p.1 #1 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I had placed an order for an A7c II, but see today that the A7C can be purchased new for $1200, which seems like a bargain.
The number one reason I picked the II over the original is the improved (although still tiny) viewfinder. The second being the additional control dial.
This would be a lightweight hiking camera to be paired with small lenses. I already own the A7R V.
One note is that I find myself composing with the rear screen about 50% of the time at least during hikes.
To those who have owned/shot with both, do you see the improvements from one to the other enough to justify the cost, at current prices?
p.1 #2 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
IMO it’s hard to justify either when you have the RV.
The RV is a 203g heavier than the Cii, but that’s the weight of the nicer screen, better viewfinder, better ibis, mechanical shutter, extra card slot and a more ergonomic body
203g is a very small weight penalty for these features… leave one ND filter + step down ring at home and that covers the 200g
p.1 #3 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I liked my original A7c so much that I purchased another one. I had the choice to go with the A7cII, but I decided to buy the first model instead.
It is not a bulky, "pro-grade" body with all the technological features found in the RV or R9, but it is the perfect travel camera. If it gets damaged or stolen on one of my trips, it won't be as financially painful to replace it. What it does, it does very well.
p.1 #4 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
aCuria wrote:
IMO it’s hard to justify either when you have the RV.
The RV is a 203g heavier than the Cii, but that’s the weight of the nicer screen, better viewfinder, better ibis, mechanical shutter, extra card slot and a more ergonomic body
203g is a very small weight penalty for these features… leave one ND filter + step down ring at home and that covers the 200g
Aside from the weight (which isn't nothing - you can add a Sonnar 35mm and still be lighter than the RV) the A7C/II have a substantially smaller footprint. With a compact lens, I anticipate being able to slide the A7C into a coat pocket. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, though.
p.1 #5 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Numbers do not tell everything. A7rV is not only larger, it has much more serious habitus than A7c cameras. This becomes important when you are out mainly because of other things, and photography is just a side activity. The smaller the lens, the bigger the difference feels between A7r and A7c.
aCuria wrote:
IMO it’s hard to justify either when you have the RV.
The RV is a 203g heavier than the Cii, but that’s the weight of the nicer screen, better viewfinder, better ibis, mechanical shutter, extra card slot and a more ergonomic body
203g is a very small weight penalty for these features… leave one ND filter + step down ring at home and that covers the 200g
p.1 #6 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Joseph Marney wrote:
Aside from the weight (which isn't nothing - you can add a Sonnar 35mm and still be lighter than the RV) the A7C/II have a substantially smaller footprint. With a compact lens, I anticipate being able to slide the A7C into a coat pocket. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, though.
I cannot speak to the A7C vs A7CII question, but I will echo your thinking for wanting the C series even when you have the A7RV. I currently have the RIII and the A7C, and although I readily acknowledge that the size/weight difference is negligible on paper, there is something about the form factor of the A7C that has me grabbing it more often, whenever I am not motivated by absolute image quality or technical capabilities. With a small lens like e.g. the Sigma 45i or the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2, I just find it to be a more relaxed shooting experience than shooting my RIII with a GM attached.
I think it's similar to the way people describe how they feel and think differently when using a Fuji camera. It's feels less serious, I suppose, in a good way. But yes, in addition to that, its footprint is small enough to let it go places the big brother cannot. For instance, I have a tiny Lowe pro case that will perfectly fit it with either of the previously mentioned lenses, but will not fit a full-sized Alpha. This also factors into my decision to grab it when I am on a walk or bike ride around town or just running errands on a day I expect the light to be particularly good.
I will say that I am tempted to try to find CII cheap, because I would definitely like having the second command dial. But its absence is not enough to bother me, especially when so many of my lenses these days have dedicated aperture rings.
p.1 #7 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Joseph Marney wrote:
Aside from the weight (which isn't nothing - you can add a Sonnar 35mm and still be lighter than the RV) the A7C/II have a substantially smaller footprint. With a compact lens, I anticipate being able to slide the A7C into a coat pocket. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, though.
Once you add the lens it’s the same imo. The grip only looks big when there isn’t a lens attached
Yes the nicer viewfinder takes up some space up top, but it’s not like you can use a smaller camera bag as a result.
p.1 #8 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I'd like to know this too, I was going to 'pull the pin' and upgrade my A7c to A7cii but then read from several people that actually the differences are pretty minimal - the AF on the mk1 is already so good that the mk2 is an improvement for sure but not nearly the jump that it was thought it was going to be. For me the A7C is still nearly the perfect camera.
Regarding the larger bodies, the A7C is and feels considerably smaller and lighter than the R bodies. The Rv is 42% heavier than the a7C as well as being quite a bit smaller. It is a real difference - I used to enjoy taking my Riii/Riv out on family days much less than the A7c, which you tend to pair with smaller lenses. It fits in smaller slings/bags/pockets.
I miss the bigger bodies for sports shooting paired with telephotos (naturally). I rarely use the EVF but the A7C is a big step down for sure, although I find it absolutely fine for family stuff it certainly isn't for 'serious' shooting. I miss the angle out screen from the Riv as I shoot from the waist/hip quite a bit. I hate the flipout screen of the A7iv/A7C although it's obviously far better for vertical shooting. I do think Sony made a mistake not putting the Rv screen into the A7Cr at least, if not the A7Cii, even if it made it a little bigger.
p.1 #9 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
aCuria wrote:
IMO it’s hard to justify either when you have the RV.
The RV is a 203g heavier than the Cii, but that’s the weight of the nicer screen, better viewfinder, better ibis, mechanical shutter, extra card slot and a more ergonomic body
203g is a very small weight penalty for these features… leave one ND filter + step down ring at home and that covers the 200g
---------------------------------------------
Joseph Marney wrote:
Aside from the weight (which isn't nothing - you can add a Sonnar 35mm and still be lighter than the RV) the A7C/II have a substantially smaller footprint. With a compact lens, I anticipate being able to slide the A7C into a coat pocket. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, though.
---------------------------------------------
tuomkok wrote:
Numbers do not tell everything. A7rV is not only larger, it has much more serious habitus than A7c cameras. This becomes important when you are out mainly because of other things, and photography is just a side activity. The smaller the lens, the bigger the difference feels between A7r and A7c.
---------------------------------------------
VetraLens wrote:
I cannot speak to the A7C vs A7CII question, but I will echo your thinking for wanting the C series even when you have the A7RV. I currently have the RIII and the A7C, and although I readily acknowledge that the size/weight difference is negligible on paper, there is something about the form factor of the A7C that has me grabbing it more often, whenever I am not motivated by absolute image quality or technical capabilities. With a small lens like e.g. the Sigma 45i or the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2, I just find it to be a more relaxed shooting experience than shooting my RIII with a GM attached.
I think it's similar to the way people describe how they feel and think differently when using a Fuji camera. It's feels less serious, I suppose, in a good way. But yes, in addition to that, its footprint is small enough to let it go places the big brother cannot. For instance, I have a tiny Lowe pro case that will perfectly fit it with either of the previously mentioned lenses, but will not fit a full-sized Alpha. This also factors into my decision to grab it when I am on a walk or bike ride around town or just running errands on a day I expect the light to be particularly good.
I will say that I am tempted to try to find CII cheap, because I would definitely like having the second command dial. But its absence is not enough to bother me, especially when so many of my lenses these days have dedicated aperture rings.
I think aCuria is very wrong and the simple comparison of numbers that he does is very misleading. It's like saying the top to a jar can be one mm too small or too large and still work because it's only one mm difference. Differences in size have a non-linear effect on usefulness and the non-linearity varies for different applications. Like the top to a jar, the hand and the neck are very sensitive to differences in size and weight.
The size differences have to be related to the size of the hand holding the camera and the size of the places available to store it. The weight differences have to be related to weight in hand and weight around the neck over hours of using it. In the hand and around the neck and in the bag, the A7Cxx cameras are in a completely different size & weight category than the A7RV.
Here are CameraSize's spec comparison:
Sony A7R V is 6% (7.3 mm) wider and 36% (25.8 mm) taller than Sony Alpha a7CR.
Sony A7R V is 30% (19 mm) thicker than Sony Alpha a7CR.
