Sony a6400 sample gallery updated

Nice images with some outstanding lenses. The lenses choices featured makes a difference to the final image. Keep that in mind when looking over the images which lenses are actually used. Some of Sony best lenses are being used with these samples. Sensor is very good in color, works well together when you pick the right lenses.

Apr 23, 2019*permalink

nimo_or

That’s true. When DPR reviews and publish the results for Sony cameras, they do not evaluate Sony as a system with the affordable kit lenses. The Sony cameras produce excellent images when paired with some expensive Sony / Zeiss glasses and these may not be affordable for all.

Apr 26, 2019permalink

I notice when dpreview features Canon apsc cameras in newest 24mp sensor line including 77D, SL2 or SL3, or the m series, they do use the kit lenses but also feature other lenses as well, including primes and sometimes FF lenses like low priced variable aperature Canon 24-105mm f3.5-5.6 shown with the SL2 for example not just kit lenses, so this is a good range of lenses and is acceptable, as many of these lenses are affordable, (less than $1K or much lower). This represents what a buyer might buy with a budget camera.
I think the Sony cameras need to feature at least a mix of lenses, including general kit as some buyers would like to know. Okay to have a few better lenses as long as a range is shown including low cost lenses.

Apr 27, 2019permalink

Indieke1

I agree. When I looked at the specs, the lens used, ,well on any good camera, those kind of lenses should perform well. It is a shame, that for people with a smaller budget, who are ready to afford the camera with kit - lens, to maybe buy better glass after, have no idea with these samples, what they will get. I have an old Canon D 550, and as old it is, with a 1.4 or even the old 1.8, have excellent pictures too.

May 2, 2019permalink

beavertown

With such stunning IQ, D5AF performance, price tag, why do people need to consider other inferior cameras ?

Apr 23, 2019permalink

Because in that price range, the target buyers do not buy expensive lenses nor shoots raw, due to that, targeted people considers the ones which looks like a "camera" with better JPEG color.

Apr 23, 2019*permalink

Whoa, whoa, WHOA! Hold on a second, partner...

D5 AF??? Come on... You don't really believe this? I'm sorry, but no. Just no...

Apr 25, 2019permalink

Okay, throughout this thread I've seen criticisms about yellowness as a sensor or "color science" characteristic/flaw... for Sony, Nikon, Canon, and i think Fuji also. Hell, i bet if I really search the thread I'll find the same thing for Panasonic and Olympus too!

So what in the world is going on with this "yellow thing", guys!? You guys talking about SOOC jpeg? Or RAW? Either there's a lot of mythology flying around, or all sensors render yellow. 🤔

Apr 22, 2019*permalink

Sony_Northrup

I see a lot of fuji fanboys hating on sony colours because they don't know how to use their XT-crap

Apr 22, 2019permalink

PVCdroid

It is pathetic and I wish they weren't so trollish.

Apr 28, 2019permalink

The colors though.... :D :D :D and fanboys says the other color is a myth! :D :D

Apr 22, 2019permalink

A calibrated workflow is needed if you really care about color, and the you would not rely on rookie stuff like default camera setting jpg files and auto exposure.

Apr 22, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Colors are not the only thing that matter in camera selection, but what I can say is this. I shot with the EOS RP this weekend. Usually I am a RAW shooter, but chose to shoot JPG exclusively this time. The colors are probably not photometrically accurate, but boy are they pleasing to the eye!

Apr 22, 2019permalink

Arun H: Don't forget the excitement factor when shooting with a new camera! The files might feel way better that they really are, compared to other cameras! Been there, done that! ;-)

Apr 22, 2019*permalink

(unknown member)

@Magnar: I own a 5D Mark IV and a 7D II, so hard to get me excited. I'm not actually going to buy the RP, just made an observation. I do want to stress - what Sony is doing with their sensors and AF is impressive, and I say that as a long time Canon shooter.

