foto16 wrote:
I certainly don't disagree. For someone who's willing to pay for the A7CR, the extra flexibility may come in handy.
Just want to add that for someone who's considering the A7CII, the crop-ability is there too. The APSC mode on the A7CII will give you 15MP, which is no slouch (some folks may recall that 16-20MP was the standard for many years, e.g., the venerable Nikon D4 only had 16MP). With today's software (such as Gigapixel AI) one can almost print as big as you wish with 15MP.
Absolutely, and I think 33mp might even be the sweet spot between higher resolution and better low light capabilities. Ended up going for the R both for better highlight recovery from the reviews I saw and the resolution to capture details, from what I've been noticing the highlight recovery does feel better than the A7C's, but getting back home I'll do a direct comparison between the two in low light high iso, highlight detail recovery, features that to me are significant.
If I was going 61mp, I'd go straight to the a7RV. High MP requires a better technique for optimal results. The a7CR saves you 208 gr in weight, but you lose that 9.4mdot EVF, the flippy screen, the better ergs to hand-hold the camera better. I just prefer they way you interact with your subject on a regular size a7-body.
If you are going to use it on a tripod, and carry that along, then the 200 grams don't really matter much.
I picked the a7Cii as a lightweight and "affordable" travel camera, then I don't want to drag a $4,000 a7RV out on a city night or to a ski slope.
marcelography wrote:
How do you feel the A7IV and the A&V compare in terms of high iso (6400, 12800, 25600) in low light? In terms of shadow and highlight information recovery? Still shooter here as well, got the CR but coming from an A7C but not really happy with the output I'm getting, wondering if the CII would be a better fit after all.
The A7IV is at least a stop better in low light, maybe even two (at least from DPReview's studio tool). So 6400 ISO on the A7CII = 1600-3200 ISO on the A7CR. That's after downsizing the A7RV (A7CR) image to 33mp.
jaygould wrote:
The A7IV is at least a stop better in low light, maybe even two (at least from DPReview's studio tool). So 6400 ISO on the A7CII = 1600-3200 ISO on the A7CR. That's after downsizing the A7RV (A7CR) image to 33mp.
If you pick indoor lighting (the lightbulb icon) and "comp" mode so that we are comparing the A7IV image a downsized A7RV image, RAW mode, I see that as expected with both cameras at ISO 6400 there is a significant advantage to the A7IV in terms of noise (though the A7RV has more detail). But if you change the A7RV to ISO 3200 and keep the A7IV to ISO 6400, now the A7IV image looks both noisier and less detailed. Therefore, it would be reasonable to suggest the difference is less than 1 stop (maybe 1/2 or 2/3 of a stop).
If you went further and did NR in post on the A7RV images you could probably match the A7IV in noise whilst having more sharpness - granted you could do the same to the A7IV and get an even cleaner image - but my point is that one with Tony and Chelsea Northrup has made, which is essentially that modern high pixel density sensors have less of a tradeoff that it appears at first glance when it comes to low-light performance. At least for photo usage (if shooting video, then no question the A7IV sensor should produce cleaner clips)
If anything, having moved from an A7R III to A7R IV (43mp to 61mp), I find the higher mp sensor much less forgiving when it comes to camera shake to the extent that the 1/focal length rule of thumb fails to be reliable, such that I end up having to push the ISO higher than I used to. It may be that the IBIS of the A7R IV hasn't caught up with the sensor resolution so it'd be interesting to see how much this has objectively improved for the A7CR.
jaygould wrote:
The A7IV is at least a stop better in low light, maybe even two (at least from DPReview's studio tool). So 6400 ISO on the A7CII = 1600-3200 ISO on the A7CR. That's after downsizing the A7RV (A7CR) image to 33mp.
I went back and forth and hopefully I didn’t make a mistake with the A7CR instead of the CII. I also own the A7RV so I plan to travel with both of them.
ryanli wrote:
If anything, having moved from an A7R III to A7R IV (43mp to 61mp), I find the higher mp sensor much less forgiving when it comes to camera shake to the extent that the 1/focal length rule of thumb fails to be reliable, such that I end up having to push the ISO higher than I used to. It may be that the IBIS of the A7R IV hasn't caught up with the sensor resolution so it'd be interesting to see how much this has objectively improved for the A7CR.
