Any Sony A6400 owners upgrading to A6700?

[Adam-T]

Very cute

I need to take some actual shots with it,

I`ll be interested to see how you get on with it - a good copy is sharp edge to edge wideopen at 18mm and CA is less than these kind of lenses usually are ........ not as CA free as the 16-55 F2.8 or the 16-50PZ Kit lens (which miraculously has almost Zero CA ) but has a lot less than most superzooms like the dreadful 18-200LE

 

[tjmckay4]

I was terribly disappointed after the announcement. But now, after testing, I change my mind.

So, worth the upgrade then?

 

[alphaZ]

Very cute

I need to take some actual shots with it,

I`ll be interested to see how you get on with it - a good copy is sharp edge to edge wideopen at 18mm and CA is less than these kind of lenses usually are ........ not as CA free as the 16-55 F2.8 or the 16-50PZ Kit lens (which miraculously has almost Zero CA ) but has a lot less than most superzooms like the dreadful 18-200LE

I've got a day off tomorrow, so will give more things a proper try in the field, will take the a7iv a long too but mostly I'll shoot with the a6700 and swap between 18-135 and 16-55 and 28-75 on a7iv to get some context. Hopefully the weather improves on the east coast, its been miserable on/off all week, since Sat last week in fact.

Edit.

What I'd really like to test is the Sony 18-135 vs Tamron 18-300, Tamron also holds 5.6 to 135 too, probably deliberately so to compete with Sony, and adds the tele option too. It's big, but what a range for travel/hiking etc, should provide some interesting tele landscape shots.

 

[Adam-T]

I've got a day off tomorrow, so will give more things a proper try in the field, will take the a7iv a long too but mostly I'll shoot with the a6700 and swap between 18-135 and 16-55 and 28-75 on a7iv to get some context. Hopefully the weather improves on the east coast, its been miserable on/off all week, since Sat last week in fact.

We`ve had off-on pissy weather here in the north west for the past 5 weeks - I`ve got an all day wedding to shoot tomorrow so praying it`ll be fine - may take the A6400 + 10-18 F4 along for a bit of creative 10mm fun ..

I`d suggest the Sony 10-20 F4, shooting at 10mm (15mm in FF) is addictive . this is the 10-18 F4 OSS which I got for £230 because it was tatty - the OSS is superb BTW but the 10-20 is a better lens optically if you can warrant the expense, I can`t ..







--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Adam-T]

What I'd really like to test is the Sony 18-135 vs Tamron 18-300, Tamron also holds 5.6 to 135 too, probably deliberately so to compete with Sony, and adds the tele option too. It's big, but what a range for travel/hiking etc, should provide some interesting tele landscape shots.

I avoided the Tamron 18-300 for the same reason I avoided the 17-70 F2.8 , it`s a big monster of a lens more suited to a camera the size of a Z9 or R3 than a microscopic A6400 , the 18-135 just about falls into the small enough category for me . that plus the Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and 10-20 F4 make a superb do it all trio for these little cams .

here are all the Tams on the A6400 - BTW the two smaller ones in the middle are FULL FRAME !!! with the 17-70 on the far left , 18-300 on the far right .



--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Shiny Object]

Very cool butterfly shots! I have an a6300 and am considering moving up to the 6400 or 6700. As someone who has owned a 6400 and 6700, can you speak to any differences in autofocus ability that you are noticing? I am on the fence between the a6400 and a6700 and am trying to see if the AI autofocus of the 6700 is much of a real upgrade over the 6400. Either AF system would be a nice upgrade over my 6300.

I shoot a lot of closeup/macro and would be very interested to hear how of your experiences with macro/closeup focusing/tracking of the a6400 and a6700. Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide.

 

[Roy55]

I was terribly disappointed after the announcement. But now, after testing, I change my mind.

So, worth the upgrade then?

I think so. And there's something wrong with noise in dpreview test. I compared similar photos between a6400 and a6700 and definitely the new camera has less noise.

 

[tjmckay4]

I was terribly disappointed after the announcement. But now, after testing, I change my mind.

So, worth the upgrade then?

I think so. And there's something wrong with noise in dpreview test. I compared similar photos between a6400 and a6700 and definitely the new camera has less noise.

Good to know, thanks. What's the new touch interface like and menu system?

 

[Roy55]

It's better but need to learn from scratch. The touch interface is quite okay. I think it will be fine once you get used to it.

 

[BackToNature1]

Well that lens is over Twice the price of the Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Lens with hardly any magic in the images by comparison.

If you`re satisfied with that level of lens performance then I`m happy for you ..

Not at all stating that.

