A6700 vs A7Cii

Hi all, probably a very unoriginal thread but trying to wrap my head around what I should upgrade to. I currently use my old A6000 which has been a trusty companion over the last 10 years and recently paired it with the Sigma 30mm 1.4f which has created great results, especially in lower light situations compared to the kit lens. I've enjoyed the nice bokeh, I have had issues with autofocus at less than 2.8f which is apparently a known issue, I'm hoping an A6700 would fix it.

I'm now learning more about photography and want to consider whether I continue down the APS-C route or go FF and return the Sigma lens.

I typically take family photos and landscape/scene photos when we are out and about, I use to take photos at festivals and music gigs and I've started looking at portrait photos against a backdrop with artificial light.

The A6700 seems like a no brainer due to it's size as I want the camera to be something I can carry around while out and about (e.g. family day out) but the quality hit I've experienced from less than ideal low light situations has made me very wary of it. In reality the A6700 should be better in low light off the bat and I wonder if this difference will be enough (plus a bit of editing) or not. The A7Cii is a similar size but my thought is whether the FF lenses would be the the issue due to size and weight, making it less likely that I would feel comfortable taking it places easily.

Seeing that quality bump from the Sigma lens has also made me wonder if I should go that bit further to FF.

I'm not a professional but would I ever develop things to do it on the side is unknown in the long run.

I'm going to go to a shop to physically look at cameras and lenses to try and grasp physical dimensions and weights but any thoughts welcome.

Based on your description, stay with apsc to not increase price/size/weight. You will see improvement in low light with A6700, I would say about 1EV. Other improvement can come from IBIS - when shooting still subjects. If not enough, use denoise AI software to fight with noise. Also you can revise your usual exposure setting, if there is some room for improvement.

Thank you. I don't edit my images so it's probably another area I need to focus on to gain on too.

How many steps are you roughly talking between a APS-C and full frame in low light? Another 1 or 2?

Technical-UK said:

Thank you. I don't edit my images so it's probably another area I need to focus on to gain on too.

Click to expand...

You actually don't need to edit images and just use jpg. Topaz AI denoise can work with that. You would just use it for problematic noisy images. After initial setting to your liking it's usually only one button operation.

Technical-UK said:

How many steps are you roughly talking between a APS-C and full frame in low light? Another 1 or 2?

Click to expand...

Lowlight improvement between apsc and fullframe is 1,3EV. Means that eg. image on apsc ISO1600 look similarly noisy as fullframe at ISO4000 (same scene and setting).

AI denoise software I would rate about 2-3EV

And better exposure setting could give you 0-5EV :-D

Sounds like AI denoise would cover any issues from APS-C. What do you mean about correct exposure?

To be fair in good to great light I'm not expecting it to matter, it's those less than ideal moments e.g. when I took photos of our baby swim class at the spa and the lighting over the pool was poor plus trying to capture lots of movement.

If you are happy with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, then the A6700 makes sense.

On the A7CII you could get a roughly equivalent Sony 50mm f/1.8 or Viltrox Air 50mm f/2. The A7CII makes particular sense if you are looking for a step up with lenses, like the Sony 50mm f/1.4 GM or the Tamron f/2.8 zooms.

I had a look at the camera in person along with some lenses. Surprisingly most the lenses seemed of a comparable size to the APS-C lenses when I was expecting them to be much heavier and bigger so leaning towards A7Cii now.

Technical-UK said:

I had a look at the camera in person along with some lenses. Surprisingly most the lenses seemed of a comparable size to the APS-C lenses when I was expecting them to be much heavier and bigger so leaning towards A7Cii now.

Click to expand...

Good to hear. Bigger lenses exist, but smaller ones too. Full frame makes ever more sense, in particular with a camera like the A7CII if size and weight are a concern.

Technical-UK said:

I had a look at the camera in person along with some lenses. Surprisingly most the lenses seemed of a comparable size to the APS-C lenses when I was expecting them to be much heavier and bigger so leaning towards A7Cii now.

Click to expand...

Depends what lenses. If you buy some of the small f2.5 primes for A7cII, your low light capability will be actually slightly lower.

If you want to make advantage from your upgrade to fullframe, you should compare in your case f1.4 against f1.4, where size and price is different on those formats.


Lens weight: 270g VS 520g

The 50/1.4 GM is a good example for what would be possible with the A7CII. People consider it "professional" or "full frame look". See e.g. this video of a street photographer (taken images at the end):

It's going to depend on which lenses one compares. Several years ago, having started in aps-c for dslrs, then to Sony aps-c mirror-less when I chose to add ff to my kit, I skipped the A7C (and A7iii, too), for the A7Riv. If one were kitted out with ff gear and wanted to go smaller, then the A7C series choice might be different. Maybe just the one body and a select lighter lens or two.

There is a low light/noise advantage to ff over aps-c from sensor size. Is it significant? some think so, others accept the smaller, lighter, less expensive. The availability of impressive noise reduction in some editing and/or separate standalone processing programs doesn't completely eliminate the differences, as it works well on aps-c and ff, both, pretty much maintaining the difference. One also can still get shallower depth of field with ff vs aps-c. Which again might depend on one's photo interests. If shooting landscapes stopped down, it's a different "need" than portraits and subject isolation type things.

