I think if I was just getting into photography now, with travel as my main priority, I would buy the A7cr and 20-70 f/4. That seems like the ideal compact but powerhouse kit with massive flexibility. As it is, my A7RIII is still pretty good and fairly compact so I’m just going to pick up a 20-70 to put on it for travel.
Thank you all for the numerous replies! Even more than I had hoped for. Really appreciate that. I will give all of the mentioned suggestions a research and a good look. Lots of different options that I haven't even thought about are mentioned. I will share my findings, opinions and choice here as well of course.
virtualrain wrote:
I think if I was just getting into photography now, with travel as my main priority, I would buy the A7cr and 20-70 f/4. That seems like the ideal compact but powerhouse kit with massive flexibility. As it is, my A7RIII is still pretty good and fairly compact so I’m just going to pick up a 20-70 to put on it for travel.
If I was getting into photography now it would be
Option 3:
- Sony A6700
- Sony 16-55 f2.8
Honestly, I don't think new photographers have any business buying the A7CR until they are certain this hobby or profession is for them. I doubt many new users will be able to harvest the benefits of an extremely high resolution full-frame sensor. Not only are they new to photography, but likely new to editing and printing as well.
It can be years before they outgrow their APS-C camera and if they turn out to lose interest after a short period, it's not as much money lost.
However, OP already has investments and has a clear genre for photography so that's a different question.
moncho wrote:
If I was getting into photography now it would be
Option 3:
- Sony A6700
- Sony 16-55 f2.8
Honestly, I don't think new photographers have any business buying the A7CR until they are certain this hobby or profession is for them. I doubt many new users will be able to harvest the benefits of an extremely high resolution full-frame sensor. Not only are they new to photography, but likely new to editing and printing as well.
It can be years before they outgrow their APS-C camera and if they turn out to lose interest after a short period, it's not as much money lost.
However, OP already has investments and has a clear genre for photography so that's a different question....Show more →
Yeah, good point... I guess I should have phrased it as... "If I was just getting into photography - knowing what I know now..." Or in other words, if all my gear was stolen and I had to start again, I would probably go with the A7CR and 20-70. .
Let's face it, most people who are actually new to photography these days are using an iPhone.
The A6700 and 16-55 is a very good pair but focal length range limited. We did a trip to Italy with an Nex 6 and the 16-50, emphasizing convenience and weight - and it excelled at small and light but for me, was often not wide enough or OTOH not long enough. 16mp limited the available crop on the long end a lot compared to a 60mp alternative.
It gets hard to predict. Not long before that we'd gone to Washington DC and used only a wide zoom and mid-range, the 70-300 was just weight in the backpack.
For the OP, with two young ones, simplicity is important. Budget sensitive one lens, maybe the A6700 and 18-135 or even A6400 or A6600. With A7CR, the 20-70. Wish there was an aps-c equivalent to the 20-70.
Craig Gillette wrote:
The A6700 and 16-55 is a very good pair but focal length range limited. We did a trip to Italy with an Nex 6 and the 16-50, emphasizing convenience and weight - and it excelled at small and light but for me, was often not wide enough or OTOH not long enough. 16mp limited the available crop on the long end a lot compared to a 60mp alternative.
It gets hard to predict. Not long before that we'd gone to Washington DC and used only a wide zoom and mid-range, the 70-300 was just weight in the backpack.
For the OP, with two young ones, simplicity is important. Budget sensitive one lens, maybe the A6700 and 18-135 or even A6400 or A6600. With A7CR, the 20-70. Wish there was an aps-c equivalent to the 20-70.
For me personally when I now take my A6700 for its small size I pair it with the Sigma 10-18/2.8 and 18-50/2.8 DC DN lenses for travel. They are both lightweight and still f/2.8. If I need to I might also take one small faster APS-C prime like the Sigma 56/1.4. or maybe the 90/2.8. That way I can have both wide and portrait/short telephoto.
Yes, I’ve been mainly a full frame shooter for years but feature wise the A6700 isn’t missing much anymore. Menu wise and usage it’s very close to the A7CR/A7CII (which I also own). All of these smaller cameras are great companions to the full size full frames I use so one typically comes along as the backup.
The Q3 is not that light nor compact. I’d much rather build my light kit around the A7cr with some nice light primes. Gives you way more flexibility than being stuck at one focal length.
I've been following this thread hoping it might help me clarify my next steps. I decided to downsize after owning the A7RIV the last 5 years mainly using the 16-35/24-70 f2.8 Ver 1 lenses along with the Sony 100-400 G. I just got back from Antarctica and I can say without a doubt I never want to haul that kit on long haul trips again as I don't think my shoulder can handle it.
