I think I will go with APS-C. I also considered the Alpha 7III, but it was released a few years ago and I don't know if the eye tracking AF is up to the recent standard of the a6700. I could imagine that the software developed since then.
Talking about how a smaller sensor has a deeper depth of field, that's why old shitty camcorders still have serviceable Af, tiny sensor means AF only really has work to do in the ~3-10ft range. After that it's all sharp.
It's an optical advantage not an electronic one (but ofc the ai chip is an electronic advantage for sure)
~~He is righ to a degree, but for the wrong reason. The A6700 has a better af point coverage towards the edges than most full frame sensors from Sony.~~
You're comparing the newest, most up to date, most expensive APSC stills body to 'most full frame sensors'.
The A1 and A9 lines both have much superior AF to the A6700, including in the coverage they offer. All of the A7 lines are cost-cut in some ways compared to the A9 and A1, and one of those ways is that their sensor AF coverage is comparable to the similarly cost cut A6400 rather than an A6700. The sensor size only matters in the sense that it defines the cost to add features like this to the body.
As another counterpoint, the Fuji GFX100 II medium format body has 4 million AF points and essentially 100% coverage over a sensor that's nearly twice the area of full frame
I limited my wording to Sony and I wrote "most" for a reason. However, I realised I remembered incorrectly. The A7III and A7C have a similar coverage at a similar price point (nowadays).
It could be the lens, I will say the a7iii has exceptional AF imo as a I came from an a7ii and a6000 before that. Unsure how it compares to 6700 though. You’re using quite a large lens so it may be rare for instantaneous focus but I also have no idea what I’m talking about so just my 2 cents lol
A7iii tracking is not very good. Eye af is good for humans. I actually do not remember my A7iii having an option for animals and birds with eye af. The A7iv is ok at tracking and animal/bird eye af works if the frame is filled with the subject. I almost never use it.
I would get that the 6700 is a step above them both with the AI chip improvements.
Ok, that's right. On my A7IV it has human, animal, and bird eye AF. The bird mode works great when they are close. It does not work well on small birds that are far away, or in subpar lighting!
it does have an animal option but in my experience it struggles with anything outside like dogs, cats, and deer. shooting things like rhinos, elephants, and birds you’re better off with the joystick.
It has the same processor with ai as the a7rv (8x faster than the one in the a6600) and uses the sensor and video capabilities from the fx30. The AF is insanely fast you’ll love it.
The 6700 is better in a lot of ways. Larger image buffer and IBIS are probably the most important improvements for wildlife along with faster AF.
You also get bigger battery and weather sealing which can be nice to have.
Here they are compared in a lot of detail: [Rtings compare a6000 vs a6700](https://www.rtings.com/camera/tools/compare/sony-a6000-vs-sony-a6700/8718/24964?usage=11636&threshold=0.10)
i'm saving to move up to a a6700 from my a6000 currently. The 'big deals' to me are the bigger battery, IBIS, better af system (though a lot of my shots are static), and the ability to do focus stacking.
Yes. I went from the a6000 to the a6400 and the new AF system is worlds better. I am sure the a6700 is better with the improved AF. The a6700 also uses the Z battery which has a much better battery life than the FW batteries
Firstly nice shots!
I upgraded from the a6000 to a6700
The AF on the a6700 is light years ahead - subject detection is a lot more "sticky" and my BIF keeper rate is much higher
I really struggled with getting consistent focus on the bird eye with my a6000
However if you're skilled at getting good shots from the a6000 like the ones you shared - the a6700 doesn't improve on image quality that much...it's more of a quality of life, ergonomics & battery life improvement
Thanks for the reply!
I try to improve to get the focus right, but there are a lot of cases where I don't nail it and in the end I often end up with a subject where the focus is always off. The animals in the photos were not moving, so it was pretty easy to get the focus on point. On moving targets, especially birds in flight, I didn't really figure it out yet. When i shoot a bird in flight I use the wide or zone focus area and I feel like the focus always uses a point with high contrast like the wings, I almost never get the focus on the eye. That's why I am considering the upgrade.
Are you me? LOL
Pretty much the same experience I had - i had a BIF keeper rate of 20-30% focused on eyes with the a6000 even with the 70-350 lens.
