>>4357212
I've never owned the Sony you mentioned, and cards on the table here, I've never been a fan of Sony because of their menus/ergos/color science (compared to Canon/Nikon)

I have owned an EOS RP, which was basically the older version of the R8. Here are my thoughts on it fwiw:

-Loved the pics I got from it, and I like Canon colors in general
-Like the simplicity of the menus, how everything is laid out, the general user experience, basically
-Camera was too small, I got the little grip extension for it because of this
-Battery life was terrible, have at least 3 if you go this route (uses the tiny battery)
-Canon DPP is pretty good imo for sticking with free RAW conversion/editing software, if that's your preference
-Canon is just more popular, so finding used lenses will probably be easier with Canon

With all that being said, I ditched digital entirely and now shoot Nikon film SLRs exclusively so *shrug*

Good luck brotha

>>4357212

nice lense you have there

i am not a fan of ibis or vr

>>4357212
The sony a7cii is the last camera you will ever need. Only total gearfags actually complain about it, usually citing things that are blatantly false or complete user error.

The canon r8 is the trial version of the canon r6ii

>>4357217
Not OP, but is there a reason to choose the a7cii over an a7iii?

>>4357214
>I've never been a fan of Sony because of their menus/ergos/color science
That is something that put me off just a little. I'm sure I could learn it, but the menus looks very counterintuitive overall.

>Battery life was terrible, have at least 3 if you go this route
Yeah I read about that, something about 300 pics max per charge? I carry a powerbank and I could charge with with USB C I guess. But probably the extra battery or two.

>>4357215
>i am not a fan of ibis or vr
Any particular reason? I see people going nuts over how great IBIS is.

I've been wondering if I do need it, since my current DSLR has no stabilization and I almost always use prime lenses, so I start to think if it would be paying extra for something I wouldn't really use.

>>4357217
>The canon r8 is the trial version of the canon r6ii
The price gap is too large for me unfortunately.

>>4357218
Huh, starting to wonder this myself. The specs look very close but there are slight differences. There's a nice price gap too.

>>4357218
+Smaller
+Improved build quality for larpers that spray their cameras with hoses
+A couple more megapixels
+Better video modes
+Improved autofocus
+Jpeg colors more in line with canon and fuji
+Menu system redesigned for american brains

-Smaller grip, smaller EVF
-Slightly worse dynamic range at highest continuous shooting speed
-2x the price
-Gearfags who spout technobabble will make fun of you until you leave /p/ and get a life

>>4357214
>went to brick and mortar camera place in my city
>asked about going with Sony
>first think clerk said was how shitty the menus are
they must be really damn bad

>>4357225
They are designed by, and for, people who are ahead of americans by 15 IQ points.

The chief complaint is basically there are numbered pages and there aren't enough pictures. People here want touchscreens with big icons and big sliders like a fisher price camera because the average IQ in america is actually closer to 93 once you remove the ultra rich fucks who only shoot leica and hasselblad

>>4357225
Oh yeah, they are. The reason Canon is the #1 seller, even though by the spec sheet they're usually/often worst, is because they're just intuitive and they get out of your way. People don't want to pay a ton of money for their hobby and have to fight their own equipment.

>>4357224
So the A7III is probably the better buy then?

>>4357230
It depends

>>4357228
the average age in photography is quite high and people get significantly dumber and start having trouble learning new things as their 40s set in. add that to americans being americans and its no wonder so many burgers hate sony menus.

i find them intuitive and extremely useful. other menu systems are limiting and don't have enough options.

>>4357228
>People here want touchscreens with big icons and big sliders
I'm more of a simplicity person for settings, typically I don't even use my current screen and just use the dials for the settings I want. I also primarily do stills, so I only use one focus point and never use any face recognition stuff or whatever.

>>4357229
>even though by the spec sheet they're usually/often worst
How much worse? I thought they typically did pretty good specs.

>>4357231
Well, say I wanted to do only occasional video (at 30fps, I hate 60fps) and wanted excellent stills. Would it be at least equal with the A7CII for stills? Megapixels aside obviously.

>>4357233
Dynamic range, ISO performance, Megapixels, etc.

But people sperg out about that stuff too much. If you shoot RAW you can still squeeze a lot out of the files, and if the picture isn't interesting, then specs don't matter anyways. Heck, I choose to shoot film now, which is "obsolete". So the moral of the story is that specs aren't that important unless you can point to a real, concrete way that they limit you, like lacking eye-detect when you're a professional portrait photographer, or something along those lines.

>>4357236
>Dynamic range, ISO performance, Megapixels, etc.
The R8 looks pretty good on specs, at least for the latter two points. 24mp and the pretty decent ISO is very appealing for the price, but I also always see pros talking about using Sony for whatever reason and how good they are. I'm pretty conflicted on which to go with at this point (though the A7III seems to look a bit more appealing than the A7CII at the moment).

>>4357237
DP Review studio comparison tool:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr8&attr13_1=sony_a7c&attr13_2=sony_a7iii&attr13_3=canon_eosrp&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.4714285714285714&y=0.9944396920444825

Play around and see if you can notice meaningful differences, RAW or JPEG. Pros gravitate to Sony for the excellent AF, but whether that's the most important thing for you or not, I dunno. Canon is tops if you're an Apple person (favors usability/simplicity as a priority)

>>4357240
Interesting, on JPEG the Sony A7III looks great and the R8 looks shitty, but then on RAW the R8 actually looks better than the A7III.

Never go snoy

>>4357242
dpreview cant be trusted

Raw and jpeg are both jpegs generated with adobe camera raw (worst raw processor after darktable), and dpreview has done some crooked stuff with their tests, like missing focus with some m43 cameras (maybe they dropped the lens? yeaaaaah) and exposing some files darker than others. Then they do "brightness normalization". This was originally meant to simplify comparisons because the ISO setting doesn't correspond to the same sensitivity with every camera, but when they shoot two cameras with different shutter speeds at the same ISO, wew lad.

File: file.png (446 KB, 398x804)

446 KB PNG

>>4357246
But why?

>>4357247
I see. I did think that was pretty unusual to see, and the RAW for the Sony A7III seem to have a strange aliasing effect and I'd be very surprised if that was the cameras fault.

File: 30f93cc7b22fe6a419b9fab1c(...).jpg (208 KB, 1080x1051)

208 KB JPG

>>4357247
>autism detected

OP, DPReview also has sample images in their reviews of cameras. You can just check out the sample real-life pics they took to get an idea of how they can perform.

>>4357248
That looks more like a lens flaw than a camera body problem
low corner resolution+corner CA

For the canon r8 test shots they used the amazing and expensive RF 85mm f1.2 L
For the sony test shots they used the budget blaster FE 85mm f1.8

Both at f5.6, but the fe 85mm f1.8 is best at f8 because it's not exactly a professional lens

Why don't they just adapt an SLR mount zeiss for every mirrorless camera so it's the same? Who knows.

