HEY! Couple notes before you comment! :) 1. You're awesome for actually reading this first! 2. A lot of comments here already seemed like they dismissed the video before watching. Most mentioned APSC is NOT DEAD because the affordable price keeps them alive - which is EXACTLY what I said in the video too :) I also went on to say if anything, APS-C "could" be slowly phased out but not for awhile. a7C is just the start! If dedicated cameras are still a thing in the next decade, FF might be the new standard is my guess. That is... if phones still haven't phased out dedicated cameras by then! haha And finally... 3. a6400 does not have eye af in video - my mistake! 🙈
Maybe the APSC format will survive for video, but for photography the future are for "fullformat" 24x36mm and 33x44mm and even larger sensor cameras. I went from an APSC Canon DSLR to Sony "fullformat", but I can still take pictures in APSC with Sony if I want to, the Sony A7 series are so compact that APSC do not look like an options any more, I need the high resolutions of the Sony A7RIV most of the time now. I hope in near future there will be lower priced compact 33x44mm sensor cameras with 100 (+) megapixels. (By the way, who are the jerk that called 24x36 (35mm format) for "fullformat" ??)
Dual gain ISO architecture is needed in Sony APS-C, but will never happen. Instead compact primes like 18 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2.8, 35 f/1.8 (all from Samyang),Sigma's new 85 f/1.4, Tamron's 17-28,28-75,70-180 (f/2.8) & 28-200. All this lenses are compact enough to replace most of APS-C lens.
I'd prefer to see new advanced APS-C cameras in the future. And small lenses. Maybe if fuji keeps that light on the APS-C world will be a fuji one. Sony could do it too, create the ultimate pro-APS-C, but funnily it is a lot easier to have full-frame sensors. I guess that is why you imagine big sensors in tiny bodies in the future. Imagine a super 35 sensor with a7siii potential, backed by smart technology offering clean images and amazing lowlight. If they ever created a little god of a camera to reverse or rethink the sensor direction on the size I'd invest at a drop of a hat.
When I look at buying FF primes equivalent to the three Sigma APS-C primes my wallet runs and hides. Then I remember how much bigger and heavier FF lenses are and my back starts protesting. I like the *idea* of full frame but not the day-to-day reality.
As a non-professional photographer, my a6500 and Sigma f/1.4 primes are enough for me right now. I think I will eventually make the move to full-frame, but in order for me to justify the costs of upgrading not only my camera body but my lenses, it has to be an extraordinary camera, with more megapixels, great low-light capabilities, and a non-bandy electronic shutter (Sony’s version of the Canon R5 basically lol). I’m not hesitating moving to full frame because of the size or cost of the camera body but rather the size and cost of the full-frame lenses that would be comparable to my APS-C lenses. (For me, an f/4 pancake lens is not enough to make me want to make the move.) Thanks for the video comparison! I’ve been hoping to see more of these comparisons rather than the A7C vs. A7iii comparisons.
@@sefp but then youre spending more money for a full frame camera to use cheaper lenses. Im saying they should still keep the cheaper camera option with cheaper lenses as an alternative for amateurs. I do love using my 35mm apsc lens on my a7iii so its basically my nifty fifty though!
FF lens will be costly so will FF equivalent APS-C lens like we need 16-47 f/1.8 in APS-C for 24-70 f/2.8(FF). Now currently 18mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.8 & 35 f/1.8 from Samyang are compact enough also affordable. Same way Tamron's 17-28,28-75,70-180 all f/2.8 are also compact enough.
@@amitkrupal1234 Crop lenses are usually more expensive. They require more resolving power due to the higher pixel density of crop sensors, meaning by nature, it must be sharper. The 16-55 f/2.8 must be as sharp as if not sharper than a 24-70 GM quality lens. That increase in quality leads to increased prices. If you want the same DoF, crop lenses become even more expensive than full frame. Fuji 50mm f/1.0 is about the same cost as the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4, with almost the same image quality. With crop lenses, you're extra for smaller sizes. But if average quality is good enough, then yeah... There's plenty of good enough glass at low prices.
ApsC will never die. It's the roach in the camera world. It has something all beginners love. An affordable price. I picked up an a6000 with kit lens for 240 brand new.
@@petrub27 Thats bullshit. Sure its not a 4k camera. But still you can create some bad ass 1080 video on it. Its not all the gear, its the imagination of your brain and filmmaking skills. Don't let the tought of my gear isnt good enough limit you. You can give peter mckinnon a beginner dslr and a pro body but both will look amazing because he has skills and a great video mind😉👍🏼
Yes it will die the camera market is shrinking almost by 10% every year and it’s not as much the pro and Enthusiasts that is hit but mostly consumer and amateur cameras that has seen a dramatic cut in sales, give it 5 years and most manufacturers would either stop to exist as a camera manufacturer or would have binned any camera with small sensors.
@@devenlad I got lucky and was hunting for one for a while. Ran into an ad on Facebook and found one in a pawn shop and they didn't know what they had. I asked if they would take 240 and they did.
@Ziggi Mon the exposure remains the same at the same aperture regardless of FF or APSC. What you pointed out by applying the 1.5 crop factor to apsc aperture refers to the effect on bokeh as for the same Focal length, we have to move away from the subject on apsc to have the same framing as FF. Hence the bokeh effect will be less in apsc at same F1.8 compared to FF. But the exposure triangle remains the same between FF and APSC, except that the FF sensor has better ISO performance at high ISOs. If ISO100, F1.8, SS 100 gives right exposure on Sony FF, it'll be the same for Sony APSC. The apsc lens does not "become slower" and requires a slower SS or to raise ISO.
@@lkfxfotografiavideo177 they don't all have to be, but they have enough affordable options at the most popular focal ranges that you could kit yourself out appropriately. Like the APS-C 24-70 f2.8 equivalent is like 1300 or 1400, but you can get a a full frame Sigma one for 1100 or less.
castiel vargas lol. The lenses are bulky and expensive because they’re vastly superior which requires a lot of glass and R&D. FF is pushed because it’s better. Not saying APSC is bad, but FF is simply better. Larger sensor always wins.
I have the 6400 and was contemplating the 7c. After watching this I think I'll stick to the 6400. The image comparison just seems way too close to justify the increase in cost, especially if I upgraded to full frame lenses. The 6400 is still a bad ass camera that has never disappointed me. Thanks Jason!
Thanks for the video! I'll be honest, I watched this out of confirmation bias because I'd already purchased my a7C. :) As a hobbyist photographer, I was ready to upgrade my equipment. My last purchase was a Micro 4/3 Panasonic DMC-G3 with a few lenses, which primarily appealed because of compactness. After spending an inordinate amount of time researching and reading camera comparisons for every brand and type of camera out there, I was finally sold on the Sony a7C, and so far, I'm absolutely happy with my decision. The a7C with the kit lens fits perfectly in the compact bag I was carrying for my DMC-G3, and I'm loving the image and video quality and AF features. A final note, my primary interests are night sky photography, landscape, and travel / carrying on hikes. This ticked all the boxes and felt worth it to put down the extra money on full frame.
Based on the comments I would say approximately 75% or more of the apsc owners are content and see no reasons to upgrade to FF. So Jason, APS-C is very well alive and kicking.
YES! I agree totally. A much better comparison would be the A6600, the A7C, and the A7iii - as you are in the same reasonable ballpark of less than $2,000 for a camera body - that all have many similar features. A 6400 could be a "B" camera for someone that does video or wants a lessor cost backup for photos.
size-wise, a6600 is almost the same size as the a7C. Almost! But a6400 is still the smallest out of the two which was why I opted to compare that instead. Like I mentioned in the video, it's "truly" compact within the realm of Sony ILCE
My old APS-C A6000 is still very useful, even after I had upgraded to A7RIII with three full frame lenses. I find the crop factor of 1.5 is very helpful whenever I need to shoot something far away and small, such as the moon, and wildlife. End up I put my Sony 70-200mm F4 full frame lens on the A6000 most of the time.
Agree. For sony users, i own one A7r, doesnt make much sense anymore going A6xxx series. But for olympus, fuji, the small sensor and very good small prime lens make it ideal for street photography.
Only problem with Fuji is their lenses are usually same cost as Sony GM or other ff counterparts. Like the f/2.8 wide angle zoom, $2000 compared to Sony 16-35 GM for $2200 that can use filters. I can't see myself spending that money.
I don't get the A7C. Surely anyone who already has a APS-C camera and wanted to go full frame would move up to a used A7iii for a cheaper price than the A7C, plus get double card slots. The price of a new A7C surely puts off any casual user too.
I think it's more of sony saying "look what we can do with such a small camera" and now imagine the performance they could cram into the a7iv having it the same size as the a7iii or something
I honestly don't get the comments that don't get the A7c. I'm an aps-c shooter and the primary reason I *haven't* moved up to full frame is because of the daunting bulk of the cameras--the difference between something like a 6600 and an A7iii is significant, especially if you're trying to pocket or run and gun all day. There are many, many aps-c shooters who were drawn to the system because of its portability / compactness and accepted the lack of a full frame sensor as a necessary trade-off. With the A7c, Sony is essentially saying "you don't have to decide between the one (compactness) and the other (full frame) anymore, we'll give you both." It seems like a perfectly obvious evolution of Sony's camera systems and is frankly super exciting. The reaction of the loud commentariat on the internet to the contrary is just bizarre to me.
@@RageCage1701 I don't get it either. And even for someone who uses the A9 as his main camera, and who only uses huge GM lenses, I'm also super excited about the A7C, because before it became a reality, there is nothing on the market that gives you an FF body (and weight) that small. Its compactness also means that, when paired with a fast f/1.8 prime lens, you can hold it with a single hand all day when you're traveling. We're talking about a full frame, fast lens package that not only gives you huge flexibility in low light situations, but also produces great still shots and videos that only weighs around 800g! How a lot of folks seem to not get something this obvious is beyond me.