So I've decided to downsize and have ordered the A7CR as I've been spoiled by the 61megapixel sensors. So now I have to decide on what lenses. I mainly shoot when I travel, so I want a walk around lens and was thinking the Sony 20-70 f4.
But I'm also a sunrise landscape shooter and do some astro, so I'd like a fast wide prime, say 16-18 mm, and there are so many choices. I'm fine with a manual lens but I'm not sure what. Size isn't as big a deal for that as I'm usually on a tripod.
I also plan on getting a smaller prime walk around lens and was thinking the 40 f2.5.
jawjr1957 wrote:
I've been following this thread hoping it might help me clarify my next steps. I decided to downsize after owning the A7RIV the last 5 years mainly using the 16-35/24-70 f2.8 Ver 1 lenses along with the Sony 100-400 G. I just got back from Antarctica and I can say without a doubt I never want to haul that kit on long haul trips again as I don't think my shoulder can handle it.
So I've decided to downsize and have ordered the A7CR as I've been spoiled by the 61megapixel sensors. So now I have to decide on what lenses. I mainly shoot when I travel, so I want a walk around lens and was thinking the Sony 20-70 f4.
But I'm also a sunrise landscape shooter and do some astro, so I'd like a fast wide prime, say 16-18 mm, and there are so many choices. I'm fine with a manual lens but I'm not sure what. Size isn't as big a deal for that as I'm usually on a tripod.
I also plan on getting a smaller prime walk around lens and was thinking the 40 f2.5.
For years I packed a Canon then Sony with a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom and got tired (bored) of that combo, then switched to a trio of small MF primes on my A7RIII (Voight 21, 35, 50) and that proved to be heavier but more engaging and top quality, although I rarely took advantage of their wide apertures.
Then I tried a couple of trips with just my iPhone, and while it works for most stuff during the day, ultimately the use cases where it worked well were just too limited.
So now I'm back to my Sony kit, and was considering the 24-70 or 24-105 again and discovered that while I was away from the hobby, Sony released the 20-70... which seemed ideal to me. So I just bought one. I like it because it's light and has a very versatile zoom range and isn't super expensive so if I end up changing my mind the loss after reselling would be insignificant. With the high res sensor, I can crop significantly on the long end - so it's easily a 20-105 for me.
I'm very tempted to get the A7CR but the cost of that is almost worth another trip, and if I'm being honest with myself, there's absoulutely nothing wrong with my A7RIII... it's not like it's a brick.
Craig Gillette wrote:
Wish there was an aps-c equivalent to the 20-70.
I've heard rumors about a 12-50ish f/2.8 or 4 APSC zoom in the works. Tamron's the name that keeps coming up in association with it. We'll see if it materializes. If you can settle for a 24-105 equiv, there's always the Zony 16-70/4. I haven't used it since the early NEX-7 days and remember it being a little weak on the wide end, so I'd probably keep it paired with the Sigma 10-18. It's a solid landscaper between 20 and 60 with some minor corrections. Finding a solid-performing copy may take some work, and, ultimately, I think the Sigma 18-50 presents an overall better value, but the Zony does give you more reach. Plus, you get OSS.
What is sounding like a sure thing is the Sigma 50-135/2.8 DC DN to cap their small-sensor holy trinity. I am excited to see that lens, though it's bound to be a chunk.
I looked some at the 16-70/4 over the years but never went for one. I find the 18-135 or 28-200 do well for me. If I were spending a lot of time in more dense or old urban settings, I might add a wide to mid-range zoom to reduce lens swaps some.
I'm going to go out of my comfort zone this weekend and use just a 24/1.8 on my A6700 (but my ff kit is going, too, just in case).
As promised I will share some of my findings in my purchasing proces with all of the given suggestions in this thread. Maybe it also helps someone else or I will learn from some of the comments where my thought proces might be wrong. I will do that in the upcoming days. Starting with a zoom shoot out between the A6700 APS-C vs the A7CR:
Conclusions
- Sony A6700 + Sony 16-55 f2.8 : Total weight of 987g almost as big as A7CR + Sony 20-70mm f4 with a total weight of 1003g
- Sony A6700 + Sigma 18-50 & Sigma 10-18 : Total weight of 1039g is a little heavier than the A7CR + 20-70. But you can leave one lens in the hotel or a jacket pocket when needed.
- With the Sony 24-50 f2.8 weighing 440g vs Tamron 20-40 f2.8 weighing 365g I would prefer the Tamron for versatility and weight.
