61 vs 33 mp

[jpat1]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

 

[ahaslett]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

Depends how much you crop and whether rarely means it’s optional.

I regularly shoot 16Mpix, 20Mpix and 61Mpix.

If you only print 8” x 10”, then 16Mpix should be fine. You can do a decent large landscape print at 33Mpix and a huge one at 61Mpix.

Cropping 61Mpix to APSC leaves 26Mpix, so a Tamron 28-75/2.8 is the equivalent of 28-110/2.8-4.2.

Andrew

 

[jazzedmurf]

I am also not a professional, and I use APS-C, but the only possible consideration I'd give to the A7CR--in your case--would be for more megapixels in APS-C mode, if you wanted more reach for wildlife shooting. Other than that, I think the A7CII would be the better buy all around. Especially if you don't do large prints, I'm not sure what other benefits the A7CR would provide you.

I've been debating since yesterday if my a6700 purchase is going to stick. I'm a hobbyist that likes to shoot landscapes, wildlife, and the occasional car race, but I am also starting to shoot more low-light music performances... which is making me wonder if the A7CR or A7RV would have been a smarter choice for me.

 

[vrvly]

I'm on 25mp and I definitely lack detail. 33mp would be definitely sharper a bit, but for crazy close up sharpness for heavy cropping, 61mp would help.

Lower res got some advantages like read out speed, easier editing, higher max iso, cheaper price, ...

As for comparison, I could only do so here, 12vs25vs50mp eyelashes, 12mp you can see them, 25mp they have some detail, 50mp they are sharp.

Basically you can take a group shot with 50mp and do a portrait still of one mans face.

 

[AshleyMC]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

Most hobbyists like you and me can pamper their photographic creativity with 16 MP, and even full-frame sensors are luxurious pampering.

If you rarely crop in, or do not need the fine details in landscape images, 24 MP is arguably the popular pixel resolution these days, with 33 MP edging in as a marketing weapon.

If you happen to enjoy 150% pixel peeping on your huge flat-screen monitor, pay big bucks for 61 MP. Each person’s money, time, priority and pleasure are different.

One advantage of a camera with a very high pixel resolution, such as a7C R in particular, is that the user effectively has two cameras in one: a 61 MP full-frame camera and a 26 MP APS-C camera. And one does not have to always capture full-frame images at 61 MP.

On my 33 MP a7 IV, I have assigned a function key to toggle FF / APS-C modes in the rare situations when I desperate need “extra reach” (using the same lens). The 14 MP images are usable for non-critical applications, for me anyway. I also use a7R II and a7C.

If you want the latest Sony technologies in a smaller and more affordable package, I would recommend the a7C II.

 

[LennyLevino]

How about anti-aliasing filters? Do both cameras lack one or does the A7Cii have one? That should make a bit of difference as well.

 

[jmteno76]

Mark Galer who is Sony ambassador in Australia - uses the following example

You can put in APS C mode and apply a 2.5X crop with 350 mm lens = 875 Equivalent angle of view. It would also be possible to use a AI program like gigapixel.

His point is that you can really extend the reach without carrying very heavy glass -

2115 g vs 625, he is not saying the it is better - but if you want lighter weight (for those with aching backs) that this is option.

best,

Joan

 

[Yarr]

I have an IV, the sensor is great. In practice, I do not see the difference with 42 megapixels.
Who buys aps-c lenses for camera like the a7CR? In my opinion, it doesn't make sense

 

[Mike Fewster]

I have an IV, the sensor is great. In practice, I do not see the difference with 42 megapixels.
Who buys aps-c lenses for camera like the a7CR? In my opinion, it doesn't make sense

We are not talking about APS-C lenses. We are talking about using crop mode with the larger sensor to get extra reach rather than carrying a bigger lens.

 

[Derek 1906]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

I use a z6, which is 24mp. It's enough to print 20x30 landscapes (I have about a dozen up now). The only real advantage to me, personally, of having more is being able to crop in if I screw up the composition. As it is, I usually just compose very carefully, or I'll take more shots than I need if I'm in a great place in fading light, and decide later. Fwiw, I'll be getting the 33mp.

 

[Mike Fewster]

I am also not a professional, and I use APS-C, but the only possible consideration I'd give to the A7CR--in your case--would be for more megapixels in APS-C mode, if you wanted more reach for wildlife shooting. Other than that, I think the A7CII would be the better buy all around. Especially if you don't do large prints, I'm not sure what other benefits the A7CR would provide you.

I've been debating since yesterday if my a6700 purchase is going to stick. I'm a hobbyist that likes to shoot landscapes, wildlife, and the occasional car race, but I am also starting to shoot more low-light music performances... which is making me wonder if the A7CR or A7RV would have been a smarter choice for me.

Get a free trial copy of Topaz A1 and try it with your low light images from the 6700. You might save yourself a lot of money.

Of course, Topaz with a FF camera is excellent for low light as well.







--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

 

[pollup]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10,

i also rarely crop in.

Maybe you rarely crop in because you never used a high resolution sensor in the past.

So, you were always thinking "Ok I can't take this shot, I need to get closer, or I need another lens."

Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

With the a7cR, it's like having 2 cameras, a FF one and an APS-C one, and you use a button to toggle between them. And in fact if you use the "M raw" format, you get 26MP in both FF and APS-C mode, with 1.5x crop in.

The IQ in APS-C mode will be exactly like the IQ you get from the a6700.

