Well APS-C does have a lot of advantages - Easier to do landscapes: Ultra-Wide Angle Lenses for APS-C are, in general, easier to build and you need to step down less to get everything sharp. 10mm f/5.6 is most of the time totally fine and with 10mm f/8, everything is perfectly sharp. No need for f/11 even further (which hurts the image quality) - More Tele with Tele: An 300mm f/2.8 turns into an 450mm with f/2.8 brightness but f/4 DOF. So you can shoot at f/2.8 without risking that only a small plane is sharp but you still have enough nice creamy bokeh, even with APS-C often more than you need - Bright lenses are actually usable. If you have an 105mm f/1.4, you can actually use it at f/1.4 and there are still things that are in focus. No need to constantly step down to at least f/2 to get at least some DOF I shot with full frame for quite some time (Tested the D800E for a short time, shot the 5D Mark III and then the a99 for several months) and it does have quite some disadvantages Lenses are way heavier too and often less bright (something like the 18-35mm f/1.8 just can't exist in the FF, just look at how big the 24-35mm f/2 already is. Imagine that in 24-50mm and f/1.8 :D it would be way to heavy/big, i think we dont even have to mention the 50-100mm f/1.8, that would be unthinkable in Full-Frame). So APS-C for sure does have advantages, as it does have disadvantages. It always depends on what you need/want but i'd personally say, for most photographers APS-C is the better choice. Full-Frame turns more and more into an status symbol than being actually needed by the photographer. Lots of photographers even have more disadvantages than advantages out of the FF but use it anayway because its pro and as a pro you need to use pro bro
@@Da_Man_1221 Well there the thing. APS-C does have disadvantages and they are even bigger with 4/3. I thought about getting an 4/3 camera and tested some of them, but decided against it. After testing with several sensor sices (even APS-H) i came to the conclusion that, at least right now, APS-C seems to be, for me, the best of all worlds. Not to big, not to small. For me it is just right. Others, of course, have other preferences.
point 3: isn't that because f1.4 on apsc is actually the f2 equivalent on full frame? you gotta consider the crop factor on the aperture as well, not just the focal length.
Nor can all people afford full-frame either. APS-C is still very relevant and popular, especially considering APS-C cameras are usually smaller than full-frame.
I always thought the main advantage to APS-C sensors was the price of glass. You can get some pretty nice lenses for $300-400. I am going to upgrade my a6000 but no way I am going to spend $1400 on a lens. If I am going to spend that kind of money I will just buy a full frame lens for the future.
Hopefully at some point APS-C will be recognized not as a budget option but as a size alternative to full frame. ASP-C cameras are just better than full frame cameras at some things, particularly street photography where having a smaller camera and smaller lenses can make you stand out less than FF mirrorless cameras that are similar in size to old DSLRs. The quality you get from APS-C cameras is hardly lacking either, sure you may not get the same sort of raw detail as you do with a full frame, but if that somehow makes the difference between a good and bad shot that’s likely more on you than the camera.
@@rob25222 Nah... Besides the headphone jack which is kind of almost not needed because we have already gotten used to adusting the sound to not clip based on the on-screen meter. This feature came too late. It should come with the a6300 because that camera till this day offers fantastic video features minus it's quirks. They have not done much woth hardware. The overheating can be fixed with an update to the software and so can the 30min limit.
@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel I do not understand the need for eye AF fpr creating cinematic content because at that level auto focus is not needed or is otherwise abandoned for follow focusing to nail your prefered zones. It's a great feature but EYE af is software, which could have easily been an update. HLG video codec would have been great.
@@nobutoneme1325 , right on, but there has always been a market for higher-grade APS-C cameras as well. Look at the Fuji X-T3 and the Nikon D500. Had Fuji ever put a good IBIS on its APS-C cameras, I'd have bought one the next day.