@TC it can take years to get these things 😂 such is the road of learning photography/videography,,,,,,,if portability & quality is a priority for someone than A7C is best choice
I agree with your assessment in that APS-C still has long life before it goes away. Forget the cost difference between the full frame and crop frame cameras the lens price differential alone makes a HUGE difference. I hope Sony (and the other guys) don’t start building cameras geared more towards pros or super amateurs because there are wayyyyy more casual photographers like myself that won’t see the big difference in picture quality and can’t justify spending 4 or 5 times more for a “bit” better bokeh. I can spend $500 for an a6000 and take the rest of the money and buy a plane ticket to go somewhere to take great pictures. 😀
Trius True about paying for the camera once BUT you then would have missed out a trip of a lifetime because you paid for a camera that had a bit more quality than your APS-C. If photography was my business yeah go for the best but if photography is my hobby and what I want to do is capture memories of my travels I’ll trade a bit of quality for the ability to do more travel. In the end it’s all about where your priorities lie and what’s important to the individual. Plus it will give me a reason to upgrade later... lol
mirrorlessNY I agree with you 100%! That’s actually why I use my aps-c. I use my D7200 with the 18-140 most of the time so I can stay quick to capture a variety of scenes. I may upgrade to full frame in the very near future as the price is coming down on the bodies BUT I still need the lens price to come down some more. That’s why I support third party lenses for half my glass.
I carry 7 APS-C lenses, three A6XXX cameras and two speedlights comfortably in my back pack. Even if the full frame prices were closer to APS-C counterparts, I would still not switch to full frame merely because of the the size and weight of the lenses.
For me its not the camera body as much as it is lens cost, size, and weight. The size of FF bodies has not been an issue for me. I like my APS-C bodies but I really appreciate the lenses.
I went from the NEX-6 to the A6400... I would have kept using the NEX-6 if the shutter didn’t give out. I bought the A6400 when it came out and am very happy. Performance on it is great and all my lenses from my NEX-6 still can be used. My one feedback is that you should have discussed more about the prices for the full frame lenses being a larger cost overall vs the APSC lenses. Keep up the great videos!!
As a beginning professional with a tight budget, I spend most of my budget on lenses rather than camera bodies. One, because I think the lens affects the image more than the body, and two, because lenses depreciate more slowly than camera bodies. Many of my clients don't know or care about what gear I show up with, they only care about the final result. For these reasons, I think I'll be shooting APS-C for a while longer 👍
To Me APS-C will be around at least until FF reaches the 750 dollar range or lower. Also APS-C is great for getting more reach out of your Tele Lenses like your 70-200, 100-400 and 200-600 lenses. 👍 Speaking of APS-C where's that A7000 Sony. I might be in the minority but I want a bigger APS-C Body with the A7S3 style controls and the option for a battery grip to balance some of the bigger FF Tele Lenses like the 70-200 GM and 200-600G.
Buy an A7RIII and use it in APS-C mode... you get 37 mb Raw files, then start replacing your lenses one by one. I tell you that with three FF lenses you cover most of your needs. That’s what I did.
@@borispradel1037 I might do that if Sony don't release a new and improved APS-C camera in the next 14 months. The worst with the a6600 is a mediocre EVF, a realy bad screen and a 5 years old sensor.
Hi Jason, a6000 & a7r user here, you are right in your comments. when I reach for a camera to either take a shot or bring a camera I reach for the APSC. Handier and quicker to use, cheaper at all levels (right down to SD size needed), and portable. I love the a7r, it's clunkier than the a6000 but and use all my APSC lenses and still end up with 20MP ARW files, and all my beautiful heritage 35mm glass work on both, thanks to the E mount. BTW I still love my kit lenses, I even but spare ones!
Hero proves that the content is a lot more important than the best possible looking shot. APS-C will only go away when FF gets down to the same price (which will never happen) or when the cameras on phones catch up to the quality of APS-C sensors.
I think the camera manufacturers would like aps-c to go away so they can focus on 1 lineup. I believe canon will drive there with sub $1000 cameras but I think it will take years as there are many of us that want the lover prices and smaller sizes but still feature rich. They need to make the price difference much smaller. I'm hoping for a a7c without IBIS to see how low they can get pricing.
Thanks for asking the right questions. I always enjoy your reviews and learn a tremendous amount from them. Also, love your humor. I think you left one critical component out of this review - the photographer. I understand why professionals need more sophisticated equipement and the latest tech to succeed. But the question for me, and I suspect for many amateur photographers of all levels of experience and skill is - Would I take better pictures with full frame than with my APSC camera. The answer for me is definitely "no". It's easy to convince yourself that getting better gear will improve your results, but in most cases, it's the photographer, not the camera that makes the difference. So, all other things considered, I'll move up to full frame when I'm convinced that it's what I need to take better pictures. In the meantime, the sophistication of my Sony A6400 is more than adequate for my needs. And the cost and weight savings don't hurt.
You make the same mistake a lot of reviewers make. I am a pensioner on limited funds so the difference in price APS-C / FF is a lot of money when you take into account the cost of a set of lens lens. The other big issue is weight plus reach. I am a retired ex Army person with back issues and do bush walking, as it is called in Australia to keep fit. I take a A6400 and the sony 70-350 tele lens for birds etc. Total cost less than a A7c body only. My combination actually gives me a 520 odd mm with a very low weight. The light in Australia is very strong so low light is not really an issue with 1.4 and 2.8 lens. Tell be the cost and weight of a 500 plus FF setup. When and if I get a new camera it is most likely be a A6600 or whatever replaces it. I'm happy to share the photos I get and don't think the FF would make that much difference. Try and consider the issues around cost and weight
I agree! I have the A6600 with the 70-350 and you can't come close to that setup in full frame for the price or size/weight. It is an amazing setup and great lens.
I do most of my shooting with full frame, but I keep an APS-C body in my bag, which I use like a teleconverter. My 24mm, 45mm, and 85mm primes shoot like 36mm, 67.5mm and 127.5mm lenses when mounted on the APS-C body.
My son is a local musician and I take photos of his gigs with the a6400 and the 35mm 1.8 and the sigma 56mm. You don’t get much more compact than this but I still get looks and comments from people about the “huge camera.” I feel the only reason aps-c (or consumer cameras in general) will die is because all the iPhone camera users will shame us into leaving it at home.
Both have their justification, an APS-C camera has a smaller sensor, this allows smaller lenses and smaller system sizes. The Sony A7c, has a large sensor and good lenses are much larger, so the advantage of a small housing disappears. technically the A7c is top - apart from the viewfinder and monitor. It does not make sense for me to use small, mediocre lenses on a technically very good camera like the A7c. Personally the camera is much too small for me, here I prefer to wait for the AIV.
One with 4K60p! That’s all I’m asking for. I would’ve gladly taken the a7c if they’d put 4K60p recording in it either for smoother videos or 4K slow-mo. I‘m hoping for something like the a7000 in 2021/22
Just grabbed the a6600 and completed the sigma 1.4 trio. Best run-n-gun portable around town and travel kit for an advanced hobbyist. To get what I’d want on FF I’d be looking at 2-3x the weight per lens/cam combo (NOT HAPPENING) and like 4-5k in cost. This is the sweet spot unless you’re full time in a studio or getting paid for professional work.
@@PPYTAO at same quality FF would be bigger in every case - you can't cheat optics. If you make a smaller FF lens at any given Focal L it gets a crop factor advantage on mft/apsc.
I currently own the a7III and am honestly seriously thinking about selling it and buying the a7c mostly just because of its size. I've quit shooting professionally and only do so very occasionally and honestly just want a camera for documenting my travels and just life, so the smaller the camera, the better! It's not targeted at people who want to shoot lots of professional work (even though you definitely could)... Honestly, this camera also just looks less intimidating and "professional" if you will, which is perfect for travel and more casual shooting while still getting that professional quality!
I really enjoyed this video. Thanks for making it! I rock Olympus, so I really like small size and the image quality is fine for what I need as an enthusiast.
they have to take it seriously, apsc is everything to FUJI\there's no full frame to rely on, but that medium format is very interesting, curious if FUJI will make a more affordable & smaller sized body GFX, maybe 24mp GFc? 😏
This brings one question Format FF lens name (equivalent APS-C lens name or current available option in APS-C) FF Prime Lens from Samyang: 18 mm f/2.8 (APS-C equiv 12mm f2) 24 mm f/2.8 (16 mm f/1.8 currently Sigma has 16 f/1.4) 35 mm f/2.8 (24 mm f/1.8) 35 mm f/1.8 (24 mm f/1.2) 45 mm f/1.8 (30 mm f/1.2,again sigma has 30 f/1.4) 75 mm f/1.8 (50 mm f/1.2, Sony E 50 mm f/1.8) Sony AF 85 f/1.8 (again Sigma's 56 f/1.4 comes close with almost 70% of price) Then FE Zoom lens from Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 28-75 f/2.8 70-180 f/2.8 28-200 f/2.8-5.6 (Sony 18-135) All of the above lens are affordable & compact enough for Full frame. Didn't included the fantastic Sigma's new 85 f/1.4, it's also compact than other f/1.4.
Even if the body is smaller, the lenses are still bigger and expensive. Dont get me wrong, I'm full frame user but I dont see a smaller body as an advantage. Especially I thought A6600 was too weird to handle with bigger lens, very front heavy setup :(
A camera is a camera, it takes pictures. It doesn't really matter what you get (as long as it's a Sony LOL). I think Sony is just trying to give the enduser more options (or maybe trying to confuse everyone?). That's what I missed about my A6000's size. Going to a Sony A7II a few months ago (I traded in my A6000's and lenses at my LCS and paid a balance of $250.00 for a BRAND NEW A7II body. Yes it's a bit older, but who cares? It gets me into the Sony FF eco system). I'd LOVE to get a Sony A7c with the kit lens (which you didn't mention you can get the kit fe 28-70mm lens too). You have the compactness of a A6XXX with a FF sensor. BEST of both worlds...
aps-c is there to stay, just because of the price.... but as a a7ii user (3 years so far), i was hoping for this type of camera as a hobbyist, but missing the front dial and having a smaller evf kills the deal unfortunately…. i would grab the upcoming the a7iv, but it s most likely going to be out of the budget so finger crossed for an mk2 of this!! also, am i the only one wishing there could be a dedicated "photography" camera? something that would be completely stripped of video feature to concentrate the quality/feature of a still shooter?
You're not the only one. I too would love a camera optimized for stills, without the menu "clutter" associated with advanced video functions and with buttons/dials dedicated to the most used still photography functions (ISO, exposure compensation, shutter speed, aperture, focus mode etc.). Especially when travelling I almost never take videos.
Hi Jason, I just wanted to weigh in and thank you for a great video. I came here as an a6300 owner who is looking to upgrade. When I bought my a6300 the 6400 wasn't on the market yet and then a few months later it came out and I was kicking myself for not doing more research about what was to come. Of course, there will always be new and better cameras being released, so I didn't kick myself too hard ;) I wanted to let you know that you answered a bunch of the questions I was having about which way to go. Thanks!
At present I predict a strong future for the APSC range of Sony cameras. It will be interesting to see what the next APSC body size camera Sony launches next.
Good video - well stated. I am staying with APS-C. I own an A-6500, and a number of lenses for APS-C; my favorites are the 18-135 mm Sony, the 70-350 Sony and the 30 mm f1.4 Sigma - all super lenses and well priced. My perfect camera would be the A6600 but with two card slots, 42 meg (or higher!) sensor, higher resolution EVF, and the new Sony menu from the A7S3. Cheers
How can you say that apsc is dead if by looking at the sales figures, majority of the camera sales came from crop cameras. Companies will continue to produce these products as long as there are demands into it
It’s not dead. Most beginner photographers buy APSC cameras without knowing it because they are cheaper. As long as they will be more affordable than the expensive full frame bodies, I think there will always be a market
Smaller is better, so smaller will win out long term in one form or another. The big question is will Sony expand their Catalyst Browse software to APS-C camera bodies. I was hoping Jason Vong would explore this question. Because without Catalyst Browse, the in camera stabilization is NOT GOOD ENOUGH with the full frame cameras. Correct?
crappier battery, worse low light performance, very little native glass, lesser dedication from companies to develop top notch technologies. I think you're talking about point and shoots when saying small right? Then sorry for that.
Thanks for the great video! I've had an a6000 for almost a year now (okay about 10 months) and I can't see myself moving to full frame anytime soon. Maybe I'll get an a6400 if I get a good deal and have the budget but currently I am just trying to get my hands on some good apsc glass and eventually a gimbal... I just can't afford full frame yet, I am just a 11th grade student lol. And I think that that is still the main selling point for apsc. Budget. Be it that you are a student or just straightup don't have the money for whatever reason, apsc is your best friend. Cheaper lenses and cheaper bodies. Aside from that, I think that apsc is still more than good enough for the ordinary hobby phtographer or videographer. As long as you don't want to shoot in super low light or desperately need that bokeh, you will be just fine using apsc. *Edit: Just my thoughts, not offending anyone. And yes Jason, I read your comment, just giving my thoughts on it :0
I don't know how I missed this video for 2 months, but I agree with you completely! Main reason why most APS-C users won't get the A7c is the price. A7c is already 2x the price of the A6400, and same with the FE lenses, usually 2-5x the cost of APS-C lenses. But if the A7c comes down in price and companies like Samyang keep making small and affordable FE lenses, maybe then Sony can move all the casual APS-C shooters into their full frame cameras. 👍👍
I have upgraded to a full frame camera because of the A7c but I didn’t buy the A7c, instead I got the A7RII because it was the on sale for $1,200 and 42MP and I have a silver a6400 for vlogging because it’s size of body and silver lenses. I prefer the flip up because it’s a smaller setup.
First, forgive me for bringing up canon here, I don’t know Sony at all or if this applies to the Sony eco system 😂 but I recently realized that for the shooter who’s main needs are shallow depth of field (portraiture, maybe some fine art fruit bowl shots 🤷♂️) I recently realized that the cheaper full frames coming to the market actually can break costs down lower for getting more shallow DOF overall. Like an EOS RP ($1,000) with an EF 85mm F1.8 ($350) will get a FOV/DOF that would require a 50mm F1.2 lens ($1,300) on a crop sensor (say, M50, at $579 plus $159 adapter). The same math makes almost every decent prime on a FF body cheaper than the “equivalent” epic prime on a crop sensor body (50mm F1.8 on FF looks like 35mm F1.2 on crop sensor, 135mm F2 on FF looks like 85mm F1.2 on crop sensor, etc). Does this translate to the Sony system as well? We’ve had cameras for a few years now that make speed and flexibility a priority over DOF, but I thiiiiink these recent cheaper full frames are appealing to portrait shooters who want a more shallow DOF instead of a faster burst rate. It’s all interesting to me. Just thinking out loud here...
Exactly. I have APSC with very fast primes (1.2/1.4) which I do not think are any cheaper or lighter than FF lens with equivalent focal length and DOF (1.8/2.0). So not cheaper, not lighter, yet same DOF and faster. You could say that higher ISO can make this up on FF and I agree. Then again, having everything equal, I personally have no motive to "upgrade".
Hi, quick question. I'm coming from Canon t7i. Planning to buy A6400 with sigma prime lenses. Is there any new APSC camera coming in this price? Or i just go and buy A6400 ?
They might be able to make that move when they figure out how to make an A7Cx $1000-$1200 dollar full frame. As it stands you can get an apsc with a good zoom or two primes for the price of just the body of the A7C so for anyone who is casual and has limits that is the obvious choice. I personally would love to go full frame but I also want to do other things in life out side of taking photos so a more sensible purchase makes sense.
Great points. I would not be surprised to see Sony release an a7000 APS-C that is smaller than the 6000 series as well. And yes, the lenses and body are still bigger/heavier than the APS-C as is. And as you said more expensive. Those lenses add up. - WW
I recently made the jump from RX100-VII and RX10-IV to an A6600. I do video and photography of hiking and backpacking where size and weight is pretty important. I can shoot nice video with a compact lens and a Zhiyun Crane-M2 quite effectively. That being said had I known the A7C was coming I probably would have gone that direction. FF + the fully articulating display would have sealed the deal for me.
Hi,thanks for the video. You've said that the differences between the Sony A7C and SonyA 6400 in terms of image quality are: Better low light performance and Bokeh of the former but you haven't said anything about Dynamic range and Colour depth (skin tones,shades of colours in landscapes,etc) which are better in one stop and a half at least in the Sony A7C.
I have both APS-C and FF Sony cameras. I shoot mostly landscapes, wildlife and people. For highest quality work I use the A7RIV and A7RIII and have a full range of prime and zooms. The 24-105 lives on the A7RIV and the 200-600 lives on the A7RIII. I carry the 12-24 in a small bag along with the 85 F1.8. I travel a lot for business but still like to have more than an iPhone so carry an A6500 with the 16-70 plus the 10-18, 55-210 & 35 F1.8 in a small bag. On short trips I take only the A6500 with the 16-70. The 16-70 is an OK lens, the 10-18 is superb and the 55-210 is mediocre. I really want an A9-like APC-C body and will get the 16-55 & 70-350 APS-C and then I'll have the perfect wildlife / hiking camera system for travel. However, the iPhone is getting so good that I carry my Sonys less and less when just walking around. It has three giant advantages - 1) always with you, 2) superb in camera processing using hundreds of images for each shot and AI, Deep Learning (DL) and the neural net chips onboard the iPhone and 3) automatic upload to Photos for instant sharing. Sony images all need processing in LR, some several minutes per image to just match the iPhone's amazing processing. Night mode on the iPhone is just amazing. Sony needs to figure out how to match this processing power and new approach like the iPhone Live. Finally, Sony needs a far better way to get my images to my the cloud than connecting my camera or card to my computer, upload the images into LR, process them and export them and then import to Photos. Imaging Edge is a terrible piece of software. The APS-C is the best format to start this "let's build something better than the iPhone" approach - the smaller than FF sensor leaves room for more electronics for the processing, big enough for far higher resolution than the iPhone, small enough body to carry around, small enough lenses to carry everywhere, etc. Otherwise APS-C will die at the hands of the 5G 8K 45mp iPhone 13 or 14 with five lenses and LiDAR.
Jason: I WATCHED your ENTIRE video :). You have such a sunny, happy disposition. How we choose to record our lives and create artistic images is so subjective. From my father I inherited a love of the camera body. Yet my girlfriend laughs at my camera and lenses (well not completely). I wanted more quality to my stills, but needed a small camera body, so have opted for the Sony A6000, now the A6600. I have a very nice set of lenses (zooms primarily) and can get everything into a 1/2-size camera bag (for international travel). The quality of the APSC images with a good APSC lens (sony 18-135, 70-350, Sigma 30mm) is so good that they rival full frame for me as an enthusiast. I'm not a pro, but if I were I would be shooting with full frame. Despite what you said, the size of full frame lenses are typically heavier, wider, and longer, and this HAS to be considered when evaluating the overall size of your camera. For travelers the small size translates into being able to more easily bring the mavic mini and the weebill S. I can't bring more than one checked bag and one-2 carry ons. As well, I have an RX1000iii that is so tiny I always bring it and use it for panorama and fill flash and a TOUGH camera for underwater or rugged moments. Thanks, again!
It is definitely cost for me that got me to and kept me on APS-C. My A6400 + 18-135 and 30mm prime cost me less than an A7iii with no lens. I'll probably splurge on the 70-350mm at some point and my entire setup will only be around the price of the A7iii and a relatively cheap full frame prime. Would I rather have had an A7iii and 2 nice full frame lenses? Yes, the better IQ, better low light (espescially this!), IBIS, better weather sealing, nicer choice of UWA lens and better battery all sound great but I just wasn't willing to pay the extra. Maybe some day, right now the price isn't worth it for me.
yeah, if you want to make the full frame mainstream. do it like canon with the eos rp. but don't cripple the high end full frame for the cinema line. that's the problem with canon.
