New Sony Cameras?

[billandsue]

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/not-one-but-two-new-sony-aps-c-cameras-to-launch-next-week

[pierces]

Yeah. We've been following this for a while. Lots of fingers crossed.

 

Here's the old thread of you want to catch up on all the prognostications, suppositions and wish lists. 

 

Dave

[tommui987]

6 hours ago, pierces said:

Yeah. We've been following this for a while. Lots of fingers crossed.

 

 

 

Dave:

One of those comments about the coming camera:

"If (Sony) does launch a new A7000 to compete at the top end off the APS-C mirrorless market, we’d expect a price in the region of $1,600/£1,600 to $1,800/£1,800."

 

Other than the weight of the A7/A9 full frame - and the fact that I have a couple (7) APS-C lenses - the anticipated (predicted) price of the A7000 would probably make me look at the full frame Sony.

 

Comments?

 

 

[pierces]

3 hours ago, tommui987 said:

 

Dave:

One of those comments about the coming camera:

"If (Sony) does launch a new A7000 to compete at the top end off the APS-C mirrorless market, we’d expect a price in the region of $1,600/£1,600 to $1,800/£1,800."

 

Other than the weight of the A7/A9 full frame - and the fact that I have a couple (7) APS-C lenses - the anticipated (predicted) price of the A7000 would probably make me look at the full frame Sony.

 

Comments?

 

 

 

I paid about $1600 for my APS-C A77 DSLR back in the day when it was close or at the top of the APS-C heap. The difference is there was a $2000+ gap between it and full-frame at the time. With a $200 gap today, it's a different question being asked.

 

When I made the jump to full-frame, I had to think long and hard about the extra weight and my lack of useful full-frame lenses. The weight turned out to be less of an issue that expected with only a pound difference between the A6300+18-105 and the A7III+24-105, but I am a stocky fellow with a history of weightlifting. Your mileage may vary. If your lens collection is primarily APS-C, the $200 gap widens to over $1000 for a body + lens (ask me how I know). Since I have a fair selection of APS-C lenses and the FF lenses work just fine on them, I still use my A6300 quite a bit for the things it does well. Mostly with the 12mm Rokinon or 8mm fisheye for wide and wider and as a 1.5x teleconverter for the FE 70-300. If the new APS-C flagship doesn't have all the bells and whistles you are asking for or the lure of the high-ISO performance of the full-frame sensor grabs you, Maybe an A7III with a FE24-105 f/4 is the answer. It's a $3200 answer, but an answer none the less. In the full-frame case I would strongly suggest that you keep an APS-C body and a couple of the lenses for those times when you just want small.

 

For me? If the A6700 (or whatever) has all the stuff I wish I had in an APS-C body like FZ-100 battery and stabilization, I will definitely be in the market for one. My appreciation of the Sony APS-C line is based on longer-than-most experience and a very positive impression of their performance and bang for the buck.

 

Dave

[tommui987]

On 8/22/2019 at 4:47 PM, billandsue said:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/not-one-but-two-new-sony-aps-c-cameras-to-launch-next-week

 

DAVE:

Lots of rumors about what the A6700/A7000 have in its specifications.

 

But I haven't heard anything about the A6200 other than it might be the replacement for the A6000.

 

Does your crystal ball indicate anything - other than wait till the end of August? 😁

 

[havoc315]

Let's have some fun with predictions:

 

A6200: $599 body, $649 with 16-50 lens.

Basically.... a cross between the A6000 and A6300 and A6400: No real time focus tracking, no significant weather sealing, no fully flip screen. Low resolution EVF. But has touch screen, advanced eye-AF. Shallow buffer. Has 4K video.

Basically: A6000 + AF improvements including eye-AF + Wifi + touch tilt screen + 4k.

 

A6700 -- $1399-1499 body only.  New body design with bigger grip, bigger battery, dual card slots. 4K video at 60p. High resolution EVF. IBIS. Real time tracking. Deep buffer. 20 fps with blackout free EVF and silent shutter. 

 

**** Possible major surprise -- A6700 with global shutter. 

 

 

[pierces]

On 8/24/2019 at 10:10 PM, tommui987 said:

 

DAVE:

Lots of rumors about what the A6700/A7000 have in its specifications.

