Well APS-C does have a lot of advantages - Easier to do landscapes: Ultra-Wide Angle Lenses for APS-C are, in general, easier to build and you need to step down less to get everything sharp. 10mm f/5.6 is most of the time totally fine and with 10mm f/8, everything is perfectly sharp. No need for f/11 even further (which hurts the image quality) - More Tele with Tele: An 300mm f/2.8 turns into an 450mm with f/2.8 brightness but f/4 DOF. So you can shoot at f/2.8 without risking that only a small plane is sharp but you still have enough nice creamy bokeh, even with APS-C often more than you need - Bright lenses are actually usable. If you have an 105mm f/1.4, you can actually use it at f/1.4 and there are still things that are in focus. No need to constantly step down to at least f/2 to get at least some DOF I shot with full frame for quite some time (Tested the D800E for a short time, shot the 5D Mark III and then the a99 for several months) and it does have quite some disadvantages Lenses are way heavier too and often less bright (something like the 18-35mm f/1.8 just can't exist in the FF, just look at how big the 24-35mm f/2 already is. Imagine that in 24-50mm and f/1.8 :D it would be way to heavy/big, i think we dont even have to mention the 50-100mm f/1.8, that would be unthinkable in Full-Frame). So APS-C for sure does have advantages, as it does have disadvantages. It always depends on what you need/want but i'd personally say, for most photographers APS-C is the better choice. Full-Frame turns more and more into an status symbol than being actually needed by the photographer. Lots of photographers even have more disadvantages than advantages out of the FF but use it anayway because its pro and as a pro you need to use pro bro
@@Da_Man_1221 Well there the thing. APS-C does have disadvantages and they are even bigger with 4/3. I thought about getting an 4/3 camera and tested some of them, but decided against it. After testing with several sensor sices (even APS-H) i came to the conclusion that, at least right now, APS-C seems to be, for me, the best of all worlds. Not to big, not to small. For me it is just right. Others, of course, have other preferences.
point 3: isn't that because f1.4 on apsc is actually the f2 equivalent on full frame? you gotta consider the crop factor on the aperture as well, not just the focal length.
Hopefully at some point APS-C will be recognized not as a budget option but as a size alternative to full frame. ASP-C cameras are just better than full frame cameras at some things, particularly street photography where having a smaller camera and smaller lenses can make you stand out less than FF mirrorless cameras that are similar in size to old DSLRs. The quality you get from APS-C cameras is hardly lacking either, sure you may not get the same sort of raw detail as you do with a full frame, but if that somehow makes the difference between a good and bad shot that’s likely more on you than the camera.
@@rob25222 Nah... Besides the headphone jack which is kind of almost not needed because we have already gotten used to adusting the sound to not clip based on the on-screen meter. This feature came too late. It should come with the a6300 because that camera till this day offers fantastic video features minus it's quirks. They have not done much woth hardware. The overheating can be fixed with an update to the software and so can the 30min limit.
@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel I do not understand the need for eye AF fpr creating cinematic content because at that level auto focus is not needed or is otherwise abandoned for follow focusing to nail your prefered zones. It's a great feature but EYE af is software, which could have easily been an update. HLG video codec would have been great.
Nor can all people afford full-frame either. APS-C is still very relevant and popular, especially considering APS-C cameras are usually smaller than full-frame.
I always thought the main advantage to APS-C sensors was the price of glass. You can get some pretty nice lenses for $300-400. I am going to upgrade my a6000 but no way I am going to spend $1400 on a lens. If I am going to spend that kind of money I will just buy a full frame lens for the future.
It really comes down to lenses. Camera body come and goes very fast. Full frame lenses for the most part are larger, heavier and cost more in comparison to crop body lenses. I would imagine that there are more casual photographers vs pros. Lighter, cheaper camera lens and body are probably gona be more favorable to us casual folks...
People really complaining about APS-C saying it's too small, but so many people shoot micro 4/3 Panasonic... There's not much wrong with APS-C and I personally will be purchasing a Fujifilm X-T3 very soon.
actually, crop sensor is a bad term. super35 / (same as aps-c) is older then what we call full frame. Leica turned the film from movie cameras on its side to make a larger frame. In the movie world full-frame is called Academy format but that is for prints that include the optical soundtrack.
@@shawnmiller2786 depends on the MP. I got a 24MP FF camera and a 24MP Aps-c. So i get a higher resolution when i use the aps-c instead of cropping in on my FF image
I have both the A6500 and the A6400; plus the A7iii. The A6600 doesn't put enough on the table for me to convert from the A6500 to the A6600. The best attribute of this camera is the longer battery life but the Meike battery grip equals the A6600 battery life and gives me a vertical shutter button. IBIS??? I will shoot with Sony OSS lenses... What would have been the parameters which would have convinced me to upgrade the A6500 to the A6600" 1. Flash sync speed of at least 1/250 second 2. Better and larger EVF 3. Side access for the SD card Dual SD cards and higher resolution might be nice but not a priority for me... Instead of the A6600 and the new APSC lens, I purchased an open box A7iii and a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (for actually less cost). I love the EVF of the A7iii and I love many parameters of that camera, including inserting the SD card at the side rather than from below,. I will now shoot with the A7iii and Tamron lens paired in tandem with the A6400 wearing either the 12mm f/2.0 Rokinon or the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS... IMO: I think that the A6400 is a better buy than the A6100... The A6400, for an extra hundred and fifty bucks, seems to give you a lot more... BTW: I would LOVE a Sony compatible flash that is the equal of the tiny Canon 270EX-ii which I have carried all over China and parts of Europe. The 270EX-ii is a small low profile flash that has HSS. I own two Godox TT350S flashes which is the smallest Sony compatible flash with HSS capability (that I am presently aware of). However, the TT350S sits quite a bit higher (4-inches vs 2.5 inches), than the 270EX-ii which could be a problem, combined with the rather flimsy plastic hotshoe of the TT350S when I carry the camera and flash on a Black Rapid Strap. However, I have carried the lower profile 270EX-ii with its metal hotshoe mount all over on my Canon DSLR cameras with no problems... Do you know of any low profile flash with HSS capabilities?
I'm saving up for the a6600 with kit lens. Primary use will be for my RUclips videos in 4k. The A7 III with lens will cost NZ$4,000 in NZ. Sony lenses are overpriced. Will probably get mine later this year. Or the Canon 90D which is under NZ$2,500, has a faster SD card reader, easier menu system, but no HDR and is not mirrorless and is heavier. Why can't ONE camera HAVE IT ALL. Both have their own pros/cons.
I honestly have to say that I love my Sony a6300 it is a couple years old and lacks some features but I don't see the need to upgrade to another Sony APS-C Camera. I think for the most people who have an older Sony APS-C camera its just not worth to get these. I will wait maybe after the A7sIII they come out with a 6k a6800 or something maybe with better Battery life and a flip screen?
@@nobutoneme1325 , right on, but there has always been a market for higher-grade APS-C cameras as well. Look at the Fuji X-T3 and the Nikon D500. Had Fuji ever put a good IBIS on its APS-C cameras, I'd have bought one the next day.
NoButOneMe When it comes to the video industry almost every movie is shot in S35, except the newer ones but even those are rare. S35 is still gonna be here for a while and I really like it. Full frame is amazing too but it comes at a price.
I don't own a Sony camera, so I am not biased here. Panasonic and Sigma user. I must admit I am a bit disappointed that it is yet another Sony using the same 24mp sensor. I was expecting a 30mp+ sensor. 24mp is fine but how long are they going to keep reusing this sensor? Not OK on a £1500 body only camera. For slightly more I can get a A7/3 now.
I’m subscribed to you on RUclips, and I’m going to dive into your website. You know your stuff, and you bring a savvy, cynical, and comical approach to photography. The fro is nice as well. Keep on trucking!
