New Sony Cameras?

[zackiedawg]

Indeed - I know I'm a very different 'bird' when it comes to needs - that's why I always try to emphasize that each person should weigh what and how they shoot and only worry about the features and designs that directly impact that.

Indeed - it would be a lot to pay for MR dials alone - but when comparing the A6400 and A6600, I'd be considering the MR dial AND the larger battery AND deeper grip AND IBIS as the primary things I'd be paying for.

 

As to your question about the A7III with a 24MP APS-C sensor vs A6600...that's a tougher call.  There aren't very many things all that important to me with the A7III design - a front dial, dual card slots...yes, I'd use those.  Uncompressed RAW doesn't really matter to me - even when I shoot RAW, I get plenty out of compressed RAWs.  Flash sync doesn't matter at all as I almost never use a flash.  Video features don't matter at all for me.  10fps electronic shutter sounds cool, except the A7III doesn't have the A9's readout speed, so I couldn't really use it for fast moving birds as I'd get rolling-shutter/jello distortion...so that isn't really any great benefit.  A better EVF?  That would be nice.  So really, a front dial, better EVF, and dual card slots would cost $400 more - that's really almost a draw for me!

 

[pierces]

 

1 hour ago, havoc315 said:

 

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?

 

The IBIS is a plus because of my Rokinon lenses, the Lensbaby and some fun adapted lenses..

 

The battery would be a plus. If no full-frame, I would still appreciate the longer run time. In the real world where I have the A7III, it is a big plus since it removes a charger and 6 batteries from the kit.

 

EVF? Yes over the A6100.

 

Headphone and video specs are irrelevant to me.

 

Additional custom buttons. Yay!

 

Loss of pop-up flash. Boo! Not a big boo, but I do use it on occasion.

 

Bottom line, A6600. Primarily because of IBIS and the battery.

 

IMHO, the A6600 is the A7III of APS-C and if I didn't already make the jump to full-frame, I would indeed have to do some soul searching to decide whether to take the leap or stick with APS-C. If I stuck with APS-C, I would take a serious look at the new 16-50 f/2.8 G lens. I suspect it will turn out to be a (pricey) winner.

 

With the A6600 being the A7III of APS-C, will there be an A7000/A9000?

 

 

Dave

[havoc315]

44 minutes ago, zackiedawg said:

Indeed - I know I'm a very different 'bird' when it comes to needs - that's why I always try to emphasize that each person should weigh what and how they shoot and only worry about the features and designs that directly impact that.

Indeed - it would be a lot to pay for MR dials alone - but when comparing the A6400 and A6600, I'd be considering the MR dial AND the larger battery AND deeper grip AND IBIS as the primary things I'd be paying for.

 

As to your question about the A7III with a 24MP APS-C sensor vs A6600...that's a tougher call.  There aren't very many things all that important to me with the A7III design - a front dial, dual card slots...yes, I'd use those.  Uncompressed RAW doesn't really matter to me - even when I shoot RAW, I get plenty out of compressed RAWs.  Flash sync doesn't matter at all as I almost never use a flash.  Video features don't matter at all for me.  10fps electronic shutter sounds cool, except the A7III doesn't have the A9's readout speed, so I couldn't really use it for fast moving birds as I'd get rolling-shutter/jello distortion...so that isn't really any great benefit.  A better EVF?  That would be nice.  So really, a front dial, better EVF, and dual card slots would cost $400 more - that's really almost a draw for me!

 

 

And the ISO/DR performance of FF (somehow in an aps-c sensor).... Imagine getting another 1-2 stops of ISO and dynamic range....

Now worth $400?

 

So -- front dial

Better EVF

Dual slots

UHS-II slot for much faster buffer clearing

1-2 stop image quality improvement

.... lots of other things you won't use

 

Still get the MR slots, the deeper grip, the better battery, still get the IBIS..

 

For $400 to $600?

Edited August 29, 2019 by havoc315

[zackiedawg]

Still a tough call.  If we're entering fantasy realm, where the full-frame sensor's ISO performance gains were somehow transferred into an APS-C sensor...that would certainly be a selling point...the AF and tracking performance would have to be identical too...I'd have to weigh the extra $400 against the larger camera body...the A7III body is a good inch taller, 1/4 inch wider, and fatter both at the lens mount and the grip...I do still like the ability to go small with the A6600 when I just want to stick a small prime or pancake on it, even though it will spend much of its time with the big zooms attached...it's the modularity of the A6xxx series that I've always loved - they can get down really small and light when you want them to be, moreso than even Sony's smallest full frame...or be used with big honking lenses when needed.  I still consider the A6600 to be much more travel-friendly and small overall in minimalist form which is something I do want.

[pierces]

28 minutes ago, zackiedawg said:

Still a tough call.  If we're entering fantasy realm, where the full-frame sensor's ISO performance gains were somehow transferred into an APS-C sensor...that would certainly be a selling point...the AF and tracking performance would have to be identical too...I'd have to weigh the extra $400 against the larger camera body...the A7III body is a good inch taller, 1/4 inch wider, and fatter both at the lens mount and the grip...I do still like the ability to go small with the A6600 when I just want to stick a small prime or pancake on it, even though it will spend much of its time with the big zooms attached...it's the modularity of the A6xxx series that I've always loved - they can get down really small and light when you want them to be, moreso than even Sony's smallest full frame...or be used with big honking lenses when needed.  I still consider the A6600 to be much more travel-friendly and small overall in minimalist form which is something I do want.

 

The best camera for all situations is usually two (or more) cameras.

 

🙂

 

This is especially true if they use the same mount!

 

😉

 

Dave

[havoc315]

8 minutes ago, zackiedawg said:

Still a tough call.  If we're entering fantasy realm, where the full-frame sensor's ISO performance gains were somehow transferred into an APS-C sensor...that would certainly be a selling point...the AF and tracking performance would have to be identical too...I'd have to weigh the extra $400 against the larger camera body...the A7III body is a good inch taller, 1/4 inch wider, and fatter both at the lens mount and the grip...I do still like the ability to go small with the A6600 when I just want to stick a small prime or pancake on it, even though it will spend much of its time with the big zooms attached...it's the modularity of the A6xxx series that I've always loved - they can get down really small and light when you want them to be, moreso than even Sony's smallest full frame...or be used with big honking lenses when needed.  I still consider the A6600 to be much more travel-friendly and small overall in minimalist form which is something I do want.

 

Only "fantasy" realm.. to illustrate the benefits for *most* shooters for the small increase in price. Your situation -- though not unique -- is the small minority, people who specifically want to shoot aps-c for the crop. 

I mean.... take the 200-600.. stick it on an A6600, and that's 900mm of reach!

And if you want to keep things relatively small, stick the new 70-350 aps-c lens on the camera, get 525mm of reach -- You would need the massive Sony 100-400 + teleconverter, or the Sony 200-600 to get that kind of reach on FF.

But, for most consumers, 300mm is long enough for regular shooting, and the 70-300 isn't too massive. 

So that was my point -- take yourself, but imagine you didn't want/need the extra crop of aps-c... Would the benefits of the A7iii be a no-brainer over the A6600. 

 

And when you are factoring in the size -- remember the A6600 is actually a good bit bigger than the A6400/A6500.. it grew by about 100 grams and deeper grip. Still smaller than an A7iii, but the gap is closing. -- 503g vs 650g...  So about 30% more. Where the A6300 -- 403 grams.

 

So going from the A6300 to the A6600, you are gaining 25% more weight....  So comparing to the A6400, Gain 25% weight, lose flash, to gain IBIS and MR1/2 and better battery...

Going from the A6300/A6400 to the A7iii would be a 63% increase in weight. But once you are at the A6600, it's only another 25% more to get to the A7iii weight... Basically, the A6600 is already taking you almost halfway there.