This leaves me to think 3 options:
- Sony A6700 + Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 10-18 f2.8
- Sony A7CR + 20-70mm f4
- Sony A7CR + Tamron 20-40 f2.8 and the need for a tele prime
Think the Sony A7CR + Sony 20-70mm f4 takes the edge here for a one lens setup for a family trip for me.
rickvenema wrote:
As promised I will share some of my findings in my purchasing proces with all of the given suggestions in this thread. Maybe it also helps someone else or I will learn from some of the comments where my thought proces might be wrong. I will do that in the upcoming days. Starting with a zoom shoot out between the A6700 APS-C vs the A7CR:
Conclusions
- Sony A6700 + Sony 16-55 f2.8 : Total weight of 987g almost as big as A7CR + Sony 20-70mm f4 with a total weight of 1003g
- Sony A6700 + Sigma 18-50 & Sigma 10-18 : Total weight of 1039g is a little heavier than the A7CR + 20-70. But you can leave one lens in the hotel or a jacket pocket when needed.
- With the Sony 24-50 f2.8 weighing 440g vs Tamron 20-40 f2.8 weighing 365g I would prefer the Tamron for versatility and weight.
This leaves me to think 3 options:
- Sony A6700 + Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and Sigma 10-18 f2.8
- Sony A7CR + 20-70mm f4
- Sony A7CR + Tamron 20-40 f2.8 and the need for a tele prime
Think the Sony A7CR + Sony 20-70mm f4 takes the edge here for a one lens setup for a family trip for me....Show more →
I had the 20-70 f4 which is a great lens, excellent IQ and ideal range of focal lengths. Together with my A1 I used it as my main kit recently travelling in Australia. However the weight and bulk still felt too much for me for casual photography. So I now have the Sigma 18-50 f2,8 which I use on my second body (A6700) and the size and weight are pretty much exactly what I want for this purpose. Sure, the range isn’t as good and the zoom ring turns the wrong way but I think I’m much more likely to use it. Will probably add it’s 10-18 brother at some point later aw well for when ai know I want to go wider. Seems like an interesting excellent combo while retaining great image quality.
jawjr1957 wrote:
I've been following this thread hoping it might help me clarify my next steps. I decided to downsize after owning the A7RIV the last 5 years mainly using the 16-35/24-70 f2.8 Ver 1 lenses along with the Sony 100-400 G. I just got back from Antarctica and I can say without a doubt I never want to haul that kit on long haul trips again as I don't think my shoulder can handle it.
So I've decided to downsize and have ordered the A7CR as I've been spoiled by the 61megapixel sensors. So now I have to decide on what lenses. I mainly shoot when I travel, so I want a walk around lens and was thinking the Sony 20-70 f4.
But I'm also a sunrise landscape shooter and do some astro, so I'd like a fast wide prime, say 16-18 mm, and there are so many choices. I'm fine with a manual lens but I'm not sure what. Size isn't as big a deal for that as I'm usually on a tripod.
I also plan on getting a smaller prime walk around lens and was thinking the 40 f2.5.
I, too, have been following this thread hoping something here might generate insights to help with my indecisiveness. As a hybrid shooter, I travel often here in Portugal (and Europe) and shoot everything you can imagine, from streets to cityscapes to vineyards to museums and cathedrals, both day and night. When I finally thought I had the ideal kit (A1 and A7SIII bodies), my hip and back suggested that I move to lighter more nimble gear that (hopefully) balances quality and size.
My solution is a versatile, two-body, two-lens setup as my ultimate travel kit. This includes the A7C II paired with a GM 16-35mm F2.8 II lens for its versatility in wide-angle, indoor, landscape, and low-light photography. Despite its size, the 16-35 is noticeably lighter than its predecessor, perfectly aligning with my need for quality and manageability. My second body is the A7CR with a Sony 85mm F1.8 lens. This complements the A7CII kit by offering excellent performance in portraits and detailed shots. While it doesn’t provide the ideal range for me, it works and the crop mode of the A7CR gives me a bit more reach at 26mp. For those days when I want/need to travel even lighter, I have the X100VI as a go-to compact option.
While the Sony 20-70mm F4 lens for the A7CII intrigues me for its range, I'm just not sure about its performance in low-light conditions.
Part 2 of my comparison. After a zoom only kit from a few posts before. Let's see if we get primes in the mix. I might be missing some options. But this is what I could find.
Sony A6700 options:
Body: A6700 - 493g
Kit 1:
Lens: Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (27-75mm ff eq) - 290g
Lens: Sony 15(22,5mm ff eq) f1.4 - 219g or Sony 11 (16,5mm ff eq) - 181g
Kit 2:
Lens: Sigma 10-18 f2.8 (10-27mm ff eq) - 255g
Lens: Sony 24mm f2.5 g (36mm ff eq) - 162g
Lens: Samyang 75mm f1.8 (112,5mm ff eq) - 230g or Sony 50mm f2.5 g (75mm ff eq) - 174g
I know some kits get more on the tele and some more on the wide side. But all in all it doesn't really matter what you choose because everything I've been putting together gets around 1kg. With 100g over or under depending on the kit.
