Though mounted behind smaller optics.

So, for instance, the a6100 has a magnification of 0.7x (in full-frame terms), the a7C has a magnification of 0.59x, which is the same size as the EOS 40D. If you ever shot with an APS-C DSLR you'll remember the viewfinders were a lot smaller than we've since become used to.

"There probably isn't an alternative as this sort of camera is a bit thin on the ground"

Yes. My original point was that this Sony and the 'Pro3 may be similar price but they're selling different things. Sony traded the OVF experience for larger sensor, Fuji vice-versa. To each his own, but I see nothing to complain about in the price of the Sony. It's a matter of feature choice

I don't look forward to the death of the smaller sensor sizes because I believe they fill a need for a real camera experience. Rhetorical question: What's the smallest sensor size that has better resolution than 35mm film? The answer is, most if not all of them. Digital sensors have far exceeded film on Resolution/Area^2 long ago. That's what I don't get about the fixation on full-frame. I get that a larger sensor has its own (dis)advantages, but manufacture cost of sensor sizes is not linear. To put in a full-frame sensor, you've got to remove somewhere else to stay price competitive.

@Richard Butler thank you for the extensive review. I only meant to share few small details that may be useful to Sony owners and probably do not make sense in a review as the one you put together.

My understanding is that Sony A7C has the processor, menu system and AF from A6400 and A7r4. As the announcement page for A6400 says the processor is updated to latest generation i.e. A7C has a processor that is improved over A7iii

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9768716484/sony-announces-a6400-midrange-aps-c-mirrorless-camera

A7iii is great and is almost 3 year old camera now. Sony have changed a thing or two in the follow on releases. A7C you can view as A6400 with bigger sensor or A7r4 in smaller box.

A7C is not A7iii except it uses the same exact sensor.

No joystick feels like a downgrade honestly, this camera has bad ergonomics compared to A7-III. If you already have the A7-III there is no good sensible reason to get this sucker.

AcerK I use the screen as joystick and it is mostly ok.

You need to change couple of settings and then when you use the viewfinder the screen acts as touchpad/joystick

1. Setup3 (the toolbox) -> Touch Panel/Pad should be set to "Touch Panel+Pad"
2. Setup3 -> Touch Pad Settings -> Touch Position Mode should be set to "Relative Position"

You should not set the function to take photo with the touch screen.

Then the touchpad works as joystick. Sounds weird but I use the same on A7r3 instead of the joystick. I got the small sucker for it's size and weight. It is not upgrade ot A7iii or A7r3 for sure.

Not a big deal.

I have now set up my A7C and am quite happy, so if you have more questions shoot.

My problem is that they could have kept the joystick.. it's just weird also not to have one single C1 button, just one at least you know. Me personally I'm just going to upgrade my A7-III with A7-IV when it comes out, I really want a second body but this is just not worth it IMO.

AcerK there are 6 custom buttons. There are 2 unassigned buttons out of the box the C (garbage can) and down button.

I also free up the movie button as it is not really needed for movies in photo mode. In movie mode the shutter can start recording or you can assign the movie button in movie mode to start/stop recording. So in photo mode the video button is free.

I have presently assigned the following

down key - white balance
C (garbage can) - Live view on/off
Movie button - Left/Right Eye select (I will change this to focus magnification)

There are other cameras of course. No need to get sad over this one. It may be not the right one for you. A7C is niche camera. It is not for everyone. I wanted such camera since 2013. Sony finally made one. So I am extremely happy with it. It is fast. It handles very well. It is not so tall as other cameras and is a bit lighter.

Why would I be sad, it's not like I wasted money on it.

The reason for all of these improvements is because it has a different processor than the a7iii. This is what has flown under the radar. The A7c has the newest Sony processor - along with the A7siii - the only two bodies with this new processor.
EDIT - I was wrong - this has the Bionz X - not the new Bionz XR.

Well, the there was one discussion on the Canon 1DX Mark III that had far more comments, I believe about 2000. I doubt that Canon sold more of that $6000 camera than much less expensive models that got less comments.

There have been some Leica cameras that got a lot of comments, like the Q2 and some M models but that doesn't mean they sell in great quantity.

So sure comments are a sign of interest. But that interest could come from some high end or niche features that attract comments from people interested but not going to buy. Think of a Ferrari or Porsche and how that attracts attention but won't sell as well as a Camry.

Many of the kind of entry level cameras don't have the interesting features but they will sell. Also the type of person who may buy the lesser expensive models may not be a gear head commenting on this site.