>>4357252
If I went with the A7III, what lenses would recommend? Like a 50mm for example

>>4357256
E mount is so fucking huge, it's hard to tell people what to buy in it

IDK sony 40mm f2.5 and a sigma 90mm f2.8

Sony menus are bad (worse on older bodies), however they're so customisable you rarely have to dive into the main menus. You can set almost every button to do what you want, just press to activate whatever or tap and scroll to adjust a setting. For less frequently adjusted stuff there's a quick menu with like 12 customisable slots.

One downside of the A7C models is you have a few less buttons to customise. On top of that you have a smaller lower res viewfinder, slower max shutter speed (unless you go to electronic shutter) and slower flash sync speed, only a single card slot, and the smaller grip. While the C models are the smallest practical FF bodies they're not really that much smaller than the regular models, it's just the difference in height from chopping off the EVF hump. The shallower grip doesn't matter because most of the lenses you'll put on it will stick out further.

>>4357256
The Sony 50mm f/1.8 is really cheap used and not bad, but I ended up going with the Zeiss 55mm. The 28-70mm kit can also be had for a similar price and the Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 is a good cheap step up from that. Also the Zeiss 16-35mm f/4 if you want to go wide. Those are some good general use options. Other than that, as the other guy said there's so much to choose from it depends on what sort of thing you're after.

>>4357256
sony has shared their lens protocol in their early years to third party brands, so you have all the pricing levels covered.
canon mirrorless made it hard for third party brands. they threatened viltrox for making an RF mount lens. sigma made it first in canon's dead EFM mount.

IBIS is nice but doesn't matter much unless you're handheld, using a non IS lens, and your subject isn't moving. Its handy but not a deal-breaker.
RF lenses are pricey. Great, but pricey. Canon is dependable to a fault, and the R8 is quite a versatile, light, well rounded camera for pretty cheap.

I would buy one but I'm actually still tossing up between R8 or R7

>>4357267
>Sony menus are bad (worse on older bodies)
Would the A7III be old enough to have the "bad" menus then?

> however they're so customizable you rarely have to dive into the main menus
That's pretty positive then, the only settings I really mess with are the usual things like shutter and aperture. I tend to use the same focus mode for everything and the same exposure metering.

>>4357268
Hmm. Well even now, I've kept the same 3 lenses for the last 5 years, so large lens selection isn't too major to me.

>>4357286
>IBIS is nice but doesn't matter much unless you're handheld, using a non IS lens, and your subject isn't moving
I tend to do almost entirely handheld and have still objects. That said, I've been going fine with a DSLR that has no stabilization and primes that also have no stabilization. Would this end up being a pretty major issue? It seems almost like a deciding factor since one has it and the other doesn't.

>RF lenses are pricey. Great, but pricey.
The Sony ones appear to be even pricier.

>Canon is dependable to a fault, and the R8 is quite a versatile, light, well rounded camera for pretty cheap.
Good to hear, it sounds like it has a better rep than Nikon mirrorless at the moment.

>>4357299
Since i try not to be a biased dickhead, I will highlight some negatives to consider about the R8. Namely:
>Battery
Uses the small APS-C battery. Same that goes in my R50. Its not great. If I'm doing anything more than an hour or two of casual shooting I need to carry a spare. Not the end of the world, but the R8 has a bigger sensor to power so it would be somewhat worse than the R50. Buy a pair of 3rd party batteries for $30
>No fully mech shutter
Only a concern for some scenarios. I would look into what it affects though. Things like artificial light banding and odd effects on bokeh. Something I also deal with on my R50 but for 90% of my shooting it doesn't matter.

Canon mirrorless in general is in a good spot. No major complaints about the platform as a whole.

>>4357299
>The Sony ones appear to be even pricier.
Sony lenses? Sure. But lenses for Sony cameras? There's Sigma and Tamron and Viltrox and...
A quick look at B&H and the Sony 24-70/2.8 is $2300, while the Sigma 24-70/2.8 is $1300 and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is $900 (all second gen). Now these third-party lenses aren't quite as good as Sony's own (and I assume Canon's expensive stuff is more or less on par with Sony) but they're still very good. So you have a choice there which Canon simply doesn't allow.

>>4357323
True. I'm feeling a bit more swayed by the Sony now, especially since Tamron lenses have been really good in my experience, but the big question is whether I go with the A7III or the A7CII.

>>4357299
>Would the A7III be old enough to have the "bad" menus then?
Yes, the update came after the A7C (which itself was after the A7III) but before the A7C2, IIRC the A7IV has the new style too.

>>4357331
I see. Alright, how bad are the menus? Are they bad enough where I should just go right for the A7CII? The specs of the the A7CII are very tempting besides the menu thing, but saving cash with the A7III is also very appealing.

>>4357333
>Are they bad enough where I should just go right for the A7CII?
That'll be highly subjective.

>but saving cash with the A7III is also very appealing.
Said the guy who was prepared to pay Canon/Sony lens prices...

>>4357335
>That'll be highly subjective.
How has the new menu been received by users then? Very positively?

>Said the guy who was prepared to pay Canon/Sony lens prices...
Less money on the body means more money for the lenses.

>>4357336
I don't see why you are so autistically hung up on the menus

One may be better than the other, but you are going to spend a few hours with it, learn it, then it stops being difficult for the next 5 years until you upgrade your camera. Especailly on snoy where the level of customisation means barely ever needing to open it up once setup to your liking.

File: DSC_7574.jpg (2.26 MB, 2012x3024)

2.26 MB JPG

menus literally dont matter aslong as you literally have a favorites/my menu function available

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	2012
Image Height	3024
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4357299
>>4357333
>>4357336
The menus are only bad in the sense that they're poorly laid out, it will take you longer to find things than with the newer ones and some other brands. Once you've spent a few days getting the camera set up and customised how you want it won't really matter anymore. When people say "I tried a Sony and the menus were so shit, unusable" it's because they picked it up and tried it for a few minutes and expected to be able to find their way around like whatever other camera they've been using for months or years.
>That's pretty positive then, the only settings I really mess with are the usual things like shutter and aperture. I tend to use the same focus mode for everything and the same exposure metering.
Coming from an older DSLR you will probably find you'll want to adjust some focus settings more frequently, at the very least switching between human and animal eye tracking (yes those are separate and don't automatically switch on older Sonys, I don't really know why). One other thing you might want quick access to is the auto ISO setting, what minimum shutter speed it will aim for before raising the ISO.

>>4357349
I suppose I can get sued to them, I like learning new shit and having more settings is better than not having enough.

In your opinion, is it still worth getting the A7III vs the newer A7CII? The III is going to be 7 years old soon and I wonder if it's still worthwhile.

