Congrats. It's a sweet combo, but I'll be first in a long line to tell you it's not the same thing. The cr with battery and cards weighs more than the RX before you put a lens on it and is already larger. And the lenses are very different in performance.
freaklikeme wrote:
Congrats. It's a sweet combo, but I'll be first in a long line to tell you it's not the same thing. The cr with battery and cards weighs more than the RX before you put a lens on it and is already larger. And the lenses are very different in performance.
Yes, I actually Googled the RX’s weight before making the post — great point.
But honestly, it’s close enough for me at half the price.
freaklikeme wrote:
Congrats. It's a sweet combo, but I'll be first in a long line to tell you it's not the same thing. The cr with battery and cards weighs more than the RX before you put a lens on it and is already larger. And the lenses are very different in performance.
Try the A7CR with the Sigma i series 45/2.8. It's smaller and lighter than the 35/2.0, and it has beautiful rendering (not that the 35/2.0 is bad--it's very nice). And actually, as with the Leica Q3 43, I prefer the slightly more normal focal length.
The weight and size differences between the two cameras are small and have little practical effect in use. And you get a lot more with the A7CR.
I'm sure the new RX is an exciting camera that some people will buy and justly love. But it has a very potent competitor in the A7CR, as dpreview's comparison pointed out.
Ironically, one of the effects of the RX1's introduction may be to call attention to just how desirable and small a camera the A7CR really is.
chiron wrote:
Try the A7CR with the Sigma i series 45/2.8. It's smaller and lighter than the 35/2.0, and it has beautiful rendering (not that the 35/2.0 is bad--it's very nice). And actually, as with the Leica Q3 43, I prefer the slightly more normal focal length.
The weight and size differences between the two cameras are small and have little practical effect in use. And you get a lot more with the A7CR.
I'm sure the new RX is an exciting camera that some people will buy and justly love. But it has a very potent competitor in the A7CR, as dpreview's comparison pointed out.
Ironically, one of the effects of the RX1's introduction may be to call attention to just how desirable and small a camera the A7CR really is....Show more →
Yes, the two cameras weigh basically the same amount…but the difference is the rx1 comes with a damn good lens. Putting that Sigma lens onto the A7cr really bulks out the overall size and adds about 350gm of weight making the overall A7rc weigh 840 gm compared to the rx1r3 coming in at around 500gm. That’s a significant difference imho.
gclipper wrote:
Yes, I actually Googled the RX’s weight before making the post — great point.
But honestly, it’s close enough for me at half the price.
Trust me, I hear you. My version of the RX is a full-spectrum mono converted rII and the little 7artisans 35/1.4 III, which, even generously estimating the price of getting another rII and the same conversion, would be well under $2k, and, camera alone, is larger and heavier than either.
I do really like that i35, though. I had it with my rV and then a1, and found it a pleasing all-arounder on both.
Oh no — mine separates into two pieces. Must be defective. 🙄
…And wait, did someone say mine should not have IBIS? That’s weird...
Don’t worry, I think I can disable IBIS in the menu!
Excellent! Don’t forget that if dust gets on your sensor you can just blow it off for free. No $300-500 charge.
I said this in the main thread, but if a camera isn’t truly pocketable (and neither the rx1r3 nor a7cr are pocketable) it makes no difference to me if one is slightly smaller. I wouldn’t notice the difference in my sling bag. And 300 grams won’t make any difference in my hand.
I could make the same comparison between the a7cr and the a7r5. With the same lenses mounted, the a7cr isn’t that much smaller to make a difference to me. So I happily shoot my a7r5 with all its goodies and don’t worry about getting an a7cr.
chiron wrote:
Try the A7CR with the Sigma i series 45/2.8. It's smaller and lighter than the 35/2.0, and it has beautiful rendering (not that the 35/2.0 is bad--it's very nice). And actually, as with the Leica Q3 43, I prefer the slightly more normal focal length.
The weight and size differences between the two cameras are small and have little practical effect in use. And you get a lot more with the A7CR.
I'm sure the new RX is an exciting camera that some people will buy and justly love. But it has a very potent competitor in the A7CR, as dpreview's comparison pointed out.
Ironically, one of the effects of the RX1's introduction may be to call attention to just how desirable and small a camera the A7CR really is....Show more →
I'm not the market for either of those things. I don't need a fixed lens camera, no matter how small, and I don't need a tiny FF ILC with a sensor that's going to make me want to use high performance manual lenses on it. The Otus ML 85 would look silly and likely be a bit unwieldy on it. It'll be much better off on my a1.
Appearances may certainly be subject to multiple interpretations, he pontificated.
Question: would the OP's original photo, with nothing else in frame to help with perceived size, make the A7CR seem smaller and lighter were it "propped" with attached image of $2500??
freaklikeme wrote:
I'm not the market for either of those things. I don't need a fixed lens camera, no matter how small, and I don't need a tiny FF ILC with a sensor that's going to make me want to use high performance manual lenses on it. The Otus ML 85 would look silly and likely be a bit unwieldy on it. It'll be much better off on my a1.
