Some thoughts on the A7C

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by Karim Ghantous, Sep 15, 2020.

  1. It's fundamentally a great product. For photography it does almost nothing wrong and it does a lot right. For video, I wouldn't recommend it.

    I do think that Sony has too many line extensions and it needs to have a tighter range. Replace the base FE body series with the C, and have the S and the R as normal. Also, have no more than two E bodies: one that offers best value for money, and one that offers best performance. Keep it crisp.

    Personally I think that the 7C should have kept the tilting screen. This camera is a bit overkill for vlogging, IMHO. The A7S should always have the flippy screen, but the A7R should, like the base model, have the tilting screen.
     
  2. Nobody cares Karim.
    Least of all Sony.
     
  3. The A7C is a camera for those who wish to be armed (camerawise) away from home without leaving a bulge under their jacket. Sadly the lenses will intervene, not to mention the grip. There is nothing in the Sony lineup comparable to a tiny 35mm Summicron or a collapsible 50. The new 28mm is a step in the right direction, and I suspect prime lenses will see a resurgence for compact travel cameras with professional quality. For a one-lens kit, the 28 mm may shed its red-headed stepchild status.
     
  4. There's a new 28mm lens from Sony other than the 28/2? Or are you referring to the 28-60/4-5.6 zoom that was announced at the same time as the A7c?

    Does better than the A7III - its most direct competitor.

    Sony has done the absolute minimum here - stick some 2-year old technology (with some upgrades) into an APS-C-size body. When I read the rumors, I was a bit tempted - but now the small EVF and the price put a big damper on that. Besides, I wouldn't know which small(ish) lens I would want to put on it - even a 28/2 or the 35/2.8 would stick out too far to make this a pocketable combo.
     
  5. For small travel lenses, easily carried, I like the Zeiss Loxia series. They're completely manual, with 52 mm filter rings and bayonet metal hoods. The barrel diameter is only 62 mm throughout the set, comparable to a Nikon AI lens (but shorter). For one lens ideal for city and landscapes, I like the Zeiss Batis 40. It's large but lightweight. None are what I would consider pocketable, but would not be out of place on the A7C.

    The last camera other than a P&S I actually carried in a pocket was a Leica IIIf with a collapsible 50/2 Summitar.

    The viewfinder on an A7Riii or A9 is sharp enough for manual focus without assistance. The low res A7C finder would be a non-starter for me.
     
  6. Ed may have been referring to the Samyang compact primes.

    As for video, it may be better than the A7III, but that's not saying very much! I'm talking in absolute terms.

    By no means are the Barnack bodies the most practical cameras, but my goodness, they were smaller than the smallest APS-C DSLRs for a long time. And, although this is an unfair comparison, you could stack four Barnack bodies next to a Nikon D1 and they'd each take up the same space. I'm a huge fan fo the Barnacks and I wish I still had at least one.
     
  7. But this is the mirrorless forum.
    Why compare a camera that takes crappy ole 35mm film to a DSLR here?

    Also, I think the size comparison might be an optical illusion. Otherwise, why would my Sony MILC bodies need a fairly thick adapter stuck on the front of them to take a Leica thread lens? Plus you have to discount the bulk of the bag full of film needed to compete with a near-weightless SD card and a spare battery or two.

    My old Retina IIIc folder will slip into a shirt or jacket pocket, and my Chinon Bellami is even smaller. So what? For a start I've never needed or wanted to carry them like that, and secondly they have almost unusably small squint-hole viewfinders that, as a spectacle wearer, I find totally unacceptable to use regularly.

    So I'll gladly sacrifice a slight saving in size and weight for a camera that allows me to actually see what I'm doing, and that effortlessly delivers image quality a 35mm Leica user can only get in their wildest imagination.

    BTW. I recently bought the tiny Samyang 24mm f/2.8. It's certainly small and light. The vignetting is very noticeable and it's not the sharpest of lenses, but it has a 'look' that's growing on me. Enough that I'm considering buying its 35mm stable-mate.
     
