DPReview TV: Sony a6400 review

@vadims, wow talk about condescending, look at you: "those who prefer to use own brains". Give me a break, you'll listen to them blab on about a camera relying on their opinions. I don't have 10:08 minutes to waste watching this review, let alone all those videos. I would watch a 30 second clip on AF. I'll look at the image comparison (I never read their text, I use my own brain). I look at the still images of the camera in a hand. I look at the auto-focus sequences. I skip most of the text.

No, I don't want "state-of-the-art AF", yea, jeez, I like blurry photos. Read my comments. I didn't like the format of the review, it had nothing to do with the camera. If I want a bunch of videos, I'll go to youtube. I like the old style reviews, and I wanted DPR to know.

The DPReview TV episodes are for people who enjoy video reviews. The written reviews are still being produced, for visitors who prefer those. No need to choose, what a great website!

@JordanDrake, thanks for clearing that up! I look forward to the traditional review.

@Kona Mike,
who are you? The world's most interesting dumbass??
...I don't watch videos but when I do, I don't read the review...
What can I say? Thanks for the click.

@pentaust - not sure how a camera with better af than a d500 could ever be "worst camera of 2019", lol

you have a bad case of platform envy.

People have to realize that a new version of a camera is just that, an update. The camera is in a certain market, based on price and performance. A new version isn't supposed to bump it up to the next market level. If you want to bump up a level, get the next model up.

Everyone's treating this camera like it's a flagship or something. It's an APS-C midrange camera. Similar to a D7500. For what it is, it's absolutely incredible with AF, and top notch for APS-C IQ. Most of the improvements have been centered around the new processors inside and extra RAM buffer. But they're huge improvements, especially in such a low ranking camera. But that's what Sony does best: giving out its latest tech to whichever camera may be next in line for an update. Sony doesn't discriminate with its features like Canikon does, and it's one of the reasons they've attracted so much attention and so many sales.

Your take does not make sense. There is a world apart between a6000 and a6500.

@KameraKnut - "Are you willing to shell out almost a grand for a "test bed of technology"."

you claim to be an electronics engineer, but that's clearly not what your comment indicated.

T3 How do you know that?

T3 is a wizard. :)

@MILC man - I'm "clearly" not an engineer because I chose not to invest money into what has been termed a "test bed" or more specifically, a beta platform for Sony engineers??? That presumption is nonsense. "Clearly", you have a misunderstanding of how an electrical engineer's mind works, especially one that has an understanding of how money works as well.

nobody who knows sony, and understands how cameras work, would ever call sony milc a "test bed", or a "beta platform".

you are trying to bash sony, and it failed.

@KameraKnut,
how 'bout $2300 for the EOS-R? It came out 3 mo ago and it already looks like 5 yo technology.

@KameraKnut - how is eos-r dpaf "stolen from the 750/850", lol

that is a ridiculous comment, and again, not something that a real "electronics engineer" would ever say.

@KameraKnut - "I was quoting directly from Chris Nichols"

exactly my point... he is not an "electronics engineer", and neither are you.

@Paul... didn't you hear what they said? a completely unbiased review despite all the perks.

what's funny is that I bet they actually mostly believe this.

Read a bit about the history of the medical drug/device industry for a great lesson on how misguided this notion is. Even tiny perks like dinners and pens and donuts have been shown to influence doctors' decisions.

it is foolish to believe these bribes don't work. it's no surprise that the other manufacturers followed sony's lead when they saw how effective it was (which is not to say they aren't good cameras Also).

M H S The medical profession has this down to a fine art. I worked at an acute mental health hospital where all the consultant psychiatrists were invited to attend a two day conference in South Africa. Tacked onto this trip was an all expenses paid 2 week safari for them and their families. Without a word of a lie all of them said they would not be swayed by this, but when they got back every single patient in the hospital had their medication regimes switch to the products of that company.

A very good friend who used to lecture in medicine at one of Australia’s top universities reckoned you tell when a doctor trained by the drugs they prescribe.

@Paul Amyes - it will be interesting to see if these comments survive.

In the past, when I have pointed out DPR's conflict of interest, and poor understanding of the effect this conflict has on their views, my comments were taken down. Go figure!

You can do face registration and set priorities

T3,
I don't read too much into the CIPA rating, there is also the issue with how well the battery behaves at different temperatures and how fast it ages. These key factors are not measured at all.
Taken at face value they all seem > or < the same.

Remember when 36 shots per roll was a lot?

@T3,

You didn't need to charge a few rolls of film :)

@liopleurodon - How hard is it to charge a couple batteries? They even make dual battery chargers:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JG54F3C/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&pd_rd_i=B01JG54F3C&pd_rd_w=HCJ5m&pf_rd_p=21517efd-b385-405b-a405-9a37af61b5b4&pd_rd_wg=JDviS&pf_rd_r=T2MSF9RRE0ZH91DQ01AE&pd_rd_r=8019f442-1e8c-11e9-b1bf-7d7bb058b622

I find that 2 or 3 batteries is plenty for a day of shooting. And if you can't keep a battery charged and ready for use, that's on you. Don't blame the camera for that. Preparedness is the responsibility of the user. These days, it seems like no one wants to take personal responsibility for anything. Plus, I have a battery charger that connects to a powerbank. I can literally charge a battery in camera as well as one in an external charger while driving to wherever I'm going.

If you're anyone who actually used a Canikon new ML and an A6x00, you would never ever ever say they're similar in battery life. Nothing could be farther from the truth in real-world shooting numbers. It's SO obvious.

It was unfair of dpr to single out Sony as having poor battery life.

In truth almost all mirrorless cameras have poor battery life (compared to cameras with optical viewfinders).

Sony in fact have made more strides to increasing battery life than other brands - the a9 has a battery life of up to 1200 frames.

@Ebrahim Saadawi - They're all quite similar. People have all kinds of anecdotal "evidence" that they are getting different battery life than is reported by CIPA. But CIPA performs controlled tests so that all cameras are measured under the same conditions. That's more reliable than so-called anecdotal claims from users. You can't just rely on anectodal impressions. It's like saying, "I don't care how much the reviewers measured the weight of the camera to be, the Canon camera feels waaay much lighter than the Nikon camera in real world use!"

