sony a7c full frame camera

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
RJ2010
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:32 pm

sony a7c full frame camera

Post by RJ2010 »

I'm contemplating about buying Sony a7c which is smallest full frame. It looks like ideal for travelling. I'm not a pro by any means.
Reasons for buying it:
1. my current Sony nex 5t (mirrorless) is broken.
2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
3. want to take better pictures.

Reason against buying it
price tag. $2000 with a kit lens (FE 4-5.6/28-60). I will likely to spend another 2k for a better lens. so it's 4k price tag.

can anyone share your experience of Sony A7C or buying cameras in general? I read some of amazon reviews but always respect the wisdom from this forum.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 13526
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Sandtrap »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am I'm contemplating about buying Sony a7c which is smallest full frame. It looks like ideal for travelling. I'm not a pro by any means.
Reasons for buying it:
1. my current Sony nex 5t (mirrorless) is broken.
2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
3. want to take better pictures.

Reason against buying it
price tag. $2000 with a kit lens (FE 4-5.6/28-60). I will likely to spend another 2k for a better lens. so it's 4k price tag.

can anyone share your experience of Sony A7C or buying cameras in general? I read some of amazon reviews but always respect the wisdom from this forum.
Questions:
1. What is your budget?
2. Do you take pictures in jpeg format and then send them out or share via email and digital means to friends, etc?
3. Do you only view pictures on a computer screen, Ipad, Laptop, cell phone, etc?
4. Do you print out your pictures on a color printer? How large?
5. Do you sell your pictures?
6. Why are you choosing a full frame camera?
7. What other cameras do you have?
8. What kind of photography do you do, take pictures of?

j :D
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
nobleGas
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by nobleGas »

I switched from an interchangeable-lens camera to a superzoom and love it. I used to stress about getting dust in the lenses every time I switched, especially in dusty places.

The more expensive superzooms, with larger sensors, take very nice photos. Consider the DMC-FZ1000 ($600-$800) or the Sony RX10 IV ($1700).
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am I'm contemplating about buying Sony a7c which is smallest full frame. It looks like ideal for travelling. I'm not a pro by any means.
Reasons for buying it:
1. my current Sony nex 5t (mirrorless) is broken.
2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
3. want to take better pictures.

Reason against buying it
price tag. $2000 with a kit lens (FE 4-5.6/28-60). I will likely to spend another 2k for a better lens. so it's 4k price tag.

can anyone share your experience of Sony A7C or buying cameras in general? I read some of amazon reviews but always respect the wisdom from this forum.
I have only use one during a Sony sales "event" where Sony lends out bodies and lenses to let people walk around and try them. I have a decade-old dslr, not a mirrorless (but would certainly consider one today.) Of course it's hard to judge with so little experience but the Sony user interface seemed
non-intuitive relative to my other camera, but I know I can't judge fairly. However I've read that it can be more difficult to do change some common settings with Sony than with some other bodies.

Partly because Sony is the most/only "open source" among the mirrorless body manufacturers, you don't need to spend $2k for "a" really good lens. Probably for as many good lenses as you'd want, though. It's nice that there are now an increasing number of Sony-compatible third-party options that are only slowly becoming available for the other mirrorless manufacturers, due to the difficulty of reverse-engineering.

Really #2 has absolutely nothing to do with buying a $2k camera. You only need a non-broken camera. If you have no lenses other than a kit lens now you have a lot of good choices, and not all of them full-frame. I have only my decade-old 16mp APS, and honestly how limiting that is depends on what you want to do. Mostly for the landscape and nature subjects I photograph, I'm still talent and postprocessing-skill limited with my decade-old APS. For moving objects that would be a completely different story. Despite having the smaller APS now, I'd like a better assortment of lighter-weight bodies and accessories. So I'd would look for manufacturer or third-party compatible lenses offering maybe slower (like f4 vs. f2.8) but lighter lenses. Historically usually when you go lighter/slower you pay a price in lens performance. I'd like to have lightweight lenses that still have the performance of the best heavier/faster lenses, even sacrificing speed, but that combination isn't that common.
hunoraut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 11:39 am

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by hunoraut »

Usability and ergonomics promote use. They trump technical capabilities -- which in 2021 for all cameras farrr and away exceed the requirements and capabilities of most users.

My personal opinion after multiple Sonys, Fuji, and Olympus, is that the latter 2 are much better designed and more fun to use. Their lenses are also generally smaller and lighter (given the smaller sensor size), so the overall package is more suitable for travel.

If your objective is learning photography, the dedicated Aperture/Shutter/ISO/EV dials on Fuji encourage the fundamental aspect of exposure. In particular the X100 line if you want to simplify the shooting experience.

For building out a kit and overall usability I like the Olympus OMD (or possibly the PEN) line as theyre extremely well designed and has good, affordable lens selection.
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

hunoraut wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 am Usability and ergonomics promote use. They trump technical capabilities -- which in 2021 for all cameras farrr and away exceed the requirements and capabilities of most users.

My personal opinion after multiple Sonys, Fuji, and Olympus, is that the latter 2 are much better designed and more fun to use. Their lenses are also generally smaller and lighter (given the smaller sensor size), so the overall package is more suitable for travel.

If your objective is learning photography, the dedicated Aperture/Shutter/ISO/EV dials on Fuji encourage the fundamental aspect of exposure. In particular the X100 line if you want to simplify the shooting experience.

For building out a kit and overall usability I like the Olympus OMD (or possibly the PEN) line as theyre extremely well designed and has good, affordable lens selection.
The main limitation with many of the mirrorless options now is third-party lens availability, now and maybe forever. Of course with mirrorless you can adapt many older lenses, but you have to research the degree of adapter functionality (autofocus, aperture control) for various combinations (I haven't.) It's been very frustrating for me to see the third-party lens availability for my mount go from fairly good in the '00s to very little now. Maybe a manufacturer offers a lens combination you like now (for me that was partly why I chose the brand I did), but as cameras have improved, the lenses I was happy with at first haven't kept up and have been discontinued, and the replacements are... different, and limiting for the combination of features I want.

And of course with Olympus you have the financial situation - I haven't kept up and have no idea what the future looks like there, except it won't be with the same Olympus that developed equipment over all these years.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

nobleGas wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am I switched from an interchangeable-lens camera to a superzoom and love it. I used to stress about getting dust in the lenses every time I switched, especially in dusty places.

The more expensive superzooms, with larger sensors, take very nice photos. Consider the DMC-FZ1000 ($600-$800) or the Sony RX10 IV ($1700).
I think the 1" sensor "bridge" or superzoom cameras are outstanding for someone who wants to take good pictures, have manual controls and a wide zoom range. I have an older FZ1000 and it is a fine travel camera, and very good for landscapes and such. The RX10 IV is "better" but bigger heavier and a lot more expensive.

With an interchangeable lens camera you have to buy multiple decent lenses to do better than the bridge cameras above, and have those lens on the camera when needed. Not worth the trouble for a lot of people.

My FZ1000 gets little use right now, because I am mostly using a Nikon dSLR for wildlife pictures with a long zoom on it. But that long zoom is not so good for other purposes.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

tibbitts wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:10 am
hunoraut wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 am Usability and ergonomics promote use. They trump technical capabilities -- which in 2021 for all cameras farrr and away exceed the requirements and capabilities of most users.

My personal opinion after multiple Sonys, Fuji, and Olympus, is that the latter 2 are much better designed and more fun to use. Their lenses are also generally smaller and lighter (given the smaller sensor size), so the overall package is more suitable for travel.

If your objective is learning photography, the dedicated Aperture/Shutter/ISO/EV dials on Fuji encourage the fundamental aspect of exposure. In particular the X100 line if you want to simplify the shooting experience.

For building out a kit and overall usability I like the Olympus OMD (or possibly the PEN) line as theyre extremely well designed and has good, affordable lens selection.
The main limitation with many of the mirrorless options now is third-party lens availability, now and maybe forever. Of course with mirrorless you can adapt many older lenses, but you have to research the degree of adapter functionality (autofocus, aperture control) for various combinations (I haven't.) It's been very frustrating for me to see the third-party lens availability for my mount go from fairly good in the '00s to very little now. Maybe a manufacturer offers a lens combination you like now (for me that was partly why I chose the brand I did), but as cameras have improved, the lenses I was happy with at first haven't kept up and have been discontinued, and the replacements are... different, and limiting for the combination of features I want.

