseudonym
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.

Thanks for the reply. I am upgrading from a A200 which I used an old Minolta 50mm F/1.7 on and loved it (along with an old Minolta 20mm for wide stuff). I am half tempted to get the 50mm and save myself £150, but all reviews say that 35mm is a more useful focal length. I guess I'm hoping I can cover both 20mm and 50mm use cases with the 35mm. What do you think?

Hey Rusty,

I bought the 35mm 1.8 with the NEX 5R and it is a really top lens and you'll find it significantly sharper than the 16-50, which you would expect. I too was a little frustrated at its cost given the £200 price tag of the 50mm, but 50 really would be too long for everyday use, and you would find yourself squeezing into room corners to take shots. However, I do intend getting the 50 when I can afford, as having a prime at that length would be great!

Happy shooting :)


Thanks for the message!

I've tried to save a hundred quid or so and am importing from Hong Kong.

Can't wait to receive them now!
#15
pukenukem


I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!

Yeah the resolution drop might be less of an issue than the level meter going. I have this on the A7 (which also shares the same resolution EVF as the NEX6) and I wouldn't want to loose either tbh. No idea why Sony did this.

The first thing I did with the A7 was to get rid of the the shockingly horrible kit lens (I'm more into primes anyway), but this was just as much about size as image quality. Unfortunately I'm now relegated to manual focus only, but there are so many stunning quality old lenses you can pick up for very little money I'm not too bothered at the moment. I also have a bunch of Nikon glass I'm adapting as well, but by far my favourite lens for the A7 is the Konica 40mm f/1.8 (which cost me £40), it's sharper than any of my Nikkor primes, which is mental as some of those cost nearly £1000!

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2933/14274420870_94f7ae7268_b.jpg


Edited By: quadpatch on Jul 25, 2014 23:13
#16
quadpatch
pukenukem


I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!

Yeah the resolution drop might be less of an issue than the level meter going. I have this on the A7 (which also shares the same resolution EVF as the NEX6) and I wouldn't want to loose either tbh. No idea why Sony did this.

The first thing I did with the A7 was to get rid of the the shockingly horrible kit lens (I'm more into primes anyway), but this was just as much about size as image quality. Unfortunately I'm now relegated to manual focus only, but there are so many stunning quality old lenses you can pick up for very little money I'm not too bothered at the moment. I also have a bunch of Nikon glass I'm adapting as well, but by far my favourite lens for the A7 is the Konica 40mm f/1.8 (which cost me £40), it's sharper than any of my Nikkor primes, which is mental as some of those cost nearly £1000!

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2933/14274420870_94f7ae7268_b.jpg



For me the changes are worth it in the round. I assume that the downgrades of the EVF either meant they could afford to do the AF stuff, or hit a lower price point.

Pics with the Nikkor 40mm look incredible, but I do like me some AF!
#17
quadpatch
pukenukem


I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!

Yeah the resolution drop might be less of an issue than the level meter going. I have this on the A7 (which also shares the same resolution EVF as the NEX6) and I wouldn't want to loose either tbh. No idea why Sony did this.

The first thing I did with the A7 was to get rid of the the shockingly horrible kit lens (I'm more into primes anyway), but this was just as much about size as image quality. Unfortunately I'm now relegated to manual focus only, but there are so many stunning quality old lenses you can pick up for very little money I'm not too bothered at the moment. I also have a bunch of Nikon glass I'm adapting as well, but by far my favourite lens for the A7 is the Konica 40mm f/1.8 (which cost me £40), it's sharper than any of my Nikkor primes, which is mental as some of those cost nearly £1000!

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2933/14274420870_94f7ae7268_b.jpg


That's a useful point, I never really consider getting some of these other older lens with adapters, which is silly because about 50% of my photography is MF anyway. Good tip on that Lens, will keep and ebay eye-out for it! :)

Quadpatch - What Lens Adaptor did you buy?

Edited By: pukenukem on Jul 26, 2014 12:45: To ask a question
#18
Rustyk1
quadpatch
pukenukem


I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!