>Coming from an older DSLR you will probably find you'll want to adjust some focus settings more frequently, at the very least switching between human and animal eye tracking (yes those are separate and don't automatically switch on older Sonys, I don't really know why).
I mostly prefer single point auto focus. Just look at the single point, lock focus and snap. I rarely ever do moving objects. I can still do that and not have to use any tracking shit or detection right?

>>4357212
- Canon if you want nice colors.
- Sony if you hate yourself.

Don't count out a used or refurbished R6 if you want IBIS. The only flaw with the R6 is that you can hit thermal limits doing long form 4k. Otherwise it's an awesome stills and video camera with some of the best IBIS available.

>>4357352
>- Canon if you want nice colors.
>- Sony if you hate yourself.
Can you elaborate a bit?

>>4357212
Do not get the A7C. Slow start up. Terrible evf. Bad ergonomics. Probably will develop faults over a couple of years.

>>4357353
I've never cared for Sony ergonomics. They have gotten better than they were, but still not great. Canon has always fit like a glove.

Colors are the same thing. You can get great color with anything, but with Sony sometimes it takes more work in post. Every Canon I've owned has had great color out of camera.

Sony has had a lot of firsts in mirrorless though, which is how they took 2nd place. But at this point Canon and Nikon can match them on tech.

>>4357223
>I've been wondering if I do need it, since my current DSLR has no stabilization and I almost always use prime lenses, so I start to think if it would be paying extra for something I wouldn't really use.

Honestly in that case you dont need it. But good news if you went Sony...their IBIS is useless I ended switching it off.
Its another thing to go wrong in a camera full of gimmicks.

>>4357355
Did that happen with the previous gen A7C?

>>4357356
Fair. I do a lot of RAW editing and never use JPG, so I figure color shouldn't be too much of an issue. How much does IBIS matter to you then? The R8 lacks it and I wonder how important it would be for my uses (constantly handheld and of stationary objects).

>>4357299
IBIS can also be useful for moving subjects with shorter telephotos. Portrait lenses are typically between 85 and 135mm and already require more than 1/100s for reliable results. It's not magic, but it can help a little. That said I don't have any experience with sony cameras so I don't know how well their IBIS works.

>>4357351
>I mostly prefer single point auto focus. Just look at the single point, lock focus and snap. I rarely ever do moving objects. I can still do that and not have to use any tracking shit or detection right?
Yeah you can do that no problem. You can even move the focus point around with the touch screen which is pretty nice and you'll have far more covering pretty much the entire frame compared to the DSLR, so no need to focus and recompose. I also mostly shoot static subjects although I just keep it on continuous with tracking anyway, and instead of moving the focus point most of the time I focus and recompose and because it tracks what I originally focussed on it adjusts for the movement.
>In your opinion, is it still worth getting the A7III vs the newer A7CII? The III is going to be 7 years old soon and I wonder if it's still worthwhile.
I have an A7R III so it's pretty much the same except for having a higher res EVF and rear screen, a second card slot, and of course the higher res sensor. But it has the previous gen AF system with fewer points. I think you'll be very happy with it and can't really think of anything you'd find lacking. The big improvements with current models are the menu system and AF but it's not like you're a sports shooter or a birder. People will mention the colours and it's true that skin does have a slight green colour cast, but you honestly don't notice it unless you're comparing directly to another camera and if you're shooting RAWs and processing them then it's a non-issue.

>>4357237
If you go for a Sony the a7III is a better buy. I sold my A7c and got a RP with a bunch of lenses. Just an overall better shooting experience and high iso is decent enough. Prefer the output..no regrets except battery life (easily solved). Its quite the underdog.

I suggest you also go to a camera store to check the cameras you aim for. It will give you an idea on the dimensions, weight, feel, ergo, menu, evf, screen, AF, etc.

>>4357357
>Its another thing to go wrong in a camera full of gimmicks.
That did occur to me that it's something that moves around and it seems like strong movement could mess with it over time.

>>4357360
I currently have an 18-200mm and I've managed fairly well using handheld at 1/125th with no stabilization of any kind, so I can only imagine I'll do fine at far less with prime lenses. I recall something as well about the sensor being further forward in mirrorless which means light reaches faster for lenses too.

>>4357362
That's a pretty massive change, why did you go from an A7C to an RP and not an R8?

>>4357362
>no regrets except battery life (easily solved)
I get anywhere from 400-600 shots per charge, depending on how much I focus manually. And focus peaking is so good, that manual can be really satisfying.

>>4357358
>Did that happen with the previous gen A7C?
I can confirm the slow startup but standby mode solves it, battery life is great.
EVF is not bad if you're a glasses wearer, and ergonomics is always going to be subjective go to a store and hold it.

File: wf.jpg (45 KB, 502x198)

45 KB JPG

>>4357393
>ergonomics is always going to be subjective

You idiots really need to read more.

>>4357364
>I currently have an 18-200mm and I've managed fairly well using handheld at 1/125th
You must have steady hands if you're getting reliable hits at that ss. I must do ~1/(2xFL) if I want >90% hit rate.

>>4357397
And now you can go read up on semantics. It's almost like we all know what we're talking about and you're being a fuckwit for no reason.

>>4357399
The point still stands, A7C's grip is designed terribly, buttons and dials are all over the place and the EVF (both the size and the placement) is a fucking joke.

There's nothing subjective about any of this.

I came into this thread ready to post my own recc, read through everything you people have said, and now I've realized that it mostly just boils down to matching your personal brand to your price point. 9ii2 or 9iii or excelcius edition- doesn't matter. If you put on a shiny shirt to go out at night then get a Sony whatever, if you look forward to putting on hiking books at 6:30am every Saturday then get the Canon. It's like, y'know- every band is either a Beatles band or a Rolling Stones band- well, who's your brand?
Button placements and eyeball tracking nanosecond whatevers- that's just jibber jabber, you'll like whatever you buy and adapt to it in a few days as long as it isn't total garbage and you read the manual.

Great discussion though- lotta good points.

>>4357403
> If you put on a shiny shirt to go out at night then get a Sony whatever,

That's what Fuji is for, hermano.

>>4357212
Go with nikon

>>4357407
no, go with Epson

>>4357212
I have the A7CII and previously owned both the Canon R10 (crop) and the R6 (full frame). Here's what I will say:

>Sony:
+ Better/more natural colors than Canon (still not as good as Nikon, but not too far off)
+ Smaller (if Viltrox ever comes out with their rumored pancake lens, the camera would actually fit in the pockets of my sweatpants)
+ Higher resolution and better image quality (it's noticeable when comparing to my old R6 at least)
+ Has IBIS (not as good as my Canon R6, but still useable)

Canon:
+ Cheaper
+ Better video specs
+ Has the excellent 28mm f2.8 pancake available
+ Nicer ergonomics

>>4357400
Alright, you make a fair point. I can agree it's a joke of a design.
>>4357424
Gonna sell my EFS 24mm and buy this, I hear far too much good about it

File: canon EOS R.jpg (60 KB, 1200x899)

60 KB JPG

>>4357400
People actually use EVFs except when the sun makes the rear screen unusable?