I guess for Sony, it makes sense to be present in the APS-C market, where they can share some of the components and software from their high end products. But their focus is the VF market, where the profit margin is much higher. Medium to long term, APS-C and smaller formats will be insignificant formats for interchangeable lens cameras . We will be back to 24x36mm as in the analog days.
I’m a Nikon guy. But I might go for the a6100 as my neck-slung camera for test shoots before using my heavy gears. Hopefully, it’s color science gained some improvement.
The A6100 offers a lot of bang for your buck, and I'm going to start recommending it. The A6600 enters A7iii territory so I'll rather recommend the A7iii.
Is it bad that I like having a flash!?!? I like the smaller body of the a6300/6400/6500. Having an extra batter is no big deal, takes 10 seconds to switch! IBIS is cool though but like in the video if I am going to spend the $$$ then I’d go full frame. Love the videos, new to photography and learn a lot from this channel. Thanks Jared!!
I’m debating on getting the a6400, for my needs it’s def a bigger upgrade after using my a6300 for so many years. I don’t want to spend 1400 dollars on a camera that I could spend a couple hundred more to get a full frame.
Yes some of us like and need ASP-C sensor camera for the extra reach it allows us. Those of us that do work in zoos/wildlife etc, I have no plans to replace my Nikon D500 with a FF camera waiting to see what ASP-C "PRO" stuf Nikon releases
So im in the merket now and I'll probably be getting the 6100. It's between that at the 6400 the reason I chose this is to make sure I have a small camera I can use to get spontanious and covert shots. I know I'll be sacrificing the larger frame but it's something worth mentioning when you talk about the full frame. Especially if you're on a tighter budget. Good advice in the Tamron or Sigma lenses though.
I'm looking to get my first real camera and the full frame vs. APS-C debate is very tricky to navigate. As someone who likely won't migrate from one sensor to another ever given I'm a hobbyist, I will likely live with whatever glass I start buying for a very very long time. The a6100 seems like a great body that represents a ton of value, but I feel like we're on the precipice of major improvements to the mirrorless world as processing power is taken advantage of. Idk, it's a tough place to sit when I just want to start taking better stills.
Just get a6100 or xt30. FF is kinda expensive if you want to adapt native/third party af lenses. A6100 because better go cheapest as the obsolete sony body clearly needs update (they're still using micro usb in 2019!!). XT30 if you want clear company attitude on apsc and you are willing to spend fortune to get those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses at later stages
Looked into going back to film. 10+$ for a roll and Iford black and white costs even more. Looking forward is the only real option (Film is dead). APS-C for a beginner (or novice) is the way to go. The new 90D would be my suggestion. On a budget a used 70D gets you great photos and video. Camera technology changes as often as underwear (maybe not Jared). Stick to a sound camera and remember to shoot and practice your technique. Jared offers a great Online course “Fro knows photo” ep 001 to practice from. It is by far more valuable then the latest and greatest camera.
love sony focusing. battery life of 6600 is fantastic. however, as a serious photographer I look at Fuji or Panasonic and they look like serious cameras where as Sony 6000 series look like kiddy’s camera.
@@mmoarchives2542 I got it for $150 off with an extra battery and sandisk extreme pro 64gb card as bonus items just 4 weeks ago. Battery lasts so damn long I've yet to decide weather or not I will sell the extra one, still in packaging lol
I own the a6500 camera for about 2 years and I'm happy with it, so no upgrade in my mind yet. I'm really considering in buying the 70-350 mm glass but I'm not sure if it worth its money, maybe I'll rent one for testing and then decide. It's too bad that for e-mount there are no alternatives lenses for this range of mm.
I like both cameras and what´s SONY is doing in the market, The only thing that I would have added to this a6600 is 4K 60p, that´s my only complaint about this new amazing piece of gear. Look what SONY gives you in this $1400 body. You would never have that in Nikon, CANON or FUJI, or whatever is on the market right now. And that´s what I like about SONY, they give you the best quality vs pricetag option which should be everybodies goal, unless you were reach and could buy 2 o 3 cameras to match the best performance. For me this a6600 gathers the best technology for the best price. Correct me If I am wrong. Great Jared as usual, I would like to see a nice review of this two SONY´S, Thanks!
I use an a6500, mostly for video, and the 6600 is an upgrade (mostly the new AF system and the Z battery), but for that price I doubt that i'll replace the 6500, and was hoping for more upgrades, like 4K 60fps and 2 card slots so I could upgrade (and even for a higher price) the lens prices are outrageous!
for the a6600 and 16-55 2.8 price you get a7iii and tamron 28-75 2.8 (which in fact is one stop faster). No point in getting APS-C gear then, would be my guess.
Hi Jared, I watch your video regularly, they are super helpful. Now I want to know 2 things , No.1Is it possible to use Sony 6400’s lens on Sony a7iii? What will be the result if I use crop sensor lenses on full frame? No.2 I am more into video, so is it better to invest in SONY a6600 than SONY 6400?
Yes APS-C is needed. First they already make the chip for all their professional video camera's since aps-c is Super35. So 100 years of lenses are for super35. When I am onset that little body is great to have so I am not bouncing my full frame body all over the dam place. I would rather have it for travel with smaller primes and maybe a simple zoom. LIke say my Zeiss G glass. People don't instantly freak out when you pull up a larger body with a huge ass piece of glass. Better for landscapes if you don't plan to make Murals. I'm cool with small. You know like contact prints from 8x10. What's the largest print Adams or White or Weston ever made? you can make those sizes or close to them from 24MP. I barely find need to shoot more than 28MP for most client work. Hell a billboard is printed at 50-90DPI(printer dpi so a dot made of of dots) if that. I don't know, I just don't assume what other people need or don't need.
As a videographer who uses 2 a6500 for most of my work, the a6600 didn't improve anything for me personally. The AF on the a6500 is more than adequate for me. The recording limit wasn't an issue for me since the a6500 still has the app functionality which lets me turn off the recording limit. And since I use a SmallHD Focus monitor I already have a fully articulating screen that also gives me a headphone jack and lets me power the a6500 with Sony NPF batteries (which are better, cheaper, and more universal than the Z batteries). Honestly, the a6500 is the perfect run and gun camera for me with these solutions. The only thing I was hoping for was 4K60 and 10-bit...even externally would have made me happy. I know the a7sIII might have 4K60 and 10-bit but I'm sure it will be damn near $4k and at that point I'd start considering a proper cinema camera with better ergonomics, ND filters, SDI, etc. I guess I'll just save my money for now.
It's good you work for yourself. If you were part of a publication you'd probably get into major sh*t at work for missing a launch event. I mean honestly, I get my photo news fix from the Fro, so I was kind of surprised when I saw others put out a full hands on review YESTERDAY. Even today, there isn't a hands on review or preview of the 6600.
I expected an APS-C camera with - a much bigger body (it would be easier to hold with big lenses) - a good EVF (the current one is a shame for such a price) - 4K 60fps (Fuji has it, phones have it). Maybe they have another camera to announce, who knows.
In the eye of camera makers, APS-C cameras are needed. Protects the high prices of the newest Full Frame body & high-end glass. Sure a basic consumer could buy a Full Frame Canon RP or A7 with a kit lens but will they buy a $2000+ f/2.8 glass? Probably most will buy an f/4 or an APS-C w/2.8 that gives you a stop faster and equivalent DoF. I think Sony will eventually lower the price of that new lens.
Thank you for this video. My comments: I am dissappointed with this iteration, for the cost and options this is not a compelling upgrade. I own the a6500, the capability index is great because of the apps, but this one won't run apps. I am not happy that all they did really was better battery, and flip screen. That's expensive for such similar base functions. The lenses are fine with the older options ... So why Sony, it's because they need to move on to new tech.
99% of all movies ever made were shot with on 4-perf or super 35mm, which is closer APS-C than full-frame. The only places where the 6600 misses the mark are no 10bit or 4k 60. The GH5 has both at almost the same price point. I guess it comes down to if those features are more important than the slightly larger sensor and better autofocus.
It all depends on what you use your camera for. If you do low light or portrait photography, I'd say full frame is the way to go. But if you do nature photography where you need reach, APS-C has its advantages.
The main difference I'd say is in size and weight of lenses and camera bodies. But the thing is, full frame has a leg up on APS-C because you can always get teleconverters to achieve more reach from a full frame lense, but you cant get more light into a smaller sensor given the lens is the same aperture.
@@CheeseOnEverything Thanks for replying. So, a Full Framed camera is better for night photography? What about filming? I think I should just go for Canon SL3
If I sold my nikon d810 and sony rx100 what should I get? I use the Nikon for landscapes & the sony rx goes with me on my motorcycle. I only have 1 lens for the Nikon and well the sony is a point and shoot a good point and shoot lol! I just want 1 camera to do it all! Not sure I want to go down to crop sensor tho. hurmm...
Thanks for the reviews Jared! QUESTION: Mark Galer said that there's no 29-min record limit on the 6600 but other sources say that there is! Please provide a definitive answer. Thanks in advance.
When I look at the sharpness results of Dxomark for apsc I can't see the point of having more than 24Mp on an APSC sensor. no lenses will be able to produce images that are sharp enough.
Jonathan Bondu exactly and even if there are lens, there gonna be wayy too expensive. Sony is just money hungry. They could’ve all these specs on the a6400 but instead they decide too make two more cameras lmao
@@victoe5780 I'd wait until more reviews come out on RUclips and watch them all... then give it a bit of time to see if problems develop with the a6600.
Theres no reason to buy a 6400 if it's the same price as an a7iii unless size is a big issue to you. Full frame dominates apsc in every way in terms of quality.
The A6600 has some wonderful specs... These specs are what Sony "SHOULD" have released with the A6400! If they had done that, I would have been first on line to buy one. However, I bought the A6400 and shoot it in tandem with an A6500. Since I have virtually all of the features of the A6600 between the A6400 and A6500; I don't think that I will ditch either of my cameras for the new A6600. But, if I were going to buy my first mirrorless camera I would probably pick this one up. But if I were considering the A6600 + the new 16-55mm f/2.8 zoom lens (about $2800 list) I would take a serious look at the A7iii +Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (about $2800 or so list). I have a hunch that the A7iii plus Tamron would win in that fight! BTW: It is a great camera! IMO, the only thing WRONG with the A6600 for me is that it doesn't bring enough to the table to convince me to switch from my A6500 or A6400. BTW: A sixty dollar Meike battery grip for the A6400 will give you the power capacity of the new battery... and have a vertical shutter button to boot!
I have learned a ton from your fro. Thanks I’m looking for the best mirrorless or DSLR for around $1200 or less (body only) to record my nieces. One is a gymnast and the other does local community theater. I will be purchasing a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for whatever body I choose as well. I’m looking for eye autofocus that functions in 4k. Some have suggested Sony a6600 (I’m a little concerned about the rolling shutter) others have suggested Canon M6 Mark ii (some have said eye autofocus doesn’t work in 4k) Any help from any other viewers would also be appreciated.
This upgrade for the 6600 is less spectacular than when the 6500 came out. Disappointed with Sony not having any wow over the top reasons to upgrade. That said it is still a solid APS which delivers excellent quality as always. We are just used to Sony pushing barriers!
For new users, these cameras would be really nice. But for existing Sony users, nah, they're just not good enough to upgrade. As a hobbyist photographer, I think APS-C is the sweet spot in terms of sensor size.
A7iii instead? I did see all of Tony Northups opinion on that. Sure, but only if buy the crazy overpriced new G lens. Also, other than the full framey stuff, the A6600 meets or beats it. A7iii, the AF was improved in firmware - but still not as good in video. The IBIS similarly doesn't actually work all that well with non OSS lenses. The screen does not flip up for vlogging (it's worst drawback to me.) It's still 24MP same as the A6600. And it's still at least $400 more than this. Yes the new G lenses are absurdly overpriced, but you can equip the A6600 with the underrated little 16-50 pancake zoom or a lot of other choices and have a pretty extraordinary camera - nearly an A7 - in your coat pocket. Last year there was a big sale on the old A7ii, and I guess if I see a big sale on the A7iii before the holidays I may still pounce on it, but still thinking all things considered I'd prefer the A6600, even at price parity.
Because A7iii has 24MP sensor it has bigger pixels than A6600. Also its sensor is back-illuminated. Because of this A7iii produces less noisy image. A6600 has an old APS-C sensor with copper wiring. A7iii is much better than A6600.
Hey buddy, thanks for having this video, especially for a beginner like me. Do you have any suggestions for picking which camera? Canon M6 mark ii or Sony a6600 and which len I should buy? Thank you!
Looking at the features, yes I would return. Sigma lenses are cheap for its performance. 30mm 1.4 is around $289 while efm 32mm 1.4 is $479. Other than that lens only 22mm f2 is worth looking, everything else needs to be adapted. The most possible to say sony and 3rd party are expensive is the one who got ef lenses collection
Nobody wanted APS-C because no one knew it would even exist, it was created because of the high cost of sensor construction and some of those that never even wanted or needed APS-C have realised that it has some real benefits, particularly if you are a long lens user it can save you thousands in reach for equivalent glass, so while APS-C may have never really been needed in the first place other than to enable the sale DSLR's for the masses, I think you'll find that many will say that now, it is still needed.
The a7ii with a kit lens is going for around 1k, would I be better off getting that over the A6600? 1.5k is most I can spend. This would be my first Camera.
I wonder if the tariffs are playing a role in the pricing because it is way too high and the gh5 still seems like a stronger camera for the same range. Also, did anyone tell Sony about APS-H? In order to compete with the gh5, that would be a better sensor.
I have a an a6000 and a6500 with too many lenses and while the new 16-55 lens is nice and I'd really like having the animal eye AF, I'd still rather go with the a7III+Tamron 28-75 instead of the 6600+16-55.
Other than wide angle and good low light/ dynamic range capabilities, I don't see any other advantage of full frame over aps-c. I'm not even a fan of very creamy bokeh because it's hard to achieve pin sharp focus with very narrow depth of field especially with group shots of people not really lined up well some of them will appear out-of focused. And the size of fx gears turns me off, adding to the bulk of carrying additional lighting equipment and tripod stands during location shoots where I have to ride buses and public utility transport (I live in the Philippines where carrying expensive bulky equipment is a lure to thieves and pickpockets). I regularly shoot birds-in-flight photos in my leisure time and some street photos in my off duty as an events photographer, and I prefer to shoot with smaller, lighter and inconspicuous aps-c mirrorless cameras. Considerably smaller than full frame and more reach even with just the basic 18-135mm or 55-210mm lenses oftentimes 24 megapixels is enough to crop photos when the lighting is very good. Thanks to the introduction of A6100 and A6600 I'm now considering to upgrade my A6000 to the same crop sensor body with my existing crop sensor kits rather than going full frame with A7iii and buy new set of full frame lenses.
I've waited until new SONY mirror-less camera to be released rather than buying a6400. The reason to get a camera is taking pictures and videos of my cute little daughter. When released, the price considering upgraded points doesn't make sense for me.(Too expensive than I expected $1200) But I would gladly pay more money if real time Eye AF for movies, Z battery and 5-axis in body are worth. Could anyone advise which choice between a6400 and a6600 is best option for me?
Really comes down to IBIS. That will help a lot in handheld videos. The other option is to buy a gimbal, where a good one will come in a bit cheaper (A6400 + gimbal) vs an A6600. But in use, it's a LOT bigger. And then again, the stabilization it will provide with some practice can't be matched by any camera. So if you need some stabilization, the A6600 is what you want. If you need a lot of stabilization, grab the A6400 and any decent gimbal. If you don't need stabilization, get the A6400. Both cameras have Real Time AF and Eye AF, and batteries are easily replaceable, so there's no significant different between the cameras there.
Jared, I think the a6600 looks great and everything, but I think Sony only focused on "sexy" features and upgrades, and neglected the "unsexy", more functional upgrades they could have done. The AF tracking and speed, eye AF, flippy screen, etc. are all great, but they had an opportunity to go full out, and make it more of a "pro APS-C" like the D500. They could have made the body a bit bigger, so they could include 2 card slots, a front control dial, a joystick, maybe a bigger EVF, like you mentioned... I don't know why they're so stuck on maintaining this tiny form factor for their "flagship" model. I have the a6000, which I love, and I'll admit, can be nice for its small size in certain situations, like travel, but there have been a number of times where (even when traveling) I'll leave the a6000 at home or in the hotel and take my D7100. When I'm going out trying to take legit "good" pictures, and not just "family vacation" photos, my Nikon just seems much more functional, plus I can afford better lenses for it. While I hate that this is the case, money is a factor. For the price to upgrade my a6000 to an a6600 and get the 16-55 2.8, I could keep my Sigma 17-50 2.8 for Nikon, buy a used D500, a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, and a cheap prime, like maybe an 85 or a 50mm. To me, the sexy AF tracking and flippy screen aren't enough to justify having to spend so much more money on lenses to get less comfort and functionality. Just my take...
And also, I think it was a swing and a miss with the 70-350 lens. $1k for an f6.3 APS-C lens seems crazy to me. I don't see why they didn't just rehash their 70-300 5.6 full frame lens for APS-C, or even rehash the 55-300 5.6 A-Mount lens. And on top of that it's only like $175 cheaper than the full frame 70-300. I feel like they should have made it 70-300 5.6, and no more than $700. It would still be an upgrade from the kit telephoto. I think if they want to charge $1k or more, it would need to be an f4, like maybe 70-250 f4. Anyway, I'm currently holding out hope that Tamron will give me a reason to stick with my Sony system.
Sony's lenses may be expensive, but Canon's M lenses are not by comparison, kinda makes a person lean toward buying a Canon M6 or M6ii unless they really like big expensive Sony lenses on a A6100. Makes the Canon M6 more compact with its native lenses. (there are 6 native so far).
If the Sony 200-600 would cost something like 1000-1500€ i would go from my Nikon to Sony and get the a6600 with the 200-600, the 70-350 is a lot of money, the Tamron Sp 70-300 cost something like 300€. I just wait and see what brings the Future.
If the 70-350 lens has good image quality I will snap it up. There are no high quality long zooms for Sony aps-c and when weight is not a factor I will bring my full frame kit.
been saving up to get an a7iii, thought abt it again when they announced the a6600 last night. but i think ill stick to the a7iii for now, and eventually get the a6600 by the end of the year. hope that'll be a good decision for now!
Only want to comment on the point you make about not investing in glass that can't be used when you upgrade. Canon is basically giving me a free pass to switch to Sony because all of my EF glass that I shoot with my m50 (adapted) and 7dmk2 will have to be adapted whenever they finally put out the RF mount mirrorless FF that we're all waiting for. At this point I wish I had just never gotten the 7dmk2 and got the crap m mount glass for the m50 since I'm instead going to toss a bunch of pricier EF glass no matter which path I take. I almost want to get that pocket cinema 6k just because it'll work with my glass and then get something else for stills.
Good summary, Thanks: Sony and Panasonic are smart: They have two price points without compromising features like that other "Greedy company": So the low income/ students buy the cheap, (also buy lenses etc). Then upgrade to a higher model later when they earn more. The Sony AF is better than any Canon, and Panasonic's Video standards are better than both.
Interested to see if Sony will drop an A9 mark II before next year olympics.... as well as the mythical canon “pro mirrorless” body. I just really hope Sony doesn’t start “canon cripple hammering” future cameras.
seems likely but it seems likely that the they could combine the a7s and a9 into a single body or not. Sony is providing the 8k cameras for the 2020 Olympics. So makes one wonder what the a7s(next) will be.
The trick is to buy the best model with all the bells, then you don't need to parrot the same ignorant talking points. Why does the $400 model has less features than the $10000 one??
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
You could say their autofocus is Fast AF 😏
Or as fast AF AF
Max Rovensky hahaha fast AF ☺️☺️
Well APS-C does have a lot of advantages
- Easier to do landscapes: Ultra-Wide Angle Lenses for APS-C are, in general, easier to build and you need to step down less to get everything sharp. 10mm f/5.6 is most of the time totally fine and with 10mm f/8, everything is perfectly sharp. No need for f/11 even further (which hurts the image quality)
- More Tele with Tele: An 300mm f/2.8 turns into an 450mm with f/2.8 brightness but f/4 DOF. So you can shoot at f/2.8 without risking that only a small plane is sharp but you still have enough nice creamy bokeh, even with APS-C often more than you need
- Bright lenses are actually usable. If you have an 105mm f/1.4, you can actually use it at f/1.4 and there are still things that are in focus. No need to constantly step down to at least f/2 to get at least some DOF
I shot with full frame for quite some time (Tested the D800E for a short time, shot the 5D Mark III and then the a99 for several months) and it does have quite some disadvantages
Lenses are way heavier too and often less bright (something like the 18-35mm f/1.8 just can't exist in the FF, just look at how big the 24-35mm f/2 already is. Imagine that in 24-50mm and f/1.8 :D it would be way to heavy/big, i think we dont even have to mention the 50-100mm f/1.8, that would be unthinkable in Full-Frame).
So APS-C for sure does have advantages, as it does have disadvantages. It always depends on what you need/want but i'd personally say, for most photographers APS-C is the better choice.
Full-Frame turns more and more into an status symbol than being actually needed by the photographer. Lots of photographers even have more disadvantages than advantages out of the FF but use it anayway because its pro and as a pro you need to use pro bro
@@Da_Man_1221 Well there the thing. APS-C does have disadvantages and they are even bigger with 4/3. I thought about getting an 4/3 camera and tested some of them, but decided against it.
After testing with several sensor sices (even APS-H) i came to the conclusion that, at least right now, APS-C seems to be, for me, the best of all worlds. Not to big, not to small. For me it is just right.
Others, of course, have other preferences.
Very good Analysis
Very well written and fair breakdown!
point 3: isn't that because f1.4 on apsc is actually the f2 equivalent on full frame? you gotta consider the crop factor on the aperture as well, not just the focal length.
APSC is of course needed. It's the perfect size for hybrid photographers/videographers.
Nature photographers like me as well. On my APS-C camera I get the same reach with my 100-400 as a huge and heavy 150-600 in front of a 35mm sensor.
Naw full frame (no crop\full sensor) recording is better
I'd still pick ff over apsc but it all depends on your needs.
“Is APS-C needed” = click bait
@@dexterjsullen No Medium format is so much better
Hopefully at some point APS-C will be recognized not as a budget option but as a size alternative to full frame. ASP-C cameras are just better than full frame cameras at some things, particularly street photography where having a smaller camera and smaller lenses can make you stand out less than FF mirrorless cameras that are similar in size to old DSLRs. The quality you get from APS-C cameras is hardly lacking either, sure you may not get the same sort of raw detail as you do with a full frame, but if that somehow makes the difference between a good and bad shot that’s likely more on you than the camera.
Yes Jared an APS-C is is always needed. Just not this one. Its just the A6500 with a software update and an underwelming flippy screen.
Hardware upgrade . But yes I wish there was something new :c
Eye-AF in movie-mode... larger pro battery... larger grip... headphone jack...
@@rob25222 Nah... Besides the headphone jack which is kind of almost not needed because we have already gotten used to adusting the sound to not clip based on the on-screen meter. This feature came too late. It should come with the a6300 because that camera till this day offers fantastic video features minus it's quirks. They have not done much woth hardware. The overheating can be fixed with an update to the software and so can the 30min limit.
@@Da_Man_1221 I feel your pain.
@@StreetsOfVancouverChannel I do not understand the need for eye AF fpr creating cinematic content because at that level auto focus is not needed or is otherwise abandoned for follow focusing to nail your prefered zones. It's a great feature but EYE af is software, which could have easily been an update. HLG video codec would have been great.
Not all people want to move full frame Jared
@@jankarlsson5358 What even is that sentence?
@@jankarlsson5358 dude your writing sucks.
Nor can all people afford full-frame either. APS-C is still very relevant and popular, especially considering APS-C cameras are usually smaller than full-frame.
@@TheIshikawaRin
I've seen specials on the a7III for the same price as the a6600... The smaller size of APS-C can be an advantage.
I always thought the main advantage to APS-C sensors was the price of glass. You can get some pretty nice lenses for $300-400. I am going to upgrade my a6000 but no way I am going to spend $1400 on a lens. If I am going to spend that kind of money I will just buy a full frame lens for the future.
I'll rather buy a 70-200 f2.8 and use it with an adapter rather than buying their telephoto lens.
It really comes down to lenses. Camera body come and goes very fast. Full frame lenses for the most part are larger, heavier and cost more in comparison to crop body lenses. I would imagine that there are more casual photographers vs pros. Lighter, cheaper camera lens and body are probably gona be more favorable to us casual folks...
People really complaining about APS-C saying it's too small, but so many people shoot micro 4/3 Panasonic... There's not much wrong with APS-C and I personally will be purchasing a Fujifilm X-T3 very soon.
Totally agree with you! Does hardly feel like any major development.
In my opinion there’s nothing wrong with crop sensor cameras sometimes the extra reach is needed
You're not getting "extra reach". You're getting a cropped version that appears to be extra reach
craig hawkins you can crop s full frame in software. You can’t fill frame a crop in software.
actually, crop sensor is a bad term. super35 / (same as aps-c) is older then what we call full frame. Leica turned the film from movie cameras on its side to make a larger frame. In the movie world full-frame is called Academy format but that is for prints that include the optical soundtrack.
@@shawnmiller2786 depends on the MP. I got a 24MP FF camera and a 24MP Aps-c. So i get a higher resolution when i use the aps-c instead of cropping in on my FF image
I have both the A6500 and the A6400; plus the A7iii. The A6600 doesn't put enough on the table for me to convert from the A6500 to the A6600. The best attribute of this camera is the longer battery life but the Meike battery grip equals the A6600 battery life and gives me a vertical shutter button.
IBIS??? I will shoot with Sony OSS lenses...
What would have been the parameters which would have convinced me to upgrade the A6500 to the A6600"
1. Flash sync speed of at least 1/250 second
2. Better and larger EVF
3. Side access for the SD card
Dual SD cards and higher resolution might be nice but not a priority for me...
Instead of the A6600 and the new APSC lens, I purchased an open box A7iii and a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (for actually less cost). I love the EVF of the A7iii and I love many parameters of that camera, including inserting the SD card at the side rather than from below,. I will now shoot with the A7iii and Tamron lens paired in tandem with the A6400 wearing either the 12mm f/2.0 Rokinon or the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS...
IMO: I think that the A6400 is a better buy than the A6100... The A6400, for an extra hundred and fifty bucks, seems to give you a lot more...
BTW: I would LOVE a Sony compatible flash that is the equal of the tiny Canon 270EX-ii which I have carried all over China and parts of Europe. The 270EX-ii is a small low profile flash that has HSS. I own two Godox TT350S flashes which is the smallest Sony compatible flash with HSS capability (that I am presently aware of). However, the TT350S sits quite a bit higher (4-inches vs 2.5 inches), than the 270EX-ii which could be a problem, combined with the rather flimsy plastic hotshoe of the TT350S when I carry the camera and flash on a Black Rapid Strap. However, I have carried the lower profile 270EX-ii with its metal hotshoe mount all over on my Canon DSLR cameras with no problems...
Do you know of any low profile flash with HSS capabilities?
I'm saving up for the a6600 with kit lens. Primary use will be for my RUclips videos in 4k. The A7 III with lens will cost NZ$4,000 in NZ. Sony lenses are overpriced. Will probably get mine later this year. Or the Canon 90D which is under NZ$2,500, has a faster SD card reader, easier menu system, but no HDR and is not mirrorless and is heavier. Why can't ONE camera HAVE IT ALL. Both have their own pros/cons.
I honestly have to say that I love my Sony a6300 it is a couple years old and lacks some features but I don't see the need to upgrade to another Sony APS-C Camera. I think for the most people who have an older Sony APS-C camera its just not worth to get these. I will wait maybe after the A7sIII they come out with a 6k a6800 or something maybe with better Battery life and a flip screen?
With fuji medium format, Is full frame Even Needed ANYMORE?
LOL Good luck with that move. There's a reason MF is a niche market and it's not just price, although that probably has a lot to do with it.
@@MrPhilbautista Exact same could be said for FF, professionals use FF but the majority of camera sales are consumer grade aps-c.
@@nobutoneme1325 , right on, but there has always been a market for higher-grade APS-C cameras as well. Look at the Fuji X-T3 and the Nikon D500. Had Fuji ever put a good IBIS on its APS-C cameras, I'd have bought one the next day.
@@stuartschaffner9744 I have an X-H1 myself
NoButOneMe When it comes to the video industry almost every movie is shot in S35, except the newer ones but even those are rare. S35 is still gonna be here for a while and I really like it. Full frame is amazing too but it comes at a price.
I don't own a Sony camera, so I am not biased here. Panasonic and Sigma user. I must admit I am a bit disappointed that it is yet another Sony using the same 24mp sensor. I was expecting a 30mp+ sensor. 24mp is fine but how long are they going to keep reusing this sensor? Not OK on a £1500 body only camera. For slightly more I can get a A7/3 now.
I’m subscribed to you on RUclips, and I’m going to dive into your website. You know your stuff, and you bring a savvy, cynical, and comical approach to photography. The fro is nice as well. Keep on trucking!
I guess for Sony, it makes sense to be present in the APS-C market, where they can share some of the components and software from their high end products. But their focus is the VF market, where the profit margin is much higher. Medium to long term, APS-C and smaller formats will be insignificant formats for interchangeable lens cameras . We will be back to 24x36mm as in the analog days.
I’m a Nikon guy. But I might go for the a6100 as my neck-slung camera for test shoots before using my heavy gears. Hopefully, it’s color science gained some improvement.
The A6100 offers a lot of bang for your buck, and I'm going to start recommending it. The A6600 enters A7iii territory so I'll rather recommend the A7iii.
If you want APSC get Fujfilm XT-3 nothing can touch it!
4k60 😋
@@iIIkickurbutt IBIS, untouchable AF, and inexpensive lenses (minus the 2 just launched, becuz tariffs).
Is it bad that I like having a flash!?!? I like the smaller body of the a6300/6400/6500. Having an extra batter is no big deal, takes 10 seconds to switch! IBIS is cool though but like in the video if I am going to spend the $$$ then I’d go full frame. Love the videos, new to photography and learn a lot from this channel. Thanks Jared!!
Sigma 18-35 and MC-11 is everything you need for almost any purposes on Sony APS-C.
What I really need is advice on how to choose between a6400 and a6600.
I’m debating on getting the a6400, for my needs it’s def a bigger upgrade after using my a6300 for so many years. I don’t want to spend 1400 dollars on a camera that I could spend a couple hundred more to get a full frame.
Yes some of us like and need ASP-C sensor camera for the extra reach it allows us. Those of us that do work in zoos/wildlife etc, I have no plans to replace my Nikon D500 with a FF camera waiting to see what ASP-C "PRO" stuf Nikon releases
So im in the merket now and I'll probably be getting the 6100. It's between that at the 6400 the reason I chose this is to make sure I have a small camera I can use to get spontanious and covert shots. I know I'll be sacrificing the larger frame but it's something worth mentioning when you talk about the full frame. Especially if you're on a tighter budget. Good advice in the Tamron or Sigma lenses though.
my favorite preview so far, and I watched about 10. nice job dude. you didn't whine that it doesn't have 4k60. thumbs up.
I'm looking to get my first real camera and the full frame vs. APS-C debate is very tricky to navigate. As someone who likely won't migrate from one sensor to another ever given I'm a hobbyist, I will likely live with whatever glass I start buying for a very very long time. The a6100 seems like a great body that represents a ton of value, but I feel like we're on the precipice of major improvements to the mirrorless world as processing power is taken advantage of. Idk, it's a tough place to sit when I just want to start taking better stills.
Just get a6100 or xt30. FF is kinda expensive if you want to adapt native/third party af lenses. A6100 because better go cheapest as the obsolete sony body clearly needs update (they're still using micro usb in 2019!!). XT30 if you want clear company attitude on apsc and you are willing to spend fortune to get those 1.4 and 1.2 lenses at later stages
Looked into going back to film. 10+$ for a roll and Iford black and white costs even more. Looking forward is the only real option (Film is dead). APS-C for a beginner (or novice) is the way to go. The new 90D would be my suggestion. On a budget a used 70D gets you great photos and video. Camera technology changes as often as underwear (maybe not Jared). Stick to a sound camera and remember to shoot and practice your technique. Jared offers a great Online course “Fro knows photo” ep 001 to practice from. It is by far more valuable then the latest and greatest camera.
love sony focusing. battery life of 6600 is fantastic. however, as a serious photographer I look at Fuji or Panasonic and they look like serious cameras where as Sony 6000 series look like kiddy’s camera.
Are you taking pictures of the camera or with the camera?
a7iii + tamron 28-75 2.8 is cheaper than a6600 + 16-55 2.8.. and it's fullframe!!
Kirk Bruner ergonomically speaking
So....the 6600 is a 6400 with a larger battery and a stabilizzation system?
Simone Casadei yep
nope it's baby a7iii
Dhanny Prasetya no, its a a6400 with a flip up screen and ibs
@@stumpsteph2153 the 6400 ha already that screen
Simone Casadei if the Ibis isn't very good and you use a gimbal a6400 is a better deal
That a6600 looks tempting but I think I'm still going to wait for the A7S3 as the upgrade from my a6500...even if that means waiting until next year.
Features are not bad but $1400 for an APS-C ?
I'll only consider this if it passes the Sniff test and the most important Wind tunnel test.
this camera's strength is being the best night time camera with little to no noise at very high iso
@@mmoarchives2542 I got it for $150 off with an extra battery and sandisk extreme pro 64gb card as bonus items just 4 weeks ago.
Battery lasts so damn long I've yet to decide weather or not I will sell the extra one, still in packaging lol
When Sony release brand new camera I come straight to youtube looking for review from jared
I own the a6500 camera for about 2 years and I'm happy with it, so no upgrade in my mind yet. I'm really considering in buying the 70-350 mm glass but I'm not sure if it worth its money, maybe I'll rent one for testing and then decide. It's too bad that for e-mount there are no alternatives lenses for this range of mm.
Does it overheat like the other Sony cameras?
I like both cameras and what´s SONY is doing in the market, The only thing that I would have added to this a6600 is 4K 60p, that´s my only complaint about this new amazing piece of gear. Look what SONY gives you in this $1400 body. You would never have that in Nikon, CANON or FUJI, or whatever is on the market right now. And that´s what I like about SONY, they give you the best quality vs pricetag option which should be everybodies goal, unless you were reach and could buy 2 o 3 cameras to match the best performance. For me this a6600 gathers the best technology for the best price. Correct me If I am wrong. Great Jared as usual, I would like to see a nice review of this two SONY´S, Thanks!
I use an a6500, mostly for video, and the 6600 is an upgrade (mostly the new AF system and the Z battery), but for that price I doubt that i'll replace the 6500, and was hoping for more upgrades, like 4K 60fps and 2 card slots so I could upgrade (and even for a higher price)
the lens prices are outrageous!
for the a6600 and 16-55 2.8 price you get a7iii and tamron 28-75 2.8 (which in fact is one stop faster). No point in getting APS-C gear then, would be my guess.
APS-C is not bad nowadays. My Fuji system is very nice. because of its smaller size it makes me to shoot much more then with my Nikon D800.
The 6600 doesn't seem like a large upgrade.
Hi Jared,
I watch your video regularly, they are super helpful. Now I want to know 2 things
, No.1Is it possible to use Sony 6400’s lens on Sony a7iii? What will be the result if I use crop sensor lenses on full frame?
No.2 I am more into video, so is it better to invest in SONY a6600 than SONY 6400?
I find the old sensor withe the old IBIS along with the lack of front dial, UHI and no joystick disappointing for $1400.
Yes APS-C is needed. First they already make the chip for all their professional video camera's since aps-c is Super35. So 100 years of lenses are for super35. When I am onset that little body is great to have so I am not bouncing my full frame body all over the dam place. I would rather have it for travel with smaller primes and maybe a simple zoom. LIke say my Zeiss G glass. People don't instantly freak out when you pull up a larger body with a huge ass piece of glass. Better for landscapes if you don't plan to make Murals. I'm cool with small. You know like contact prints from 8x10. What's the largest print Adams or White or Weston ever made? you can make those sizes or close to them from 24MP. I barely find need to shoot more than 28MP for most client work. Hell a billboard is printed at 50-90DPI(printer dpi so a dot made of of dots) if that. I don't know, I just don't assume what other people need or don't need.
As a videographer who uses 2 a6500 for most of my work, the a6600 didn't improve anything for me personally. The AF on the a6500 is more than adequate for me. The recording limit wasn't an issue for me since the a6500 still has the app functionality which lets me turn off the recording limit. And since I use a SmallHD Focus monitor I already have a fully articulating screen that also gives me a headphone jack and lets me power the a6500 with Sony NPF batteries (which are better, cheaper, and more universal than the Z batteries). Honestly, the a6500 is the perfect run and gun camera for me with these solutions. The only thing I was hoping for was 4K60 and 10-bit...even externally would have made me happy. I know the a7sIII might have 4K60 and 10-bit but I'm sure it will be damn near $4k and at that point I'd start considering a proper cinema camera with better ergonomics, ND filters, SDI, etc. I guess I'll just save my money for now.
It's good you work for yourself. If you were part of a publication you'd probably get into major sh*t at work for missing a launch event. I mean honestly, I get my photo news fix from the Fro, so I was kind of surprised when I saw others put out a full hands on review YESTERDAY. Even today, there isn't a hands on review or preview of the 6600.
I expected an APS-C camera with
- a much bigger body (it would be easier to hold with big lenses)
- a good EVF (the current one is a shame for such a price)
- 4K 60fps (Fuji has it, phones have it).
Maybe they have another camera to announce, who knows.
In the eye of camera makers, APS-C cameras are needed. Protects the high prices of the newest Full Frame body & high-end glass. Sure a basic consumer could buy a Full Frame Canon RP or A7 with a kit lens but will they buy a $2000+ f/2.8 glass? Probably most will buy an f/4 or an APS-C w/2.8 that gives you a stop faster and equivalent DoF. I think Sony will eventually lower the price of that new lens.
Minor league vs major league. We all got to start somewhere. APSCs will hopefully help us there.
Plenty of major league professionals shooting stills and video with APSC and M43
Thank you for this video.
My comments: I am dissappointed with this iteration, for the cost and options this is not a compelling upgrade.
