Stilll thinking about an A7CII to complement my setup

[deednets]

On my last trip overseas I tried a combination of 3 lenses for my drives/walks/motorbike rides: Voigtländer 21/3.5, Sigma 45/2.8 and the TT Artisan 75/2.

My reasons for thinking about the A7CII are: the camera is smaller and fits better into any bag because of the hump-free design. And I like the 33Mpx sensor. ;-)

Here are some shots I have taken with this combination on the A7RV. The TT Artisan was a new lens for me, but the other 2 I had used before, to illustrate what those 3 lenses cover:

TT Artisan 75/2:







Sigma 45/2.8:



View attachment b69eac1012344ee9a15cf25f28ccc593.jpg


Bokeh at F8 ;-)

Voigtländer 21/3.5:





View attachment 5094f95ddac44f52bdc29303b181bcf2.jpg

I was thinking that I would maybe try just these 3 on my next outing?? WHat can possibly go wrong aye??

I think the A7CII could work well, I would be interested to see how the IQ would work regarding the larger photo-sites. And then possibly find out it's much the same when re-sized??

Dunno yet ... but still a tempting idea. I had a look at Mark Galer's photo gallery from Bali where he had taken a 50/2.5 and the 20-70/4. Here is a link:

mark galer

Explore mark galer’s 13,118 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

I am possibly the only one here who feels a bit yeah/nah about the lenses used by him, but his combination would be smaller than my choice, but not by much. He normally takes the Sigma 90/2.8 as well, but not on this occasion. Pity ...

Deed

 

[Mike Fewster]

On my last trip overseas I tried a combination of 3 lenses for my drives/walks/motorbike rides: Voigtländer 21/3.5, Sigma 45/2.8 and the TT Artisan 75/2.

My reasons for thinking about the A7CII are: the camera is smaller and fits better into any bag because of the hump-free design. And I like the 33Mpx sensor. ;-)

Here are some shots I have taken with this combination on the A7RV. The TT Artisan was a new lens for me, but the other 2 I had used before, to illustrate what those 3 lenses cover:

TT Artisan 75/2:







Sigma 45/2.8:



View attachment b69eac1012344ee9a15cf25f28ccc593.jpg


Bokeh at F8 ;-)

Voigtländer 21/3.5:





View attachment 5094f95ddac44f52bdc29303b181bcf2.jpg

I was thinking that I would maybe try just these 3 on my next outing?? WHat can possibly go wrong aye??

I think the A7CII could work well, I would be interested to see how the IQ would work regarding the larger photo-sites. And then possibly find out it's much the same when re-sized??

Dunno yet ... but still a tempting idea. I had a look at Mark Galer's photo gallery from Bali where he had taken a 50/2.5 and the 20-70/4. Here is a link:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/

I am possibly the only one here who feels a bit yeah/nah about the lenses used by him, but his combination would be smaller than my choice, but not by much. He normally takes the Sigma 90/2.8 as well, but not on this occasion. Pity ...

Deed

Same thinking. My solution (OK, it's not THE solution. My photo solutions are always works in progress. Thus is where it's currently at.

The A7CR plus my phone as my only cameras. I do some product photography and I sell large landscape prints. I love street photography when I travel. The A7CR does the lot for me. Realistically, I find the the A7Cii would cover almost all my needs as well. The A7CR extra crop ability lts me rely on cropping the 20-70 a bit more for extra reach when I travel and saves carrying a longer tele as well. Having said this, I wouldn't undersell the crop abilty of the A7cii too much. If my travel was for wildlife, I'd want to be adding a tele for either camera

When I travel, I like wa with things close to the camera. It's why I like the 20-70 as it saves me a lot of lens swapping and that's critical when I'm traveling. Even so, there are some subjects where 20 wont be enough. I carry a Voigtlander 15mm as well.

While the 20-70 is small and light for what it is, it is still a weight and size to be considered. I have a Sony 28 F2 that is better for some excursions. I know there are alternatives to this lens but I picked it up very cheap and it does the job.

A couple of other additions. The Godox IM22. Incredibly small and lightweight. Having it in my bag adds a lot of versatility. Then there is Noise reduction software. Knowing I can use it PP give me lots of confidence to raise ISO to deal with low light. I also carry a polarising filter and I'll probably add an ND filter.

I almost never carry all this at the same time. Generally I know in advance which lens(s) I'll want for a days shooting and if I don't think I'll need it, it stays at base.

I use a Domke F6 bag but not on a plane. On a plane, I don't trust my camera to checked in lugggage. It and the 20-70 lens stay with me. The camera/divider insert from the Domke comes out and gous into the small backpack that goes on the plane with me and the camera/20-70 travel in that. Without the insert, the Domke packs flat and light inside my checked rolling case. When I get to my destination, the Domke comes out and the insert and camera go back in.

My two extra lenses go into my checked bag. If it's lost, I can still function.

The above is the theory. I'm traveling to Europe and Egypt next month. This set up is a refinement on previous trips. This time, no tele and reliance on cropping. I have swapped a bigger, heavier Laowa wa for the smaller Voigtlander 15.

Experimentally, I'm going to try using my phone more for street.

Will I be happy? Dunno.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

 

[deednets]

On my last trip overseas I tried a combination of 3 lenses for my drives/walks/motorbike rides: Voigtländer 21/3.5, Sigma 45/2.8 and the TT Artisan 75/2.

My reasons for thinking about the A7CII are: the camera is smaller and fits better into any bag because of the hump-free design. And I like the 33Mpx sensor. ;-)

Here are some shots I have taken with this combination on the A7RV. The TT Artisan was a new lens for me, but the other 2 I had used before, to illustrate what those 3 lenses cover:

TT Artisan 75/2:







Sigma 45/2.8:



View attachment b69eac1012344ee9a15cf25f28ccc593.jpg


Bokeh at F8 ;-)

Voigtländer 21/3.5:





View attachment 5094f95ddac44f52bdc29303b181bcf2.jpg

I was thinking that I would maybe try just these 3 on my next outing?? WHat can possibly go wrong aye??

I think the A7CII could work well, I would be interested to see how the IQ would work regarding the larger photo-sites. And then possibly find out it's much the same when re-sized??

Dunno yet ... but still a tempting idea. I had a look at Mark Galer's photo gallery from Bali where he had taken a 50/2.5 and the 20-70/4. Here is a link:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/markgaler/

I am possibly the only one here who feels a bit yeah/nah about the lenses used by him, but his combination would be smaller than my choice, but not by much. He normally takes the Sigma 90/2.8 as well, but not on this occasion. Pity ...

Deed

Same thinking. My solution (OK, it's not THE solution. My photo solutions are always works in progress. Thus is where it's currently at.

The A7CR plus my phone as my only cameras. I do some product photography and I sell large landscape prints. I love street photography when I travel. The A7CR does the lot for me. Realistically, I find the the A7Cii would cover almost all my needs as well. The A7CR extra crop ability lts me rely on cropping the 20-70 a bit more for extra reach when I travel and saves carrying a longer tele as well. Having said this, I wouldn't undersell the crop abilty of the A7cii too much. If my travel was for wildlife, I'd want to be adding a tele for either camera

When I travel, I like wa with things close to the camera. It's why I like the 20-70 as it saves me a lot of lens swapping and that's critical when I'm traveling. Even so, there are some subjects where 20 wont be enough. I carry a Voigtlander 15mm as well.

While the 20-70 is small and light for what it is, it is still a weight and size to be considered. I have a Sony 28 F2 that is better for some excursions. I know there are alternatives to this lens but I picked it up very cheap and it does the job.

A couple of other additions. The Godox IM22. Incredibly small and lightweight. Having it in my bag adds a lot of versatility. Then there is Noise reduction software. Knowing I can use it PP give me lots of confidence to raise ISO to deal with low light. I also carry a polarising filter and I'll probably add an ND filter.

I almost never carry all this at the same time. Generally I know in advance which lens(s) I'll want for a days shooting and if I don't think I'll need it, it stays at base.

I use a Domke F6 bag but not on a plane. On a plane, I don't trust my camera to checked in lugggage. It and the 20-70 lens stay with me. The camera/divider insert from the Domke comes out and gous into the small backpack that goes on the plane with me and the camera/20-70 travel in that. Without the insert, the Domke packs flat and light inside my checked rolling case. When I get to my destination, the Domke comes out and the insert and camera go back in.

My two extra lenses go into my checked bag. If it's lost, I can still function.

The above is the theory. I'm traveling to Europe and Egypt next month. This set up is a refinement on previous trips. This time, no tele and reliance on cropping. I have swapped a bigger, heavier Laowa wa for the smaller Voigtlander 15.

Experimentally, I'm going to try using my phone more for street.

Will I be happy? Dunno.

I guess my way of thinking was that whenever I only had a fixed lens camera, be it a Zeiss Ikarex from the 1970s or an RX1/Leica Q/Q2, I felt like I could do around 100% of what I wanted to shoot. It never was 100% really, but so close that the extra shots I took were a matter of luxury, the odd super wide shot or the 85/90 mm equivalent.

So coming from that angle, I could then also think about the X100 and add those 2 adapters, one for 28 the other for 50mm. Or: turn the tables and use the A7RV with 3 small lenses. As long as the results are ok. Or: better than "just" ok.

And then it's only a small hop from the Leica Q3 43 to the Sony A7CII + Sigma 45/2.8.

On a weak day I think I am going round in circles ... my guess is that you know exactly what I am talking about??







Deed

 

[rashid7]

Deed, I love mine! (A7Cii)

 

[deednets]

Deed, I love mine! (A7Cii)

 

[Craig Gillette]

I'm on a casual local trip now. Brought my A7Riv, w/20-70/4 on it, 28-200 in the bag and A6700, 18-135. I may try just the 18-135 and A6700. Until I added the A7Riv, 24 mp was it and it did fine. 33mp would be more than that or crop A7Riv or the A6700. Maybe give the A7Cii a good try in advance of "needing" it to be sure.

 

[deednets]

I'm on a casual local trip now. Brought my A7Riv, w/20-70/4 on it, 28-200 in the bag and A6700, 18-135. I may try just the 18-135 and A6700. Until I added the A7Riv, 24 mp was it and it did fine. 33mp would be more than that or crop A7Riv or the A6700. Maybe give the A7Cii a good try in advance of "needing" it to be sure.

I had the A7IV and really liked the sensor. All in all maybe just an attempt to cut down on gear?

 

[Craig Gillette]

I went from A6xxx aps-c to an A7Riv. Going up, I didn't think the A7C was going to be enough change, for several reasons, like not "full" size body or resolution (pixel count), needingff lenses, etc. OTOH, the A7Cs might be a nice smaller body and not too many new lenses, if downsizing FF.

 

[Impulses]

So you're contemplating a move from an A7R V to an A7C II? Sure, why not. My only reservation about going from the A7R IV to the A7CR has been the reduction in buffer size (the latter being about half as large), I don't shoot bursts/action often but when I do that would bug me... Everything else* on the A7C series I feel like I could work around of, and I do think the size and appearance of the smaller flat top bodies can have a big impact.

In a larger bag it's probably not a big deal and I can also see why many would have little interest in the C series, but in a small waist pack and the type of small slings I tend to use the hump does get in the way, and I do think subjects (and venue security, amongst others) can and do react differently to the SLR shape vs the flat top... Although these days any kinda dedicated camera is bound to stand out.

Regarding the 33MP vs 61MP sensors, I have no strong feelings there tbh, the latter has a larger cropping leeway (duh) which I enjoy having with primes, but I'm sure I could live with the former.

*A7C-series compromises:

• EFCS only? Carry an ND, same for the 1/4000 cap
• No joystick? Focus and recompose while tracking or use touch focus
• Single card slot? Backup nightly, you should do it anyway, I'm not a pro so a day's loss will never be fatal
• Small EVF? Would only impact me for MF, I can deal
• Small buffer? You're SOL (I guess if you shoot in crop mode or one of the smaller RAW formats you can squeeze a bit more out of it)

I think there's a reason Sony doubled down on that series, they must be selling well or Sony wouldn't have bothered.

 

[deednets]

So you're contemplating a move from an A7R V to an A7C II? Sure, why not. My only

No! Not really.

reservation about going from the A7R IV to the A7CR has been the reduction in buffer size (the latter being about half as large), I don't shoot bursts/action often but when I do that would bug me... Everything else* on the A7C series I feel like I could work around of, and I do think the size and appearance of the smaller flat top bodies can have a big impact.