>>4357397
>EVERYWAN HAS THE SHAYM HANDTH!
Ergonomics IS subjective. What an arthritic person needs to compensate for the inability to exert grip strength is ugly, space wasting, and totally unfelt to a healthy person. Remember the ergonomic keyboard craze? Notice how no one uses them, because if you're not crippled, it doesn't matter?

That's what I think of when I see canon's design. Canon and nikon bodies, and now the new snoys, are really designed for arthritic people. When an arthritic man lacks grip strength he needs grip area and for the object, now higher friction, to expand to fill his partially closed hand that cain't close no more. And that makes sense for them, because their average customer is 40.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4357427
>Detatched alice keyboard
>Physically cabled together anyway
This might actually be peak design retardation

>>4357425
>Alright, you make a fair point. I can agree it's a joke of a design.
It's not a joke of a design. At least if you're talking about the A7CII. Sure it's not as comfy to hold as a Canon, but that's the tradeoff you make to have an APS-C sized body with a full frame sensor.

>>4357425
Do it. I still have mine in case Canon ever comes out with a smaller full frame camera in the future. Not only is it sharp out into the corners, but the rendering, bokeh etc is really nice too.

>>4357229
As someone who has shot mostly Canon but now owns a Sony, I don't agree that Canon's menus are better. They're basically the same. Both are like 6/10 in terms of intuitiveness.

>>4357427
> People actually use EVFs except when the sun makes the rear screen unusable?

Of course, it makes for a better shooting experience. Also, most EVF's are OLED's with decent ppi while the rear screens are mostly IPS or even TFT with shittier ppi.

>>4357490
>that's the tradeoff you make to have an APS-C sized body with a full frame sensor
The funny thing is the APS-C Sonys actually have a larger grip

>>4357364
>That's a pretty massive change, why did you go from an A7C to an RP and not an R8?

Vastly cheaper. I got a mint RP with 3 batteries for 450 quid. Remaining cash from the A7Cii was used to buy a bessa R and the RF 16mm f2.8 and the 50mm f1.8.

>>4357393
How slow are we talking?

>>4357398
I'm pretty steady I think, I've gone without image stabilization for pretty much my entire time with my current DSLR so there's been no choice but to be steady.

>>4357424
>Better/more natural colors than Canon (still not as good as Nikon, but not too far off)
I've been impressed by some of the colors people have got out of it. A few people I worked with a few years ago seemed to swear by their A7III's, so I got thinking about the A7CII since it's a bit newer and I hear it's essentially a slightly stripped down A7IV.

How's the reliability/quality been? Someone above said they can shit the bed and being 1 year old now, I figure there should be reports if that was true.

>>4357427
>People actually use EVFs except when the sun makes the rear screen unusable?
I'd likely always use the EVF, looking at the screen feels weird, especially for street portraits.

>>4357504
How have you found the lack of IBIS? And how is the overall image quality in comparison? Anything else you can comment on that is positive and negative between the two?

>>4357212
Any particular reason for an A7cii? Outside of just not liking an slr style evf I don't see why you would buy it over an equally priced used a7iv.
>>4357233
>I also primarily do stills, so I only use one focus point and never use any face recognition stuff or whatever.
>>4357234
>Well, say I wanted to do only occasional video (at 30fps, I hate 60fps) and wanted excellent stills. Would it be at least equal with the A7CII for stills? Megapixels aside obviously.
Why not go up a few hundred and get an a7cr or even get an a7r iv used for the same price as an a7c ii?

As for general things about sony
The menus are confusing at first but easy to get used to and after setting up all the buttons, fn menu, and My Menu I've rarely touched it on my a7c.
Sony colors do suck but learning how to use picture profiles and manipulating white balance can get you some pretty good looking jpegs.
The mount imo is probably one of the strongest sells for sony because of the variety of lenses from cheap chinesium to really high end glass so you can easily find a lens that fits a budget or niche.
>t. A7c user

I like my rp alot and the battery life isn't as bad as people act like
>Cheaper camera doesn't have as good of x as the more expensive ones
Gee you don't say

>>4357538
>Why not go up a few hundred and get an a7cr or even get an a7r iv used for the same price as an a7c ii?
Well, I'm considering an A7IV now since that seems like a natural step from the A7III. I'll also just get the body and then get a 50mm to go with it, I hear the kit lenses with Sony's are kinda shit and it seems like a waste to add one on that I'd never use, whereas I'd probably use the 50mm constantly since I'm more of a prime lens guy.

>Sony colors do suck but learning how to use picture profiles and manipulating white balance can get you some pretty good looking jpegs.
I'll be exclusively using RAW, so that doesn't matter too much I think. I'm a bit surprised people would buy cameras like this and just use in-camera JPG.

>The mount imo is probably one of the strongest sells for sony because of the variety of lenses from cheap chinesium to really high end glass so you can easily find a lens that fits a budget or niche.
That is definitely appealing over the Canon, I figured the situation would've been reversed.

>>4357218

I was thinking of upgrading mine to the a7cii since I am still on an a7ii. I don't get a whole lot of use out of it right now because it is big and the AF is on the slow end.

>>4357224
I gotta be one of the few people who actually like the a7 menu system. It is exactly the same as my old Minolta bodies. It just makes sense.

>>4357538
>sony colors do suck
Nah they're great

Not as garish as nikon, not as flat as canon, not as uncanny as olympus, not as "log looking" as panasonic, definitely better than fuji. #2 for a reason. Because sony can't compete with canon pro services or score a contract with getty.

>>4357528
>so I got thinking about the A7CII since it's a bit newer and I hear it's essentially a slightly stripped down A7IV.
Well it's not just a stripped down version. It's better in many ways. Much improved autofocus for example. No full mechanical shutter though, that's the only real negative.

I've had mine for about a year now. No issues with reliability so far.

>>4357581
Hmm. Well say you price didn't matter, would you pick the A7CII or the A7IV?

Also, how has the startup time been? I saw mention it was slow, but that might've been referring to the first gen A7C.

>>4357543
>Well, I'm considering an A7IV now since that seems like a natural step from the A7III.
Then just wait for the A7V that should be coming later this year. Or buy a Nikon Z6III. The A7IV is not worth the money right now.

I would not buy an A7III personally. It has the old shitty Sony colors (which has been fixed on their later models). Then just get a Lumix S5ii instead. Same sensor and costs like $1500 including a lens (when on sale - wait for Black Friday).

>>4357585
>Then just wait for the A7V that should be coming later this year.
How much later this year? If I time things right, I could get the A7IV for both the new model causing a discount AND Black Friday/Christmas sales making it even deeper.