 

Go back 5-10 years..... There was room for a high end aps-c camera for serious photographers who couldn't afford a full frame. Example, in 2013, Nikon launched the D7100 for $1200... At the time, Nikon's cheapest and lightest FF was the Nikon D600, launch price of $2100.

So back then.... cheap FF was 75% more costly than high end aps-c.  Now, you can get cheap FF for *cheaper* than the aps-c (you can go get an A7ii, still being sold new)...and you can get a fairly high end FF camera (like the Z6 and A7iii) for only 30-40% more than the high end aps-c.

 

Seems to me, the utility of high end aps-c is really limited to people specifically like you: amatuer enthusiasts wildlife and sports shooters. Pros will go to the A9/D5/1Dxii.... And enthusiasts non-sports/wildlife may as well step up to full frame. 

But for wildlife/sports -- it's the one area where you can still save a lot of money by going aps-c, since the FF sports cameras and lenses are so expensive. 

But for those shooting between 16mm and 200mm, there isn't a *huge* price difference between a good aps-c camera and a good FF camera. 

 

 

 

[tommui987]

Great to see the "Big Three" discussing the pro and con of the FF and APS-C A6600.

 

What  are the disadvantage of using the Sony lenses that I bought for use on my A6xxx if I went over to a full frame Sony?

[pierces]

6 hours ago, tommui987 said:

Great to see the "Big Three" discussing the pro and con of the FF and APS-C A6600.

 

What  are the disadvantage of using the Sony lenses that I bought for use on my A6xxx if I went over to a full frame Sony?

 

If they are specifically for APS-C with the smaller image circle, they need to be used in crop mode which gives you about 10MP. You can shoot normally but they will vignette a lot. Not really a good option. Since the reverse is not true and FE lenses work just fine on APS-C, what I did was pick up the 24-105 f/4 G to use as my primary lens (which I have seldom taken off the camera) and the 70-300 FE G for longer shots. My fisheye and the 12mm Rokinon are still used on the A6300 when I want wider shots and I found that the extra reach of the 70-300 on the APS-C body works better for me. I may pick up a wide lens for full-frame someday but I have found that when out shooting more than casually, having the wide lens or the telephoto on the smaller second body in a waist pack is much handier than fumbling with changing lenses. If I am shooting long at a zoo, kid sports or something like whale watching, I carry the A6300 with the long lens on the strap with the A7III in the waist pack. For casual walkabout, I find the 24-105 covers my shooting style pretty completely since I've gotten pretty good at stitching hand-held panorama shots when I need wider than the 24mm end of the zoom and the image quality allows for some pretty significant cropping.

 

Both the A7III and the A6600 are extremely capable cameras. The A7III has better high ISO performance but if the extra pound is important to you, the A6600 has the same sensor as the A6400 and that's no slouch. 

 

You have a tougher choice than I since neither the A6400 or A6600 were around when I made mine.

 

Good luck.

 

Dave

[havoc315]

8 hours ago, tommui987 said:

Great to see the "Big Three" discussing the pro and con of the FF and APS-C A6600.

 

What  are the disadvantage of using the Sony lenses that I bought for use on my A6xxx if I went over to a full frame Sony?

 

As Dave noted, if you bought aps-c lenses (non-FE), they will not fill the full frame image circle. (Though the 10-18 does just about fill it). It's fine to use those lenses as you transition... using them in crop mode mostly, which limits the resolution (and therefore the benefit) of going full frame. But it's an ok stop-gap measure if it's temporary as you build out a full frame kit.

 

The good news -- compared to a couple years ago -- FF lenses are getting more affordable. Yes, Sony FE lenses are priced *new* at a premium. But you're starting to see more availability of uses lenses and you're starting to see some great third party options. The Tamron zooms and the Samyang/Rokinon primes, in particular, are great values in full frame. And older FE lenses have been around long enough, that you can find them used for 20-40% off the new prices.

A couple years ago, you were limited to paying new pricing, and really didn't have many good third party options.

