Reading mode: Light Dark

Are Sony ever going to release an updated APS-C body?

Go to last post
Fujifilm Convert said:
Objectively 15, 20, and 30 fps are better.
Click to expand...
The XT3's mechanical fps is 11 - just like the A6600. The higher 20fps rate is only when using electronic shutter - which for many fast moving tracking subjects cannot be used due to the slower shutter readout causing jello/bending effects. 30fps is strictly when using a sensor crop mode. Whether those 'faster' burst modes are able to be used is where the subjective comes in. If I need mechanical shutter for my subjects, both cameras deliver 11fps, and one has significantly better and more accurate tracking focus resulting in a much higher hit rate on erratic subjects, then that camera is clearly, objectively, going to meet my needs better.
Fujifilm Convert said:
AF on the A9 and A9ii. Not the A6600 or A6400. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Not that much, and the A6600 still comes out in a vast majority of reviews as superior in focus tracking compared to the Xt3. And many reviews will point out a significant difference - not a small one - for tracking tenacity, accuracy, stickiness, etc.
Fujifilm Convert said:
If you can find things on specs pages where the Sony are better, please show us. It would be helpful.

Find something objective.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to just find things on spec pages that are 'objectively' better for the A6600 vs the XT3:

Native ISO 100 vs 160

Fastest AF .02 vs .05

MR modes on control dial; custom memory sets available

Better Eye AF accuracy, distance, tracking, lock

Lighter

Smaller

Better battery life

In-body stabilization

180 degree tilt LCD vs 60 degree

32,000 high ISO native limit vs 12,800 - expandable to 102,400 vs 64000

NFC vs no NFC

More native lenses, more third party lenses, more telephoto reach

Unlimited video vs 30 min

Higher DR at base ISO

More custom buttons, more customization options

Now, each person can decide if any of your list of 'objectively better' things, or my list of 'objectively better' things, matters to THEM and their own shooting needs.
 
zackiedawg said:
Fujifilm Convert said:
Objectively 15, 20, and 30 fps are better.
Click to expand...
The XT3's mechanical fps is 11 - just like the A6600. The higher 20fps rate is only when using electronic shutter - which for many fast moving tracking subjects cannot be used due to the slower shutter readout causing jello/bending effects. 30fps is strictly when using a sensor crop mode. Whether those 'faster' burst modes are able to be used is where the subjective comes in. If I need mechanical shutter for my subjects, both cameras deliver 11fps, and one has significantly better and more accurate tracking focus resulting in a much higher hit rate on erratic subjects, then that camera is clearly, objectively, going to meet my needs better.
zackiedawg said:
AF on the A9 and A9ii. Not the A6600 or A6400. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Not that much, and the A6600 still comes out in a vast majority of reviews as superior in focus tracking compared to the Xt3. And many reviews will point out a significant difference - not a small one - for tracking tenacity, accuracy, stickiness, etc.
zackiedawg said:
If you can find things on specs pages where the Sony are better, please show us. It would be helpful.

Find something objective.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to just find things on spec pages that are 'objectively' better for the A6600 vs the XT3:

Native ISO 100 vs 160

Fastest AF .02 vs .05

MR modes on control dial; custom memory sets available

Better Eye AF accuracy, distance, tracking, lock

Lighter

Smaller

Better battery life

In-body stabilization

180 degree tilt LCD vs 60 degree

32,000 high ISO native limit vs 12,800 - expandable to 102,400 vs 64000

NFC vs no NFC

More native lenses, more third party lenses, more telephoto reach

Unlimited video vs 30 min

Higher DR at base ISO

More custom buttons, more customization options

Now, each person can decide if any of your list of 'objectively better' things, or my list of 'objectively better' things, matters to THEM and their own shooting needs.
Click to expand...
That was one of the best rebuttals I've read in many years. Hopefully that will cause this troll to crawl back under his rock, or back to the Fuji forum where he belongs.

I can't stand Fuji cameras myself, but I have never gone over to the Fuji forum to tell people how much better Sony is than their cameras, and never would. It's a matter of having class, or not IMO.