@T3 What you call "anecdotal" evidence is literally EVERYONE who has ever used the Sony W battery saying that you need several for a full day of shooting. Chris says 10 in this review. I use the a6500 now and can back this up too. And literally EVERYONE who has used the Nikon Z or Canon EOS R cameras say the battery life is no issue.

On the other hand, the "theoretical" CIPA rating is wildly different than real-world usage for each camera, and it is clearly inconsistent across different cameras too.

"Chris says 10 in this review."
But he didn't say that he uses ALL of them on a single day, LOL! I've been using the A6000 for years, and I've NEVER had to go through anything close to 10 batteries in a day! I'm typically fine with just 2 or 3 for a day, max 4. And I certainly would not choose a Z6 over a A6400 simply based on the battery currently in use. Also, the reality is that in real world shooting, the difference is probably going to be equivalent to just one extra battery change between one camera or another. Wow, big deal! And that's assuming that each battery is exactly at its full strength. There are various variables involved when it comes to battery life so it's very shortsighted and ill-adviced to, say, choose a Canon EOS R over an A6400 solely based on battery life. Besides, changing the battery is not the horrible ordeal that many people seem to be making it out to be. People act as if it's equivalent to gouging out there eyes, lol.

I own both the a6300 and a7r3.
W battery is not so bad. Canon R is just as same as W. Nikon Z is worse in comparison.
In the other hand, Sony spoiled us big time with Z battery. It’s incredible technology just that battery is. Leaves Canon R and Nikon Z out in the water.
New Sony APS-C System is coming very soon with the new Z battery. Patience.

@T3,

When I had my a6500 I used 3 batteries in a heavy day of use. I also had a USB battery charger so I could always have a battery charging from a pack.

Real world use is different for everyone. The reality is that different cameras burn battery at different rates doing different things. My a6500 sucked the battery down at a prodigious rate shooting in UHD. My a7iii is far more efficient at this task. One Z battery outlasts 3 W batteries for me with a 60/40 stills/video mix. I have a spare Z battery, but I've yet to need it and that's including photo filled days at WDW. At this point it's just there if I forget to charge mine. Its not just the added capacity of the Z battery, the A7iii is just more efficient. Perhaps the 6400 will see some of that as it shares the chipset with the 3rd gen FF bodies IIRC.

but but but but

That's stealing a play from Canon's re-use the same 18mp sensor in 8 different bodies over a decade play book.

Sadly I expected better from Sony.

I guess this is a signal that they are giving up on the consumer APS-C market......

@keeponkeepingon

"That's stealing a play from Canon's re-use the same 18mp sensor in 8 different bodies over a decade play book."

Difference is, the Canon sensor was crap from day 1. The Sony sensor is class leading in IQ. Even now, the BSI X-T3 sensor can only match it.

"I guess this is a signal that they are giving up on the consumer APS-C market......"

A7 II, A7S II, A99 II, and A7R III all reuse sensors......

> The Sony sensor is class leading in IQ

If you are making movies of Jello maybe.

Gimbal it. Jerky motion certainly isn't cinematic. And no brand doesn't have rolling shutter.

You know the 18mp APS-C sensor in the 7D/550D that you claim was crappy from day one, is a sensor that was released in the days of Nikon/Sony D90's with 12mp, 720p 30p video? And that sensor literally drove an entire revolution of filmmakers creating 1080p video with manual controls at 24p under 2500$ for the first time ever then and was the highest resolution APS-C offering then. That can HARDLY be called crappy in anyway.

Using it today is WRONG. Sony is the best sensor manufacturer in the planet. The A6400 "old" 24mp chip is absolutely brilliant, and I thoroughly still get shocked from it in the D3400 (no other manufacturer makes a better one, how can we call that old or crappy?) But come on give credit where it's due.

@Ebrahim Saadawi

"You know the 18mp APS-C sensor in the 7D/550D that you claim was crappy from day one, is a sensor that was released in the days of Nikon/Sony D90's with 12mp,"

Yes, and I've owned cameras with both sensors (D90 and EOS M). The Canon sensor was horrifically bad in comparison. Was an absolute no-go for me. Good thing I got the EOS M on the fire sale, so I didn't lose much of anything.

"The A6400 "old" 24mp chip is absolutely brilliant, I thoroughly still get shocked from it in the D3400"

You'd be floored, then, if you actually used the sensor, because it's not in the D3400. ;)

http://bit.ly/2HBeEwy

http://bit.ly/2CBFn6v

"I guess this is a signal that they are giving up on the consumer APS-C market..."

Eh, you wish. I guess that's the argument that the desperate folks are now using: they are claiming that Sony is giving up on the consumer APS-C market. LOL. These people are really grasping at straws now.

The 18 MP canon sensor may have been good for video but its DR was horrible. Anything clipped would be unrecoverable. I still remember that my friend had a 7D when I was using the 16 MP Sony A55 and just how different my photos looked as his photos had a white blown out sky while mine had a good amount of detail.

"Gimbal it. Jerky motion"

Blue you need to look up rolling shutter. Gimbal may "fix" the lack of IBIS (while destroying potability) but does not fix rolling shutter.

You obviously don't do video production. Rolling shutter is a serious issue even if the camera is on a tripod.

yes give me a 17-50 2.8. I occasionally use the Sigma 18-35 mm f1.8 with MC-11 adapter on the A6300. Great IQ, but really unbalanced when I use a flash or LED light in my left hand. The SIgma 1.4 primes are great, but sometimes I need the flexibility of a zoom. I wish Tamron would make a APSC version of their 28-75mm 2.8 zoom, lightweight and compact.

It's only recently that Sony has moved into the upper-level of APS-C cameras. As the Sony APS-C system continues to attract higher-level APS-C users, higher-level APS-C lenses will follow. Sony will be introducing a flagship APS-C mirrorless body later this year. That will obviously create a bigger market for flagship APS-C lenses to go with it, such as a 17-50 2.8 and 70-150 2.8. Lens systems never appear out of thin air fully formed. They take time to grow, especially when systems are catering to both APS-C and FF users.