 

[tommui987]

16 hours ago, tommui987 said:

 

 

What  are the disadvantage of using the Sony lenses that I bought for use on my A6xxx if I went over to a full frame Sony?

 

Aaron and Dave:

 

Thanks much. Very useful information. Probably will stick to my A6xxx being a cheap pake!

[Victress2007]

Has anyone taken a look at the E 70-350 lens yet? That sounds like a great lens for cruising.

 

Vic

[pierces]

3 minutes ago, Victress2007 said:

Has anyone taken a look at the E 70-350 lens yet? That sounds like a great lens for cruising.

 

Vic

 

First look reviews are promising.

 

DPReview will probably be the place to watch.

 

Dave

 

[tommui987]

33 minutes ago, pierces said:

 

First look reviews (re:70-350mm lens)  are promising.

 

Dave

 

 

What features would make it better tham the 70-300mm lens? Is the 70-350mm for full frame?

[Victress2007]

The 70 - 350 is for APS-C.  It is slimmer and lighter weight than the 70-300 and most importantly, I don't have the 70-300. 🙂 I may have to wait for a trip to Canada to get it, as it is $1000 US or Cdn. I'm in Oregon, so Canada isn't that far away! There is a good thread on dpreview titled, Anyone else baffled by the 70-350?

 

Vic

Edited August 31, 2019 by Victress2007

[pierces]

2 hours ago, tommui987 said:

 

What features would make it better tham the 70-300mm lens? Is the 70-350mm for full frame?

 

APS-C.

 

The FE 70-300 is made to cover the larger sensor. Because the 70-350 only has to cover the APS-C sensor it is slightly smaller than the DR lens and 200+ grams (.5 lb) lighter. 

 

As for better? They are both G lenses and I would expect the same excellent IQ from the new lens.

 

Dave

Edited August 31, 2019 by pierces

[markeb]

11 minutes ago, Victress2007 said:

The 70 - 350 is for APS-C.  It is slimmer and lighter weight than the 70-300 and most importantly, I don't have the 70-300. 🙂 I may have to wait for a trip to Canada to get it, as it is $1000 US or Cdn. I'm in Oregon, so Canada isn't that far away! There is a good thread on dpreview titled, Anyone else baffled by the 70-350?

 

Vic

 

A little bit. In some ways, it seems “unnecessary”. Its a nod to the APS-C I suppose. In fact, that’s also true of the 16-55. Two “G” lenses aimed at crop cameras. It at least suggests Sony wants to expand the quality of the crop market, right when they’ve made major inroads into FF. 

 

Fascinating. 

[pierces]

58 minutes ago, Victress2007 said:

The 70 - 350 is for APS-C.  It is slimmer and lighter weight than the 70-300 and most importantly, I don't have the 70-300. 🙂 I may have to wait for a trip to Canada to get it, as it is $1000 US or Cdn. I'm in Oregon, so Canada isn't that far away! There is a good thread on dpreview titled, Anyone else baffled by the 70-350?

 

Vic

 

Slimmer and lighter for a slimmer and lighter body. Why is there bafflement?

 

:)

 

Dave

 

[tommui987]

2 hours ago, pierces said:

 

Slimmer and lighter for a slimmer and lighter body. Why is there bafflement?

 

Dave

 

 

Looks as if I will sell my 70-300mm and get the 70-350mm.   For me physically, lighter is better!

[markeb]

3 hours ago, pierces said:

 

Slimmer and lighter for a slimmer and lighter body. Why is there bafflement?

 

🙂

 

Dave

 

 

Only that they'd do the R&D and product development work for this lens. This appears to be a pretty high quality lens aimed at a crop body, and I've not seen that from Canon or Nikon, for instance. That's where I'm a little baffled, pleasantly. It suggests strongly that Sony plans to continue to develop their APS-C line, and improve it pretty dramatically. My experience with Canon was that they didn't develop and produce "L" lenses for crop bodies; investing in "G" lenses for the a6XXX line is a good sign.

 

Now, because of an interest in low light and macro work, I may yet look at a Sony full frame, but the 16-55 and the 70-350 are major shots into the serious enthusiast/near-professional (maybe even professional?) market that with the investment in full frame I wasn't expecting.

 

I'll have to check out both lenses the next time I'm at B&H after they're released...

[pierces]

To me it seems like a logical move. I now shoot primarily with an A7III but carry the smaller A6300 with a complimentary lens attached. For a pro, an A6600 with a 16-55 G attached would be a great compact companion to an A9 with a 400 f/2.8 at a sporting event. (Or an awesome 1.5x teleconverter for the 400!)

 

The A6000 isn't the largest selling interchangeable lens camera ever because it is sleek,  shiny and pretty. It's because it was a solid performer in an incredibly compact form factor. Sony delivered on the compact size that micro 4/3 promised. 

 

Incredible phones have stuck a stick in the spokes of the camera market. Maybe Sony's path is a winner. Time will tell.

 

Dave

 

 

[havoc315]

On 8/29/2019 at 12:31 PM, zackiedawg said:

Indeed - I know I'm a very different 'bird' when it comes to needs - that's why I always try to emphasize that each person should weigh what and how they shoot and only worry about the features and designs that directly impact that.

Indeed - it would be a lot to pay for MR dials alone - but when comparing the A6400 and A6600, I'd be considering the MR dial AND the larger battery AND deeper grip AND IBIS as the primary things I'd be paying for.

 

As to your question about the A7III with a 24MP APS-C sensor vs A6600...that's a tougher call.  There aren't very many things all that important to me with the A7III design - a front dial, dual card slots...yes, I'd use those.  Uncompressed RAW doesn't really matter to me - even when I shoot RAW, I get plenty out of compressed RAWs.  Flash sync doesn't matter at all as I almost never use a flash.  Video features don't matter at all for me.  10fps electronic shutter sounds cool, except the A7III doesn't have the A9's readout speed, so I couldn't really use it for fast moving birds as I'd get rolling-shutter/jello distortion...so that isn't really any great benefit.  A better EVF?  That would be nice.  So really, a front dial, better EVF, and dual card slots would cost $400 more - that's really almost a draw for me!

 

 

Justin... meant to ask... You don't use in-camera panorama? Worth giving up panoramas to get a second MR slot?

[zackiedawg]

Not really - I 'played' with it maybe 20-30 times in grand total over the last 9 years, having had it in 8 different Sony cameras.  More of a novelty I would try sometimes when I first got the cameras.  I've probably manually stitched just about the same number of panos using software...panos in general are just not something I shoot very often.  MR modes are definitely more important for me - at least two of them.  I'd love to have even 3 of them on the dial, and get rid of all the video modes!

 

I would be much more upset if a camera didn't have MFNR ISO mode, or in-camera HDR stacking...those I use VERY often.  I had a camera with dual card slots and I ended up shooting on the one slot 99% of the time, only occasionally finding any reason to switch to the second card...I suppose if the two slots had 'backup' mode where I could save the shots to two cards at the same time, I'd probably use it that way, though card failures are super-duper rare nowadays.

[havoc315]

I use the dual card for Raw to 1, jpeg to the other.

Do the A6xxx cameras still have MFNR? I thought they got rid of that.

There is still HDR in all Sony cameras, to my knowledge

 

By the way.. if they imported the feature from the newest A7/A9 cameras... there is an entirely different memory recall type function that's even better than MR dials..

You can customize an AF-on button to instantly bring up a bunch of settings.

So you can do 2 AF-on buttons -- 1 for action-- same wide AF, minimum shutter speed of 1/1000, and 11 fps..

1 AF-on for landscapes... set however

As many custom buttons as you want to assign to it... You can have different set ups instantly available, no need to even turn the dial. Just slide your thumb to the correct custom button. 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by havoc315

[pierces]

Ne A9II stuff is surfacing.

 

I may be in the market for one...just for the toggle lock on the exposure adjustment. Everything else after that is just icing on the cake!

 

Dave