Image quality improvement of Sony A7C vs A6000 or Canon G5XII worth the cost?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
OP MaxPowers37 Regular Member • Posts: 100
Re: Image quality improvement of Sony A7C vs A6000 or Canon G5XII worth the cost?

Craig Gillette wrote:

MaxPowers37 wrote:

mostlyboringphotog wrote:

MaxPowers37 wrote:

JeffSlade wrote:

MaxPowers37 wrote:

I'm thinking of buying the Sony A7C and wanted some advice over whether it would be worth it for the kind of photography I do. My thought would be to get this new camera and then sell the A6000 and the prime/zoom lenses that I have with it. My reason being that I don't use the A6000 that often and if I'm going to a carry a camera of that size around I should get the best images possible and that would be from a full frame camera with built in image stabilization.

I'd use the new camera for pictures at home, such as Thanksgiving or Christmas pictures of my family or if I want to take pictures of plants/animals in the backyard or I can walk to around the neighborhood. The other big use is on vacation for Disney pictures (esp at night) or other vacation spots. I'd also like to take good quality photos of real estate that I'm helping someone to sell. I'm not a professional photographer and am in truth not a very good one. I know the basics of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and sometimes try to change the settings but get tripped up and end up back in auto or scene modes often.

If it's an important photo (like the family all together on a vacation spot) I'll try and edit it with Gimp, but don't know how to use lightroom or do much heavy editing and don't shoot in raw.

Lately I've been taking the Canon G5X II more than the Sony A600 because it's so much smaller and easier to carry and takes great photos as well. I think the smaller aperture vs. the kit lens on the A6000 helps.

I've used the burst mode a few times, but when I tried to use it in sporting events people started staring at me due to the noise. So I mainly use it now to try and get a photo where someone isn't blinking.

Would you get the A7C if you were in my shoes? Any other cameras you'd consider? The smaller and easier to carry the better.

When some people hear "image quality" they think in terms of temporal noise, spatial noise, signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range, etc.

Do you mean those things through your use of "image quality" in your thread title?

Or is your goal to find something small and easier to carry but with a full frame sensor?

Also what is your budget if you have one which would cover both the camera and lens?

Yes, I mean those things, but camera size is extremely important as I won't use a camera that's too big. Carrying the A6000 is a much bigger hassle than the G5XII or RX100 III and I haven't seen much of an improvement in photos. I saw some real estate pictures taken with a full frame camera and they had a look to them I've not seen in cell phone or in my pictures.

So ideally I'd like a full frame sensor or whatever gets the best image quality in something that's compact enough I can carry it in my pocket. I'm not going to attach anything to it or need an extreme zoom. I'd also really like to take night photos that aren't blurry.

Those real estate picture looks so good not because of FF camera so much but the photographer knew what he/she was doing. You would not tell the difference if they had used APS-C but hey use full frame anyways because often the clients believe full frame will be better.

And the trick to getting non blurry image is to keep the subject still and keep your camera from shaking and using fast enough shutter speed, which may require a "fast" lens.

If you cannot get mostly satisfactory photos from A6000, you wouldn't from a7C either, as others have pointed out.

Good luck - but if you want a7c and that's not your rent money, no one can stop you either

The real estate pictures I'm thinking of were taken in the same spot as I did with my A6000 and had a much better look to them. When I downloaded them I checked the picture data and it was taken with a Sony full frame.

Like you said though, maybe there's something the photographer knows that I don't.

Without seeing the images to compare, it's hard to say. Could be a range of things going on. Some real estate shots are done quickly and casually, others get a lot of skilled attention. Things like lighting and time of day to get the best look on details, perhaps high dynamic range considerations, camera placement and lens selection, post processing to get an inviting look. But, I'd guess you would be right in the photographer had a lot to do with the results.

With those low light shots, how much does in camera stabilization help? Doesn't the focus area or another setting have to do with it since there are bright lights in the background?

Stabilization can help. But real estate, almost no reason not to use a tripod. That allows you to get stability and proper aperture for the desired depth of field and the lowest iso to avoid "noise." Stabilization is just one of the tools available and learning what tools to use when comes with study, practice and experience. OTOH, if shooting in a location that doesn't allow for tripods or flash, etc., in camera and/or in lens stabilization can help.

I've decided to not buy the camera now. It just seems like with COVID I'm not traveling as much and who knows what will come out next year. Plus I can work on my basic skills before spending that kind of money

Someplace "up there" you mentioned camera size. Although there are some fixed lens cameras that are smaller, the smallest FF mirror-less is similar in size to the A6000, a little bigger and heavier. There are some small, light lenses for Sony FF but they typically have smaller maximum apertures. To get the full advantage of the larger sensor, the wider max apertures lead to larger, heavier and often more expensive lenses.

Under good lighting conditions, it can be very difficult to tell apart the results from different sensor sizes,. Cameras like the RX100s, m4/3 and aps-c are popular for their size advantages and results. Sensor size does have advantages/limitations but learning how to make the best of what you have is important.

Just as an aside, I was looking at real estate shots from an area I'm interested in. There was a wide range of "quality" in the shots and given that I was looking at them on line, etc., the camera body in use was probably the least important factor in how well they turned out.

The pictures I was looking at were from the one used to sell my house and I can't get the same "quality" look to the images as the ones from the full frame. There are pictures that are indoors with no windows that look much better than the ones from my A6000. Maybe they used a professional photographer.

With the low light shots I'm talking about vacation pictures, not real estate. For example, I brought my A6000 with a prime lens and took family pictures in this spot and also had the G5X II. The G5XII probably did as well if not better than the Sony.

Would a full frame camera help in situations like that? What about pictures of people in a dimly lit restaurant or with candle light? Pre and hopefully post COVID a lot of special events are at a restaurant where we hand the camera to the server. In restaurants there is often light coming from multiple places.

Definitely camera size is a huge (pun intended) consideration. If I take my parents out to eat for their anniversary I'd like to be able to put the camera in my mom's purse. As you can imagine walking into a high end restaurant with a bag filled with lenses or a camera around your neck is a bit awkward.

I'm leaning towards the RX1R II. It is smaller and lighter than the A6000 and is a full frame camera. How would the photo quality on that compare?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow