Exactly what I was looking for-great job! I also noticed the shallow depth of field in the first set of photos taken with the full-frame lens. It seems that using an APS-C lens slightly degrades the noise performance and dynamic range. This makes me wonder if the same level of degradation should be expected when using an APS-C lens on the a6700 compared to the full-frame lens on A7cii.
@@SweetPotatow I’ve made a video about this topic: ua-cam.com/video/v8g1faRAKRk/v-deo.htmlsi=i9Eaoe2GEdBqRTTM It’s different cameras but you can see the difference between a full frame camera and an apsc camera.
Great Comparison! It was hard to tell them apart. Just the bokeh was the give-away, but super close and resolution is far closer than anticipated. I just got the A7CII, and was second-guessing myself if I should have gotten the A7Cr instead for the crop mode. But I feel much more comfortable with the A7CII. Thank you!
Did you shoot them both at f/2.8? The Sigma 28-70 is widely known to be super soft wide open. I had one and sold it because of this issue. The 18-50 is razor sharp even wide open at f/2.8.
Some of the photos are at f2.8 but not all of them (but the side by side photos are shot with the same setting). I don’t think 28-70 is particularly soft wide open, but the 1850 is very sharp indeed.
Great video! I have an A7Cii but only full-frame lenses, and had been curious about what sort of performance I would get with APSC lenses. This answers my question!
I used the exact same lens on my A7C before I saved up enough money to buy the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 and I was kinda taken aback by the results as well. It was more than enough for social media posts and could definitely be passable for other purposes. I did notice that everything starts to fall apart on darker lighting though.
It seems that you only used apsc lenses in apsc mode, and since they are zoom lenses, you could have avoided vignetting in ff mode with a slight zoom! I think the biggest advantage of an ff lens is the more brightness and bokeh, but with that comes the larger dimensions and weight of the lens.
I would like to share a reasoning and I would like to know what you think... because in the full frame world there is the classic trio of lenses 12-24 / 24-105 / 100-400 or 16-35 / 24-70 / 70/200 and in the APSC world is not there? Why in the full frame world are there people who complain about lenses with f4 aperture because they produce images that are too dark and too little bokeh and then when an APSC f2.8 lens comes out they cry it's a miracle? then let's remember...an f2.8 APSC must be multiplied by 1.5 so even if the brightness remains the same the bokeh that is created is that of a full frame f4 lens and the digital noise level is always that of a lens f4 full frame at the same ISO! So why in the APSC world do they continue to make lenses with apertures like f3.5/6.3? which therefore in full frame would be 5.25/9.45. If they made them full frame no one would buy them! Yet when they come out there is a general outcry because they have a greater range than the full frame one... they are lighter.. they cost less.. etc etc... ok... but they are put on a sensor that is already smaller 1.5 times compared to full frame so what's the point?? And then people complain that full frame lenses are heavy and cost more. Yes, but they also offer more. What do you think?
Personally I think it really comes down to the trade-offs between cost, weight, and performance. APS-C systems cater to those prioritizing portability and affordability, while full-frame offers superior image quality and extreme low-light performance for those willing to pay the price and carry the extra weight.
This was really useful video and a dealbreaker to me as I’ve been trying to choose between a6700 and a7c ii
@@takayamaproductionsfinland Thanks for your comment, I’d love to know your final choice and your feedback after getting it!
very clear and usefull !
@@HueNarcisWorld thanks 🙏 glad to hear that
Exactly what I was looking for-great job! I also noticed the shallow depth of field in the first set of photos taken with the full-frame lens. It seems that using an APS-C lens slightly degrades the noise performance and dynamic range. This makes me wonder if the same level of degradation should be expected when using an APS-C lens on the a6700 compared to the full-frame lens on A7cii.
@@SweetPotatow I’ve made a video about this topic: ua-cam.com/video/v8g1faRAKRk/v-deo.htmlsi=i9Eaoe2GEdBqRTTM
It’s different cameras but you can see the difference between a full frame camera and an apsc camera.
