a6400 or a6600?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Kaitlyn Contributing Member • Posts: 529
Re: a6400 or a6600?

Craig Gillette wrote:

Dirk W wrote:

Kaitlyn wrote:

Dirk W wrote:

Kaitlyn wrote:

Assuming cost isn't an issue, is the a6600 a worthwhile choice? In a nutshell, does it actually provide BETTER image quality?

  1. On one hand bigger size/bigger grip includes everyday usability BUT I am coming from a full-frame DSLR... I want the pocket size. Unless battery life is truly problematic, I'd probably prefer to carry extra batteries vs bigger body? Also, heavier as a result.
  2. I think IBIS would be very welcome but I'm hearing Sony's IBIS implementation is a bit lackluster? Plus I am looking for an "outdoor adventure camera" where either shutter speed is entirely not a problem OR my bigger problem will be subject movement
  3. Is there a possibility the hardware in a6600 allows better performance/improvements over time?

Anything else new the a6600 brings that's a worthwhile consideration?

For me there is one main reason to go for the 6600 over the 6400, and that is that you can pair it with the 16-55 and still have image stabilization. This combo is as good as it can get with an aps-c standard zoom lens system and for my use, that's reason enough.

I upgraded from the 6400 on which I mainly used the 18-135, which is also a fantastic combo, just the sharpness across the entire frame and low light capability is a little better with the 6600/16-55.

I'd probably have to see that in person, because for years my workhorse setup was 5D IV + 24-70 f2.8. Yes, Sony 6600 would give me "similar setup" but this time with stablization... although, f2.8 on crop won't give as much DOF as on full frame...

But the 16-55 weights just as much as the camera it looks like. And a big reason to consider something like these a6000-series cameras is the smaller size AND weight. This would seem to undo all those main appeals... haha

Yes, it's heavy, but still lighter than a comparable full frame system. I had the A7r2 plus Tamron 28-75 and that was too heavy for me to have along on walks and hikes.

Just for consideration the Tamron 17-70/2.8 weighs in at 1.2 lbs, the 16-55/2.8 at 1.09, the Sigma 28-70/2.8 at 1.04, the 28-75/2.8 Tamron is 1.21 lb and the 28-200 is 1.27. The .89 lb A6400 and 18-135 is 1.61 together, the A6600 is 1.11 by itself, the A7c is 1.1.

My A7riv and 28-200 is still lighter, not by much, than the D7200 and 17-50/2.8 Sigma, 2.74 lbs vs 2.89.

But are you comparing a standard zoom wide 2.8 vs a 2.8-5.6 big zoom lens? That's... not even close to apples to apples :S

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
dht
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow