p.51 #1 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Isn't it $200 cheaper than the A7 III? I don't see your point. I know we want cameras to cost less but it takes R&D to bring innovation to market. There is no other interchangeable mount full frame camera as compact as the A7C. (Except for the FP without viewfinder or grip)
The only downgrade in my view is the viewfinder size (not resolution)
Yes not the same level of customization but that goes with the smaller size. Sony will still offer both cameras for sale for all preferences.
I added to my post, but didn't change it much. You talked about miniaturizing raising cost. I was just pointing out removing stuff from the A7C lowers the cost, implying it should be even cheaper .. like $500 cheaper. Also added a note that maybe it was not new R&D. Maybe that's an assumption.
p.51 #2 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is no other interchangeable mount full frame camera as compact as the A7C. (Except for the FP without viewfinder or grip)
Fred .. forgot to respond to that point, but ponder something.
I keep seeing a Sigma or something noted in Youtube replies. But consider for a moment the Canon RP. Forget just the mere LxWxH measurements.
Look at top view photos of the bodies. The RP is not only lighter, but it looks like the RP may actually occupy equal or less cubic inches of air space. And that may be the reason the RP is lighter. Most of the front is much thinner than the dimension implies.
p.51 #3 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
mdvaden wrote:
I added to my post, but didn't change it much. You talked about miniaturizing raising cost. I was just pointing out removing stuff from the A7C lowers the cost, implying it should be even cheaper .. like $500 cheaper. Also added a note that maybe it was not new R&D. Maybe that's an assumption.
Removing a few plastic buttons probably reduces cost by a much smaller amount than developing a new shutter unit and a new IBIS unit.
Most of us have forgotten, I guess, when we paid more for portable laptop computers with lower performance than cheaper desktop computers. Laptops are ubiquitus by now but small full frame cameras with IBIS arent. This is what Sony has done. Great work by Sony!
p.51 #4 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
mdvaden wrote:
Fred .. forgot to respond to that point, but ponder something.
I keep seeing a Sigma or something noted in Youtube replies. But consider for a moment the Canon RP. Forget just the mere LxWxH measurements.
Look at top view photos of the bodies. The RP is not only lighter, but it looks like the RP may actually occupy equal or less cubic inches of air space.
p.51 #5 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
bjornthun wrote:
Removing a few plastic buttons probably reduces cost by a much smaller amount than developing a new shutter unit and a new IBIS unit.
Most of us have forgotten, I guess, when we paid more for portable laptop computers with lower performance than cheaper desktop computers. Laptops are ubiquitus by now but small full frame cameras with IBIS arent. This is what Sony has done. Great work by Sony!
Sony may have already developed that body, that button, that IBIS during the A7 iii R&D ... possibly recycling research the same way as recycling a sensor.
p.51 #7 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Focusing with a 2.36-dot EVF would be perfectly fine and precise if you use focus magnification + peaking. - Remember, we used them in the past (some still do) and were happy with it. However, with the A7R IV's EVF res. (5.76-dot), I can actually turn off peaking all together, since magnification alone allows me to discern high frequency detail.
Compared to the A7R IV, the only drawback I see from the EVF's lower magnification (0.59x vs 0.78x) is that the overall picture in the frame will appear more distant -- less immersive.
Imagine you are in the movie theater and you sit a bit further away. Probably not scientific correct, so don't quote me on this.
My point is that it should not impact manual focus capability and accuracy. It's just now ideal for those spoiled by better technology and a larger view....Show more →
Basically agree with most of what you say here with one major exception which is why I pre-ordered and just
cancelled after watching a rather good video review - Undone, I think? - which settled - for now, might change
yet again in future - and that is regarding the magnification and size.
Currently, I am shooting on a Leica M with EVF and the 2.36-dot add-on EVF is fine, not easy but good enough.
However, you hit the nail on the head: it's like you're in a back row at a movie theater with such a low magnification.
Well, that's fine if you have no vision issues as some of us do. I need all the mag I can get; and, yes, size does matter .
That's one reason I'm getting the A7Siii - the EVF is huge!
p.51 #8 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
mdvaden wrote:
Sony may have already developed that body, that button, that IBIS during the A7 iii R&D ... possibly recycling research the same way as recycling a sensor.
Maybe it's new. And maybe it's not.
From Dpreview
« That means it features a familiar 24MP BSI-CMOS sensor, mounted to a miniaturized in-body stabilization system that's good for the same 5 EV of shake correction as its larger a7 III sibling. That all sits behind a new shutter mechanism that goes up to 1/4000 sec, and can fire off bursts at 10 frames per second.»
p.51 #9 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
wittyphrase wrote:
I don’t know that they necessarily can’t imagine other people having different preferences. But these products aren’t released in vacuums. It will affect the company’s other offerings, pricing, etc.
For example, I’m excited by features put into the top end cameras because I’m hopeful they trickle down in some form to the potential A7IV. So even though I’m not the target for the SIII, I’d have been disappointed if it did not include a touch screen.
