Sony a6400 VS a6500

I have read the threads on this site re the compact mirrorless cameras available.  My wife and I are strongly considering getting either a Sony a6400 or a6500.  Our our purpose is not to replace our Canon DSLRs but rather to give us a light weight camera to take travelling when it will not be necessary to have the big rigs.  Much is made in the reviews of the in body image stabilization of the a6500.  However, if the lens you use is stabilized and I also use Topaz AI Sharpen when needed, is this really necessary?  The AF on the a6400 apparently is supposed to be better, however, we don't anticipate using the camera for sports or birds in flight.  So, for a walk around travel set up is the a6400 good enough?  Or, to complicate the question, is there a better choice in the same price range? Thanks for your advice.

Ed,

I have the "bargain" Sony setup - the a6000 and the two kit lenses (16-50 and 55-210). It is nowhere near my Nikon DSLR's in terms of image quality but it is so small, light, and compact that I use it a lot as a walk around travel setup. I also use it with grandkids and pets. I have no complaints about it. If you look on YouTube for videos about this outfit you will find a lot of negative things about the two kit lenses. I knew going in that the lenses have limitations but they are much better than what one would expect after watching the stuff on YouTube.

The a6300, a6400, and a6500 are all better than the a6000 in many ways but not enough to make me get rid of what I have. One word of caution, the a6000 (and the other a6*** I imagine) cameras have a fairly complex menu. It did take some learning for me.

There was a similar post from a member 6+ months back. I think the consensus was A-6500 with a Tamron 25-75 f 2.8 was a good combo for travel photography. A6300 would also work and be a little cheaper, but it doesn't have IBIS like the 6500. ( the 6400 wasn't out then, so maybe now the 6400 would be a better choice)? https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=276347&hilit=travel+camera

Really great alternatives that are more like a small DSLR would be a Fuji X-T30 with either of the offered kit zooms, the 18-55 f/2.8-4 being the better lens but also bigger than the 16-45.  I believe the $300 off when purchased as a bundle ends this weekend.

I tried to switch to Sony, mostly for the lower weight and bulk, and even acquired a girlfriend who shoots Sony, but went crawling back to Canon, replacing my 5DII with a 5DIV. The frustrating physical controls and maddening multilayered menus on Sony were too aggravating. The Sony cameras gave good image quality and autofocus was good, but I found myself staying in point and shoot mode all the time to avoid having to mess with changing settings. I also wasn’t wild about the viewfinders (last camera I used was the a6500 and I never tried a full frame.) When I last paid attention, Sony hadn’t released any crop factor lenses in some time. There was muttering that they’d abandoned it in favor of full frame. Not sure if that has changed.

I have considered the A6400 for travel, with a 70-300 it would cover my full frame 100-400 needs but every time I open the menu on my A7rII I just go "Arghhhhh?"

Ed Cordes wrote:I have read the threads on this site re the compact mirrorless cameras available.  My wife and I are strongly considering getting either a Sony a6400 or a6500.  Our our purpose is not to replace our Canon DSLRs but rather to give us a light weight camera to take travelling when it will not be necessary to have the big rigs.  Much is made in the reviews of the in body image stabilization of the a6500.  However, if the lens you use is stabilized and I also use Topaz AI Sharpen when needed, is this really necessary?  The AF on the a6400 apparently is supposed to be better, however, we don't anticipate using the camera for sports or birds in flight.  So, for a walk around travel set up is the a6400 good enough?  Or, to complicate the question, is there a better choice in the same price range? Thanks for your advice.

I own both bodies.

The AF on the 6400 is enough superior that I wouldn't pick the 6500 for a general-purpose camera. I use the 6500 for landscape work (often with unstabilized primes) and 6400 for wildlife or dogs / cats photos. I usually pick the A7R3 for indoor photography.

The 6400 has the "My Menu" which is a big improvement to the UI as you can put all the settings you use frequently in a custom menu tree. The 6500 has IBIS.

I'd recommend that most people pick the 6400.

For lenses, there are plenty of really good options, I really like the 18-135 myself as it is very compact and sharp. The 10-18 is a good ultrawide option. Sigma has 3 f/2.8 primes and 3 f/1.4 primes that are very well regarded. The 100-400 is a superb wildlife zoom including with the 1.4x converter.

Plenty of other FF lenses are a very good match for the 6400, such as the 28/2, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and more.

OK, so here's what I decided. I bought the a6400 and 18-135 for a general purpose travel kit mostly for light travel. So far it seems like it will meet my needs for the intended purpose. I have an upcoming trip which will not have serious nature photography. I'll update on my impressions when I get home.