And of course with Olympus you have the financial situation - I haven't kept up and have no idea what the future looks like there, except it won't be with the same Olympus that developed equipment over all these years.
Yes, third party lens availability is a big deal to me as well. I bought a Nikon d7500 a couple of years ago because I wanted a decent camera for wildlife/action shooting AND the ability to get quality 3rd party lenses. I really liked the Fuji mirrorless cameras but .... I'd have spent a LOT more money on lenses. A lot. (Of course, Nikon's financial stability might not be awesome now either).

But the larger point is definitely that if you buy an an ILC camera, you have to think, what is my wildlife lens, what is my landscape lens, if I travel what and how many lenses do I take, etc. and how much will all that cost? And good third choices from Tamron, Sigma, etc can save you thousands.
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

TN_Boy wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:23 am Yes, third party lens availability is a big deal to me as well. I bought a Nikon d7500 a couple of years ago because I wanted a decent camera for wildlife/action shooting AND the ability to get quality 3rd party lenses. I really liked the Fuji mirrorless cameras but .... I'd have spent a LOT more money on lenses. A lot. (Of course, Nikon's financial stability might not be awesome now either).

But the larger point is definitely that if you buy an an ILC camera, you have to think, what is my wildlife lens, what is my landscape lens, if I travel what and how many lenses do I take, etc. and how much will all that cost? And good third choices from Tamron, Sigma, etc can save you thousands.
Agree, the issue with ILC outside of Sony is that we don't know yet what the third-party choices for lenses will be, or if they appear how well they'll work and exactly what functionality they'll have.

Good point about Nikon, although I'd probably feel a little more confident than with Olympus, knowing what little I do. Definitely with a Nikon dslr I feel I'd be good for a decade, just based on the massive existing base of equipment (Nikon and third-party) out there. Nikon mirrorless I'm not as sure. On the other hand whatever I invested in Nikon dslr F-mount... well yes those lenses work on Nikon mirrorless with an adapter, but adapters are annoying and you lose the size advantage that mirrorless can offer. So you're investing in something that is likely end-of-life. There is supposed to be one final-ever round of Nikon dslr releases in 2021 still, I think, but again I haven't really kept up, and there might be one or two models, not a complete refresh.
shelanman
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:35 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by shelanman »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am I'm contemplating about buying Sony a7c which is smallest full frame. It looks like ideal for travelling. I'm not a pro by any means.
Reasons for buying it:
1. my current Sony nex 5t (mirrorless) is broken.
2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
3. want to take better pictures.

Reason against buying it
price tag. $2000 with a kit lens (FE 4-5.6/28-60). I will likely to spend another 2k for a better lens. so it's 4k price tag.

can anyone share your experience of Sony A7C or buying cameras in general? I read some of amazon reviews but always respect the wisdom from this forum.
This depends entirely on whether you want/need a full-frame sensor.

If you're happy with the sensitivity and bokeh achievable with APS-C, then the a6600 is a great camera that costs less and will have much smaller and less expensive lenses.

There is no equivalent to the G-Master lenses for APS-C, but the Sigma DC DN lenses for APS-C are fantastic (and only about $400 each), and the newer G zooms are fairly good (the new 16-55 G is supposed to be great, but I haven't tried it)

My kit would cost twice as much, but importantly it would also weigh twice as much, if I had an a7 of any flavor. I do wish there was a bit more APS-C lens support, but there is a pretty good library now.

I'm occasionally tempted by the A7 line, but life in APS-C land isn't too shabby.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

tibbitts wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:33 am
TN_Boy wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:23 am Yes, third party lens availability is a big deal to me as well. I bought a Nikon d7500 a couple of years ago because I wanted a decent camera for wildlife/action shooting AND the ability to get quality 3rd party lenses. I really liked the Fuji mirrorless cameras but .... I'd have spent a LOT more money on lenses. A lot. (Of course, Nikon's financial stability might not be awesome now either).

But the larger point is definitely that if you buy an an ILC camera, you have to think, what is my wildlife lens, what is my landscape lens, if I travel what and how many lenses do I take, etc. and how much will all that cost? And good third choices from Tamron, Sigma, etc can save you thousands.
Agree, the issue with ILC outside of Sony is that we don't know yet what the third-party choices for lenses will be, or if they appear how well they'll work and exactly what functionality they'll have.

Good point about Nikon, although I'd probably feel a little more confident than with Olympus, knowing what little I do. Definitely with a Nikon dslr I feel I'd be good for a decade, just based on the massive existing base of equipment (Nikon and third-party) out there. Nikon mirrorless I'm not as sure. On the other hand whatever I invested in Nikon dslr F-mount... well yes those lenses work on Nikon mirrorless with an adapter, but adapters are annoying and you lose the size advantage that mirrorless can offer. So you're investing in something that is likely end-of-life. There is supposed to be one final-ever round of Nikon dslr releases in 2021 still, I think, but again I haven't really kept up, and there might be one or two models, not a complete refresh.
Well, Tamron already has six or so lenses for Sony's .... for example here is a review of their 70-180.

https://dustinabbott.net/2020/04/tamron ... 56-review/

I think the 3rd party lens will continue to appear for mirrorless.
hunoraut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 11:39 am

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by hunoraut »

tibbitts wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:10 am The main limitation with many of the mirrorless options now is third-party lens availability, now and maybe forever. Of course with mirrorless you can adapt many older lenses, but you have to research the degree of adapter functionality (autofocus, aperture control) for various combinations (I haven't.) It's been very frustrating for me to see the third-party lens availability for my mount go from fairly good in the '00s to very little now. Maybe a manufacturer offers a lens combination you like now (for me that was partly why I chose the brand I did), but as cameras have improved, the lenses I was happy with at first haven't kept up and have been discontinued, and the replacements are... different, and limiting for the combination of features I want.

And of course with Olympus you have the financial situation - I haven't kept up and have no idea what the future looks like there, except it won't be with the same Olympus that developed equipment over all these years.
Olympus (and Panasonic's) M43 format has some 3rd party support from Rokinon/Samyang/Sigma, and adapted 43 lenses.
But the good thing is the format has been out for so long, the native lens ecosystem is extremely large. And lenses generally outsurviving bodies means they'll be out there and available whether new (or new old stock) or used.

The M Zuiko primes in particular is really compact, light, fast, priced well
lesko
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:13 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by lesko »

I became interested in learning photography as a pandemic-driven hobby last fall... something new to do with my wife during our endless walks/hikes each weekend. It was something that my father and grandfather were always doing together when I was in growing up, but I had initially shied away from. It's become a beautiful and calming hobby, at least for me - and has even given me a new thing to talk about with my dad, who is across the country but a much stronger, better photographer than me.

After a few months of excessive research, reading reviews, endless YouTube videos, etc. I went with a Fujifilm XT4 along with the 16-80 lens. I was initially leaning towards a Sony Alpha as well based on some informal web-searching, but was then pointed in the direction of Fujifilm cameras by a friend... and am so glad that they did. The prominence of the manual controls for aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are an invaluable learning tool, and just make taking pictures more fun, intuitive, and promote a really clear understanding and quick learning curve of how exposure works. Others will probably also emphasize the "film-simulations" that are available straight out of camera, which I've really enjoyed, as I frankly don't have a ton of interest in spending hours editing my photos in Lightroom, but it's nice to have some simple effects with the nostalgia factor for old-film styles built in. Some may mention the "full-frame" vs APS-C sensor as a factor when looking at mirrorless options, but I frankly don't see it being an issue unless you're planning on blowing up to an oversized poster-size, or doing some seriously wonky pixel-peeping in corners... no thank you, I enjoy taking pictures, learning about exposure and composition, and going interesting places with my wife that are worth photographing.

Bottom line - any camera available these days can take incredible pictures, especially at the price range you're describing. Part of the fun is putting together a "kit" that works for your needs and interests. I'm already looking at getting a pancake-sized prime-lens (27mm) to make it more of a "walkaround/everyday" camera, and also possibly the new 70-300mm telephoto for a trip to Maine later this summer where there's some great bird and seal-watching opportunities
User avatar
kevinf
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by kevinf »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am I'm contemplating about buying Sony a7c which is smallest full frame.
Why full-frame? And why new?

It requires heavier glass and the smaller sensors aren't resolution or noise limited these days. The APS-C and 4/3rds sensor sizes make a lot more sense, the only reason we even see "full-frame" anymore is due to legacy... it matches 35mm film size so the image circles for film lenses aren't cropped. If you've got an expensive lens that is sharp corner to corner, great... but if you have a regular budget "kit" lens, then that sensor cropping will remove the worst performing areas of the lens and leave the sharpest middle section instead. You just have to do a little math to figure out what the equivalent "mm" value would be on a full-frame camera, which isn't really all that important. Most people just use a zoom lens and make the zoom whatever looks good to them with no regard for if that is 50mm or 80mm.

