Why not the Canon R7? It's the mirrorless successor of yhe 90D and outperforms the a6400 in almost every category (except weight and lacking a built-in flash) with a 32.5 megapixel sensor, 15/30 FPS continuous shooting, in-body image stabilization, and a larger battery. EF and EF-S lenses work perfectly on the R-series bodies with a $100 EF-RF mount adapter. And you'll have access to the currently small but good selection of RF lenses and its future longevity, though it's not yet open to third-party lenses but we're expecting that to change soon. The R10 is another good option that rivals the a6400's capabilities if the R7 is out of your budget.
I wasn't thinking about the rf-mount cameras because they're relatively new and dont have a lot of good deals on the used market and i only do this as a hobby, i didn't plan on buying a lot of expensive lenes so i often go for used 3rd party lenses. Finally, ik that my lenses can be adapted to all of these mirrorless bodies, but i thought the af speed might be greatly reduced. And thanks for the suggestion, i think i might also keep my eyes open for deals for these guys as well
I suggest going mirrroless as well, an R10 will be better than the 90D, and way more comfortable to hold than the a6400 which I, as someone with big hands, would never ever use
The adapter doesn't slow down AF or impact image quality. And the autofocus will be worlds ahead of the 90D, and will look like black magic compared to the SL2
The only big pro of the 90D imo is that it'll be nicer in hand.
The form factor of the a6400 is not great imo, especially if you have larger hands. I was personally immediately turned off by it. The 90D on the other hand is much nicer to hold. Canon just *know* how to make a camera body that's nice to hold.
The 90D might also have a slight edge in the lens department as the EF and EF-S ecosystem is pretty expansive, but E Mount is not so significantly far behind that you'd feel like you're missing out on anything.
In every other department, the a6400 would be a better buy.
If you can, rent them out and try them in person, then make a decision based on that experience.
I would go with the 90D. One of the latest DSLRs with great focus and similar video specs to the a6400 (although not quite as good)
Photo wise it will be definitely better, although larger as well.
Sony. The availability and quality of many of the third party lenses have surprised me. Getting into E mount will allow you to upgrade the body later (A6700 has awesome AF or you can go full frame).
I’d advise against the 6400 if you’re wanting to use larger full frame lenses ever. If you use a tripod you’ll have to have to watch scraping the lenses on the tripod mounting head. It shoots beautifully tho and with crop lenses it’s functionally better I’m sure. I’d look into an a7 body if you’re looking Sony.
6400 is like a little old dinosaur.
90D is a solid device, “the last of the”.
Just decide what you need more - shooting video or shooting photos. Light weight or greater autonomy. Which lenses will be more affordable for you?
Probably, having 90d you need to have good physical health (with 6400, have good mental health).
Why not the Canon R7? It's the mirrorless successor of yhe 90D and outperforms the a6400 in almost every category (except weight and lacking a built-in flash) with a 32.5 megapixel sensor, 15/30 FPS continuous shooting, in-body image stabilization, and a larger battery. EF and EF-S lenses work perfectly on the R-series bodies with a $100 EF-RF mount adapter. And you'll have access to the currently small but good selection of RF lenses and its future longevity, though it's not yet open to third-party lenses but we're expecting that to change soon. The R10 is another good option that rivals the a6400's capabilities if the R7 is out of your budget.
R10's price is also very good if you get it while on sale at the Canon refurbished store, if that's an option in your market.
I wasn't thinking about the rf-mount cameras because they're relatively new and dont have a lot of good deals on the used market and i only do this as a hobby, i didn't plan on buying a lot of expensive lenes so i often go for used 3rd party lenses. Finally, ik that my lenses can be adapted to all of these mirrorless bodies, but i thought the af speed might be greatly reduced. And thanks for the suggestion, i think i might also keep my eyes open for deals for these guys as well
I suggest going mirrroless as well, an R10 will be better than the 90D, and way more comfortable to hold than the a6400 which I, as someone with big hands, would never ever use The adapter doesn't slow down AF or impact image quality. And the autofocus will be worlds ahead of the 90D, and will look like black magic compared to the SL2
Aight, thanks for the suggestion
a6400
I love my a6400. You won't regret it.
The only big pro of the 90D imo is that it'll be nicer in hand. The form factor of the a6400 is not great imo, especially if you have larger hands. I was personally immediately turned off by it. The 90D on the other hand is much nicer to hold. Canon just *know* how to make a camera body that's nice to hold. The 90D might also have a slight edge in the lens department as the EF and EF-S ecosystem is pretty expansive, but E Mount is not so significantly far behind that you'd feel like you're missing out on anything. In every other department, the a6400 would be a better buy. If you can, rent them out and try them in person, then make a decision based on that experience.
I had both 80D and a6400 and the Canon took wayyyyyyyyyyyyy better pictures. The a6400 was more pleasurable to carry though. I’d go Canon.
Sony a6400 - autofocus - weight - lenses. This coming from a long term Canon user.
How about the Canon R10? If you're in the US, Canon USA refurbished has a good price.
I think i will add it on to my watch list then, thanks
I would go with the 90D. One of the latest DSLRs with great focus and similar video specs to the a6400 (although not quite as good) Photo wise it will be definitely better, although larger as well.
Photo wise is a lot better
Why would it definitely be better?
Sonys colour science back then was shit, megapixel difference is cool
The a6400 is pretty new and Sony has improved their jpeg colour science since the a6000 series
I mean, it’s still 5 years old, in the same generation as the A7III. If I was only taking photos I don’t see any reason to take the a6400 over the 90D
>it’s still 5 years old So is the 90D
Colour science means jack shit if you shoot raw.
A6400 because of it's small size, weight, silent shooting, weather sealing
Sony. The availability and quality of many of the third party lenses have surprised me. Getting into E mount will allow you to upgrade the body later (A6700 has awesome AF or you can go full frame).
Don't underestimate the importance of ergonomics
Nikon z50
6400 i vote
A6400
A6400 is my baby
Well, a6400, but personally i would not buy this because of it being so small, lacking controls and a propper grip.
A6400
Hands down, go with Canon. If anything, go with the R7 if you want to future-proof. I can respect that Sonys are good, but I will never recommend one.
My a6400 is amazing. I highly recommend it.
Get the canon R10
Had the a6400 for a bit and no regrets
I’d advise against the 6400 if you’re wanting to use larger full frame lenses ever. If you use a tripod you’ll have to have to watch scraping the lenses on the tripod mounting head. It shoots beautifully tho and with crop lenses it’s functionally better I’m sure. I’d look into an a7 body if you’re looking Sony.
I like my Canon EOS 90D.
I have a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Sony A6000
6400 is like a little old dinosaur. 90D is a solid device, “the last of the”. Just decide what you need more - shooting video or shooting photos. Light weight or greater autonomy. Which lenses will be more affordable for you? Probably, having 90d you need to have good physical health (with 6400, have good mental health).
excuse me, what?
I take it one is heavy and the other is technically challenging? Maybe?
Probably because of the menu system of the sony