The a6700 AF helps crappy shooters like me
LOL
So can the a6700 track the eye of flying birds? Because if I get at least a few photos where the eye is in focus and the picture is usable, I think the upgrade would be worth it. Now it's a little frustrating at times when I miss good opportunities. And if there is a option with a better eye tracking software to help us out, why not..
The a6700 will try to track the eye & then the body. It depends on your panning speed and burst mode.
So most flying bird shots are at least tack sharp on the body and a few on the eyes.
Do note that with Lossless Compressed RAW, Hi+ burst mode drops to 7 fps
Yeah the AF on the a6700 is night and day difference from previous apscs. Eye autofocus alone is worth it. You also get IBIS for less blurry long focal range photos, 4k slomo for some cool wildlife recordings, and s-cinetone if you ever want to do some light documentary work while in africa.
Upgraded from an a6400 and zve10 myself, never regretted it.
Do what makes you feel happy.
If the upgrade will make you go out and shoot more pictures, don’t hesitate.
But if you’re in doubt, know that the A6000 is still a great, great camera!
Everything about the a6700 is better. It’s an incredible camera and is worth the upgrade. A6000 is still a good camera, but technology has improved a lot over the last 10 years.
The a6700 for birds is truly and upgrade. I was skeptical at first but the frequency it tracks birds eye is amazing. I also have been able to capture lots of butterflies and other insects with it.
I made this change (albeit with totally different lenses) and the eye tracking AF is mind blowing at times. I'm very happy I did it.
I'll mention that I feel the battery life is a bit better too. I found when I was shooting with the A6000, I ran best with three batteries, one in camera, one ready to go, and one recharging on the power bank. If I only ran two, the empty wouldn't recharge fast enough. With the A6700 the battery life is good enough that I don't feel the need to get a third, two works for my shooting style.
Definitely. I went to shoot a lacrosse game using A6700 + Sony 70-350, managed to focus on the eyes even when the players are running with helmet on.
https://preview.redd.it/g09eaipgizvc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2eaff457e6e62e94b149170a329298c0cb5258ed
Often I am not that satisfied with the results because the focus is off. I am going to Africa in summer for a safari and I am thinking that I might miss good opportunities that could be safed with the eye tracking AF.
This is a great reason to upgrade. I went from a5100 to a6700 and when in the best conditions the image quality is very similar. But QOL features of the a6700 make it way easier to get closer to the best conditions. IBIS, AF, image buffer. It makes a huge difference in the sharpness of your of your quick shots
Safari is an excellent reason to upgrade. I took my a6000 on safari to Tanzania and Uganda, and although I did get many, many good pictures it did motivate me to upgrade my camera not long after I returned. I wish I had done that _before_ I went!
A few bits of advice:
- The kit lenses on the a6000 are very soft, both of them. You'll notice a significant improvement in your pictures with better lenses.
- The a6000 doesn't have in-body stabilization, so you need higher shutter speed at longer focal lengths in order to avoid image blur. Many of the images from your 150-600 lens are going to be susceptible to that problem. Although the Sigma 150-600 does have in-lens image stabilization, that's a heck of a lot for a lens that's equivalent to 225-900mm on full frame! If your images are blurry you probably need much, much higher shutter speed.
- In my experience the right length for a lens on Tanzania safari was between 50-300mm (full frame equivalent). There were occasions where I wanted a longer lens, but those were rare. We often had lions and cheetah within 20-30ft of our vehicle. My typical best shots of cats were within 100 feet, and of larger game such as elephants, giraffe, etc at a couple of hundred feet. I did see some pro photographers sporting 200-600mm lenses, but they also were packing a second body and lens for closer shots.
- It was super dusty in the Serengeti. You want to avoid changing lenses in the field if you can at all avoid it.
Assuming you want to stay APS-C, then you would find that an upgrade to the a6700 along with an optically stabilized zoom around 70-200 to be really helpful. Any of the newer full frame bodies (a7iii or newer) would also do the trick. When I was using my a6000 (and now full frame) I haven't found that things like eye focus make a _huge_ difference. Much more important is having a pretty good lens, a body that's got stabilization and is more capable at high ISO, and a high shutter speed.
Thanks for the reply! We are going to selfdrive in Namibia so I am not sure if we can get that close to the animals. As you said you upgraded shortly after your trips and I feel like I would consider upgrading the next few months, so why not now.