So I'd recommend getting the kid a USED camera with GOOD glass (new or used!) Many of my local camera shops sell used equipment, including mirrorless Sony bodies and DSLRs. I'd pick him up something like the Canon 80D ($600 used) and drop another $600 for a decent 3rd party ultra-zoom like the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Lens. That will give you a walk-around lens that you have NO reason to remove, so no lens swapping needed. And the price comes in under $1,500 for both and some nice accessories like a lens filter, comfy strap, camera bag/backpack, and extra batteries.

Just for perspective, a shot from ONE LENS on my 10.1MP Canon 40D (24-105L bought used!) at 24mm and 105mm... now imagine what 18mm-400mm would get you on a sensor that is double or more that resolution.

Image

Image
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

kevinf wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:35 am Why full-frame? And why new?
Good idea about considering used.

Whether new or used do test any new acquisition carefully, and be sure you can return the item without any arguments at no or minimal cost to you. Honestly I've had zero problems with new or used bodies, although obviously some luck is involved with used. Lenses are a completely different situation. I now assume any new or used lens I get won't be good enough to keep. Not due to optical design; most new-ish lens designs other than the very cheapest are very good, although obviously some are better than others. It's the quality control that seems to be non-existent. All the manufacturers I'm familiar with seem to use consumers as their quality control department.
BrooklynInvest
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:23 am

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by BrooklynInvest »

This may be a good thing for the cost conscious but I read on dpreview that Sony may be discontinuing its A mount lenses and cameras. Not a Sony expert by any stretch so if this is the camera line you're looking at there may be bargains coming?
hi_there
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:00 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by hi_there »

Well, I will opine that if you have the budget and if you don't mind carrying big lenses, then you should go with a full frame sensor, as you can just get results that are past the abilities of crop sensors. Shallow depth of field is one thing, and will really make your photos look like "not cellphone" pictures. You will also get much better results in high ISO, which for me is important, since I take a lot of pictures of animals with fast shutter speed.

It's also important to get a camera that fits your lifestyle. The great thing about mirrorless cameras is that they are compact. So, if you want to, you can attach a small lens on something like a Sony full frame mirrorless camera and still throw it into your suitcase.

In terms of new vs used - maybe I am just unlucky, but I would probably go with a new or at least refurbished camera body, and perhaps used lenses. The reason being that wear and tear is usually more evident on the camera body, which people interact with the most. Lenses don't have that many buttons and are switched around with other lenses, so they are tend to be kept in better condition. Based on my experience anyway.

No opinion about Sony in particular.
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

hi_there wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:16 pm Well, I will opine that if you have the budget and if you don't mind carrying big lenses, then you should go with a full frame sensor, as you can just get results that are past the abilities of crop sensors. Shallow depth of field is one thing, and will really make your photos look like "not cellphone" pictures. You will also get much better results in high ISO, which for me is important, since I take a lot of pictures of animals with fast shutter speed.
I don't know; by the same argument you could say you should go with medium format. Years ago I was very impressed by a photographer's results using exclusively 8x10 transparency film for landscapes; it could clearly do things my full-frame film cameras couldn't. But I wasn't even slightly tempted to run out and get one. Pros seem to consistently use full-frame for portraits and studio applications; with landscapes and wildlife I see both formats being used by pros. I don't necessarily mean the most elite of pros, where you might find a higher percentage of full-frame; just the greater number of people who make their living from their photography. Many seem to feel the image quality gap, while still there, has narrowed - just as it has between full-frame and larger formats.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

hi_there wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:16 pm Well, I will opine that if you have the budget and if you don't mind carrying big lenses, then you should go with a full frame sensor, as you can just get results that are past the abilities of crop sensors. Shallow depth of field is one thing, and will really make your photos look like "not cellphone" pictures. You will also get much better results in high ISO, which for me is important, since I take a lot of pictures of animals with fast shutter speed.

It's also important to get a camera that fits your lifestyle. The great thing about mirrorless cameras is that they are compact. So, if you want to, you can attach a small lens on something like a Sony full frame mirrorless camera and still throw it into your suitcase.

In terms of new vs used - maybe I am just unlucky, but I would probably go with a new or at least refurbished camera body, and perhaps used lenses. The reason being that wear and tear is usually more evident on the camera body, which people interact with the most. Lenses don't have that many buttons and are switched around with other lenses, so they are tend to be kept in better condition. Based on my experience anyway.

No opinion about Sony in particular.
Well, that comment "if you don't mind carrying big lenses" is pretty key :-). From what I read, it is NOT unusual for pro wildlife photographers to use crop sensor cameras for the greater reach with a given size lens. I'm not a pro, but I went with crop sensor for wildlife shots because of the weight/cost equation.

And you need to add expensive to that qualifier. Something like a 600/4.0 prime is not only heavy but really expensive. And to get that good subject isolation all the time, you need a pretty high-end lens. (None of which is meant to contest the statement that a shallow depth of field is often a very very good thing which can differentiate an okay photo from an outstanding one).
hi_there
Posts: 886
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:00 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by hi_there »

TN_Boy wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:48 pm
hi_there wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:16 pm Well, I will opine that if you have the budget and if you don't mind carrying big lenses, then you should go with a full frame sensor, as you can just get results that are past the abilities of crop sensors. Shallow depth of field is one thing, and will really make your photos look like "not cellphone" pictures. You will also get much better results in high ISO, which for me is important, since I take a lot of pictures of animals with fast shutter speed.

It's also important to get a camera that fits your lifestyle. The great thing about mirrorless cameras is that they are compact. So, if you want to, you can attach a small lens on something like a Sony full frame mirrorless camera and still throw it into your suitcase.

In terms of new vs used - maybe I am just unlucky, but I would probably go with a new or at least refurbished camera body, and perhaps used lenses. The reason being that wear and tear is usually more evident on the camera body, which people interact with the most. Lenses don't have that many buttons and are switched around with other lenses, so they are tend to be kept in better condition. Based on my experience anyway.

No opinion about Sony in particular.
Well, that comment "if you don't mind carrying big lenses" is pretty key :-). From what I read, it is NOT unusual for pro wildlife photographers to use crop sensor cameras for the greater reach with a given size lens. I'm not a pro, but I went with crop sensor for wildlife shots because of the weight/cost equation.

And you need to add expensive to that qualifier. Something like a 600/4.0 prime is not only heavy but really expensive. And to get that good subject isolation all the time, you need a pretty high-end lens. (None of which is meant to contest the statement that a shallow depth of field is often a very very good thing which can differentiate an okay photo from an outstanding one).
OP has not mentioned long lenses or wildlife photography. With the FE 4-5.6/28-60 kit lens or maybe a better "walkaround lens" that he intends to use, his setup will be comparable, or more compact than most crop sensor DSLRs with lens. So, I don't think size is going to be a problem; he wouldn't have narrowed down his choice to this specific Sony camera if that were the case. I can envision downsizing to a crop sensor for other reasons, specifically cost. However, I think most people have a desire to upgrade over time, and I think if cost is not prohibitive and you are only getting one camera, the more rewarding path is by just getting the better sensor up front.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

hi_there wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 6:31 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:48 pm
hi_there wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 1:16 pm Well, I will opine that if you have the budget and if you don't mind carrying big lenses, then you should go with a full frame sensor, as you can just get results that are past the abilities of crop sensors. Shallow depth of field is one thing, and will really make your photos look like "not cellphone" pictures. You will also get much better results in high ISO, which for me is important, since I take a lot of pictures of animals with fast shutter speed.

It's also important to get a camera that fits your lifestyle. The great thing about mirrorless cameras is that they are compact. So, if you want to, you can attach a small lens on something like a Sony full frame mirrorless camera and still throw it into your suitcase.

In terms of new vs used - maybe I am just unlucky, but I would probably go with a new or at least refurbished camera body, and perhaps used lenses. The reason being that wear and tear is usually more evident on the camera body, which people interact with the most. Lenses don't have that many buttons and are switched around with other lenses, so they are tend to be kept in better condition. Based on my experience anyway.

No opinion about Sony in particular.
Well, that comment "if you don't mind carrying big lenses" is pretty key :-). From what I read, it is NOT unusual for pro wildlife photographers to use crop sensor cameras for the greater reach with a given size lens. I'm not a pro, but I went with crop sensor for wildlife shots because of the weight/cost equation.