@@keltonjohnson6197 for a 2 years technology. it sure is. and it's not like a7c is like a7iii. sony clearly using their leftover parts. horrible screen, weakass ibis. they're not going all out while charging premium and expecting it to go mainstream
@Azam Jamal yeah definitely reusing old tech 😣 but we should be thankful for this choice as it is literally the smallest FF body with EVF & IBIS,,,,,, let's wait for A7CII with selfieScreen/improvedIBIS & 4k60
Reasons for going FF: I like the way prices of FF lenses are going. Higher and higher! My APSC lenses just don’t weigh enough! A real man can easily carry those heavy weight monsters all day and all night. If you’re having a problem, don’t be a whimp; just go to the gym already! We need to help our favorite YTers look good in the in the eyes of camera makers. Hey, somebody has to help these guys make a living with their affiliate links! Buy like there’s no tomorrow; as a big time photographer, you’re raking it in at all the big events you have booked! Best time ever to deplete your cash on hand. Max out those cards! All those fancy new cameras announced recently, you deserve one! FF forever!!!
Well said and I could not agree more! I’ve been booking professional jobs with my APSC camera for years. Clients have no problems with it. It is the photographers and especially the UA-cam community who argues over sensor size and which brand is best. Who cares, shoot with what you like!
Sony, like all the other manufacturers, is reading the writing on the wall. The bottom to mid end of the camera market is being slowly but surely eroded by smartphones. They need to rationalise, cut costs and put some clear blue water between themselves and those phones. Shifting the prosumer and pro markets to full frame ticks all those boxes. I don't think crop sensor cameras will die immediately, but they will gradually become far more niche products than they are currently.
I feel like one of the issues with APS-C is that they use the same lens mount with 35mm sensor. You could theoretically make the APS-C lenses even smaller by limiting the diameter of the mount. If they did something that allowed a very small and very effective adapter that allowed the use of FF lenses, that could be a home run (the additional lens selection is still critical). I think APS-C cameras have to get even smaller for them to be equally compelling today.\
I totally agree with you. The price of the camera plus the lenses is a big difference for any prosumer, so APSC will still live on. I think this camera is more directed towards A7 users that wanted a Bcam or a travel cam. Lastly, you did not emphasize is that the stabilization is not really improved since a6500, and for that price, it´s kind of unacceptable considering today´s market...
Don't think it's dead. I moved from Filmic Pro to APSC a6400. Reason is Im using an old phone and it's still usable as a phone. Thought of getting an iPhone 11 Pro for Filmic Pro but it cost me the same to get an A6400. So tadaaa, 5 years ago on phone camera and now a6400, well yup probably gonna took me another 5 years for full frame. Who knows.
I liked the video and you put up a good argument for why you think they could be phasing out APSC. I agree with you to a certain degree of what you are saying. The total overall cost of going full frame on the Sony platform even with using the Sony A7C is still going to put off people on a tight budget. The cost factor for lenses is to high for some people. Is there a shift on that I agree but the total overall cost is to high. Heck even the cost alone for the Sony a6600 is to high for some people to justify buying it. Yes you lose some features by going with the 6400.
A6300 with few primes and the quality looks great but I am very casual shooter and hardly do video. I think if I needed video and ibis capability then I would go a7cii. As of now tho the apsc with my primes and soon the sigma 18-50mm zooom will suffice for travel and casual shooting
My a6500 is an excellent B cam for my A7RIII (though I wish it had the Z batteries) and I have a wide range of quite good APS-C lenses that compliment my full frame glass. To me it doesn't have to be one or the other, both can work well in tandem.
My latest camera is the A6500 and though it's probably overkill for me, I am interested in the A7c. The diopter on the A6500 adjusts just far enough (-4) to accommodate my left eye without my glasses. Unfortunately, my right eye needs a little more minus than it can provide but I can live with that. I'll have to see if the finder on the A7c works the same. I know improvements will come with whatever comes later but I'm 70 now so I just may go for it.
I view that our phones are taking so great picture/videos now that they are catching up to APS-C, and has passable pictures in low light. I already feel it is more useful to carry a phone + tripod now, than a phone + camera (if only 1 extra item), and I feel pushed to Full Frame to justify carrying an extra camera.. cost is not an issue to me. The only problem is the bulk on FF lenses - I'm willing to accept lower f/stop for more compact lenses, but that kind of negates some of the benefit of FF.
Thank you very much. But I still can't choose. I am thinking of buying a new camera, but I am not sure between the sony A7c with Sony 16-35MM F / 2.8 GM or the Sony A6600 with Sony 16-55MM F / 2.8 G.
I like the stiling of the Sony A7c very much with the EVF out to the very side of the camera, I hope that all future A7/A9 Sony cameras will have this design, but with larger EVF in higher resolution.
Thanks for this Jason! I have an A6500 with Sony 18-105mm, Sony 24mm, Sony 50mm, Sigma 16mm, and Sigma 30mm. Can these lenses be used on the A7C? If so, would there be any reduction in frame size or quality for photo and video?
Nice video... I'm torn. I use an a6300... all APS-C lens. So.... is it really worth it to buy the A7c? Or should I just upgrade to the a6600? Thoughts? I do like the small size and I shoot mostly video. BUT... I still feel my Nikon D5200 takes better stills.... ( maybe its the glass) I would like better stills and hate taking 2 cameras on vacation....
Well, where I live a7C, a7SIII or a7R4 cost almost as the same a basic-popular car (yeap, a car in the local currency… meaning, very very expensive). But in the end, maybe it doesn't matter: Sony is leaving officially the local market (following Nikon steps, they left in 2018), they even will close a factory next year (Brazil). Oh, a6x00 series are expensive as well, but not that expensive. hahahahah
Sorry my opinion to use the a6400 instead of the A6600 for this comparison is in-appropriate since if someone can afford the a7c they can afford the a6600 and get IS and the latest with bigger battery and why wouldn't they? Also I am a Sony owner with all FF but really considering the a6600 with the what appears to be the great Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G lens which has no small full frame equivalent. That lens alone may drive me to pick up one. After all its the size and weight of the lens + body that is important and not just the body.
Waiting for a A7000 with a new sensor, a bit more low Light cap. and 4k 60fps. This is what the A6600 should have had to be in my opinion. Or I am saving up for the A7iiii when it comes out and start shooting with my APSC lenses.
HEY! Couple notes before you comment! :)
1. You're awesome for actually reading this first!
2. A lot of comments here already seemed like they dismissed the video before watching. Most mentioned APSC is NOT DEAD because the affordable price keeps them alive - which is EXACTLY what I said in the video too :) I also went on to say if anything, APS-C "could" be slowly phased out but not for awhile. a7C is just the start! If dedicated cameras are still a thing in the next decade, FF might be the new standard is my guess. That is... if phones still haven't phased out dedicated cameras by then! haha
And finally...
3. a6400 does not have eye af in video - my mistake! 🙈
Maybe the APSC format will survive for video, but for photography the future are for "fullformat" 24x36mm and 33x44mm and even larger sensor cameras. I went from an APSC Canon DSLR to Sony "fullformat", but I can still take pictures in APSC with Sony if I want to, the Sony A7 series are so compact that APSC do not look like an options any more, I need the high resolutions of the Sony A7RIV most of the time now. I hope in near future there will be lower priced compact 33x44mm sensor cameras with 100 (+) megapixels.
(By the way, who are the jerk that called 24x36 (35mm format) for "fullformat" ??)
Dual gain ISO architecture is needed in Sony APS-C, but will never happen. Instead compact primes like 18 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2.8, 35 f/1.8 (all from Samyang),Sigma's new 85 f/1.4, Tamron's 17-28,28-75,70-180 (f/2.8) & 28-200. All this lenses are compact enough to replace most of APS-C lens.
Well said.
I'd prefer to see new advanced APS-C cameras in the future. And small lenses.
Maybe if fuji keeps that light on the APS-C world will be a fuji one.
Sony could do it too, create the ultimate pro-APS-C, but funnily it is a lot easier to have full-frame sensors.
I guess that is why you imagine big sensors in tiny bodies in the future.
Imagine a super 35 sensor with a7siii potential, backed by smart technology offering clean images and amazing lowlight.
If they ever created a little god of a camera to reverse or rethink the sensor direction on the size I'd invest at a drop of a hat.
When I look at buying FF primes equivalent to the three Sigma APS-C primes my wallet runs and hides. Then I remember how much bigger and heavier FF lenses are and my back starts protesting. I like the *idea* of full frame but not the day-to-day reality.
The problem with the full frame cameras is not the size but the price 🙂
For me it's only the price stopping me but I could imagine others would like the compactness of something like an a6000 with the kit lens
true the price is through the roof for most & then FF lenses send you into credit debt 😪
@@mirrorlessny true
As a non-professional photographer, my a6500 and Sigma f/1.4 primes are enough for me right now. I think I will eventually make the move to full-frame, but in order for me to justify the costs of upgrading not only my camera body but my lenses, it has to be an extraordinary camera, with more megapixels, great low-light capabilities, and a non-bandy electronic shutter (Sony’s version of the Canon R5 basically lol). I’m not hesitating moving to full frame because of the size or cost of the camera body but rather the size and cost of the full-frame lenses that would be comparable to my APS-C lenses. (For me, an f/4 pancake lens is not enough to make me want to make the move.)
Thanks for the video comparison! I’ve been hoping to see more of these comparisons rather than the A7C vs. A7iii comparisons.
I agree, my a6400 does the job.
Upgrade to FF is just a big cash grab unless you need it as a pro.
the cheaper lenses are a big reason to keep your apsc camera! and those apsc lens sizes!
Indeed..
Full frame has alot of cheap lenses though, like the Tamron 17-28 which is the same price as the APSC 10-18
💯% agreed with you!
