 |
| Sony a7 Mark III vs Sony a6400 |
Sony a7 Mark III and Sony a6400. Why in the world I'm comparing this to cameras? Well, basically some five months ago I bought Sony 6400 as my second camera in the bag and I was thinking of something that I will use sometimes as my secondary camera and just have something for b-roll and for extra shots and so on and so on. And honestly, I found myself using more of this 6400 than Sony a7 Mark III. I was a hardcore, orthodox photographer thinking that only full-frame can do, that only full-frame cameras are pro cameras and all other cameras are just, you know, not bad, but not there. And I was wrong. I gotta admit. This comparison to me between Sony a7 Mark III and Sony a6400 that is half of the price of this full-frame camera is in fact a battle between crop cameras and full-frame cameras.
I won't be mentioning things that I think are not important like this grip thing, how deep it is, how comfortable it is. I don't find it to be important to me. So let's compare the specs. Both cameras produce great quality images and in most cases really I don't see much of a difference. You may ask, And what about shallow depth of field?'. With a full-frame camera, it's easier for you to get closer to the object at a longer length and get this more shallow depth of field, but having said that you have super small and super cheap and super bright for example Sigma lenses for Sony crop system and they produce really very good results. You can see the comparison on the same lens right now between one system and another system of how shallow the depth of field is and is it really a big difference? To me, it is not, but if you're a wedding photographer... and basically for weddings, I take a7 Mark III and that's the way to be. It's just a great thing to have in your hand and work with. However, I would go to shoot a wedding with a Sony a6400 and I would just take more batteries.
As we were talking about battery life, it used to be that crop sensor Sony cameras had really not good battery life with this older type of battery NPF or something. It was the case with full-frame cameras. Since Sony switched to this bigger power packs, the Sony NP FZ100, the durability of this camera on one battery improved significantly, but still a6400 is very well optimized for the power pack for this battery it has and the difference is not that big anymore. So if you are not planning to shoot all day long both cameras will do just a great job and are pretty long-lasting on one charge. Let's talk about a very important thing: video quality. There are two main differences for videographers. One is that Sony 7 Mark III is a stabilized camera so the sensor inside is stabilized, in 6400 it is not. It is stabilized on 6600.
I mean, to me it's not a big difference, because I use gimbal anyways if I want a stable shot. The kit lens that comes with 6400 is stabilized and it does an okay job as well as stabilization in the body with Sony a7 Mark III. So it's not a big deal to me but this is something to have in mind when you make a purchase decision. The second difference is the quality of image 4K specifically, so when you shoot 4K in 24 frames per second as I do, the image quality of Sony a6400 is slightly better because it's downsampled from 6K. So it is slightly sharper, it gives you a little bit more detail so I started to prefer recordings from a6400 and I would never say that before. I would never say that I would even think that something may be better from a crop sensor camera but it honestly is. So you can see now comparison between those two cameras and this was a huge surprise to me and one thing that is important for both photographers and videographers is dynamic range and this is better of course on Sony a7 Mark III. So if you want to have the best dynamic range, for example, you shoot interiors and you want to have everything done in one shot, not multiple shots for sure Sony a7 Mark III is a better choice with its better dynamic range.
Conclusions, because I think I said enough to compare these two cameras in most important areas. Both cameras perform great, both cameras are super capable. The a6400 is way more capable than I thought. They improved battery life, they improved thermals of this camera so it doesn't overheat like it was in the case of a6300 anymore and I really had an okay experience with 6300 but the difference with this generation is huge. Battery life and this overheating problem are way way way better, way improved. The only thing that is a downside in the case of Sony a6400 to me and I would like to mention and this is something that I kept for the end of this video is the rolling shutter.
The rolling shutter is still quite a problem with 6400 and not a big problem, not a big thing, not something like that could be a deal-breaker really. Okay, Guys what do you think about this comparison? What do you think? Is it necessary to have a full-frame camera or crop cameras are just okay, totally good to go for wedding photographers, interior photographers, and so on? Let me know in the comments below and of course, this full-frame versus crop is not only about Sony. It also is about Canon. It's also Nikon. let me know in the comments below.
By Take Care ❤️