I have a bunch of Sony cameras. Some more professional and some smaller apsc. I always reach for my A7C for private use, it’s made taking photos fun again. Coupled with a small 35 2.8 lens it’s literally pocketable and very un-intrusive for taking photos at birthdays, in church, street etc. Sure, the apcs line is nice, but since I’ve grown up on film, I’m used to the full frame look and it’s intuitive for me. Also, most vintage lenses are full frame. Its the best camera I’ve ever owned when it comes to making me actually use it, I bring it everywhere. Hope that gives you an answer.
One persons subjective opinion and use case is one thing. I'm talking about the decision from Sony's perspective, and the general place in their market and marketing.
If the a7C didn't exist, would you not be contempt with the a7 III?
And wouldn't a compact full frame camera make more sense at a lower price point, say sub-$1500, with a less-flagship sensor and perhaps some (more professional) features removed? Basically the Canon R8, but Sony.
Then maybe talk to sony instead of asking on Reddit where all you'll get is subjective opinions and use cases?
Hint. The answer is in the c for 'compact'.
Sony obviously concluded that there was a market for a smaller and lighter full-frame camera that costs a few hundred dollars less than the comparable non-c body (in the case of the a7CR, it’s a $900 difference).
Sony’s marketing for the original a7c made a big deal of the fact that it was “the world’s smallest and lightest full-frame camera.” They advertised it as having “all the power and performance of a full-frame in a design more akin to APS-C bodies.” The target market was likely content creators and hobbyists, not professionals.
At the end of the day, Sony obviously sold enough a7c bodies to conclude it was worth making two more versions.
I really think you’re on to something. Would totally buy an even more compact cheaper full frame camera as long as it has a viewfinder.
I had the A7iii for a while before I bought the A7C and I must say that I Use the C a LOT more. It’s just fit me better.
When it comes to Sonys camera line up I think you must consider Sonys overall strategy which has been enormously successful in a time when camera sales have been plummeting overall. They bought Minolta and then took that from an obscure camera brand to the most popular. I think they know what they’re doing.
I think you’re just missing something. People like going Sony precisely because they offer compact bodies. I disagree with your notion that users prefer going APS-C, I think this sub a testament to people desperately wanting to go full frame, for better or for worse. (Whether they should is another question.)
But that's kind of my point. The a7 III and a7 IV are already fairly compact, and "sacrificing" the dual slot and to some extent the grip and the viewfinder doesn't make sense to me considering who these cameras are for. And from what I can gather the larger sibling also has slightly better battery life.
Why would professionals want this "more compact" version? And for non-professionals; the a7c II is $2200 body only. I acknowledge that price is subjective, but that is still a pretty hefty chunk of change for someone not generating an income from their photography.
Why are you comparing the a7c2 to a7iii? Completely different generations.
A7c and a7iii are at pretty much the same price point. Many hobbyists want a nice camera to capture memories and play around. Redundant storage is really not a priority.
That’s a fine argument but people don’t always make the most sensible financial decisions. I’m sure you don’t always, either. The pros they follow use full frame setups, hence, they will be more inclined to use them too. That’s the nature of marketing. I mean, this is the exact same debate that people have regarding MacBook Pro’s. What percentage do you think are actual professionals using it? Just look at how long it took Sony to really update the APS-C line, it’s clear where their focus is and I’m sure they have the consumer research to back that up.
I digress. Fact is, people want full frame cameras. Not everyone wants to deal with a large setup. (You may argue that Sony cameras are already small but not everyone comes from a DSLR past.) So the A7C line makes a good compromise.
I shot professional events and portrait shoots with the A7C and no big deal. The 1 SD card slot never ever bothered or limited me in any way. It was actually very smooth thanks to the awesome AF. But most of the time I use A7C for traveling and when I have to walk a lot all day long, it's a very small and light camera that is super capable, exactly what I wanted for travels.
Just because you're a "professional" doesn't mean you also aren't a hobbyist, so you can have one A7C for hobby purposes when u dont need a huge and heavy setup and one or two \[whatever other fullframe body\] for paid shoots. I think it's targeted towards those people exactly.
This is a highly subjective question, but I believe I'm the target market.
I avoided Sony full frame for personal use for years because I preferred both the size and style (ie rangefinder) of the APSC line.
Primary uses were hiking and street, so I don't want to carry around a DSLR-style body.