So it's hard to correlate forum comments with sales. Sometimes it holds true, sometimes not.

Lens selection? Adapters? Bulk, weight and few and hefty price for lenses ... they have almost as great cameras as Sony, but a Nikon is not for everybody.

JJZ I too opted for small primes. Below are my picks:

15/4.5 Voigtlander
18/2.8 Samyang
28/2 Sony
35/1.8 Sony has close focusing
45/1.8 Samyang
55/1.8 Sony
75/1.8 Samyang
135/3.5 Minolta MD on Techart adapter.

I pick 4 lenses from this to carry with me in a small cross body bag (Pasafe LS200)

15, 35, 55 and 75 see most use. The 28 I use a lot for zoom calls

The VF is literally the single most important user interface on a camera for most.

One of the advantages most often cited of mirrorless cameras over DSLRs is that with the EVF you get a preview of your actual image, showing the actual exposure, showing the effect of changes to your settings, etc. But if the EVF is sub-optimal, that utility diminishes.

All camera companies need to realize that they should put a great EVF in all of their mirrorless offerings...it will make a big difference on the user experience and even on first impressions for customers deciding to purchase.

Thoughts - I've never actually considered the so-called WYSIWYG preview of MILCs to be an advantage.

Firstly, the preview image is just an approximation, because although it uses the same feed, it is output on a screen that is coarse, contrasty and has less tonality compared to the image output as a file.

Secondly, it doesn't in any way represent the image that we finally print, or finally view on our computer monitors, because all serious photographers will make substantial changes to shadows and highlights in post (not to mention colour balance, saturation, cropping etc).

Thirdly, I can shoot off a bracketed series of 3 shots far faster on a DSLR, than I can twiddle the compensation knob and analyse the monitor of a MILC.

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to stay with my DSLRs.

@Ent - I don't think anyone suggest you shouldn't.

DarnGood - Yes I know, I was adding an additional (relevant) point to the discussion, not questioning what anyone was saying :-)

Mr Bolton - Yes of course the same bracketing can be achieved just as easily with a MILC. The point I was making was that for me, the ability to bracket exposures makes the WYSIWYG aspect of MILCs redundant.

There are of course many other aspects of MILCs that are valuable - e.g. silent shutter, less vibration, potentially more accurate focus, full area AF, animal-eye tracking etc.

But I still prefer the greater connect and natural viewing provided by an optical viewfinder. I'd like to take a peek through an a7siii, with its 9.44K EVF, just to see if it changes my mind though.

How do you know the GX8 didnt sell well because of its FAS? I think the large size was more of an issue.

U ok hun?

All camera companies should understand that the quality of EVF and LCD screen really matters. People are used to fabulous screens on their smartphones. The EVF and LCD is how you experience a camera. It needs to be high quality.

Sony above all should know this and be good at this. They know how to make high quality EVFs and LCD screens. Why they haven't made this a trademark of their alpha line I don't know.

To hell with EVFs. I wish Canon and Nikon would carry on producing new DSLR models instead of leaving it to Pentax.

Although the R5 and R6 are great cameras, I'd rather have a "5DMkv" with the 45MP sensor from the R5, a quieter shutter/mirror mechanism, and a tilting screen for the rare occasions when I want live-view.

Well, I think that Wesley related to the review article that states "clumsy compressed RAW".
Personally I have never run into problems with Sony's compressed RAW format and have never experienced any sort of degradation of IQ. But apparently its peers such as Canon seem to hold an advantage in terms of RAW compression efficiency and/or quality, so there's that ;-)

Photographers are not a homogenous lot when it comes to taste! That's why so many competing brands continue to exist! Currently in the full-frame mirrorless market, for every photog that likes CaNikon there's at least ONE (if not more) that chooses Sony!

@ Thoughts R Us: You are right that few using Nikon and Canon would buy the A7C. Why shoukd they? Wrong mount. Their lenses will not fit. Also, the brand name on the front of the camera belongs to the wrong cult! And this might be the biggest problem.

If this camera have had a Canon or Nikon logo, you would - as a Canon loyalist and the most active poster on the Dpreview forums - probably have written something else. This is how tribe members argue. So I am not quite shocked when you say "straw arguments" here.

Speak for yourself. There is the other camp that want the mirrorless benefits (larger AF coverage, WYSIWYG EVF, etc.) without having our fingers feeling cramped and/or ergonomics sacrificed.

Sure, and for those people there is every other FF mirrorless camera.

