# Sony Announces a6400 APS-C Mirrorless Camera



## VidThreeNorth (Jan 15, 2019)

The new Sony a6400 appears to be a replacement for the a6300.  The body is priced at $900 US

"Sony announces a6400 midrange APS-C mirrorless camera"
Published Jan 15, 2019, DP Review

NOTE:  As I was writing this, I looked back at the info posted in the articles and I could not find the expected arrival date.  I am pretty sure that I read "February" somewhere, but I cannot find the source.

_[2019-01-16 17:57]_
Confirmed for February for North America.  It was near the bottom of the article.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 15, 2019)

It will ship in Europe in Feb. Not sure about North America release.
Sony Announces its Next Generation α6400 Mirrorless Camera with Real-time Eye Autofocus, Real-time Tracking and World’s Fastest Autofocus - sonyalpharumors


----------



## Derrel (Jan 15, 2019)

Looks like a nice APS-C mirrorless. The video shot with it looks good.




The few sample still images dPreview shows look pretty good. For $900, it ought to be a decent camera. Has some nice features.


----------



## Peeb (Jan 15, 2019)

The flip-up screen will be problematic for vloggers who want to use a boom mic.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Jan 16, 2019)

Peeb said:


> The flip-up screen will be problematic for vloggers who want to use a boom mic.



This is the first video I have seen that addresses the mic/screen conflict directly:

"NEW Sony a6400 with FLIP SCREEN Review!", posted by "iJustine", Jan 15, 2019


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Jan 16, 2019)

One general criticism of Sony's APS-C system is that Sony really expects you to buy their full size lenses when you get beyond the main "core" lenses. Regarding this, I have been aware of the idea that the only area that this was a real problem was in wide angle products. When you go to the telephoto end, it does not really save much to have a lens designed for APS-C. That is to say, a 300mm F3.5 lens for APS-C is not going to be much smaller or much cheaper than a 300mm F3.5 full frame lens. You will still probably have the advantage of buying a 200mm F2.8 lens for the APS-C body which will give you the field of view of the 300mm, and furthermore, the theoretical 300mm F3.5 would be equal to a 450mm lens on APS-C so effectively, you can end up with size and cost savings by using full frame versions of those lenses on the APS-C body anyway.  Also, by only making the one full frame version of those lenses, overall costs are kept down, and hopefully that can be passed on to us.
_[2019-0117 Re-written for clarity -- my apologies to everyone.]_


I have not really looked in detail about this claim, but I am starting to accept it as being probably valid.  The problem is that you have to find really equivalent lenses to compare, and it's not worth my effort.  I really do not like to look at equipment that I cannot currently afford.  If anyone else looks into this theory in depth, I'll be interested in reading the results, but that's about it.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 16, 2019)

It is true: there is basically no real savings in size or weight on telephoto lenses...small, compact kit zooms, pancake primes, and tiny wide-angle lenses of modest aperture--we "get" all those lens offerings, to more or lesser degrees, from Canon and Sony and Nikon, and Fuji and Pentax. And when it comes to high-speed lenses, like 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 primes, like the new Sigma ART lenses, and the Zeiss primes, those lenses are quite large. 

The 70-300mm  f/4 to f/4.5 zoom lens...really has NOT changed much in size since the late 1980's...

And YES, I agree, Sony expects users to buy full-frame-capable lenses once they move past the core of APS-C lenses. Nikon does the same thing. Canon as well. Fuji OTOH has no full-frame digital SLR type cameras of the "35mm size", and as a result, Fuji has a line of lenses designed specifically for Fuji APS-C cameras; however, keep in mind that there are some sizable zooms in the lineup. OTOH, they also have some very nice, compact, fast primes in the shorter lengths. However: look to the recently-released Fuji 200mm f/2 lens preview articles: the lens is a behmoth...because it's a 200mm and it's f/2...Review: Fujifilm XF 200mm f2 OIS WR (Fujifilm X Mount)


----------



## DarkShadow (Jan 20, 2019)

Got to love when people jump ship and ditch all there full frame gear complain about weight maybe from heath issues etc over to mirrorless like the Sony for example and then put a monster heavy lens for a all front heavy set up that probably no lighter then the full frame set up they ditched to go lighter to begin with..it  quacks me up.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2019)

The a6xxx series is annoying.

They keep releasing new "replacements" but it's the same camera over and over with slight improvements with a ridiculously higher price tag each iteration.  The a6000 is still a popular choice despite being over 5 years old now -- they didn't phase it out -- these are NOT replacements.  The a6400 is barely an upgrade to the a6300 but costs $200 more.

the a6500 is, imho, still the better choice in this series since it has IBIS.  but it's crazy town expensive and you might as well buy an A7.


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Feb 17, 2019)

Braineack said:


> The a6xxx series is annoying.
> . . .  The a6400 is barely an upgrade to the a6300 but costs $200 more.
> 
> the a6500 is, imho, still the better choice in this series since it has IBIS.  but it's crazy town expensive and you might as well buy an A7.



Actually the "price" of the a6300 -- officially, is higher than the a6400.  The reason you find it lower right now is because Sony is unloading them.  The a6400 was officially announced as the replacement for the a6300.  Yes, Sony said so.  That much itself was a surprise to the experienced news writers because Sony rarely says something like that.

Anyway, a lot of writers were disappointed that Sony did not bring out an "a7000" which was reputed to be a an APS-C camera using the "A9 body".  But as you noted, the a6500 is very high and the A7iii is very low.  If the theoretical "a7000" had come out, what would it have cost?  Due to the cost of the parts, it would have been near the price of the A7iii, and it would have ended up a dead product, even without competition from other companies.  Now that Canon has brought out the full frame EOS RP with a body price of $1,300, it looks like Sony really got that much right.  But I do think that there is still need for a replacement for the a6500.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Feb 17, 2019)

Braineack said:


> The a6xxx series is annoying.
> 
> They keep releasing new "replacements" but it's the same camera over and over with slight improvements with a ridiculously higher price tag each iteration.  The a6000 is still a popular choice despite being over 5 years old now -- they didn't phase it out -- these are NOT replacements.  The a6400 is barely an upgrade to the a6300 but costs $200 more.
> 
> the a6500 is, imho, still the better choice in this series since it has IBIS.  but it's crazy town expensive and you might as well buy an A7.



I remember when they released the a6000 and I had my NEX-7 and thought it was basically the same camera.


----------