I’ve been happy with a range of small autofocus lenses on the A7CR, but the Loxia range of lenses really shine. Unfortunately, the A7Rv viewfinder makes the Loxia a joy to use, but you must overlook the limitations of the A7CR EVF.
chez wrote:
Yes, the two cameras weigh basically the same amount…but the difference is the rx1 comes with a damn good lens. Putting that Sigma lens onto the A7cr really bulks out the overall size and adds about 350gm of weight making the overall A7rc weigh 840 gm compared to the rx1r3 coming in at around 500gm. That’s a significant difference imho.
I have no doubt that for some people and for some types of shooting the RX1 will be a special camera.
mudlake wrote:
Excellent! Don’t forget that if dust gets on your sensor you can just blow it off for free. No $300-500 charge.
I said this in the main thread, but if a camera isn’t truly pocketable (and neither the rx1r3 nor a7cr are pocketable) it makes no difference to me if one is slightly smaller. I wouldn’t notice the difference in my sling bag. And 300 grams won’t make any difference in my hand.
I could make the same comparison between the a7cr and the a7r5. With the same lenses mounted, the a7cr isn’t that much smaller to make a difference to me. So I happily shoot my a7r5 with all its goodies and don’t worry about getting an a7cr. ...Show more →
I like your line of thinking, Eric! I had the A7CR twice, it really isn't that much smaller than the A7RV. I would rather have a much nice EVF and all the bells and whistles, the extra weight is worth it to me.
bwcolor wrote:
I’ve been happy with a range of small autofocus lenses on the A7CR, but the Loxia range of lenses really shine. Unfortunately, the A7Rv viewfinder makes the Loxia a joy to use, but you must overlook the limitations of the A7CR EVF.
Yes. The A7R5 viewfinder with fast manual focus lenses is beautiful to see. If you ever get the chance, try looking through the viewfinder with the CV 50/1.0 Nokton. It’s sublime, almost 3D.
Douglas L wrote:
I like your line of thinking, Eric! I had the A7CR twice, it really isn't that much smaller than the A7RV. I would rather have a much nice EVF and all the bells and whistles, the extra weight is worth it to me.
Exactly! The EVF on the R5 was one of the main reasons I upgraded from the R3. Especially using very fast, manual focus lenses as I stated in my post above. It’s perfect. A little extra size and weight is worth it.
Only one of these cameras is truly pocketable and that is the RX100vii. I had thought about the A7C series but then for the really not enormous size difference I didn't want to give up the EVF, tilting (rather than rotating) screen, customisable buttons etc of the A1 (or A7r5). I certainly wouldn't give up IBIS, tilting screen etc of the A7Cr for the slightly smaller and still not pocketable RX1Riii. The Leica Q2 Monochrom is of course a whole different story and while not pocketable is my daily carry around along with the RX100vii
I was just traveling with the A7CR and one of the lenses I brought was the Viltrox 40mm f2.5.
Pretty amazing combo. I also brought the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f4 which was on the cam most of time.
Here's an image with the Viltrox
Jul 20, 2025 at 08:06 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
You got a super good deal if you got a Sony A7CR and Sigma 35 f/2 DG DN for $2,500. The more typical price for that combo if you buy it new is $3,350. I could get the camera new at B & H for $2,650 with an educational discount, which is actually less than their price for used copies of the camera. I could get the lens there for $694. So unless you get a fantastic deal the A7Cr plus the Sigma 35 f/2 i-series is not half the cost.
Personally I have zero interest in an RX1r III. I have big hands and prefer a bit larger camera. I don't even have any interest in an A7Cr, and quite happy with the size of my A7r V. That said, for those who like smaller cameras both these options could potentially make sense, but people should not think the RX1r III is twice as expensive as the A7Cr and the Sigma lens.
mudlake wrote:
Excellent! Don’t forget that if dust gets on your sensor you can just blow it off for free. No $300-500 charge.
I said this in the main thread, but if a camera isn’t truly pocketable (and neither the rx1r3 nor a7cr are pocketable) it makes no difference to me if one is slightly smaller. I wouldn’t notice the difference in my sling bag. And 300 grams won’t make any difference in my hand.
I could make the same comparison between the a7cr and the a7r5. With the same lenses mounted, the a7cr isn’t that much smaller to make a difference to me. So I happily shoot my a7r5 with all its goodies and don’t worry about getting an a7cr. ...Show more →
Glad you took a practical approach for what made sense when it comes to utilization. I went through this same process...at one point having an A7cR, RX1RII, and my A1. The A1 was going nowhere, but between the other two, I found the A7cR made a difference for how I packed & carried the camera for traveling vs the A1, so much so I decided to keep it. The RX1RII was smaller even, and more fun to use, but the reality was the size difference between that and the A7cR didn't make a difference in utilization, with the added bonus of lens choices.
In a similar sense, I've always wanted to have a Leica Q2 reporter edition, such a cool camera IMO. When the Q3 was released I thought I could justify as used one...but ran into the same issue against the A7cR that I did vs. the RX1RIII.
