Jump to content
Andrew Reid

EOSHD Opinion - The Sony A6400 is an absolute turkey

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Mokara said:

Not really, it fits with Sony's long time strategy of graded products, using older tech for the sake of economy. 

That sounds like Canon-talk to me. 

8 hours ago, Mokara said:

It basically competes with the M50, which also has horrible RS in 4K (plus, AF in the M50 is crippled in 4K mode). It occupies the same market space.

And the M50 also has no IBIS

 

The a6400 certainly is a better buy than the M50 but we were hoping for so much more. 

8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

These cameras baffle me because cameras like the G85, which is going to be 3 years old, is by far a better "bang for your buck" camera for vlogging and an excellent b-cam for the GH5. Granted I suppose if you're already in the Sony ecosystem you're less likely to pick up a Panasonic MFT camera, but still, it's amazing how uninspired Sony has been when it comes to their APSC line compared to Panasonic and their MFT lines that have really pushed boundaries. Heck the G85 will be 3 years old this year and still does a lot of things better than new cameras. As time passes, and more offerings are made, my fondness for the little G85 grows because of how much it can do. 

 

Exactly this. 

At nearly three years old , I'm surprised Panasonic hasn't given us a "G90" yet. 

2 hours ago, nigelbb said:

I find it difficult to believe that the Vlogger market actually exists. Are there really a significant number of people who want to buy a camera just to post on YouTube compared to all the other people would buy a camera to take pictures of the kids or whatever?

When you describe "vlogging" as "people who are taking videos for social media" then yes the market is massive. I'll see even little kids walking around town with their cameras.  Surveys have shown "YouTuber" to be one of the most popular career aspirations that kids have for when they grow up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
2 hours ago, tweak said:

I thought the same, but then I realised there's actually a ton of people who are aspiring vloggers and/or buy a camera with the hope that one day they will "vlog" with it. It also has a lot of overlap with your average family shooter, they want similar things IMO.

Exactly!

33 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Sony often starts their upgrade rollouts with the cheapest, best selling models - remember when the A5000 had better quality 1080p video than the more expensive models?

Did it? I don't remember  , although I recall the a5100 being better than the a6000 which is why I got it. 

 

34 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

Come on Nikon, keep up...

Huh?? Nikon is arguably leading the pack right now, it is everyone else who needs to catch up!!

Or are you meaning that Nikon needs to "catch up" by offering an affordable DX mirrorless? Well, I could not agree more! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sanveer said:

Not by a long shot. Sony is confused about many things, but, specs and pricing aren't some of them.  Also, thank God, that unlike Nikon and Canon, they don't give customers a single Card Slot or take away IBIS or disable 10-bit internal or some other BS.

 

Sony doesn't take away IBIS? They did just that with this A6400.

They don't disable 10-bit internal? They did so on FS5 vs FS7 and never implemented 10-bit internal or external in their alpha range (unlike Fuji, Panasonic, Canon & Nikon).

Still the same 100mb XAVC codec in their third-gen FF cameras.

Sony may be aggressive with pricing/specs but they segment products like anyone else. Please stop drinking the kool-aid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A6300 was a dog back in 2016 when the competition was far less, no X-T3 or G85 back then, or E-M10 III.

X-T3 is a similar price now to when the A6300 was released back in 2016.

The X-T3 today is $1399 new (less used) and the A6400 is $900 so a difference of $500 max, the price of a low-end Sony E-mount prime. The 23mm F2 and 35mm F2 Fuji X lenses are cheaper than their equivalent Sonys and the 18-55mm F2.8-F4 zoom is superior to any Sony APS-C zoom equivalent for just $300.

I don't see why people would be interested in paying more for the A6400 + primes + decent zoom than the equivalent Fuji kit.

If you look at the A6400 body in isolation, sure it's cheap-ish. But it's also naff-ish, 2-3 year old tech with terrible rolling shutter and bad ergonomics.

The target market is a prime area to do some innovations... flip out 5" touch screen for example. All-new user interface and menus suited to touch screen operation. Better touch-pad AF interface. Better smartphone integration and Bluetooth LE.

Sony took the easy option and did nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Exactly!

Did it? I don't remember  , although I recall the a5100 being better than the a6000 which is why I got it. 

 

Huh?? Nikon is arguably leading the pack right now, it is everyone else who needs to catch up!!

