p.10 #1 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
jwpstl wrote:
According to Sony's spec sheet for the 6700, you can turn on/off EFCS so it must have a full mechanical shutter or you wouldn't have the on/off option. That's different than the C line which doesn't offer the on/off.
Okay that makes better sense.Than they would be different and where are we reading this because what I posted it was the same on mechanical focal shutter. See its getting confusing
p.10 #2 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Richard Butler, in the DPreview comments section to that announcement said that Sony does not have a higher resolution EVF panel in that size. So Sony would have to produce one, or source one from somewhere. And that would cost more $$ than using what they did (a reasonable assessment.)
So I guess that doesn't change anything, but there would have been more $$ involved to deliver something higher resolution. And I realize that everyone will say "then they should have done it."
But I thought the insight was worth mentioning.
molson wrote:
The EVF doesn't need to be bigger, it just needs to have more resolution - at least enough that you can actually tell if you have the subject in focus.
p.10 #3 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
But Tim they raised the price as well. I think even at 3200 for the A7RC would have been reasonable . They overpriced the A7CII by a lot the original was 1750 I believe now 2200. Thats a stretch in my book . Just pointing that out and yea we certainly have dealt with this before with SONY
p.10 #4 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
I have serious GAS for the r version to lighten my load backpacking, climbing, and back-country skiing. The lower quality EVF experience would be a bummer compared to my A7rV, but I would happily trade that for the size etc. as long as the results are equivalent. I'm going to keep hauling the V for a while though and wait for prices to drop a bit and more long term reviews, esp. from users like me.
p.10 #5 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
tsdevine wrote:
Richard Butler, in the DPreview comments section to that announcement said that Sony does not have a higher resolution EVF panel in that size. So Sony would have to produce one, or source one from somewhere. And that would cost more $$ than using what they did (a reasonable assessment.)
So I guess that doesn't change anything, but there would have been more $$ involved to deliver something higher resolution. And I realize that everyone will say "then they should have done it."
But I thought the insight was worth mentioning.
They probably could have saved enough money by ditching the selfie-screen to pay for a nice EVF.
p.10 #6 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Okay..they raised the price.....but every component is exactly the same as the original A7C? If they just released the exact same camera as a II version...I get it. But how do you know the cost of the other advancements made in the II?
If you're saying all the advancements in the II really cost Sony $100 bucks...okay.....but I don't know how much those advancements cost Sony. And we can all cherry pick something else they should have added, it might have increased the cost, and if you didn't get the one thing you wanted, you're still unhappy. (When I say "you", I don't mean you Guy........more like the masses.) If they somehow could have added everything that everybody wanted, it would probably be twice as much (if even possible) and then many will complain it's way, way too expensive.
A compact camera is not a kitchen sink camera....it is going to have compromises, unfortunately some of which will bother prospective customers, like this one. If enough customers see this as a showstopper, it won't sell, Sony will do market research as to why it failed....any maybe the next iteration will have more of these features (technology keeps moving foward so I would expect some level of advancements to trickle down to these compact cameras.)
Another example is the a7R V not having a stacked sensor. If it did, it would probably be close to an a1 II. In this case though, I think it's not just segmentation, it's how much technology can they fit in a small footprint at a certain cost, where balancing the two goals yielding desired sales and decent margins.
I would imagine healthy competition for compact full frame cameras would also drive Sony harder on features vs price. What are the competitors for these type of small/compact full frame ILCs? (Honest question...I don't know.)