NoButOneMe When it comes to the video industry almost every movie is shot in S35, except the newer ones but even those are rare. S35 is still gonna be here for a while and I really like it. Full frame is amazing too but it comes at a price.
It really comes down to lenses. Camera body come and goes very fast. Full frame lenses for the most part are larger, heavier and cost more in comparison to crop body lenses. I would imagine that there are more casual photographers vs pros. Lighter, cheaper camera lens and body are probably gona be more favorable to us casual folks...
I’m subscribed to you on RU-vid, and I’m going to dive into your website. You know your stuff, and you bring a savvy, cynical, and comical approach to photography. The fro is nice as well. Keep on trucking!
actually, crop sensor is a bad term. super35 / (same as aps-c) is older then what we call full frame. Leica turned the film from movie cameras on its side to make a larger frame. In the movie world full-frame is called Academy format but that is for prints that include the optical soundtrack.
@@shawnmiller2786 depends on the MP. I got a 24MP FF camera and a 24MP Aps-c. So i get a higher resolution when i use the aps-c instead of cropping in on my FF image
I honestly have to say that I love my Sony a6300 it is a couple years old and lacks some features but I don't see the need to upgrade to another Sony APS-C Camera. I think for the most people who have an older Sony APS-C camera its just not worth to get these. I will wait maybe after the A7sIII they come out with a 6k a6800 or something maybe with better Battery life and a flip screen?
I have both the A6500 and the A6400; plus the A7iii. The A6600 doesn't put enough on the table for me to convert from the A6500 to the A6600. The best attribute of this camera is the longer battery life but the Meike battery grip equals the A6600 battery life and gives me a vertical shutter button. IBIS??? I will shoot with Sony OSS lenses... What would have been the parameters which would have convinced me to upgrade the A6500 to the A6600" 1. Flash sync speed of at least 1/250 second 2. Better and larger EVF 3. Side access for the SD card Dual SD cards and higher resolution might be nice but not a priority for me... Instead of the A6600 and the new APSC lens, I purchased an open box A7iii and a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (for actually less cost). I love the EVF of the A7iii and I love many parameters of that camera, including inserting the SD card at the side rather than from below,. I will now shoot with the A7iii and Tamron lens paired in tandem with the A6400 wearing either the 12mm f/2.0 Rokinon or the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS... IMO: I think that the A6400 is a better buy than the A6100... The A6400, for an extra hundred and fifty bucks, seems to give you a lot more... BTW: I would LOVE a Sony compatible flash that is the equal of the tiny Canon 270EX-ii which I have carried all over China and parts of Europe. The 270EX-ii is a small low profile flash that has HSS. I own two Godox TT350S flashes which is the smallest Sony compatible flash with HSS capability (that I am presently aware of). However, the TT350S sits quite a bit higher (4-inches vs 2.5 inches), than the 270EX-ii which could be a problem, combined with the rather flimsy plastic hotshoe of the TT350S when I carry the camera and flash on a Black Rapid Strap. However, I have carried the lower profile 270EX-ii with its metal hotshoe mount all over on my Canon DSLR cameras with no problems... Do you know of any low profile flash with HSS capabilities?
Why do people complain isn’t this what we were asking for?! A6400 with better Battery and “IBIS”?! “A FLIP SCREEN?!?!? WHY DO YOU COMPLAIN?!?’vncncnlqkqbdkbcwlf
I’m debating on getting the a6400, for my needs it’s def a bigger upgrade after using my a6300 for so many years. I don’t want to spend 1400 dollars on a camera that I could spend a couple hundred more to get a full frame.
The A6100 offers a lot of bang for your buck, and I'm going to start recommending it. The A6600 enters A7iii territory so I'll rather recommend the A7iii.
People really complaining about APS-C saying it's too small, but so many people shoot micro 4/3 Panasonic... There's not much wrong with APS-C and I personally will be purchasing a Fujifilm X-T3 very soon.