As an example, I have a Samyang 24/1.8 which I will use now and then on either the A6700 or A7Riv. About $400, 8 ounces, the Sony 24/1.8, about same size and weight, $850 and then jumping to the Sony 24/1.4, it's about twice the weight and $1400.

The general likelihood will be that aps-c lenses tend to be smaller, lighter and less expensive.

I also have the 18-135/3.5-5.6 Sony aps-c and Tamron 28-200/2.8-5.6. The Tamron is a better lens, weighs about a half pound more but (Yikes! perhaps due to some pricing flex these days) $700vs $800 for the Sony. However, typically (at least was)the 18-135 can be bundled when buying a Sony body at $400. which is a very reasonable price and makes for a noticeably smaller and lighter pair.

Look for bundled offers when buying. Sony often bundles a couple of Sony lens offers at reduced prices with their bodies.

The A6700 and A7Cii aren't just the same camera with different sensors, there are some differences in the types of shutters, video performance, some dif in resolution (pixel count), etc.

For me, for "smaller," I stuckk with aps-c and the A6xxx series as opposed to the A7c. (Except the A7CR, that's still very tempting should i decide to replace my A7Riv.)

Plus it's a Sony A1.

I came across that lense but my worry is it's twice the weight and a lot bigger than lenses I've used before.

Thanks, some useful insights. My problem is picturing if carrying around compact FF with the lenses I want/need will be acceptable or start to get in the way. I love he quality of the Sigma 30mm 1.4f apsc so if I could get similar outcomes on a A7Cii or better without going significantly up in size and weight then it would be, not sure where the cut off line is for me yet.

Technical-UK said:

Thanks, some useful insights. My problem is picturing if carrying around compact FF with the lenses I want/need will be acceptable or start to get in the way. I love he quality of the Sigma 30mm 1.4f apsc so if I could get similar outcomes on a A7Cii or better without going significantly up in size and weight then it would be, not sure where the cut off line is for me yet.

Click to expand...

I love my a6700,and bought it over the a7cii as i have the a7iv. the sigma 30 1.4 is my walk around prime with FF look. but nothing in FF beats the sony 18 135 for size and versatility, and it is razer sharp.

This lens?


That would cover all my needs, the only thing would be the aperture. I was thinking to just go to a ff equivalent to the 30mm 1.4 apsc like the sigma 50mm 2f to get the low light performance, bokeh and image quality with similar compactness but maybe I need to consider that lens too. I'm guessing a higher quality telephoto would sacrifice compactness.

Technical-UK said:

This lens?

https://www.sony.co.uk/store/product/sel18135.syx/E-18-135mm-F3-5-5-6-OSS

That would cover all my needs, the only thing would be the aperture. I was thinking to just go to a ff equivalent to the 30mm 1.4 apsc like the sigma 50mm 2f to get the low light performance, bokeh and image quality with similar compactness but maybe I need to consider that lens too. I'm guessing a higher quality telephoto would sacrifice compactness.

Click to expand...

yep

I've owned A6700 since shortly after it launched and I recently ordered A7CR. Here's my honest opinion.

To be blunt, a FF camera beats an apsc in low light so if that's your priority you got your answer. But that's not to say A6700 is bad in lowlight, if anything it's plenty good for apsc. I honestly think that for most people, if you pair it with a fast lens (say f2.0 or even f2.8) it'll be more than good enough (especially with AI denoisong software) but if shooting in low light is a main use case for you, then FF wins.

That said, if you're on a tight budget, avoid FF like the plague. Choosing a FF camera doesn't only mean spending more on the body, it also means spending much more on glass because FF glass is significantly more expensive than apsc. If you end up being constrained to budget or obsolete or kit FF lenses, with a maximum aperture of F4 or narrower, then you're wasting 75% of the sensor's potential. Make no mistake, A6700 with a Viltrox 13mm f1.4 or tamron 17-70mm f2.8 or even Viltrox air 25mm f1.7 lens beats A7C ii and even A1 ii with a crappy 10 years old F4 budget lens even in lowlight. The lens can and will be the main bottleneck for IQ.

Good luck!

Apart from lens cost, for full-frame all lenses become bigger and heavier, too.

However, for many years, I neglacted and underestimated the full-frame look (bokeh et al.) Vs. APS-C!

I have A7CII now and am very happy.

I do agree that FF will generally be better (not always by a significant margin) if you use high quality glass but that typically means a significantly greater cost and weight. If you're fine with that then by all means. I myself am switching to FF.

I like to do a lot of wildlife photography so the 70-350 would be very useful to me.

I think if I was into primes more than zoom lenses I would choose the A7CII. Even the 24-70 F4 is a bit bulky for that camera. You could buy the 28-60 but then you'd probably be better off with the A6700 and 18-50 2.8.

I'm too much of a zoom guy to prefer full frame over crop sensors.