However what I am saying, why bother with overpriced and or underperforming cropped glass when one can just go right ahead and go FF if their budget allows it. I also stated that other cropped lens isn't showing me that much better lens performance.

So Far better Lens options and far more options over the life of the camera by comparison by going FF. Especially seeing how the a7cii by size likely won't be much different then the a6700.

I already have FF camera and Lens. So I say a ton of folks won't be nearly as happy with the a6700 camera by comparison to other options within the Sony system, especially if the a7cii Rumors are accurate. I strongly suspect they are.

 

[Martin_99]

Well that lens is over Twice the price of the Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Lens with hardly any magic in the images by comparison.

If you`re satisfied with that level of lens performance then I`m happy for you ..

Not at all stating that.

However what I am saying, why bother with overpriced and or underperforming cropped glass when one can just go right ahead and go FF if their budget allows it. I also stated that other cropped lens isn't showing me that much better lens performance.

So Far better Lens options and far more options over the life of the camera by comparison by going FF. Especially seeing how the a7cii by size likely won't be much different then the a6700.

I already have FF camera and Lens. So I say a ton of folks won't be nearly as happy with the a6700 camera by comparison to other options within the Sony system, especially if the a7cii Rumors are accurate. I strongly suspect they are.

Honestly, I don't understand this attitude. Several manufacturers produce apsc cameras and lenses, millions of photographers happily used them. But allways some grumpy bear have time to teach others how useless overpriced gear bought...

I tried Sony and Canon FF gear for several months, but returned to Sony apsc as it fits my needs the best. I'm weird obviously...

 

[alphaZ]

Very cool butterfly shots! I have an a6300 and am considering moving up to the 6400 or 6700. As someone who has owned a 6400 and 6700, can you speak to any differences in autofocus ability that you are noticing? I am on the fence between the a6400 and a6700 and am trying to see if the AI autofocus of the 6700 is much of a real upgrade over the 6400. Either AF system would be a nice upgrade over my 6300.

Once you've used object recognition its difficult to go back;

First it was humans, eye/face

Then it was birds and animals

Now its insects, cars, planes too.

Thing is, I've long had a problem with the size of their smallest af box, outside of the S-AF cross-hair option, getting pin-point accuracy in C-AF of insects is difficult, this is why I showed those picture, even with pin-point on many cameras, you literally take hundreds of pictures and nothing is accurate. Even the a6700 isn't perfect, these insects are also tiny and moving, so its helpful that we have these technologies, you have to work with it and use it and sometimes it still misses, other times it doesn't, but, would I be without it now, no, not ever! For birds the hit rate and use case goes up massively, its got more to play with and the camera will be picking out birds eye's perfectly, its insane.

If you don't do wildlife and can live with the a6400 shortcomings in this area and the other new stuff, uhs-ii, bigger battery, fas screen etc then maybe a6400 can suffice, for sure. Personally, the a6700 is more than just skin deep, its all about the scan speed of the sensor and the quality of this new sensor, especially color, its also allegedly 14bit in lossless compressed too so overall when pushed image quality and color should be up there with any FF camera, including for low light long shutter over 30 seconds, this is a real game-changer for Sony at this level imo. The only reason to choose FF if indeed the 14bit actually is validated on the a6700 is for the noise/color/dr and additional stop of dof. Seriously the stop of dof is not really an issue any more with 1.2/1.4 primes, how much do you want in focus? So, for me, personally I'd see the a6700 as a real long term camera system that will grow with you, no need to feel second best to FF, no way you are going to get 26mp at 11fps at 750-900mm with object tracking with the performance of the a6700 on FF any time soon except with compromises of some sort, size, weight, cost? Even then, currently, it will change in the future, the a1 can't do what the a6700 can do and lets be honest if I decide to fit a small prime or the 18-55 2.8, 10-20 f4 it will never be as compact, even in crop mode!

I shoot a lot of closeup/macro and would be very interested to hear how of your experiences with macro/closeup focusing/tracking of the a6400 and a6700. Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide.

The a6700 for your use case, remember it also has focus bracketing built-in will be a much better long term investment imo.

 

[Martin_99]

Question, do A6700 have an automatic mode in which recognize the main subject in the scene, or need to be switched to person, bird etc. mode?

Thanks

 

[Roy55]

Question, do A6700 have an automatic mode in which recognize the main subject in the scene, or need to be switched to person, bird etc. mode?

Thanks

You need to switch between.

 

[BackToNature1]

Well that lens is over Twice the price of the Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Lens with hardly any magic in the images by comparison.

If you`re satisfied with that level of lens performance then I`m happy for you ..

Not at all stating that.