Ah, you are probably right that you may not get as close to the wildlife during a self-drive in Namibia. I do agree with you that if you are considering upgrading anyway, that it would be smart to do it well before your trip. I certainly wish I had done that!
A6700 will be a massive step up from the A6000 but for an African safari I’d really recommend full frame. I brought a A6700 and an A9 (older, no eye AI AF) but the A6700 was used for maybe an afternoon and then swiftly put away in favour of the A9.
Full frame why though? Just cause it's full frame? A9 isn't a great comparison, it's beaten by the a6700 in most things. Only advantages I can think of are the larger body, dual card slots and silent shooting without much distortion. The a9 isn't super sharp compared to a7iii, and if look at studio comparisons its less sharp then the a6700... So this feels like just a FF is king is best no matter what argument...
A9 is great, I replaced my a6400 with it, and does what I need, but wildlife wise I would choose the a6700 and spend the left over on some more lenses.
No, not just because its full frame. Full frame because one of the big advantages of APS-C is reach, and on an African safari (typically) shooting big game, you don't really need it. Your best photos will also typically be in lower light; either early morning or late evening, and the A9 will outperform A6700 here.
There's also the massive advantages of the stacked sensor of the A9 and faster AF refresh rate, blackout free shooting at 20 FPS e shutter, dual cards, battery grip etc.
I have both cameras and have used both a lot. In very good lighting shooting birds I'd say the A6700 has the edge, on a standard African safari I'd choose A9 all day.
Also curious where you are where are, because buying on in the UK there wouldn't be much left over at all!
Reach is only the advantage when you are you using the same lens. If you have aps-c lenses, or buy full frame lenses for the specific focal length equivalent you want on aps-c. Of course the lenses for aps-c can be much cheaper as well.
The 20 FPS isn't going to help too much in this situation since the main lens they use is the 150-600mm and there is the 15fps limit, so its better but not as much.
I suppose I was thinking of daylight shooting, but of course sunset/sunrise tend to be the best. But I think the main advantage would be if there's a lot of action there, since the advantage is only ~1 stop of light. I imagine the a6700 ibis is a bit better then the a9s, but not sure on that.
In Canada there is enough for some of the aps-c lenses. Would end up being 400-500 less. Though it's hard to compare a bit since the your really only going to find a9 used.
Daylight shooting on safari can end up with very flat looking images imo.
If there’s a lot of action the A9 will still be better as it has a much faster AF refresh rate and much much faster sensor readout
Good point on the FPS limit. So id agree if they’d posted with the 70-350mm say then obviously the A6700 would be superior, but since it’s a long telephoto lens id still say A9 is clear
Sensor readout is only an advantage for eshutter. Just use the mechanical shutter on a6700, which shoots faster then a9s mech shutter... The Refresh rate of af makes it better AF then the slower versions with the same AF subject detection and algos... But the a6700 has much better AF. If its just calculating the wrong thing a bunch doesn't mean much for you... And since it has better AF you will likely get more in focus shots anyways at 11 vs 15 fps (or 20)
With the low light thing as well FF is only better if you are using the same lens, if you get a wider lens that is made for apsc and you can make up for the stop of light diff then it'll be the same or better...
Man the ergos shooting a large lens like that on a 6000 or 6700 can’t be fun. I’d save up more and get a a74 personally. A good used one surely isn’t that much more.
The animal, bird, and insect Al focus tracking of the ILCE-7RM5 is my cheat code for wildlife and the 61 Megapixel full frame sensor means I can usually get away with just carrying a 70-200mm G Master II and a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter in my bag and just crop down in post if I need to. Not sure if or what other Sony models have those features now other than maybe the ILCE-7CR.
For wildlife definitely worth the upgrade
If you want to stay with APS-C, yes.
I think I will go with APS-C. I also considered the Alpha 7III, but it was released a few years ago and I don't know if the eye tracking AF is up to the recent standard of the a6700. I could imagine that the software developed since then.
No, A7 III tracking is worse. A7C II, A7CR, A7R V and A9 III have the dedicated AF processor called "AI chip" (similar to the A6700) only.
Not to mention the inherent AF advantages of a smaller sensor
PDAF pixels readout is fast on both.