Or are you meaning that Nikon needs to "catch up" by offering an affordable DX mirrorless? Well, I could not agree more! 

Sorry I probably meant the a5100. 
My comment on Nikon was a flippant one about animal eye autofocus. Seriously I want animal eye autofocus before our next pup arrives, and as half the videos on youtube are of cute dogs and cats, I am not the only one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I don't see why people would be interested in paying more for the A6400 + primes + decent zoom than the equivalent Fuji kit.

Main reason why I stick with Sony is because of the ecosystem.

Sony is the only brand that has mirrorless apsc, full frame, super 35 video cameras, and a full frame cinema camera all with the SAME lens mount, similar features, and color science/profiles. 

Not to mention also having traditional fixed lens camcorders for run and gun docs and events.

 

Fuji has no real video cameras or cinema cameras to upgrade to.

Pansonic brings more to the table than probably anyone but is split between m4/3rds, ye old Canon EF mount for their video cameras and cinema cameras (varicam line) , and Now L mount whose only options are the laughably priced leica lenses.

Not only is Canon is crippled beyond belief but that system has 3 lens mounts -_- EF mount, RF mount, and the unknown future of the apsc M mount...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

The A6300 was a dog back in 2016 when the competition was far less, no X-T3 or G85 back then, or E-M10 III.

X-T3 is a similar price now to when the A6300 was released back in 2016.

The X-T3 today is $1399 new (less used) and the A6400 is $900 so a difference of $500 max, the price of a low-end Sony E-mount prime. The 23mm F2 and 35mm F2 Fuji X lenses are cheaper than their equivalent Sonys and the 18-55mm F2.8-F4 zoom is superior to any Sony APS-C zoom equivalent for just $300.

I don't see why people would be interested in paying more for the A6400 + primes + decent zoom than the equivalent Fuji kit.

If you look at the A6400 body in isolation, sure it's cheap-ish. But it's also naff-ish, 2-3 year old tech with terrible rolling shutter and bad ergonomics.

The target market is a prime area to do some innovations... flip out 5" touch screen for example. All-new user interface and menus suited to touch screen operation. Better touch-pad AF interface. Better smartphone integration and Bluetooth LE.

Sony took the easy option and did nothing.

Sounds like you could be describing a cut down BMPCC 4k with functional AF or an XT3 with a cheap ass front facing monitor.

BM could probably take this market by storm if they really wanted to, by pairing a cut down (and SMALLER) BMPCC 4k with a seriously dumbed down version of Resolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xt3 it's a wonderfull videocamera but it doesn't have ibis like this (but there's no 35 oss or 50 oss like Sony) and autofocus is limited to af-s vs a6400 incedibile af-c in video... 

 

I have 35 oss and 50 oss... If I switch to fuji with xt3 I'll lose stabilization with prime and autofocus af-c in video. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, noplz said:

BM could probably take this market by storm if they really wanted to, by pairing a cut down (and SMALLER) BMPCC 4k with a seriously dumbed down version of Resolve.

First thing BM would have to do is invent AF on it.  Ain't happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gianluca said:

Xt3 it's a wonderfull videocamera but it doesn't have ibis like this (but there's no 35 oss or 50 oss like Sony) and autofocus is limited to af-s vs a6400 incedibile af-c in video... 

 

I have 35 oss and 50 oss... If I switch to fuji with xt3 I'll lose stabilization with prime and autofocus af-c in video. 

 

 

XT3 has AF-C in video. It even does face & eye tracking.

I'd buy an XT2 (or XH1 if you need IBIS) over this mess of a camera.

Rolling shutter alone (36ms!) makes it a no go, especially for the intended travel/vlog market its intended for.

Of course the cluelessness of that demography probably has never heard of RS and will be swayed by the hype/pricing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Django said:

Sony doesn't take away IBIS? They did just that with this A6400.

They don't disable 10-bit internal? They did so on FS5 vs FS7 and never implemented 10-bit internal or external in their alpha range (unlike Fuji, Panasonic, Canon & Nikon).

Still the same 100mb XAVC codec in their third-gen FF cameras.

Sony may be aggressive with pricing/specs but they segment products like anyone else. Please stop drinking the kool-aid.

 

Lady I don't know what you're on, but you need to stop. Like right now.