For the beginners it’s still better for them to buy one of these over those crippling canon cameras. Or use these as a bts camera. That’s what I plan on doing
nandy sullivan that was the old view. There are many lenses you can buy for a Sony camera now that are very affordable. And with the many more features in the Sony than Canon, the 1 or 2 hundred dollars more is definitely worth the price
Hey buddy, thanks for having this video, especially for a beginner like me. Do you have any suggestions for picking which camera? Canon M6 mark ii or Sony a6600 and which len I should buy? Thank you!
I use an a6500, mostly for video, and the 6600 is an upgrade (mostly the new AF system and the Z battery), but for that price I doubt that i'll replace the 6500, and was hoping for more upgrades, like 4K 60fps and 2 card slots so I could upgrade (and even for a higher price) the lens prices are outrageous!
I don't own a Sony camera, so I am not biased here. Panasonic and Sigma user. I must admit I am a bit disappointed that it is yet another Sony using the same 24mp sensor. I was expecting a 30mp+ sensor. 24mp is fine but how long are they going to keep reusing this sensor? Not OK on a £1500 body only camera. For slightly more I can get a A7/3 now.
I'm saving up for the a6600 with kit lens. Primary use will be for my RU-vid videos in 4k. The A7 III with lens will cost NZ$4,000 in NZ. Sony lenses are overpriced. Will probably get mine later this year. Or the Canon 90D which is under NZ$2,500, has a faster SD card reader, easier menu system, but no HDR and is not mirrorless and is heavier. Why can't ONE camera HAVE IT ALL. Both have their own pros/cons.
@@victoe5780 I'd wait until more reviews come out on RU-vid and watch them all... then give it a bit of time to see if problems develop with the a6600.
Theres no reason to buy a 6400 if it's the same price as an a7iii unless size is a big issue to you. Full frame dominates apsc in every way in terms of quality.
Its ok for photography but for video who will spend time color grading videos for low budget shoot iam very much disappointed about color science direct out of camera after switching from canon to sony.
I'm looking to get my first real camera and the full frame vs. APS-C debate is very tricky to navigate. As someone who likely won't migrate from one sensor to another ever given I'm a hobbyist, I will likely live with whatever glass I start buying for a very very long time. The a6100 seems like a great body that represents a ton of value, but I feel like we're on the precipice of major improvements to the mirrorless world as processing power is taken advantage of. Idk, it's a tough place to sit when I just want to start taking better stills.
Just get a6100 or xt30. FF is kinda expensive if you want to adapt native/third party af lenses. A6100 because better go cheapest as the obsolete sony body clearly needs update (they're still using micro usb in 2019!!). XT30 if you want clear company attitude on apsc and you are willing to spend fortune to get those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses at later stages
love sony focusing. battery life of 6600 is fantastic. however, as a serious photographer I look at Fuji or Panasonic and they look like serious cameras where as Sony 6000 series look like kiddy’s camera.
When I look at the sharpness results of Dxomark for apsc I can't see the point of having more than 24Mp on an APSC sensor. no lenses will be able to produce images that are sharp enough.
Jonathan Bondu exactly and even if there are lens, there gonna be wayy too expensive. Sony is just money hungry. They could’ve all these specs on the a6400 but instead they decide too make two more cameras lmao
A7iii instead? I did see all of Tony Northups opinion on that. Sure, but only if buy the crazy overpriced new G lens. Also, other than the full framey stuff, the A6600 meets or beats it. A7iii, the AF was improved in firmware - but still not as good in video. The IBIS similarly doesn't actually work all that well with non OSS lenses. The screen does not flip up for vlogging (it's worst drawback to me.) It's still 24MP same as the A6600. And it's still at least $400 more than this. Yes the new G lenses are absurdly overpriced, but you can equip the A6600 with the underrated little 16-50 pancake zoom or a lot of other choices and have a pretty extraordinary camera - nearly an A7 - in your coat pocket. Last year there was a big sale on the old A7ii, and I guess if I see a big sale on the A7iii before the holidays I may still pounce on it, but still thinking all things considered I'd prefer the A6600, even at price parity.