Sony full frame an Use apsc lenses though so no. Your not that bright are you. Lol
@@sefp but then youre spending more money for a full frame camera to use cheaper lenses. Im saying they should still keep the cheaper camera option with cheaper lenses as an alternative for amateurs. I do love using my 35mm apsc lens on my a7iii so its basically my nifty fifty though!
Me: Buys A6400
Sony: Releases ZV-1 and A7C
64 is good tho
@@Hexspa but has it's firmware limitations which both these cameras Don't have
@@sifatrabby1962 I'm not aware of that. Can you please elaborate?
@@Hexspa no phase detect autofocus while being connected to pc remote or external monitor.
@@sifatrabby1962 Oh ok. Good to know.
Lenes and physics, people like smaller lenes.
Secondly, until Full frame lense and camaras become affordable aps-c will always be there
FF lens will be costly so will FF equivalent APS-C lens like we need 16-47 f/1.8 in APS-C for 24-70 f/2.8(FF). Now currently 18mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.8 & 35 f/1.8 from Samyang are compact enough also affordable. Same way Tamron's 17-28,28-75,70-180 all f/2.8 are also compact enough.
@@amitkrupal1234 Crop lenses are usually more expensive. They require more resolving power due to the higher pixel density of crop sensors, meaning by nature, it must be sharper. The 16-55 f/2.8 must be as sharp as if not sharper than a 24-70 GM quality lens. That increase in quality leads to increased prices. If you want the same DoF, crop lenses become even more expensive than full frame. Fuji 50mm f/1.0 is about the same cost as the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4, with almost the same image quality.
With crop lenses, you're extra for smaller sizes. But if average quality is good enough, then yeah... There's plenty of good enough glass at low prices.
ApsC will never die. It's the roach in the camera world. It has something all beginners love. An affordable price. I picked up an a6000 with kit lens for 240 brand new.
Petru B. Broke boah camera
@@petrub27 Thats bullshit. Sure its not a 4k camera. But still you can create some bad ass 1080 video on it. Its not all the gear, its the imagination of your brain and filmmaking skills. Don't let the tought of my gear isnt good enough limit you. You can give peter mckinnon a beginner dslr and a pro body but both will look amazing because he has skills and a great video mind😉👍🏼
Yes it will die the camera market is shrinking almost by 10% every year and it’s not as much the pro and Enthusiasts that is hit but mostly consumer and amateur cameras that has seen a dramatic cut in sales, give it 5 years and most manufacturers would either stop to exist as a camera manufacturer or would have binned any camera with small sensors.
Where did you get it for 240
@@devenlad I got lucky and was hunting for one for a while. Ran into an ad on Facebook and found one in a pawn shop and they didn't know what they had. I asked if they would take 240 and they did.
Don't see why APSC will die. It clearly offers telephoto advantages.
Ziggi Mon So you buy the larger sensor to crop in post. That’s wasted dollars.
@Ziggi Mon Hehe, paying extra $ to crop is pretty dumb. Yes.
@Ziggi Mon the exposure remains the same at the same aperture regardless of FF or APSC. What you pointed out by applying the 1.5 crop factor to apsc aperture refers to the effect on bokeh as for the same Focal length, we have to move away from the subject on apsc to have the same framing as FF. Hence the bokeh effect will be less in apsc at same F1.8 compared to FF.
But the exposure triangle remains the same between FF and APSC, except that the FF sensor has better ISO performance at high ISOs. If ISO100, F1.8, SS 100 gives right exposure on Sony FF, it'll be the same for Sony APSC. The apsc lens does not "become slower" and requires a slower SS or to raise ISO.
Price of lenses is the problem
Is it though? Sony does actually have some affordable full frame lenses.
@@jmackultra yeah but most are not, Sony zoom lenses are not cheap
@@lkfxfotografiavideo177 they don't all have to be, but they have enough affordable options at the most popular focal ranges that you could kit yourself out appropriately. Like the APS-C 24-70 f2.8 equivalent is like 1300 or 1400, but you can get a a full frame Sigma one for 1100 or less.
The profit they make with big bulky and expensive lenses is the only reason they push ff so hard. Its not in our best interest its in theirs of course
castiel vargas lol. The lenses are bulky and expensive because they’re vastly superior which requires a lot of glass and R&D. FF is pushed because it’s better. Not saying APSC is bad, but FF is simply better. Larger sensor always wins.
Best camera reviewer on UA-cam~! Love your work Jason. You've brought me back to Sony!
eric here? wow that i was not expecting, what camera do you use?
I have the 6400 and was contemplating the 7c. After watching this I think I'll stick to the 6400. The image comparison just seems way too close to justify the increase in cost, especially if I upgraded to full frame lenses. The 6400 is still a bad ass camera that has never disappointed me. Thanks Jason!
you cannot compare photo quality between APSC and FF in a youtube video. You should have access to the original files, at least the jpeg.
with that price, apsc is far from dead, unless they come up with a 600 dollar full frame
Thanks for the video! I'll be honest, I watched this out of confirmation bias because I'd already purchased my a7C. :) As a hobbyist photographer, I was ready to upgrade my equipment. My last purchase was a Micro 4/3 Panasonic DMC-G3 with a few lenses, which primarily appealed because of compactness. After spending an inordinate amount of time researching and reading camera comparisons for every brand and type of camera out there, I was finally sold on the Sony a7C, and so far, I'm absolutely happy with my decision. The a7C with the kit lens fits perfectly in the compact bag I was carrying for my DMC-G3, and I'm loving the image and video quality and AF features. A final note, my primary interests are night sky photography, landscape, and travel / carrying on hikes. This ticked all the boxes and felt worth it to put down the extra money on full frame.
Based on the comments I would say approximately 75% or more of the apsc owners are content and see no reasons to upgrade to FF. So Jason, APS-C is very well alive and kicking.
Why compare the a7c with the a6400? The a6600 have IBIS, the same AF as a6400 and the same battery as a7c and a7iii.
YES! I agree totally. A much better comparison would be the A6600, the A7C, and the A7iii - as you are in the same reasonable ballpark of less than $2,000 for a camera body - that all have many similar features. A 6400 could be a "B" camera for someone that does video or wants a lessor cost backup for photos.
Because the a6400 is significantly cheaper in price and in reach of magnitudes more people
size-wise, a6600 is almost the same size as the a7C. Almost! But a6400 is still the smallest out of the two which was why I opted to compare that instead. Like I mentioned in the video, it's "truly" compact within the realm of Sony ILCE
@@JasonVong is the a6400 a big step up from Canon t5i?
I'm wanting to start a UA-cam channel and need a good camera for low-light video.
My old APS-C A6000 is still very useful, even after I had upgraded to A7RIII with three full frame lenses. I find the crop factor of 1.5 is very helpful whenever I need to shoot something far away and small, such as the moon, and wildlife. End up I put my Sony 70-200mm F4 full frame lens on the A6000 most of the time.
The best APS-C camera honestly isn't coming from Sony, it's the Fuji cameras. And I love using Full Frame Sony cameras for professional use.
Agree. For sony users, i own one A7r, doesnt make much sense anymore going A6xxx series. But for olympus, fuji, the small sensor and very good small prime lens make it ideal for street photography.
Only problem with Fuji is their lenses are usually same cost as Sony GM or other ff counterparts. Like the f/2.8 wide angle zoom, $2000 compared to Sony 16-35 GM for $2200 that can use filters. I can't see myself spending that money.
@@professionalpotato4764 I don't use any Fuji lenses for video.
@@AsianWithHat What lenses do you use normally?
No, the x-trans sucks. If they go to bayer sensors they will be the best....
When full frame cameras drop down to APSC level price points, then we can revisit the conversation. BTW I love your videos Jason. Good work.
I don't get the A7C. Surely anyone who already has a APS-C camera and wanted to go full frame would move up to a used A7iii for a cheaper price than the A7C, plus get double card slots. The price of a new A7C surely puts off any casual user too.
I think it's more of sony saying "look what we can do with such a small camera" and now imagine the performance they could cram into the a7iv having it the same size as the a7iii or something
I honestly don't get the comments that don't get the A7c. I'm an aps-c shooter and the primary reason I *haven't* moved up to full frame is because of the daunting bulk of the cameras--the difference between something like a 6600 and an A7iii is significant, especially if you're trying to pocket or run and gun all day. There are many, many aps-c shooters who were drawn to the system because of its portability / compactness and accepted the lack of a full frame sensor as a necessary trade-off. With the A7c, Sony is essentially saying "you don't have to decide between the one (compactness) and the other (full frame) anymore, we'll give you both." It seems like a perfectly obvious evolution of Sony's camera systems and is frankly super exciting. The reaction of the loud commentariat on the internet to the contrary is just bizarre to me.
Gimbles gimbles gimbles!!! That’s why.. duh!!
@@RageCage1701 I don't get it either. And even for someone who uses the A9 as his main camera, and who only uses huge GM lenses, I'm also super excited about the A7C, because before it became a reality, there is nothing on the market that gives you an FF body (and weight) that small. Its compactness also means that, when paired with a fast f/1.8 prime lens, you can hold it with a single hand all day when you're traveling. We're talking about a full frame, fast lens package that not only gives you huge flexibility in low light situations, but also produces great still shots and videos that only weighs around 800g! How a lot of folks seem to not get something this obvious is beyond me.
@TC it can take years to get these things 😂 such is the road of learning photography/videography,,,,,,,if portability & quality is a priority for someone than A7C is best choice
I agree with your assessment in that APS-C still has long life before it goes away. Forget the cost difference between the full frame and crop frame cameras the lens price differential alone makes a HUGE difference. I hope Sony (and the other guys) don’t start building cameras geared more towards pros or super amateurs because there are wayyyyy more casual photographers like myself that won’t see the big difference in picture quality and can’t justify spending 4 or 5 times more for a “bit” better bokeh. I can spend $500 for an a6000 and take the rest of the money and buy a plane ticket to go somewhere to take great pictures. 😀
Trius True about paying for the camera once BUT you then would have missed out a trip of a lifetime because you paid for a camera that had a bit more quality than your APS-C. If photography was my business yeah go for the best but if photography is my hobby and what I want to do is capture memories of my travels I’ll trade a bit of quality for the ability to do more travel. In the end it’s all about where your priorities lie and what’s important to the individual. Plus it will give me a reason to upgrade later... lol
@J Burroughs aps-c for travel is great with a lens like 18-135mm, such a compact & capable combo, just use 4k when needing best quality
mirrorlessNY I agree with you 100%! That’s actually why I use my aps-c. I use my D7200 with the 18-140 most of the time so I can stay quick to capture a variety of scenes. I may upgrade to full frame in the very near future as the price is coming down on the bodies BUT I still need the lens price to come down some more. That’s why I support third party lenses for half my glass.