 

But I haven't heard anything about the A6200 other than it might be the replacement for the A6000.

 

Does your crystal ball indicate anything - other than wait till the end of August? 😁

 

 

Havoc is probably as close as any of the prognosticators. I would add the flip screen, though. The A6200 won't be a vlogger powerhouse but the selfie-a-minute crowd has a voice.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

25 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

Havoc is probably as close as any of the prognosticators. I would add the flip screen, though. The A6200 won't be a vlogger powerhouse but the selfie-a-minute crowd has a voice.

 

Dave

 

True.. flip screen is a big feature for novices.... Bigger than for "serious" photographers. Still, I feel like they might want consumers to step up to the A6400 for the flip screen. (and I wouldn't be surprised to see $100 knocked off the A6400 soon).  

 

The reality though-- An A6200 will never sell like the A6000. I've been analyzing data and other factors.... All sales are plummeting but especially the entry level dSLRs/ILCs. 

 

Nobody under 50 years old wants a distinct camera for "casual" picture taking. Unless they have a kid playing sports, they are happy with their phones. (And most of the sports parents are fine just skipping pictures).  

Most of the 35-65 year old crowd is still perfectly happy with their Canon Rebel 2ti that they bought 8 years ago... Which they supplement with their phone.

 

The volume for A6000/Nikon D3xxx/Canon Rebel buyers were the purely casual shooters. Educated guess -- this market is down 70-90% from peak in 2012. (Overall ILC market is down about 60%).

The last year or so seems to have been a major drop off -- I blame it on the Google Pixel, iPhone X, etc -- Phones that now have pretty decent low light performance and decent simulated bokeh, easy to use portrait modes, etc. 

I stopped teaching photography because overnight, I went from consistently getting 6-10 students per class, to being unable to get the minimum of 4. 

 

So the future of affordable aps-c is a bit of a question mark. Cheap still outsells expensive. But they can no longer rely on mass volume generating profits and keeping production costs down. The reason Sony is still selling A6000's after 5_ years --- I highly doubt any have come off a factory line in a LONG time. But they produced inventory based on 2013-2014 expected sales volume.... then sales volume disappeared, so it took this long to work through the inventory..... Same reason you can still buy an A7 new. 

 

 

 

[pierces]

A6600

 

If I was considering dumping a big block DSLR and move to mirrorless, I'd be all over this. With my current setup, I'm not chomping at the bit yet.

 

Seems to be an A6500 with a Z battery.

 

Still 24mp. Still 11fps. Still 425 AF points. Still 2.4mp viewfinder.

 

Flippy/tilty LCD.

 

A6400 focus goodies. Sort of a big deal.

 

Lots of hype about (yawn) video features.

 

The new 16-50 f/2.8 zoom could be a winner.

 

Maybe I missed a lot in the brochure.

 

The A6500 didn't offer enough to upgrade from the A6300 and while this is a solid camera, the stabilization and focusing aren't enough to divert money from the lens fund.

 

Yet.

 

If the reviews show amazing things that Sony didn't deem brochure-worthy, I may have a change of heart.

 

Wait and see mode for now.

 

 

Dave

Edited August 28, 2019 by pierces

[zackiedawg]

Agreed so far - an average upgrade, but nothing super-special...though it still might be my next camera only because my A6300 has been used & abused to the tune of nearly 160,000 shutter actuations and years of heat, humidity, and rain...it's just getting time to replace it before it pulls a Blues Brothers and falls to pieces right after a shoot.

 

I really wanted to see the blackout free viewfinder and silent shutter refresh speed of the A9.  The IBIS is nice, the Z battery is nice, the customization has expanded which is nice, could not care less about the video specs if I tried, flippy screen does nothing for me.  The A6400's tracking might be a nice step up from the A6300 I have now, and the A6600 has that, so the A6600 would make sense as the next camera vs the A6400.  Still waiting for a little more info and news, and a few tests.

[zackiedawg]

I noticed one thing I find extremely important and very happy to see on the A6600 compared to the A6400...the return of the MR1 and MR2 positions on the main dial.  That omission alone practically killed the A6400 as a replacement for me...the A6600 is a much more realistic replacement for my aging A6300 - even though it's not the 'mini-A9' I wanted, it still provides all the things I like about my A6300, adds the bigger battery, better tracking modes, and IBIS...while the A6400 added really only the improved tracking, and took away my MR dial modes.