T3, the NEX-7 was at that time the upper level of APS-C camera's. Some are still waiting for it's successor the A7000. It can come any time soon...... But the NEX-7 came out way back in 2011. 8 years ago. That isn't recent. So please stop the BS.

T3 - that is my hope. I was considering the A7iii + Tamron 28-75, but the Eye AF of the A6400 is more advanced and it is also more useful with the way I shoot. I will buy the A6400, hope in a new lens that could make me sell the heavy Sigma 18-35. I may wait and see if the A7iii gets a Eye AF upgrade via FW update. I think Sony wanted to push everyone to FF, but it seems there is renewed interest for the APS-C. Hard to beat the A6400 for street / travel photography. At some point I considered Fuji, but it is pricier for equivalent features, and the AF does not seem as fast and reliable. But without Sigma, the lens options would be definitely poor. I actually would prefer a native e mount 17-50mm 2.8 from Sigma or Tamron closer to 600 USD than a Sony costing 1000 USD

@Thorgrem

"the NEX-7 was at that time the upper level of APS-C camera's. Some are still waiting for it's successor the A7000"

What made the NEX-7 "premium" was the premium build, which was restored in the A6300. It also had Tri-Navi, which is what the A7000 hopefuls are looking for. The actual A7000 will be a D500 competitor, not an NEX-7 successor. Already confirmed by Sony they'll have a pro APS-C camera.

@Thorgrem - I'm talking about upper performance levels.

Everything hinges on supply and demand. The NEX-7 had nowhere close to the performance levels that today's bodies have, so it didn't garner that much interest in the market. With the higher performance of today's bodies, the system is drawing much more interest, bringing in more demanding and higher-end users, creating more demand for lenses like a 17-50/2.8.

Canon's first APS-C DSLR was introduced in 2000. The Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 wasn't introduced until 2006. And the user pool/demand for Canon APS-C DSLR gear was *much* higher. But even with very high Canon APS-C popularity, it still took Canon 6 years to introduce the EF-S 17-55/2.8. And they've never produced an EF-S 50-150/2.8 or any other EF-S f/2.8 zoom for that matter.

@T3

"And they've never produced an EF-S 50-150/2.8 or any other EF-S f/2.8 zoom for that matter."

That's the thing nobody seems to realize. Only Fuji has created modern APS-C 2.8 zooms, and only because APS-C was the only system they had to manage at the time. Canikon's last/only APS-C zoom was around 15 years ago. Same with Pentax. How many other brands make APS-C cameras?

@otto k - Things are obviously different when you only have a single format to support. Fuji X and Samsung NX are exclusively APS-C systems, so they could focus all their efforts solely on APS-C.

The MF system is a very recent development. Fuji had 4 years previous to make lenses solely for X-mount. With their MF being such a niche camera, tons of lenses aren't expected for it. Then again, MF isn't as difficult to design lenses for, as the sensor is much more forgiving than even FF, and people don't expect lenses to be compact.

@Thorgrem - "T3, Fuji also has a MF system to build"

...which only went into production in 2017. Up until then, Fuji just had the XF APS-C system. In comparison, Sony had the A-mount and E-mount systems going concurrently, and each system had both APS-C and FF formats!

A new systems doesn't drop out of thin air. It is development for years. Including lenses.

@SidneyVision - The rest of us take pictures with our cameras. We don't sit around pouring sand on our cameras. In all my years of shooting, I've never poured sand on any of my cameras. And even when I set the camera down on sand, I made sure that there was something between the camera and the sand, like a towel or something.

I think this camera would be a much better fit for you if you're the kind of guy who enjoys pouring sand on his camera and tossing it around in the sand::

https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-TG-5-Waterproof-Camera-3-Inch/dp/B071RSJGXZ/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=Olympus+Tough+TG-5&qid=1548118722&s=Electronics&sr=1-1-spons&psc=1

photos or it didn't happen...

Hopefully your friends will know better not to hand you their cameras.

SidneyVision - Call that a real test? The least you could have done was to drive over the camera with a tank, set fire to it, throw it over a cliff, let it sit in saltwater for 3 weeks, and *then* pour sand over it. Try harder!

You poured sand on a camera in order to prove an anonymous poster on the internet wrong? Sounds like something a kid would do on a dare or something an internet troll would post. Neither is a good look.

@Azathothh,
A light chuckle is what Canon gets these days.
Everyone has pretty well absorbed and accepted that Canon is finished innovating. Their load was blown even before the a6000 came along.

The A6000? The previous model Sony brick that couldn't even AF like the first generation Canon Rebel ?

Yeppp! 5DII was the last true innovation for Canon in my book.

Actually, the A6000 AF'd as well as any midrange DSLR, like a Nikon D5500. It was the A6300 that took it to the next level, competing favorably with enthusiast cameras like the D7200 and D750 (which I previously owned) that had high end AF systems.

@Azathothh - You mean Canon Rebels that only have a few pathetic little focus points in the center of the viewfinder and don't have Face AF tracking capabilities?

I have a Sony A6000 and a Canon 60D (my last DSLR that I ever bought). In normal light, I easily prefer the AF on my A6000, thanks to its wider coverage area and face AF tracking capabilities. It's only a low light that it falls behind, but I just use a small hotshoe flash that has a focus assist light, and that allows me to focus even in very low light. Of course, newer generation A6XXX bodies perform much better, but I still prefer the AF capabilities of my A6000 over my 60D. I just can't stand having a camera with limited focus coverage and lacking face AF anymore. I like having my camera lock onto a face, and track it wherever it moves througout the image frame. And I also like having a focus box around the face that the camera is tracking. DSLR focus systems just seem so primitive to me now.

Did the first gen rebel had eye-af and almost 200 af points covering 90% of frame like the A6000? Why did they take that away and put a worst AF system on all other canon cameras after that?