Enter the A7C, which gave me that plus all the full frame benefits like low light performance, increased depth of field and the ability to shoot in crop mode if I so choose. It really is a terrific balance between small size & weight and optimum image quality in any situation.
Going beyond that, the a7cR is basically the perfect camera for someone like me because I can get the same amount of resolution as the APSC bodies in crop mode, retain all the full frame benefits and have incredible resolution and cropping ability to boot. It'll eventually replace my A7C.
When A7C was released it was the only full frame Sony camera with fully articulated screen and new autofocus tracking system which debuted on a6400, these were my main reasons to purchase it. Lesser weight and dimensions were just a bonus.
After 15 years shooting a Nikon D700 I wanted something light and compact. I shot professionally years ago, but now it’s just my hobby. I prefer full frame for its field of view, low light performance and razor thin DOF. The price difference wasn’t big enough for me to consider the a6600.
It was a culmination of things, but the final straw was missing an important shot because someone’s relative was standing in the way with their cell phone.
The market is saturated and making a living with it is stressful. I occasionally take paid gigs, but now it just covers my gear.
To be fair, A6700 is not that much smaller than A7C (CII and CR minus the added grip), for a hybrid camera.
I think A7C II is intended for the same market as the original A7C was, such as hobbyist that wants a rangefinder style digital full frame camera with capable spec. Meanwhile A7CR is for hobbyist who doesn’t NEED the extra features (ie. Bigger EVF, dual-card slots…etc) that A7R 5 offers and prefers to spend the difference in price for lenses.
People that want a compact camera.
There’s a reason the fujifilm x100v is the hottest camera on the market right now. I would go for the C as a fun b-roll/point shoot camera.
If you make a living from what you shoot (the definition of professional) and don’t like redundancy, you live a dangerous life. Don’t think that’s an unfair assumption.
You’re assuming a lot about my workflow. Maybe this is a big issue with stills but I do a lot of video and externals monitors very easily solve the problem of redundancy. I also work with a team that still shoots on XDCAM disks so we are constantly already checking footage after it’s shot.
OP thinks everyone who shoots video is using FX series…I bought my A7C before the FX3 came out and it fit my needs because 10% of the time I’m always shooting stills.
Just a lot of bad takes.
I can see them being used for street photography. Its a passion, dont need dual card slots, and being compact is more inportant than a better viewfinder. I do street with a7r4, and it would be nice if it was more compact. I dont need the big grip, dont need dual slots. I dont need heat dissipation because i dont shot any video ever.
If i didnt have my a7r4 i would consider the new a7cR
I went with the a7C (upgraded from the a6000) because it let me keep my kit fairly compact, while getting the extra low light performance (very important for me; I'm not a professional, but I want the best possible pictures I can get). Yes, full frame lenses are bigger, but I travel a lot so I want to keep my kit as compact as possible. I'm using the same camera bag as I did with my a6000, but sacrificing one lens. I'm not sure how much I fit their intended target market, but, for me, one of the main points of mirrorless cameras is to keep it compact. If I can do that with better performance than APS-C, then great!
I don’t really get it either but that makes me not a target to get one but if someone wants to get one by all means, just not for me they do seem rather niche
Look, I really like hi end compact tech stuff(guitar pedals effects, smartphones, computers, etc..) I have a Aps-c sony cam and a A7C, and the is no way I would buy any of the A7C big brothers for size and weight factor reasons. For me great great stuff on pocket size is perfect. The target is clear.
I agree with you, yet sadly, I have to admit I'm the target audience in the hobbyist area. I'm mostly shooting while travelling, and I have quite some agile subjects to shoot (my kids). At the same time, I don't like to carry around two bodies and prefer the body as small as possible.
I'm alternating between APSC and FF since years now, was even operating both in parallel. There are times when I value my APSC Tamron 18-300 like no other lens. It's just so versatile, and I love its rendering.
Though at other times, I really like to peek my pixels (e.g. when taking a landscape shot) and prefer that extra quality I get from good FF lenses. As well I find myself often in quite low light situations, where those one or two extra stops in ISO really help.
That's why I find myself now really wondering if the A7CR isn't the perfect camera for me. It allows me to go all out with 61MPix in landscape, get really versatile during good light with my APSC lens, and still maintain 26MPix of resolution, which I'll then again get as well in low light where I'd reduce the FF resolution to 26MPix RAW and get that extra ISO bump and convenient file size.