Because A7iii has 24MP sensor it has bigger pixels than A6600. Also its sensor is back-illuminated. Because of this A7iii produces less noisy image. A6600 has an old APS-C sensor with copper wiring. A7iii is much better than A6600.
Only want to comment on the point you make about not investing in glass that can't be used when you upgrade. Canon is basically giving me a free pass to switch to Sony because all of my EF glass that I shoot with my m50 (adapted) and 7dmk2 will have to be adapted whenever they finally put out the RF mount mirrorless FF that we're all waiting for. At this point I wish I had just never gotten the 7dmk2 and got the crap m mount glass for the m50 since I'm instead going to toss a bunch of pricier EF glass no matter which path I take. I almost want to get that pocket cinema 6k just because it'll work with my glass and then get something else for stills.
I guess for Sony, it makes sense to be present in the APS-C market, where they can share some of the components and software from their high end products. But their focus is the VF market, where the profit margin is much higher. Medium to long term, APS-C and smaller formats will be insignificant formats for interchangeable lens cameras . We will be back to 24x36mm as in the analog days.
Looking at the features, yes I would return. Sigma lenses are cheap for its performance. 30mm 1.4 is around $289 while efm 32mm 1.4 is $479. Other than that lens only 22mm f2 is worth looking, everything else needs to be adapted. The most possible to say sony and 3rd party are expensive is the one who got ef lenses collection
I own the a6500 camera for about 2 years and I'm happy with it, so no upgrade in my mind yet. I'm really considering in buying the 70-350 mm glass but I'm not sure if it worth its money, maybe I'll rent one for testing and then decide. It's too bad that for e-mount there are no alternatives lenses for this range of mm.
If the 70-350 lens has good image quality I will snap it up. There are no high quality long zooms for Sony aps-c and when weight is not a factor I will bring my full frame kit.
@@PassionPainNDemonsStreetwear but the Sony has better video codec xavc-s at 100mbps vs m50 60mbps not to mention a digital hot shoe that Sony has lots of mic's for ;)
Nobody wanted APS-C because no one knew it would even exist, it was created because of the high cost of sensor construction and some of those that never even wanted or needed APS-C have realised that it has some real benefits, particularly if you are a long lens user it can save you thousands in reach for equivalent glass, so while APS-C may have never really been needed in the first place other than to enable the sale DSLR's for the masses, I think you'll find that many will say that now, it is still needed.
for the a6600 and 16-55 2.8 price you get a7iii and tamron 28-75 2.8 (which in fact is one stop faster). No point in getting APS-C gear then, would be my guess.
Thank you for this video. My comments: I am dissappointed with this iteration, for the cost and options this is not a compelling upgrade. I own the a6500, the capability index is great because of the apps, but this one won't run apps. I am not happy that all they did really was better battery, and flip screen. That's expensive for such similar base functions. The lenses are fine with the older options ... So why Sony, it's because they need to move on to new tech.
@@mmoarchives2542 I got it for $150 off with an extra battery and sandisk extreme pro 64gb card as bonus items just 4 weeks ago. Battery lasts so damn long I've yet to decide weather or not I will sell the extra one, still in packaging lol
So im in the merket now and I'll probably be getting the 6100. It's between that at the 6400 the reason I chose this is to make sure I have a small camera I can use to get spontanious and covert shots. I know I'll be sacrificing the larger frame but it's something worth mentioning when you talk about the full frame. Especially if you're on a tighter budget. Good advice in the Tamron or Sigma lenses though.
Lets be honest here. Sony is reusing the old 24mp sensor from A6300 and just leveraging new processor to improve image quality. Also that OLD Ass 8bit 420 from 2013. But guess what? No ones complaining...