@@ConstantineSPhotography Awesome. Thank you so much! 😃
@@SweetPotatow welcome!
Great Comparison! It was hard to tell them apart. Just the bokeh was the give-away, but super close and resolution is far closer than anticipated. I just got the A7CII, and was second-guessing myself if I should have gotten the A7Cr instead for the crop mode. But I feel much more comfortable with the A7CII. Thank you!
Congrats on your new camera and I'm glad you find the video helpful.
Clear. Simple. Best. Thank you 🙇♂
@@DmitriySokhach thanks for supporting 😊
Did you shoot them both at f/2.8? The Sigma 28-70 is widely known to be super soft wide open. I had one and sold it because of this issue. The 18-50 is razor sharp even wide open at f/2.8.
Some of the photos are at f2.8 but not all of them (but the side by side photos are shot with the same setting). I don’t think 28-70 is particularly soft wide open, but the 1850 is very sharp indeed.
Great video! I have an A7Cii but only full-frame lenses, and had been curious about what sort of performance I would get with APSC lenses. This answers my question!
I’m glad it helps! Using an apsc lens on a7cii can really give you a more compact setup with only minimal quality loss
Thanks for test. 👍
@@Teks009 thanks for supporting!
I used the exact same lens on my A7C before I saved up enough money to buy the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 and I was kinda taken aback by the results as well. It was more than enough for social media posts and could definitely be passable for other purposes. I did notice that everything starts to fall apart on darker lighting though.
Yes in extreme low light you can still see the difference, but otherwise apsc lens doesn’t have much quality loss
Another great video, thank you! And by the way, were those changes of position in the end of the video on commands? If so, those were EXCELLENT!
Thanks for supporting, and yes, she’s a very smart girl 🐶🐶
@@ConstantineSPhotography Yes she is, and obviously you've trained her very well! Girl dogs are the best. 🥰
@@tptrsn 🐕🐕🐕she is my best model when I do camera tests
@@ConstantineSPhotography Definitely! :)
Will you test Lumix S9 in near future and compare it with A7C2 or ZvE1?
I’m not really familiar with Lumix and I probably don’t have access to that system
Thank you ❤
Thanks for supporting!
It seems that you only used apsc lenses in apsc mode, and since they are zoom lenses, you could have avoided vignetting in ff mode with a slight zoom! I think the biggest advantage of an ff lens is the more brightness and bokeh, but with that comes the larger dimensions and weight of the lens.
Yes, for a lighter setup, I’d probably use an apsc lens, the quality loss isn’t very noticeable, unless you care a lot about bokeh size
I would like to share a reasoning and I would like to know what you think... because in the full frame world there is the classic trio of lenses 12-24 / 24-105 / 100-400 or 16-35 / 24-70 / 70/200 and in the APSC world is not there? Why in the full frame world are there people who complain about lenses with f4 aperture because they produce images that are too dark and too little bokeh and then when an APSC f2.8 lens comes out they cry it's a miracle? then let's remember...an f2.8 APSC must be multiplied by 1.5 so even if the brightness remains the same the bokeh that is created is that of a full frame f4 lens and the digital noise level is always that of a lens f4 full frame at the same ISO! So why in the APSC world do they continue to make lenses with apertures like f3.5/6.3? which therefore in full frame would be 5.25/9.45. If they made them full frame no one would buy them! Yet when they come out there is a general outcry because they have a greater range than the full frame one... they are lighter.. they cost less.. etc etc... ok... but they are put on a sensor that is already smaller 1.5 times compared to full frame so what's the point?? And then people complain that full frame lenses are heavy and cost more. Yes, but they also offer more. What do you think?
Personally I think it really comes down to the trade-offs between cost, weight, and performance. APS-C systems cater to those prioritizing portability and affordability, while full-frame offers superior image quality and extreme low-light performance for those willing to pay the price and carry the extra weight.
@@ConstantineSPhotography ok maybe is like you say
看片順便練練英聽🙂
😂😂 好幽默