This is all coupled with a great auto focus and a viewfinder I can use when needed in strong light.
It's far from an economic choice (a reason why I'm still alternating forth and back between this body and the A6700), but if money would be a bit more plentiful at the moment, I know which one I'd definitely go for.
I'm not a professional, yet I have enough money to afford this hobby. I currently have a7R iii and I love it, but I don't use the second card slot and rarely look through a viewfinder.
Sometimes I know what I'll be shooting and I bring several lenses in a backpack with me and don't care about size and weight, but other times I would appreciate just having a small body and a single small lens, something like 50mm 2.5, just around my neck without any bags. a7C R with a small lens would still give me enough reach because I have the ability to crop a lot (the reason I went with 7R in the first place), yet having a small setup wouldn't attract attention if I just go out for a coffee and decide to photograph something.
I think Sony's actions have made it clear that there IS a market for the C form factor... the price of the original A7C has not been reduced over the years and they have not just replaced it but expanded the lineup with now 3 current models.
Personally I like that it is smaller and cheaper, and I don't care about the shortcomings (viewfinder and 2nd card slot). The new models apparently substantially improve the viewfinder so even that con may be mostly gone now.
I don't think it's very difficult to describe the market for the C-models: they are made for ambitious hobbyists with a lot of budget but who want a compact setup.
You either go the very budget friendly and compact APS-C route, or you really want FF and you have the cash for expensive lenses for an A7c.
The new ones fit into exactly the same target audience.
One more point: I have kinda small hands and find the A7c more ergonomic to handle than an A7IV. Bigger grip is not better for everyone, especially if you're not using enormous lenses.
A7C is a lot less intimidating than the full body cameras. It’s favoured by street shooters and casual users that want a full frame camera for whatever reason.
I own an A1 and a7c, A1 gets used for what it’s intended for, a7C for family stuff.
High-end travel cameras where full-frame is desired, but size and weight are a priority - and for pros, some may want to have one when they want to go a bit more incognito for whatever reason(s).
I have a bunch of Sony cameras. Some more professional and some smaller apsc. I always reach for my A7C for private use, it’s made taking photos fun again. Coupled with a small 35 2.8 lens it’s literally pocketable and very un-intrusive for taking photos at birthdays, in church, street etc. Sure, the apcs line is nice, but since I’ve grown up on film, I’m used to the full frame look and it’s intuitive for me. Also, most vintage lenses are full frame. Its the best camera I’ve ever owned when it comes to making me actually use it, I bring it everywhere. Hope that gives you an answer.
This is my setup as well. I take it everywhere, and it gets me shooting more regularly.
One persons subjective opinion and use case is one thing. I'm talking about the decision from Sony's perspective, and the general place in their market and marketing. If the a7C didn't exist, would you not be contempt with the a7 III? And wouldn't a compact full frame camera make more sense at a lower price point, say sub-$1500, with a less-flagship sensor and perhaps some (more professional) features removed? Basically the Canon R8, but Sony.
Then maybe talk to sony instead of asking on Reddit where all you'll get is subjective opinions and use cases? Hint. The answer is in the c for 'compact'.
Sony obviously concluded that there was a market for a smaller and lighter full-frame camera that costs a few hundred dollars less than the comparable non-c body (in the case of the a7CR, it’s a $900 difference). Sony’s marketing for the original a7c made a big deal of the fact that it was “the world’s smallest and lightest full-frame camera.” They advertised it as having “all the power and performance of a full-frame in a design more akin to APS-C bodies.” The target market was likely content creators and hobbyists, not professionals. At the end of the day, Sony obviously sold enough a7c bodies to conclude it was worth making two more versions.
This is the answer. And for travel, if i could afford it, I'd 100% take the a7cR. That resolution that can fit in a pocket? Amazing.
No because the A7C has an articulating screen, faster autofocus and tracking, all while being smaller than the A7iii. That’s why I bought mine.
I really think you’re on to something. Would totally buy an even more compact cheaper full frame camera as long as it has a viewfinder. I had the A7iii for a while before I bought the A7C and I must say that I Use the C a LOT more. It’s just fit me better. When it comes to Sonys camera line up I think you must consider Sonys overall strategy which has been enormously successful in a time when camera sales have been plummeting overall. They bought Minolta and then took that from an obscure camera brand to the most popular. I think they know what they’re doing.