The problem with the A7C is the A7iii.
Essentialy the same specs and price.
Is the reduction in size worth losing out on a much better EVF and arguably better handling?
Once you add a lens the difference in size becomes even less of a bonus. Yes there is the new compact lens, but that can be used on the A7iii as well.

They're not really the same specs. The A7III has a better EVF, better shutter, dual cards and better controls. The only reason to buy the A7C over the A7III is because you prefer the form factor, but it should be the cheaper camera of the two. This is why I think the price will come down fairly soon.

Pixel Pooper, KZ7: I think the price is set pretty high since this is a new concept, and Sony want to test what people are willing to pay for such a camera. Marketing and sales, as usually.

Since the conept is not revoultionary, my guess is that the price will adjust to oter similar spec-ed cameras soon, unless the camera sells very well.

This argument makes no sense. Especially as the A7C is selling well, even thought it is more expensive than the higher specced A7III. This shows that people want this form factor, and Sony is the only brand that offers it.

Sorry but your argument makes no sense. Sony doesn't compete against itself. For those who want a FF in this price segment, Sony doesn't care if you buy the a7c or the a7iii, only that you buy from them. They don't pit the a7iii against the a7c.

So if the a7c is selling so well at $1800, they lose out of $100 by lowering the price of the a7iii and instead selling you that at $1700. See, it makes no sense for Sony to do that unless they are not persuading many buyers with the a7c.

For those who'd buy the a7III anyway for its advantages, again it makes no sense for Sony to sell them that at $1700 when they could get $2000.

The bottom line is that Sony is having to discount the a7III to appeal to this price segment because the a7c is not doing it. That's how Sony views this: as a price segment of the market and the lower priced a7iii is now being tasked to do the job that the a7c was supposed to do.

Sony always discounts their products at this time of year! If you'll notice, it's not only the a7iii that got a lower price.... so did the a9, a7Riv, a7Riii, a7ii, etc.

The A7III has been discounted plenty before now.

If the A7C wasn't selling, they would discount the A7C, not the A7III.

You're really trying too hard to prove your speculation! Sony has lowered prices on almost all of their cameras! They didn't do that to cover for the a7C! It's their normal practice at this time of year! Some cameras (e.g. Leica Q2, Zeiss ZV1) appeal to a small segment of the market who are willing to pay prices that seem outrageous to those who don't like or want those products! For some buyers the a7C fits their needs at this price point. If you're not in that segment so what?

You just don't want to stop trying to justify your erroneous speculation, even when faced with facts to the contrary! 🤔 What can be done?!

Stop arguing with Sony fanboys. Let them buy this compact A7C at two grand and be happy with it. Even a guy here mentioning about Leica Q2. What a joke. And dont let me start about this MIlc man. Every time TRU makes a comment he will be there as well defending his brand blindly.

it's funny how people who aren't in the camera business think that they know what the market wants...

and they keep trying to tell us that the biggest and most innovative milc company on the planet is doing it all wrong, lol

sony got to be #1 in the milc business by doing market research with focus groups and sony owners, not random dpr posters who don't even have real names ;-)

Yes MILC man that's right. But Sony continues to make the same mistakes which is why lots of people choose different cameras. My A7RIII tends to gather dust. Want to buy it?

So MILCman is it your contention that a large corporation doing market research will never make mistakes with product decisions? Because that is in essence what you are saying.

Of course your thesis is not true. Large companies doing market research have made mistakes. Sometimes big ones. Remember New Coke? Don't you think the Coca Cola Co. did a whole lot of market research before that release? Yet it failed in the market.

How about Kodak? Why didn't their market research save them from oblivion?

MILC man - "random dpr posters who don't even have real names"

So MILC man is *your* real name, is it?

They don't play it safe, they offer cameras for various uses, and the always have excellent sensors. Canon is the epitome of playing it safe, and are a generation behind in sensor tech (but great lenses!).

I think it's more like, while competition is still sorting out how to create and sell a mirrorless platform, Sony has the maturity to start producing niche products. Maybe it will sell, maybe not. Eventually N and C will have tiny FF bodies too, but it won't be for a while. Sony is just killing it IMHO.

This is a miss-mash of stuff they already had; it's thrilled no one in the market and has generally received a lukewarm to poor reception.

More than likely this is an idea they've had no the shelf for over a year but now just decided to release it.

And yes, innovation also extends to making a product more usable. In this case they could have innovated and found a way to put a nice high res EVF into a body this size.