Sony A7R V [723 g] weights 40% (208 grams) more than Sony Alpha a7CR [515 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
Sony A7R V dimensions: 131.3x96.9x82.4 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Sony Alpha a7CR dimensions: 124x71.1x63.4 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
p.1 #10 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
If you have the A7RV today than getting another lets call it backup or travel cam than I would go with the latest A7CII as it pretty much mirrors you A7RV with same AF tech in it and most all the feature sets that the A7RV has. I just went with the A7CR because I sold my A7RV since im retiring in the business but I will rent the A7RV for gigs as im still shooting for money but the A7CR is the little brother to it in almost every way. Sure the EVF is limited and stuff like that and only one card slot but the AF system IBIS and all the new feature sets including I think the same menu setup than its worth it over the A7C which I had and liked but now im down to one body than I want almost all the bells and whistles as a backup cam and as my private camera. I never buy old gear as Sony typically make the newer models far better in feature sets and abilities. I also have the same sensor as the A7RV and I really like this sensor so that's a plus for me. That's my take.
Have not shot much with the A7CR since I got it but plan to get out and play but I like the feel of it and size/weight factors and I actually like the grip that comes with it. Nice part is for travel you can take it off and store in bag somewhere . It will be nice to have with longer focal lengths.
I know money is money and that maybe 700 dollar difference means very little to me in most cases. I will always have a camera and that's been a fact for 50 years plus.
Having said all that will it do everything I need it to do. Answer is NO but I shoot tough situations that will require a A1/A9III or the A7RV for that type of work and since I have one foot out the door I will just rent that need when i need it. But having the A7CR and a few lenses in a small bag is useful to me
p.1 #11 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I've also been thinking about adding an a7c to my primary a7rv. An a7cii or a7cr is out of the question due to price. My complication is I still have a functioning a7rii that seems to sit between the c and the rv in size.
I have a Sigma 45/2.8 that I'm dieing to put on an a7c. My main concern is whether I can go back to 24mp.
p.1 #12 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I’ve had the A7C and now the A7CR. IMVHO having the extra dial and button is one of the nicest upgrades, as is the better IBIS and subject detection. I’m not really a BIF shooter, but the new AI assist when doing photos of birds and other animals is very noticeable. For me the new improvements to IBIS are noticeably better too. Much faster start up as well, I noticed that right away too on the newer body.
What’s less important is the slightly larger grip and better EVF, both of which are nice improvements, but not hugely important in use over the fist A7C. Having the option to add the extra grip when I need to hand hold bigger lens is really nice too, it’s well done and comfy in hand.
p.1 #13 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
sandycrane wrote:
I've also been thinking about adding an a7c to my primary a7rv. An a7cii or a7cr is out of the question due to price. My complication is I still have a functioning a7rii that seems to sit between the c and the rv in size.
I have a Sigma 45/2.8 that I'm dieing to put on an a7c. My main concern is whether I can go back to 24.
I have an Amazon business account, and it says it is a business price. Indeed, if I switch to my "regular" Amazon account, the price is higher - $1600. The business price on the A7C II is $2000.
The original A7/A7R is actually lighter than the A7C, and smaller in some dimensions. The line just kept getting beefier - although still compact compared to the competition.
p.1 #14 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Joseph Marney wrote:
Aside from the weight (which isn't nothing - you can add a Sonnar 35mm and still be lighter than the RV) the A7C/II have a substantially smaller footprint. With a compact lens, I anticipate being able to slide the A7C into a coat pocket. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, though.
That "hump" in non-C style Alpha cameras does make a big difference in my book. There are bags/places where the "C" would fit just fine, while the "humpy" one won't. And that can simpy make or break a "take the camera with me" deal. Still, I have just sold my A7c due to its EVF and got used to carring my A7Riv with me instead. Not nearly as convenient, but I picked my poison.
p.1 #15 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Tarekith wrote:
I’ve had the A7C and now the A7CR. IMVHO having the extra dial and button is one of the nicest upgrades, as is the better IBIS and subject detection. I’m not really a BIF shooter, but the new AI assist when doing photos of birds and other animals is very noticeable. For me the new improvements to IBIS are noticeably better too. Mush faster start up as well, I noticed that right away too on the newer body.