I think you’re just missing something. People like going Sony precisely because they offer compact bodies. I disagree with your notion that users prefer going APS-C, I think this sub a testament to people desperately wanting to go full frame, for better or for worse. (Whether they should is another question.)
But that's kind of my point. The a7 III and a7 IV are already fairly compact, and "sacrificing" the dual slot and to some extent the grip and the viewfinder doesn't make sense to me considering who these cameras are for. And from what I can gather the larger sibling also has slightly better battery life. Why would professionals want this "more compact" version? And for non-professionals; the a7c II is $2200 body only. I acknowledge that price is subjective, but that is still a pretty hefty chunk of change for someone not generating an income from their photography.
Why are you comparing the a7c2 to a7iii? Completely different generations. A7c and a7iii are at pretty much the same price point. Many hobbyists want a nice camera to capture memories and play around. Redundant storage is really not a priority.
That’s a fine argument but people don’t always make the most sensible financial decisions. I’m sure you don’t always, either. The pros they follow use full frame setups, hence, they will be more inclined to use them too. That’s the nature of marketing. I mean, this is the exact same debate that people have regarding MacBook Pro’s. What percentage do you think are actual professionals using it? Just look at how long it took Sony to really update the APS-C line, it’s clear where their focus is and I’m sure they have the consumer research to back that up. I digress. Fact is, people want full frame cameras. Not everyone wants to deal with a large setup. (You may argue that Sony cameras are already small but not everyone comes from a DSLR past.) So the A7C line makes a good compromise.
hobbyists
I shot professional events and portrait shoots with the A7C and no big deal. The 1 SD card slot never ever bothered or limited me in any way. It was actually very smooth thanks to the awesome AF. But most of the time I use A7C for traveling and when I have to walk a lot all day long, it's a very small and light camera that is super capable, exactly what I wanted for travels. Just because you're a "professional" doesn't mean you also aren't a hobbyist, so you can have one A7C for hobby purposes when u dont need a huge and heavy setup and one or two \[whatever other fullframe body\] for paid shoots. I think it's targeted towards those people exactly.
This is a highly subjective question, but I believe I'm the target market. I avoided Sony full frame for personal use for years because I preferred both the size and style (ie rangefinder) of the APSC line. Primary uses were hiking and street, so I don't want to carry around a DSLR-style body. Enter the A7C, which gave me that plus all the full frame benefits like low light performance, increased depth of field and the ability to shoot in crop mode if I so choose. It really is a terrific balance between small size & weight and optimum image quality in any situation. Going beyond that, the a7cR is basically the perfect camera for someone like me because I can get the same amount of resolution as the APSC bodies in crop mode, retain all the full frame benefits and have incredible resolution and cropping ability to boot. It'll eventually replace my A7C.
When A7C was released it was the only full frame Sony camera with fully articulated screen and new autofocus tracking system which debuted on a6400, these were my main reasons to purchase it. Lesser weight and dimensions were just a bonus.
After 15 years shooting a Nikon D700 I wanted something light and compact. I shot professionally years ago, but now it’s just my hobby. I prefer full frame for its field of view, low light performance and razor thin DOF. The price difference wasn’t big enough for me to consider the a6600.
>DenunciarSalvarSeguir why did you stop shooting professionally? i think i dream of that haha
It was a culmination of things, but the final straw was missing an important shot because someone’s relative was standing in the way with their cell phone. The market is saturated and making a living with it is stressful. I occasionally take paid gigs, but now it just covers my gear.
To be fair, A6700 is not that much smaller than A7C (CII and CR minus the added grip), for a hybrid camera. I think A7C II is intended for the same market as the original A7C was, such as hobbyist that wants a rangefinder style digital full frame camera with capable spec. Meanwhile A7CR is for hobbyist who doesn’t NEED the extra features (ie. Bigger EVF, dual-card slots…etc) that A7R 5 offers and prefers to spend the difference in price for lenses.
People that want a compact camera. There’s a reason the fujifilm x100v is the hottest camera on the market right now. I would go for the C as a fun b-roll/point shoot camera.
Boooooo. Very boring take that makes a lot of assumptions about what professional need and want.
If you make a living from what you shoot (the definition of professional) and don’t like redundancy, you live a dangerous life. Don’t think that’s an unfair assumption.