@@jburroughs6645 that Tamron 28-200mm is an impressive all in one FF travel lens
I carry 7 APS-C lenses, three A6XXX cameras and two speedlights comfortably in my back pack. Even if the full frame prices were closer to APS-C counterparts, I would still not switch to full frame merely because of the the size and weight of the lenses.
For me its not the camera body as much as it is lens cost, size, and weight. The size of FF bodies has not been an issue for me. I like my APS-C bodies but I really appreciate the lenses.
Yup exactly. It’s all about the lenses. APSC for the win.
I went from the NEX-6 to the A6400... I would have kept using the NEX-6 if the shutter didn’t give out. I bought the A6400 when it came out and am very happy. Performance on it is great and all my lenses from my NEX-6 still can be used. My one feedback is that you should have discussed more about the prices for the full frame lenses being a larger cost overall vs the APSC lenses. Keep up the great videos!!
As a beginning professional with a tight budget, I spend most of my budget on lenses rather than camera bodies. One, because I think the lens affects the image more than the body, and two, because lenses depreciate more slowly than camera bodies. Many of my clients don't know or care about what gear I show up with, they only care about the final result. For these reasons, I think I'll be shooting APS-C for a while longer 👍
To Me APS-C will be around at least until FF reaches the 750 dollar range or lower. Also APS-C is great for getting more reach out of your Tele Lenses like your 70-200, 100-400 and 200-600 lenses. 👍
Speaking of APS-C where's that A7000 Sony. I might be in the minority but I want a bigger APS-C Body with the A7S3 style controls and the option for a battery grip to balance some of the bigger FF Tele Lenses like the 70-200 GM and 200-600G.
This was truly one of the most helpful videos I've seen on the entirety of the internet. Thank you!
My next upgrade from the a6500 will probably be the a7000
I have like 8 apsc lenses, I could not afford the full frame versions of those lenses.
I have 7 included the best and most expensive, the 16-55 2.8 G.
Buy an A7RIII and use it in APS-C mode... you get 37 mb Raw files, then start replacing your lenses one by one. I tell you that with three FF lenses you cover most of your needs. That’s what I did.
Yeah i also can't afford. Pro users can go with full frame. I don't see much of a differences with fast lenses on APSC
Well, you could replace them with the Tamron 28-75 and Tamron 17-28 2.8
Add a 70-200 F4 maybe.
@@borispradel1037 I might do that if Sony don't release a new and improved APS-C camera in the next 14 months.
The worst with the a6600 is a mediocre EVF, a realy bad screen and a 5 years old sensor.
Hi Jason, a6000 & a7r user here, you are right in your comments. when I reach for a camera to either take a shot or bring a camera I reach for the APSC. Handier and quicker to use, cheaper at all levels (right down to SD size needed), and portable. I love the a7r, it's clunkier than the a6000 but and use all my APSC lenses and still end up with 20MP ARW files, and all my beautiful heritage 35mm glass work on both, thanks to the E mount.
BTW I still love my kit lenses, I even but spare ones!
Hero proves that the content is a lot more important than the best possible looking shot. APS-C will only go away when FF gets down to the same price (which will never happen) or when the cameras on phones catch up to the quality of APS-C sensors.
I think the camera manufacturers would like aps-c to go away so they can focus on 1 lineup. I believe canon will drive there with sub $1000 cameras but I think it will take years as there are many of us that want the lover prices and smaller sizes but still feature rich. They need to make the price difference much smaller. I'm hoping for a a7c without IBIS to see how low they can get pricing.
Thanks for asking the right questions. I always enjoy your reviews and learn a tremendous amount from them. Also, love your humor. I think you left one critical component out of this review - the photographer. I understand why professionals need more sophisticated equipement and the latest tech to succeed. But the question for me, and I suspect for many amateur photographers of all levels of experience and skill is - Would I take better pictures with full frame than with my APSC camera. The answer for me is definitely "no". It's easy to convince yourself that getting better gear will improve your results, but in most cases, it's the photographer, not the camera that makes the difference. So, all other things considered, I'll move up to full frame when I'm convinced that it's what I need to take better pictures. In the meantime, the sophistication of my Sony A6400 is more than adequate for my needs. And the cost and weight savings don't hurt.
4:13 cant wait till my grandma buys a a6600 😂😂
I think people overestimate full frame. Like it’s the holly grail and anything else is amateur.
If that was really the case why wouldn’t people get medium format then 🤷🏻♂️
This is very true, sure FF performs better at higher ISO but in which cases do you actually need that? If you need high ISO just grab a tripod
@@cbr_n Street photography and astrophotography immediately spring to mind
both FF & aps-c are needed to fill price ranges/user needs like performance & size
GonePh1shing The high ISO thing will become less of an issue as sensor technology keeps improving.
You make the same mistake a lot of reviewers make. I am a pensioner on limited funds so the difference in price APS-C / FF is a lot of money when you take into account the cost of a set of lens lens. The other big issue is weight plus reach. I am a retired ex Army person with back issues and do bush walking, as it is called in Australia to keep fit. I take a A6400 and the sony 70-350 tele lens for birds etc. Total cost less than a A7c body only. My combination actually gives me a 520 odd mm with a very low weight. The light in Australia is very strong so low light is not really an issue with 1.4 and 2.8 lens. Tell be the cost and weight of a 500 plus FF setup. When and if I get a new camera it is most likely be a A6600 or whatever replaces it. I'm happy to share the photos I get and don't think the FF would make that much difference. Try and consider the issues around cost and weight
I agree! I have the A6600 with the 70-350 and you can't come close to that setup in full frame for the price or size/weight. It is an amazing setup and great lens.
I made pretty much the same point. Low light more of an issue in Ireland than Oz sadly :-)
APS-C is a great way into photography, you can get a body and selection of lenses for the price of the A7C body.
I do most of my shooting with full frame, but I keep an APS-C body in my bag, which I use like a teleconverter. My 24mm, 45mm, and 85mm primes shoot like 36mm, 67.5mm and 127.5mm lenses when mounted on the APS-C body.
My son is a local musician and I take photos of his gigs with the a6400 and the 35mm 1.8 and the sigma 56mm. You don’t get much more compact than this but I still get looks and comments from people about the “huge camera.” I feel the only reason aps-c (or consumer cameras in general) will die is because all the iPhone camera users will shame us into leaving it at home.
Both have their justification, an APS-C camera has a smaller sensor, this allows smaller lenses and smaller system sizes. The Sony A7c, has a large sensor and good lenses are much larger, so the advantage of a small housing disappears. technically the A7c is top - apart from the viewfinder and monitor. It does not make sense for me to use small, mediocre lenses on a technically very good camera like the A7c. Personally the camera is much too small for me, here I prefer to wait for the AIV.
I want a new APS-C from Sony🥺
One with 4K60p! That’s all I’m asking for. I would’ve gladly taken the a7c if they’d put 4K60p recording in it either for smoother videos or 4K slow-mo.
I‘m hoping for something like the a7000 in 2021/22
Just grabbed the a6600 and completed the sigma 1.4 trio. Best run-n-gun portable around town and travel kit for an advanced hobbyist. To get what I’d want on FF I’d be looking at 2-3x the weight per lens/cam combo (NOT HAPPENING) and like 4-5k in cost. This is the sweet spot unless you’re full time in a studio or getting paid for professional work.
I’d say no because the full frame lenses are still huge.
Mostly because they’re way better quality. If FF was more mainstream there’d be more smaller FF lenses.
@@PPYTAO at same quality FF would be bigger in every case - you can't cheat optics. If you make a smaller FF lens at any given Focal L it gets a crop factor advantage on mft/apsc.
I currently own the a7III and am honestly seriously thinking about selling it and buying the a7c mostly just because of its size. I've quit shooting professionally and only do so very occasionally and honestly just want a camera for documenting my travels and just life, so the smaller the camera, the better! It's not targeted at people who want to shoot lots of professional work (even though you definitely could)... Honestly, this camera also just looks less intimidating and "professional" if you will, which is perfect for travel and more casual shooting while still getting that professional quality!
I really enjoyed this video. Thanks for making it! I rock Olympus, so I really like small size and the image quality is fine for what I need as an enthusiast.
It seems that only fujifilm takes apsc seriously. Will move from Sony to fujifilm in future.
I am considering the same move.
they have to take it seriously, apsc is everything to FUJI\there's no full frame to rely on, but that medium format is very interesting, curious if FUJI will make a more affordable & smaller sized body GFX, maybe 24mp GFc? 😏
This brings one question
Format FF lens name (equivalent APS-C lens name or current available option in APS-C)
FF Prime Lens from Samyang:
18 mm f/2.8 (APS-C equiv 12mm f2)
24 mm f/2.8 (16 mm f/1.8 currently Sigma has 16 f/1.4)
35 mm f/2.8 (24 mm f/1.8)
35 mm f/1.8 (24 mm f/1.2)
45 mm f/1.8 (30 mm f/1.2,again sigma has 30 f/1.4)
75 mm f/1.8 (50 mm f/1.2, Sony E 50 mm f/1.8)
Sony AF 85 f/1.8 (again Sigma's 56 f/1.4 comes close with almost 70% of price)
Then FE Zoom lens from Tamron
17-28 f/2.8
28-75 f/2.8
70-180 f/2.8
28-200 f/2.8-5.6 (Sony 18-135)
All of the above lens are affordable & compact enough for Full frame. Didn't included the fantastic Sigma's new 85 f/1.4, it's also compact than other f/1.4.