[tommui987]

I suppose it was like Christmas many many many many  years ago when I wanted an electric train and got a bunch of clothes instead.

 

Thank you Dave and Justin for your comments. Wonder when Aaron will come out with his evaluation?

[pierces]

1 hour ago, zackiedawg said:

I noticed one thing I find extremely important and very happy to see on the A6600 compared to the A6400...the return of the MR1 and MR2 positions on the main dial.  That omission alone practically killed the A6400 as a replacement for me...the A6600 is a much more realistic replacement for my aging A6300 - even though it's not the 'mini-A9' I wanted, it still provides all the things I like about my A6300, adds the bigger battery, better tracking modes, and IBIS...while the A6400 added really only the improved tracking, and took away my MR dial modes.

 

All good points and why I'm in wait and see mode. The advanced AF is a plus as are the Z battery and stabilization. The ergonomics may be the make or break for me since virtually all the other bells and whistles exist on my A7 III. Same battery across both bodies? That's a good thing.

 

Another major hesitation stems from when I bought my A6300...two months before the A6500 was released. The A7000 appearing moments after I make up my mind and spring for an A6600 would definitely cast a shadow on my general sunny disposition.

 

Dave

[zackiedawg]

True - an A7000 announcement would be a bit of a kick in the face if I just decided to plunk for the A6600, thinking it's going to be the top APS-C.  Especially if the A7000 ended up really being the mini-A9 with the blackout free EVF and fast electronic shutter readout.

At this point, my decision is more down to:

1. A6600 - replace the aging A6300 with a camera that delivers everything I already like about it, but faster, better battery, and better focus tracking, plus IBIS.

2. A7RIV - replace the A6300 with a full frame beast - larger, heavier, way more resolution than I need - BUT, in APS-C mode delivers slightly more resolution...has the battery, and good controls too - and I'd have the option to use in full frame mode if and when I wanted to.  Questionmark is whether the AF performance is at least as good as A6600, tracking at least as good as A6600...and viewfinder doesn't have bad lag issues with burst shooting (the A6300/6500/6400/6600 level would be fine, where it has a real-time live view with blackout, but very little delay).  Obviously a lot more money too.

 

With the A6600, I can be fairly confident that focus, tracking, etc performance will match the A6400...with the A7RIV, I need to really see some fast shooting and burst focus tracking tests to see if it behaves more like the A7RIII, which isn't quite as good as the A6xxx series, or at least as good as the A6xxx series, if not even better.

[havoc315]

Overall..

My first impressions and first thoughts on the Sony A6100 and A6600: The A6100 is an excellent update over thee A6000 and a top of the line entry level camera. But for a $1400 flagship, the A6600 is very disappointing... At that price, there is little reason to not just skip up to the A7iii.. full analysis:

 

https://enthusiastphotoblog.com/sony-a6100-and-a6600-excitement-and-disappointment/

[Mr. Click]

I got this from Bob Krist, a friend of mine and fellow professional photographer who is now a Sony advocate. Bob is a good guy and a great photographer so I trust his judgement.

 

https://alphauniverse.com/stories/hands-on-with-the-new-sony-a6600/?fbclid=IwAR3YSYcEGWE5Ibs9khbXxbddS-XTMa4Bx81T-UQsixqC1NwFxzOmk3cuu5E

[pierces]

My next purchase will be a lens. Unless my A6300 kicks the bucket suddenly, the A6600 is a pick-up-later purchase for me.

 

Note that I now have an A7III as my primary camera but use the A6300 as a second body with a wide or telephoto mounted depending on the day's plans. If I was still an APS-C only shooter using the A6300 and A6000, I would jump on this camera in a hot second. It is probably the best-performing APS-C camera on the market right now, including the new Canons. Class-leading autofocus, all-day battery life, in-body stabilization and all that is stuffed in a truly tiny package. Do I wish it was the rumored Mini-A9? Yes. Am I disappointed that it isn't? Yes. Do I think it is about $200 too expensive? Yes. Would I buy one if I hadn't made the jump to full-frame last year? Probably. My dad summed it up pretty well when he said "wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills up first". Wisdom with a dose of non-PC ewwwww...!