If I had to guess I think you'll find the new menus and touch features will end up in the A7IV; The issue in the A7c is that is that it may have been hard, for space or heat reasons, to fit the new BIONZ in that Sony says is needed for the touch menu system. (yes, I know "needed" probably means "makes it easy for us", but still...)
p.51 #10 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
mdvaden wrote:
I added to my post, but didn't change it much. You talked about miniaturizing raising cost. I was just pointing out removing stuff from the A7C lowers the cost, implying it should be even cheaper .. like $500 cheaper. Also added a note that maybe it was not new R&D. Maybe that's an assumption.
It's very hard to arrive at the "fair price" of a camera by trying to argue who much it must have cost to build. What we can do is to compare it with other products in its league and see how it compares in price vs features. So the question is that is there a camera on the market which has A7c level specs and sells for a significantly lower price. The only FF mirrorless cameras in the market that sell for significantly less than A7c are Z5 and RP and neither has the specs of A7c. So its hard to argue that A7c should be priced in that range. Even Sigma FP which doesn't even have an EVF and mechanical shutter was launched at $1900 and now sells for $1800.
p.51 #11 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
tunisia wrote:
Basically agree with most of what you say here with one major exception which is why I pre-ordered and just
cancelled after watching a rather good video review - Undone, I think? - which settled - for now, might change
yet again in future - and that is regarding the magnification and size.
Currently, I am shooting on a Leica M with EVF and the 2.36-dot add-on EVF is fine, not easy but good enough.
However, you hit the nail on the head: it's like you're in a back row at a movie theater with such a low magnification.
Well, that's fine if you have no vision issues as some of us do. I need all the mag I can get; and, yes, size does matter .
That's one reason I'm getting the A7Siii - the EVF is huge!
My thought if you can shoot without a EVF than you good to go . Worth a try
If not run now. I honestly belief that maybe the bottom line
Honestly you can't be in love with this stuff or your wasting your money. Make a call and stick with it. Now I going home n past happy hour so I better stop. Lol
p.51 #12 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
curious80 wrote:
It's very hard to arrive at the "fair price" of a camera by trying to argue who much it must have cost to build. What we can do is to compare it with other products in its league and see how it compares in price vs features. So the question is that is there a camera on the market which has A7c level specs and sells for a significantly lower price. The only FF mirrorless cameras in the market that sell for significantly less than A7c are Z5 and RP and neither has the specs of A7c. So its hard to argue that A7c should be priced in that range. Even Sigma FP which doesn't even have an EVF and mechanical shutter was launched at $1900 and now sells for $1800. ...Show more →
In the end .. maybe a year .. buyers will sure simplify the "fair price" questions and answers.
What will the price be in a year? What will holiday specials cost? And what will used bodies be selling for?
This reminds me of the Sigma 105mm except it sort of went upward.
p.51 #13 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
It strikes me the external envelope was a hard number for the design team. One needs a certain space for the sensor and even new IBIS, room between the mount and the grip (based on a minimum finger space and the size of the battery. So the right side territory is set. Now the grim choice. The A6400/A6600 (or better) finder doesn't fit in the available space to the left. Change the battery? Change the finder. Looks like battery and envelope won. So even with many piece parts used from the design/parts catalog, there are numerous changes from existing models, Flexible PCs change, connectors are changes or re-located so the hook ups change, the body looks similar but it's new, etc.
And they can't kill aps-c demand with a really low body price because ff lenses are still generally, bigger, heavier and more expensive.
p.51 #14 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
Craig Gillette wrote:
It strikes me the external envelope was a hard number for the design team. One needs a certain space for the sensor and even new IBIS, room between the mount and the grip (based on a minimum finger space and the size of the battery. So the right side territory is set. Now the grim choice. The A6400/A6600 (or better) finder doesn't fit in the available space to the left. Change the battery? Change the finder. Looks like battery and envelope won. So even with many piece parts used from the design/parts catalog, there are numerous changes from existing models, Flexible PCs change, connectors are changes or re-located so the hook ups change, the body looks similar but it's new, etc....Show more →
They could have fit the A6x00 finder if they'd used the A6x00 LCD as well. The limit is clearly in the switch to a 3:2 LCD from a 16:9 one for the other similar body designs.
And they can't kill aps-c demand with a really low body price because ff lenses are still generally, bigger, heavier and more expensive.
Go price Sony's E mount lenses. The APS-C lenses aren't necessarily smaller, cheaper or lighter, aside from the 3 pancakes, of which only one (20mm) is really a good performer. generally they're a touch smaller & lighter, but also usually more expensive for the primes (the exception being the 50/1.8 OSS, which runs about $250 cheaper than the FE85)
For example, the ZA 24mm f1.8 vs the FE 35mm f1.8. In this case the FE is 8mm longer and 2mm thicker, but is also $350 cheaper
The 50mm f1.8 is 15mm longer and 6mm wider diameter, but $225 cheaper than the E 35mm f1.8 OSS
Now if you get some Samyang's in FE the price difference gets even more in FE's favour and the size is closer. I'd bet that a matched kit of Samyang's and an A7c would actually end up around the same size, weight & cost as the equivalent Sony lens kit on an A6600. You could shave some cost though going Viltrox or Sigma on the APS-C side, but some of those are rather big (the 16/1.4 is not a tiny lens).
p.51 #15 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
mdvaden wrote:
Fred .. forgot to respond to that point, but ponder something.