And you need to add expensive to that qualifier. Something like a 600/4.0 prime is not only heavy but really expensive. And to get that good subject isolation all the time, you need a pretty high-end lens. (None of which is meant to contest the statement that a shallow depth of field is often a very very good thing which can differentiate an okay photo from an outstanding one).
OP has not mentioned long lenses or wildlife photography. With the FE 4-5.6/28-60 kit lens or maybe a better "walkaround lens" that he intends to use, his setup will be comparable, or more compact than most crop sensor DSLRs with lens. So, I don't think size is going to be a problem; he wouldn't have narrowed down his choice to this specific Sony camera if that were the case. I can envision downsizing to a crop sensor for other reasons, specifically cost. However, I think most people have a desire to upgrade over time, and I think if cost is not prohibitive and you are only getting one camera, the more rewarding path is by just getting the better sensor up front.
Wait a minute, you're the one that said " if you don't mind carrying big lenses, then you should go with a full frame sensor"

And actually, I tend to disagree about going with a full-frame *unless* the person is likely to invest in a wider variety of lenses and use the firepower of such a camera. I mean, there are many situations where I can literally get a better picture with my 2014 FZ1000 than you can get with the vastly more expensive sony Sony a7c plus a E 4-5.6/28-60 kit lens because the FZ has a 400 mm equivalent zoom. For something far away, optical zoom is important.

But opinions differ. The sony is an excellent camera. I don't know what additional lens for 2k the OP is thinking about. If you are willing to spend 4k on a camera setup there are lots of awesome options. And depending on what the primary use of the camera will be, there might be cheaper options that are just as good. Sandtrap had a good list of questions.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7611
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by midareff »

I'm sorry to tell you that more is on the photographer than the camera and lenses. I've shot Full Frame, APS-C, m4/3, and 1" and below sensors. Let me the first to tell you, if I am, that taking a crappy photo in any of those formats has the same result, it's still a crappy photo. I could be shooting any of those mediums including medium format. I just don't want to carry any of those any longer.. a big camera and bag of glass. Been there and done that.

If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation. A bigger sensor in the hands of an amateur does not take better pictures
stimulacra
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Location: Houston

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by stimulacra »

The camera body will probably be one of the cheapest parts of your system.

Sony A7c is a good body, it's popular with hybrid shooters (photo and video).

What lenses are you carrying over? Are any of them full-frame?

If you want to save costs and stay inside the Sony ecosystem I would suggest a used Sony A7 II or III.

If open to other brands, I would suggest the Fujifilm X-E3 or X-T3.

We shoot Sonys at work (in-house video content production for a large corporation) and everyone on my team uses Fujifilm on the weekends.

If you don't mind buying used gear dSLR prices for bodies and lenses are dropping like rocks. You can get a very nice kit for $1k.
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 22696
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Watty »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am Reasons for buying it:
.....
2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
I assume that you are not planning on sharing the camera with your son which would not work well.

If he does not already have a camera then you may really be shopping for two camera bodies and several lenses for both of you.

It would be nice for you and your son to have compatible bodies so that you can share lenses when you are out shooting photos.

Even if you have different camera models that are the same brand there will usually be a lot of similarity in the buttons and menus. This will make it easier to talk about the setting you are using and to help each other.

Even if you can easily afford it getting him a moderately priced body and lens would make a lot of sense if he is going to be taking it off to college in a couple of years just because having expensive camera equipment in a dorm room is likely not a good idea.
Last edited by Watty on Mon May 10, 2021 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stimulacra
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:50 pm
Location: Houston

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by stimulacra »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am 2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
Speaking as a father and as a son… sharing a single Sony A7C isn't really my idea of fun.

You really need to budget for two camera bodies then… Maybe get two Fujifilm X100T or X100F or two Ricoh GR II or IIIs, or two low end bodies with some nice primes.

If you really want to take it slow, shoot on two film cameras. Taking away the immediate gratification of looking at the images you just took really helps you be in the moment. Also certain film types has yet to be emulated well in digital.
Lynette
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:47 am

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Lynette »

I wanted a hobby for the Covid confinement so I bought a Sony A7iii mirrorless. I was used to Nikon but not sure of their financial stability. Sony gave the specs for their cameras to third party vendors so they have a lot of lenses. I have been particularly impressed by the Sigma lenses and I have the Sigma 100-400mm. For a workaround lens I bought the Tamron 28-200 F/2.8-5.6. I wanted to get into macro photography so I bought the Sony FE 90mm f/2.8-22 Macro G. Maybe recommendations for Covid restrictions will be over before I learn all this stuff. Maybe not. I had to cancel a visit to see family in South Africa because of COVID. I do not think that international travel to this part of Africa will be advisable for another 2 years.

Depending on your budget, it may be useful to look at used gear. I think that Sony's menu system is difficult to learn, ergonomics are not as good as Nikon but so far I like the Sony A7 mirrorless cameras.
User avatar
Bogle7
Posts: 1080
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 9:33 am
Location: Mountain state

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Bogle7 »

The Sony is cheap compared with the Leica.
It is all about anchor pricing.
Old fart who does three index funds, baby.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

midareff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:51 pm I'm sorry to tell you that more is on the photographer than the camera and lenses. I've shot Full Frame, APS-C, m4/3, and 1" and below sensors. Let me the first to tell you, if I am, that taking a crappy photo in any of those formats has the same result, it's still a crappy photo. I could be shooting any of those mediums including medium format. I just don't want to carry any of those any longer.. a big camera and bag of glass. Been there and done that.

If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation. A bigger sensor in the hands of an amateur does not take better pictures
I think that is partly true. If one doesn't know how to take pictures, then it doesn't matter much what camera they have in their hands.

But -- and I've seen this argument about equipment in multiple sports/games, not just cameras -- the old "it's the archer not the arrow" -- is only partly true.

(And to be clear, I'm an amateur and I think I can get better pictures with a bigger sensor in many situations. Because I know how to manage the exposure triangle and I make sure I know at what ISO levels my cameras start to get too noisy for good pictures).

Hand the best wildlife photographer in the entire world a iphone and give me my mid-range Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 and tell us both to get quality bird in flight pictures. Best picture winner gets a 1M dollars. I think I'll get 1M dollars. That's an extreme example, but change it to I have the same Nikon setup and the pro has maybe a low end dSLR with a short telephoto kit zoom (less capable autofocus on both camera and lens than my setup and not much reach) and the result might still be a richer TN_Boy.

For certain types of photography, equipment makes a huge, and I do mean huge, difference. You still need to know how to run the camera, yes. But let us not pretend that equipment doesn't matter.

That said, I do see a fair number of people that buy dSLRs, never take them out of program mode, and stick short to medium zoom kit lenses on them. Which is why I personally like the bridge cameras with a lot of zoom for many people wanting something more than an iphone or small sensor camera. Zoom is a lot of fun, and the good bridge cameras with 1" sensors have manual controls for those interested in learning more. And they are better in low light than the little compact cameras.

All that said, unless the OP answers some of the questions Sandtrap asked, none of the posters in this thread can make an intelligent recommendation.
User avatar
kevinf
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:35 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by kevinf »

TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:54 am For certain types of photography, equipment makes a huge, and I do mean huge, difference. You still need to know how to run the camera, yes. But let us not pretend that equipment doesn't matter.
Lenses always matter, camera bodies not so much.

I'd say that as long as you are comparing apples to apples (not comparing a $2,000 DSLR body + $1,500 lens to a $250 smartphone camera), then these days the equipment (camera body) is all good enough. Whether that be a $750 Canon Rebel T8i or a $6,500 Canon 1Dx Mk3.

Modern software means you have enormous power to correct digital images with a simple click (lens distortions, CA, noise) and also techniques and tools for things like noise reducing image stacking, high dynamic range exposure compositing, and panoramic stitching mean that you aren't even limited to what the dynamic range of your sensor, or the sensor signal-to-noise ratio, or the sensor resolution on your camera would suggest you might be outside of extreme and unlikely conditions.

Every time I think about upgrading my 40D, I have to ask myself why. Still haven't, takes great pictures with enough base resolution to work for any use I have in mind. If I need better noise control, I'll image stack. If I need more resolution, I'll zoom in and panoramic stitch. If I need more dynamic range, I'll exposure bracket for an HDR merge.

I can give you a 100 megapixel, noise-free, high dynamic range photo with my 40D which was released in 2007. Spend your money on the glass, then lessons to use a camera, then good quality accessories, then maybe spend the change on a camera body.
quantAndHold
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by quantAndHold »

The problem with “full frame” is that even though the Sony body is small and light, the lenses are big, heavy, and expensive. To do the camera justice, you’ll need several of those big, heavy, expensive lenses. Then you need a big bag and strong back to carry them around.