Apr 22, 2019permalink

Then I assume it is the warm, a bit yellowish Canon jpg files you are used with. We have many Canon cameras at work, and other brands too. ;-)

Apr 22, 2019permalink

I bet even 5% of A6400 buyers would shoot raw... and when some are trying to represent the 95%...it's very hilarious!

I wouldn't mention Colors if this would have been the big guns like A7III A9 etc., where users usually are enthusiasts and professionals who'll shoot raw most of the time.

Apr 23, 2019*permalink

fjbyrne

@Jack Jian Lets assume your figure of 5% raw shooters for the 6400 is accurate. Do you really think they'll notice any color differences between brands or even care that much? I doubt they're going to shoot a bunch of cameras side-by-side and figure out which gives them the most appealing color.

Apr 23, 2019permalink

Think Big, think Market, and think consumer (target buyer). That 5% doesn't matter and those probably already have a bigger FF MILC. Look at this from the angle of assumed 95%, those are the drivers.

Apr 24, 2019permalink

altix

Pictures on your sample gallery look like - television.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

What does that mean?

Apr 22, 2019permalink

kleeworld

I'm using both full frame and APS-C from Sony, they both make sense and both have their strengths and weaknesses, albeit marginally so. I don't understand why people try to polarise between each of them, personally I'm delighted to have options.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

spark343

Same here ! Having the a6400 alongside my a7r III for work is a delight. I’m sure most of the complainers that bash the product are pure amateurs.

Apr 22, 2019permalink

SDKat

THIS is the InterWebz, if there WASN'T dissent, there would be nothing.

Apr 22, 2019permalink

thoth22

So far I'm extremely impressed with the a6400. The AF tracking is really impressive. I've never experienced such an improvement in camera, not from canon xt to 30d to 5d or nex 6 to a6000, this is almost too easy, I feel like I'm cheating.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

XeroJay

Man, I wish the term "colour science" never existed. It's certainly not colour accuracy that people are looking at these days. Colour preference is what it really is. Colour logic possibly even. But there's nothing scientific about the way people claim Canon has better skin tones, or Fuji has the best colours. It's all just preferences and profiles. The irony is that you could take the most accurate colour rendering possible from a digital camera, and most people would say it has terrible "colour science".

Apr 21, 2019*permalink

Crypt Keeper

The word science comes from the Latin word 'scientia', meaning “knowledge”.
Good colours are not about accurate reproduction. Are about pleasant perception. And there is a knowledge or "science" involved in finding wich colour shades, tones or hues are more appealing to most people and provoke a more positive emotional response. Therefore the colour science term is correct, but obviously it doesn't mean colour accuracy.
Sony doesn't have an accurate colour rendering either. Sony white balance is really erratic and many photos from Sony cameras have an unpleasant yellow/orangy tinge.

Apr 21, 2019*permalink

Docno

@Crypt, except that when this site linked a BLIND test comparing Sony colours with those of Nikon and Canon, the Sony came out ahead. And the majority of respondents were non Sony users. So some of this seems to mythology more than reality

Apr 21, 2019permalink

True! You might go for accurate color reproduction (product photography etc., calibrated trough the full workflow) or adjust color to be pleasant, or to strengthen the content of the image. In all cases i doesn't matter how jpg color with default camera settings look like, especially when viewed on an uncalibrated system.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

True; color science is a whole branch of science that encompasses everything from photography to textile dyeing to physics to psychology to the paint that goes on your car. If people knew how deeply color science penetrated their lives there would be mass hysteria.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

Crypt Keeper

@Docno. There is no absolute truth or reality in perception. Some people like Sony colour rendering, while others, myself included, dislike it.
Check out the second photo of the a6400 sample images. Does it look right to you? Go now to Photoshop and hit autocolour and you will see how everything was tinted yellow before. Surprised?
By the way, all people who say you can easily change camera colours to taste.... they are simply wrong. Colours doen't exist alone, but in a spectrum. Changing one colour tone will affect others, even if you don't want to. Not to mention colours are also greatly affected by exposure, and all manufacturers have different exposure algorithms and methods.
At the end is just a matter of personal preference. If you like Sony colours better, then great! :)

Apr 22, 2019*permalink

Crypt..don't bother explaining the "Color Science" to those ignorant. It's beyond their comprehension level. There is a reason Canon is at the top. Some things are not measureable, because of which shallow beings could never grasp it.