 

That's my take for now. Awesome APS-C camera. If I didn't have an equally awesome full-frame body right now, I would probably preorder. As I said earlier, if you are looking to cut the chain on the APS-C DSLR boat anchor and move to a truly compact system, this is the top of the heap right now. 

 

Dave

 

 

[tommui987]

3 hours ago, Mr. Click said:

I got this from Bob Krist, a friend of mine and fellow professional photographer ...

 

Bob Krist did a great lecture series on The Great Courses on travel photography.   I highly recommend the  course.

[tommui987]

37 minutes ago, pierces said:

 I would probably preorder the A6600 (if he didn't have his full frame Sony). This is the top of the heap right now. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

After seeing the brochure/dpReview on the A6600 I was disappointed that this camera was not the APS-C version of a mini-A. The initial reaction by Justin and Dave, and later the reaction by Aaron, I was wondering if we were expecting the birth of an elephant and only got a mouse.

 

I think what  would sell me is the in-body stabilizer and eye-focus which my present A6300 and A6400 does not have.

 

Wonder how long it might take for an A7000 - the baby A9 - to come on the market?

 

 

[tommui987]

10 minutes ago, tommui987 said:

Wonder how long it might take for an A7000 - the baby A9 - to come on the market?

 

 

 

Just  saw this while looking for more information on the A6600

 

"

First Rumored Specs of Sony a9000

Personal-View has posted the first rumors of high-end/flagship APS-C mirrorless camera. This new mirrorless camera could be named Sony a9000, instead of a7000. This new high-end APS-C mirrorless camera is expected to be announced in late 2019. You can see rumored specs below, just take with a grain of salt.

 

• New body shape: EVF at the center, similar as a7 series
• AF like in a9, very fast
• Also Improved battery life and other…
• No flip screen – only tilt
• More expensive than a6700 ($2,000-2,499)
• For very, very, very fast shooting: sports, action in APS-C (more photo oriented camera)"

[havoc315]

13 hours ago, pierces said:

My next purchase will be a lens. Unless my A6300 kicks the bucket suddenly, the A6600 is a pick-up-later purchase for me.

 

Note that I now have an A7III as my primary camera but use the A6300 as a second body with a wide or telephoto mounted depending on the day's plans. If I was still an APS-C only shooter using the A6300 and A6000, I would jump on this camera in a hot second. It is probably the best-performing APS-C camera on the market right now, including the new Canons. Class-leading autofocus, all-day battery life, in-body stabilization and all that is stuffed in a truly tiny package. Do I wish it was the rumored Mini-A9? Yes. Am I disappointed that it isn't? Yes. Do I think it is about $200 too expensive? Yes. Would I buy one if I hadn't made the jump to full-frame last year? Probably. My dad summed it up pretty well when he said "wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills up first". Wisdom with a dose of non-PC ewwwww...!

 

That's my take for now. Awesome APS-C camera. If I didn't have an equally awesome full-frame body right now, I would probably preorder. As I said earlier, if you are looking to cut the chain on the APS-C DSLR boat anchor and move to a truly compact system, this is the top of the heap right now. 

 

Dave

 

 

 

Honest question, why would you take the a6600 over the A6400/a6100, paying 55%-90%, $500-$650 extra?

is IBIS, headphone port and larger battery worth $500?

is IBIS, headphone port, larger battery, higher resolution EVF, and SLOG video profile worth $650?

 

And, if you didn’t already have full frame... as you said...

Would you rather spend $2800 on a6600+16-55/2.8 or $2800-3200 on a7iii+[tamron 28-75 or Sony 24-70/4 or Sony 24-105/4]

 

to me.... that’s the big issue. 3-5 years ago, full frame cameras were still much more expensive than aps-c, and/or offered inferior performance. Cameras like the a7ii and a7rii shot at 5fps with af behind the a6xxx series. Full frame dslrs like the d750 had more limited af coverage and slower bursts. 

But with full frame cameras now under $2,000 that can shoot 10+FPS with fantastic af systems... in bodies not much bigger than aps-c....