I had a full frame Nikon. Sold pictures in galleries. But when I looked at what camera I used for the things that sold the best, it was all over the board. Everything from a decade old Nikon D70 to the D800, to my phone. Eventually I realized that I didn’t want to carry that heavy bag of gear around. When I went to Africa, I took two Olympus bodies and 3 professional quality micro 4/3 lenses. That was about 1/3 the size and weight a full frame kit would have been. The best picture from that trip? iPhone, of course.

I still have the Olympus gear, but I’m seriously considering selling it and getting a super zoom. The current crop of superzooms can do 95% of what I use a camera for. I can rent when I need something the super zoom can’t do.
Yes, I’m really that pedantic.
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

kevinf wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:58 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:54 am For certain types of photography, equipment makes a huge, and I do mean huge, difference. You still need to know how to run the camera, yes. But let us not pretend that equipment doesn't matter.
Lenses always matter, camera bodies not so much.

I'd say that as long as you are comparing apples to apples (not comparing a $2,000 DSLR body + $1,500 lens to a $250 smartphone camera), then these days the equipment (camera body) is all good enough. Whether that be a $750 Canon Rebel T8i or a $6,500 Canon 1Dx Mk3.

Modern software means you have enormous power to correct digital images with a simple click (lens distortions, CA, noise) and also techniques and tools for things like noise reducing image stacking, high dynamic range exposure compositing, and panoramic stitching mean that you aren't even limited to what the dynamic range of your sensor, or the sensor signal-to-noise ratio, or the sensor resolution on your camera would suggest you might be outside of extreme and unlikely conditions.

Every time I think about upgrading my 40D, I have to ask myself why. Still haven't, takes great pictures with enough base resolution to work for any use I have in mind. If I need better noise control, I'll image stack. If I need more resolution, I'll zoom in and panoramic stitch. If I need more dynamic range, I'll exposure bracket for an HDR merge.

I can give you a 100 megapixel, noise-free, high dynamic range photo with my 40D which was released in 2007. Spend your money on the glass, then lessons to use a camera, then good quality accessories, then maybe spend the change on a camera body.
Well, that might be taking the point a little too far. Stacking, HDR, and stitching all have limits with motion involved, which for many subjects in nature and landscapes, is very often. Some of the limitations you can overcome with more effort in processing, but not everyone wants to spend hours on a single image (although some are certainly willing to, and obtain amazing results.) Especially for a professional, time is money. Also the single-click corrections work for the most popular combinations of bodies and lenses, but definitely not for many of mine for example, and creating a lens profile isn't trivial.

I would also say that the old mantra about lenses being nearly forever... well, I don't really buy into that, with all the changes in mounts and lens designs I've seen over the years. As much as I took offense at Canon obsoleting my FD lenses (for decades), now that they're sort of back (with limited functionality, on mirrorless), what were perfectly good lenses in the film era aren't always up to modern expectations. And over time, unless you d-i-y repairs (I know, this is Bogleheads, where everyone probably manufactures their own lens elements), you have the costs of repairs for things like sticky aperture blades. Even in the digital era, lenses that were excellent to me on my 6mp bodies, didn't make the grade at even 16mp.
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

quantAndHold wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:53 pm I still have the Olympus gear, but I’m seriously considering selling it and getting a super zoom. The current crop of superzooms can do 95% of what I use a camera for. I can rent when I need something the super zoom can’t do.
Again this might be a little exaggerated, if you mean a tiny-sensor superzoom. With the Olympus you can make the case that you can buy f2.8 lenses for the same or less weight/size penalty as much slower (and often lower quality) lenses in larger formats, although then you have the future of Olympus and 4/3rds in general to consider. With the tiny sensors you do have some limitations - the same physics that hurts you a little with 4/3rds relative to larger formats becomes somewhat overwhelming for some types of subjects. Obviously the 1in sensor cameras are a compromise between the two.
quantAndHold
Posts: 5733
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by quantAndHold »

tibbitts wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 2:17 pm
quantAndHold wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:53 pm I still have the Olympus gear, but I’m seriously considering selling it and getting a super zoom. The current crop of superzooms can do 95% of what I use a camera for. I can rent when I need something the super zoom can’t do.
Again this might be a little exaggerated, if you mean a tiny-sensor superzoom. With the Olympus you can make the case that you can buy f2.8 lenses for the same or less weight/size penalty as much slower (and often lower quality) lenses in larger formats, although then you have the future of Olympus and 4/3rds in general to consider. With the tiny sensors you do have some limitations - the same physics that hurts you a little with 4/3rds relative to larger formats becomes somewhat overwhelming for some types of subjects. Obviously the 1in sensor cameras are a compromise between the two.
It really depends on what the subject and the output are. I mean, when I first got the Olympus, I took both it and my D800 to the Palouse, and did landscape photography with both, side by side, to see the difference in real world use. And you know what? The D800 was better. The clouds had noticeably more dynamic range in the D800 shots. Other than the clouds, though, I couldn’t tell the difference. And at normal print resolutions, I couldn’t even tell the difference in the clouds. If I needed to shoot something with super duper narrow depth of field, or if I needed to blow something up into some sort of high resolution poster, or I need massive dynamic range, then a large sensor and super expensive lens would be the only way to do that. Or, like in Africa, when I needed fast autofocus and a high burst rate in low light conditions. But those aren’t things that I’m likely to want to do in real life, at least not often enough to actually own the equipment. It’s cheaper to rent for those one off events.

Yes, cameras with bigger, better sensors and higher quality lenses are, by every objective measure, better. But unless you’re planning on printing large, it just doesn’t matter. At web resolutions, a 1 inch sensor might even be overkill.
Yes, I’m really that pedantic.
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

quantAndHold wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 3:13 pm
tibbitts wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 2:17 pm
quantAndHold wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 1:53 pm I still have the Olympus gear, but I’m seriously considering selling it and getting a super zoom. The current crop of superzooms can do 95% of what I use a camera for. I can rent when I need something the super zoom can’t do.
Again this might be a little exaggerated, if you mean a tiny-sensor superzoom. With the Olympus you can make the case that you can buy f2.8 lenses for the same or less weight/size penalty as much slower (and often lower quality) lenses in larger formats, although then you have the future of Olympus and 4/3rds in general to consider. With the tiny sensors you do have some limitations - the same physics that hurts you a little with 4/3rds relative to larger formats becomes somewhat overwhelming for some types of subjects. Obviously the 1in sensor cameras are a compromise between the two.
It really depends on what the subject and the output are. I mean, when I first got the Olympus, I took both it and my D800 to the Palouse, and did landscape photography with both, side by side, to see the difference in real world use. And you know what? The D800 was better. The clouds had noticeably more dynamic range in the D800 shots. Other than the clouds, though, I couldn’t tell the difference. And at normal print resolutions, I couldn’t even tell the difference in the clouds. If I needed to shoot something with super duper narrow depth of field, or if I needed to blow something up into some sort of high resolution poster, or I need massive dynamic range, then a large sensor and super expensive lens would be the only way to do that. Or, like in Africa, when I needed fast autofocus and a high burst rate in low light conditions. But those aren’t things that I’m likely to want to do in real life, at least not often enough to actually own the equipment. It’s cheaper to rent for those one off events.

Yes, cameras with bigger, better sensors and higher quality lenses are, by every objective measure, better. But unless you’re planning on printing large, it just doesn’t matter. At web resolutions, a 1 inch sensor might even be overkill.
I understand somewhat why larger sensors produce less noise. On the other hand I honestly don't understand why they necessarily have more dynamic range, although that seems to be a universally agreed-upon principle. Actually dynamic range has been a big difference for me in moving from 2006 APS sensor technology to 2010 APS technology. Since then... not so much. But a high percentage of my pictures are just barely clinging to highlight and shadow detail with my 2010+ sensors - and there's a big deal between hanging on to detail and losing it.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

kevinf wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:58 pm
TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:54 am For certain types of photography, equipment makes a huge, and I do mean huge, difference. You still need to know how to run the camera, yes. But let us not pretend that equipment doesn't matter.
Lenses always matter, camera bodies not so much.

I'd say that as long as you are comparing apples to apples (not comparing a $2,000 DSLR body + $1,500 lens to a $250 smartphone camera), then these days the equipment (camera body) is all good enough. Whether that be a $750 Canon Rebel T8i or a $6,500 Canon 1Dx Mk3.

Modern software means you have enormous power to correct digital images with a simple click (lens distortions, CA, noise) and also techniques and tools for things like noise reducing image stacking, high dynamic range exposure compositing, and panoramic stitching mean that you aren't even limited to what the dynamic range of your sensor, or the sensor signal-to-noise ratio, or the sensor resolution on your camera would suggest you might be outside of extreme and unlikely conditions.