The a6400 is not replacing the a6500. Not in this universe. It replaces the A6300. Yes, it probably has the same sensor (with probably a little addition in the circuitry), but with the latest processor, that new semi articulating screen, faster autofocus and lots of other things thrown in. It improves on a camera from 3 years ago (keeping the same low power battery and the same sensor), by reducing the price by $100. That is huge in the Camera World. To reduce a price for anything.

I am guessing, that Sony will move to the new XEVC codec from the XAVC codec. Most like in 2019, and most likely beginning with the A7siii. I also suspect that Sony may limit the 10-bit 4-2-2 internal to the A7siii and everything below may get 10-bit 4-2-0. Sony reacts to the market feature set of other competitors and releases models accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gianluca said:

Xt3 have only face detection or auto but no touch tracking 

that's true, but you said only AF-S and no AF-C. Django corrected this, since the X-T3 has AF-C and face-detection with eye tracking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sanveer said:

Lady I don't know what you're on, but you need to stop. Like right now.

The a6400 is not replacing the a6500. Not in this universe. It replaces the A6300. Yes, it probably has the same sensor (with probably a little addition in the circuitry), but with the latest processor, that new semi articulating screen, faster autofocus and lots of other things thrown in. It improves on a camera from 3 years ago (keeping the same low power battery and the same sensor), by reducing the price by $100. That is huge in the Camera World. To reduce a price for anything.

2

Spoken like a true Sony fanboy. This camera is a dud. Sony pulled a Canon by recycling the same 3-year-old sensor that already had issues with its abysmal RS.

$100 cut ain't fixing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gianluca said:

Xt3 it's a wonderfull videocamera but it doesn't have ibis like this (but there's no 35 oss or 50 oss like Sony) and autofocus is limited to af-s vs a6400 incedibile af-c in video... 

 

I have 35 oss and 50 oss... If I switch to fuji with xt3 I'll lose stabilization with prime and autofocus af-c in video. 

 

 

XT3 is limited to auto focus single? what?

There are definitely reasons for one to get this camera. Though if I wanted to invest Sony I'd wait until the A7000. That said if you make money doing videos and this fits the bill, why not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Django said:

Spoken like a true Sony fanboy. This camera is a dud. Sony pulled a Canon by recycling the same 3-year-old sensor that already had issues with its abysmal RS.

$100 cut ain't fixing that.

Sony will sell them as fast as they can make them. For the money what else you going to buy? And the average person has no clue what RS even is. It is no worse RS wise than the Sony A7s. People seemed to be able to make that camera work. It's a 800 dollar camera. You aren't going to get a Arri Alexa for that money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Not only is Canon is crippled beyond belief but that system has 3 lens mounts -_- EF mount, RF mount, and the unknown future of the apsc M mount.

Don't forget how Canon mistreats EF-S Vs EF, unlike Nikon who lets you happily swap between DX and FX lenses to the max extent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Sony will sell them as fast as they can make them. For the money what else you going to buy? And the average person has no clue what RS even is. It is no worse RS wise than the Sony A7s. People seemed to be able to make that camera work. It's a 800 dollar camera. You aren't going to get a Arri Alexa for that money

Its almost twice as bad as the A7S if you can believe it. Its the reason I sold the A6300, just embarrassingly bad. But yeah I agree, most people buying it don't know what RS is. 

The unlimited recording will be pretty funny if it still overheats as bad as the 6300 did. 

Its just a cash grab and a more annoying one then the 5100 as it actually had good video. The A6400, 500, 300 you have the choice between Jello 4k or terrible HD. I'd rather buy an A5100 for vlogging, though no mic jack. 

But it doesn't really matter, save an extra $1000 and spend it on the A7000 in a few months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Sony will sell them as fast as they can make them. For the money what else you going to buy? And the average person has no clue what RS even is. It is no worse RS wise than the Sony A7s. People seemed to be able to make that camera work. It's a 800 dollar camera. You aren't going to get a Arri Alexa for that money

Huh? The RS is considerably worst than A7S (16-24ms) & A7S2 (25ms). It's known to be the absolute worst of the worst at a whopping 36ms. Possibly some kind of record.

For the money what else are you going to buy? There are tons of second-hand options.. XT2 to start with. If you want new, save up a little more & buy yourself a decent camera.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...