Apr 23, 2019permalink

Docno

@Crypt, @Jack You are absolutely right that there is “no truth in perception”... as a psychologist, that’s no surprise to me. I was simply asserting that the widely held *belief* that Sony is behind in colour science reflects a myth without foundation. That said, one could argue that *evidence* of shared perceptions is meaningful. With that in mind, scroll through the comments of this link https://www.dpreview.com/videos/9193994762/blind-portrait-shootout-sony-a9-vs-canon-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5 ... and feel free to use a calculator. You will see that when people do not know what camera took what image, there is a clear preference for Sony colours. It also came as a surprise to the Nikon and Canon users who form the majority of members here ...

Apr 24, 2019*permalink

Bashir Lunat

After looking at those photos I confirm: Barney is a photographer.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

Apr 23, 2019permalink

Gesture

Good stuff. Sony image quality keeps getting better.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

paul wassermann

Love my A6400. The microphone obscuring the selfie screen is nearly a non issue now that I have the new Rode Go Wireless set...a tiny transmitter/receiver that provides excellent audio. And the Eye AF and tracking is awesome.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

MyReality

Honest question. Can it track out to 200 yards? I shoot a lot of sports.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

paul wassermann

I don't think that is possible...max is specified at 200 feet. I checked mine to about 40 feet and it was excellent. Another video posted somewhere encountered loss of signal at greater distances if the mic is turned away from the camera. Mine worked fine in another room at about 20 feet, but I haven't had a chance to really test it extensively. It's best feature is its tiny, tiny size.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

Sony_Northrup

Sony color science is bad according to Peter Mccornik

Apr 19, 2019permalink

who is "Peter Mccornik", and why should we care.

given that blind user polls proved that most people preferred sony colors over canikon.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Must be a smart man.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

ttran88

McCormick the food coloring company guys. He/she gets the final say to anything color. Lol

Apr 20, 2019permalink

fjbyrne

Sony color science is the best according to Jake Bennett.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

MyReality

Science is objective, people are subjective, therefore, Peter Mccornik and Jake Bennet are both wrong. It is what it is. The colors look drab to me. People are highly influenced by color, so Canon colors sell and Sony goes begging.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

GinoSVK

Images taken with 1599€ lens must be nice, expect situation where focus struggle, like at pictures 20, 32...

Apr 19, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

I was told This is considered Sony bashing.
Pleas do not point out facts.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

zxaar

If pointing out facts in canon nikon articles is considered trolling then why not here.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

NOWHITELENS - "Pleas do not point out facts."

how is it "facts", when he failed to provide any proof of what he said.

so yeah, fake claims like that are called sony bashing.

this isn't faux news.

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

(unknown member)

@ MILK man: If you need facts, look at image # 20.
The eyes are definitely NOT in focus!
Image #32 is not much better.
Now please tell me these pictures are in focus!

Apr 20, 2019permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/8048435192/nikon-z6-sample-gallery/4330979465

@NOWHITELENS - he said "expect situation where focus struggle" and I don't see that.

should we look at failed Nikon z6 af? in dpr gallery pics? fine, here some Nikon oof mush: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/8048435192/nikon-z6-sample-gallery/7910754736

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/8048435192/nikon-z6-sample-gallery/6950097954

https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/8048435192/nikon-z6-sample-gallery/5854166560

Apr 20, 2019*permalink

(unknown member)

Get some glasses!

Apr 20, 2019permalink

Lol, wait, whaaat? 🤪

Because a couple of photos aren't perfectly focused on the near eye, the camera has focusing problems??? Lol, the photographer and/or subject could have moved just slightly after AF locked and before the shutter released. Or, hell, the camera could have simply missed it. I have never in my life shot a camera that nailed focus in every photo it shot. Not even close. Especially when shot at f1.4ish.