Every time I think about upgrading my 40D, I have to ask myself why. Still haven't, takes great pictures with enough base resolution to work for any use I have in mind. If I need better noise control, I'll image stack. If I need more resolution, I'll zoom in and panoramic stitch. If I need more dynamic range, I'll exposure bracket for an HDR merge.

I can give you a 100 megapixel, noise-free, high dynamic range photo with my 40D which was released in 2007. Spend your money on the glass, then lessons to use a camera, then good quality accessories, then maybe spend the change on a camera body.
For image quality, sure, it is mostly the lens.

But there are real differences in the camera bodies for some applications. A "better" camera body will give you better controls, better weather sealing, and autofocus. I do a fair amount of birding, and frankly, you *always* want better and faster autofocus.

Sony has autofocus that will latch on to eyes, not just people but it works for animals also. My Nikon has several autofocus modes, some of which are clearly better for moving subjects than a less expensive body will provide.
Freefun
Posts: 807
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:55 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Freefun »

RJ2010 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:27 am I'm contemplating about buying Sony a7c which is smallest full frame. It looks like ideal for travelling. I'm not a pro by any means.
Reasons for buying it:
1. my current Sony nex 5t (mirrorless) is broken.
2. My 2nd son who will leave for college for two years wants to learn photography. I thought this will be a good chance to do father-son bonding and for him to learn something interesting. this will become priceless.
3. want to take better pictures.

Reason against buying it
price tag. $2000 with a kit lens (FE 4-5.6/28-60). I will likely to spend another 2k for a better lens. so it's 4k price tag.

can anyone share your experience of Sony A7C or buying cameras in general? I read some of amazon reviews but always respect the wisdom from this forum.
As someone who’s travelled with all sorts of cameras, full frame is far from ideal. Lenses are large and heavy.

Consider something smaller... if you want interchangeable lenses I like any Fuji (xs10 or xt3/4). If you want compact all-in-one then Sony rx series or Ricoh.

Pretty much all camera brands these days are capable of taking great photos... I’d look for comfort and utility.
Remember when you wanted what you currently have?
tibbitts
Posts: 14011
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by tibbitts »

TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 5:08 pm For image quality, sure, it is mostly the lens.

But there are real differences in the camera bodies for some applications. A "better" camera body will give you better controls, better weather sealing, and autofocus. I do a fair amount of birding, and frankly, you *always* want better and faster autofocus.

Sony has autofocus that will latch on to eyes, not just people but it works for animals also. My Nikon has several autofocus modes, some of which are clearly better for moving subjects than a less expensive body will provide.
Yes, AF has advanced considerably. A nice feature of mirrorless is that in theory, there should be no AF adjustments required, since AF is always done directly off the sensor (as with dslrs when in live view.)
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7611
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by midareff »

TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:54 am
midareff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:51 pm I'm sorry to tell you that more is on the photographer than the camera and lenses. I've shot Full Frame, APS-C, m4/3, and 1" and below sensors. Let me the first to tell you, if I am, that taking a crappy photo in any of those formats has the same result, it's still a crappy photo. I could be shooting any of those mediums including medium format. I just don't want to carry any of those any longer.. a big camera and bag of glass. Been there and done that.

If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation. A bigger sensor in the hands of an amateur does not take better pictures
I think that is partly true. If one doesn't know how to take pictures, then it doesn't matter much what camera they have in their hands.

Very true, which is why they have a program or auto mode for those folks who just want a big camera to look impressive to others and have albums full of photos no one looks at.

But -- and I've seen this argument about equipment in multiple sports/games, not just cameras -- the old "it's the archer not the arrow" -- is only partly true. Sports and games are a specialized application that make unique demands on both the photographer and the equipment, especially at the professional level. One look at the sideline photographers with 600 mm lenses big whites will tell you that. OTOH, if your just shooting your kids playing soccer I'll agree that a 7500 with a 100-400 will do just fine, as will any APS-C or smaller sensored camera such as a Sony RX10 m4. But lets not forget the original point, that many of us just don't want to carry that gear and lens bag around anymore and are able to get excellent results with smaller gear.

(And to be clear, I'm an amateur and I think I can get better pictures with a bigger sensor in many situations. Because I know how to manage the exposure triangle and I make sure I know at what ISO levels my cameras start to get too noisy for good pictures).

That's all well and good but until you become extremely familiar with the various softwares available and know what can be done with your raw subject after the shot you just can't fully realize the potential you are holding in your hands. Photoshop, Lightroom, Luminar Flex and many more.

Hand the best wildlife photographer in the entire world a iphone and give me my mid-range Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 and tell us both to get quality bird in flight pictures. Best picture winner gets a 1M dollars. I think I'll get 1M dollars. That's an extreme example, but change it to I have the same Nikon setup and the pro has maybe a low end dSLR with a short telephoto kit zoom (less capable autofocus on both camera and lens than my setup and not much reach) and the result might still be a richer TN_Boy. WoW, a Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 vs. a cell phone for BIF. How about we make it for flower macros?..or a bee eating pollen.

I think I covered that when I said I might have a different recommendation "If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation." BTW, I've spend more than 6 weeks in each of those locations shooting so I have a good idea what's necessary, at minimum.

For certain types of photography, equipment makes a huge, and I do mean huge, difference. You still need to know how to run the camera, yes. But let us not pretend that equipment doesn't matter.

Equipment does matter, most certainly. If I am traveling and out on tour if I'm carrying a d7500 and Tamron 100-400 what else do I have to carry since the 100-400 is pretty useless in the city and then we get back to the bag of glass and where they won't let you take a camera like that.. such as the tombs in Egypt, many museums, English and French Chateaus and many Churches and Cathedrals and so forth.

That said, I do see a fair number of people that buy dSLRs, never take them out of program mode, and stick short to medium zoom kit lenses on them. Which is why I personally like the bridge cameras with a lot of zoom for many people wanting something more than an iphone or small sensor camera. Zoom is a lot of fun, and the good bridge cameras with 1" sensors have manual controls for those interested in learning more. And they are better in low light than the little compact cameras.

In general, it depends on what bridge, what photographer and what subjects under what conditions. As an example, do you think the Sony RX10 m4 bridge camera (24-400) will outperform the Sony RX100 m6 compact (24-200)?

All that said, unless the OP answers some of the questions Sandtrap asked, none of the posters in this thread can make an intelligent recommendation.

Especially 6, 7 and 8. Sandtrap is an excellent photographer with excellent equipment. OTOH, he is not the only skilled photographer on this thread.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 13526
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Sandtrap »

The full frame Sony A7C with high end Sony "glass" is an incredible camera to own and have fun with.
There are so many wonderful fun cameras available now and great pictures can be taken by many of them whether a 1 inch sensor or APS-C or Full Frame or Medium Format, . . . or a great Cell Phone.

There's so many things that go into buying a camera:
1. Fun Factor
2. Gotta Have Factor. . . Gotta Own It No Matter What. . . . (like a Jeep Rubicon?). . .
3. Need it for work or business and it has to be a Full Frame or Medium Format because the high expectations of the Vogue Magazine Cover demand no less.
4. Professional full time high end wedding and glamour photographer who needs another "tool" in the bag on location.
5. Etc, ad infinitum.
6. And, if not a professional (paid for) requirement, there's always, "I need something lighter because carrying around this Canon 1D with a 600mm L glass F4 lens is killing my back!!!" again.

For fun,
this is a Iphone 7+
taking a picture of a Sony RX100V (with a custom filter setup) and a full frame Canon 5d setup.
Cell phones have come a long long way.

Interesting size and weight comparison.
Image

This fun picture was taken in a Wallmart parking lot with a Canon 5d (full frame) and 600 mm glass.
The "attitude" of this Raven is incredible. You can imagine a cartoon "thought bubble" saying with a heavy Brooklyn accent, "you lookin' at me"?
Image

For Wildlife and Bird Photography
It depends on the quality of image and resolution that you want, and end use (email viewing vs 3 foot wide wall photo print?)

This is from a full-frame camera and a Sigma 600mm zoom lens, Manfrotto tripod and a Wimberly Gimbal head $$$$$. Shot raw. No fill flash on this one.
Image
Taken on my back porch at a hummingbird feeder, as close as I could get with that lens.