Yeah the resolution drop might be less of an issue than the level meter going. I have this on the A7 (which also shares the same resolution EVF as the NEX6) and I wouldn't want to loose either tbh. No idea why Sony did this.

The first thing I did with the A7 was to get rid of the the shockingly horrible kit lens (I'm more into primes anyway), but this was just as much about size as image quality. Unfortunately I'm now relegated to manual focus only, but there are so many stunning quality old lenses you can pick up for very little money I'm not too bothered at the moment. I also have a bunch of Nikon glass I'm adapting as well, but by far my favourite lens for the A7 is the Konica 40mm f/1.8 (which cost me £40), it's sharper than any of my Nikkor primes, which is mental as some of those cost nearly £1000!

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2933/14274420870_94f7ae7268_b.jpg


For me the changes are worth it in the round. I assume that the downgrades of the EVF either meant they could afford to do the AF stuff, or hit a lower price point.

Pics with the Nikkor 40mm look incredible, but I do like me some AF!

Doesn't thie a6000 have focus peaking (like on my a77), so AF isn't needed in a lot of occasions, opening up the M42 and similar lenses using an adaptor.
#19
Rustyk1
pukenukem
Rustyk1
BadPseudonym
I love my A6000; it's a great piece of kit. I bought the lens you're referring to a couple of weeks ago - it's definitely worth the investment! The kit lens is very good, but I tend to just leave the prime on for most situations now. Heat added.

Thanks for the reply. I am upgrading from a A200 which I used an old Minolta 50mm F/1.7 on and loved it (along with an old Minolta 20mm for wide stuff). I am half tempted to get the 50mm and save myself £150, but all reviews say that 35mm is a more useful focal length. I guess I'm hoping I can cover both 20mm and 50mm use cases with the 35mm. What do you think?

Hey Rusty,

I bought the 35mm 1.8 with the NEX 5R and it is a really top lens and you'll find it significantly sharper than the 16-50, which you would expect. I too was a little frustrated at its cost given the £200 price tag of the 50mm, but 50 really would be too long for everyday use, and you would find yourself squeezing into room corners to take shots. However, I do intend getting the 50 when I can afford, as having a prime at that length would be great!

Happy shooting :)


Thanks for the message!

I've tried to save a hundred quid or so and am importing from Hong Kong.

Can't wait to receive them now!


I think you've made the right choice. I had the 50mm until buying the 35mm, and although the pictures were really good, especially considering the price, it was just too inconvenient having to back away all the time to get a shot. I couldn't get decent pictures of people if I was sitting at the same table; I had to move away first. That meant that candid shots were pretty much impossible.

A couple of people have mentioned the EVF - I upgraded from the NEX-6 and although you can spot the difference in resolution, there is something more natural about the A6000's EVF. Maybe it's the colours; I can't quite put my finger on what it is. I'm still really, really happy with it though. The only thing I'd change is that it'd be nice to have the digital spirit level that the NEX-6 has, although this is by far a deal breaker.

Enjoy! :-)
1 Like #20
J9STL
Rustyk1
quadpatch
pukenukem


I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!

Yeah the resolution drop might be less of an issue than the level meter going. I have this on the A7 (which also shares the same resolution EVF as the NEX6) and I wouldn't want to loose either tbh. No idea why Sony did this.

The first thing I did with the A7 was to get rid of the the shockingly horrible kit lens (I'm more into primes anyway), but this was just as much about size as image quality. Unfortunately I'm now relegated to manual focus only, but there are so many stunning quality old lenses you can pick up for very little money I'm not too bothered at the moment. I also have a bunch of Nikon glass I'm adapting as well, but by far my favourite lens for the A7 is the Konica 40mm f/1.8 (which cost me £40), it's sharper than any of my Nikkor primes, which is mental as some of those cost nearly £1000!

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2933/14274420870_94f7ae7268_b.jpg


For me the changes are worth it in the round. I assume that the downgrades of the EVF either meant they could afford to do the AF stuff, or hit a lower price point.

Pics with the Nikkor 40mm look incredible, but I do like me some AF!