@Azathothh - Small price to pay for the performance I get elsewhere with this camera. I'm so done with the limited focus coverage and lack of face AF that I get with DSLRs. And like I said, I just attach a small flash with a focus assist light and I get solid autofocus performance even in candlelight. Not to mention that newer models perform a LOT better in low light.

if you want IBIS you have the A6500, do your homework

A6000 is so good you have to carry a flash on the top of that brick in order just to AF. Canon load was blown indeed.

" but I just use a small hotshoe flash that has a focus assist light,"

Fake news.

Focus assist flash AF lamps do not work on the A6000. The only thing that will work is constant lighting. Perhaps your flash has an LED lamp? If so.... I'm glad I'm not your friend/family..... So annoying.....

Sony's not the only player in imaging sensor manufacturers. If Canon didn't want to enable Sony any further, they could speak to Samsung about sensors too, Samsung is quite advanced (remember the NX) and they've exited out of the photography market too.

But Canon won't do it because Samsung is Korean, and Canon has their own fab that they want to keep limping along with. And Canon is very stubborn.

yes I took the conclusion to say a 6300 with a new AF algorithm, and long record time. Fuji would just give you a firmware update for this?

What Chris missed is that there were a lot of changes under the hood going from A6300 to A6400. A new, faster main CPU (also responsible for no overheating ever) and an additional fast LSI coprocessor (first introduced in A6500) makes the huge AF improvement impossible to be distributed via firmware update alone. This is a hardware and software improvement.

I dont think that its for the same target group. The XT30 wont have that AF nor will it be a "video b-cam" or beginners body

I would say the XT-3 is more comparable to the A6400.

>99tollap
Will X-T30 have F-Log, FHD 120p, Zebra?
Will it have bigger EVF - like A6400 (x70 magn.) or tiny like X-T20 (x62 magn.)?
Will it also have decent AF-C/Eye?

@CanonSharpShooter
In what way are they compareable ? The Fujifilm X-T3 is better in every way except from Eye-AF

@Mateus1

Yes
Yes
Yes

I would also like it to happen... but if Fuji does not put in X-T30 F-Log and FHD 120p slow motion, it will be waste of money in 2019 considering it as video cam.
If Fuji puts same tiny EVF with short eyepoint and x62 magnification, it will be even more unimpressive ILC for the 2019.
Hope you are right.

All Sony cameras are weather sealed, and from the presentation of this new model it was said that the A6400 is better sealed and more robust build than previous A6xxx models.

Reports on damaged Sony cameras due to environmental forces seems to be very low. Sony even sold A7III and A7rIII cameras with five years warranty, so they must trust the construction. Here you can see the sealing map for the A7rIII - plenty of gaskets and seals:

https://fstoppers.com/gear/sony-a7r-iii-weather-sealing-teardown-223912

That said, I am impressed with the amount of harsh coastal climate, rain, wet snow, biting cold, etc. my old "poor" built A7 has taken during five years with a lot of use. Still working flawless.

@SidneyVision

"Could someone point me to on Sony’s site where Sony says this camera is weather sealed?"

https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-6400

Click on the + on the LCD on the rear view of the camera, 3/4 down the page.

"My issue here is there are cameras where the manufacturers take the effort to seal their cameras,"

No cameras are sealed except GoPros and things like Olympus Tough cameras. All ILCs are only resistant to water and dust. Water can get in if it hits the right way, as my weather sealed to D800 level (as per Nikon), full magnesium-bodied D7100 found out the hard way.

That was part of my point. I can’t even find where Sony says the camera is weather sealed. I am fairly certain they make no such claim.
And we know from past tear downs there were many necessary seals and gaskets that were missing or incomplete.

So why is DPR making this claim when Sony probably does not? (Please post a link if they do)

And why should any manufacturer bother when review sites like DPR are willing to proclaim cameras like this are weather sealed?

Look I get it. My cheapest camera has gotten wet before with no issues and I even once dropped it in the snow with no ill effects, but I would never mislead anyone by saying it is weather sealed.
We remove the incentive for companies to make better built, weather sealed cameras, when reviews sites say something like this is weather sealed. There are cameras built better, that are really weather sealed. There are companies that make the real effort. We need to praise them. Not incomplete efforts like this.

@ SidneyVision: Oh, you meant water proof? Hard to find a system camera that is water proof. Even the user guide for high end Nikon and Canon cameras say that they are not water proof, and so say the Olympus and Pentax user guides.

Magnar, I just read the Roger Cicala A7iii tear down posted on this site. He expressed disappointment that the A7iii is not weather sealed, and moisture has easy access to the inside of the camera. He in another article said that despite the previous 8 or 9 Sony models, the best built FF mirrorless camera he tore down was the first Nikon he looked at.
If you follow this site then you are familiar with these criticisms of the A7iii.
We need to be honest here, and hold manufacturers to a high standard when we make claims of weather sealing and resistance. And we know Sony has a low standard. Thanks to Roger for making the effort to slow their low standard.

I am done reading through this site today. I hope no one claims Sony standard is anywhere close to Nikon or Olympus. It just isn’t.
And when review sites say something like the A6400 is weather sealed it very disappointing, what’s next saying my cheap camera with no seals is too. It did survive the snow, so it must be!

@ SidneyVision: So you think a Sony will not take a drop into snow? Well, after using Sony cameras professionally in harsh environment since 2006, exposing them for much more than a drop into wet snow, they have never let me down. From my real world experience, also at arctic destinations in winter cold, weather sealing is good. Maybe not best in class, but good enough to get the job done.

How much more than enough is needed?

The OP isn't talking about waterproof (i.e. submersible) cameras. He's talking about weather sealed cameras like the D5, 1DX II, E-M1 or most Pentax DSLRs. I believe Sony uses the term "dust and moisture protection" because their cameras aren't as fully sealed as cameras that are claimed to be weather sealed. There's no standard regulating these designations, though, and none of these cameras should be treated as 100% protected against the elements.

I have to call out Magnar on his very dishonest and deceptive posts.
First he tried to fake people into thinking I said “water proof”. I never did. He was being deceptive. I NEVER said or implied water proof.