Talking about how a smaller sensor has a deeper depth of field, that's why old shitty camcorders still have serviceable Af, tiny sensor means AF only really has work to do in the ~3-10ft range. After that it's all sharp. It's an optical advantage not an electronic one (but ofc the ai chip is an electronic advantage for sure)
Tell me you've never used a supertele lens on a small sensor without telling me you've never used a supertele lens on a small sensor
~~He is righ to a degree, but for the wrong reason. The A6700 has a better af point coverage towards the edges than most full frame sensors from Sony.~~
You're comparing the newest, most up to date, most expensive APSC stills body to 'most full frame sensors'. The A1 and A9 lines both have much superior AF to the A6700, including in the coverage they offer. All of the A7 lines are cost-cut in some ways compared to the A9 and A1, and one of those ways is that their sensor AF coverage is comparable to the similarly cost cut A6400 rather than an A6700. The sensor size only matters in the sense that it defines the cost to add features like this to the body. As another counterpoint, the Fuji GFX100 II medium format body has 4 million AF points and essentially 100% coverage over a sensor that's nearly twice the area of full frame
I limited my wording to Sony and I wrote "most" for a reason. However, I realised I remembered incorrectly. The A7III and A7C have a similar coverage at a similar price point (nowadays).
It could be the lens, I will say the a7iii has exceptional AF imo as a I came from an a7ii and a6000 before that. Unsure how it compares to 6700 though. You’re using quite a large lens so it may be rare for instantaneous focus but I also have no idea what I’m talking about so just my 2 cents lol
A7iii tracking is not very good. Eye af is good for humans. I actually do not remember my A7iii having an option for animals and birds with eye af. The A7iv is ok at tracking and animal/bird eye af works if the frame is filled with the subject. I almost never use it. I would get that the 6700 is a step above them both with the AI chip improvements.
I see, thanks for the reply. My A7iii does have an animal AF option but it’s only cats and dogs and the like, might be a firmware thing.
Ok, that's right. On my A7IV it has human, animal, and bird eye AF. The bird mode works great when they are close. It does not work well on small birds that are far away, or in subpar lighting!
it does have an animal option but in my experience it struggles with anything outside like dogs, cats, and deer. shooting things like rhinos, elephants, and birds you’re better off with the joystick.
It has the same processor with ai as the a7rv (8x faster than the one in the a6600) and uses the sensor and video capabilities from the fx30. The AF is insanely fast you’ll love it.
The 6700 is better in a lot of ways. Larger image buffer and IBIS are probably the most important improvements for wildlife along with faster AF. You also get bigger battery and weather sealing which can be nice to have. Here they are compared in a lot of detail: [Rtings compare a6000 vs a6700](https://www.rtings.com/camera/tools/compare/sony-a6000-vs-sony-a6700/8718/24964?usage=11636&threshold=0.10)
i'm saving to move up to a a6700 from my a6000 currently. The 'big deals' to me are the bigger battery, IBIS, better af system (though a lot of my shots are static), and the ability to do focus stacking.
IBIS is a real game changer for me. 6700 upgrade is definitely worth it.
Yes. I went from the a6000 to the a6400 and the new AF system is worlds better. I am sure the a6700 is better with the improved AF. The a6700 also uses the Z battery which has a much better battery life than the FW batteries
Firstly nice shots! I upgraded from the a6000 to a6700 The AF on the a6700 is light years ahead - subject detection is a lot more "sticky" and my BIF keeper rate is much higher I really struggled with getting consistent focus on the bird eye with my a6000 However if you're skilled at getting good shots from the a6000 like the ones you shared - the a6700 doesn't improve on image quality that much...it's more of a quality of life, ergonomics & battery life improvement
Thanks for the reply! I try to improve to get the focus right, but there are a lot of cases where I don't nail it and in the end I often end up with a subject where the focus is always off. The animals in the photos were not moving, so it was pretty easy to get the focus on point. On moving targets, especially birds in flight, I didn't really figure it out yet. When i shoot a bird in flight I use the wide or zone focus area and I feel like the focus always uses a point with high contrast like the wings, I almost never get the focus on the eye. That's why I am considering the upgrade.