>I would not buy an A7III personally. It has the old shitty Sony colors (which has been fixed on their later models).
Fair, I'll go with a newer one then.

>>4357583
>Hmm. Well say you price didn't matter, would you pick the A7CII or the A7IV?
A7CII. I mean, I could've gotten the A7IV but chose the compact version. But ofc it depends on how you're gonna use it. If I was a professional photographer who was going to use it in a studio all day with flash, then the A7IV would be better (due to having a mechanical shutter). Other than that, the A7CII is better and being like 30% lighter and smaller is a big plus for me.

Startup is quick. About one second from turning it on until I can snap a photo.

>>4357588
>How much later this year? If I time things right, I could get the A7IV for both the new model causing a discount AND Black Friday/Christmas sales making it even deeper.
I don't know, just rumors for now. But maybe towards December or something.

Have you tried greentoe.com? I got my A7CII there (just after it released) for $1900 with tax included. You can put offers on any camera there. May not need to wait for discounts to happen.

>>4357590
>But ofc it depends on how you're gonna use it. If I was a professional photographer who was going to use it in a studio all day with flash, then the A7IV would be better (due to having a mechanical shutter).
I'll mostly be on the street since I enjoy street portraits and architectural stuff, sometimes landscapes too. It's rare that I'd be in a studio. So not sure if that's better or worse when using a camera with a mechanical shutter.

>Startup is quick. About one second from turning it on until I can snap a photo.
That's fine then, the way people were calling it slow implied as though it would be several seconds or more.

>>4357595
Then you'll be fine without a full mechanical shutter. Well, if you're shooting moving subjects in bright daylight (shutter speed of 1/4000s or faster) with very fast lenses (f1.2-f1.8) then a mechanical comes in handy. Also A7CII can only do 1/4000 as maximum shutter speed (A7IV does 1/8000).

For me though, the trade-off is worth it. It's so much nicer carrying this smaller camera around compared to my Canon R6 or Nikon Z5.

Not OP, but I'm in a similar Sony v. Canon boat. I was a originally considering an A7III, but I'm not sure what the "direct competition" Canon has to that.
Also, I've recently been looking and am starting to look at Nikon's Z5. What are the comparable (tech wise) to the Z5 from Sony and Canon?

>>4357600
>Well, if you're shooting moving subjects in bright daylight (shutter speed of 1/4000s or faster) with very fast lenses (f1.2-f1.8) then a mechanical comes in handy.
Daylight for sure but my glass will probably only go down to f1.8, the prices for f1.4 is a massive gap and I'm happy enough with f1.8

I'll take both into consideration then. I think I like the idea of the A7IV more since it's full featured and is a bit bigger, but idk, I'll have to see them in person.

>>4357601
From my bit of reading, it seems like the R8 is the closest rival to the A7III (despite 5 years difference in release). No idea about the Z5 though, I only ever see people shit on Nikon here, so I haven't looked into them much.

>>4357358
>How much does IBIS matter to you then? The R8 lacks it and I wonder how important it would be for my uses (constantly handheld and of stationary objects).
For stills, IBIS doesn't matter that much if you're using an OIS lens. Yeah, you get even more shake reduction, but the OIS is already so good that practically it doesn't matter. For lenses without OIS it gives you stabilization and that's very nice. It definitely can help you get shots you otherwise could not get. OIS lenses were popular before IBIS for a reason.

For video I consider IBIS a must unless you're always on a tripod or a gimbal.

>>4357606
>For video I consider IBIS a must unless you're always on a tripod or a gimbal.
I'm typically handheld for that too, so seems like IBIS will be a must. I won't be doing a lot of filming, but I'll no doubt do some filming if I'm somewhere very interesting.

>>4357601
I'm the guy with the A7CII and I also own a Nikon Z5. I'm not really using it anymore because the Sony is so much smaller and lighter. But the image quality on the Z5 is really good. It's better than my Canon R6 (now sold). The colors straight out of camera (both jpeg and raw) are amazing. Nikon renders blues and yellows so well.

Autofocus isn't that good and you see a lot of noise on the screen and in the EVF in low light due to how slow the sensor is. It's crap for video. IBIS is pretty bad (I get 1-2 stops at best compared to 3-4 with my Sony - 6-7 stops with my Canon).

>>4357612
There's always digital video IS and lens IS. The former will add a small to moderate crop to your shot, but both combined are usually decent enough.

I would maybe try out with / without for video if you can

>>4357603
If you want a bigger body why not a Nikon? You can use their excellent lenses (including the 26mm pancake) and also adapt any E mount lens without adding any bulk (adapter weighs about an ounce). Nikon ZF is really sleek and the new Z6III is a really good hybrid camera. Heck, a used Z7 costs $1000 and has 45mp and no anti-aliasing filter.

>>4357612
I'm still going to say look at used/refurbished R6 because I love mine. IBIS, AF, and high ISO performance are amazing. With the latest firmware 4k thermal limits aren't too bad, that's literally my only complaint, otherwise it's perfect.

not OP but is there a reason to pick the a7iv over the ac7ii? the latter seems to have pretty much identical specs and is 2 years newer but costs a lot less for some reason.
what am i missing here?

>>4357633
>Nikon ZF is really sleek
I wonder how its IBIS compares to the A7C2 for stills.

>>4357581
>Well it's not just a stripped down version. It's better in many ways. Much improved autofocus for example
It is the same, you must be thinking of the A7 III which has the older 24mp sensor and few AF points. There's no plus points to the C other than size and weight.

>>4357588
>Fair, I'll go with a newer one then.
I've lost track of who's who but didn't you say you only shoot RAW? The colours are a complete non-issue if so, and even with jpegs they're not as bad as people make out.

>>4357600
>For me though, the trade-off is worth it. It's so much nicer carrying this smaller camera around compared to my Canon R6 or Nikon Z5
The C models really aren't smaller in any practical way. All you're losing is a bit off the height because they chopped off the EVF hump.

>>4357681
The C has a smaller lower res viewfinder, slow max shutter speed (unless you switch to electronic shutter) and flash sync speed, few buttons to customise, the smaller grip, a single SD slot where as the IV has two and one slot can take CF express, and the USB port is 5 gig instead of 10. On paper the IBIS of the C is rated for 1,5 more stops but I don't know about reality.

>>4357681
The A7IV has a better EVF, the control joystick, IIRC one stop faster minimum shutter. And most seem to prefer the ergonomics of it while shooting. But yes, as far as hard specs go the A7C2 clearly has a slight overall edge.

>>4357693
>It is the same
The C2 got the new "AI" subject recognition that the A7IV doesn't have.

>>4357603
>Daylight for sure but my glass will probably only go down to f1.8, the prices for f1.4 is a massive gap and I'm happy enough with f1.8
Even at f/1.8 on a nice sunny day you can easily find yourself going over 1/4000.