Next after I several times said even my cheap camera with no seals was able to survive a drop in the snow, Magnar deceptively said I must be claiming the A6400 could not survive a drop in the snow. I never said such a thing. I basically said the opposite, several times. He was being dishonest.

I don’t know if Magnar works for Sony or something, but his posts saying I said the opposite of what was really said is down right dishonest and deceptive, probably meant to be deliberate distraction.

@ Revenant: It doesn't matter what the sealing is labelled as, since there is no standard. What matters is that a camera stand real world use.

From my experience, I will continue using Sony cameras in harsh climate with confidence. I trust long term experience way more than what those who never have used a system camera from Sony think or believe.

@ SidneyVision: I asked you a question. With a question mark! How can you interpret this as "he tried to fake people into thinking I said “water proof”?

What do you think of the tear downs showing some cameras lack proper and basic sealing?
Are they unnecessary? Just because my cheap camera survived cold rain and snow, does that mean it is as good as the best weather sealed cameras?
Does that mean we should ignore it when cameras have seals?
And do you really think an unsealed camera will consistently survive, dirt, dust, and moisture as often as a properly sealed camera?

Correct me if I am wrong (I don’t wish to be as deceptive as you were about and put fake words in peoples mouths), are you saying complete weather sealing doesn’t matter?

Oh and Magnar, let me try your tactic...So Magnar you say you still love to kill puppies?
I used a question mark so it is OK.

There is no practical way to check for moisture or dust resistance by the end user (until it is too late).

This is why manufacturers can claim limited moisture and dust resistance but they don't adhere to standards for their claims and all results are thus 'anecdotal'.

Waterproofing is relatively easy. Dunk 'waterproof' camera in a filled container or sink. If air bubbles leak out you have a leak.

@ SidneyVision: I don't care which camera is best sealed when there is no trouble with what I use for my photography. Where do you find unsealed cameras, by the way?

A teardown of my A7 would probably look like a nightmare, still this camera takes more than most people would think, and more than most people would ever do with their cameras. Well sealed is good enough for me, for a camera that is replaced after some years anyway.

And sure, puppies are cute!

@ tonywong: You could also fill your camera with water trough the hole where we normally put the lens, and look if there is a leak … :-)

I've used my A6000 out in the rain with no problems. I'm not sure what everyone is so freaked out about. Watch The Camera Store TV's hands-on video about the A6400. At 6:09 into the video they talk about using the A6400 out in the rain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAD9CP8jxLc

It handled the rain just fine. And I agree with what the reviewer said: "the only thing I would worry about is water pooling underneath of it because the battery door is probably the weakest sealing point." Seriously, you'd have to let the camera sit in pooled water for there to ever be an issue...and who the heck does that? Is anyone really letting the camera sit in a puddle of water?! That's just plain stupid. In regular use, I don't see there being any issue. Like I said, I've shot with my A6000 in rain with no problems at all. I don't dunk it in a bucket of water, I don't soak it with a garden hose, I just shoot with it like a normal person would, and I've never had any issues with rain or moisture.

@ T3: We have a bunch of A6000 cameras at work (and many Canons and some other brands too), daily use, and I am impressed with how much beating the A6000 cameras can take.

Sure, we all want well sealed cameras, but I think the need for sealing is overblown by many forum readers - an easy argument to throw out when brand wars break out, though. :-D :-D

Sony cameras are sealed... against rocks. They don't let big rocks in the body.
Anything smaller than bog rocks, there's no guarantee...

@ ozturert: You can put bigger rocks into Nikon and Canon mirrorless cameras than Sony, due to their monstrous inner mount diameter ...

I guess sand doesn't count as rocks, as none has entered my A6300s...

The only thing we can do is look at reviews and teardowns if weather sealing is an important consideration. DxO rating for toughness anyone? Pentax really number 1 but never tested? :D

@ onlyfreeman: We can also look in user forums for complains on cameras that have stopped working due to environmental forces.

@SidneyVision
You too can have a very water proof ICL camera for less than $8, just like I have.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SF8X1Q4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00__o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Do you actually think any ICL camera and lens combo can be completely weather proof? If yes, you must be crazy or asking for the impossible.

Any pros that care about their gear in less than ideal situations puts a rain jacket on their camera and lens, anyway. And this is $10-20K+ gear that has the best weather sealing available. You see it at football games all the time. Water doesn't touch the gear unless a random storm comes in, and in this day and age, everything can be predicted by within a day or so, so there's no excuse not to be prepared.

@ ozturert: Actually, "dust and moisture resistant" is defined as some better than "weather sealed", since the first also include moisture, and the user guides for the latter term say that those cameras don't take water or even not high humidity for many of them. :-)

We all know that Sony's interpretation of weather sealing is a joke. It's actually the worst in the market. So why would they have it mastered this time in a sub 1000 dollar body? They can't get it wright in a 2000+ body.

Tell that to Nikon's D800 class weather sealing in my old D7100. At least they footed the bill for it via a no-questions-asked Best Buy return/replacement. Otherwise they would have claimed impact damage. ;) My A6300s have seen 100x more rain (D7100 lasted a few min), and snow, and haven't hiccuped once.

telawrence, did you say"not going to match the Gh5?!?!?" LOL Don't make me laugh... the Sony A6300 and others are so much better than the GH5, cheaper, the image is much sharper (downsampled from 6K), and the low light much better, so what did you mean by that? You can buy 3 A6400 for the price of a GH5... even Panasonic knows that micro 4/3 is dead...

@flip 21 You're laughing because they just pointed out something everyone knows? Like Sony can no way keep up with Panasonic as far as video is concerned. I mean the 8 bit junk codec that Sony farts out is the laughing stock of all encoding. The GH5 can even beat out the FS7 in terms of IQ and that's a cinema camera. I don't know where you're getting this idea that Sony has better video but I think you need to start learning the difference between 8 bit 420 and 10 but 422. All the points you made about video is how no one wants to deal with video. Why would I ever want my image to be super sharp out of camera? You do that in post yourself. All other sharpness should be the responsibility of the lens, not the camera. Also how much do you think the GH5 costs? You can't get 3 6400's. I'm not even going to get into the GH5s because there's no way in hell you could think Sony has IQ that comes even close to that camera. This is just ridiculous.

