Sony A6400 or Sony A7iii
Hi guys looking to get my first proper camera and I know I want a Sony for certain. I have my my eye on the A6400 and it looks like the perfect camera for me, however I can’t help thinking I should just go all out and get the A7iii from the start. Can you guys give me some thoughts and views on what to get Lots of different factors here. Firstly what's you budget? Secondly what do you intend to shoot and what are you hoping to achieve? Lastly are you aware of the differences in full frame and APS-C in terms of image quality, depth of field and noise handling, and are you aware of the weight and size differences between the lenses? Looking for a step up from my iPhone XS, as I say the A6400 looks perfect, but I worry I’m mak9 g a mistake not going full frame What is it that you think FF will give you? I just like to get the best and from what I’ve seen FF is the best format Well to be pedantic medium format and large format will have better image quality  yes in terms of general cameras the FF will give you the ultimate IQ. However, a lot of the time you will be hard pressed to tell the difference. I recently posted two identical photos, one taken with my D850 (FF) and one take with my EM1 (micro 4/3) and asked folk if they could see which is which. 70% of folk thought the m4/3 was the FF photo.
My point is, in the real world there’s little to separate them and the biggest factor is the photographer. FF will always have better noise handling (comparing similar era tech), but even then I can get useable images from my EM1 at 6400 ISO. The other main difference is the ability to get more shallow depth of field with FF.
There are drawbacks with FF, and that’s size, weight and cost of FF lenses. There’s always a compromise and it depends on what compromises you’re willing to make. I’m just about to sell a few of my FF lenses in favour of some m4/3 ones as I’m sick of carrying all the weight around.
You sound like me a few years ago tbh, and probably won’t be satisfied until you’ve had FF as there will always be that thing in the back of your head gnawing away at you that FF is better and you can’t achieve the images you want without it  I think you hit the nail on the head, I think the A6400 is probably the better option for me but i’ll Always be thinking about the a7iii Then I think you’ve answered your own question 
Have a look at the lenses you may want though to see if you can afford them, Sony full frame lenses are expensive. Personally I think both cameras are bad choices to begin with, they're both high end expensive cameras and at the moment you don't know how you're going to use the camera.With photography there's no one best camera or setup, it all depends on what suits your needs.It's not unusual to see people who spend a lot of money on camera equipment with the sentiment they should start with the best and it ends up gathering dust.
I would start with something like the Sony A6000 and 16-50mm, it's a fraction of the price of the A6400 but its APS-C sensor offers similar image quality to its pricier siblings.People assume that IQ gets progressively better the more you spend but in reality, it's mostly features which set cameras apart in the range aside from going up to a larger sensor.Crucially it will give you a much better idea what you want from a camera both in terms of the camera itself and lenses as well.
The A6000 prices are very stable these days and you won't lose much selling it on down the line if you decide you want something better while the A6400 being new is likely to come down in price and with the FF mirrorless market heating up I can see the A7 III coming down a bit as well.I do have an NEX-6 (very similar camera to the A6000) and although it's not one of my main cameras and surpassed by newer models, it's still a cracking wee camera and capable of great IQ.
I do use an FF setup as well and when I need the IQ and capabilities, it is good but at the same time it's a bulky setup and I tend not to use it unless I particularly need it. Sound advice this. The only thing I tend to differ on is people advising buying entry level cameras to begin with as others are too advanced. However, my counter argument is that if you're serious about photography then buying something with all the features to begin with saves you have to buy and sell equipment and in the end lose money.
I don't put the A6000 into that category though, the A6000 is a feature packed camera which has enough for eh beginner and serious enthusiast alike. I agree with John in that whilst it might not have the latest tech of the A6400 it's still a cracking piece of kit and I very much doubt you'd tell any difference in the final picture between the two. Camera manufacturers (as well as all tech manufacturers) are superb at marketing and making you feel like you have to have the latest tech and 'last year's' tech is only good enough to be used as a paper weight. The truth is that most of modern tech is just numbers that help sell new gear, whereas the final image is actually no better than it was 5 years ago.
Take the EM1-II that I've been looking at recently, part of the big marketing hype was that it shoots at 60fps and everyone marvelled at this. Now whilst it's a impressive feat who really wants 60fps???? Can you imagine sifting through that lot when you come to editing  Even on my camera shooting at 7-9fps I end up with a lot of images that all look pretty identical, let alone 60fps. Even for BIF I think 10-12fps is pretty much all you'll ever need.
Another big marketing trick is selling megapixels. Now don't get me wrong, there is one advantage of high MP and this is if you crop heavily for things like wildlife (and hence the reason I have the D850) but for everything else you absolutely do NOT need high MP. Most people don't print, and most people view on phones are computers. But even if you view on a 4K TV they are 'only' 8.3MP, so any more than that is wasted. Shoot with a 24MP camera and you're throwing away 16MP.
The point is, don't believe the marketing hype. Think about the specs and whether they are something that you truly need. Most modern cameras deliver more than most people need. What newbies should be told is not to focus completely on specs and think more about the system. Does it have the lenses that you think you will want, does the camera feel right ergonomically, are the button and dial placements comfortable, are the menus easy to navigate or are the confusingly complex like Sony 