Was that OP for real? I mean, those here that know me know I'm nooo Sony fan. But I'm not seeing evidence here of poor AF. For that though, the only way to know is to shoot the thing and see if it hunts a lot, focuses slow and/or inaccurately often, or is unable to obtain focus lock more than very rarely.

Off-topic, but I'll say that 24mm f1.4GM used prolifically in this gallery renders very nicely. At least on APS-C but it bet just as well on FF.

Apr 25, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

@Sir 7:
Sony claims to have the best Eye AF in the world right now.
If it was used here, it failed!
It is also reasonable to assume that eye AF was used to shoot portraits.
If not, when would you use eye AF?
Additionally, I am quite sure they took a L O T more than these 98 pictures.
These 98 pictures are supposed to showcase what this camera can do.
I would definitely not include these pictures if I wanted to show what MY camera can do! Maybe I just have higher standards.

Apr 25, 2019permalink

It's probably a safe bet that Sony has the best Eye AF. But it's still a Continuous AF/tracking mode. The constant jitters from such make razor-focused shots difficult. That's often not really noticeable unless DOF is really thin and/or the lens is sharp enough to reveal the very near area that is focused sharper than the intended/obvious attention area.

I wouldn't shoot portraits with Eye AF. In fact, I try to never use any CAF. Sports/action forces it often, but even then I try to get away with Single Point Single AF. For the portraits of the girl, I'd definitely have gone with SPSAF. If that's what was used, then it's a bummer of a miss. But not a bad miss. And there's still the human factor of potential movement between focus lock and shutter release.

It's a beautiful shot of her. It's imperfect (barely), but still a good example of the a6400 making a beautiful photo.

Lol, and again, if you know how much I can't stand Sony, you'd know I'm not fanboying this camera. At all...

Apr 25, 2019permalink

inlawbiker

I hear a lot of people complaining about Sony but these look pretty darn good. Of course, that's quite a selection of lenses too.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

jackspra

A lot of real nice looking shots.Great camera.Liked the colors from this little gem.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Image #20:
If that is how Sony eye AF works, I would definitely not use it!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

If this is an attempt to be critical, it is a hilarious example on photo forum experts!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

@Magnar W:
Are you seriously saying that her eyes are in focus?

Apr 19, 2019permalink

One single picture, we don't even know if eye focus was used, and this should prove that Sony eye autofocus is useless?

Apr 19, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Read it again. I said IF that is how Sony......!
Congratulation for almost admitting that this image is out of focus.
I do not really care if Eye AF was used or not, this picture is not usable in my book. Not really a great example to showcase what this little camera can do!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

@ NOWHITELENS: Doesn't make a difference … still one single example would be your "proof".

Apr 19, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

My "proof" that this picture is out of focus is this picture itself.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

@ NOWHITELENS: Exactly.

You might not believe this, but I once took a picture that was out of focus with my previous Nikon pro camera. If this is how Nikon cameras work, stay away! LOL!

Do you see how meaningless such comments are? Useable for bashing, nothing else!

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

(unknown member)

I took thousands of out of focus pictures with my Nikon.
But I did not use them to showcase Nikon.

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

you've never used sony, and you are bashing sony eye-af, lol

I guarantee you that no woman is going to complain about the focusing on shot #20.

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

j_yeezy

I honestly cant even tell if the eye is out of focus, even after looking at it at 100%. It looks pretty good to me, and it's absolutely useful in almost every situation. I'm pretty sure the RIGHT eye is the one in focus, which may be why the left eye isn't in focus.

The photographer might not have even used eye-AF to take this photo. If not, then the face is perfectly in focus. There's no arguing that.

If you want to see an example of Sony eye-AF working that's not just a single photo, check out Gary Fong's video. He shoots a sequence of over 100 images and every single one of them is perfectly focused on the model's eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww8HT_FbL1g

PS: I'm not even a huge sony fan, I shoot fuji. I just think that autofocus is the area that's LEAST worth criticizing.