>>4357697
>The C2 got the new "AI" subject recognition that the A7IV doesn't have.
Ah, I see. Still OP has said he won't be using all the tracking stuff and shoots mostly stationary stuff and will just stick to single point so it doesn't matter to him.
>But yes, as far as hard specs go the A7C2 clearly has a slight overall edge
What other specs are there where the C is better?

>>4357701
>What other specs are there where the C is better?
Off the top of my head IBIS and price.

>>4357708
So better AF tracking and 1.5 stops better IBIS (on paper at least). Price isn't a hard spec and it's not much cheaper at all. However there are plenty of disadvantages compared the the IV, I wouldn't say the C II "clearly has a slight overall edge".

>>4357718
>I wouldn't say the C II "clearly has a slight overall edge".
Neither did I, before you chopped away half my sentence. "Hard specs" imply the existence of "soft specs", and that's where hard to quantify things like ergonomics go.

>>4357747
I don't know who said it, but they said
> But yes, as far as hard specs go the A7C2 clearly has a slight overall edge.
It has better AF tracking and maybe 1.5 stops more on the IBIS, that's it as far as hard specs go. Slightly less weight and size don't count because the difference is minimal and doesn't matter when you've got a chunky lens mounted on the thing. Where as the IV has a larger higher res EVF, a second card slot and CF express support, more buttons to customise, a higher max shutter speed without switching to electronic shutter and a faster flash sync speed, 10 gig USB versus 5 gig, and slightly better battery life. So no the C II doesn't "clearly have a slight overall edge". The only advantage that could be considered subjective is the larger grip.

>>4357770
>Slightly less weight and size don't count because the difference is minimal and doesn't matter when you've got a chunky lens mounted on the thing.
The difference in size/weight is not slight, it's massive. When Viltrox comes out with their pancake lens, my A7CII will fit in my pocket.

I can also carry it in my hand and it feels like I'm holding a cellphone. The weight is nothing.

>>4357538
>Any particular reason for an A7cii? Outside of just not liking an slr style evf I don't see why you would buy it over an equally priced used a7iv.
Improved IBIS and AF from a5RV and some newer video fw features

>>4357799
It's less than 200g lighter, about the weight of an average smartphone. I own an original A7 which is even lighter still by about 30g and while I can tell the difference holding one in each hand it wouldn't make any practical difference at all. It's not going to make it any less comfortable to hold, more tiring. It still weighs as much as two and a half cellphones and that's before you go and add a lens.
>When Viltrox comes out with their pancake lens, my A7CII will fit in my pocket.
A jacket pocket maybe, but so will a regular A7. I just tried with the pocket of one of my hoodies and the A7R III slides in just as easy as the original A7 despite the larger grip. But the thing is your use case only applies to one single lens, all the other lenses that people are using won't fit into a pocket.

>>4357606
>For video I consider IBIS a must unless you're always on a tripod or a gimbal.
for video, you should have bought a video camera faggot. the push for hybridization ruined cameras for photography and you mongoloids who will shoot 2 videos for your youtube channel with 4 subscribers before you drop it all are the reason for it.

rp with 50 feels almost like its not there but i still like muh 24-120

>>4357828
>It's less than 200g lighter, about the weight of an average smartphone. I own an original A7 which is even lighter still by about 30g and while I can tell the difference holding one in each hand it wouldn't make any practical difference at all. It's not going to make it any less comfortable to hold, more tiring. It still weighs as much as two and a half cellphones and that's before you go and add a lens.

Big difference between 2.5 cellphones and 3.5 cellphones. Either way, the fact that it is much smaller is what makes even more of a difference.

>A jacket pocket maybe, but so will a regular A7. I just tried with the pocket of one of my hoodies and the A7R III slides in just as easy as the original A7 despite the larger grip. But the thing is your use case only applies to one single lens, all the other lenses that people are using won't fit into a pocket.

No, it fits in my sweatpants' pockets. I don't think the original A7 would (or maybe it could, it's quite a lot smaller than the newer models after all). The A7IV definitely wouldn't (I can't fit my Nikon Z5 with a pancake on it and its smaller than the A7IV).

>>4357968
>Big difference between 2.5 cellphones and 3.5 cellphones. Either way, the fact that it is much smaller is what makes even more of a difference.
It's not a big difference at all and it's even less significant once you actually have a lens on it. Less than 200g extra weight isn't making any difference unless you're a toddler. And no it's not much smaller, as I've said many times the difference is just the height lost from getting rid of the viewfinder hump. And just like the extra weight that small projection from the top of the body isn't making fuck all difference to anyone.
>No, it fits in my sweatpants' pockets.
You're not walking around with an A7C in your pocket, don't kid yourself. Even if it physically fits you're not doing it.
>The A7IV definitely wouldn't (I can't fit my Nikon Z5 with a pancake on it and its smaller than the A7IV).
Well now I know you don't have a clue and you're just making shit up. The Z5 is absolutely bigger than an A7 IV.

OP here. The A7IV looks to be the strongest contender, considering the better view finder and back button focus (which I believe isn't possible on the A7CII?) and I've really gotten used to using a back button for focusing.
That said though, the temptation for the highly upgraded AI autofocus on the A7CII is extremely appealing.

I almost wish the A7CII didn't exist so the decision was easier. Is the autofocus on the IV still pretty good for moving photos of people?

>>4358027
>the temptation for the highly upgraded AI autofocus on the A7CII is extremely appealing.
Didn't you say you mostly shoot static stuff with single point AF?

>>4358030
Mostly static, but sometimes people who are moving. Stuff like animals or birds is never though, I'm not sure I've ever taken a bird photo to be honest, so there won't be any super fast motion but probably some motion with moving people on the street.

>>4358027
i'd be more concerned about if the software between them is different (i.e menu upgrades, color science and such) and i have no idea since i dont use sony.

>>4358034
The IV will have no issue tracking a moving person as long as they stay visible. The AI stuff helps if they momentarily turn away from the camera or are obscured by something, or if there are multiple people in the frame and you want to track a specific one. It's more of a sports thing.

File: _DSC5614-Panorama_r.jpg (3.73 MB, 5913x2500)

3.73 MB JPG

>>4357217
>The sony a7cii is the last camera you will ever need.
This is true for me, it ended up being perfect for traveling, I have no reason to "upgrade" anymore, I've reached my endgame. Well not quite true, there's *still* one reason I could upgrade, if they ever implement the A7RV full screen system in a next iteration of the 7c line. I kinda miss the simple screen flip, which is perfect for quick shot from the waist, but I can live without it for the moment.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8016
Image Height	3389
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2023:12:27 12:58:35
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	7.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5913
Image Height	2500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
GPS Status	Measurement Interoperability
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
GPS Differential Correction	No Correction

>>4357217
I shoot snoy but will never buy one of the "C" cams due to the shitty + tiny EVF, lack of tilt screen, lack of AF joystick, and worse balance with FF lenses.