Doesn't thie a6000 have focus peaking (like on my a77), so AF isn't needed in a lot of occasions, opening up the M42 and similar lenses using an adaptor.
Yes, focus peaking and focus checking make manual lenses pretty easy to use, especially primes. I'd recommend 35-50mm primes. 50mm f/1.4 is easy to get for around £50 from Pentax.

The adapter I used on the Konica was a Konica AR adapter from bondscamera seller on ebay. was only £10 and was one of the better made adapters I've used so far.
#21
quadpatch
J9STL
Rustyk1
quadpatch
pukenukem


I never owned the NEX 6, but many reviews state the A6000 EVF looks just as good with some reporting colours looking more natural on the 6000, even though the on paper it has lower specs. Like I say, I can't confirm this as I don't have a NEX6 to compare, perhaps someone can confirm this? The level meter going is more irritating to me, not a major thing but was useful to have. How's the A7 btw, was so tempted to get it but just too much APSC lens investment?

I've ordered the Konica 40 1.8, for £40 with the adapter off ebay, at that price I've not go much to loose! :)

I just bought the A6000 to upgrade my NEX 5r and it was well worth it, AF is noticeably better and having the EVF, far better menu system, and purpose dial makes things more enjoyable even if real worth IQ isn't particularly different. However, I did find its JPEG NR a bit over zealous, so shooting RAW is a must nearly always. Also, the kit 16-50 never impressed me, it is great for portability but found photos needed a lot of sharpness tweaking. Other options though are hugely more expensive, such as the Zeiss 16-70.

Overall though, this a fantastic camera!

Yeah the resolution drop might be less of an issue than the level meter going. I have this on the A7 (which also shares the same resolution EVF as the NEX6) and I wouldn't want to loose either tbh. No idea why Sony did this.

The first thing I did with the A7 was to get rid of the the shockingly horrible kit lens (I'm more into primes anyway), but this was just as much about size as image quality. Unfortunately I'm now relegated to manual focus only, but there are so many stunning quality old lenses you can pick up for very little money I'm not too bothered at the moment. I also have a bunch of Nikon glass I'm adapting as well, but by far my favourite lens for the A7 is the Konica 40mm f/1.8 (which cost me £40), it's sharper than any of my Nikkor primes, which is mental as some of those cost nearly £1000!

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2933/14274420870_94f7ae7268_b.jpg


For me the changes are worth it in the round. I assume that the downgrades of the EVF either meant they could afford to do the AF stuff, or hit a lower price point.

Pics with the Nikkor 40mm look incredible, but I do like me some AF!

Doesn't thie a6000 have focus peaking (like on my a77), so AF isn't needed in a lot of occasions, opening up the M42 and similar lenses using an adaptor.
Yes, focus peaking and focus checking make manual lenses pretty easy to use, especially primes. I'd recommend 35-50mm primes. 50mm f/1.4 is easy to get for around £50 from Pentax.

The adapter I used on the Konica was a Konica AR adapter from bondscamera seller on ebay. was only £10 and was one of the better made adapters I've used so far.
#22
Well I have got my camera (with 16-50mm) now as well as the 35mm 1.8 lens and the 55-210mm kit zoom.

All in all I'm very impressed. Decent low light. Some nice app features. Very sharp 35mm with great DoF and lovely colours. Insane burst speed. Great quality video. Instant auto focus and good tracking.

Really it is everything you could want from an APS-C, and a great size. All in I've still spent less than £1k which is pretty good given the kit. I imported the 35mm for about £240 from HK and got the zoom for £145 from eBay. Both brand new. Recommended!
#23
I am very impressed with my A6000. Coming from a NEX6 I don't notice any issues with the viewfinder. Paired with the Sony 16-70 that I got for just £400 from Amazon this is an excellent camera.
#24
GadgetHunter
I am very impressed with my A6000. Coming from a NEX6 I don't notice any issues with the viewfinder. Paired with the Sony 16-70 that I got for just £400 from Amazon this is an excellent camera.

How did you manage to get that for £400? Isn't it normally double that?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!