In a larger bag it's probably not a big deal and I can also see why many would have little interest in the C series, but in a small waist pack and the type of small slings I tend to use the hump does get in the way, and I do think subjects (and venue security, amongst others) can and do react differently to the SLR shape vs the flat top... Although these days any kinda dedicated camera is bound to stand out.

Regarding the 33MP vs 61MP sensors, I have no strong feelings there tbh, the latter has a larger cropping leeway (duh) which I enjoy having with primes, but I'm sure I could live with the former.

*A7C-series compromises:

• EFCS only? Carry an ND, same for the 1/4000 cap
• No joystick? Focus and recompose while tracking or use touch focus
• Single card slot? Backup nightly, you should do it anyway, I'm not a pro so a day's loss will never be fatal
• Small EVF? Would only impact me for MF, I can deal
• Small buffer? You're SOL (I guess if you shoot in crop mode or one of the smaller RAW formats you can squeeze a bit more out of it)

I think there's a reason Sony doubled down on that series, they must be selling well or Sony wouldn't have bothered.

Complement NOT replacement! ;-)

I have a few thousand files taken with the A7IV and generally like those larger photo-site equipped sensors better ... even in a blind test!

I find the joytick less than ideal on the A7RV, the Fujis I had used in the past were nicer to manipulate.

Single card slot! Yes that's a bit of a worry. Same goes for the 1/4000s ... so just thinking about this camera as an extra where it doesn't matter. Much. Or not enough ...

Deed

 

[Impulses]

So you're contemplating a move from an A7R V to an A7C II? Sure, why not. My only

No! Not really.

reservation about going from the A7R IV to the A7CR has been the reduction in buffer size (the latter being about half as large), I don't shoot bursts/action often but when I do that would bug me... Everything else* on the A7C series I feel like I could work around of, and I do think the size and appearance of the smaller flat top bodies can have a big impact.

In a larger bag it's probably not a big deal and I can also see why many would have little interest in the C series, but in a small waist pack and the type of small slings I tend to use the hump does get in the way, and I do think subjects (and venue security, amongst others) can and do react differently to the SLR shape vs the flat top... Although these days any kinda dedicated camera is bound to stand out.

Regarding the 33MP vs 61MP sensors, I have no strong feelings there tbh, the latter has a larger cropping leeway (duh) which I enjoy having with primes, but I'm sure I could live with the former.

*A7C-series compromises:

• EFCS only? Carry an ND, same for the 1/4000 cap
• No joystick? Focus and recompose while tracking or use touch focus
• Single card slot? Backup nightly, you should do it anyway, I'm not a pro so a day's loss will never be fatal
• Small EVF? Would only impact me for MF, I can deal
• Small buffer? You're SOL (I guess if you shoot in crop mode or one of the smaller RAW formats you can squeeze a bit more out of it)

I think there's a reason Sony doubled down on that series, they must be selling well or Sony wouldn't have bothered.

Complement NOT replacement! ;-)

In that case, if you have the funds, why the heck not?

I've been wanting 2x E mount bodies myself, and if one has any concern with portability then an A7C series is an obvious choice for the second one... I'm just waiting until I'm done with M4/3 gear before I take that plunge.

I have a few thousand files taken with the A7IV and generally like those larger photo-site equipped sensors better ... even in a blind test!

I find the joytick less than ideal on the A7RV, the Fujis I had used in the past were nicer to manipulate.

TBH I mostly use the joystick as a button (to recenter my AF point), and not much beyond that (some use when tripod mounted but that's it).

Single card slot! Yes that's a bit of a worry. Same goes for the 1/4000s ... so just thinking about this camera as an extra where it doesn't matter. Much. Or not enough ...

Deed

Makes sense.

 

[ahaslett]

I find I need the grip extension with larger lenses like the 20-70/4. It’s OK with lenses like the Sigma 35/2 and 55/1.8 ZA, so you should be fine. Fortunately the Sony extension is included with the A7CR (but not the A7Cii).

I’d notice the slight loss of IQ going from 61Mpix to 33Mpix - I had an A7R for many years.

If you are using AI noise reduction like PhotoLab DeepPrime, you get more detail preservation if you start with more detail until the image is so noisy that the AI invents artefacts in low detail areas. I tested equivalent images between my 20Mpix MFT bodies and an A7Riv in a progressively darker room until the 20Mpix looked better after DeepPrime.

