aCuria
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: A7c vs A7c II - Q for those who have shot with both | |
chiron wrote:
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:
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.
---------------------------------------------
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.
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
---------------------------------------------
VetraLens wrote:
Joseph Marney wrote:
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.
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)
https://camerasize.com/compare/#898,911
Using your numbers, ultimately your camera bag needs to be 19mm deeper and 25mm wider to fit the camera…
As shown here, once you add a small zoom lens they look almost the same
 A7Cii, A7RV, RX100VII by acurian, on Flickr
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
|