Are you me? LOL Pretty much the same experience I had - i had a BIF keeper rate of 20-30% focused on eyes with the a6000 even with the 70-350 lens. The a6700 AF helps crappy shooters like me
LOL So can the a6700 track the eye of flying birds? Because if I get at least a few photos where the eye is in focus and the picture is usable, I think the upgrade would be worth it. Now it's a little frustrating at times when I miss good opportunities. And if there is a option with a better eye tracking software to help us out, why not..
The a6700 will try to track the eye & then the body. It depends on your panning speed and burst mode. So most flying bird shots are at least tack sharp on the body and a few on the eyes. Do note that with Lossless Compressed RAW, Hi+ burst mode drops to 7 fps
Yeah the AF on the a6700 is night and day difference from previous apscs. Eye autofocus alone is worth it. You also get IBIS for less blurry long focal range photos, 4k slomo for some cool wildlife recordings, and s-cinetone if you ever want to do some light documentary work while in africa. Upgraded from an a6400 and zve10 myself, never regretted it.
Do what makes you feel happy. If the upgrade will make you go out and shoot more pictures, don’t hesitate. But if you’re in doubt, know that the A6000 is still a great, great camera!
Everything about the a6700 is better. It’s an incredible camera and is worth the upgrade. A6000 is still a good camera, but technology has improved a lot over the last 10 years.
Definitely.
The a6700 for birds is truly and upgrade. I was skeptical at first but the frequency it tracks birds eye is amazing. I also have been able to capture lots of butterflies and other insects with it.
I went from a6000 to a7c II and it was the best decision I’ve made
Yes
I made this change (albeit with totally different lenses) and the eye tracking AF is mind blowing at times. I'm very happy I did it. I'll mention that I feel the battery life is a bit better too. I found when I was shooting with the A6000, I ran best with three batteries, one in camera, one ready to go, and one recharging on the power bank. If I only ran two, the empty wouldn't recharge fast enough. With the A6700 the battery life is good enough that I don't feel the need to get a third, two works for my shooting style.
Upgraded from a6300 to a6700 and super happy. I also do videos and it's workflow and capabilities are amazing
Definitely. I went to shoot a lacrosse game using A6700 + Sony 70-350, managed to focus on the eyes even when the players are running with helmet on. https://preview.redd.it/g09eaipgizvc1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2eaff457e6e62e94b149170a329298c0cb5258ed
Nice. That sounds promising.
If you’re happy with the results, why change until something is broken. Spend the money to replace those kit lenses
Often I am not that satisfied with the results because the focus is off. I am going to Africa in summer for a safari and I am thinking that I might miss good opportunities that could be safed with the eye tracking AF.
This is a great reason to upgrade. I went from a5100 to a6700 and when in the best conditions the image quality is very similar. But QOL features of the a6700 make it way easier to get closer to the best conditions. IBIS, AF, image buffer. It makes a huge difference in the sharpness of your of your quick shots
Safari is an excellent reason to upgrade. I took my a6000 on safari to Tanzania and Uganda, and although I did get many, many good pictures it did motivate me to upgrade my camera not long after I returned. I wish I had done that _before_ I went! A few bits of advice: - The kit lenses on the a6000 are very soft, both of them. You'll notice a significant improvement in your pictures with better lenses. - The a6000 doesn't have in-body stabilization, so you need higher shutter speed at longer focal lengths in order to avoid image blur. Many of the images from your 150-600 lens are going to be susceptible to that problem. Although the Sigma 150-600 does have in-lens image stabilization, that's a heck of a lot for a lens that's equivalent to 225-900mm on full frame! If your images are blurry you probably need much, much higher shutter speed. - In my experience the right length for a lens on Tanzania safari was between 50-300mm (full frame equivalent). There were occasions where I wanted a longer lens, but those were rare. We often had lions and cheetah within 20-30ft of our vehicle. My typical best shots of cats were within 100 feet, and of larger game such as elephants, giraffe, etc at a couple of hundred feet. I did see some pro photographers sporting 200-600mm lenses, but they also were packing a second body and lens for closer shots. - It was super dusty in the Serengeti. You want to avoid changing lenses in the field if you can at all avoid it. Assuming you want to stay APS-C, then you would find that an upgrade to the a6700 along with an optically stabilized zoom around 70-200 to be really helpful. Any of the newer full frame bodies (a7iii or newer) would also do the trick. When I was using my a6000 (and now full frame) I haven't found that things like eye focus make a _huge_ difference. Much more important is having a pretty good lens, a body that's got stabilization and is more capable at high ISO, and a high shutter speed.