>>4358043
the earth is flat stop trying to fake curvature in the horizon buddy

>>4358027
>back button focus (which I believe isn't possible on the A7CII?
Do you not even look a pictures of the camera you want to be buying or something

>>4358043
is that sooc or developed?

>>4358072
I only shoot RAW, it went through LR, and I had to stitch since it's a panorama anyway. Also kek the other anon made me notice I or LR must have fucked something as indeed there's too much curvature.
If anything, LR finally marry well with recent Sony sensors. Can't say the same for the previous cameras, CaptureOne was better.

>>4357985
>Well now I know you don't have a clue and you're just making shit up. The Z5 is absolutely bigger than an A7 IV.
Nigger. Fuck you faggot nigger.

>>4357212
>>4357214
>>4357217
How would a Sony A64 stack up vs those two? I'm mostly into shooting portraits so I just want a decent platform for bokehshit and low light

A64 bodies are like half of the price here to a A7ciii jpgk2

>>4358083
Calm down there, Aristotle

>>4358101
You would need larger, more expensive lenses to get the same effect, be limited to about the same level of noise as ISO 200 would have on a real camera, have no ibis, have worse build quality, and have worse colors both in jpeg and in most raw processors (unless you want to reprofile your camera)

File: s03SOu45fm69j29vd9s.jpg (1.03 MB, 2560x1708)

1.03 MB JPG

>>4357212
Get Sony. Image quality is better than Canon (and Nikon). Here is a sample photo of what the Sony can do.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	photoWORKS23
Photographer	jaesun_riu
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:05 11:15:41
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	10.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1708
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
GPS Status	Measurement Interoperability
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
GPS Differential Correction	No Correction

the snoy is like 900 muricas more expensive so id assume it would be better

>>4358253
isnt this just the samyang pancake kit that just lets you swap lenses in from point and shoots

>>4358040
>The AI stuff helps if they momentarily turn away from the camera or are obscured by something
Oh okay, in that case it doesn't matter as much then since that seems a bit like overkill. I suppose next I just wonder about software differences like >>4358035 alluded to since I've heard the software leaps between Sony cameras are generally pretty big.

>>4358043
Travel is something I'm starting to think about for the camera. The size differences between the A7CII and the A7IV is pretty minimal, so I wonder if the differences for traveling are enough to just go down to the A7CII instead of the IV, but I'm guessing there are some features that make one or the other better for travel overall.

I do plan on using it in a semi-professional sense, such as some portraits, so I start to wonder if the A7CII will be appropriate for that.

>>4358055
I'd read it wasn't programmable on the A7CII for some reason, so my bad.

>>4358271
Yeah its Sony's best pancake lens lol

>>4358278
>caring this much about a half inch of lens
What not having sex does to a mf

>>4358280
No, im not a Sony shooter lol

>>4358283
Yes, you arent, hence the virginity. Can you say something for us now?

Say “womens rights are human rights. respect and believe women. her body her choice. crush the patriarchy. equity and inclusion now. ” and i’ll agree that nikon won

>>4358286
Who are you arguing with?

>>4358288
You're not fooling anyone, Clive. Let's see your compact Nikon setup as well as some shots you took with it.

>>4358276
The software differences from the A7 IV and newer (I think that's where it started) are the better menu layout (doesn't really matter once you've got everything set up), AF subject tracking (shouldn't matter for you), and improved JPEG colours.
>The size differences between the A7CII and the A7IV is pretty minimal, so I wonder if the differences for traveling are enough to just go down to the A7CII instead of the IV
It's not going to make any difference, whether you're carrying the camera or putting it in a bag. It's just the EVF hump.
>I'd read it wasn't programmable on the A7CII for some reason, so my bad.
You can program almost every button to do almost anything you can think of with Sony bodies from well before the A7C II, and while they may remove some hardware features they rarely remove software ones (they got rid of the apps that some older bodies had). Also the AF-on button's default function is literally back button focus.

>>4358296
>You can program almost every button to do almost anything you can think of with Sony bodies from well before the A7C II
This is definitely incorrect. For example 1st and 2nd gen a7 and a7s bodies didnt allow you to map APS-C crop mode or electronic shutter to a custom button. I think the current Sony bodies are pretty good at mapping most things though, but youd still better double check if the body you want allows that custom mapping. Every Sony youtube reviewer always gets thing wrong.

>>4358298
Note that I said almost anything, and the A7R III is from 2017 so 3 years before the A7C II.

>>4358253
Are you joking? That looks terrible.

What should I buy for portraits and low light if I'm too poor for a R8 or a7c

Cropped sensors seem cheaper but I worry about le poor performance compared to full frame in low light meme

>>4358396
>low light meme
just get a decent prime and you're golden
Viltrox makes a decent 27mm f1.2 for APS-C which also doesn't break your bank

>>4358408
>Viltrox 27mm f1.2 APS-C
>$600
>565g
>equivalent to 40.5mm f/1.8
>Samyang 45mm f/1.8 FF
>$300
>162g
Thanks boss

>>4358409
>equivalent to 40.5mm f/1.8
f/1.2 is f/1.2 no matter the sensor
you're just getting focus depth of f/1.8

>>4358412
Sure thing boss, whatever you say.

>>4358296
>The software differences from the A7 IV and newer (I think that's where it started) are the better menu layout
Based.

I might go with the A7IV then since the menus look good and the EVF does matter to me since I love using viewfinders and rarely used the screen on my current camera, except to use liveview to check exposure in very low light conditions.

I'm going to wait for about 1-2 months anyway and see if the A7V debuts, and then think about whether I pay a bit extra for that or get the IV at a discount. I imagine the V probably won't debut at the current price of the IV though, so I'll likely end up with the IV.

This thread has been pure kino too, I've definitely learned more from here than any of the review websites I checked out.

>>4358412
If you just want to ignore that smaller sensor's have worse performance then sure. Otherwise you've got to make up for the ~1 stop advantage ff has over APS-C.

>>4358396
>What should I buy for portraits and low light if I'm too poor for a R8 or a7c
why not embrace the external flash (with or without master, slave remote) or led stand setup, or just embrace the high iso noise, or embrace the denoiser software?

>>4357212
I'm looking at similar cameras. Here's what I've figured out so far.
>ibis
must have for me. Never shoot on tripod and video without ibis is ass. Most excellent when you shoot handheld in low light.
>lenses
Since canon keeps their full frame lens mount proprietary there are no third party lenses for canon. This is also ass since you'll be paying more and will have less lenses to choose from.
>colors
I'm primarily looking at the A7III but it has the "old sony color science" whatever the fuck that means. But for stills shooting straight jpegs the canon images do seem to look better. Might consider the A7IV for the "new color science" (lol) but it's twice the price.

I am also considering going for a crop sensor but none seem on par with the full frame ones in terms of low light and dynamic range.