I own the a6500, the capability index is great because of the apps, but this one won't run apps. I am not happy that all they did really was better battery, and flip screen. That's expensive for such similar base functions. The lenses are fine with the older options ... So why Sony, it's because they need to move on to new tech.
99% of all movies ever made were shot with on 4-perf or super 35mm, which is closer APS-C than full-frame. The only places where the 6600 misses the mark are no 10bit or 4k 60. The GH5 has both at almost the same price point. I guess it comes down to if those features are more important than the slightly larger sensor and better autofocus.
So, is it better to have a Full Framed or an APS-C? They have their advantages right?
It all depends on what you use your camera for. If you do low light or portrait photography, I'd say full frame is the way to go. But if you do nature photography where you need reach, APS-C has its advantages.
The main difference I'd say is in size and weight of lenses and camera bodies. But the thing is, full frame has a leg up on APS-C because you can always get teleconverters to achieve more reach from a full frame lense, but you cant get more light into a smaller sensor given the lens is the same aperture.
@@CheeseOnEverything Thanks for replying.
So, a Full Framed camera is better for night photography? What about filming?
I think I should just go for Canon SL3
If I sold my nikon d810 and sony rx100 what should I get? I use the Nikon for landscapes & the sony rx goes with me on my motorcycle. I only have 1 lens for the Nikon and well the sony is a point and shoot a good point and shoot lol! I just want 1 camera to do it all! Not sure I want to go down to crop sensor tho. hurmm...
Waiting on a test of the ibis to decide. I either want 6600 or 6400.
Thanks for the reviews Jared! QUESTION: Mark Galer said that there's no 29-min record limit on the 6600 but other sources say that there is! Please provide a definitive answer. Thanks in advance.
I would be suprised if the a6600 would have one when the a6400 has no limit
When I look at the sharpness results of Dxomark for apsc I can't see the point of having more than 24Mp on an APSC sensor. no lenses will be able to produce images that are sharp enough.
Jonathan Bondu exactly and even if there are lens, there gonna be wayy too expensive. Sony is just money hungry. They could’ve all these specs on the a6400 but instead they decide too make two more cameras lmao
DXOmark results is not the only point for an improved sensor... what about a sensor performing less rolling shutter???
I've seen specials on the a7III for the same price as the a6600.
Carter should I get an A7iii or wait for the A6600?
@@victoe5780 I'd wait until more reviews come out on RUclips and watch them all... then give it a bit of time to see if problems develop with the a6600.
Theres no reason to buy a 6400 if it's the same price as an a7iii unless size is a big issue to you. Full frame dominates apsc in every way in terms of quality.
Cheese on Everything Thank you. I’ve decided on the A7iii
@@CheeseOnEverything A6400 has Real Time AF, which has noticeably performance better, and is even easier to use in the process. A7 III does not.
The A6600 has some wonderful specs... These specs are what Sony "SHOULD" have released with the A6400! If they had done that, I would have been first on line to buy one. However, I bought the A6400 and shoot it in tandem with an A6500. Since I have virtually all of the features of the A6600 between the A6400 and A6500; I don't think that I will ditch either of my cameras for the new A6600. But, if I were going to buy my first mirrorless camera I would probably pick this one up. But if I were considering the A6600 + the new 16-55mm f/2.8 zoom lens (about $2800 list) I would take a serious look at the A7iii +Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens (about $2800 or so list). I have a hunch that the A7iii plus Tamron would win in that fight!
BTW: It is a great camera! IMO, the only thing WRONG with the A6600 for me is that it doesn't bring enough to the table to convince me to switch from my A6500 or A6400.
BTW: A sixty dollar Meike battery grip for the A6400 will give you the power capacity of the new battery... and have a vertical shutter button to boot!
I have learned a ton from your fro. Thanks
I’m looking for the best mirrorless or DSLR for around $1200 or less (body only) to record my nieces. One is a gymnast and the other does local community theater. I will be purchasing a 70-200mm f2.8 lens for whatever body I choose as well. I’m looking for eye autofocus that functions in 4k. Some have suggested Sony a6600 (I’m a little concerned about the rolling shutter) others have suggested Canon M6 Mark ii (some have said eye autofocus doesn’t work in 4k) Any help from any other viewers would also be appreciated.
And Fujifilm is still all-for-APS-C (with medium format at higher models)
This upgrade for the 6600 is less spectacular than when the 6500 came out. Disappointed with Sony not having any wow over the top reasons to upgrade. That said it is still a solid APS which delivers excellent quality as always. We are just used to Sony pushing barriers!
For new users, these cameras would be really nice. But for existing Sony users, nah, they're just not good enough to upgrade. As a hobbyist photographer, I think APS-C is the sweet spot in terms of sensor size.
A6100 or A6400 is decent upgrade from nex-6. A6600... meh might as well sell all them lenses and move to FF or fuji
I just got myself the RX100 MK7 so as my main Camera later I will look into buying the A7R IV or the A9.
Top ten people who have too much money to spend on photography but don’t know what they’re doing with their cameras
A7iii instead? I did see all of Tony Northups opinion on that. Sure, but only if buy the crazy overpriced new G lens. Also, other than the full framey stuff, the A6600 meets or beats it. A7iii, the AF was improved in firmware - but still not as good in video. The IBIS similarly doesn't actually work all that well with non OSS lenses. The screen does not flip up for vlogging (it's worst drawback to me.) It's still 24MP same as the A6600. And it's still at least $400 more than this. Yes the new G lenses are absurdly overpriced, but you can equip the A6600 with the underrated little 16-50 pancake zoom or a lot of other choices and have a pretty extraordinary camera - nearly an A7 - in your coat pocket. Last year there was a big sale on the old A7ii, and I guess if I see a big sale on the A7iii before the holidays I may still pounce on it, but still thinking all things considered I'd prefer the A6600, even at price parity.
Because A7iii has 24MP sensor it has bigger pixels than A6600. Also its sensor is back-illuminated. Because of this A7iii produces less noisy image. A6600 has an old APS-C sensor with copper wiring. A7iii is much better than A6600.
Hey buddy, thanks for having this video, especially for a beginner like me. Do you have any suggestions for picking which camera? Canon M6 mark ii or Sony a6600 and which len I should buy? Thank you!
Return the M50? Nope! I m happy with it though. Looking at prices of Sony's lenses, 3rd party or native is a deal breaker.
Me too!!
Fu Sensei Canon should've made an ef-m 15-45mm f2.8 and an 11-22mm f4 to keep up with Sony. I too like my M50 but hate the native lenses.
Looking at the features, yes I would return. Sigma lenses are cheap for its performance. 30mm 1.4 is around $289 while efm 32mm 1.4 is $479. Other than that lens only 22mm f2 is worth looking, everything else needs to be adapted. The most possible to say sony and 3rd party are expensive is the one who got ef lenses collection
@@trym2121 the sigma lenses such as the 30mm 1.4 will be available for EF-M this fall...
Canon m50s Dual Pixel AF is a deal breaker compared to 6100 with no AF in video
Which would be better? The A6100 or A6400?
Nobody wanted APS-C because no one knew it would even exist, it was created because of the high cost of sensor construction and some of those that never even wanted or needed APS-C have realised that it has some real benefits, particularly if you are a long lens user it can save you thousands in reach for equivalent glass, so while APS-C may have never really been needed in the first place other than to enable the sale DSLR's for the masses, I think you'll find that many will say that now, it is still needed.
The a7ii with a kit lens is going for around 1k, would I be better off getting that over the A6600? 1.5k is most I can spend. This would be my first Camera.
Get something you like. Touch and feel them
I am assuming both get rid of the 30 minute recording time limit? And do both have time lapse built in?
