Jump to content
Andrew Reid

EOSHD Opinion - The Sony A6400 is an absolute turkey

Recommended Posts

On 1/16/2019 at 3:44 AM, BasiliskFilm said:

Sony still sells shedloads of the A6000, so I think that is the target market for this. From a serious video point of view, I would look on this only for pointers to where the next prosumer models may be going. It is aimed at the sub $1000 market, and at this level all the kit zooms have stabilisation anyway. 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? The higher end version will be along soon. Animal eye-AF - I would love that! Come on Nikon, keep up...

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the a6400 is going to have annimal eye af. It should have the real-time tracking improvement out of the box, and the a9 is supposed to get that in April, but unfortunately it doesn't appear like the a7 III nor the a7R III will have that real time tracking.

On 1/16/2019 at 4:53 AM, Django said:

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

The a6400 isn't a new version of the a6500 (which has IBIS).

It is an update to the a6000 / a5100 / a6300 that is (not surprisingly) geared primarily to stills shooters. The launch price of the a6400 is LESS than that of the a6300 (which, again, didn't have IBIS).

Despite some bozo in Sony marketing saying it is an ideal vlogging camera, it quite obviously is not. On the other hand, there are a suprisingly large number of people who use their a6300 to vlog. go figure.

There are a LOT of diehard fans of the a5100 (with a similar flip up screen) who take still selfies. This is probably who they REALLY had in mind.

 

20 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I don't mind them using an old sensor, like you said a lot of old sensors are awesome. However the A6300 sensor was shit when it came out and its still shit now.

How is it a bad sensor???

I've been using my a6300 / a6500 professionally for two years now (95% stills, 5% video) and the sensor is certainly very capable. For stills it was 90% of the quality of my D750, which has a sensor that people rave about. It was good enough that I was fine with selling my D750 and all my Nikon gear.

And I have never had a client complain about the quality of an image I have taken with my a6300 / a6500 cameras, so either I am a BRILLIANT photographer or the sensor is not quite the heap of fecal matter you claim it to be. (I did have one client ask me to reshoot some video footage but that was due to operator error as opposed to a "shit sensor.")

Sure, there are 714 other horrible things about the a6300 / a6500 camera lines which are well documented and have been discussed, but the sensor was hardly one of them (unless you are specifically focusing on something like Rolling Shutter, which is indeed quite bad).

 

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
4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Personally I will buy what works for me, preferably that which is well designed and innovative.

Of course! The 6400 is not the camera for someone like you. But it doesn't make it a "turkey".  It's like a car person saying VW Golf is a turkey because it's not a Porsche. VW sells a lot of Golfs even if they're just front-wheel drive that understeer and are not as much fun for people who love rear-wheel drive cars. 


That said, I don't love Sony cameras and that's probably what you're referring to. They're good gadget but never feel like a tool you want to use. I have the 6000 and the A7Riii. 

 

I'm glad the 6400 kept the old battery and stay true to its size. I think sony understands this market segment well. They are delivering everything a newcomer would want and more. Most importantly you want the camera to work. What that means is, that it takes good videos or photos. Most people people would not care about bit depth, etc. What they want is photos or videos that are in focus. Secondly they want it to work where a phone would not work, like in dark situations etc. This is what this camera is optimize to do. A small little wonder that you can use to take selfies, low light photos and videos and the AF is so good that you're 95% guaranteed to take a photo or video that looks decent. 

 

Sony will acquire more new users and some of them might ultimately invest more into the ecosystem of Sony. It's a market win for them. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

How is it a bad sensor???

I've been using my a6300 / a6500 professionally for two years now (95% stills, 5% video) and the sensor is certainly very capable. For stills it was 90% of the quality of my D750, which has a sensor that people rave about. It was good enough that I was fine with selling my D750 and all my Nikon gear.

And I have never had a client complain about the quality of an image I have taken with my a6300 / a6500 cameras, so either I am a BRILLIANT photographer or the sensor is not quite the heap of fecal matter you claim it to be. (I did have one client ask me to reshoot some video footage but that was due to operator error as opposed to a "shit sensor.")

Sure, there are 714 other horrible things about the a6300 / a6500 camera lines which are well documented and have been discussed, but the sensor was hardly one of them (unless you are specifically focusing on something like Rolling Shutter, which is indeed quite bad).

 

Its a great stills camera if you don't mind the color. I am talking video.