 

In my mind, there just isn’t room for $1,500 aps-c cameras unless they can really beat the performance of $1500-$2000 FF.

 

 

[markeb]

23 minutes ago, havoc315 said:

to me.... that’s the big issue. 3-5 years ago, full frame cameras were still much more expensive than aps-c, and/or offered inferior performance. Cameras like the a7ii and a7rii shot at 5fps with af behind the a6xxx series. Full frame dslrs like the d750 had more limited af coverage and slower bursts. 

But with full frame cameras now under $2,000 that can shoot 10+FPS with fantastic af systems... in bodies not much bigger than aps-c....

 

In my mind, there just isn’t room for $1,500 aps-c cameras unless they can really beat the performance of $1500-$2000 FF.

 

I think you're hitting the challenge on this, both for the camera and the new lenses. Good to great FF has just gotten smaller and priced better and better. My a6500 certainly isn't old enough to consider scrapping for the a6600; I can buy a LOT of batteries for the price of a new body. I took my time moving to Sony where I'd bought a number of lenses for my Canon T2i shortly after buying the body. If I moved to full frame, I'd only lose 2 lenses, and the FF G's would be great lenses and probably worth the replacement cost.

 

And that may hold me back on the 16-55 f/2.8 lens. This is the classic high end "sweet spot" that Sony didn't have. But it's priced where if I even think about going FF, I'm not going to buy it. It is a G and appears to be built that way (unless something's changed, Canon has no APS-C "L" lenses), but the price makes it a commitment to APS-C.

 

We'll see.

[zackiedawg]

I would absolutely pay the premium for the A6600 over the A6400 - in fact, there's a good chance I will be.  But each person must judge their own needs and particular shooting to determine what features matter and what features don't.  I think sometimes people get wrapped up in needing to see every single spec updated, or they consider it a failure.  But if you're a person who doesn't shoot video, does updated video spec matter?  If you don't shoot sports/wildlife/action where you need superfast tracking or burst rates or a huge buffer, do those stats matter?  Each person needs to weigh what features matter to their shooting.

For me, the A6400 had a few things that i liked over my A6300, which is getting old and may need replacement soon.  I liked the improved tracking algorithms, improved noise reduction and JPG processing, and larger buffer than my A6300, plus the addition of selectable JPG quality settings in RAW+JPG mode.  Eye-AF doesn't really matter for me, nor do improved video specs.  There was one big demerit for the A6400 for me - and that was losing the MR1 and MR2 positions on the dial - because every weekend when out shooting birds and wildlife, I switch between MR1 and MR2 dozens if not hundreds of times a day...having to select those modes in a menu is not something I want to do (I know, because I had to do this with the A6000, which didn't have the 1 and 2 positions on the dial).  Once I gained that on the A6300, I didn't want to go back.

The A6600 restores those two very important controls, adds two additional custom buttons on the body, and adds the huge battery improvement and a beefier grip, plus likely some improved weather sealing compared to my A6300 (which has spent a lot of time in the rain and hasn't had an issue).  The IBIS is also something I'll gladly take, though I don't 'need' it - I do still have some lenses which can benefit from it, so though it's not something I'd make the buying decision on, the fact that it has it gives it an extra point over the A6400 as well.

So I for one am not disappointed in the A6600.  It may not have hit the fantasy wishlist I had going in - stupid me for letting the rumor sites build up my expectations...but after a rational look at what I hoped for in a replacement for my A6300, the A6600 improves upon virtually everything compared to my A6300, adds a few key upgrades I really wanted, and loses nothing that I wouldn't want to live without.

[havoc315]

48 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

I think you're hitting the challenge on this, both for the camera and the new lenses. Good to great FF has just gotten smaller and priced better and better. My a6500 certainly isn't old enough to consider scrapping for the a6600; I can buy a LOT of batteries for the price of a new body. I took my time moving to Sony where I'd bought a number of lenses for my Canon T2i shortly after buying the body. If I moved to full frame, I'd only lose 2 lenses, and the FF G's would be great lenses and probably worth the replacement cost.

