Sony a6400 sample gallery updated

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!

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. ;-)

@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

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.

@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! :)

Must be a smart man.

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

Sony color science is the best according to Jake Bennett.

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

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.

@ 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!

@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/4330979465

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

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

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

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

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

@ 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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.. :)

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.

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.

LoL!

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.

...

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.

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.

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.

@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. 😄

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.

"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!

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

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.

color of hope and money..

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. ;)

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 ;)