But consider for a moment the Canon RP. Forget just the mere LxWxH measurements.
Look at top view photos of the bodies. The RP is not only lighter, but it looks like the RP may actually occupy equal or less cubic inches of air space. And that may be the reason the RP is lighter. Most of the front is much thinner than the dimension implies.
p.51 #16 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Side by side: (RP vs A7C physical dimensions)
That's a better angle to look at things.
So at a glance, it appears the RP is closer to the A7C than the front view implies but still a bit bigger. There are several variations. Like at the mode dial, the RP is thinner, assuming the photos are to scale. And the A7C evidently has less volume in the grip extension.
That would maybe leave the Sigma, one or the only FF mirrorless smaller.
This ushers-in one more small facet to costs. For the RP, many users prefer an extension. If the A7C is even shorter, what extensions are available? And would the average owner even want an extension?
What would the extension weigh? Is a battery grip preferred? Available?
The spec height for the A7C suggests it's height is the depth of 2 and 1/2 of my fingers, and a body like that would let two of my fingers slide under the bottom edge. So for the RP or the A7C an extension would be essential for my own comfort.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.51 #17 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Side by side: (RP vs A7C physical dimensions)
There seems to be two big reasons the Canon RP is lighter than the Sony A7c despite being physically bigger: 1) the battery is a lot smaller about half the size on the RP and its CIPA rating is about 1/3rd the shots; 2) the RP does not have IBIS which does add weight to the the A7c.
In a quest for a smaller camera I might be willing to give up these things, but they do add to the weight of the A7c and pretty easily explain why the RP is bigger yet weighs just a little less (about 25g).
p.51 #18 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
I've seen it suggested it was width perhaps more than height height on the finder. I doubt we'll find out soon, if ever. That seems to be the most distressing design choice.
And the 70-350 is close to $300 cheaper and lighter than the 70-300. The 18-135 is from $80 to over $300 less expensive and 250 grams lighter and narrower and over an inch shorter than the Tamron 28-200 which doesn't have the advantage of being kitted with several aps-c bodies. But the A7c and Tamron is rouughy $1200 more than an A6400/18-135 kit.
And on the dslr side, with aps-c the typical differences when it comes to weight price and availability are even more distinct. Of course in the slr days when you didn't have sensor/film size differences (35mm dominating the better camera market), there was a wide range of competent consumer lenses available, especially but not only third party.
The A7c is certainly a good camera and there are some smaller lighter lenses, especially in primes, but an A6100 shopper or someone buying a Costco Canon T7 two lens bundle for $550 is probably not going to be easily convinced the A7c is really an economical alternative. But the A7c and/or some of the other recent/coming competitors, entry levels so to speak, are starting to crack the wall.
p.51 #19 · Pre-order: Sony A7C Compact Full Frame ($1,798)
mawz wrote:
They could have fit the A6x00 finder if they'd used the A6x00 LCD as well. The limit is clearly in the switch to a 3:2 LCD from a 16:9 one for the other similar body designs.
Go price Sony's E mount lenses. The APS-C lenses aren't necessarily smaller, cheaper or lighter, aside from the 3 pancakes, of which only one (20mm) is really a good performer. generally they're a touch smaller & lighter, but also usually more expensive for the primes (the exception being the 50/1.8 OSS, which runs about $250 cheaper than the FE85)
For example, the ZA 24mm f1.8 vs the FE 35mm f1.8. In this case the FE is 8mm longer and 2mm thicker, but is also $350 cheaper
The 50mm f1.8 is 15mm longer and 6mm wider diameter, but $225 cheaper than the E 35mm f1.8 OSS
Now if you get some Samyang's in FE the price difference gets even more in FE's favour and the size is closer. I'd bet that a matched kit of Samyang's and an A7c would actually end up around the same size, weight & cost as the equivalent Sony lens kit on an A6600. You could shave some cost though going Viltrox or Sigma on the APS-C side, but some of those are rather big (the 16/1.4 is not a tiny lens)....Show more →
comparing the RX1rII module from the top plate seems like it could fit in there, but somehow Sony had that LCD size as a bigger priority, quite an odd decision, and being frank even the 'tiny' a6x00 series screen, they could call the folks at Xperia and make a near borderless LCD that would basically the biggest one in e-mount, if only they wanted that to happen
However, with the A7R IV's EVF res. (5.76-dot), I can actually turn off peaking all together, since magnification alone allows me to discern high frequency detail.
- and that is regarding the magnification and size. 