Again, resolution is a meaningful factor to camera shake only when you pixel peep to 100%. If downsizing the image - say to 33mpx size - they are all the same.
Another point I want to make is that A7r3 IBIS is mediocre at best. I have not shot with A7r5 or A7Cr but theoretically improvements in IBIS should cover the difference easily. I understand that in practice the issue is much more complicated
A7r3 sensor is wonderfull. The resolution is enough, dynamic range very good and A7r3 have very flexible ISO performance. I have been contemplating about the upgrade to A7r5 (or now to A7cr) for better af and IBIS, faster operation and better ergonomics, but the plateau in sensor development has kept me shooting with the old trusty A7r3. Maybe the 33mpx is the way to go.
patotts wrote:
If I was going 61mp, I'd go straight to the a7RV. High MP requires a better technique for optimal results. The a7CR saves you 208 gr in weight, but you lose that 9.4mdot EVF, the flippy screen, the better ergs to hand-hold the camera better.
If you are going to use it on a tripod, and carry that along, then the 200 grams don't really matter much.
I picked the a7Cii as a lightweight and affordable travel camera, then I don't want to drag a $4,000 a7RV out on a city night or to a ski slope.
YMMV, of course.
to me the A7C line is not about weight or size, which are still so similar comparing to their A7 series counterparts... but the placement of the EVF. I very much prefer the EVF on the upper left corner of the camera so to me it is the key selling point there. If it was the same weight/dimensions as their bigger siblings, I would still prefer it.
I think the A7CII might still be a better tool for how I shoot, as much as I have been getting along with the A7CR.
I'm finding that the low light performance with the A7CII is pretty good for me. Here are a couple of shots taken with the A7CII and the Tamron 70-180 which does not have any stabilization. DSC05473-Enhanced-NR-Edit.Luminar NEO by Bill Dyke, on Flickr
I know there has been talk about the size of the a7C series so I grabbed a quick few shots with my mobile phone since not everyone is close to a store where you can try it out
p.2 #10 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
patotts wrote:
If I was going 61mp, I'd go straight to the a7RV. High MP requires a better technique for optimal results. The a7CR saves you 208 gr in weight, but you lose that 9.4mdot EVF, the flippy screen, the better ergs to hand-hold the camera better. I just prefer they way you interact with your subject on a regular size a7-body.
If you are going to use it on a tripod, and carry that along, then the 200 grams don't really matter much.
I picked the a7Cii as a lightweight and "affordable" travel camera, then I don't want to drag a $4,000 a7RV out on a city night or to a ski slope.
Well, I guess you are right when you say YMMV, but, I don't see how 61MP's "optimal result" has anything to do with a better EVF or flippy screen or better handling. The main purpose of EVF/screen is for composition and the screen on A7CR is more than enough for that. No one is sitting there and watching a slideshow on these screens. Have you held an A7CR with the supplied grip? It feels more comfortable than the A7IV I had. Now, it is not necessary to use the grip at all but it comes in handy when you choose/decide to use larger lenses. Basically, you get both options: have a smaller setup or go bigger when you need to.
Also, A7CR is not competing with A7R5. It is an "R" version of A7C. If one wants a smaller camera and wants the resolution then A7CR is the way to go. EVF resolution, bigger grip, etc. shouldn't be considerations if you prefer a smaller camera.
I hate bringing this car analogy again but if one prefers a smaller 5-seater car then it does not matter if the 8-seater SUV can fit more people, more luggage, and a more comfortable ride. Both vehicles will get you to your destination.
p.2 #11 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
nepali wrote:
Well, I guess you are right when you say YMMV, but, I don't see how 61MP's "optimal result" has anything to do with a better EVF or flippy screen or better handling. The main purpose of EVF/screen is for composition and the screen on A7CR is more than enough for that. No one is sitting there and watching a slideshow on these screens. Have you held an A7CR with the supplied grip? It feels more comfortable than the A7IV I had. Now, it is not necessary to use the grip at all but it comes in handy when you choose/decide to use larger lenses. Basically, you get both options: have a smaller setup or go bigger when you need to.
Also, A7CR is not competing with A7R5. It is an "R" version of A7C. If one wants a smaller camera and wants the resolution then A7CR is the way to go. EVF resolution, bigger grip, etc. shouldn't be considerations if you prefer a smaller camera.
