As a professional travel photographer, I’ve shot around the world with some of the best gear Sony has to offer, including the Sony a7R V and top-tier G Master lenses. But after years of carrying heavy full-frame setups and investing thousands into the latest gear, I made a decision that might seem crazy to some: I sold it all and switched to the Sony a6700, a crop-sensor camera.
Introduction
At first glance, this might sound like a massive downgrade, but after using the a6700 extensively, I’ve realized that it delivers incredible image quality, portability, and versatility—all at a fraction of the price and weight. Here’s why I made the switch and why I believe more photographers should reconsider the obsession with full frame.
1. The Image Quality Is More Than Good Enough
There’s a common misconception that crop-sensor cameras can’t compete with full frame in terms of image quality. But after shooting with the a6700, I found that the difference isn't noticeable for most of my work.
With its 26 MP backside-illuminated sensor, the a6700 produces sharp, detailed images with great dynamic range. Unless you’re regularly printing massive billboards or shooting in extreme low-light conditions, the a6700 holds its own against full-frame cameras, even high-end ones like the a7RV.
2. Lighter, Smaller, Safer and More Travel-Friendly
As someone who travels full time, I got tired of lugging around a heavy camera bag filled with bulky full-frame bodies and lenses. The a6700’s compact size and lighter APS-C lenses mean I can fit everything I need into a small bag. For travel and adventure photography, this camera is a game-changer.
Since purchasing it in October, I've traveled through India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Oman, Scotland, Chile, Argentina, and Morocco. It’s much less intimidating when photographing people in these different cultures, and it doesn’t scream “professional photographer,” which can sometimes be an advantage when shooting in sensitive locations.
Carrying a less expensive setup also gives me peace of mind. If something were to get stolen or damaged, it wouldn’t be as devastating as losing a multi-thousand-dollar full-frame system. Travel photography often means dealing with unpredictable environments, and having a camera that delivers professional results without the constant fear of loss or damage is a huge relief.
3. Autofocus That Rivals Sony’s Best Cameras
One of the biggest surprises to me with this camera is its autofocus performance. It has the same AI-driven autofocus system found in Sony’s top-tier a7RV, including:
- Real-time tracking that locks onto subjects
- Animal and bird eye AF for wildlife photography
- Human eye AF
I honestly couldn't believe how sharp the images from this camera were when I first started using it. Even with the 15-50mm kit lens, I don’t feel like I've lost autofocus performance when moving from the a7RV to the a6700. It’s just as fast, reliable, and accurate.
4. Video Features That Punch Above Its Weight
The a6700 isn’t just a great stills camera—it’s also a fantastic hybrid shooter. It offers:
- 4K 120 fps (with a slight crop)
- 10-bit 4:2:2 internal recording
- S-Cinetone and S-Log3 for cinematic color grading
- Active stabilization for smoother handheld shots
All of the above features actually match Sony's FX30 cinema line. For someone who also shoots video alongside photography, this camera does almost everything I need without the bulk of a full-frame cinema setup.
5. Price-to-Performance Ratio Is Unbeatable
Selling my a7R V, G Master 24-70mm, and G Master 100-400mm allowed me to reinvest in a smaller, more cost-effective system while still maintaining professional quality.
The Sony a6700 costs around $1,400, compared to the $3,900 price tag of the a7R V. That’s without factoring in the savings on APS-C lenses, which are generally cheaper and more compact than their full-frame counterparts.
For photographers who want professional results without breaking the bank, the a6700 is one of the best-value cameras on the market right now.
Final Thoughts: The a6700 Might Be the Best Sony Camera for Most People
I used to believe that full frame was the only way to go for professional photography. After making the switch, I’ve realized that for most photographers, a crop-sensor camera like this one is more than enough.
It’s lightweight, travel-friendly, packed with features, and delivers stunning images that hold up even in professional settings. Unless you have a specific need for ultra-high resolution or extreme low-light performance, you might be spending more money (and carrying more weight) than necessary by sticking with full frame.
I don’t regret selling my a7R V for the a6700. In fact, I wish I had done it sooner.
You forgot to mention the savings it brings to your professional CO2-footprint, reducing the weight the airlines have to lug around the world. Bit of a shame you didn't think of all this before you invested heavily in full-frame gear, the savings would have easily paid for a trip or two...
I like this type of sarcasm ;-)
Just reading the headline made me happy because that's (almost) exactly what I did. I still have the a7RV but 90% of my images come from the a6700.
The one unintended benefit is that after realizing I always had a low-level tension about getting robbed when shooting in public in the Bay Area I now am much more relaxed because the a6700 doesn't get much attention.
I have shot Canon for decades, but got upset with them when they restricted 3rd party lens compatibility for their R mount.
So two years ago I bought a Sony a6600, because that was all I could afford. I got it used for $750.
Now that you have written this about the Sony crop-frame cameras, the a6xxx series in particular, I feel better about having bought the a6600. But the only problem is that after having it for two years, I still don't know how to take pictures with it, because it isn't intuitive. With Canon cameras, I always "just knew" how to operate the camera, and didn't have to read manuals or watch tutorials or ask anyone for help. I literally just figured them out in a minute or two. But this Sony is different. I do not use focus and concentration - if I have to really focus my mind and concentrate to learn something, then it will just go unlearned because I simply don't have it in me to employ that level of effort into anything.
So my Sony just sits in a bag, for two years, unused.
How did you learn how to use your Sony - the first one you got? Were you able to take it out of the box, turn it on, and "just know" how to operate it? Or did you actually have to expend a modicum of dedicated effort to learn how to access various functions and adjust various settings?
My wife had the 6500 and now shoots the 6700. I think one thing that made her experience better was when I disabled the functions on the wheel/dial. No more accidently hitting ISO or other features. The next thing was putting her most used settings into the Fn menu. These two tweaks made the camera a lot easier for her. She came from a Canon too and the first day out with her after I bought the Sony to replace the Canon was not a fun day at all. The camera can be made very easy to use, but it does take some time to set up the custom menus, functions, and buttons. She loves it now.
The fact is that an aps-c camera with a 17-55mm F2.8 it's more than enought for 95% of travel photography.
Less money, LESS WEIGHT, and more happy.
15-50 kit lens?
Excellent article meaning that less is more...I went.a step further and left my heavy gear at home when on the road and opted for a OlympusTG-6...a great little point and shoot that is known as the Swiss army knife of cameras...
It does not really surprise me that you are not seeing a huge difference in image quality between your A7RV and the A6700. But I need to comment that when it comes to gear and safety, 99 % of people cannot see a difference between the FF and the APSC camera. I shoot with the A6600 since many years and I recently added the A7RV. I was already using the FE 100-400 GM on the A6600 so I do not see a significant improvement in the images I shoot. Granted, I have not used the A7RV with its full capability (and I shoot JPEG with both) but details in birds feathers is very close between the two.
Since you sold your 100-400 I guess you did not really needed the reach. That is the type of lens which makes you very "visible". I have not shot any landscapes yet and that is probably where I will see a more significant difference between my A6600 and the A7RV
I do not have a full frame, but considering and older used model. I do have a Sony compact, a couple of Micro 4/3s, a Sony A6000 and A6400. If I were to travel, any of these smaller cameras would be suitable. I'd probably leave go with the A6400 and either the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 or the Sony 18-135mm F3.5-5.6. The latter lens lacks the wider aperture, but it is smaller, covers more range and I find the images plenty sharp.
I agree with this logic. The 50+ megapixel cameras are a waste unless you crop a lot or print very large prints. I've been shooting DSLR since 2003, my first 4 megapixel which was plant for magazine cover and a 16X24 poster. spend your money on glass (lens).
It's illogical to sell the A7RV for the A6700.
In crop mode, the A7RV delivers the exact same resolution and image quality as an A6700.
The weight difference of the bodies, for all intents and purposes, can be neglected.
But the A7RV has significant advantages over the A6700, especially ergonomically.
Simply keep the A7RV and buy some APS-C glass for it!
(And if you want, you can still sometimes use full-frame glass.)
You seem to be ignoring the vast difference in the cost of the cameras, in the fact that the author sold his A7RV for a lot more money than he paid for his A6700. For many of us, that difference in price is the main factor in such decisions, far more important than any camera specs or capabilities.
Cost matters so so so so much and everything else matters just a little, comparatively. Hence, it was NOT illogical for him to sell the A7RV and buy the A6700 instead.
Agree! My full frame Sony only gets used for low light and Astro photography these days.
I tried an a6500 crop sensor one season, but for landscape photography I found the resulting images very lacking. Shadow detail and recovery in particular were nothing like the full frame cameras-in fact I’d say it was atrocious. I sold it. While it’s nice to go light, sometimes you get what you pay for. The getting robbed issue however is a concern of course.
I won an international photography competition with a landscape image taken on A6500, another was presented in a photography museum. Had many prints up to 80x120cm. However, I switched to A7R3 5 years ago and i am happy with being able to crop when using primes.
You can use an iPhone to shoot billboard images. Viewing distance is usually way more important than resolution. If you aren't printing your images above A2, there no reason to obsess over resolution. But even Fuji offers 40MP in a compact apsc form factor.
But there are other reasons to shoot full frame. Bit depth, ergonomics, greater control over depth of field, and better lens selection are just a few.
Or...get an A7Cr and you have two cams in one: a FF 61MP when you need it or a 26MP crop cam when you want to use lighter lenses.
With an a6400 as my weekend camera, I've been thinking a lot about this lately.
The first first picture is a disaster !
What a nice and constructive comment.
I have some questions about why the author would post such a photo, but it is poor taste to outright put it down in such an insulting way.
I am interested to know why an architectural photo would be taken that way, in which the perspective distortion is so extreme. If the perspective distortion "looked cool" or had some interesting dynamic to it, then I could understand, for not everything has to appear "accurately" to be a quality photo.