Fujifilm Convert, get a life! ;-)
 
refusenik said:
Despite years of rumour that Sony will release a pro or prosumer APS-C camera body, they still haven't . I took a look at a Nikon Z50 recently and other than the pentaprism-style hump, it's not much bigger than, say an A6500, but has much better ergonomics.

Granted the Z50 doesn't have IBIS but given the promising lens line-up and future lenses, it's tempting to ditch my Sony gear and switch to Nikon mirrorless.

Is anyone else thinking along the same lines?
Click to expand...

After seeing the XT3 and XT4........man.....if they don't step it up....I'm pretty convinced I'm going to switch to Fuji.

With the XT4 they finally checked all the boxes. Although to get an equivalent set up to what I currently have it would be way more expensive. The 1.4 Sigma lenses are so great and cheap.
 
snapa said:
zackiedawg said:
Fujifilm Convert said:
Objectively 15, 20, and 30 fps are better.
Click to expand...
The XT3's mechanical fps is 11 - just like the A6600. The higher 20fps rate is only when using electronic shutter - which for many fast moving tracking subjects cannot be used due to the slower shutter readout causing jello/bending effects. 30fps is strictly when using a sensor crop mode. Whether those 'faster' burst modes are able to be used is where the subjective comes in. If I need mechanical shutter for my subjects, both cameras deliver 11fps, and one has significantly better and more accurate tracking focus resulting in a much higher hit rate on erratic subjects, then that camera is clearly, objectively, going to meet my needs better.
snapa said:
AF on the A9 and A9ii. Not the A6600 or A6400. There is a big difference.
Click to expand...
Not that much, and the A6600 still comes out in a vast majority of reviews as superior in focus tracking compared to the Xt3. And many reviews will point out a significant difference - not a small one - for tracking tenacity, accuracy, stickiness, etc.
snapa said:
If you can find things on specs pages where the Sony are better, please show us. It would be helpful.

Find something objective.
Click to expand...
If your goal is to just find things on spec pages that are 'objectively' better for the A6600 vs the XT3:

Native ISO 100 vs 160

Fastest AF .02 vs .05

MR modes on control dial; custom memory sets available

Better Eye AF accuracy, distance, tracking, lock

Lighter

Smaller

Better battery life

In-body stabilization

180 degree tilt LCD vs 60 degree

32,000 high ISO native limit vs 12,800 - expandable to 102,400 vs 64000

NFC vs no NFC

More native lenses, more third party lenses, more telephoto reach

Unlimited video vs 30 min

Higher DR at base ISO

More custom buttons, more customization options

Now, each person can decide if any of your list of 'objectively better' things, or my list of 'objectively better' things, matters to THEM and their own shooting needs.
Click to expand...
That was one of the best rebuttals I've read in many years.
Click to expand...
Too bad it mostly incorrect, and in most points he mentioned the XT4 has better specs. I was surprised he tried to imply Sony had better video - nothing supports this. It shows how desperate he was to brag the A6600 has ISO 102,400.

I dare you to post a picture at ISO 102,400. And if you know anything about cameras, you know ISO 102,400 is no different than an underexposed image at a lower ISO.

And unlike you I do not hate any system. I probably have owned more Sony cameras than you over the years. For years I was a dual system A/E owner. I even think Sony makes FF cameras that are better for stills than Fujifilm ASPC cameras, but their APSC cameras are not. But we all evolve. During the NEX 5-7 days I argued IBIS was not helpful. I was wrong. That's why I did switch when the XT3 came out. I used to argue Sony cameras were weather sealed and had acceptable colors. I even once said Sony cameras never overheat. I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
The a6xxx body *IS* the update. Making it into a marginally smaller A7etc. would be backwards.
 
I bought an a6000 in 2014, and later an a6300. They were great but eventually I wanted a body with better ergonomics and controls. After 5 years there'd been no significant improvement in IQ and hardly any new APS-C lenses from Sony. There was no 'buzz' left in the line, unless you're a vlogger.