I wonder if the tariffs are playing a role in the pricing because it is way too high and the gh5 still seems like a stronger camera for the same range. Also, did anyone tell Sony about APS-H? In order to compete with the gh5, that would be a better sensor.
kinda bummed about the price of the 16-55 2.8. I guess ill but the Tamron 17-28 for cheaper price tag and opportunity to go Full frame later
Which one? a6400 v a6100 - currently around the same price new?
love the show man..Errryday is Bay Area slang and has been how you say it for like 20 years already.. Yay errrea.
i like the stabilization and fast af.
I have a an a6000 and a6500 with too many lenses and while the new 16-55 lens is nice and I'd really like having the animal eye AF, I'd still rather go with the a7III+Tamron 28-75 instead of the 6600+16-55.
Other than wide angle and good low light/ dynamic range capabilities, I don't see any other advantage of full frame over aps-c. I'm not even a fan of very creamy bokeh because it's hard to achieve pin sharp focus with very narrow depth of field especially with group shots of people not really lined up well some of them will appear out-of focused. And the size of fx gears turns me off, adding to the bulk of carrying additional lighting equipment and tripod stands during location shoots where I have to ride buses and public utility transport (I live in the Philippines where carrying expensive bulky equipment is a lure to thieves and pickpockets). I regularly shoot birds-in-flight photos in my leisure time and some street photos in my off duty as an events photographer, and I prefer to shoot with smaller, lighter and inconspicuous aps-c mirrorless cameras. Considerably smaller than full frame and more reach even with just the basic 18-135mm or 55-210mm lenses oftentimes 24 megapixels is enough to crop photos when the lighting is very good. Thanks to the introduction of A6100 and A6600 I'm now considering to upgrade my A6000 to the same crop sensor body with my existing crop sensor kits rather than going full frame with A7iii and buy new set of full frame lenses.
I would like to know how these cameras do against the likes of Fujifilm X-T3 & X-T30
I've waited until new SONY mirror-less camera to be released rather than buying a6400.
The reason to get a camera is taking pictures and videos of my cute little daughter.
When released, the price considering upgraded points doesn't make sense for me.(Too expensive than I expected $1200)
But I would gladly pay more money if real time Eye AF for movies, Z battery and 5-axis in body are worth.
Could anyone advise which choice between a6400 and a6600 is best option for me?
Really comes down to IBIS. That will help a lot in handheld videos. The other option is to buy a gimbal, where a good one will come in a bit cheaper (A6400 + gimbal) vs an A6600. But in use, it's a LOT bigger. And then again, the stabilization it will provide with some practice can't be matched by any camera. So if you need some stabilization, the A6600 is what you want. If you need a lot of stabilization, grab the A6400 and any decent gimbal. If you don't need stabilization, get the A6400. Both cameras have Real Time AF and Eye AF, and batteries are easily replaceable, so there's no significant different between the cameras there.
Jared, I think the a6600 looks great and everything, but I think Sony only focused on "sexy" features and upgrades, and neglected the "unsexy", more functional upgrades they could have done. The AF tracking and speed, eye AF, flippy screen, etc. are all great, but they had an opportunity to go full out, and make it more of a "pro APS-C" like the D500. They could have made the body a bit bigger, so they could include 2 card slots, a front control dial, a joystick, maybe a bigger EVF, like you mentioned... I don't know why they're so stuck on maintaining this tiny form factor for their "flagship" model. I have the a6000, which I love, and I'll admit, can be nice for its small size in certain situations, like travel, but there have been a number of times where (even when traveling) I'll leave the a6000 at home or in the hotel and take my D7100. When I'm going out trying to take legit "good" pictures, and not just "family vacation" photos, my Nikon just seems much more functional, plus I can afford better lenses for it. While I hate that this is the case, money is a factor. For the price to upgrade my a6000 to an a6600 and get the 16-55 2.8, I could keep my Sigma 17-50 2.8 for Nikon, buy a used D500, a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, and a cheap prime, like maybe an 85 or a 50mm. To me, the sexy AF tracking and flippy screen aren't enough to justify having to spend so much more money on lenses to get less comfort and functionality. Just my take...
And also, I think it was a swing and a miss with the 70-350 lens. $1k for an f6.3 APS-C lens seems crazy to me. I don't see why they didn't just rehash their 70-300 5.6 full frame lens for APS-C, or even rehash the 55-300 5.6 A-Mount lens. And on top of that it's only like $175 cheaper than the full frame 70-300. I feel like they should have made it 70-300 5.6, and no more than $700. It would still be an upgrade from the kit telephoto. I think if they want to charge $1k or more, it would need to be an f4, like maybe 70-250 f4. Anyway, I'm currently holding out hope that Tamron will give me a reason to stick with my Sony system.
The A6100 is missing the S-Log profiles. Does it actually cost more money to include that? Like how V-Log was a paid add on for some Lumix cameras.
This video deserves a million likes just because of calling out Rose. It's been bugging me for two decades. Big 'thank you'.
Sony a6400 still the best reasonable for the price and have hi technology. And a6400 + dji ronin sc much better than a6600 I think
Sony's lenses may be expensive, but Canon's M lenses are not by comparison, kinda makes a person lean toward buying a Canon M6 or M6ii unless they really like big expensive Sony lenses on a A6100. Makes the Canon M6 more compact with its native lenses. (there are 6 native so far).
If the Sony 200-600 would cost something like 1000-1500€ i would go from my Nikon to Sony and get the a6600 with the 200-600, the 70-350 is a lot of money, the Tamron Sp 70-300 cost something like 300€. I just wait and see what brings the Future.
If the 70-350 lens has good image quality I will snap it up. There are no high quality long zooms for Sony aps-c and when weight is not a factor I will bring my full frame kit.
Hi Jared, will you do one of your fantastic on reviews sony a6600 vs Nikon z6
i rather stick to the fuji xt3 and get an extra video assistant + an xt3 /16mm f2 on the grey market
been saving up to get an a7iii, thought abt it again when they announced the a6600 last night. but i think ill stick to the a7iii for now, and eventually get the a6600 by the end of the year. hope that'll be a good decision for now!
Only want to comment on the point you make about not investing in glass that can't be used when you upgrade.
Canon is basically giving me a free pass to switch to Sony because all of my EF glass that I shoot with my m50 (adapted) and 7dmk2 will have to be adapted whenever they finally put out the RF mount mirrorless FF that we're all waiting for.
At this point I wish I had just never gotten the 7dmk2 and got the crap m mount glass for the m50 since I'm instead going to toss a bunch of pricier EF glass no matter which path I take.
I almost want to get that pocket cinema 6k just because it'll work with my glass and then get something else for stills.
YOU F*CKED UP ROSE, YOU F*CKED UP!
😂😂🤣
everything is good about sony but still they don't put flip out screen on the side..
How do I install the s-log 2 profile on the Sony 6100? since they do not come from the factory in this version.
Good summary, Thanks: Sony and Panasonic are smart: They have two price points without compromising features like that other "Greedy company": So the low income/ students buy the cheap, (also buy lenses etc). Then upgrade to a higher model later when they earn more. The Sony AF is better than any Canon, and Panasonic's Video standards are better than both.
Rob Svm
They left out picture styles for the a6100.
Pure software nerf.
Great Video Bro!!!
You could say the same about full frame!
i would buy a7iii +tamron 28-75
Interested to see if Sony will drop an A9 mark II before next year olympics.... as well as the mythical canon “pro mirrorless” body. I just really hope Sony doesn’t start “canon cripple hammering” future cameras.
seems likely but it seems likely that the they could combine the a7s and a9 into a single body or not. Sony is providing the 8k cameras for the 2020 Olympics. So makes one wonder what the a7s(next) will be.
The trick is to buy the best model with all the bells, then you don't need to parrot the same ignorant talking points. Why does the $400 model has less features than the $10000 one??
They will
Polin what do you mean the a6100 does not offer eye af?
Which one would you recommend? Canon M50 or Sony a6100?
@@Da_Man_1221 thanks