So this leaves me to question why I would pick the A6700 over the A7CR or A7CII besides the price. I know the A7CII is 400 euro's more expensive. But that is not a whole lot. I think the IBIS on the A7CII is also a bit better.
rickvenema wrote:
Part 2 of my comparison. After a zoom only kit from a few posts before. Let's see if we get primes in the mix. I might be missing some options. But this is what I could find.
Sony A6700 options:
Body: A6700 - 493g
Kit 1:
Lens: Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (27-75mm ff eq) - 290g
Lens: Sony 15(22,5mm ff eq) f1.4 - 219g or Sony 11 (16,5mm ff eq) - 181g
Kit 2:
Lens: Sigma 10-18 f2.8 (10-27mm ff eq) - 255g
Lens: Sony 24mm f2.5 g (36mm ff eq) - 162g
Lens: Samyang 75mm f1.8 (112,5mm ff eq) - 230g or Sony 50mm f2.5 g (75mm ff eq) - 174g
I know some kits get more on the tele and some more on the wide side. But all in all it doesn't really matter what you choose because everything I've been putting together gets around 1kg. With 100g over or under depending on the kit.
So this leaves me to question why I would pick the A6700 over the A7CR or A7CII besides the price. I know the A7CII is 400 euro's more expensive. But that is not a whole lot. I think the IBIS on the A7CII is also a bit better. ...Show more →
For many people, price is an important factor.
My observation is that the weight/size advantage of APSC is clearer when you go longer than 90mm (35mm equivalent).
There is also a difference between "weight in hand" and "weight in bag." If you carry the 20-70 vs. Sigma 18-50 in the hand or around the neck for a full day of wandering, the weight difference will become more noticeable. If you do street photography, the difference in size also may have an impact on people's reaction to you. For landscape only, I think it doesn't matter much.
If you are considering the 20-70/4, you may also want to consider the Sigma 28-70/2.8+Viltrox 20/2.8. The f2.8 is better for low light and f2.8 on the 70 end is handy for blurring the background for portraits.
If you're trying to travel light, and only carry 2 lenses max, then for the a6700 take the Sigma 18-50 and Viltrox 27/1.2 or Sigma 56/1.4 depending on what you shoot. For the A7cr, the 40/2.5 and Sony 85/1.8 which you can use APS-C mode and get more reach if you need it.
After quite a bit of indecision, I've got my small travel kit for this year:
A7CII, 28-60, 40/2.5
This is small enough that I can include in a Mirrorless Mover 10 in my backpack for work trips. Considering either the Sigma 24/2 or the Samyang 24/1.8 to supplement or replace the 28-60 depending on the situation. The C2 seems great so far and mostly addresses my complaints with the original (which I did like). The extra button, dial, EVF improvement, and newer sensor are all much appreciated.
I've recently used (and loved) the 24-70GM2 when I can bring a dedicated camera bag with me, strongly debated getting it again but decided to try out the 20-70. If I like it, that's great, it's smaller/lighter and has the extra range on the wide end. If I don't, I'll sell it and get the GM2 again. The add-on grip for the A7CII seems like it'll be beneficial when using larger lenses.
foto16 wrote:
For many people, price is an important factor.
My observation is that the weight/size advantage of APSC is clearer when you go longer than 90mm (35mm equivalent).
There is also a difference between "weight in hand" and "weight in bag." If you carry the 20-70 vs. Sigma 18-50 in the hand or around the neck for a full day of wandering, the weight difference will become more noticeable. If you do street photography, the difference in size also may have an impact on people's reaction to you. For landscape only, I think it doesn't matter much.
If you are considering the 20-70/4, you may also want to consider the Sigma 28-70/2.8+Viltrox 20/2.8. The f2.8 is better for low light and f2.8 on the 70 end is handy for blurring the background for portraits. ...Show more →
I agree. Over here the A7CII for example is only 400 euro's more compared to the A6700. But depending on budget that can be a lot of money indeed.
Thanks for the tip of the Sigma 28-70mm. Forgot about that lens.
---------------------------------------------
hlansing wrote:
If you're trying to travel light, and only carry 2 lenses max, then for the a6700 take the Sigma 18-50 and Viltrox 27/1.2 or Sigma 56/1.4 depending on what you shoot. For the A7cr, the 40/2.5 and Sony 85/1.8 which you can use APS-C mode and get more reach if you need it.
I've looked at the Viltrox 27mm f1.2 since I really like the 40mm ff eq field of view. But that lens alone is already 560g. I will have a look at the Sony 85mm f1.8 as well. But I think I left that one out because the Samyang 75mm f1.8 and Sigma 90mm f2.8 were the lighter lenses.
.