What’s less important is the slightly larger grip and better EVF, both of which are nice improvements, but not hugely important in use over the fist A7C. Having the option to add the extra grip when I need to hand hold bigger lens is really nice too, it’s well done and comfy in hand. ...Show more →
I added a Small Grip extension/plate for the A7R V. If I find the shallowness of the A7c unworkable, it might not be a good fit altogether, as the idea is to have as small of a body as possible.
The EVF is what gives me the most heart burn, but most reviews I've seen say it's not that big of a deal in practice. Which is probably true - when I'm hiking I just need it to be bright enough to compose the shot.
I think aCuria is very wrong and the simple comparison of numbers that he does is very misleading. It's like saying the top to a jar can be one mm too small or too large and still work because it's only one mm difference. Differences in size have a non-linear effect on usefulness and the non-linearity varies for different applications. Like the top to a jar, the hand and the neck are very sensitive to differences in size and weight.
The size differences have to be related to the size of the hand holding the camera and the size of the places available to store it. The weight differences have to be related to weight in hand and weight around the neck over hours of using it. In the hand and around the neck and in the bag, the A7Cxx cameras are in a completely different size & weight category than the A7RV.
Here are CameraSize's spec comparison:
Sony A7R V is 6% (7.3 mm) wider and 36% (25.8 mm) taller than Sony Alpha a7CR.
Sony A7R V is 30% (19 mm) thicker than Sony Alpha a7CR.
Sony A7R V [723 g] weights 40% (208 grams) more than Sony Alpha a7CR [515 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
Sony A7R V dimensions: 131.3x96.9x82.4 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
Sony Alpha a7CR dimensions: 124x71.1x63.4 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
If IBIS is less effective, it’s possible we may need brighter (heavier, bigger) lenses on the A7C to get the same results, in order to use higher shutter speeds.
There are certainly applications where every gram counts, but for most people who already own a RV, it’s my view that the A7Cii is a rather expensive way to use a 25mm smaller camera bag, and save the weight equivalent of one ND filter pp
p.1 #17 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Joseph Marney wrote:
The EVF is what gives me the most heart burn, but most reviews I've seen say it's not that big of a deal in practice. Which is probably true - when I'm hiking I just need it to be bright enough to compose the shot.
I've had no issues in use with the EVF when hiking and doing photos here in sunny Central Oregon. Sure it's not as nice as the one on my A7IV, but it's more than useable still.
Like others have mentioned, not having that center hump is really nice for me personally. Easier to get in and out of my usual 3L PD sling bag, and I used to constantly catch the rubber around the EVF on the A7IV on my pants when walking around hand holding it. Sounds stupid but it used to drive me nuts.
p.1 #18 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
Joseph Marney wrote:
I had placed an order for an A7c II, but see today that the A7C can be purchased new for $1200, which seems like a bargain.
The number one reason I picked the II over the original is the improved (although still tiny) viewfinder. The second being the additional control dial.
This would be a lightweight hiking camera to be paired with small lenses. I already own the A7R V.
One note is that I find myself composing with the rear screen about 50% of the time at least during hikes.
To those who have owned/shot with both, do you see the improvements from one to the other enough to justify the cost, at current prices?
Rear screens on Sony cameras just plain suck. One would think they could put some of their smartphone people in charge of screens given that's what we're all accustomed to looking at. I had my A7CR at Pebble Beach this past week and had the screen brightness maxed out and it still looked horrendous compared to my phone. Nikon does a little better, but all of the major players are dragging their feet in this category as far as I can tell.
The viewfinder is a nice subtle upgrade but the dial and 33MP sensor are substantial upgrades, IMO. The new menu system also adds to the reasons to upgrade to the Mark II.
Yes. It's worth it.
Apr 22, 2024 at 01:25 PM
foto16 Offline • • [X]
p.1 #19 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I have the A7C II but have not used the A7C. I wouldn't get the A7C even at $1200, unless money is tight. The improved viewfinder is not tiny; it's pleasant to use. The additional control dial is useful. In the end it's subjective because the price difference means different things to different people. I can imagine if you use the LCD to compose and the touch screen to select focus point, and you shoot at a slower pace (say, for landscape), you may not find the improvements on the A7C II worth the price difference.
p.1 #20 · A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both
I placed the order for the A7C at $1200 and cancelled the A7C II...but apparently too late. So, both cameras are arriving today. I guess I will get to answer my question for myself!
