It seems as if we have new cameras released every month, and that can make it harder to pick the right camera. Sony's newest announced camera has turned some heads, though it has a few divisive entries into the spec sheet. The question is, is it right for you?
The Sony a7C II is a remarkable camera, particularly for its size. In many ways, it represents the epitome of the hybrid camera that is so popular with creators who don't want to be limited to stills or video. However, the a7C II isn't alone in its niche — few cameras have any niche locked down — and so every potential buyer needs to ask if it is right for them.
The Sony a7C II is something of an amalgamation of key features of other cameras in Sony's line-up, but as most reviews have noted, its small form factor is what sets it apart. Now, as great as it is to have smaller and lighter cameras, it isn't always right for everyone. I know plenty of taller photographers who find compact mirrorless bodies to be an ergonomic disaster. Similarly, although my average-sized hands work well with small camera bodies, when I'm shooting stills, I prefer larger cameras for reasons I'm still trying to unpack!
Are you looking at buying the a7C II? What do you like about it? What puts you off? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.
Other than one more stop of light gathering, why would one choose the a7CII over an a6700?
Fullframe vs crop sensor. Big difference.
I would say a6700 for the more video-centric shooter, a7cii for those who lean towards stills at least some of the time. There are better photography centric offerings from Sony, obviously, but if you don’t need/want 61mp, and you want a supremely compact body, you can’t really beat the a7cii.
"if you don’t need/want 61mp, and you want a supremely compact body, you can’t really beat the a7cii"
For stills (which is all I care about), the a6700 seems awfully similar for half the price. What does the extra grand get you other than seven more megapixels and an extra helping of photons?
Hey, I shoot Fuji so I’m inclined to agree, for most people in most situations, that extra helping of photons that full frame provides is not necessary, and is usually offset by equivalent fast glass designed to cover an aps-c sized sensor. At the end of the day it comes down to a stop more dynamic range - seen mostly in the ability to protect highlights - and a greater selection of glass overall for full frame. Like I say, for me I’m content with Fuji, you would likely be content with the a6700.
That one stop makes a difference. I'm not looking for a > 30mpix camera. I want an A7CII with 24 Mpixels full frame.
There's one bad thing why i won't buy the A7CII - that's the missing remote connector. No wifi/bluetooth for me (it is traceable and offers info to candidate thieves). So i hope the price for the A7IV 'll come down a bit, it's simply the better option for me, and it's sad the A7C/A7III didn't get the same AI-upgrade (and the LA-EA5 support with old minolta glass, driven by screwdrive - thats what makes me buy or not Sony!).
"That one stop makes a difference."
I know. I shoot events professionally with three a7RIIIs bearing bright primes, specifically for the ability to shoot at ISO 25,600 in very dim conditions. For my non-event work, though - and even for some of my event work - an a6700 would be plenty, as my Micro Four Thirds kit was for seven years. Biggest advantage of my current kit is much less reliance on flash.