Apr 20, 2019*permalink

snapa

@NOWHITELENS, take a look at image 45. What do you think about that picture? Do you still think this camera is a POS that can't focus?

Apr 20, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

@snapa:
Image #45 is in perfect focus. That is how I know that # 20 is NOT in focus !

Apr 21, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

@ yeezy:
If you can not see that picture #20 is not in focus look at picture #45.
I hope you can see the difference.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

@MILK man:
If you did your homework and check my profile, you would know that I not only use Sony, I OWN a Sony!
Your guarantee that no woman is going to complain about the focusing on shot #20 is not making this shot focus correctly in my book.
I am not bashing anything.
I am pointing out facts!
Maybe your standards are lower.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

Richard M Nikon

Nice strawberries!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Snapper2013

#95 is funny! Is that the Ghostbusters or a scene from The Right Stuff? LOL

Nice results from that photo shoot!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Dericali

pretty middle of the road

Apr 19, 2019permalink

tangbunna

"burn that highlights", Sony taste.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Imager of

Proof that no one needs full frame. The perfect camera. Thanks Sony.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

I can only assume that was sarcasm.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

whakapu

That would be a hasty assumption. I would be interested to see dpreview print the a7iii gallery and the A6400 gallery large, mix those prints and challenge the general public to identify which were done with a pro-level camera and which with the consumer camera. I'm sure the general public will fail to do that and suspect photogs won't either.
Further I'd like dpreview to send people out to the same event with those 2 cameras with lenses to a certain budget (say $1500 US) and repeat the experiment.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

Imager of

I’ve looked at all the gallery’s on here from all new cameras the last few years. They all look the same. Tech has all caught up on itself. Nothing new to see now in these galleries. All look great. All could be archived with any new camera in the right hands.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

Michael B 66

@imager of
Do you judge using the small gallery photos? Or do you look at the full size photos?

The smoothness of color transitions is much better with FF at the same pixel count/ISO/subject.

But it's a question how much quality is enough. I am glad to see that the some 100grams M50 has basically the same IQ like the old 5D if scaled down to 13 MPix.

Apr 23, 2019permalink

Green hues have that slightly odd "Sony look", but nothing that can't easily be "corrected" in Lightroom.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Jaloohan2

I thought green hues are Nikon's characteristics..

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Jaloohan - Nikon (D750) greens tend from my observations to be heavily saturated, but the *hues* look more natural than those of Sony's current cameras. Just an opinion.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

The easiest correction is to use a different camera brand.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

FWIW, as a former D750 user, nikon green is warmer and is more yellowish than Sony. Good for landscape, bad when skin tone is involved because adjust the already orange yellowish skin tone of nikon its easy to affect the foliage and thus require local adjustment.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

RyanBoston

Set white balance in camera usually fixes it. I set it towards more magenta on Sony’s. Usually does the trick.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Ryan - Yes, provided that exposure is "correct", adjusting the in-camera white balance and/or LR colour sliders will fix most colour "errors".

The problem comes when an image is under or over-exposed, because some colours are more sensitive to exposure issues than others. Then, when you correct one colour, it can adversely affect other colours.

Few people seem to understand the significance of exposure on colour balance, or indeed on image noise.

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

RyanBoston

Entoman. You are correct. Exposure has to be close to dead on.

You can also play around in the color panel in LR to tweak colors to taste and make presets. Like you said, exposure and white balance should be spot on first for accuracy.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Let’s face facts—full frame cameras were just a stop gap measure until APS-C sensors came into their own. With this little jewel Sony turns the tables and obsoletes not only it’s own A7 series cameras but the full framers from Nikon and Canon as well.
Sell your full-frame dinosaurs now for whatever you can get before everyone realizes that the Sony a6400 has turned them into worthless fossils.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Cute