GMPhotography wrote:
But Tim they raised the price as well. I think even at 3200 for the A7RC would have been reasonable . They overpriced the A7CII by a lot the original was 1750 I believe now 2200. Thats a stretch in my book . Just pointing that out and yea we certainly have dealt with this before with SONY
p.10 #7 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
We probably don't know. How much did it cost Sony to ditch one feature vs ditching an EVF panel that they don't currently produce? (Assuming that it's true that they don't currently make a higher resolution panel in that size....which again is something I heard, I can't prove it either.)
molson wrote:
They probably could have saved enough money by ditching the selfie-screen to pay for a nice EVF.
p.10 #8 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Ayoul wrote:
There was no way that the A7CR and A7CII could have a great EVF, a great LCD, a full mechanical shutter in a compact body without being even more expensive than the A7RV and A7IV. Sometimes, people dream with their eyes open.
p.10 #9 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Jim Dockery wrote:
I have serious GAS for the r version to lighten my load backpacking, climbing, and back-country skiing. The lower quality EVF experience would be a bummer compared to my A7rV, but I would happily trade that for the size etc. as long as the results are equivalent. I'm going to keep hauling the V for a while though and wait for prices to drop a bit and more long term reviews, esp. from users like me.
Perfect example of what we have been referring to as size can and will make the decision for many . Totally understand it
Heck just getting it in a bag would do it. I just did with the 6700
p.10 #11 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Some people want cheaper, some don't. Some people want this, some people don't. Some people want that, some don't.
It's very hard to speak in such a way that it addresses everyone's perspective. He was coming from his, you are coming from yours. I'm sure you both can see each other's perspective.
Had the a7C II been $4000 and the a7RC been $5000....I'm guessing there would be a group of people unhappy, even if it came with most of the kitchen sink of features that are in the non-compact cameras Sony produces. Some group of people would have been happy.
And I see the smiley......but therein lies the challenge of not being able to please everyone.
p.10 #12 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
They probably might.
Richard Butler is probably right, or probably wrong, on his comments.
Richard Butler - "In principle it's possible to make a 3.69M dot EVF this size (as panther fan points out, the supplier, Sony Semiconductor makes 5.76M dot panels in a larger format, that would equate to 3.69M dots if made at this size). But, so far as we know, they're not currently on the market.
0.7x magnification is pretty large, in the grand scheme of things (pro DSLRs used to have 0.76x). You'd definitely gain a benefit from moving to a higher res panel."
It seems like Sony has been producing panels for a while... I can't say whether they use them in their own cameras.
molson wrote:
We probably don't know if Sony even makes their own EVF (or LCD) panels... I was under the impression that Seiko Epson makes most of these devices.
p.10 #13 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
After some more consideration, I am interested in switching my Canon R6 for one of these models, depending on how they work for video and as webcams. I want a camera that can "do it all" and the problem with my R6 is that it is very cumbersome to use as a webcam.
- It needs a dummy battery to be able to stream or record for a long time. If I connect a USB cable, it will not hold the charge of the battery while streaming or recording simultaneously. What about on these new Sonys? Will I have to use a dummy battery for these as well or will connecting it into the PC suffice?
- It needs proprietary software that costs $5/month in perpetuity. I know the A7Cii does not need this, but what about the A7Cr?
- It only streams in 720p or 1080p. No 4k. What about these cameras?
- What about overheating when used as webcams?
- Which one is better for video overall, A7Cii or A7Cr? Would a Canon R8 be even better?
p.10 #14 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Sony product management seems to have tightly constrained engineering to keep the new a7C* variants within that smaller form factor like the original version. If the LCD screen was required to be a certain minimum size there is little room left to fit an EVF. I'd be very happy with a larger a7C that accommodated the bigger hi-res EVF from the a7R IV or V. I like the "rangefinder-ish" design with the left side viewfinder. But a bigger and well shielded viewfinder is critical for me due to my eyesight.
Heck, I'd be OK with a Fuji X-pro3 inspired mini LCD if it meant getting a bigger EVF on the a7C body.
p.10 #15 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
GMPhotography wrote:
But Tim they raised the price as well. I think even at 3200 for the A7RC would have been reasonable . They overpriced the A7CII by a lot the original was 1750 I believe now 2200. Thats a stretch in my book . Just pointing that out and yea we certainly have dealt with this before with SONY
The A7III to A7IV price increase was very similar, wasn't it? 1999 to 2499? They're keeping the same margin between the A7C and the A7 bodies (~$250-300).
p.10 #16 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Exactly! Thank you so so much for saying all of this and providing the much needed perspective.