The image has to be really noisy before a lower resolution sensor produces a better result.

If you are resizing a jpeg in any case (for printing or automatically by your operating system for screen display) then you can’t lose by starting with more resolution, unless the resizing method is poor.

You shoot in sunny places, so remember the A7C bodies only have EFCS with no first curtain. Also they don’t have ultrasonic sensor cleaning and the IBIS isn’t up to the same level as the A7Rv.

A

 

[DirkPeh]

As long as the lenses are really small and lightweight the A7c II is just great, but as soon as larger lenses are used or you carry different lenses anyway, does the size difference - that comes with some compromising in ergonomics and functionality - really matters? Matters 2.000,-? Of course, I don't want to spoil your GAS.

 

[Impulses]

As long as the lenses are really small and lightweight the A7c II is just great, but as soon as larger lenses are used or you carry different lenses anyway, does the size difference - that comes with some compromising in ergonomics and functionality - really matters? Matters 2.000,-? Of course, I don't want to spoil your GAS.

The 3 lenses he brought up are some of the smallest in their class... And he's often expressed a desire to stick with lenses like that, at least for travel, so it seems to fit the first (underlined) use case pretty much to a T.

 

[deednets]

As long as the lenses are really small and lightweight the A7c II is just great, but as soon as larger lenses are used or you carry different lenses anyway, does the size difference - that comes with some compromising in ergonomics and functionality - really matters? Matters 2.000,-? Of course, I don't want to spoil your GAS.

The 3 lenses he brought up are some of the smallest in their class... And he's often expressed a desire to stick with lenses like that, at least for travel, so it seems to fit the first (underlined) use case pretty much to a T.

Yes, indeed. Even when I mention the lenses I use, some responses I get is with regards to large lenses ;-)

I find that on average that the SONY FE forum seems to prefer a "holy trinity" and people who prefer small are in the minority. Even RodB bought a 70-200/4 Macro-Something so maybe the World is forking out into phone users (small lenses, right??) and bazooka users ... I read somewhere here that the 20-200mm is the perfect travel lens??????????? Or a Tamron 28-300? Personally I'd rather travel with only a 35mm lens attached to some camera than this monstrosity:


1333 grams, 2.94lb


Note: I use a vented lens hood hence the cut-off original hood ;-)

As you know, one of the aspects of travel for me is to keep a reasonably low profile, I can only go by what I observe when I see other photographers approach a group of children on a beach with a 70-200 lens. People who do that often cannot see how those lenses are perceived, but I would - and have suggested this - consider how you would feel if somebody with a 28-300 Tamron took some photos of your boy or girlfriend. Or your child ... those large lenses, I mean, there's nothing subtle about them. Or is it just me?

Dunno. I guess the whole thought process is more about reducing my footprint. I felt on occasion that the GM 35/1.4 including lens hood was on the large side. The 45mm just smaller. Here is a little exercise in what size I am talking about: camerasize.com


938 grams versus 724 gram

When I took the photo below I was having a longer chat with her father, the usual, how time travels so fast ... nobody of those fishermen blinked an eye regarding the 75/2. Small enough to be confused with a "normal" lens?


SONY A7RV + TT Artisan 75/2

Deed

 

[Mike Fewster]

As long as the lenses are really small and lightweight the A7c II is just great, but as soon as larger lenses are used or you carry different lenses anyway, does the size difference - that comes with some compromising in ergonomics and functionality - really matters? Matters 2.000,-? Of course, I don't want to spoil your GAS.

The 3 lenses he brought up are some of the smallest in their class... And he's often expressed a desire to stick with lenses like that, at least for travel, so it seems to fit the first (underlined) use case pretty much to a T.

Yes, indeed. Even when I mention the lenses I use, some responses I get is with regards to large lenses ;-)

I find that on average that the SONY FE forum seems to prefer a "holy trinity" and people who prefer small are in the minority. Even RodB bought a 70-200/4 Macro-Something so maybe the World is forking out into phone users (small lenses, right??) and bazooka users ... I read somewhere here that the 20-200mm is the perfect travel lens??????????? Or a Tamron 28-300? Personally I'd rather travel with only a 35mm lens attached to some camera than this monstrosity:


1333 grams, 2.94lb


Note: I use a vented lens hood hence the cut-off original hood ;-)

As you know, one of the aspects of travel for me is to keep a reasonably low profile, I can only go by what I observe when I see other photographers approach a group of children on a beach with a 70-200 lens. People who do that often cannot see how those lenses are perceived, but I would - and have suggested this - consider how you would feel if somebody with a 28-300 Tamron took some photos of your boy or girlfriend. Or your child ... those large lenses, I mean, there's nothing subtle about them. Or is it just me?