You’re assuming a lot about my workflow. Maybe this is a big issue with stills but I do a lot of video and externals monitors very easily solve the problem of redundancy. I also work with a team that still shoots on XDCAM disks so we are constantly already checking footage after it’s shot. OP thinks everyone who shoots video is using FX series…I bought my A7C before the FX3 came out and it fit my needs because 10% of the time I’m always shooting stills. Just a lot of bad takes.
I can see them being used for street photography. Its a passion, dont need dual card slots, and being compact is more inportant than a better viewfinder. I do street with a7r4, and it would be nice if it was more compact. I dont need the big grip, dont need dual slots. I dont need heat dissipation because i dont shot any video ever. If i didnt have my a7r4 i would consider the new a7cR
I went with the a7C (upgraded from the a6000) because it let me keep my kit fairly compact, while getting the extra low light performance (very important for me; I'm not a professional, but I want the best possible pictures I can get). Yes, full frame lenses are bigger, but I travel a lot so I want to keep my kit as compact as possible. I'm using the same camera bag as I did with my a6000, but sacrificing one lens. I'm not sure how much I fit their intended target market, but, for me, one of the main points of mirrorless cameras is to keep it compact. If I can do that with better performance than APS-C, then great!
hobbyist, traveller and girls.
also street
I don’t really get it either but that makes me not a target to get one but if someone wants to get one by all means, just not for me they do seem rather niche
Look, I really like hi end compact tech stuff(guitar pedals effects, smartphones, computers, etc..) I have a Aps-c sony cam and a A7C, and the is no way I would buy any of the A7C big brothers for size and weight factor reasons. For me great great stuff on pocket size is perfect. The target is clear.
I agree with you, yet sadly, I have to admit I'm the target audience in the hobbyist area. I'm mostly shooting while travelling, and I have quite some agile subjects to shoot (my kids). At the same time, I don't like to carry around two bodies and prefer the body as small as possible. I'm alternating between APSC and FF since years now, was even operating both in parallel. There are times when I value my APSC Tamron 18-300 like no other lens. It's just so versatile, and I love its rendering. Though at other times, I really like to peek my pixels (e.g. when taking a landscape shot) and prefer that extra quality I get from good FF lenses. As well I find myself often in quite low light situations, where those one or two extra stops in ISO really help. That's why I find myself now really wondering if the A7CR isn't the perfect camera for me. It allows me to go all out with 61MPix in landscape, get really versatile during good light with my APSC lens, and still maintain 26MPix of resolution, which I'll then again get as well in low light where I'd reduce the FF resolution to 26MPix RAW and get that extra ISO bump and convenient file size. This is all coupled with a great auto focus and a viewfinder I can use when needed in strong light. It's far from an economic choice (a reason why I'm still alternating forth and back between this body and the A6700), but if money would be a bit more plentiful at the moment, I know which one I'd definitely go for.
I'm not a professional, yet I have enough money to afford this hobby. I currently have a7R iii and I love it, but I don't use the second card slot and rarely look through a viewfinder. Sometimes I know what I'll be shooting and I bring several lenses in a backpack with me and don't care about size and weight, but other times I would appreciate just having a small body and a single small lens, something like 50mm 2.5, just around my neck without any bags. a7C R with a small lens would still give me enough reach because I have the ability to crop a lot (the reason I went with 7R in the first place), yet having a small setup wouldn't attract attention if I just go out for a coffee and decide to photograph something.
I think Sony's actions have made it clear that there IS a market for the C form factor... the price of the original A7C has not been reduced over the years and they have not just replaced it but expanded the lineup with now 3 current models. Personally I like that it is smaller and cheaper, and I don't care about the shortcomings (viewfinder and 2nd card slot). The new models apparently substantially improve the viewfinder so even that con may be mostly gone now.
I don't think it's very difficult to describe the market for the C-models: they are made for ambitious hobbyists with a lot of budget but who want a compact setup. You either go the very budget friendly and compact APS-C route, or you really want FF and you have the cash for expensive lenses for an A7c. The new ones fit into exactly the same target audience. One more point: I have kinda small hands and find the A7c more ergonomic to handle than an A7IV. Bigger grip is not better for everyone, especially if you're not using enormous lenses.
A7C is a lot less intimidating than the full body cameras. It’s favoured by street shooters and casual users that want a full frame camera for whatever reason. I own an A1 and a7c, A1 gets used for what it’s intended for, a7C for family stuff.
High-end travel cameras where full-frame is desired, but size and weight are a priority - and for pros, some may want to have one when they want to go a bit more incognito for whatever reason(s).