What?!?!?? Don't make me laugh... the GH5 is crap... the only thing good about it is the IBIS, and the great Flip Out LCD... and guess what Sony's better cameras are much cheaper... I pitty GH5 owners :( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4_nrc3MMJ4

@its_a_knife

"I mean the 8 bit junk codec that Sony farts out is the laughing stock of all encoding."

Funny, because 98% of photo cameras out there use 8-bit. Comparing that to a video camera disguised as a photo camera isn't exactly fair. Just like comparing how ridiculously poor the GH5's AF is vs any Sony OSPDAF camera in the past 6 years.

"The GH5 can even beat out the FS7 in terms of IQ and that's a cinema camera"

New cameras beat old ones. Maybe that's why Sony launched an FS7 II a year before the GH5. ;)

"Sony has better video "

Better noise and DR. 8-bit really only affects the amount you can stretch an image in post. If you do the usual "get it right in-camera", you'll be fine. Shoot with a Picture Profile that's close enough to your final intended output, and you don't have to stretch the image much at all. Though do note that S-Log3 was made to use with external recorders, and has much more data available that can't be captured properly internally.

Continued...

"there's no way in hell you could think Sony has IQ that comes even close to that camera."

http://bit.ly/2R773Fw

http://bit.ly/2RZZi93

LOL? Remember that even though the GH5S may be a low res camera, intended to boost low light performance, it's just not up to par with the A6300 (A6400) sensor. The GH5S isn't BSI, and while the A6300 isn't, either, it uses copper wiring to achieve a similar effect, while adding extra cooling. If you take that away, you get the A6000:

http://bit.ly/2sEyqwS

Who uses AF when using video? The people who are seriously using the GH5 are using Cine lenses. Even if you need AF and good low light, you're better off getting a C100 Mark 1 for run and gun than anything Sony. The GH5 has become the C camera next to the Alexa and C300 Mark II. i have been on way more sets where a GH5 is being used than anything Sony. Like they tried to use the A7 series to shoot a feature and it went horrible. The DP kept talking about how horrible the 8 bit codec was. You can't even externally record 10 bit! The Sony only encodes at what, 150 Mbps oppose to a 400 Mbps image there's obviously more DR in an image with more data. That's like saying an H264 can have more DR than a PRHQ.
It feels like you're a bunch of hobbyist and haven't used these cameras in a proper video/cine setting.
I am post production supervisor and at my company we have had our camera guys steer away from using Sony because the color workflow is not quick enough. Their codec falls apart.

"You can't even externally record 10 bit! "

So I'm guessing the GH5/S is now obsolete, as the X-T3 can record 400mb/s 10-bit internally, with better image quality and AF. AND it's smaller and lighter!

"there's obviously more DR in an image with more data. "

Only if you're shooting RAW. In what comes down to JPG images in motion, you can have as much DR as the sensor is capable of. What happens with Log is that the camera distributes the available data evenly across all stops of DR. It could be 25mb/s or 400mb/s. You'll still see the same amount of DR. The bitrate only affects compression of what's already there, it doesn't determine what can be captured. That's what the sensor does, and as we've seen in the link above, the GH5S just can't compete when it comes to DR.

I brought up cine lenses then you say more and more people are using AF? You can't use AF if they're using cine lenses. Cine lenses don't have AF.

The GH2 may have been used but cira 2013, people were using the 5D Mark III than the GH2. Also codecs hold all your info from what you just shot. It's the end product. It's all about the codec. It doesn't matter what your sensor or processor is if you don't have a codec that can stand up to it.

What do you mean it was in the writing not the cameras. That's just jibberish.

No they're not obselete. GH5 still has the better codec. Also the GH5 shoots in 10 bit 422 where the XT3 can only do 420. I would so much rather have half color resolution than quarter color resolution.

contd

OKay, I do not have the time to tell you how much you don't know about compression. First of all in video, most Raw files are still compressed in some way or form. DR can only be expressed with bitrate and data. If you have a video clip in premiere right click and press properties so you can understand the bitrate per image. Just as long it's VBR and not CBR. Also with log you can't "spread out data". I don't understand what that means, like I said you're a hobbyist and it shows. There's one image, one frame, one set of data. Also it doesn't matter what can be captured. It all comes down to bitrate and compression.

All in all it doesn't matter what you have to say about DR, the IQ is still better. The image has way better highlight roll off and it looks more cinematic compared to the Sony. I mean you can even record with a system frequency of 24hz and can record anamorphic. Like come on, that's a videographers dream right there. Especially for less than $2000.

its_a_knife
I alwyas use AF, when it is reliable, like seen on Sony Cameras... when it is crap, like seen on Lumix cameras I don't... you see, taking advantage io what technology can offer you is a good thing... maybe you should stick with analog and never move to digital, if you are so puritan...

AF can never replace the organics of an AC. You can't pull focus with AF and I think being creative with your focus is important. You can't do that with AF so if you're using AF then your videos are pretty bland.

The GH5 doesn't shoot in H265..... The XT3 does but the GH5 shoots in a 10 bit H264. I mean the XT3 has the upper hand in compression encoding but it's still 420.

What? DR CAN ONLY BE EXPRESSED WITH BITRATE AND DATA. There is no changing that. Yeah you can see DR in Log but that's fake DR. It's like when people were using Cinestyle on their 7D's.
Let's take this away from cameras for a second to make it simpler. Say I have a Blu Ray and I rip the feature off. This is typically a 30Gb H264 or a PRLT with a VBR around 40Mbps. You're telling me if I then take that file and turn it into 15Gb file with a VBR around 20Mbps that feature will retain all it's DR in the sky and shadows? All I can say is no way.
By your logic no one would shoot Raw or ProRes.

Also to adjust highlight rolloff in video it's a bit harder than that. Red had this issue for years until 2016. It was the main reason so many people stayed away from Red before they went haywire with the gibberish they're doing now.
I don't think you understand what log is. You're not even suppose to shoot in log most of the time. Only if you have adequate lighting.