My point is to show that there is really no need to put down others with things like “you dream with eyes open” or “what’s the point” or “just get x instead” because people have different needs, wants and financial scenarios.
Our focus should be on big corporations like Sony in delivering good and reasonably priced products, and holding them accountability for our hard earned dollars, not turning on each other.
tsdevine wrote:
Some people want cheaper, some don't. Some people want this, some people don't. Some people want that, some don't.
It's very hard to speak in such a way that it addresses everyone's perspective. He was coming from his, you are coming from yours. I'm sure you both can see each other's perspective.
Had the a7C II been $4000 and the a7RC been $5000....I'm guessing there would be a group of people unhappy, even if it came with most of the kitchen sink of features that are in the non-compact cameras Sony produces. Some group of people would have been happy.
And I see the smiley......but therein lies the challenge of not being able to please everyone.
p.10 #17 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
FMTopFan wrote:
Exactly! Thank you so so much for saying all of this and providing the much needed perspective.
My point is to show that there is really no need to put down others with things like “you dream with eyes open” or “what’s the point” or “just get x instead” because people have different needs, wants and financial scenarios.
Our focus should be on big corporations like Sony in delivering good and reasonably priced products, and holding them accountability for our hard earned dollars, not turning on each other.
One thing you can rely on from Sony is many different cameras to choose from at different price points and features. Pick the best camera for your needs. Sony is a consumer oriented company with many products servicing the consumers. I believe they have huge access to consumers and their wants so I have to believe Sony did their research when coming up with the features and price points for their new cameras.
p.10 #18 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
tsdevine wrote:
They probably might.
Richard Butler is probably right, or probably wrong, on his comments.
Richard Butler - "In principle it's possible to make a 3.69M dot EVF this size (as panther fan points out, the supplier, Sony Semiconductor makes 5.76M dot panels in a larger format, that would equate to 3.69M dots if made at this size). But, so far as we know, they're not currently on the market.
0.7x magnification is pretty large, in the grand scheme of things (pro DSLRs used to have 0.76x). You'd definitely gain a benefit from moving to a higher res panel."
It seems like Sony has been producing panels for a while... I can't say whether they use them in their own cameras.
It probably has more to do with profit margins than size constraints, or who makes the parts - Sony is just re-using as many expensive components as possible from the now 7-year old A6500 parts bin.
p.10 #19 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
tsdevine wrote:
They probably might.
Richard Butler is probably right, or probably wrong, on his comments.
Richard Butler - "In principle it's possible to make a 3.69M dot EVF this size (as panther fan points out, the supplier, Sony Semiconductor makes 5.76M dot panels in a larger format, that would equate to 3.69M dots if made at this size). But, so far as we know, they're not currently on the market.
0.7x magnification is pretty large, in the grand scheme of things (pro DSLRs used to have 0.76x). You'd definitely gain a benefit from moving to a higher res panel."
It seems like Sony has been producing panels for a while... I can't say whether they use them in their own cameras.
It's reassuring to know that Richard Butler gets his information from unimpeachable sources like "panther fan"... .
There's no reason you can't keep the EVF the same size, and increase the resolution... just like we've been able to do going from 11mp to 61mp with the same 24x36 camera sensors.
p.10 #20 · Official: Sony A7C II, A7CR and FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II
Here's a few things I haven't read much about on here comparing the a7C, a7CII, a7CR. Data comes from B&H so it may be wrong.
Battery life has decreased: battery life is rated 740 shots on the C; 530 on the CII; and only 490 on the CR.
AF: phase detection points 693 on the C; 759 on the CII; and 693 on the CR.
Burst Rates and Buffer have decreased: Up to 10 fps at 24.2 MP for up to 223 Frames (JPEG) / 115 Frames (Raw) on the C; Up to 10 fps for up to 44 Frames (Raw) / 1000 Frames (JPEG) on the CII; Up to 8 fps at 61 MP for up to 36 Frames (Raw) / 1000 Frames (JPEG) on the CR.
.