I had the same thought... Canon developed a new sensor and is offering the M6ii at a way lower price with a way higher bitrate at 4K video. And if you consider yourself as a 'pro' filmmaker who NEEDS to shoot in 24p you shouldn't go with an APS-C camera anyway...
For new users, these cameras would be really nice. But for existing Sony users, nah, they're just not good enough to upgrade. As a hobbyist photographer, I think APS-C is the sweet spot in terms of sensor size.
Yes some of us like and need ASP-C sensor camera for the extra reach it allows us. Those of us that do work in zoos/wildlife etc, I have no plans to replace my Nikon D500 with a FF camera waiting to see what ASP-C "PRO" stuf Nikon releases
Interested to see if Sony will drop an A9 mark II before next year olympics.... as well as the mythical canon “pro mirrorless” body. I just really hope Sony doesn’t start “canon cripple hammering” future cameras.
seems likely but it seems likely that the they could combine the a7s and a9 into a single body or not. Sony is providing the 8k cameras for the 2020 Olympics. So makes one wonder what the a7s(next) will be.
The trick is to buy the best model with all the bells, then you don't need to parrot the same ignorant talking points. Why does the $400 model has less features than the $10000 one??
I’m a Nikon guy. But I might go for the a6100 as my neck-slung camera for test shoots before using my heavy gears. Hopefully, it’s color science gained some improvement.
If I sold my nikon d810 and sony rx100 what should I get? I use the Nikon for landscapes & the sony rx goes with me on my motorcycle. I only have 1 lens for the Nikon and well the sony is a point and shoot a good point and shoot lol! I just want 1 camera to do it all! Not sure I want to go down to crop sensor tho. hurmm...
Hi Jared, I watch your video regularly, they are super helpful. Now I want to know 2 things , No.1Is it possible to use Sony 6400’s lens on Sony a7iii? What will be the result if I use crop sensor lenses on full frame? No.2 I am more into video, so is it better to invest in SONY a6600 than SONY 6400?
Sony's lenses may be expensive, but Canon's M lenses are not by comparison, kinda makes a person lean toward buying a Canon M6 or M6ii unless they really like big expensive Sony lenses on a A6100. Makes the Canon M6 more compact with its native lenses. (there are 6 native so far).
Thanks for the reviews Jared! QUESTION: Mark Galer said that there's no 29-min record limit on the 6600 but other sources say that there is! Please provide a definitive answer. Thanks in advance.
I wonder if the tariffs are playing a role in the pricing because it is way too high and the gh5 still seems like a stronger camera for the same range. Also, did anyone tell Sony about APS-H? In order to compete with the gh5, that would be a better sensor.
Is it bad that I like having a flash!?!? I like the smaller body of the a6300/6400/6500. Having an extra batter is no big deal, takes 10 seconds to switch! IBIS is cool though but like in the video if I am going to spend the $$$ then I’d go full frame. Love the videos, new to photography and learn a lot from this channel. Thanks Jared!!
I like both cameras and what´s SONY is doing in the market, The only thing that I would have added to this a6600 is 4K 60p, that´s my only complaint about this new amazing piece of gear. Look what SONY gives you in this $1400 body. You would never have that in Nikon, CANON or FUJI, or whatever is on the market right now. And that´s what I like about SONY, they give you the best quality vs pricetag option which should be everybodies goal, unless you were reach and could buy 2 o 3 cameras to match the best performance. For me this a6600 gathers the best technology for the best price. Correct me If I am wrong. Great Jared as usual, I would like to see a nice review of this two SONY´S, Thanks!
Yes APS-C is needed. First they already make the chip for all their professional video camera's since aps-c is Super35. So 100 years of lenses are for super35. When I am onset that little body is great to have so I am not bouncing my full frame body all over the dam place. I would rather have it for travel with smaller primes and maybe a simple zoom. LIke say my Zeiss G glass. People don't instantly freak out when you pull up a larger body with a huge ass piece of glass. Better for landscapes if you don't plan to make Murals. I'm cool with small. You know like contact prints from 8x10. What's the largest print Adams or White or Weston ever made? you can make those sizes or close to them from 24MP. I barely find need to shoot more than 28MP for most client work. Hell a billboard is printed at 50-90DPI(printer dpi so a dot made of of dots) if that. I don't know, I just don't assume what other people need or don't need.