Yeah, Sony's work that way too. All camera's work that way. You're acting like there's some kind of magical way Sony is adding DR without improving their processing. Maybe you just have never used Resolve but make an extreme grade with Sony so it breaks and then apply to GH5 footage and then you'll see what I am talking about.

No the detail won't be there. If there's not enough data then there's not enough detail. It's as easy as that. Just because you compress something doesn't mean detail lays dormant until you need to pull it up again. I think only IMF files can work that way and I am not even sure about that. Also you're esxpressing your little knowledge of Log footage. Different parts of an image don't get encoded, the image gets encoded as a whole and Sony doesn't even process every frame because it used Long GOP and not Intra. Which is an option on the GH5.
Things don't get compressed equally hence why VBR and CBR exist. I mean you can use CBR but that's dumb.

"The A7 III at best shoots 4:2:0 in 8-bit internally, and 4:2:2 in 8-bit to an external recorder via clean HDMI out. That's less than ideal, and even if you're oversampling or doing all that jazz with the sensor, that kind of color compression means you're not going to be able to take full advantage of those specs. Most colorists will tell you that shooting in Log isn't even worth it if you're not at least in 10-bit. Combining that with the compression internally that I just mentioned and despite the flashy tech specs, the A7 III isn't capable of actually delivering much more finished, visible quality than its competitors."

Just for fun.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7-iii/sony-a7-iiiVIDEO.HTM

What kind of amateur stuff is that. Log isn't always the best the shoot in. If you have to underexpose in Log then it's better to shoot in a Rec 709 profile or else your detail gets lost in the shadows, ESPECIALLY if you're shooting 8 bit 420. Shooting RAW isn't always ideal too. Sometimes it's just better to shoot PRHQ because the file sizes are smaller and all that DR and color info isn't necessary.

I'm not talking about being underexposed on purpose. I am saying that if you are shooting in low light and you find that you can't any more exposure, you can't shoot log. It's a common issue and style. Pretty much, if you're shooting at night with natural lighting you always shoot in more of a 709 Like profile. I mean that's only if you're shooting with an 8 bit camera or else your shadows will look gross and can possibly introduce a lot of macroblocking.

'And they are over-changing for a software update'

Don't know about your planet but on planet Earth Sony software updates are free. And substantial (see recent news).

Yup, the A6400 has a faster main processor, plus an additional fast LSI coprocessor, over the A6300. Major difference in hardware.

Wow, it seems like Sony with the new a6400 & A7III is really pulling away from the competition when it comes to fast & accurate AF. Even the $900 a6400 AF is better (faster, more accurate, efficient) than ALL of the high-end Pro Nikon & Canon cameras.
The new and improved, easy to use (almost AI type) AF of these new Sony cameras is now a game changer. Especially for their the mid-range APS-C & FF cameras.
If you dispute that fact, name one Nikon or Canon camera that even comes close in either specs, price, or IQ ;)

@steelhead3: sensors are produced by Sony semicondutcors, design is not Sony but Nikon's.

you don't have any idea who designed what, and you've never used the a6400, so you don't have a valid opinion about it.

The D7200 uses a Toshiba sensor, the second generation of that sensor, after the first generation in the D7100/D5200 failed so badly. Here's the IQ comparison:

http://bit.ly/2W8iW1K

http://bit.ly/2AV7NIA

AleksaT,
congrats for being invited at the sony event! You must be important.

@Aleksa T

"this is wrong!!! They changed to Sony for D7200!!! D7100 is manufactured by Toschiba."

https://techinsights.com/reports-and-subscriptions/open-market-reports/Report-Profile/?ReportKey=DEF-1506-801

@MikeRan I would HATE to buy into a system that the company can't even afford to throw marketing trips to the press.

This is one of the 1st signs that the company is NOT financially stable making it concerning to invest my hard earned money into a company that might be GONE in 2 years.

@MikeRan
I'll have to admit. It's really smart marketing!

It's funny how @MikeRan and @Rich Evans like each others comment. You guys need to get a room!

@Fly18
LOLLLL!!!!

JOIN US!!!

I didn't like anyones comment. Maybe there are more that agree with us than you. Anyway, why don't you go comment on some Nikon articles...

@rich evens
But you'll happily buy into a company that's well known for ending product lines !

Good marketing is not a sign of anything, it's a fashion. Good marketing can make an average camera look like the latest and greatest. What do you want to buy, a marketing product or a camera useful for your needs?

Nikon sponsored a junket to my backyard recently (Central Oregon).

@steelhead3
That’s all what you deserve.

You forgot to mention it does 4 fps, vs the X-T3's 11 fps, and this was only with eye-autofocus and with the x-t3 using one of its slowest lenses

WRONG!!!!

The video clearly states that the Sony has 11fps on AF.

Besides AE is locked on the Fuji when doing bursts and you have to get a grip to get more fps. What the HELL is that all about?

It's about parting fools with their money.

The Sony cameras are nice and I especially love that they have an open lens protocol.

But they are also super boring, uninspiring and feel like a 1995 windows machine. Yeah, they can track the eyes of your house rat and shoot with a million fps. Doesn't change the fact that the grip of the cameras gives me arthritis and walking around with one makes me look like Milton from Office Space.

Let's keep it real, Sony is for dorks, gear heads and paid Youtube shills.

And Americans buying mirrorless cameras, apparently...

Lord Powershoter

Ahhh come on MAN. Let's face it!

If you are spending time commenting on DPReview it is not like there is a line of MAIDENS and CRAZY adventures waiting for you outside of the door.

I should know. I just checked MINE.

And: It is Mr. Dork for you Sir.

What other newly announced cameras should they do first-impressions reviews and other articles about instead?

What announcement has been neglected due to the A6400 coverage?

@Revenant Beat me to it! I gotta learn how to type faster!

You think they are going to run out of words for future articles if they use them all on the Sony a6400?

don't read it simple

My favorite feedbacks are the ones where people complain that we're doing too much :)

It's just milking the subject. Get as many clicks out of it as you can. I prefer the old format of announcement -> silence -> FULL REVIEW, but it generates a lot less traffic.