>>4358483
>no third party lenses for canon
False. Sigma is developing a selection of lenses

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/contents/sigma_rfmount_lenses/

>>4358484
>False. Sigma is developing a selection of lenses
Aah yes, there's ONE lens that's available right now. Silly me.

>>4358412
But your iso 100 is iso 200 in terms of noise but not exposure and so on all the way up so you need more light

This only stops being 100% true at high ISOs where its amplifying electronic noise. Cropping only increases the visibility of photon shot noise from quantum inefficiency. So perhaps, over ISO 25600, your terrible looking picture will be only slightly more terrible than full frame, or maybe even the same, if the sensor tech is better enough! (Vs a shit sensor like a dslr’s)

>>4358487
Developing. As in, active present tense. As in they're still fucking coming out with them you illiterate. I didn't say there's 40. I'm saying, Canon is allowing 3rd party development now, even if it's slow, so people can expect to have a greater selection and a cheaper market.

>>4358484
While you're technically correct, there's a detail that you're missing. Sigma is developing a line of APS-C lenses. Full frame AF is still forbidden territory according to Canon. And as this thread has by and large been about full frame cameras quite specifically, that detail could be an important one.

>>4358558
I concede, as that is a fair point. I have hopes FF Sigma is not far away, but there is no indication yet

>all this talk of JPEGs
Do people actually just use jpg and not RAW? Why?

>>4358827
I just tried shooting everything on RAW+JPG, thinking that I'd pull the raws in, edit, but then have the consistent camera-processed jpg's to compare my edits to. So when I'm developing in the middle of the night and my eyes aren't seeing normally, I have some idea of a baseline & don't end up pissed off the next day for wasting my night doing whack ass blue shit to 400 images.

>>4358827
I tried this back when I had an x100t, because the meme “film sims” don’t apply to raws obviously. It was ass, sacrificed edit ability for some colour filters, very not worth. But for modern zoomies used to phone photos I guess it makes sense.

>>4358827
I dont want to spend time on the computer editing shit. The moment has already passed by then.

>>4358836
the point of editing is to recreate the moment

>>4358837
Why? I've already captured it. I revisit the moment when i look at a photo of it.

>>4358827
>Why?
I don't give two shits about editing photos.

>>4358827
Because I'm not a Sony shooter so I don't need to fix the color science.

>>4358850
>editing only involves color
based ken rockwell enjoyer

File: file.jpg (651 KB, 1920x1080)

651 KB JPG

>>4358827
What, you're not one of those that back then bought their 1080p or even 4K HDTV only to watch DVDs and terrestrial TV programs in 4/3 stretched to 16/9?

>>4358483
>I'm primarily looking at the A7III but it has the "old sony color science" whatever the fuck that means. But for stills shooting straight jpegs the canon images do seem to look better. Might consider the A7IV for the "new color science" (lol) but it's twice the price.
Why are you saying "lol", faggot?

Just buy the A7III and get a sickly green tint in all your photos that can't be edited away in post (no, it doesn't matter if you shoot raw).

>>4358946
I wonder how sony manages to grind nikon into the dirt with all these totally true internet rumors of unfixable problems that make their cameras literally unusable especially for professionals whose photography is held to higher standards than 1mp black and white instagram posts.

Is this like the broken ibis thread where someone weather sealing FUDing got so BTFO they couldn't respond?
>several videos of sony cameras working in downpours for hours vs. dozens of forum posts about olympus users getting unlucky with water killing their control dials
it turns out sony weather sealing FUD mostly has to do with confusion about which lenses are actually weather sealed, wear and tear on the hotshoe cover causing shorted contacts to trick the camera into thinking the flash is attached and broken, and oddball tests like rinsing cameras under sinks and using telescoping lenses (are not considered weather sealed on any system because they pump water into the camera, usually through vents contained in the battery compartment) while spraying the camera with a hose.

>>4357212
Easily Canon. Canon has better IBIS and better lenses.

>>4357212
Sony since mirrorless. Always back the market leader.

>>4357218
a7cii is smaller, but not that smaller. the a7iii is already small.

BUT as a a7iii user, the only reason I would get the a7cii is for the new updated color science for jpeg shooting. But I could also get the a7iv also.

>>4357256
zeiss 55, sony 40, samyang 45

>>4357256
Viltrox 20/2.8 and 40/2.5. no need to buy overpriced SNOY shit.

>>4359045
The current Sony color science is still awful, wait for the next gen a7V/a7cIII to see if it gets fixed.

>>4359036
>buy Canon full frame
>"you can only use our lenses goy lmao"

File: 1708311108681416.png (403 KB, 845x577)

403 KB PNG

>>4359099
>buy Canon lens
>get plastic elements

>>4359104
>$270 lens for the 28
>400 for 24-105
>$650 for 100-400
I mean at these prices, that's not really an issue.

After all humans usually use polycarbonate (plastic) eyeglasses these days and if it's good enough for your eyeballs why wouldn't it be good enough for a budget lens for a camera?
If it's buried in the lens it won't be getting scratched it's not like this is a plastic front element.

>>4359104
Who cares?

File: 1706092575150145.gif (74 KB, 502x377)

74 KB GIF

>>4359186
>humans usually use polycarbonate (plastic) eyeglasses these days and if it's good enough for your eyeballs
poly lenses have absolutely awful optical quality. people only use them because they're cheaper, lighter, and more durable than glass.

>>4359202
Them being inferior to glass or gems is not a debate. That's expected. Their other properties have an appeal, but the point is that an element or a few made of such material is still not going to be all that detrimental to image quality at least in the budget class of lenses.

This is assuming they're not being used for extreme stuff.
Polycarbonate lenses for eyeglasses are fine for most with typical prescription strengths and glass is recommended for stronger prescriptions.
This is kind of counter intuitive because for stronger prescriptions the glass would be heavier than glass on weaker prescriptions, and you'd think the poly being lighter would be nice but it's kind of the opposite.
For weaker/simpler poly works acceptably well. You wouldn't want a wide angle front element made out of it, but something in the middle of the lens doing a more minor task in the optical path is not too problematic.

Let's not forget that budget lenses even those of all glass usually have shit optics to begin with, with lots of chromatic aberrations, distortion, and sometimes vignetting issues before contrast/lines per mm even factor in.
There's a place for well made plastic optics and budget is where it fits.


Also a lot of people shot many photos on literal 100% plastic lenses in the past. It's really not unheard of. Even in the film days.

>>4359202
Wouldn't be surprised it had shit transmission as well
>here's your f2.0 lens
>ooops we didn't tell you it's actually t2.8 because why would we, we only say anything about it for cine lenses

>>4359225
>getting upset at made up scenarios in your head
Meds.

>>4359204
>literal novel length cope
kek

>>4359542
HA HA yeah i agree what a plastic loving loser
Imagine being an NPC hes probably vaxxed and full of microplastics SAD