Apr 19, 2019permalink

LenRivers

I don't think so... Why did Panasonic who is a micro four thirds maker create full frame mirrorless.. Canon does have a couple APS-C cameras as well. Not to say APS-C is going away it is just another option for the hobby photographer. As a working event photography at least for me who does shoot the Sony A73 I can't use small sensor cameras. That extra stop is a big deal for still use. Fuji X is also nice as well. Micro 4/3's has advantages to me when it comes to super telephoto at an affordable price vs the others
So when you say "let's face facts" it is more an opinion that you can have but if anything APS-C will go away in favor of the cell phone/iphone whatever when they cost $1000 is way more compact for a consumer looking at just taking photos a camera is a waste of money. It is about what the user sees as value

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Might as well sell all of your equipment before phones makes it all obsolete. It's a matter of time .. at least for the general public (non-pros).

Apr 19, 2019permalink

NicoPPC

Shooting events using APS-C. It works great.. of course, one needs good and fast lenses (f2.8 zoom and f1.4 primes eventually..).

It would be nice to get a pro f2.0 zoom for APS-C as well. The Sigma looks wonderful.. but I rather get a such tool native and not adapted.

Imo, ff or aps-c can do the job. The photographer is the key.. :)

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Yake

Facts? Fossils?

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

io_bg

Let me remind you that digital APS-C cameras gained traction because FF sensors were too expensive 20 years ago. I'm not sure how a poor handling camera with lots of rolling shutter and lack of good dedicated APS-C lenses can obsolete any other full frame system.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

wats0n

Panasonic created FF mirrorless because there is a sucker born every minute and they know that. You pay 70% more to obtain 5-10% increase in image quality over crop.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Michiel953

LoL!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Impulses

Personally I think there'll always be multiple format portions as long as the camera market remains a viable enterprise and there's enough money to keep developing sensor tech...

You could argue APS-C was a stop gap until FF became more affordable (which took a long ass time) or that it creates more of a gap vs phones, but you could also argue that as the tech improves traditionally throughout history the smaller format that reaches "good enough" status has actually made larger formats obsolete.

You could also argue computational tricks and faster readouts to make them possible are easier to deploy on smaller sensors (just like top tier IBIS)... None of these things happen in a vacuum tho, none of those arguments win out entirely over the other overnight or based on any one body.

...

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Impulses

To whit... Some people will continue to prefer smaller lenses possible by smaller formats, some will continue to prefer pushing the envelope or having the utmost control over DoF... And camera companies will continue to cater to both for as long as they can. Traditionally APS-C has outsold FF by a pretty big margin but it would be interesting to see if those numbers are shifting.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Full frame cameras are the future for pros and semi-pros (and focus for flagship cameras from leading manufacturers). Especially in hybrid photo and video cameras (great at both). Sure consumers/semi-pros like carrying something small for travel, this is where A6400 shines, as does Fuji, and m43. Ask Panasonic why it decided to make a full frame camera, and they will say to satisfy the pros who want excellent still photos with their great video (all in one for pros). M43 is behind in quality for stills vs. FF.
Good to see aps-c cameras continuing to get better. A6400 body is too small for me for pro use. Apsc will never replace full frame, just be one more option for users.

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

Even the Sony company would say that (MrBrightSide) your statement is ridiculous. Apsc will never replace Full Frame. Pros may buy it as a second body or for light travel camera. Sure hobbyists and regular consumers this A6400 may be all some of them need. Enthusiasts or semi-pros would also own a DSLR or FF mirrorless for serious photography. Those interior church photos shown in samples would have been so much better with latest full frame camera. Apsc like A6400, does a decent job in regular lighting condition, and okay at 3200 iso, not great though. Also comes down to lense choices combination with sensor and full frame excels.

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

@watsOn:
That's why FF is a professional format. And that's very clearly who Lumix is targeting with the S1/R. No doubt there will be more suckers and posers buying them than pros and experts. But it's still a pro body using a pro format.