However what I am saying, why bother with overpriced and or underperforming cropped glass when one can just go right ahead and go FF if their budget allows it. I also stated that other cropped lens isn't showing me that much better lens performance.

So Far better Lens options and far more options over the life of the camera by comparison by going FF. Especially seeing how the a7cii by size likely won't be much different then the a6700.

I already have FF camera and Lens. So I say a ton of folks won't be nearly as happy with the a6700 camera by comparison to other options within the Sony system, especially if the a7cii Rumors are accurate. I strongly suspect they are.

Honestly, I don't understand this attitude. Several manufacturers produce apsc cameras and lenses, millions of photographers happily used them. But allways some grumpy bear have time to teach others how useless overpriced gear bought...

I tried Sony and Canon FF gear for several months, but returned to Sony apsc as it fits my needs the best. I'm weird obviously...

No weird is folks continually twisting what others have stated. I have no real issues with what size sensors anyone cares to use. Pro or otherwise. I simply asked the question of why bother with overpriced cropped if FF fits in one budget.

By the way, have cropped, 1 inch, and FF. I use all of them. More specific, it's in reference to this specific camera by comparison. The a6700. I have the a6600.

So it's not attitude, but it was a question, some can't seem to make out the difference. And yes, that is BLANK. Nobody is trying to teach you anything. By the way, folks happily lived in Huts before Modern Homes.

 

[Craig Gillette]

I haven't looked closely at the 18-300. I kept my dslr kit so I had alternatives to it albeit bigger and bulkier.

There's a lot goes into deciding if a superzoom like the 18-300 is the better choice. Price? Haven't looked but it's probably less expensive than most combinations of lenses to cover that range. It may not hit the image quality interests. If one is doing a lot of different focal lengths and avoiding a lot of lens swapping, it may be very convenient. comfort? A smaller lens at any time will be easier on the neck or hand. A small kit bag with a side lens or two without too much additional stuff might be a more comfortable carry for a long day if one doesn't also carry too much extra stuff,

I have the Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6 (which is quite close in size to the 28-75/2.8 (2nd from right in pic). Incidentally, it is my main use lens on my A7Riv as was/is the 18-135 on my A6400. For me, it's beginning to be a bit big for the smaller bodies so I have a feeling I might not like the 18-300 from a comfort point of view but I could see some going with it for price or convenience.

 

[Martin_99]

Well that lens is over Twice the price of the Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Lens with hardly any magic in the images by comparison.

If you`re satisfied with that level of lens performance then I`m happy for you ..

Not at all stating that.

However what I am saying, why bother with overpriced and or underperforming cropped glass when one can just go right ahead and go FF if their budget allows it. I also stated that other cropped lens isn't showing me that much better lens performance.

So Far better Lens options and far more options over the life of the camera by comparison by going FF. Especially seeing how the a7cii by size likely won't be much different then the a6700.

I already have FF camera and Lens. So I say a ton of folks won't be nearly as happy with the a6700 camera by comparison to other options within the Sony system, especially if the a7cii Rumors are accurate. I strongly suspect they are.

Honestly, I don't understand this attitude. Several manufacturers produce apsc cameras and lenses, millions of photographers happily used them. But allways some grumpy bear have time to teach others how useless overpriced gear bought...

I tried Sony and Canon FF gear for several months, but returned to Sony apsc as it fits my needs the best. I'm weird obviously...

No weird is folks continually twisting what others have stated. I have no real issues with what size sensors anyone cares to use. Pro or otherwise. I simply asked the question of why bother with overpriced cropped if FF fits in one budget.

1. size of the setup

2. cropped camera at price of FF will have more features, faster, etc.

It was exactly the case A6400 vs RP which I both got for the same money. It was interesting fight between sensor size and in general faster camera, more fps, different handling and in overall feel.

By the way, have cropped, 1 inch, and FF. I use all of them. More specific, it's in reference to this specific camera by comparison. The a6700. I have the a6600.

So it's not attitude, but it was a question, some can't seem to make out the difference. And yes, that is BLANK. Nobody is trying to teach you anything. By the way, folks happily lived in Huts before Modern Homes.

 

[piticoto]

do more a-b'ing, at the moment the a7iv has the e-mount 18-135 on

How are you finding the 18-135 - I`m finding it remarkably good for a Sony APS_C standard zoom (most of them are pretty rubbish)

Well that lens is over Twice the price of the Sony E 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS Lens with hardly any magic in the images by comparison. Where is the Fuji type XF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 R LM OIS WR Lens which regular retails for around $800. Sony and third party players could offer a far better selection of longer type lens. Like the Fuji I just mentioned. Which is even more reason to go FF instead.