I hate bringing this car analogy again but if one prefers a smaller 5-seater car then it does not matter if the 8-seater SUV can fit more people, more luggage, and a more comfortable ride. Both vehicles will get you to your destination....Show more →
Exactly, if you don't want to use manual focus lenses where you punch in for critical focus, then smaller EVF or lower res LCD works fine. And handling of a camera absolutely has to do with critical sharpness and focus, esp on high MP cameras.
I'm glad a7CR works for you and anyone who is happy with it - it will surely get you there, but it is more like a 2 seater than a 5 seater... ;-)
p.2 #12 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
patotts wrote:
Exactly, if you don't want to use manual focus lenses where you punch in for critical focus, then smaller EVF or lower res LCD works fine. And handling of a camera absolutely has to do with critical sharpness and focus, esp on high MP cameras.
I'm glad a7CR works for you and anyone who is happy with it - it will surely get you there, but it is more like a 2 seater than a 5 seater... ;-)
So far I have taken close to 1000 photos with A7CR and I have yet to see any blurry or out of focus photos. It's one thing to prefer bigger bodies vs smaller, but, to outright say that you need bigger bodies for critical sharpness/focus makes no sense. Anyway, options exist because we all have different preferences. Let's just enjoy our choices.
p.2 #13 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
nepali wrote:
So far I have taken close to 1000 photos with A7CR and I have yet to see any blurry or out of focus photos. It's one thing to prefer bigger bodies vs smaller, but, to outright say that you need bigger bodies for critical sharpness/focus makes no sense. Anyway, options exist because we all have different preferences. Let's just enjoy our choices.
2-seater is always more fun than 5 or 8-seater.
I agree about not needing bigger ( heavier ) bodies for sharper photos. In fact, bulk can make it harder to hold still for me at least.
p.2 #14 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
I had the Sony A7RV and still have occasional access to a Sony A7C that belongs to my mother for her travels. I would say if you want to use the small Sony lenses, Samyang and/or Sigma lenses - go with the Sony A7C II or even the original Sony A7C. None of those lenses are good enough for the 61mp Sony sensor.
At one point I had both the 40mm f2.5 G which is probably Sony's best small lens and the 35mm f1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM and the image quality differences are noticeable. If you use a GM lens on the A7C, it looks and feels comically unbalanced.
Only case that the Sony A7CR might make sense is if you plan on doing a lot of landscapes and want to use compact Zeiss or Voigtlander primes otherwise you're better off with the A7RV like someone else said.
In using the car analogy above, it would like a two seater car with a really big engine but not the right wheels or transmission and aerodynamics to actually drive it fast.
p.2 #15 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
tzhang4284 wrote:
I had the Sony A7RV and still have occasional access to a Sony A7C that belongs to my mother for her travels. I would say if you want to use the small Sony lenses, Samyang and/or Sigma lenses - go with the Sony A7C II or even the original Sony A7C. None of those lenses are good enough for the 61mp Sony sensor.
At one point I had both the 40mm f2.5 G which is probably Sony's best small lens and the 35mm f1.4 GM and 50mm f1.2 GM and the image quality differences are noticeable. If you use a GM lens on the A7C, it looks and feels comically unbalanced.
Only case that the Sony A7CR might make sense is if you plan on doing a lot of landscapes and want to use compact Zeiss or Voigtlander primes otherwise you're better off with the A7RV like someone else said.
In using the car analogy above, it would like a two seater car with a really big engine but not the right wheels or transmission and aerodynamics to actually drive it fast....Show more →
Driving fast is not the goal...getting to the destination is, which it will take you there.
p.2 #16 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
IQ is a wash, really. You either want to save some dollars and don't need the R sensor or you need the R sensor. SInce I print big, regularly, I get high resolution sensor cameras.
I'd just ask yourself, "when was the last time you made a print bigger than A3+" and "how often in the last year have you cropped an imaged significantly to get extra reach?" If you don't do these then buy the CII and spend the rest on better glass. Or even better an airline ticket somewhere nice to use your new camera.
Generally speaking, those who really do know this stuff (Roger Cicala from lens rentals fame) have shown over and over and over that if you equalise the output size then high resolution sensors and lower resolution sensors perform about the same. Close enough that other variables are more important than shooting a wall chart will show. And in 2023 you can run the file through LR or DXO and not worry about it anyway.