 

And that may hold me back on the 16-55 f/2.8 lens. This is the classic high end "sweet spot" that Sony didn't have. But it's priced where if I even think about going FF, I'm not going to buy it. It is a G and appears to be built that way (unless something's changed, Canon has no APS-C "L" lenses), but the price makes it a commitment to APS-C.

 

We'll see.

 

The lens is in a difficult position in 2019. Compared to the 24-70/2.8 GM, the pricing makes perfect sense. About $700 less. 

Thing is, with all the recent development aimed at FF by Sony AND third party providers, there are a plethora of more affordable FF options, which wasn't really the case a few years ago. A Tamron 28-75/2.8 for $900. Sigma recently did a 14-24/2.8 for FE mount.. just a matter of time before they do a 24-70/2.8 for FE..

 

Not to mention fantastic FF F4 lenses like the 24-105/4.

 

5-10 years ago..... a good full frame camera could be double to triple the cost of the top aps-c. At that time, it could make sense to put a premium lens on an aps-c body. 

[havoc315]

1 hour ago, zackiedawg said:

I would absolutely pay the premium for the A6600 over the A6400 - in fact, there's a good chance I will be.  But each person must judge their own needs and particular shooting to determine what features matter and what features don't.  I think sometimes people get wrapped up in needing to see every single spec updated, or they consider it a failure.  But if you're a person who doesn't shoot video, does updated video spec matter?  If you don't shoot sports/wildlife/action where you need superfast tracking or burst rates or a huge buffer, do those stats matter?  Each person needs to weigh what features matter to their shooting.

For me, the A6400 had a few things that i liked over my A6300, which is getting old and may need replacement soon.  I liked the improved tracking algorithms, improved noise reduction and JPG processing, and larger buffer than my A6300, plus the addition of selectable JPG quality settings in RAW+JPG mode.  Eye-AF doesn't really matter for me, nor do improved video specs.  There was one big demerit for the A6400 for me - and that was losing the MR1 and MR2 positions on the dial - because every weekend when out shooting birds and wildlife, I switch between MR1 and MR2 dozens if not hundreds of times a day...having to select those modes in a menu is not something I want to do (I know, because I had to do this with the A6000, which didn't have the 1 and 2 positions on the dial).  Once I gained that on the A6300, I didn't want to go back.

The A6600 restores those two very important controls, adds two additional custom buttons on the body, and adds the huge battery improvement and a beefier grip, plus likely some improved weather sealing compared to my A6300 (which has spent a lot of time in the rain and hasn't had an issue).  The IBIS is also something I'll gladly take, though I don't 'need' it - I do still have some lenses which can benefit from it, so though it's not something I'd make the buying decision on, the fact that it has it gives it an extra point over the A6400 as well.

So I for one am not disappointed in the A6600.  It may not have hit the fantasy wishlist I had going in - stupid me for letting the rumor sites build up my expectations...but after a rational look at what I hoped for in a replacement for my A6300, the A6600 improves upon virtually everything compared to my A6300, adds a few key upgrades I really wanted, and loses nothing that I wouldn't want to live without.

 

That's a lot to pay for MR1 and MR2 dial! (instead of just 1 MR default in the A6400)

But Justin, you're in a different position than most: You prefer the aps-c format because you like the crop factor for birding. 

So if there were 2 identical cameras, identical prices, identical features.. except 1 was aps-c and 1 was FF, you would probably pick the aps-c. Where most people would pick the FF.

 

So you want the best possible aps-c... which is the A6600, at least in Sony. 

 

But for people who don't have a bias towards aps-c...

I've seen the A7iii for $1800..

So just $400 more...

For $400 more, you get:

Full frame

Dual card slots

UHS-II support in 1 card slot

AF joystick and more customized buttons

10fps with mechanical or electronic shutter (A6600 is 11 fps mechanical, only 8 fps silent)

4k/30p without crop (A6600 crops)

Uncompressed raw options

1/250 flash synch speed vs 1/160 on the A6600

... AND... full frame... significantly better dynamic range, significantly better ISO performance..

 

Put another way.... If I took the A7iii, and put in a 24mp crop sensor, that magically performed as well as the current 24mp FF sensor.... and it was priced at $1800... would you take the $1400 A6600 or the $1800 A7iii?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by havoc315