RLight wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
Ideally i would save up for the successor of the A7III + lenses without spilling money on incremental upgrades. However, i need that A6400 AF right now. My daughters won't pause their lives because daddy is saving up for a new camera. You can't do this 3 years over again.
M50 is better than M100 for AF, but still it chooses the wrong eye or the borders of the subject in stead of the eye or front of the subject too often. Actually, the M50 sets the bar higher for my AF-wishes. It was good. Great improvement. But now i want better.
please keep us apprised
I will wait for the good and detailed reviews of the A6600. And i need to take a look at how these C-modes actually work to evaluate how important it is to have 3 in stead of 1.
The A6600 is an interesting beast; improved AF "smartness", JPEG engine tweaks, and now some interesting APS-C glass to top it off. If, you don't need true low-light, it's promising. It should be a real contender coming out of Sony, not just one DPR is touting. It may truly perform.
But the price? And furthermore the images that I've seen thus far although pretty good (much improved ala A6400),
Could you please give a more detailed vision why it is much improved over the A6400?
still don't match Canon's desirability. I feel this is more a Fuji-Sony, that is improved Sony but with a Fuji price-tag.
The price is steep, granted.
It's obvious to me Sony should have another beast soon (well in the future, maybe not soon), probably without IBIS, but probably with that 26MP Sony sensor, say a A6450, that might be of interest as in theory it'll be cheaper, but better in 4k rolling shutter.
I would choose IBIS over 2 extra Mp. I am a stills shooter, so rolling shutter doesn't matter to me. I understand it can be a big deal for video.
If, the EOS M6 Mark II hadn't come around, I'd be considering both myself as a lightweight companion. But, it did. Just in time it would seem too. Improved subject tracking (if it has the EOS R firmware, I gather it has the existing, but perhaps not the one coming out), low light AF,
Low light AF, yes, that is a big thing, but when i need low light AF the most i need a speed light too, AND i am a viewfinder shooter... so....
....
It's just too bad. Such an idiot crippling just to prevent the ancient dslr which should have been released 3 years ago. Same is true for that headphone jack. The 90D has it, while the M6mkII should have it. Doesn't bother me as a stills shooter, but again, crazy choices from Canon here.
plus 4K worth something.
I'm all for investigating other platforms, I've been looking hard at that new Sony, but I've found it wanting. I've found APS-C can't match FF for some things over the years so I have to look at it as merely a APS-C option. Sony needed an A7000, not this guy now that the M6 Mark II is out. They needed (even) better UI,
I think i can find my way with it. There are kind of "my menus" or something like that, so yes, you will have to dive in first, which can be time consuming but still a fun thing to do as usual when playing around with new toys, but after that stage you can just rule out everything you don't need and make immediately available what you DO need, and as long as that last thing is possible, i can live with complex menu's.
(even) better colors,
Black box for me. Don't know anything else but Canon colors.
better sensor metrics over the A6400/A6500. They delivered none of those. Instead in a very Canon-like fashion they repackaged the upgrades of the A6400 into the A6500 and called it the A6600 and charged alot more.
Yeah, i agree. They really should have launched the A6600 first, and the A6400 later. OTOH: the A6600 is the best focusing aps-c camera with sensor stabilization, and Sony knows it.... You could also blame the competition for the price of the A6600 being too high....
These are welcome upgrades, but, perhaps the A6400 is the "smarter" choice as the IBIS of the A6500/A6600 in my viewing is not that impressive.
For video: yes. For stills: i am happy with 2 stops. Really. In most cases 2 stops is enough. 2 stops with my 18-35, my 50-100mm, a 30mm f/1.4 prime, a 56 f/1.4 prime..... you know.... it is tempting, regardless the higher price. And i also think 3 C modes is better than one. And 1 bigger battery in stead of 2 smaller ones....
I gather the IBIS of the A7III is more impressive.
A7III has not the same AF. You will have to wait till the A7IV for that.
The A6450 may bake in some of the complaints I have above, with, that 26MP sensor I gather...
I do think you're right though, the A7RIV's colors are on the other hand quite good. Good enough now for my liking. I have the R though already. And the RF glass is better...
I have some budget problems with ordinary f/2.8 zooms already.
But, I suspect you won't do poorly with the A7 IV when it comes out; it was a matter of time before Sony caught (well got close enough / acceptable) Canon in SOOC rendition. Glass though? That's another story. If you're fine with Sigma's offerings, you should be happy though. But, by the time the A7 IV comes out, the 5D-like R should be out. Just like the EOS M6 Mark II, it sounds like it'll come "just in time".
I don't believe in higher Mp's being more important than smarter AF. To my eye the biggest bottle neck is AF making the Mp's shine. Not the other way around.
I like a high hitrate. I like to have the best moment in focus. I don't like to have a less than best moment in focus with a higher Mp-count while having the best moment slightly out of focus (which is even more annoying with more Mp.)
It depends on what you shoot of course. I you're shooting stuff without one moment being much better than the other Mp could be more important than hitrate (AF).
I predicated this last year that this day will come where the two meet (Canon and Sony) in most regards with glass and sensor tech (DPAF vs Pixel stripes) being the differentiators. I know Nnowak will challenge this, but, it would appear DPAF has a low-light advantage and AF speed advantage all things equal. Likewise, pixel stripped sensors will ultimately have a sensor metric advantage. Depends what you want. Likewise, Canon will always make better glass. Sigma is the wild card here though on both sides...
I'll just buy the A6?00 now, and the M5mkII next to it (when canon finally understands the dslr era is over and crippling M-bodies to protect ancient tech is stupid), and until than my M50 + sigma 18-35mm will be my low light workhorse. Of course full frame is a bit better, however, at some point you'll realize you can't make your DOF thinner endlessly in all cases, and as such, all you need is to bring in some light, or, in other words, a hotshoe NOT being occupied by a eevf. Canon, for G*ds sake, gimme my M5mkII.... I need it next to my A6?00!!!
Canon doesn't make always better glass. The EF 35mm f/1.4 mkII is challenged by a new Tamron. Sigma brings out a 35mm f/1.2. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 wasn't class leading compared to other 85mm options. The RF 85mm is great. But there's no body with awesome eye AF to slap it on, which still give you a higher than necessary risk the best moment in highest contrast and resolution will be slightly out of focus. So sad.
Heaven is a place where you can mount an RF 85mm f/1.2 on a Sony A7RmkIV.... We are just mortal beings on this earth below who have to live with impossibilities.
Still..... i think i gonna choose the A6600 over the A6400. Not decided yet.
-- hide signature --
If your facts are different we could save the peace just by calling it copy to copy variation.