OP: suggest looking at what "you need" as far as lenses to take the kind of pictures you like, then shop a "system" that revolves around those lenses. Perhaps a "bridge camera" fulfills all those needs. Or, maybe a Nikon P1000 with a tiny sensor but superzoom. It just depends on what you want.
For example:
This was taken with a Canon "L" 100-400 zoom lens. Through a whole bunch of bushes at some very very shy critters that did not stay still, nearly ever.
Image

DW and I are paid to do product and stock photography by "Getty", etc, etc, and also private businesses, on location or in our studios.
The equipment we use fits the high end standards that fit that. (not necessarily things I'd like to carry around all day for fun, especially 2 camera bodies and long lenses on a location shoot!).

But, for pure fun, I get more use out of my iPhone and smaller cameras that are convenient and more often on me.
There's a saying, "the best camera is the one you have on you when the shot is needed".

OP:
Have fun.
When in doubt, get the Sony full frame, get the latest Sony DSC R100, get a . . . . (get them all!) :D :D

Excellent points and comments by "midareff", Thanks Marty! :D :D
j :D
Last edited by Sandtrap on Wed May 12, 2021 8:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

midareff wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 8:03 am
TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:54 am
midareff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 7:51 pm I'm sorry to tell you that more is on the photographer than the camera and lenses. I've shot Full Frame, APS-C, m4/3, and 1" and below sensors. Let me the first to tell you, if I am, that taking a crappy photo in any of those formats has the same result, it's still a crappy photo. I could be shooting any of those mediums including medium format. I just don't want to carry any of those any longer.. a big camera and bag of glass. Been there and done that.

If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation. A bigger sensor in the hands of an amateur does not take better pictures
I think that is partly true. If one doesn't know how to take pictures, then it doesn't matter much what camera they have in their hands.

Very true, which is why they have a program or auto mode for those folks who just want a big camera to look impressive to others.

But -- and I've seen this argument about equipment in multiple sports/games, not just cameras -- the old "it's the archer not the arrow" -- is only partly true. Sports and games are a specialized application that make unique demands on both the photographer and the equipment, especially at the professional level. One look at the sideline photographers with 600 mm lenses big whites will tell you that. OTOH, if your just shooting your kids playing soccer I'll agree that a 7500 with a 100-400 will do just fine, as will any APS-C or smaller sensored camera such as a Sony RX10 m4. But lets not forget the original point, that many of us just don't want to carry that gear and lens bag around anymore and are able to get excellent results with smaller gear.

(And to be clear, I'm an amateur and I think I can get better pictures with a bigger sensor in many situations. Because I know how to manage the exposure triangle and I make sure I know at what ISO levels my cameras start to get too noisy for good pictures).

Hand the best wildlife photographer in the entire world a iphone and give me my mid-range Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 and tell us both to get quality bird in flight pictures. Best picture winner gets a 1M dollars. I think I'll get 1M dollars. That's an extreme example, but change it to I have the same Nikon setup and the pro has maybe a low end dSLR with a short telephoto kit zoom (less capable autofocus on both camera and lens than my setup and not much reach) and the result might still be a richer TN_Boy.

I think I covered that when I said I might have a different recommendation "If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation." BTW, I've spend more than 6 weeks in each of those locations shooting so I have a good idea what's necessary, at minimum.

For certain types of photography, equipment makes a huge, and I do mean huge, difference. You still need to know how to run the camera, yes. But let us not pretend that equipment doesn't matter.

Equipment does matter, most certainly. If I am traveling and out on tour if I'm carrying a d7500 and Tamron 100-400 what else do I have to carry since the 100-400 is pretty useless in the city and then we get back to the bag of glass and where they won't let you take a camera like that.. such as the tombs in Egypt, many museums, English and French Chateaus and many Churches and Cathedrals and so forth.

That said, I do see a fair number of people that buy dSLRs, never take them out of program mode, and stick short to medium zoom kit lenses on them. Which is why I personally like the bridge cameras with a lot of zoom for many people wanting something more than an iphone or small sensor camera. Zoom is a lot of fun, and the good bridge cameras with 1" sensors have manual controls for those interested in learning more. And they are better in low light than the little compact cameras.

In general, it depends on what bridge, what photographer and what subjects under what conditions. As an example, do you think the Sony RX10 m4 bridge camera (24-400) will outperform the Sony RX100 m6 compact (24-200)?

All that said, unless the OP answers some of the questions Sandtrap asked, none of the posters in this thread can make an intelligent recommendation.

Especially 6, 7 and 8. Sandtrap is an excellent photographer with excellent equipment. OTOH, he is not the only skilled photographer on this thread.
A couple of responses ....

To this: "If you are traveling and going to Africa and China or such I might have a different recommendation."

Anybody that does birding locally is going to want a camera setup with some firepower (birds in flight in medium to low light is about as demanding as it gets for nature photography). In point of fact, if I was going to Africa, I might very well take the camera setup I describe -- Nikon d7500 plus the Tamron 100-400. That's reasonably lightweight (I can carry that rig all day with a shoulder strap), has a good reach and is sharp. I'd probably take one other lens for landscapes. If I was a pro, I'd pack a bag full of lenses. (Actually if I was going to Africa I'd take Nikon gear as described and the fairly compact FZ1000 as a backup in case the Nikon broke).

To this: "If I am traveling and out on tour if I'm carrying a d7500 and Tamron 100-400 what else do I have to carry since the 100-400 is pretty useless in the city and then we get back to the bag of glass and where they won't let you take a camera like that.. such as the tombs in Egypt, many museums, English and French Chateaus and many Churches and Cathedrals and so forth"

I've had decent success in museums and such (here and in Europe) with my FZ1000. It's lightweight, has a pretty fast lens, and the VR is good enough to take shots at low shutter speeds. With the Nikon, confined to one lens, I'd go with the Tamron 16-300 I have. It's not great at anything (well, it's pretty sharp at shorter zooms) but is lightweight and compact. Taking two lenses I'd go with a short fast zoom plus the 16-300, or if the trip was primarily for nature/wildlife I'd go with the 100-400 plus a short zoom*

For this one "As an example, do you think the Sony RX10 m4 bridge camera (24-400) will outperform the Sony RX100 m6 compact (24-200)"

I haven't used either and only can rely upon reviews. In my travels, I find that I am very often using a fair amount of zoom. Thus I would find the RX100 a bit confining, though it is very compact. But again, I've been on multiple trips where I was doing both landscape stuff and well, walking in a museum where I need low light capability.

It helps, I believe, that I shoot in RAW mode. I believe I can get a little extra out of some difficult conditions (low light, etc) by post-processing.

* you can see why I like the bridge cameras .... take the FZ1000 which has a 25 to 400 equivalent and you can cover a very wide range of situations in one lightweight package.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

midareff wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 8:03 am
TN_Boy wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:54 am
Hand the best wildlife photographer in the entire world a iphone and give me my mid-range Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 and tell us both to get quality bird in flight pictures. Best picture winner gets a 1M dollars. I think I'll get 1M dollars. That's an extreme example, but change it to I have the same Nikon setup and the pro has maybe a low end dSLR with a short telephoto kit zoom (less capable autofocus on both camera and lens than my setup and not much reach) and the result might still be a richer TN_Boy. WoW, a Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 vs. a cell phone for BIF. How about we make it for flower macros?..or a bee eating pollen.

Sorry didn't respond to this:

"Hand the best wildlife photographer in the entire world a iphone and give me my mid-range Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 and tell us both to get quality bird in flight pictures. Best picture winner gets a 1M dollars. I think I'll get 1M dollars. That's an extreme example, but change it to I have the same Nikon setup and the pro has maybe a low end dSLR with a short telephoto kit zoom (less capable autofocus on both camera and lens than my setup and not much reach) and the result might still be a richer TN_Boy. WoW, a Nikon d7500 and Tamron 100-400 vs. a cell phone for BIF. How about we make it for flower macros?..or a bee eating pollen."

I moved the bar from cell phone to a lesser dSLR, of course, since obviously a cell phone is not a good wildlife photography tool. But to make the point that equipment is important.

Alas I have few bee pictures, since I don't really work much with macro stuff:

Image

That's an ISO 4000 shot so I didn't want to crop too much; you could crop a little more.

I have a new macro lens as of last fall and hope to do a bit more work with it.

Depth of field is so scant in this type of picture that it's hard to get good shots of live insects in the field. At least for me. I got a few dragonfly shots I like okay. But I lack the expertise (and perhaps patience) to get really good macro or macro like shots.

