A6400 - is it worth paying so much extra over A6000?

Started 4 weeks ago | Discussions thread
Flat view
Reiper Forum Member • Posts: 94
A6400 - is it worth paying so much extra over A6000?

I had A6000 for years until it broke few months ago. Now it's finally time to get a camera so here's my question:

I could get a new A6000 for £279 or A6400 for £639, that's a whopping £360 of a difference.

It's nice to have a touchscreen or better EVF but not for this price. What really interests me in the more expensive camera is 
1. better autofocus
2. batter image quality (higher iso, more dynamic range, more room to play when editing)

Is the AF really that much better than on A6000? I don't care about what sony says but rather would like to know real people's opinion. How accurate is continuous eye AF or tracking AF? Is it a game changer when it comes to occasional portraits? In A6000 tracking is not great, especially with cheaper lenses like 55-210. 
I know the AF is quicker but is it MUCH more accurate?
When shooting RAW and editing, is A6400 noticeably better when cranking up shadows or shooting above ISO1600? Some people say it's around 1 stop better, some say they're nearly the same especially when editing.

The lenses I have are 18-105, 55-210, sigma 30 1.4, samyang 12 f2. I am not a pro photographer and probably never will be. I mainly shoot some landscapes, events and a bit of portraits.

Sony a6000
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow