I’m considering either an A6100 or A6400. I presently have a FF Sony setup, so I’m already invested in the system. My needs are simple. I’m primarily concerned with image quality, and solid auto focus. I have no interest in wi-fi, blogging, shooting fast action, fast frames per second, or any jpeg perks. I only shoot RAW. Is there any difference in these cameras concerning IQ or AF? Is the improved EVF really worth the extra cost in the A6400? Any info regarding the comparison between these cameras would be appreciated.
The A6500, while older than these two models, has extremely similar features - and is a better buy and has sensor-shift image stabilization. You can find it on the used market for about $500-$750, depending on condition and usage. It's surprisingly under-valued for reasons I've never been able to figure out. I think there's been a couple of them on FM sold in the sub-$500 range. I believe it was the first in this a6000-series with image stabilization.
You can compare features of two camera bodies side-by-side at Camera Decision You can see on camera decision that it beats out both the a6400 and the a6100.
I can't see that there would be much, if any IQ different - but as stated, it beats out both the models you are considering. I have shot basketball with the A6500. It tracks very well and accurately. It has very nice colors.
The super-reliable, super-easy "tracking" autofocus mode was new in the a6400 and a6100, the a6500 didn't have it.
This is confusing to describe, of course. The a6500 has some kind of autofocus tracking. But it doesn't have the "Tracking:" autofocus mode the a6400 and newer cameras do, which really is brilliant.
It's one of those things where you might be doing great with what the a6500 offers, but once you've tried what the a6400 offers in autofocus functionality you would miss not having it in the a6500. It's just so effortless and works at the speed of thought - aim the camera at your subject, half-press to engage a very effectively sticky tracking autofocus, and then recompose and shoot the shot at your leisure regardless of how you or your subject move.
Other than that, yes, I guess the a6500 is a good option. Stabilisation is a significant thing to have. Makes a real contribution to real-world image quality.
The a6500 has a video recording length time limit of ~29 minutes, I believe, while the a6100 and a6400 have unlimited recording.
As far as I know, the only relevant differences between the a6400 and a6100 are... no S-Log video modes, and a poorer viewfinder. The a6100 has all of the stills image quality and autofocus perfomance and autofocus features.
Coltrane wrote:
I’m considering either an A6100 or A6400. I presently have a FF Sony setup, so I’m already invested in the system. My needs are simple. I’m primarily concerned with image quality, and solid auto focus. I have no interest in wi-fi, blogging, shooting fast action, fast frames per second, or any jpeg perks. I only shoot RAW. Is there any difference in these cameras concerning IQ or AF? Is the improved EVF really worth the extra cost in the A6400? Any info regarding the comparison between these cameras would be appreciated.
Skip them and go straight to the a6700 if you want excellent AF and more pleasing colours. I don't think you will need to upgrade this camera for many years. However not sure how big the AF improvement is for humans over the a6400. For wildlife it is a big improvement.
I think from reviews, the finder is different but otherwise the sensor, focus system, is the same. The A6400 is a stronger build, the a6100, less metal more plastic. You'd probably have to decide for yourself on the finder differences.
duncang wrote:
Skip them and go straight to the a6700 if you want excellent AF and more pleasing colours. I don't think you will need to upgrade this camera for many years. However not sure how big the AF improvement is for humans over the a6400. For wildlife it is a big improvement.
The Animal Eye-AF feature in the a6400 etc was rudimentary and early, so I can imagine it got improved a lot in later cameras. The human eye-af and tracking had less room-for/ need-of improvement, it was already good - but I will defer to others who can directly compare.
I’m glad this subject came up and I apologize for any thread theft, but will I see any IQ difference for static landscape RAW images between the venerable A6000 and the newer bodies? Color differences I can season to my taste in pp.
Coltrane wrote:
I’m considering either an A6100 or A6400. I presently have a FF Sony setup, so I’m already invested in the system. My needs are simple. I’m primarily concerned with image quality, and solid auto focus. I have no interest in wi-fi, blogging, shooting fast action, fast frames per second, or any jpeg perks. I only shoot RAW. Is there any difference in these cameras concerning IQ or AF? Is the improved EVF really worth the extra cost in the A6400? Any info regarding the comparison between these cameras would be appreciated.
If you use the viewfinder primarily and not the lcd, then the 6400 is a big step up. It also was the first model to incorporate the AF system that made its way into the a7/Riii series. It also was the first body in the cropper series that felt like a camera, when you hold it…decent ergonomics.
Keep in mind that the light weight and small form factor can make heavier FF lenses feel a bit awkward. The Zeiss Touit lens line is very cheap now used and performs beautifully. I no longer have my 6400, nor most lenses, but I have a nice Sigma 19/2.8, Touit 12/2.8, and Sony 18-200 kicking around, if you are looking to put together any lenses in that system.
GHarris wrote:
The super-reliable, super-easy "tracking" autofocus mode was new in the a6400 and a6100, the a6500 didn't have it.
This is confusing to describe, of course. The a6500 has some kind of autofocus tracking. But it doesn't have the "Tracking:" autofocus mode the a6400 and newer cameras do, which really is brilliant.
It's one of those things where you might be doing great with what the a6500 offers, but once you've tried what the a6400 offers in autofocus functionality you would miss not having it in the a6500. It's just so effortless and works at the speed of thought - aim the camera at your subject, half-press to engage a very effectively sticky tracking autofocus, and then recompose and shoot the shot at your leisure regardless of how you or your subject move.
Other than that, yes, I guess the a6500 is a good option. Stabilisation is a significant thing to have. Makes a real contribution to real-world image quality.
The a6500 has a video recording length time limit of ~29 minutes, I believe, while the a6100 and a6400 have unlimited recording.
As far as I know, the only relevant differences between the a6400 and a6100 are... no S-Log video modes, and a poorer viewfinder. The a6100 has all of the stills image quality and autofocus perfomance and autofocus features....Show more →
I had a 6500. Switched to the 6400 when it was released. I would echo this post 100%. Very well stated re to improved AF of the 6400 over the 6500. I would also add that I used a 6100 for a weekend and found it to be just slightly watered down version of the 6400 in terms of some programable options (I think?) but with the same fantastic AF. So if OP can find a 6100 on the cheap that might just do fine.
pjmsj21 wrote:
I’m glad this subject came up and I apologize for any thread theft, but will I see any IQ difference for static landscape RAW images between the venerable A6000 and the newer bodies? Color differences I can season to my taste in pp.
HUGE difference. A6000 had terrible green shadows when lifted. The next camera, A6300, solved all of that, plus gave a 1 stop improvement in high ISO noise and DR. I had both at the same time and was blown away at the improvement in DR when I directly compared them. Also, the same general sensor used for A6100, A6300, A6400, A6500, and A6600, so the IQ is 95% the same.
GHarris wrote:
The super-reliable, super-easy "tracking" autofocus mode was new in the a6400 and a6100, the a6500 didn't have it.
This is confusing to describe, of course. The a6500 has some kind of autofocus tracking. But it doesn't have the "Tracking:" autofocus mode the a6400 and newer cameras do, which really is brilliant.
It's one of those things where you might be doing great with what the a6500 offers, but once you've tried what the a6400 offers in autofocus functionality you would miss not having it in the a6500. It's just so effortless and works at the speed of thought - aim the camera at your subject, half-press to engage a very effectively sticky tracking autofocus, and then recompose and shoot the shot at your leisure regardless of how you or your subject move.
Other than that, yes, I guess the a6500 is a good option. Stabilisation is a significant thing to have. Makes a real contribution to real-world image quality.
The a6500 has a video recording length time limit of ~29 minutes, I believe, while the a6100 and a6400 have unlimited recording.
As far as I know, the only relevant differences between the a6400 and a6100 are... no S-Log video modes, and a poorer viewfinder. The a6100 has all of the stills image quality and autofocus perfomance and autofocus features....Show more →
I try to form an opinion based on both comparisons but also from my own field use. I like to put a camera in tough shooting situations to see what it can do. I shot the a6500 with the 50GM with a wide aperture in a fairly recent game just to experiment with its tracking and sports capture ability. In a situation like sports, I don't have time to press the shutter halfway, then recompose, etc. The camera has to perform immediately. I found the a6500 consistently did so, as shown in this 11fps series:
ILCE-6500FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.61/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-6500FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.61/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-6500FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.61/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-6500FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.61/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-6500FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.61/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-6500FE 50mm F1.2 GM lens50mmf/1.61/1000s1600 ISO0.0 EV
Grenache wrote:
If you use the viewfinder primarily and not the lcd, then the 6400 is a big step up. It also was the first model to incorporate the AF system that made its way into the a7/Riii series. It also was the first body in the cropper series that felt like a camera, when you hold it…decent ergonomics.
Keep in mind that the light weight and small form factor can make heavier FF lenses feel a bit awkward. The Zeiss Touit lens line is very cheap now used and performs beautifully. I no longer have my 6400, nor most lenses, but I have a nice Sigma 19/2.8, Touit 12/2.8, and Sony 18-200 kicking around, if you are looking to put together any lenses in that system.
When using a small camera body vs a larger lens, I found I simply shifted the bulk of my carry to the lens instead of the camera body. When I put the 50GM on my a6500, my carry hand was on the lens, which I'm sure is the case for most people handling these smaller bodies. It's a bit awkward of an adjust at first but then it feels logical.
That 12mm Touit is so underrated - it's a great lens.
pasblues wrote:
When using a small camera body vs a larger lens, I found I simply shifted the bulk of my carry to the lens instead of the camera body. When I put the 50GM on my a6500, my carry hand was on the lens, which I'm sure is the case for most people handling these smaller bodies. It's a bit awkward of an adjust at first but then it feels logical.
That 12mm Touit is so underrated - it's a great lens.
Indeed. I really liked shooting the Canon 85/1.2L ii on the 6400, which basically felt like a brick on a pack of Altoids. I basically just held the lens. It can be done, but it is less ergonomic than pairing purpose-built lenses. The 12 Touit is a stellar performer, and the 19mm Sigma is a remarkably good lens for its tiny weight.