Dunno. I guess the whole thought process is more about reducing my footprint. I felt on occasion that the GM 35/1.4 including lens hood was on the large side. The 45mm just smaller. Here is a little exercise in what size I am talking about: camerasize.com


938 grams versus 724 gram

When I took the photo below I was having a longer chat with her father, the usual, how time travels so fast ... nobody of those fishermen blinked an eye regarding the 75/2. Small enough to be confused with a "normal" lens?


SONY A7RV + TT Artisan 75/2

Deed

Yes and yes. There's a reason Leica became the camera it did and it has nothing to do with price and snobbery. In an era of necessarily giant bodies, Leica offered nimble photography and engagement with the world. Sony 7c series come from the same philosophy.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

 

[deednets]

As long as the lenses are really small and lightweight the A7c II is just great, but as soon as larger lenses are used or you carry different lenses anyway, does the size difference - that comes with some compromising in ergonomics and functionality - really matters? Matters 2.000,-? Of course, I don't want to spoil your GAS.

The 3 lenses he brought up are some of the smallest in their class... And he's often expressed a desire to stick with lenses like that, at least for travel, so it seems to fit the first (underlined) use case pretty much to a T.

Yes, indeed. Even when I mention the lenses I use, some responses I get is with regards to large lenses ;-)

I find that on average that the SONY FE forum seems to prefer a "holy trinity" and people who prefer small are in the minority. Even RodB bought a 70-200/4 Macro-Something so maybe the World is forking out into phone users (small lenses, right??) and bazooka users ... I read somewhere here that the 20-200mm is the perfect travel lens??????????? Or a Tamron 28-300? Personally I'd rather travel with only a 35mm lens attached to some camera than this monstrosity:


1333 grams, 2.94lb


Note: I use a vented lens hood hence the cut-off original hood ;-)

As you know, one of the aspects of travel for me is to keep a reasonably low profile, I can only go by what I observe when I see other photographers approach a group of children on a beach with a 70-200 lens. People who do that often cannot see how those lenses are perceived, but I would - and have suggested this - consider how you would feel if somebody with a 28-300 Tamron took some photos of your boy or girlfriend. Or your child ... those large lenses, I mean, there's nothing subtle about them. Or is it just me?

Dunno. I guess the whole thought process is more about reducing my footprint. I felt on occasion that the GM 35/1.4 including lens hood was on the large side. The 45mm just smaller. Here is a little exercise in what size I am talking about: camerasize.com


938 grams versus 724 gram

When I took the photo below I was having a longer chat with her father, the usual, how time travels so fast ... nobody of those fishermen blinked an eye regarding the 75/2. Small enough to be confused with a "normal" lens?


SONY A7RV + TT Artisan 75/2

Deed

Yes and yes. There's a reason Leica became the camera it did and it has nothing to do with price and snobbery. In an era of necessarily giant bodies, Leica offered nimble photography and engagement with the world. Sony 7c series come from the same philosophy.

When I used the Q2 I felt like I could just use that one camera, accept the shortcomings and the 26mm wide angle. Not ideal for portraits, but not bad-bad either ...





Close ups a bit of a mission, but not impossible:





I can see myself preferring the A7CII with the 45/2.8? Or maybe a re-visit of the Batis 40/2???





Dunno. Sometimes I feel like all this is a bit of an overkill - and then I simply stay put and do nothing. Work with what I have ...

Deed

 

[DirkPeh]

As long as the lenses are really small and lightweight the A7c II is just great, but as soon as larger lenses are used or you carry different lenses anyway, does the size difference - that comes with some compromising in ergonomics and functionality - really matters? Matters 2.000,-? Of course, I don't want to spoil your GAS.

The 3 lenses he brought up are some of the smallest in their class... And he's often expressed a desire to stick with lenses like that, at least for travel, so it seems to fit the first (underlined) use case pretty much to a T.