Which is why the notion that DPR is trying to push about the Canon RP being a beginner camera ruffles my feathers. It's a pro format, so if the body doesn't live up to the sensor's full potential, that doesn't make it a beginner camera. It makes it a crappy camera. Off-tangent rant done. 😄

Apr 20, 2019permalink

wetsleet

I'm almost with the OP. Almost. Remember that when what we now expansively call "full frame" first came out it was derided as a "miniature" format. So there is nothing new under the sun.

What I want to see is an APS-C set-up, camera and lenses, that will take as near as possible the same picture as a FF. Critically, I want to see the same shallow DoF.

How big will the APS-C lens be to give shots redolent of a portrait from a FF105 f2.5. Or a 70-200 f2.8?

I keep seeing compact looking APSCs with equally compact lenses, but they are always f3.5-5.6, already hamstrung by the smaller format. Compared to the typical FF bearing an f2.8 lens, sure, they are smaller and lighter.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

NicoPPC

Sure.. you can not beat a 85mm f1.4 ff on aps c.

But 105 f2.5 or 70-200 f2.8 ff are not far away. See latest Fujifilm's lens and Sigma 50-100 f1.8.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

wesleet,
"What I want to see is an APS-C set-up, camera and lenses, that will take as near as possible the same picture as a FF. Critically, I want to see the same shallow DoF."

It's all possible.. they can do that in software. the background is already blurred, just need to apply extra blur on the already blurred parts. It's all about software, just need the consumers and the big companies to stop being so stubborn on hardware.

Software will always end the race. It starts with hardware and ends with software.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

Yake

"What I want to see is an APS-C set-up, camera and lenses, that will take as near as possible the same picture as a FF. Critically, I want to see the same shallow DoF."

Easy solution: buy Full Frame. It already does that. Has done so for a long time. No need to look further. Mission accomplished. You're welcome!

Apr 21, 2019permalink

You all bring up great points but I glad to see that no one disputes that the picture quality from this camera is magnificent.
As for blurry backgrounds, use the $1,000 to $2,000 you saved by not buying a full frame camera to splurge on a lovely tilt-shift lens like the Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8—$1400 new and only half that used (or Nikon or Samyang or Schneider). Or just increase the distance between subject and backgrounds.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

wetsleet

@NicoPPC Thanks for your reply. I did not know about the Sigma aps-c 50-100 f1.8. So I guess that gives similar DoF and angle of view to a FF 70-200 f2.8. But it also weighs about the same at 1.5kg. Which is what I had suspected all along - the weight savings of APS-C are predicated on sacrificing the qualities of the photograph. If you want the same shot then the two formats weigh about the same.

As to computational blur, no. It's always a messy distraction around the subject's hair, especially on a backlit shot.

I'm not looking to stoke the format wars here. I hate lugging my D800 and lenses around. But I don't want to throw them all in for an APS-C set up only to find it's just as heavy, or I can't take the photograph.

Apr 22, 2019permalink

I’m in the same boat as you buy I realized that the body plus one spare battery doesn’t weigh much...So I experimented and found I can shoot 99 percent of what I need with a 24mm, a 50mm, and the 135mm DC. The only thing I’ve added is a couple of closeup lenses for the 50 to get very tight shots. Ymmv

Apr 23, 2019permalink

NicoPPC

Yep. But it sill less weight. And you can with aps c work really lightweight equipment..

Apr 24, 2019permalink

wesleet
Don't believe the BS that editors of this site sling about shallow DoF being the sole province of full-frame cameras.
Have you ever watched a professional shoot portraits on the street? Did you notice that they always orient the subject so that they're shooting the long way down the street? That's so there is hundreds of feet of space behind the subject allowing for the ultimate background blur.
The more distance between subject and background, the more blur.
If you want depth of field where the eyes are in and the nose is out; buy whatever 200mm lens your camera maker produces and shoot it wide open. You'll get blur that those full framers with their 85mm f/1.4 lenses can only dream about.

Apr 24, 2019permalink

wetsleet

@MrBrightSide Thanks, I do use cameras. DoF is not a question of "belief" for me!