Sometimes distortions of reality can be the thing that makes an image more interesting, or even great. But in this case it just looks "wonky", and not interesting or cool looking ..... so I would like to know why the author took it this way, instead of taking it from a different perspective, or taking it with tilt/shift gear. At the least, one would think that there would be some sort of correction that could be applied in post-processing, but the author chose not to use such correction.
Chandler is a very successful and accomplished photographer, so I know that he just doesn't do things out of carelessness or ineptitude. There must be a reason why he took and presented this photo the way he did, but I can't think of any reasons why that might be. Any explanations would be appreciated.
With the A7C variants available there's no valid excuse to downsize the size and quality to a crop sensor. My A7C II was only 300 dollars more than the 6700 while being nearly indistinguishable in size and weight. The 33MP full frame sensor produces amazing images and video that is substantially superior to the 6700..... This downgrade was a mistake and I discourage everyone from replicating this idea.
For those buying used, the price difference can be extreme. I got a near-perfect a6600 for $750, and at the time I could not get a comparable full frame Sony for even double that amount.
Also, there is an advantage that smaller sensors have, when used with full frame lenses. It is that the image is using the sweetest part of the lens - the center of the image circle, which is brightest and sharpest. I often like to put my subject way off to the very far edge of the frame, but with my full frame bodies, this means that the subject is not as brightly rendered, or as finely resolved, as it would be if it were nearer the center.
I also happen to absolutely HATE the look of a vignette. It is visually disgusting to me to see a photo in which the edges and corners of the frame are not as bright as the center of the frame. And as a full frame user, I struggle with dark edges and corners every day of my photographic life. Post-process lens correction is NOT a viable solution for an extreme pixel-peeper such as myself.
Images taken with a full frame lens and a crop sensor body are far brighter on the far edges and in the deep corners than those taken with a full frame body. I often find myself shooting wider than I want to, because I know the edges will be less bright than the center, so I will need to crop them off. This is preferable to the horrid software that invariably does a horrible job of brightening the corners for you, a.k.a. "lens correction".
>4K 120 fps (with a slight crop)
1.58X is not a "slight crop" by any definition or the word 'slight'.
It essentially makes the usable sensor area (14.87mm x 8.35mm) 1.81X smaller than a Micro Four Thirds sensor (17.3mm x 13mm).
I agree, the difference between full frame and a 1.58 crop is extreme, not slight.
And also the sensor readout of 1/40 is kinda prone to rolling shutter...
The article is fine, but the fist picture falls into one of my "pet hates" boxes.
The keystoning in the header shot is just amateurish to me. It is something you can fix in post easily. Capture One even does it automatically if you use the auto correct tab.
This sort of keystoning is something I see more often in publications. Is is some sort of downward drift with compositional skills.
I agree with you.
I asked the author why he shot it that way, and why he posted it here that way, instead of editing it to correct the unsightly distortion, or posting another pic instead. He is a very good photographer, so I think he probably has a solid reason. Maybe his reason was simply to stir the pot and get us to discuss the image, which if that is the case, seems to be working.
I upgraded from the old a6000 to an a7C. No contest - don't go old if you want to do APS-C. The a7C is well worth the upgrade - especially for low light. (Oh yeah, the Sigma 28-70mm 2.8 that I have - or variants 24-70 2.8f - are pretty close to the Sony 28-70 GMII.)
To me sony full frame cameras are already tiny. Granted the lenses can get quite large though. If I really wanted to go light I would just switch the lenses and go into crop mode occasionally.
Many of us routinely use lenses in focal lengths of 400mm, 600mm, 800mm etc. I don't believe that in lenses of these longer focal lengths there is much, if any, savings of size or weight, because full frame and crop factor bodies both use the same lenses, right?
Or the more expensive a7CR which weighs only about 10 g more than the a6700 (though twice the cost) on which mounting an APS-C lens becomes, in essence, a 26mp a6700 while still allowing 61mp FF when desired.
Yeah, that's where I landed; with the A7CR. Why not?
Every photographer makes gear decisions based on wants and needs. I suppose a travel photographer wants light, inconspicuous gear, I get that but saying that the a6700 is good enough ignores a few critical points. First, I owned an a6500 which is a nice camera but as my needs changed (selling more work) and wanting more low light shots, I decided to go back to full frame with the a7Cii. The camera was small, lightweight, and doesn’t scream steal me. I use primes that are lightweight, so my kit is not cumbersome. The image quality is more than good enough it is stunning. I have been guilty of taking too much gear and realizing that I didn’t half of it but those days are over. Everything fits in a backpack that goes under the seat, and doesn’t scream camera bag. Camera insurance is a good thing to have for peace of mind. I hope you continue to be happy with your decision, and that it meets your needs.
Call me old fashioned but I love my A7R IV. I came from APS-C but after years of being subjected to sensor size shaming in all the photography forums, I still think that size doesn't matter. I would be equally as happy with an OM-1 II, a Sony 6700 or my FF body. But it took a lot to be able to afford this camera and now that I have it I love it and it ain't going nowhere unless one of us dies or I win the lottery.