Yes, indeed. Even when I mention the lenses I use, some responses I get is with regards to large lenses ;-)

I find that on average that the SONY FE forum seems to prefer a "holy trinity" and people who prefer small are in the minority. Even RodB bought a 70-200/4 Macro-Something so maybe the World is forking out into phone users (small lenses, right??) and bazooka users ... I read somewhere here that the 20-200mm is the perfect travel lens??????????? Or a Tamron 28-300? Personally I'd rather travel with only a 35mm lens attached to some camera than this monstrosity:


1333 grams, 2.94lb


Note: I use a vented lens hood hence the cut-off original hood ;-)

As you know, one of the aspects of travel for me is to keep a reasonably low profile, I can only go by what I observe when I see other photographers approach a group of children on a beach with a 70-200 lens. People who do that often cannot see how those lenses are perceived, but I would - and have suggested this - consider how you would feel if somebody with a 28-300 Tamron took some photos of your boy or girlfriend. Or your child ... those large lenses, I mean, there's nothing subtle about them. Or is it just me?

Dunno. I guess the whole thought process is more about reducing my footprint. I felt on occasion that the GM 35/1.4 including lens hood was on the large side. The 45mm just smaller. Here is a little exercise in what size I am talking about: camerasize.com


938 grams versus 724 gram

When I took the photo below I was having a longer chat with her father, the usual, how time travels so fast ... nobody of those fishermen blinked an eye regarding the 75/2. Small enough to be confused with a "normal" lens?


SONY A7RV + TT Artisan 75/2

Deed

Yes and yes. There's a reason Leica became the camera it did and it has nothing to do with price and snobbery. In an era of necessarily giant bodies, Leica offered nimble photography and engagement with the world. Sony 7c series come from the same philosophy.

When I used the Q2 I felt like I could just use that one camera, accept the shortcomings and the 26mm wide angle. Not ideal for portraits, but not bad-bad either ...



Close ups a bit of a mission, but not impossible:



I can see myself preferring the A7CII with the 45/2.8? Or maybe a re-visit of the Batis 40/2???



Dunno. Sometimes I feel like all this is a bit of an overkill - and then I simply stay put and do nothing. Work with what I have ...

Deed

Yes, small is beautiful. I am using my Ricoh 50% of the time, my Fuji X100V 30%, my A7c II 20%, but mostly with a 50mm Sony G f/2.5, the Tamron 28-75 is rarely on it.

 

[jhunna]

I go through this a lot, but it seems I finally found my ideal EDC and travel camera the GFX100RF. As you have stated a few times for your experience with the Q series, it can take care of 90%+ of my needs. The one thing I really wish it had was the ability to get that pop without a flash for portraits. I can get the look but I need to be really close.

That said, I think you would be incredibly happy with the a7cr and 40G lens. I often think I should have just purchased a second a7cr and used the 24G as my edc BUT the feel of the RF and playing with the files is pleasure.

I read a few things in this thread and I want to address them:

1. The Tamron 28-300 is a good compliment to a single lens setup. It isn't perfect, but the files are workable, and you can get the shallow DOF when needed. Plus for what it is, it is extremely light.

2. Single card slot, you can configure your a7c cameras to back up to your camera as you shoot. And once there you can have a program upload them to the cloud. Single cards are rarely an issue if you have a smart phone available, and even then they rarely fail these days.

3. I think the additional detail of the 61MP sensor is worth any short comings in photo site size. I can recover a lot of detail in shadows, less in highlight.

4. Buffer size, shoot in apsc mode and still have 26MP files, while maintaining buffer size.

5. I haven't heard you mention video, but one day the rest of the world will realize how flexible the a7cr is for video, especially if you are going to post process.

6. I may be the only person on the planet that uses this BUT Hand held pixelshift works, and it isn't included with the a7c2.

I have a LOT of Sony glass, and to be honest the only thing I really want to take with me is the RF and the A7CR, the Tamron 28-300 and a good flash and microphone. My GM glass is almost wasted as I rarely use them now. Not because it isn't better but because I am satisfied with what I am getting with the this setup.

Anyrate, let us know what you decide, and have fun with it.

 

[UncleVanya]

Looking through those photos he seems to have taken the 70-200/4 g II also.