If the future is full frame, I hope Emount fullframe glass gets cheaper!!
APS-C sensor in a RX/ZV body! That would be great. Except for battery life it would be amazing.
Now that would be fantastic
11:14 This is why aps-c will always be there. Many starting off young in photography cannot afford double the cost on full frame
Even if the body is smaller, the lenses are still bigger and expensive. Dont get me wrong, I'm full frame user but I dont see a smaller body as an advantage. Especially I thought A6600 was too weird to handle with bigger lens, very front heavy setup :(
You really gotta kill MFT/M43 first. APSC can still be smaller and lighter and have some advantages for landscape photography or sports.
A camera is a camera, it takes pictures. It doesn't really matter what you get (as long as it's a Sony LOL). I think Sony is just trying to give the enduser more options (or maybe trying to confuse everyone?). That's what I missed about my A6000's size. Going to a Sony A7II a few months ago (I traded in my A6000's and lenses at my LCS and paid a balance of $250.00 for a BRAND NEW A7II body. Yes it's a bit older, but who cares? It gets me into the Sony FF eco system). I'd LOVE to get a Sony A7c with the kit lens (which you didn't mention you can get the kit fe 28-70mm lens too). You have the compactness of a A6XXX with a FF sensor. BEST of both worlds...
aps-c is there to stay, just because of the price.... but as a a7ii user (3 years so far), i was hoping for this type of camera as a hobbyist, but missing the front dial and having a smaller evf kills the deal unfortunately…. i would grab the upcoming the a7iv, but it s most likely going to be out of the budget so finger crossed for an mk2 of this!!
also, am i the only one wishing there could be a dedicated "photography" camera? something that would be completely stripped of video feature to concentrate the quality/feature of a still shooter?
You're not the only one. I too would love a camera optimized for stills, without the menu "clutter" associated with advanced video functions and with buttons/dials dedicated to the most used still photography functions (ISO, exposure compensation, shutter speed, aperture, focus mode etc.). Especially when travelling I almost never take videos.
This is the video I've been waiting for as I'm very torn between getting the a6x00 and a7C!
Hi Jason, I just wanted to weigh in and thank you for a great video. I came here as an a6300 owner who is looking to upgrade. When I bought my a6300 the 6400 wasn't on the market yet and then a few months later it came out and I was kicking myself for not doing more research about what was to come. Of course, there will always be new and better cameras being released, so I didn't kick myself too hard ;)
I wanted to let you know that you answered a bunch of the questions I was having about which way to go. Thanks!
At present I predict a strong future for the APSC range of Sony cameras. It will be interesting to see what the next APSC body size camera Sony launches next.
Well the new lenses and fx30 are looking interesting
Good video - well stated.
I am staying with APS-C. I own an A-6500, and a number of lenses for APS-C; my favorites are the 18-135 mm Sony, the 70-350 Sony and the 30 mm f1.4 Sigma - all super lenses and well priced. My perfect camera would be the A6600 but with two card slots, 42 meg (or higher!) sensor, higher resolution EVF, and the new Sony menu from the A7S3. Cheers
How can you say that apsc is dead if by looking at the sales figures, majority of the camera sales came from crop cameras. Companies will continue to produce these products as long as there are demands into it
After I was getting use to My A6400 with the Sigma Trio primarily for shoot session was about to get the A7iii then BOOM baby in the picture lol
It’s not dead. Most beginner photographers buy APSC cameras without knowing it because they are cheaper. As long as they will be more affordable than the expensive full frame bodies, I think there will always be a market
Smaller is better, so smaller will win out long term in one form or another. The big question is will Sony expand their Catalyst Browse software to APS-C camera bodies. I was hoping Jason Vong would explore this question. Because without Catalyst Browse, the in camera stabilization is NOT GOOD ENOUGH with the full frame cameras. Correct?
crappier battery, worse low light performance, very little native glass, lesser dedication from companies to develop top notch technologies. I think you're talking about point and shoots when saying small right? Then sorry for that.
I Got the A6400 since the release I use it mainly at Portraits and Weddings
Its time for me To Switch to Full-frame and looking forward to Buy the A7C
Thanks for the great video!
I've had an a6000 for almost a year now (okay about 10 months) and I can't see myself moving to full frame anytime soon. Maybe I'll get an a6400 if I get a good deal and have the budget but currently I am just trying to get my hands on some good apsc glass and eventually a gimbal... I just can't afford full frame yet, I am just a 11th grade student lol. And I think that that is still the main selling point for apsc. Budget. Be it that you are a student or just straightup don't have the money for whatever reason, apsc is your best friend. Cheaper lenses and cheaper bodies. Aside from that, I think that apsc is still more than good enough for the ordinary hobby phtographer or videographer. As long as you don't want to shoot in super low light or desperately need that bokeh, you will be just fine using apsc.
*Edit: Just my thoughts, not offending anyone. And yes Jason, I read your comment, just giving my thoughts on it :0
I don't know how I missed this video for 2 months, but I agree with you completely!
Main reason why most APS-C users won't get the A7c is the price. A7c is already 2x the price of the A6400, and same with the FE lenses, usually 2-5x the cost of APS-C lenses.
But if the A7c comes down in price and companies like Samyang keep making small and affordable FE lenses, maybe then Sony can move all the casual APS-C shooters into their full frame cameras. 👍👍
I have upgraded to a full frame camera because of the A7c but I didn’t buy the A7c, instead I got the A7RII because it was the on sale for $1,200 and 42MP and I have a silver a6400 for vlogging because it’s size of body and silver lenses. I prefer the flip up because it’s a smaller setup.
First, forgive me for bringing up canon here, I don’t know Sony at all or if this applies to the Sony eco system 😂 but I recently realized that for the shooter who’s main needs are shallow depth of field (portraiture, maybe some fine art fruit bowl shots 🤷♂️) I recently realized that the cheaper full frames coming to the market actually can break costs down lower for getting more shallow DOF overall. Like an EOS RP ($1,000) with an EF 85mm F1.8 ($350) will get a FOV/DOF that would require a 50mm F1.2 lens ($1,300) on a crop sensor (say, M50, at $579 plus $159 adapter). The same math makes almost every decent prime on a FF body cheaper than the “equivalent” epic prime on a crop sensor body (50mm F1.8 on FF looks like 35mm F1.2 on crop sensor, 135mm F2 on FF looks like 85mm F1.2 on crop sensor, etc). Does this translate to the Sony system as well? We’ve had cameras for a few years now that make speed and flexibility a priority over DOF, but I thiiiiink these recent cheaper full frames are appealing to portrait shooters who want a more shallow DOF instead of a faster burst rate. It’s all interesting to me. Just thinking out loud here...
Exactly. I have APSC with very fast primes (1.2/1.4) which
I do not think are any cheaper or lighter than FF lens with equivalent focal length and DOF (1.8/2.0). So not cheaper, not lighter, yet same DOF and faster. You could say that higher ISO can make this up on FF and I agree. Then again, having everything equal, I personally have no motive to "upgrade".
Hi, quick question. I'm coming from Canon t7i. Planning to buy A6400 with sigma prime lenses. Is there any new APSC camera coming in this price? Or i just go and buy A6400 ?
They might be able to make that move when they figure out how to make an A7Cx $1000-$1200 dollar full frame. As it stands you can get an apsc with a good zoom or two primes for the price of just the body of the A7C so for anyone who is casual and has limits that is the obvious choice. I personally would love to go full frame but I also want to do other things in life out side of taking photos so a more sensible purchase makes sense.
Great points. I would not be surprised to see Sony release an a7000 APS-C that is smaller than the 6000 series as well. And yes, the lenses and body are still bigger/heavier than the APS-C as is. And as you said more expensive. Those lenses add up. - WW
Did I really make this comment only 7 hours ago? Seems like yesterday. - WW
I recently made the jump from RX100-VII and RX10-IV to an A6600. I do video and photography of hiking and backpacking where size and weight is pretty important. I can shoot nice video with a compact lens and a Zhiyun Crane-M2 quite effectively. That being said had I known the A7C was coming I probably would have gone that direction. FF + the fully articulating display would have sealed the deal for me.
Hi,thanks for the video. You've said that the differences between the Sony A7C and SonyA 6400 in terms of image quality are:
Better low light performance and Bokeh of the former but you haven't said anything about Dynamic range and Colour depth (skin tones,shades of colours in landscapes,etc) which are better in one stop and a half at least in the Sony A7C.
I have both APS-C and FF Sony cameras. I shoot mostly landscapes, wildlife and people. For highest quality work I use the A7RIV and A7RIII and have a full range of prime and zooms. The 24-105 lives on the A7RIV and the 200-600 lives on the A7RIII. I carry the 12-24 in a small bag along with the 85 F1.8. I travel a lot for business but still like to have more than an iPhone so carry an A6500 with the 16-70 plus the 10-18, 55-210 & 35 F1.8 in a small bag. On short trips I take only the A6500 with the 16-70. The 16-70 is an OK lens, the 10-18 is superb and the 55-210 is mediocre. I really want an A9-like APC-C body and will get the 16-55 & 70-350 APS-C and then I'll have the perfect wildlife / hiking camera system for travel. However, the iPhone is getting so good that I carry my Sonys less and less when just walking around. It has three giant advantages - 1) always with you, 2) superb in camera processing using hundreds of images for each shot and AI, Deep Learning (DL) and the neural net chips onboard the iPhone and 3) automatic upload to Photos for instant sharing. Sony images all need processing in LR, some several minutes per image to just match the iPhone's amazing processing. Night mode on the iPhone is just amazing. Sony needs to figure out how to match this processing power and new approach like the iPhone Live. Finally, Sony needs a far better way to get my images to my the cloud than connecting my camera or card to my computer, upload the images into LR, process them and export them and then import to Photos. Imaging Edge is a terrible piece of software. The APS-C is the best format to start this "let's build something better than the iPhone" approach - the smaller than FF sensor leaves room for more electronics for the processing, big enough for far higher resolution than the iPhone, small enough body to carry around, small enough lenses to carry everywhere, etc. Otherwise APS-C will die at the hands of the 5G 8K 45mp iPhone 13 or 14 with five lenses and LiDAR.