Apr 24, 2019permalink

Fly18

A very nice gallery. A good job @Barney.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Battersea

This gallery is nicer than most recent DPR galleries. Photos look great just like all cameras now, really photo differences are a matter of pixel peeping for the most part now.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

PAntunes

One big difference that can't be seen by the final images is how easy it is to get them. And that's what separates many brands.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Gear-wise what makes nice photos is really the lens. This gallery is a showcase of the 24mm f1.4GM, not the a6400.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

zakaria

Very nice series and the colors are pretty nice also remind me of the film days.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

MyReality

They remind me of C41 film, not E6. The majority of E6 films had stronger colors. The exception is the indoor picture with the musician.

Apr 21, 2019permalink

princecody

Skin tones look awful! Rather have the new Panasonic S1 FF 🙂

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Yake

And that costs much more.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

bobogdan78

I agree with the first part, with the second you should think it over.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Photos are great... but they used expensive glass for most of the shots. I think a lot of buyers are planning to use a kit lens with the 6400 so I would prefer to see images from the 6400+kit lens.
With these lenses (from the sample images) you would probably get a better model than the 6400 so I think the article is a bit misleading.
Just an opinion, don't flip on me :)

Apr 19, 2019*permalink

Ladiesman217

I hope you mean the 18-135. If spent $900 on camera I would want to put at least decent glass on it; Sigma trio, or the nice aps-c normal range zoom Sony doesn’t make, but not that 16-50.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

ZeBebito

Because they usee good lenses makes the gallery misleading? But I agree, could be some shots with a kit zoom too.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

ZeBebito , I think you understood what I meant.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

BrentSchumer

Throw a few kit shots in, but DPR should be steering A6400 buyers to the 18-135mm and primes.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Helmholz Watson

I’ve been using the 18-135 for 90% of my photos. It is a superb walk around lens.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

junk1

No flare at all, impressive lens and sensor.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

avicenanw

Nice out-of-camera JPEGs. Well done.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Leicalika

good points

Apr 19, 2019permalink

ZeBebito

Beautiful shots, those fast primes are sweet.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Sony greens...

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Galeidan

My thoughts exactly!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

When was the last time you calibrated your monitor? Just calibrated mine with a new Xrite I1 Display pro and now the green look great.

FYI, the green on the Sony Venice is exactly the same , go find me a big name DP that complain about the "Sony green" on that camera.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

mario GTI

color of hope and money..

Apr 19, 2019permalink

@ GrapeJam: Which one of the six ones I use?

Apr 19, 2019permalink

I don't care really, you seem to be the only one who makes a big deal about "Sony green".

Go make your opinion known to the DPs, nevermind that the Sony Venice has the exact same (according to you" "neon green" and yet everyone who has worked with it noted on how awwsome the colors were (including the green).

And fwiw, I'd rather have Sony "neon" green than the wasteland dead tree green on the new Canons. ;)

Apr 19, 2019permalink

LOL! You said that I am the only one and then commented on a thread started by another poster, saying the same thing... And there are a few likes so far.

The neon Sony greens are often accompanied by bluish Sony greens.

Those colors are disgusting. I say what I see. The RP ones are poor as well.

Apr 20, 2019*permalink

Most people here don't even calibrate their monitor and certainly not mobile device that they are seeing the photos on. And most just repeat stereotype ;)

Apr 20, 2019permalink

I would agree with that. Also, most laptop screens are horrible to begin with.

BTW, I use 7, not 6 screens. :=) Not counting my phone.

Apr 20, 2019*permalink

Okay. I'll lie and say i have 8 calibrated 8K monitors so i can win this argument! 😎

Apr 20, 2019permalink

You cannot win it any other way.

Apr 20, 2019permalink

Okay. i have 8 calibrated 8K monitors. 😄

Apr 20, 2019permalink

BrentSchumer

Glad to see that I'm still photographer constrained not camera constrained!

Apr 19, 2019permalink

Richard M Nikon

Impressive model. The camera looks promising, too.

Apr 19, 2019permalink

gaul

Which camera ;)

Apr 19, 2019permalink