Stilll thinking about an A7CII to complement my setup

[deednets]

I do not understand this. What is the point not to use the same sensor?

With A7CR you could use less lenses. Just switch to APS-C or make post processing crop and have still nearly the same pixel count like with A7Cii.

I used to have an A7Riv and an A7C. The A7Riv was too big for my bags but the A7C had not enough crop potential coming from A7Rii and A7Riv. Now I have two A7CR.

A personal preference for the photos I took with both sensors:


A7IV 33MPX feel free to zoom in


A7RV 60MPX

I can only see that there are different light conditions, different time of day, not exactly the same scene.

I doubt that I could see any difference if you photograph exactly the same scene.

I had feared that you might say that ... the typical dpreview attitude that your 20.000+ photos taken with a camera don't count for anything, unless there was a scientific text on tripod ...

I think there's certainly value in that, and you're entitled to your preference, but if one doesn't see the same things in those two shots that you do why can't you articulate whatever it is that drives your preference? I'm trying to approach this with honest curiosity, not challenging for the sake of it...

How about this: I liked MOST of the A7IV images better than those taken with my A7RV and I also liked ALL 24Mpx images from my RX1/RX1r better than those taken with the RX1RII.

But why?

So will leave this little discussion here, I could of course post an archive of maybe 1000+ photos of monkeys taken with the A7RV and you pick the one shot that you would think resembles anything like those shots posted above.

Still: not taken from a tripod on the same day, same light ... (I have seen debates here where the images were 20 seconds apart ... so didn't count!!!!!)

For me it's not about that...

I accept that you may have more experience than I do and may also take the better images,

And definitely not that...

but I will not talk about MY personal preference! ;-)

Deed

Everyone is entitled to that! I just don't see what's the sensor related difference in those two shots that presumably stands out enough for you to post them as an example.

I often felt like larger photo-sites in an image at 100% looked better than smaller pixels downsampled.

Look at those hands at 100% if you can't see a difference, then bully for you

On an utterly non-scientific take, I never got the same iq back, just going by looking at hands. Bear in mind that I am the same photographer and use my software on my computer. You disagree, which is fine, but ultimately it's me who makes the decision as to what to like and what to print.

Deed

 

[Mike Fewster]

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

Just out of interest: who is "he"?? What photos were you referring to? RodB?

Deed

Mark Galer the link you posted about his shots in Bali. Many are with the 70-200/4 g II. You mentioned the 20-70 and 50/2.5 - I was surprised that many were also with the 70-200/4. One reason for my notice of this is that I own and use the 20-70 and 70-200 myself and I have the Viltrox 50/2 air as a prime to team up with that pair. It was nice to see those shots.

Even so I’m not certain I would travel with that combo frequently. The tiny 28-60 and a 24/1.8 is hard to argue with as an alternative if the longer lens is y needed.

Ah yes sorry, Mark Galer ... I had an email in my inbox from him stating that he was going to Bali and was only shooting the 20-70 plus the 50/2.5 ... on the flickr page there are also other shots, not sure how this came to be? Must have misread his mail??



You are correct, he said that he used 3 lenses ... ;-)

From the sample shots he took with the 20-70 and the 50/2.5 I didn't like any of them. Please note that generally speaking I think his photos are often of excellent quality. But in near all his shots the bokeh is nervous and distracting in a way I don't like.

A matter of personal taste, you may want to call this. Just didn't like his selection.

Deed

In some photos with 20-70 the object/subject could be much better isolated from disturbing background with larger aperture.

Sometimes, yes. But to my taste the whole ultra thin dof with out of focus background has become an overused fad. Generally, I'm much more interested in seeing things within the context of their environment. If I want a study of something small, I'll get in closer. I rarely see the point of a relatively small area with a lot of out of focus background.

--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

 

[benmao]

Most of his photos are very good.

I meant such pictures:

Here 20 mm F/8 - i would prefer that the house is less sharp:

https://flic.kr/p/2rno3vX

34 mm F/11 - aperture more open the pole would eventually not grow out of the head - why F/11 here?:

https://flic.kr/p/2rnoEmq

 

[Mike Fewster]

Most of his photos are very good.

I meant such pictures:

Here 20 mm F/8 - i would prefer that the house is less sharp:

https://flic.kr/p/2rno3vX

34 mm F/11 - aperture more open the pole would eventually not grow out of the head - why F/11 here?:

https://flic.kr/p/2rnoEmq

I agree with your point on both photos and I'd rate both as poor shots.

 

[Maxmolly7]

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.

When I switched from Canon EOS-M to Sony I was also checking the A6700 vs. FF. I decided to go a good step up from my 2 1" sensor travel cameras and choose the A7CII over the A7IV because of smaller body and better AF.

First lens of choice was Tamron 28-200mm, second 16-35mm PZ. Prime choices were 20mm Viltrox, 35 and 75mm f1.8 Samyang.

Now I am eagerly waiting for a new Sony 24-240mm or, the new Sigma 20-200mm.

 

[rashid7]

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.

When I switched from Canon EOS-M to Sony I was also checking the A6700 vs. FF. I decided to go a good step up from my 2 1" sensor travel cameras and choose the A7CII over the A7IV because of smaller body and better AF.

First lens of choice was Tamron 28-200mm, second 16-35mm PZ. Prime choices were 20mm Viltrox, 35 and 75mm f1.8 Samyang.

Now I am eagerly waiting for a new Sony 24-240mm or, the new Sigma 20-200mm.

good choices, I have 4 of your 5 lenses