Image
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7611
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by midareff »

I like the dragonfly, excellent..... to me the flower colors are off on the bee shot or did you add saturation in PP?.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 13526
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 6:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi , N. Arizona

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by Sandtrap »

Wow!
These are awesome macro shots.
Great job!
Thanks for posting them for all to enjoy.
j :D
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

Sandtrap wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:20 am Wow!
These are awesome macro shots.
Great job!
Thanks for posting them for all to enjoy.
j :D
Aw but they are not macro shots :-). One of the nice features of the Tamron 100-400 is that you can focus as close as 4 1/2 feet. With a 600mm equivalent on a crop sensor camera, you are thus getting 12x magnification less than five feet from the subject. One might have better luck with a long zoom five foot away than a true macro lens six inches away (won't bother the critter as much).

But the depth of field is around 1/10 of an inch, so getting eyes in focus is tough.

I actually like this dragonfly picture better -- the one I posted was pretty standard:

Image

The colors are not as pretty, but I personally like the composition more. Though it doesn't do much for the spouse, so maybe it is just me that likes it.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7611
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by midareff »

TN_Boy wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:28 am
Sandtrap wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:20 am Wow!
These are awesome macro shots.
Great job!
Thanks for posting them for all to enjoy.
j :D
Aw but they are not macro shots :-). One of the nice features of the Tamron 100-400 is that you can focus as close as 4 1/2 feet. With a 600mm equivalent on a crop sensor camera, you are thus getting 12x magnification less than five feet from the subject. One might have better luck with a long zoom five foot away than a true macro lens six inches away (won't bother the critter as much).

But the depth of field is around 1/10 of an inch, so getting eyes in focus is tough.

I actually like this dragonfly picture better -- the one I posted was pretty standard:

Image

The colors are not as pretty, but I personally like the composition more. Though it doesn't do much for the spouse, so maybe it is just me that likes it.
LOL... the Dragonfly's spouse or yours? Excellent macros, especially both of them on the Dragonfly.
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

midareff wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:15 am I like the dragonfly, excellent..... to me the flower colors are off on the bee shot or did you add saturation in PP?.
As I recall the light situation was challenging (I actually remember being a bit vexed that day; I spent a couple of hours in the backyard trying to get bee pictures). In terms of post (looking at the picture now), it was lightroom only, didn't touch the white balance, added 20 to vibrance, set lightroom profile to landscape (that might be the color shift you are wondering about). Didn't add any saturation. Had to bring shadows up and highlights down (high contrast situation).

The problem I was having was too much saturation. The red just sort of lost all detail.

Playing with the picture now, I'm not quite sure why I set color profile to landscape. When I toggle back to the standard adobe color it actually looks better to me now.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7611
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by midareff »

TN_Boy wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:35 am
midareff wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:15 am I like the dragonfly, excellent..... to me the flower colors are off on the bee shot or did you add saturation in PP?.
As I recall the light situation was challenging (I actually remember being a bit vexed that day; I spent a couple of hours in the backyard trying to get bee pictures). In terms of post (looking at the picture now), it was lightroom only, didn't touch the white balance, added 20 to vibrance, set lightroom profile to landscape (that might be the color shift you are wondering about). Didn't add any saturation. Had to bring shadows up and highlights down (high contrast situation).

The problem I was having was too much saturation. The red just sort of lost all detail.

Playing with the picture now, I'm not quite sure why I set color profile to landscape. When I toggle back to the standard adobe color it actually looks better to me now.
Whenever I get a new camera I shoot around the neighborhood .. especially Bay waters and drying grasses, building colors and such including street signs, and build an import profile in LR to auto correct any color profile changes that may be needed. When I was shooting Fuji it took weeks to get water and grass corrected. While I like Canon colors lots I think Sony has the best color science in the market today. Tomorrow, who knows.

It's all great fun and we have to have our toys, and our adventures. Happy shooting TN_Boy.
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7611
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by midareff »

Sandtrap wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 8:28 am The full frame Sony A7C with high end Sony "glass" is an incredible camera to own and have fun with.
There are so many wonderful fun cameras available now and great pictures can be taken by many of them whether a 1 inch sensor or APS-C or Full Frame or Medium Format, . . . or a great Cell Phone.

There's so many things that go into buying a camera:
1. Fun Factor
2. Gotta Have Factor. . . Gotta Own It No Matter What. . . . (like a Jeep Rubicon?). . .
3. Need it for work or business and it has to be a Full Frame or Medium Format because the high expectations of the Vogue Magazine Cover demand no less.
4. Professional full time high end wedding and glamour photographer who needs another "tool" in the bag on location.
5. Etc, ad infinitum.
6. And, if not a professional (paid for) requirement, there's always, "I need something lighter because carrying around this Canon 1D with a 600mm L glass F4 lens is killing my back!!!" again.

For fun,
this is a Iphone 7+
taking a picture of a Sony RX100V (with a custom filter setup) and a full frame Canon 5d setup.
Cell phones have come a long long way.

Interesting size and weight comparison.
Image

This fun picture was taken in a Wallmart parking lot with a Canon 5d (full frame) and 600 mm glass.
The "attitude" of this Raven is incredible. You can imagine a cartoon "thought bubble" saying with a heavy Brooklyn accent, "you lookin' at me"?
Image

For Wildlife and Bird Photography
It depends on the quality of image and resolution that you want, and end use (email viewing vs 3 foot wide wall photo print?)

This is from a full-frame camera and a Sigma 600mm zoom lens, Manfrotto tripod and a Wimberly Gimbal head $$$$$. Shot raw. No fill flash on this one.
Image
Taken on my back porch at a hummingbird feeder, as close as I could get with that lens.

OP: suggest looking at what "you need" as far as lenses to take the kind of pictures you like, then shop a "system" that revolves around those lenses. Perhaps a "bridge camera" fulfills all those needs. Or, maybe a Nikon P1000 with a tiny sensor but superzoom. It just depends on what you want.
For example:
This was taken with a Canon "L" 100-400 zoom lens. Through a whole bunch of bushes at some very very shy critters that did not stay still, nearly ever.
Image

DW and I are paid to do product and stock photography by "Getty", etc, etc, and also private businesses, on location or in our studios.
The equipment we use fits the high end standards that fit that. (not necessarily things I'd like to carry around all day for fun, especially 2 camera bodies and long lenses on a location shoot!).

But, for pure fun, I get more use out of my iPhone and smaller cameras that are convenient and more often on me.
There's a saying, "the best camera is the one you have on you when the shot is needed".

OP:
Have fun.
When in doubt, get the Sony full frame, get the latest Sony DSC R100, get a . . . . (get them all!) :D :D

Excellent points and comments by "midareff", Thanks Marty! :D :D
j :D
Great stuff Jim. I think those Wombats are giving you the evil eye though, just for capturing their image. Wombats, ??
TN_Boy
Posts: 2265
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by TN_Boy »

midareff wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:41 am
TN_Boy wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:35 am
midareff wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:15 am I like the dragonfly, excellent..... to me the flower colors are off on the bee shot or did you add saturation in PP?.
As I recall the light situation was challenging (I actually remember being a bit vexed that day; I spent a couple of hours in the backyard trying to get bee pictures). In terms of post (looking at the picture now), it was lightroom only, didn't touch the white balance, added 20 to vibrance, set lightroom profile to landscape (that might be the color shift you are wondering about). Didn't add any saturation. Had to bring shadows up and highlights down (high contrast situation).

The problem I was having was too much saturation. The red just sort of lost all detail.

Playing with the picture now, I'm not quite sure why I set color profile to landscape. When I toggle back to the standard adobe color it actually looks better to me now.
Whenever I get a new camera I shoot around the neighborhood .. especially Bay waters and drying grasses, building colors and such including street signs, and build an import profile in LR to auto correct any color profile changes that may be needed. When I was shooting Fuji it took weeks to get water and grass corrected. While I like Canon colors lots I think Sony has the best color science in the market today. Tomorrow, who knows.

It's all great fun and we have to have our toys, and our adventures. Happy shooting TN_Boy.
Indeed. Cameras are fun toys and great low cost (once you buy them :-)) entertainment during the last challenging year we've had.

I find the Nikon white balance seems pretty good. I rarely mess with it too much. It's rare that I get into situations like the bee picture where I can't seem to get the colors quite right.
hunoraut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 11:39 am

Re: sony a7c full frame camera

Post by hunoraut »

The way these questions go is someone asks "whats a good car to upgrade to from a toyota corolla" given once a week they might go full-throttle on an on-ramp and once a month they might drive on a patch of wet grass at the campground.

the answer being that any camera north of $1000 represents a 6-cylinder volvo cross-country wagon, but the discussion will break down into whether a landrover is better than a landcruiser because one has a gear-driven 4wd transfer case while the other has chain-driven transfer case, or one sports car is better than the other because of fuel port injection vs direct injection.
Post Reply