A7ii vs a6400

DrBrown54 wrote: You are right, batteries had the same capacity but the cameras themselves were updated internally to be more efficient. So if you set a 6300 to record HD video it will be dead 10-15 minutes sooner than a 6400 and 6500. Id bet the 6600 has the same improvements on the boards as the 6400 but a bigger mAh battery.

Also obviously a fresh battery that comes with a new camera holds the charge better than one that has been used for a while.

Although I have no real experience with α6600 (apart from quickly handling at a shop), at least with α7R III the beefier NP-FZ100 is vastly better than NP-FW50 and somehow I feel it is even better than the old NP-FM500H used in most Sony A mount cameras. Of course, it may not be totally fair to compare different battery types and different cameras, especially when some are clearly older technology.

You are right, batteries had the same capacity but the cameras themselves were updated internally to be more efficient. So if you set a 6300 to record HD video it will be dead 10-15 minutes sooner than a 6400 and 6500. Id bet the 6600 has the same improvements on the boards as the 6400 but a bigger mAh battery.

In my case it doesn’t really apply, not worried or interested in IBIS or OSS lenses. I turn the IBIS off on my a57 anyway. Im smooth with video and use tripods. Plus I just cant afford $500 more before xmas lol.

But the 6400 battery is at least 20% better than the original 6000/6300 battery. Im sure the 6600 is even better.

I have not considered the 6600. But at a glance the ibis and battery don't warrant an extra $500, plus I can’t swing that much. I have software for stabilizing and can use a gimbal when need be.

I was considering something similar myself although my options were either the A7-II or the a6500.

Since I have a large number of a mount aps-c lenses, it made more sense to me to go for the cropped body. I know they work in crop mode but that's like having a land rover and never going off road with it. In my opinion anyway.

In a nutshell I stick with that logic and ended up ordering an a6600 with LAEA3 adapter this morning. With a combination of IBIS and advanced af system, it combines the best features of the a6400 and a6500 with the larger battery and grip.

Its not for everyone though and the a6400 has plenty of raving reviews. It's a capable camera in its own right.

Best of luck with whatever you decide.

LAbernethy wrote: Out of the two the a6400 is probably the better option. The a68 would suit your lenses and accessories better, not to mention your pocketbook. The '4D FOCUS system' works pretty good. Video isn't my thing but I have to say the a68 does manage to produce some good quality video files (1080p though), the sound is actually pretty good too.

E-mount is best with native lenses.

18-105? Do you mean the 18-135? That one behaves nicely with the LA-EA3 adapter, and it is a nice lightweight lens that is okay to use on the A6400 or A7II. Never used the 35/1.8, but it is a SAM lens and I am sure it also is fine with the LA-EA4.

Olympus lenses are the old manual focus OM lenses? Just get a nice adaptor for a few dollars (US$20,- for a Fotodiox adaptor over at B and H).