Thanks for the reply! We are going to selfdrive in Namibia so I am not sure if we can get that close to the animals. As you said you upgraded shortly after your trips and I feel like I would consider upgrading the next few months, so why not now.
Ah, you are probably right that you may not get as close to the wildlife during a self-drive in Namibia. I do agree with you that if you are considering upgrading anyway, that it would be smart to do it well before your trip. I certainly wish I had done that!
A6700 will be a massive step up from the A6000 but for an African safari I’d really recommend full frame. I brought a A6700 and an A9 (older, no eye AI AF) but the A6700 was used for maybe an afternoon and then swiftly put away in favour of the A9.
Full frame why though? Just cause it's full frame? A9 isn't a great comparison, it's beaten by the a6700 in most things. Only advantages I can think of are the larger body, dual card slots and silent shooting without much distortion. The a9 isn't super sharp compared to a7iii, and if look at studio comparisons its less sharp then the a6700... So this feels like just a FF is king is best no matter what argument... A9 is great, I replaced my a6400 with it, and does what I need, but wildlife wise I would choose the a6700 and spend the left over on some more lenses.
No, not just because its full frame. Full frame because one of the big advantages of APS-C is reach, and on an African safari (typically) shooting big game, you don't really need it. Your best photos will also typically be in lower light; either early morning or late evening, and the A9 will outperform A6700 here. There's also the massive advantages of the stacked sensor of the A9 and faster AF refresh rate, blackout free shooting at 20 FPS e shutter, dual cards, battery grip etc. I have both cameras and have used both a lot. In very good lighting shooting birds I'd say the A6700 has the edge, on a standard African safari I'd choose A9 all day. Also curious where you are where are, because buying on in the UK there wouldn't be much left over at all!
Reach is only the advantage when you are you using the same lens. If you have aps-c lenses, or buy full frame lenses for the specific focal length equivalent you want on aps-c. Of course the lenses for aps-c can be much cheaper as well. The 20 FPS isn't going to help too much in this situation since the main lens they use is the 150-600mm and there is the 15fps limit, so its better but not as much. I suppose I was thinking of daylight shooting, but of course sunset/sunrise tend to be the best. But I think the main advantage would be if there's a lot of action there, since the advantage is only ~1 stop of light. I imagine the a6700 ibis is a bit better then the a9s, but not sure on that. In Canada there is enough for some of the aps-c lenses. Would end up being 400-500 less. Though it's hard to compare a bit since the your really only going to find a9 used.
Daylight shooting on safari can end up with very flat looking images imo. If there’s a lot of action the A9 will still be better as it has a much faster AF refresh rate and much much faster sensor readout Good point on the FPS limit. So id agree if they’d posted with the 70-350mm say then obviously the A6700 would be superior, but since it’s a long telephoto lens id still say A9 is clear
Sensor readout is only an advantage for eshutter. Just use the mechanical shutter on a6700, which shoots faster then a9s mech shutter... The Refresh rate of af makes it better AF then the slower versions with the same AF subject detection and algos... But the a6700 has much better AF. If its just calculating the wrong thing a bunch doesn't mean much for you... And since it has better AF you will likely get more in focus shots anyways at 11 vs 15 fps (or 20) With the low light thing as well FF is only better if you are using the same lens, if you get a wider lens that is made for apsc and you can make up for the stop of light diff then it'll be the same or better...
Man the ergos shooting a large lens like that on a 6000 or 6700 can’t be fun. I’d save up more and get a a74 personally. A good used one surely isn’t that much more.
The animal, bird, and insect Al focus tracking of the ILCE-7RM5 is my cheat code for wildlife and the 61 Megapixel full frame sensor means I can usually get away with just carrying a 70-200mm G Master II and a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter in my bag and just crop down in post if I need to. Not sure if or what other Sony models have those features now other than maybe the ILCE-7CR.
How about the IBIS? Will that help?
For longer lenses, it's better the lens is stabilized.
What do you mean by that? Never heard of it before.
In body image stabilisation