Jason: I WATCHED your ENTIRE video :). You have such a sunny, happy disposition. How we choose to record our lives and create artistic images is so subjective. From my father I inherited a love of the camera body. Yet my girlfriend laughs at my camera and lenses (well not completely). I wanted more quality to my stills, but needed a small camera body, so have opted for the Sony A6000, now the A6600. I have a very nice set of lenses (zooms primarily) and can get everything into a 1/2-size camera bag (for international travel). The quality of the APSC images with a good APSC lens (sony 18-135, 70-350, Sigma 30mm) is so good that they rival full frame for me as an enthusiast. I'm not a pro, but if I were I would be shooting with full frame. Despite what you said, the size of full frame lenses are typically heavier, wider, and longer, and this HAS to be considered when evaluating the overall size of your camera. For travelers the small size translates into being able to more easily bring the mavic mini and the weebill S. I can't bring more than one checked bag and one-2 carry ons. As well, I have an RX1000iii that is so tiny I always bring it and use it for panorama and fill flash and a TOUGH camera for underwater or rugged moments. Thanks, again!
It is definitely cost for me that got me to and kept me on APS-C. My A6400 + 18-135 and 30mm prime cost me less than an A7iii with no lens. I'll probably splurge on the 70-350mm at some point and my entire setup will only be around the price of the A7iii and a relatively cheap full frame prime. Would I rather have had an A7iii and 2 nice full frame lenses? Yes, the better IQ, better low light (espescially this!), IBIS, better weather sealing, nicer choice of UWA lens and better battery all sound great but I just wasn't willing to pay the extra. Maybe some day, right now the price isn't worth it for me.
APS-C sure ain't dead with Sony, not with that overpriced A7C body. lol
yeah, if you want to make the full frame mainstream. do it like canon with the eos rp. but don't cripple the high end full frame for the cinema line. that's the problem with canon.
Lol but still is not as apple, no performace, bigger price
I don't think we can call it overpriced. It's basically an A7iii. Do you think an A7iii is overpriced?
@@keltonjohnson6197 for a 2 years technology. it sure is. and it's not like a7c is like a7iii. sony clearly using their leftover parts. horrible screen, weakass ibis. they're not going all out while charging premium and expecting it to go mainstream
@Azam Jamal yeah definitely reusing old tech 😣 but we should be thankful for this choice as it is literally the smallest FF body with EVF & IBIS,,,,,, let's wait for A7CII with selfieScreen/improvedIBIS & 4k60
Reasons for going FF: I like the way prices of FF lenses are going. Higher and higher! My APSC lenses just don’t weigh enough! A real man can easily carry those heavy weight monsters all day and all night. If you’re having a problem, don’t be a whimp; just go to the gym already! We need to help our favorite YTers look good in the in the eyes of camera makers. Hey, somebody has to help these guys make a living with their affiliate links! Buy like there’s no tomorrow; as a big time photographer, you’re raking it in at all the big events you have booked! Best time ever to deplete your cash on hand. Max out those cards! All those fancy new cameras announced recently, you deserve one! FF forever!!!
Well said and I could not agree more! I’ve been booking professional jobs with my APSC camera for years. Clients have no problems with it. It is the photographers and especially the UA-cam community who argues over sensor size and which brand is best. Who cares, shoot with what you like!
Sony, like all the other manufacturers, is reading the writing on the wall. The bottom to mid end of the camera market is being slowly but surely eroded by smartphones. They need to rationalise, cut costs and put some clear blue water between themselves and those phones. Shifting the prosumer and pro markets to full frame ticks all those boxes. I don't think crop sensor cameras will die immediately, but they will gradually become far more niche products than they are currently.
I feel like one of the issues with APS-C is that they use the same lens mount with 35mm sensor. You could theoretically make the APS-C lenses even smaller by limiting the diameter of the mount. If they did something that allowed a very small and very effective adapter that allowed the use of FF lenses, that could be a home run (the additional lens selection is still critical). I think APS-C cameras have to get even smaller for them to be equally compelling today.\
I totally agree with you. The price of the camera plus the lenses is a big difference for any prosumer, so APSC will still live on. I think this camera is more directed towards A7 users that wanted a Bcam or a travel cam. Lastly, you did not emphasize is that the stabilization is not really improved since a6500, and for that price, it´s kind of unacceptable considering today´s market...
Don't think it's dead. I moved from Filmic Pro to APSC a6400. Reason is Im using an old phone and it's still usable as a phone. Thought of getting an iPhone 11 Pro for Filmic Pro but it cost me the same to get an A6400. So tadaaa, 5 years ago on phone camera and now a6400, well yup probably gonna took me another 5 years for full frame. Who knows.
Jason - thanks for your honesty and great work, Big fan from Denmark A6600 owner on your recomendation 👍👍👍
I bought the a7ii last year, but I really really want to upgrade now.
I got the a7iii 2 months ago 🥰
wait for A7IV
I liked the video and you put up a good argument for why you think they could be phasing out APSC. I agree with you to a certain degree of what you are saying. The total overall cost of going full frame on the Sony platform even with using the Sony A7C is still going to put off people on a tight budget. The cost factor for lenses is to high for some people. Is there a shift on that I agree but the total overall cost is to high. Heck even the cost alone for the Sony a6600 is to high for some people to justify buying it. Yes you lose some features by going with the 6400.
A6300 with few primes and the quality looks great but I am very casual shooter and hardly do video. I think if I needed video and ibis capability then I would go a7cii. As of now tho the apsc with my primes and soon the sigma 18-50mm zooom will suffice for travel and casual shooting
My a6500 is an excellent B cam for my A7RIII (though I wish it had the Z batteries) and I have a wide range of quite good APS-C lenses that compliment my full frame glass. To me it doesn't have to be one or the other, both can work well in tandem.
Im waiting for new 6000 that has 4k60 and Im done with full frame
APSC is still the best for travel unless you own Loxia lenses
My latest camera is the A6500 and though it's probably overkill for me, I am interested in the A7c. The diopter on the A6500 adjusts just far enough (-4) to accommodate my left eye without my glasses. Unfortunately, my right eye needs a little more minus than it can provide but I can live with that. I'll have to see if the finder on the A7c works the same. I know improvements will come with whatever comes later but I'm 70 now so I just may go for it.
I view that our phones are taking so great picture/videos now that they are catching up to APS-C, and has passable pictures in low light. I already feel it is more useful to carry a phone + tripod now, than a phone + camera (if only 1 extra item), and I feel pushed to Full Frame to justify carrying an extra camera.. cost is not an issue to me. The only problem is the bulk on FF lenses - I'm willing to accept lower f/stop for more compact lenses, but that kind of negates some of the benefit of FF.
Thank you very much. But I still can't choose.
I am thinking of buying a new camera, but I am not sure between the sony A7c with Sony 16-35MM F / 2.8 GM or the Sony A6600 with Sony 16-55MM F / 2.8 G.
I like the stiling of the Sony A7c very much with the EVF out to the very side of the camera, I hope that all future A7/A9 Sony cameras will have this design, but with larger EVF in higher resolution.
Thanks for this Jason! I have an A6500 with Sony 18-105mm, Sony 24mm, Sony 50mm, Sigma 16mm, and Sigma 30mm. Can these lenses be used on the A7C? If so, would there be any reduction in frame size or quality for photo and video?
watch the super35 feature.
the "C" stands for "A7-C'mon Man........! what are ya doin sony! give us the a7000"
That's not a thing
A6500 came out a year after as7ii, hoping we'll finally get the APSC upgrade we want.
@@Brettt yes! I hope i dont regret investing in all these cropp sensor lenses
@@YoungBlaze at this rate we're going to have to upgrade to super 35mm - Fs5m2
@@Brettt not gonna lie the a7siii is really making me want to make that jump, but i dont want to get into full frame, i love the size of the Apsc
Nice video... I'm torn. I use an a6300... all APS-C lens. So.... is it really worth it to buy the A7c? Or should I just upgrade to the a6600? Thoughts? I do like the small size and I shoot mostly video. BUT... I still feel my Nikon D5200 takes better stills.... ( maybe its the glass) I would like better stills and hate taking 2 cameras on vacation....
Well, where I live a7C, a7SIII or a7R4 cost almost as the same a basic-popular car (yeap, a car in the local currency… meaning, very very expensive). But in the end, maybe it doesn't matter: Sony is leaving officially the local market (following Nikon steps, they left in 2018), they even will close a factory next year (Brazil). Oh, a6x00 series are expensive as well, but not that expensive. hahahahah
Lenses weight remains an issue. I haven’t gone to FF because the overall weight gets closer to SLR, I left Canon 7DMII to reduce weight around half.
Tha ka for the comparison. I’d love to get your full take on the new SONY LA-EA5 adapter. Thanks!
*Thanks (typo)
$1800 still expensive to replace my APSC...
Sorry my opinion to use the a6400 instead of the A6600 for this comparison is in-appropriate since if someone can afford the a7c they can afford the a6600 and get IS and the latest with bigger battery and why wouldn't they? Also I am a Sony owner with all FF but really considering the a6600 with the what appears to be the great Sony E 16-55mm f/2.8 G lens which has no small full frame equivalent. That lens alone may drive me to pick up one. After all its the size and weight of the lens + body that is important and not just the body.
Waiting for a A7000 with a new sensor, a bit more low Light cap. and 4k 60fps. This is what the A6600 should have had to be in my opinion.
Or I am saving up for the A7iiii when it comes out and start shooting with my APSC lenses.
I think APSC will take the place of micro 4/3s. In other words, it will be the domain of travel photography and cheap photography.