Apparently over the course of three cameras they haven't improved at all. Not sure if its the sensor or Sony just doesn't care but either way its shitty. You have a choice between soft moire filled 1080p or Jello 4k. The 4k is great quality super detailed image good dynamic range. However the jello is really terrible. Plus I like to use 60p a lot and the HD is just bad.

If the sensor cripples 4k at 39ms RS, why even bother. Then keeping it on over three cameras just makes it ever more irritating. The XT2 seemed to have a similar sensor, ignoring color the detail and low light performance was very similar, yet the rolling shutter and 1080p was quite good. Why couldn't Sony do it right?

Anyways I am not saying you can't make good content with it. I am just hating on the camera, because it pisses me off. The A7III, A7S, and A7RIII were fantastic though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Its a great stills camera if you don't mind the color. I am talking video.

Apparently over the course of three cameras they haven't improved at all. Not sure if its the sensor or Sony just doesn't care but either way its shitty. You have a choice between soft moire filled 1080p or Jello 4k. The 4k is great quality super detailed image good dynamic range. However the jello is really terrible. Plus I like to use 60p a lot and the HD is just bad.

If the sensor cripples 4k at 39ms RS, why even bother. Then keeping it on over three cameras just makes it ever more irritating. The XT2 seemed to have a similar sensor, ignoring color the detail and low light performance was very similar, yet the rolling shutter and 1080p was quite good. Why couldn't Sony do it right?

Anyways I am not saying you can't make good content with it. I am just hating on the camera, because it pisses me off. The A7III, A7S, and A7RIII were fantastic though.

 

Ok, well we agree on most things there.

I don't usually try to be too pedantic about things on a forum, but I think you really meant to say that the processing was really bad / codec is really bad (as opposed to the sensor being bad, since Nikon, Panasonic and Fuji all make use of Sony sensors). But hey, six of one, half a dozen of the other. End result was that the video image was certainly flawed in significant areas.

Personally, I can live with the RS (although I know a lot of people can't) since I use a gimbal and stabilization on my a6500... something the a6400 lacks :(

A bit of an improvement over the a6300 is it seems that 1) Screen no longer dims in 4K (as per Max Yuryev), 2) no thirty-minute time limit and 3) no premature overheating (as per Jordan Drake). So with the advanced AF tracking certainly an improvement in general over the a6300.

Looks to have the same lousy LCD resolution but maybe it isn't as reflective as the one on the a6300 / a6500??? (Haven't heard either way.)

Hopefully the a7000 will see them get serious about video and be more competitive against the (already two-year-old) GH5 and last-year's X-T3 (camera of the year for many reviewers). 

Too bad it doesn't look like it will have Eye AF for animals though :(

It looks like the Eye AF for animals is in the a6400 so could be great for wildlife shooters.

Even more too bad that there were no APS-C lens announcements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Ok, well we agree on most things there.

I don't usually try to be too pedantic about things on a forum, but I think you really meant to say that the processing was really bad / codec is really bad (as opposed to the sensor being bad, since Nikon, Panasonic and Fuji all make use of Sony sensors). But hey, six of one, half a dozen of the other. End result was that the video image was certainly flawed in significant areas.

Personally, I can live with the RS (although I know a lot of people can't) since I use a gimbal and stabilization on my a6500... something the a6400 lacks :(

A bit of an improvement over the a6300 is it seems that 1) Screen no longer dims in 4K (as per Max Yuryev), 2) no thirty-minute time limit and 3) no premature overheating (as per Jordan Drake). So with the advanced AF tracking certainly an improvement in general over the a6300.

Looks to have the same lousy LCD resolution but maybe it isn't as reflective as the one on the a6300 / a6500??? (Haven't heard either way.)

Hopefully the a7000 will see them get serious about video and be more competitive against the (already two-year-old) GH5 and last-year's X-T3 (camera of the year for many reviewers). 

Too bad it doesn't look like it will have Eye AF for animals though :(

It looks like the Eye AF for animals is in the a6400 so could be great for wildlife shooters.

Even more too bad that there were no APS-C lens announcements.

I really have no doubt the A7000 will be a beast(would be shocked if it wasn't better than the XT3 in terms of specs).

One of the reasons I said the sensor as I think that is where the slow readout/RS came from. I am not tech savy enough to know. If it was a processor issue it seems like the A6400 wouldn't have the issue anymore as the A9 processor should be fast enough to handle anything you can throw at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I really have no doubt the A7000 will be a beast(would be shocked if it wasn't better than the XT3 in terms of specs).

