Which is better, a6400 or a6300?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Which is better, a6400 or a6300?

The a6400 shares a lot with the model it replaces (and, for once, Sony has made clear that it replaces the a6300). They both offer 24MP APS-C sensors, oversampled 4K video and 11 fps continuous shooting. They have the same viewfinder and much of the same hardware. So what's the difference?

The most immediate difference is a rear screen that's now touch-sensitive and can tilt up by 180 degrees, and allows for touch control of autofocus, selfies and vlogging (though any hot shoe mic will block the screen). These are nice additions, but are unlikely to swing most people towards the (initially) more expensive model, unless you really need one of those things.

The big difference is autofocus performance and operation. Our initial experiences are that the a6400's AF is simpler to use. Because it's more 'sticky' and consistent, you can use the Real-time Tracking mode for all sort of subjects, rather than having to change mode. It also offers Eye AF without a second button press is smart enough to automatically switch to non-specific subject tracking if the eye or face disappears, then switch back if they reappear.

The new, presumably more efficient, processor means there's less risk of overheating limiting when capturing video. Unlike its predecessors, the a6400 is not limited to 29:59 minutes of recording time, either, and recorded for over 45 minutes in our initial tests.

It's also worth considering that Sony will be selling a kit that bundles the a6400 with its recent 18-135mm zoom. It costs more and is larger than the 16-50mm power zoom but covers a wider range (albeit without such wide-angle capability), and has the advantage of not being the weakest kit lens on the market.