It's also true that a high resolution sensor will resolve more detail from any lens than a low resolution sensor. Lenses aren't resolution limited. Usually that extra detail isn't used if the print sizes are the same though. Generally better lenses is a wiser investment. I still think the 55mm 1.8 is the lens to beat in the Sony small lens ecosystem, resolution wise. The 2.5G lenses get a lot better a stop or two down. The Batis lenses are really good though. I have the 25 and the 40 and 135 are tempting.
I like my A7CR. It won't replace my A7R5 though. The CR is much better with some small primes but I want the R5 for bigger, longer and faster. For smaller lenses I much prefer the CR. The EVF is a bummer but they need an upgrade for next year. I'd like a joystick (touchpad is fine though). 200 grams doesn't sound like much but it's 25% lighter than an R5. And with a small prime you really feel the weight and size difference.
p.2 #17 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
nepali wrote:
So far I have taken close to 1000 photos with A7CR and I have yet to see any blurry or out of focus photos. It's one thing to prefer bigger bodies vs smaller, but, to outright say that you need bigger bodies for critical sharpness/focus makes no sense. Anyway, options exist because we all have different preferences. Let's just enjoy our choices.
2-seater is always more fun than 5 or 8-seater.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear - high MP cameras requires better technique, it might not apply to your shooting style or process, so be it, but it is a consideration to take into account. It all depends on what your photograph, how, under which condition, size of your hands, etc. To me, and perhaps some other people - again YMMV - a slightly larger body like an a7RV is easier to hold and operate than a smaller body (but again, I use my a7Cii for different things)
The simple reason why higher resolution cameras are less forgiving is that for a given angle of view, the camera with the high resolution will put the greater number of pixels per degree of field of view on the subject. This means, that less angular movement is needed before it becomes visible as blur on the image – i.e. you need to be more static than with a lower resolution camera to avoid seeing the effects of motion blur at the pixel level.
p.2 #18 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
No one has mentioned that the A7cr has no low pass filter which makes a difference when shooting very detailed images. Depending on what you shoot, this alone could be a good reason to get the A7cr over the A7c2. Again, as I stated previously, the extra cropping room can be very handy.
Nov 03, 2023 at 03:35 PM
foto16 Offline • • [X]
p.2 #19 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
patotts wrote:
Maybe I'm not making myself clear - high MP cameras requires better technique, it might not apply to your shooting style or process, so be it, but it is a consideration to take into account. It all depends on what your photograph, how, under which condition, size of your hands, etc. To me, and perhaps some other people - again YMMV - a slightly larger body like an a7RV is easier to hold and operate than a smaller body (but again, I use my a7Cii for different things)
I'm confident that a 61MP sensor can record more details than a 33MP sensor, other things being equal. But I'm not sure by how much. It's not as simple as 61-33=28 extra MP. Lens, shooting technique, conditions, parameters can affect it, as is diffraction. It's not too important if you shoot portrait wide open, but for landscapes when you need to stop down to, say, f11-16, the 61Mp sensor will lose more details than a 33MP sensor at that aperture value due to diffraction. So in the end you don't get 61-33=28 extra MP, but probably 33+"delta" MP where delta depends on many things.
p.2 #20 · Any 1 to 1 comparisons of A7CII to A7CR?
patotts wrote:
Maybe I'm not making myself clear - high MP cameras requires better technique, it might not apply to your shooting style or process, so be it, but it is a consideration to take into account. It all depends on what your photograph, how, under which condition, size of your hands, etc. To me, and perhaps some other people - again YMMV - a slightly larger body like an a7RV is easier to hold and operate than a smaller body (but again, I use my a7Cii for different things)
The simple reason why higher resolution cameras are less forgiving is that for a given angle of view, the camera with the high resolution will put the greater number of pixels per degree of field of view on the subject. This means, that less angular movement is needed before it becomes visible as blur on the image – i.e. you need to be more static than with a lower resolution camera to avoid seeing the effects of motion blur at the pixel level.
It's just one more person's opinion. Like I said, with close to 1000 photos taken the same way I took them with my A7IV, I have yet to see any blurry/out of focus pictures. If the user has unstable hands then the MP does not matter. So, once again, I fail to see how recommending someone A7RV because it takes better pictures due to better handling makes sense.