That lens has 7.5 times zoom range starting at 18 vs only 55, plus I get a better image out of 135 focal length of 18-135 and cropped compared to 210 focal length of 55-210, sharper and better contrast. I have both and checked what I just wrote. Then I got 70-350 that on APS-C makes 525 FF equivalent, at only 625g! I don't need FF. Size matters, then price. A larger camera and lens would just get less used, put away.

Yes, Fuji 70-300 and Sony 70-350 are going to be essentially the same with a little extra reach on the Sony, nice, but the ability to put 1.4x tc on the Fuji, also nice.

Instead of a teleconverter I use clear image zoom up to 2x on top of max optical zoom, producing 6000 x 4000 pixels out of camera pictures, and it seems to have more detail than only max optical zoom and croped to 3000 x 2000. I tested on a paint on the wall from about 6 meters, then looked at the paint with a magnifying glass vs pixel peeping, then on a brick wall from 45 meters. I have to take a close picture of the wall and compare the 3550 optical only and 350 plus 2x. All paint and brick wall pictures were on the tripod and 5 sec timer.

However, the Fuji and tc's are going to slow everything down and the iq with it fitted is only ok. Also, you have the Fuji demons to deal with, sometimes its good, sometimes its bad, I actually prefer Fuji's 55-200 3.5-4.8, what a great range/lens for aps-c lol, pity the Sony isn't remotely as good!

Knowing how good 18-135 and 70-350 are I can't imagine how Sony isn't remotely as good to Fuji's 55-200. Do you have the Sony lenses?

Seriously, if this is the range you like though, have you also considered Tamron's 18-300, from my tests on Fuji it was pretty good and gets you a bit of everything, there's also the Tamron 70-300 and the 70-180 2.8 which is one of favorite lenses. Also, things like the Sony 70-200, Tamron 50-400 etc are all fine options too.

When I looked at Tamron's 18-300 I recall being too large for general use and at 300 wasn't as good as 70-350 at 300, being soft compared to Sony at the long end. See reviews and posts about the two lenses from April-May 2022.

The size of Tamron's 18-300 is not good for general use. I prefer the 18-135 for general use and 70-3550 when more reach is needed. I have A6100 and A5100. I want the small size of A5100 with 16-50 when I go to ski. When I need 18 focal, but also up to 350 I take both cameras, A5100 with 18-135 in a pocket, or with the strap around the neck, A6100 with 70-350 in a just enough camera bag with no extra room. When I need to take a picture with either one of them I have one around the neck, one on the shoulder.

I'd like to revisit the 70-350 though on the a6700.

 

[duncang]

I own a Sony A6400 and I'm going to upgrade to a 6700. The upgraded video specs, UI and stabilisation being my major factors. Anyone else?

The subject detection and autofocus is very good, super fast, makes my A1 seem a little pedestrian.

The EVF is super nice until you press the shutter button - then it suffers lag and it becomes hard to keep anything moving in the frame. e-shutter is especially bad for some reason. Mechanical is usable.

Did I already say the subject detection and AF is very very good.

Very fast to pick up birds and more that capable of tracking small fast birds against difficult backgrounds. Shame that they can't improve the EVF playback when shooting.

IQ seems to right up there.















And a sequence tracking a small bird - too far for decent image - but not too many cameras will track such a small subject against a busy background. Seems on par or better than my A1.



















and a few more....

















AF Area Wide, Animal/Bird

Video AF also seems pretty accurate and seems to track the birds eyes - well the white box shows on the Birds Eye during recording so I assume that is the focus point.

 

[duncang]

Very cool butterfly shots! I have an a6300 and am considering moving up to the 6400 or 6700. As someone who has owned a 6400 and 6700, can you speak to any differences in autofocus ability that you are noticing? I am on the fence between the a6400 and a6700 and am trying to see if the AI autofocus of the 6700 is much of a real upgrade over the 6400. Either AF system would be a nice upgrade over my 6300.

I shoot a lot of closeup/macro and would be very interested to hear how of your experiences with macro/closeup focusing/tracking of the a6400 and a6700. Thanks in advance for any insights you can provide.

The subject detection and AF for birds is on another level - the a6400 doesn't have that. Not sure if there would be any difference for macro but for wildlife it seems to be on par or better than the best I have used and that includes A1, A9, Z9, R5.

It doesn't seem to suffer from the hit and miss focus problems the R7 has.

However the EFV is a big laggy when shooting fast action which makes it hard to keep the subject in the frame.

Definitely a big upgrade from the a6400 I think. Front and rear dials, better menu system, EVF seems brighter and faster so very nice to use until the shutter is pressed and then it becomes somewhat jumpy and laggy.