So a few months ago I gave up waiting for Sony and went (back) to Nikon. The Z50 really feels good, has great control ergonomics and a somewhat better viewfinder. Their 'pancake' kit lens is very good. I at least have the feeling that Nikon is going to continue with APS-C so I have a future with this system; of course that may not pan out. But for today I feel like I got what I wanted and took a nice step up.

www.jimhphoto.com
 
Last edited:
refusenik said:
Despite years of rumour that Sony will release a pro or prosumer APS-C camera body, they still haven't . I took a look at a Nikon Z50 recently and other than the pentaprism-style hump, it's not much bigger than, say an A6500, but has much better ergonomics.

Granted the Z50 doesn't have IBIS but given the promising lens line-up and future lenses, it's tempting to ditch my Sony gear and switch to Nikon mirrorless.

Is anyone else thinking along the same lines?
Click to expand...
My ideal wish list is an Sony APSC body with:

-1/8000 shutter speed

-Front Dial

-Smooth back dial (the current one sucks)

-At least 4 million dot EVF at 0.5 inch OLED screen.

-Same or similar small form factor (if i wanted bigger I'd go with full frame)

I'll gladly pay extra for those features.

I'm not asking for too much, right? :)
 
I dont think your asking to much. I really like the A6600 but i dont see any reason for it not having a front dial, the real estate is there with the bigger grip and i agree a better EVF or rear screen should also be fairly easy. With the price of electronics i doubt either of these options would add any real cost.
 
Morph1909 said:
I dont think your asking to much. I really like the A6600 but i dont see any reason for it not having a front dial, the real estate is there with the bigger grip and i agree a better EVF or rear screen should also be fairly easy. With the price of electronics i doubt either of these options would add any real cost.
Click to expand...
Yeah totally +1.

In a first world problem, I'm a little fed up with not having a front dial, a better back dial, and larger, better EVF, dual card slots would be nice too with the a6600 being $1400. I'm this close to buying an a7R IV just to use it with my APSC lenses so I can have a better body and ergonomics.
 
Eh. I used to feel pretty strongly about this but I’m kind of over it. Once I got my a6xxx camera setup tweaked I just got used to them. For me the advantages in weight and “reach” over full frame trump the second dial, etc. I like to shoot in the ~85mm focal length, and even 135mm. Doing that with my full frame camera is prohibitive not only in weight but also, in the case of the 135mm, cost. Dont get me wrong, I would like the second dial and improved evf. I am just quite satisfied with my aps-c kit right now and I’m enjoying good results.

--
I don't claim to be a great photographer, I just really like cameras.
 
Last edited:
jimkohn said:
Eh. I used to feel pretty strongly about this but I’m kind of over it. Once I got my a6xxx camera setup tweaked I just got used to them. For me the advantages in weight and “reach” over full frame trump the second dial, etc. I like to shoot in the ~85mm focal length, and even 135mm. Doing that with my full frame camera is prohibitive not only in weight but also, in the case of the 135mm, cost. Dont get me wrong, I would like the second dial and improved evf. I am just quite satisfied with my aps-c kit right now and I’m enjoying good results.
Click to expand...
Very good insight. I just live in a first world problem. But at the end of the day there are complaints and satisfaction to all aspects in life, and overall the a6xxx is more than I could ask for! Thanks for bringing me back down to Earth. Lol.
 
Hey, Sony's apsc line has been a poor show ergonomically for many years. Why would this be the year? Ha, I wouldn't bet on it.

While they are at it, transforming the A6xxx line into a real useful tool, like say Panasonic, maybe Sony can work a little magic on the totally orb like RX100? RX100 is a really capable camera with lousy functional design. Some things never change.
 
A year ago I bought the a6400 because my a6300 died for the second time just weeks before a holiday.

For what it costs (1000€) it is a brilliant camera. I hate the ergonomy as I hated the ergonomy of the a6000 and a6300 but it is small and light and very capable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top