The a7ii with a kit lens is going for around 1k, would I be better off getting that over the A6600? 1.5k is most I can spend. This would be my first Camera.
I have learned a ton from your fro. Thanks I’m looking for the best mirrorless or DSLR for around $1200 or less (body only) to record my nieces. One is a gymnast and the other does local community theater. I will be purchasing a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for whatever body I choose as well. I’m looking for eye autofocus that functions in 4k. Some have suggested Sony a6600 (I’m a little concerned about the rolling shutter) others have suggested Canon M6 Mark ii (some have said eye autofocus doesn’t work in 4k) Any help from any other viewers would also be appreciated.
I expected an APS-C camera with - a much bigger body (it would be easier to hold with big lenses) - a good EVF (the current one is a shame for such a price) - 4K 60fps (Fuji has it, phones have it). Maybe they have another camera to announce, who knows.
"Upgrade to full frame"? How is that an upgrade? It's a different sensor format for different situations. I take photos of things that are further away and I don't even own a wide angle lense. Why would I buy a camera with a 35mm sensor and lose the crop factor when I can buy a camera with an APS-C sensor that, at this point, basically offers me the same image quality and more reach with my lenses? I am using a D7100 and I plan to upgrade to a D500 in the future. One of the lenses I use is the 100-400 from Sigma. If I go for something like a D750 I would need a 150-600 to keep the same reach. That lens is WAY heavier and bulkier though! And if I keep using my lens I would have to crop which makes the 35mm sensor entirely pointless. 35mm sensors keep being treated like this big thing you need to upgrade to if you want to be a real photographer... It's a load of bull. If you take portraits of people with something like 200/2 then sure. But then that still wouldn't be an *upgrade*. It would be the right sensor format for the job. Then again, depending on the job, a medium format camera might actually be the right format then.
It all depends on what you use your camera for. If you do low light or portrait photography, I'd say full frame is the way to go. But if you do nature photography where you need reach, APS-C has its advantages.
The main difference I'd say is in size and weight of lenses and camera bodies. But the thing is, full frame has a leg up on APS-C because you can always get teleconverters to achieve more reach from a full frame lense, but you cant get more light into a smaller sensor given the lens is the same aperture.
@@CheeseOnEverything Thanks for replying. So, a Full Framed camera is better for night photography? What about filming? I think I should just go for Canon SL3
Hallo, as mostly great video. The 6600 is really a great camera and I use it together with my super A9.If I expect to crop on my A9 (going from 24 to 10MP) I change to the 6600 with 24MP ( the A7IV has cropped 26MP). I keep the lens and change cameras. Can I patent that?
Sorry total noob question but how is the a6100 better than the m50 for video. I'm new to photography and it just seems the m50 with it's flip out screen and mic jack would be better. Someone please explain what I'm missing here. Thank you in advance.
Jared, I think the a6600 looks great and everything, but I think Sony only focused on "sexy" features and upgrades, and neglected the "unsexy", more functional upgrades they could have done. The AF tracking and speed, eye AF, flippy screen, etc. are all great, but they had an opportunity to go full out, and make it more of a "pro APS-C" like the D500. They could have made the body a bit bigger, so they could include 2 card slots, a front control dial, a joystick, maybe a bigger EVF, like you mentioned... I don't know why they're so stuck on maintaining this tiny form factor for their "flagship" model. I have the a6000, which I love, and I'll admit, can be nice for its small size in certain situations, like travel, but there have been a number of times where (even when traveling) I'll leave the a6000 at home or in the hotel and take my D7100. When I'm going out trying to take legit "good" pictures, and not just "family vacation" photos, my Nikon just seems much more functional, plus I can afford better lenses for it. While I hate that this is the case, money is a factor. For the price to upgrade my a6000 to an a6600 and get the 16-55 2.8, I could keep my Sigma 17-50 2.8 for Nikon, buy a used D500, a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, and a cheap prime, like maybe an 85 or a 50mm. To me, the sexy AF tracking and flippy screen aren't enough to justify having to spend so much more money on lenses to get less comfort and functionality. Just my take...
And also, I think it was a swing and a miss with the 70-350 lens. $1k for an f6.3 APS-C lens seems crazy to me. I don't see why they didn't just rehash their 70-300 5.6 full frame lens for APS-C, or even rehash the 55-300 5.6 A-Mount lens. And on top of that it's only like $175 cheaper than the full frame 70-300. I feel like they should have made it 70-300 5.6, and no more than $700. It would still be an upgrade from the kit telephoto. I think if they want to charge $1k or more, it would need to be an f4, like maybe 70-250 f4. Anyway, I'm currently holding out hope that Tamron will give me a reason to stick with my Sony system.
As a videographer who uses 2 a6500 for most of my work, the a6600 didn't improve anything for me personally. The AF on the a6500 is more than adequate for me. The recording limit wasn't an issue for me since the a6500 still has the app functionality which lets me turn off the recording limit. And since I use a SmallHD Focus monitor I already have a fully articulating screen that also gives me a headphone jack and lets me power the a6500 with Sony NPF batteries (which are better, cheaper, and more universal than the Z batteries). Honestly, the a6500 is the perfect run and gun camera for me with these solutions. The only thing I was hoping for was 4K60 and 10-bit...even externally would have made me happy. I know the a7sIII might have 4K60 and 10-bit but I'm sure it will be damn near $4k and at that point I'd start considering a proper cinema camera with better ergonomics, ND filters, SDI, etc. I guess I'll just save my money for now.
I've waited until new SONY mirror-less camera to be released rather than buying a6400. The reason to get a camera is taking pictures and videos of my cute little daughter. When released, the price considering upgraded points doesn't make sense for me.(Too expensive than I expected $1200) But I would gladly pay more money if real time Eye AF for movies, Z battery and 5-axis in body are worth. Could anyone advise which choice between a6400 and a6600 is best option for me?
Really comes down to IBIS. That will help a lot in handheld videos. The other option is to buy a gimbal, where a good one will come in a bit cheaper (A6400 + gimbal) vs an A6600. But in use, it's a LOT bigger. And then again, the stabilization it will provide with some practice can't be matched by any camera. So if you need some stabilization, the A6600 is what you want. If you need a lot of stabilization, grab the A6400 and any decent gimbal. If you don't need stabilization, get the A6400. Both cameras have Real Time AF and Eye AF, and batteries are easily replaceable, so there's no significant different between the cameras there.
been saving up to get an a7iii, thought abt it again when they announced the a6600 last night. but i think ill stick to the a7iii for now, and eventually get the a6600 by the end of the year. hope that'll be a good decision for now!
Picked up a a6100 w/ kit lens open box basically brand new for only $560 bucks. But was wondering if keeping it and getting better glass or get the a7ii or even a7rii and maybe 1 decent glass
Sony says these new lenses work on both full frame and apsc Sony bodies... is that not true?! these 2 new lenses have a x ~1.4 on apsc bodies I thought I’d read.
In the eye of camera makers, APS-C cameras are needed. Protects the high prices of the newest Full Frame body & high-end glass. Sure a basic consumer could buy a Full Frame Canon RP or A7 with a kit lens but will they buy a $2000+ f/2.8 glass? Probably most will buy an f/4 or an APS-C w/2.8 that gives you a stop faster and equivalent DoF. I think Sony will eventually lower the price of that new lens.