"announcement -> silence -> FULL REVIEW"

It's also, arguably, a lot less useful for someone actively considering whether to invest in a new camera.

Robert Spanjaard,
what is wrong with 'milking' exactly? It's exciting for the people to try the new products out and report on them. It is done for every camera that comes out.
It also gives you a chance to come here and say something silly like that and everybody's happy.

@Barney Only less useful for people who buy the camera based on incomplete data.

@photomedium Exactly. DPR loves people saying silly things under in-between articles. More clicks. Milking.

Admittedly, a very small percentage of shooters use their cameras in tough conditions because a very small percentage of cameras have dependable weather-sealing...

I think the main points of concern are as they always have been with these cameras: poor ergonomics, lack of good AF lenses with focal lengths suited for APS-C, and a combination of no IBIS, poor rolling shutter, and iffy battery life that makes what should be a home run hit for bloggers just another option to put on the pile of camera choices.

If you don't water hose the body and let it sitting in a puddle the weather sealing is fine with the new models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ric_RH-Xm1Q&feature=youtu.be&t=11m9s
Canon failed, Sony worked. I'm sure we can find the opposite - in fact these cameras do fine in harsh weather.

If someone doesn't like compact cameras - Sony is the wrong company. They explicit stated in an interview they will value compact bodies.
I have big hands and use my A7iii with the Meike grip extension - that feels very good.

I never didn’t take my A9 because of the weather. The truth is I don’t like hanging out in the rain myself. As I said, I think very few people find themselves shooting in severe weather where the difference between Sony weather sealing and Canon weather sealing make or break the camera. I just don’t think it’s that big a deal unless you’re a sports pro who shoots outdoor all-weather sports.

@MikeRan

"Weather sealing" is not not important until your precious Sony start making cameras with weather sealing.

For example, Sony YouTuber Tony Norhrup said describing the new a6400:
"The eye detect focusing feature used to be quite unreliable ...".

Just 1-2 weeks ago the EyeAF on Sony cameras was the best thing ever invented!!

@Fly18 has a crush on Sony and Tony Northrup.

He is married dude... Give the guy a rest.

Fly18, It was still the best EyeAF. Now it's even better. How's your Z7's EyeAF?

For someone who just spent $6000 on the whole Z system, you spend an awful lot of time commenting on Sony articles.

@MikeRan
Can you read English?
"used to be quite unreliable .."

@Rich Evans

Hahaha the irony! How on he!! you remember that I comment about TN? I am married, dude! Give it a rest!

Right. And I said it WAS still the best.. And now it's even better. My reading comprehension is just fine.

@Fly18 I was just trying you man...

Maybe I would have an opening. LOL!!!!

@Fly18 I watched Tony's video and I think he was speaking about the A6XXX series when he said the eye-AF wasn't reliable (now with the A6400 it's much better). It has always been quite reliable with the A9, A7RIII and A7III which is what most people have been talking about recently.

Of course. fly18 is trying to create fake news to justify his Z system purchase.

MikeRan - My comments about form-factor were intended in regard to the a7 and a9 series, not the a6xxx series.

I'm not interested in spoiling anyone else's party - Sony can keep the current form-factor for those who like it, *but* I'd also like them to offer a larger pro body for those who need it - serious sports & wildlife photographers (more people take wildlife photographs than any other subject, according to a recent survey).

Durability and weather-sealing may be absolutely fine for 95% of users. I just happen to be in the 5% of users who need the very best weather sealing, durability and larger bodies.

I disagree with your premise that Sony is only for those who want compact bodies. There is absolutely no reason why they can't cater for both markets - there is certainly plenty of demand from Canon, Nikon, Pentax DSLR users who would like to switch to Sony, but want a larger & more rugged camera.

Now it rather looks like Panasonic might grab that slice of cake from them.

In my opinion thy should make the A9 bigger and keep the A7 as they are. And beat the guy who designed these flabby plastic doors of the A7iii with a wet towel *g*

There is a lot of movement in the market - if you can wait it's for sure a good option. But it will take quite some time until CaNikon have the lenses. And feature wise they will be behind Sony for quite a time. Thanks god we are not photographing with features but lenses and a brain ;-)

IamJF,
no big cameras please! The era of walking around with big dslr looking like a poser is over. Small cameras with big nuts is what we need.

You get used to it. I have large hands and the body without grip doesn’t bother me at all... change. People don’t like change...

I’m glad the A9 isn’t bigger. I can take it on vacation and I’m no more a target than the guys with the cheap Canon DSLRs. I saw a guy lugging a D5 walking around Venice with his girlfriend... It was hilarious!!

Janist74 I get it, but even "Toyota Camry" gets changed every 4 years" :P

Lol some brands have been selling the same type of body for decades before Sony even made a mirrorless camera.

@mario GTI: if you want something new, then let`s put the A7III sensor into this body and sell it for $1299 (no IBIS). Now this would be big boom. :)

Oh - without IBIS but good cooling and no 30min limit. Instant buy.

Don't you prefer a lower price for an "old tired looking body" than paying 3k for an EM1x monstrosity of a camera or an unusable "Touch Bar" on the EOSr.

@mario GT - That same "tired old body," is the same body in the a5100 and a6000 that still sells well after 5 years, fronting against the latest every 6 month release of Canon M series. If that body is not as good, then Sony would have changed that years ago.

Remember too that not everybody is as big as westerners. And that ergonomics can be a function of muscle memory or what you are used too. A canon dslr shooter will still find a nikon dslr odd and vice-versa even if both bodies are big and hefty. And Sony knows this. The thing is, most people "get" that form factor and design. Same with the old school Fuji cameras. We don't hear too much ergo issues about that. I also had the Canon M6 till I sold it. That too was small and by stds, "poor" egonomics too! I suspect many just want to find fault with Sony.

Meanwhile, Canon can't even do 4k video, AF-C, etc., without compromises. For Consumers go, IQ, DR, eye-focus, IBIS, AF-C have more the selling points rather than ergo.