 

[Nirurin]

With the a7cR, it's like having 2 cameras, a FF one and an APS-C one, and you use a button to toggle between them. And in fact if you use the "M raw" format, you get 26MP in both FF and APS-C mode, with 1.5x crop in.

The IQ in APS-C mode will be exactly like the IQ you get from the a6700.

I have actually wondered this before - how do the 'smaller file size' options work on the high-res cameras?

It seems like the better option would be to save a 26MP / 33MP / whatever size image, using the full sensor readout that then gets automatically supersampled down.

If all the smaller file sizes do is crop in, same as just using apsc mode, that seems like a waste.

 

[AshleyMC]

With the a7cR, it's like having 2 cameras, a FF one and an APS-C one, and you use a button to toggle between them. And in fact if you use the "M raw" format, you get 26MP in both FF and APS-C mode, with 1.5x crop in.

The IQ in APS-C mode will be exactly like the IQ you get from the a6700.

I have actually wondered this before - how do the 'smaller file size' options work on the high-res cameras?

It seems like the better option would be to save a 26MP / 33MP / whatever size image, using the full sensor readout that then gets automatically supersampled down.

If all the smaller file sizes do is crop in, same as just using apsc mode, that seems like a waste.

Lower-res full-frame image files are downsampled, not cropped.

Just like when I share my a7C images on DPReview, I downsample them from 6000 x4000 pixels to, say, 2700 x 1800 pixels — same content, lower pixel resolution, smaller file size. On top of that, a lower-quality JPG compression level further reduces the file size.

 

[AlephNull]

How about anti-aliasing filters? Do both cameras lack one or does the A7Cii have one? That should make a bit of difference as well.

The 61Mp has no AA filter. I do not know about the 33 Mp - if it’s not in the various reviews, maybe see if it has one in the A7IV?

 

[clarnibass]

We are not talking about APS-C lenses. We are talking about using crop mode with the larger sensor to get extra reach rather than carrying a bigger lens.

APSC mode only gives you extra reach in video (for cameras and modes where the camera itself doesn't change automatically to APSC mode).

For stills, it only saves you some editing work if you use JPG from camera and/or if you use RAW but only want to do global edits (not going over the photos to edit).

Also if you're using crop mode for reach then it's likely you'd crop slightly more when editing anyway.

Depending on the specific camera it might a couple of other advantages (not even sure anymore) but reach isn't one of them.

 

[clarnibass]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

I'm a part time professional. One of the main reasons I upgraded a camera a few years ago was higher MP (the other main ones were silent shutter and autofocus).

I've printed up to about 1800mm wide photos from my previous 24MP cameras (both full frame and APSC) and they were excellent. They would be more detailed with a higher MP camera but it's not like they weren't very good. This is mainly for macro up to x5 magnification with microscope lenses, but unless you need to crop (or in my case using an APSC camera instead) it doesn't matter.

I now have 42MP and wouldn't want more even though I use almost only prime lenses and crop quite a lot. I would only get the 61MP camera if I mainly printed very large prints (1000mm+ at least) or if I needed to crop to more than APSC size often (e.g. like the macro examples above).

Take that FWIW.

 

[Newton Bryce]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

33 Mp is great also when printing 44 inches/110 cm wide, even when doing some cropping. Yes, I know from lots of real world productions. You can also crop pretty hard from 33 Mp when printing smaller.

Some benefits with less megapixels:

• More pictures on the memory card and less need for computer storage.
• Faster sensor readout speed, less issues with rolling shutter/jelly effect.
• Faster file transfer and speeded up processing for stills at post production.
• Plenty of resolution for excellent 4K video.
• Lower price - use the extra money for lenses, filters, gimbal, microphones, etc.

You get about 30% more resolution from a 61 Mp sensor compared to 33 Mp, but in real life the difference is mostly smaller due to shake caused by handheld camera, not super precise focus, turbulent air, etc. Add that not all lenses will fully resolve 61 Mp.

 

[Adam-T]

Im not a professional photographer and dont print large photos > 8x10, i also rarely crop in. Would there be any benefit to getting the new a7rc vs a7cii ? Wanted to get your thoughts if i was missing anything megapixel wise.

Nothing, you only need SIX megapixels to print superb 10X8s , we used to print 20X16s from 6Mp Canon D60 RAWs back in the day AND crop if needed ..... Many a wedding was shot on the Fuji S2-Pro which churned out 6Mp JPGs by lots of full timers - Billboards and 40" fine prints were the target for the 11Mp canon 1DS Mk1 in 2003 for work here .

so if your target is 10X8 max with no cropping then even a 12Mp A7S series is overkill , go ahead and grab the 33Mp A7C2 , it`s got more resolution , dynamic range and high ISO performance than any 35mm format pro digital camera up till the Nikon D800E came out and even beats that by a slight margin in all but resolution and we used to crop the death out of those AND print 30X20" wall blocks and many still do

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[Mike Fewster]

We are not talking about APS-C lenses. We are talking about using crop mode with the larger sensor to get extra reach rather than carrying a bigger lens.

APSC mode only gives you extra reach in video (for cameras and modes where the camera itself doesn't change automatically to APSC mode).

For stills, it only saves you some editing work if you use JPG from camera and/or if you use RAW but only want to do global edits (not going over the photos to edit).

Also if you're using crop mode for reach then it's likely you'd crop slightly more when editing anyway.

Depending on the specific camera it might a couple of other advantages (not even sure anymore) but reach isn't one of them.

Yes, you got it. You can put it into crop mode if you wish or just crop the image. Either way, the extra pixels are doing the same thing and making the image more croppable. Which is the same as adding reach.