I have the A6400 and NEX-6. It does look like the new diopter adjustment is easier to work with. The discussion is that the display is the same resolution but a different magnification. That's apparently not as good as the A6400?
What does that mean to a user? Say me with my progressive bifocals moving to the new camera?
Are there physical differences in the assembly? A different oled? Smaller assembly with same oled panel?
I believe it's the same OLED but with a lower-magnification lens in front of it. This is because the specs seem to be identical (including the 'type' which is the diagonal size of the display) except for the magnification.
It's possible that it's actually identical but they messed up the magnification calculation going from APS-C to full-frame. But a) that doesn't really change the magnification, and b) it's not "off" by a factor of 1.5, so that doesn't seem to be what happened, and c) that'd be a pretty bad mistake to make in a new camera announcement.
They did not mess up the calculation going from APS-C to full frame - Sony actually details both the 'APS-C with 50mm lens' magnification and the 'full frame magnification'.
The A7C viewfinder is very small from a projected image standpoint. It's about the same size as the viewfinder in APS-C DSLRs, and notably smaller than any other ILC EVF in a Sony camera. It uses the same optics as the one in the RX100 compact camera, so if you've used that, this would be the same.
Is it usable? Sure, you can still use it, and it will be fairly clear, but the experience will not be as good. It'd be a forgivable thing on a 1,000 full frame body, but at $1,800 I view it as a fairly severe crippling.
The smallest viewfinder I've used regularly recently is my (now sold) Fuji X-T20 and my E-M10 Mark II, both of which have 0.62x EVFs. They're small but usable. I wouldn't really want to go smaller, though, and the A7c does. It's just a baffling choice given the cost of the camera and where it fits in the alpha system.
The daughter's RX100 is the first version. No evf. I don't find the evf of the NEX6/A6400 unusable. Perhaps a bit awkward with glasses and portrait with my progressives doesn't work all that well so most of the time I slip the glasses up or down out of the way. How well that works for others, i'd expect depends on their own vision.
My thought was that if it's the same oled panel, then the "magnification" might change if the depth of the assembly changed. I don't think of the magnification changing with sensor size, just as sitting here looking at a monitor, the image is the same for an aps-c image or ff image. I might move in or out some to change image "size" but it's still the same image/display size.
Magnification is the display size of the image in this case. Viewfinder magnificaition details the apparent size to your eye of the finder image. The panel can be a certain size, but you're not looking at it at that size bare (because you'd never be able to focus that close)...there are optics to correct for viewing distance from the panel and also to enlarge the panel size to a specific size. This magnification number is the 'size' of the viewfinder. (a larger panel may use less magnification int he optics than a smaller panel, but the magnification is ultimately the size of the image, as it's magnification of the image vs. the naked eye with a 50mm equivalent lens.)
As you can see, the A7c has one of the smallest EVFs of any mirrorless camera. It is the smallest of any interchangable mirrorless camera that is currently being sold (tied with the X-Pro2), and only larger than four discontinued Micro 4/3 models and the a-mount Sony a68.
Craig Gillette wrote:
The daughter's RX100 is the first version. No evf. I don't find the evf of the NEX6/A6400 unusable. Perhaps a bit awkward with glasses and portrait with my progressives doesn't work all that well so most of the time I slip the glasses up or down out of the way. How well that works for others, i'd expect depends on their own vision.
My thought was that if it's the same oled panel, then the "magnification" might change if the depth of the assembly changed. I don't think of the magnification changing with sensor size, just as sitting here looking at a monitor, the image is the same for an aps-c image or ff image. I might move in or out some to change image "size" but it's still the same image/display size....Show more →
The viewfinders were traditionally specified with a 50mm lens at infinity and -1 diopter. That causes issues when comparing magnification across format changes. As such Sony specifies both measured magnification and the FF equivalent. Everybody compares the 35mm equivalents because with an EVF those are directly comparable (this was a huge issue for OVF's on crop bodies)
In the case of the A6600 the magnification is 1.07x with a 50mm lens at infinity and -1 diopter. The 35mm equivalent magnification is 0.71x
The 0.59x magnification would be on par with a 0.9x actual magnification APS-C finder, mid-way between say a D300 and a D3500 in size.
So it "looks" smaller. I'd guess that's because they allowed less space for it and it would be difficult to get enough "correction" on the finder lens to make it look larger. Without doing the numbers, it might be some what like sitting at the same desk/distance with a 23" or 28" monitor. Depth of the body still allows for the memory card as with the Axxxxs so maybe the larger sensor/IBIS crept up enough to change the space available for the finder.
Jman13 wrote:
They did not mess up the calculation going from APS-C to full frame - Sony actually details both the 'APS-C with 50mm lens' magnification and the 'full frame magnification'.
The A7C viewfinder is very small from a projected image standpoint. It's about the same size as the viewfinder in APS-C DSLRs, and notably smaller than any other ILC EVF in a Sony camera. It uses the same optics as the one in the RX100 compact camera, so if you've used that, this would be the same.
Is it usable? Sure, you can still use it, and it will be fairly clear, but the experience will not be as good. It'd be a forgivable thing on a 1,000 full frame body, but at $1,800 I view it as a fairly severe crippling.
The smallest viewfinder I've used regularly recently is my (now sold) Fuji X-T20 and my E-M10 Mark II, both of which have 0.62x EVFs. They're small but usable. I wouldn't really want to go smaller, though, and the A7c does. It's just a baffling choice given the cost of the camera and where it fits in the alpha system. ...Show more →
I am pretty convinced that it doesn’t really have to do a size reduction as the marking would have you believe. They could’ve made it a hair bigger and a lot more usable—and I mean just a little bigger on the top plate would’ve made a world of difference for an EVF, to the point where nobody would notice when stored in a bag.
I think they crippled the camera to protect their own FF ILC line. Given the superb AF, 24 megapixel full frame sensor with terrific DR, very respectable burst, Sony needs to cripple this so people don’t default to the a7c at only $1800 price point.
I am very aware that some people want more megapixels and bigger grip and better video and such but the point of sufficiency and functionality with an a7c with better EVF would be way more than most people needs. The package would be too attractive at that price IMO.