  8. Sony have a thing for tiny cameras. There were all those fixed lens FFs with the 35mm Zeiss lenses. And then there are all those RXs. Where have they all gone? I guess as long as they sold out they must have made their profit, but I wonder. I can see the point of this: try to get people to buy into the E-mount on a budget. But $1800-2000 is probably too much. It would probably do me these days (sans silly zoom). I care very little about the low res EVF, although the magnification factor might be trying. I suspect this competes rather too closely with other "non compact" cameras in their range.
     
  9. Same resolution (2.36MP) as the A7III viewfinder, but smaller (0.39" vs 0.5") resulting in lower magnification (0.59x instead of 0.78x)
     
  10. I have an A7iii, mainly for video, and the finder is not all that great. However it is the same as on the gen II cameras, and we got along just fine. Once you've seen New York, Kansas seems kinds' boring.
     
    Dieter Schaefer likes this.
  11. For many years, 8-perf 35mm out-performed sub-MF digital in almost every way, including low light shooting. The D3 was the 'tipping point', at least partly. The RF bodies would never compete on sustained frame rate, though. But, eventually digital caught up, as we all know.

    The Samyang would be unacceptable for film users but thankfully, correction for things like vignetting are right there in the camera.
     
  12. Make that 'a few years'... and them days is long past. The replacement of CCD sensors by CMOS was the real game-changer there.

    35mm film has rarely outperformed anything. It wasn't even accepted by most picture libraries/agencies until about 1980. And that was only because they had to lower their standards in the face of 35mm's public popularity.
    What, too sharp?
    I quite like the vignetting, it focuses attention to the centre of the frame for pictorial or portrait subjects. And nobody objected to it for about the first 80 years of photography's existence.

    Strangely, old lenses that give a swirly or vignetted perimeter, like the Schneider Radionar, are now in vogue with new film users.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020 at 9:02 AM
  13. The price alone will go a long way toward eliminating the bulge under the jacket. Seriously overpriced as are most digital cameras.
     
    Karim Ghantous and rodeo_joe|1 like this.
  14. The A7C was introduced at the same price I paid for an A7iii. The lump in my pocket is solely attributed to the camera, not leftover cash.
     
    Sanford likes this.
  15. We're not quite down to the old Leica CL (full frame, interchangeable, fits in a very small belt pouch or a big pocket) but we're close in this camera as well as others, all missing some feature (size or interchangeability or full frame). Seems like a good step for Sony though, especially in the next generation.
     
  16. Sony always had a thing for small. That was their trademark. They were the first with transistor radios back in the 1950's?
    sony transistor radio - Google Search

    Their RX100 1" series is still going strong. I think they're up to model 7. I have their 4. Great camera for traveling. Fits in your pocket unlike the new FF.
     
    Karim Ghantous likes this.
  17. Aside from depth (no protruding grip and EVF), pretty close though: CL: 121 mm × 76 mm × 32 mm, Minolta CLE: 124.5 mm x 77.5 mm x 32 mm, Sony A7c: 124.0 mm x 71.1 mm x 59.7 mm. With film the CL/CLE are about 120-100g lighter. Not aware of any E-mount lens as small as the 40mm Summicron-C.
     
  18. There's a trade-off that we all live with: get the shot with acceptable image quality; or maybe get the shot with very good image quality. It's all relative, but I still don't know of anyone shooting football with a Fuji GFX100. Maybe that will change, as I don't think that Fujifilm wants to give up its no.1 spot in that market.

    I find vignetting distracting. But, we all have our preferences.
     
  19. I don't know of anyone shooting football... full stop. Nor any other sport for that matter and making a living out of it.

    Any game that matters is all on TV these days, and a freeze frame from 1080 or 4k video gives all the quality that a shot of a couple of overpaid plonkers kicking a ball warrants.
     
    ericphelps, Ludmilla and Sanford like this.
  20. I shot a football once with an air gun.
     
    Brian, ajkocu, rodeo_joe|1 and 2 others like this.

Share This Page