One of the reasons I said the sensor as I think that is where the slow readout/RS came from. I am not tech savy enough to know. If it was a processor issue it seems like the A6400 wouldn't have the issue anymore as the A9 processor should be fast enough to handle anything you can throw at it.

A lot of the distortions attributed to rolling shutter are actually optical distortions resulting from small changes in point of view and rotation of the sensor in the image plane. RS aggravates it of course, but the problem is primarily optical and people expecting too much of the limited optics usually used on cameras like this one. You will see this sort of stuff more with short focal length and cheaper lenses.

To minimize it you really need a tripod or at least a gimbal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mokara said:

A lot of the distortions attributed to rolling shutter are actually optical distortions resulting from small changes in point of view and rotation of the sensor in the image plane. RS aggravates it of course, but the problem is primarily optical and people expecting too much of the limited optics usually used on cameras like this one. You will see this sort of stuff more with short focal length and cheaper lenses.

To minimize it you really need a tripod or at least a gimbal.

I don't know at least for me the jello effect is less noticeable on wider lenses. I do get the point on barrel distortion. 

Stabilization definitely helps alleviate the issue in many circumstances but even if the camera is on a tripod say you are shooting a train passing or really anything moving, the effects of the rolling shutter will be noticeable. Not that most people are shooting trains passing by frequently. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love what Roman Hense does with his a6300, so I can see the appeal of this camera, but in some ways, since it is so recycled, I almost feel it should be cheaper. I mean, other than the AF... is there anything new in this camera?

Share this post


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

Touchscreen is Huge for a Sony, and the flippy screen I guess. It is nearly as good as a a7s for low light. So I think for the money it is pretty good.

I don't know about that low light part. I remember it being good up to 4000 iso, 6400 iso was meh and past that was pretty noisy. The auto focus is pretty dang cool though.

Share this post


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

Well the original A6300 ISO topped out at 51,200. The A6400 is 102,400. So they have done something different.

That would be interesting, doesn't exactly mean they improved noise performance but I guess its possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max test out the camera, it can record 1hr30 til battery died in 4K and no over heating icon! The cam is warm not hot unlike A6500 which died around 1hr on 4K and with overheating icon on.  (skip to 14min for the recording time/thermal test)

Make me feel a bit more hopeful that A7000 should have no problems with 4K60P.. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Max test out the camera, it can record 1hr30 til battery died in 4K and no over heating icon! The cam is warm not hot unlike A6500 which died around 1hr on 4K and with overheating icon on.  (skip to 14min for the recording time/thermal test)

Make me feel a bit more hopeful that A7000 should have no problems with 4K60P.. 

 

 

 

it looks like you guys are wearing long sleeved shirts, not sure when you guys did this test but it dosen't look terribly hot where you are. if it didn't over heat for you thats great for nz and northern europe i guess. but i reckon the aussie outback sun  at the moment might prove more of a challenge. in saying that its safe to assume  pretty much all cameras and people would be subject to a bit of heat stress regardless at the moment .its just bloody hot out here

Share this post


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

it looks like you guys are wearing long sleeved shirts, not sure when you guys did this test but it dosen't look terribly hot where you are. if it didn't over heat for you thats great for nz and northern europe i guess. but i reckon the aussie outback sun  at the moment might prove more of a challenge. in saying that its safe to assume  pretty much all cameras and people would be subject to a bit of heat stress regardless at the moment .its just bloody hot out here

I've even had GH4/5 overheat in AUS before... a6400 will be toast in no time, like the rest of the a6xxx series, I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tweak said:

I've even had GH4/5 overheat in AUS before... a6400 will be toast in no time, like the rest of the a6xxx series, I'm sure.

Yeah I had the A6300 last 60 minutes after hacking it. Confident I used it for a play recording and it shut off 25 minutes in. That's when I sold it, never would happen with my Panasonic. Let's see an indoor test or warm climate. Vloggers don't need long record times tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all recent cameras from everyone seem to have have their operating max temperature listed as 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

There has only been two days in the last seven here UNDER that officially (and in both cases was close enough that it would have been well over for most outdoor situations like roads, concrete yards and footpaths, the swimming pool that used to be my bed ETC).        The good news is that there are only three days predicted this week of 40 or more and the rest will merely be 38.

 

Who wants to use a camera in these temps?     I am happy to take a camera on a morning walk still but not gonna use one during the day for now.

 

It is funny that some cameras have the max temp you should use the camera in as 40 but the cameras themselves generate heat far above that (would using a camera in over 40 heat void a warranty?).

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...