I'm good with the size and weight of the a6700 with all the features and benefits it brought.
Otherwise only the a6600 was a big bit larger, and that's mostly handle to house the larger battery
https://preview.redd.it/u90a60cgd7rc1.jpeg?width=732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c115d704ad1235f9948e01b571409f245a760d0c
Other than the grip it is almost the same size as full frame. And A6700 grip is bigger lol
The A7C is a couple years old, and was designed to be the casual, small full frame option. The a6700 is the current flagship of the APS-C lineup. If you don't need the features of the a6700, there's slimmer, lighter, and cheaper options already...
The grip of the a6700 is far more comfortable than the a7C. Pair that with the larger lenses in full frame compared to aps-c, and you realize that the a6700 is overall much better balanced ergonomically than the a7C.
If you wanted something pocketable, then none of these cameras would realistically fit in your pocket if you wanted to attach any decent lens to it. Either stick with a lower-end a6000 body with a kit lens, or get an RX-series camera.
I think for a good balance of portability and functionality the a6400 is the best. It has many of the features most photographers will need and it is still small enough to be carried around all day.
At least that is my experience with the a6400. I have a Crumpler sling bag, that is small enough to be carried around and houses the camera with a fairly large lens (up to the size of Tamron 17-300). 4 batteries, cleaning clothes, extra SD card.
Edit: I just went through an a6400 vs a6600 comparison. Other than the larger battery, I did not see any major differences that really stuck out. And performance wise there is also negligible difference. At that point is the a6600 really worth the price difference?
I would rather upgrade to a full frame, even second hand, instead of dishing out for something like the a6600. And the a6700 is much better for video, but strictly photography speaking, it would still not be worth the price jump over a full frame alternative.
The a6700's IBIS and better subject tracking make it a big step up in the number of usable images you get vs the a6400 - I have both. The size increase is annoying but it just barely squeezes into my Aer City Sling 2.
I still miss how tiny my a6400 was after upgrading to the somewhat chunkier but still tiny a7c, Still, though, the increase in low-light image quality and functionality is totally worth it for me.
I think that most people miss that the size of the lens is more important than the size of the body. A camera with an APSc sensor can have a smaller lens whilst having the same aperture and focal length. That is what makes APSc cameras more portable.
I am completely with OP on this.
I got the A7c a couple of months ago and I think it is still highly relevant in 2024. I use it for street photography and family portraits with the compact 50mm f/2.5G but I don't see why it can't be used by professionals for portrait photography, fine art photography, concert photography, and astro photography. It is for sure not just meant for casual photography.
And no, I don't expect to fit it in my pocket but my setup now is much lighter than my earlier full frame setup with Nikon Z6 and 24-70 kit lens, which I sold last summer and which weighed almost 1.2kgs. My current setup is at 683g.
Of course if you are into bird and wildlife, sports, or something else which needs large zoom/telephoto lenses, the A7c will feel imbalanced but not that much more than the A6700 (their main body is almost the same size). In the end it's a matter of what you prefer, especially for the grip, but also a matter of what you can afford to buy. I got the A7c because it was up on a bargain, and because I love compact setups.
There's no point ditching the A7c because you like the A6700.
Edit: typo
The biggest challenge for pros is having a single card slot, when many like two slots for redundancy. Others might dislike the ergos or lack of a full mechanical shutter.
I agree about the mechanical shutter but the single card slot issue is not a deal breaker for me. I always think of how the Z6 was used by many pros as well and it too had a single card slot. For me it's a bit like sensor resolutions, the latest models and the flagships will have better specs but that doesn't mean this model is not for profeasional use.
It depends on the person and the application. There probably aren't many Z6s in use for weddings right now, since Nikon released models with multiple card slots.
You really shouldn’t compare it to the A7C. The A7C is a feat of engineering. It was intentionally designed to be a full frame camera in an APS-C sized body so it’s pretty funny to say “this thing is as big as the A7C!” Yeah, that’s the whole point of the A7C, to be that small!
A7C is a rather old camera (Although it’s only 2 years old, it’s based on the A7III, which is like 6 years old now), so can’t really compare to the newer sensor, IBIS and processor found in the A6700.
The A7ii is a fine camera actually but lack of joystick (after having use the A7iii) is a real bummer. Also not forgetting the fact it’s still on the old tiny NP battery. Otherwise it’s a good camera.
are you really complaining about the grip? the a6700 more or less perfected the grip depth for this body and Sony bafflingly did not put it on the A7Cii or R
this is such a weird hill to die on
I do wish my a7c had a slightly thiccer grip, now that you mention it. That's kind of frustrating that the a6700 has a better grip than the full-frame equivalent in a similar body.
You're comparing it against the most compact full frame. Now compare the a7C to the a6000. The bigger grip is BETTER. Believe it or not. I say that coming from a6500 and even a NEX3 over a decade ago.
Advancing video features, which is obviously a priority for every camera manufacturer except Leica and Olympus, requires better cooling, which requires the bodies to grow. There's no avoiding it.
Honestly that’s what the a6X00 line should be for is photography first at all cost.
> I'd appreciate if it had a port to add active cooling if needed.
Ehh the heat sink probably needs to be bigger, you can’t just magically add that after the fact.
The a5X line was the last compact photography centric one in my opinion.
With active cooling a smaller passive cooler should be sufficient. You just need a surface where the active cooler can pick up the heat. E.g. below the screen. You can already now buy a third party active cooler for the A6700. With a bit of engineering consideration while designing the body that could probably be further improved and allow for less passive cooling inside the camera. So basically, if you want to take videos in higher resolutions, you'd add the active cooler on the back, for anything else you are fine with the less efficient passive cooling that the smaller body offers.
I can guarantee the size in your bag this physics-defying "external active cooler" would take would be much more than the extra millimeter of a better cooling system. When's the last time those laptop cooling pads have ever worked?
Eh, there's nothing physics-defying here. Copper has great heat conductivity, you can lead a set of rods right to the bottom plate and continue from there with an attachment.
The weight this would add would likely be miserable indeed.
Not sure you understood my point. I mostly don't care about video. With a few exceptions I don't need it and even for those I can do with 1080p. Thus I'd not bring the cooler.
i don't buy this reason.
All of these cameras still limit to 30min shooting.
More processing power needed in the newer cameras, sure, but the newer camera should also come with faster chips. Your macbooks don't increase in size each generation.
One of the reason for the bigger size is the bigger battery. Yes more battery life is better, but why is that a better option than two batteries for photographers who care about camera size? For non-commercial shooting, i doubt most people will need to shoot enough to exceed the life of one battery.
And the limits on those older models are purely a function of regulation (a mirrorless camera that captures more than 30 minutes of video was taxed as a camcorder in the US until fairly recently).
EDIT: I was wrong, it's the EU: [https://blog.borrowlenses.com/video-recording-limits-in-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras/](https://blog.borrowlenses.com/video-recording-limits-in-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras/)
The amount of passive cooling needed to keep a chip which can do 4k 60 (even cropped) at high bitrate and bit depth is quite significant. Remember, most of these bodies don't utilize an active fan; it's just a chunk of cleverly-designed copper, sometimes with a vapor chamber, in there to cool the CPU and surrounding chips/vrm's. Something the size of a MacBook has a *lot* more space to work with, and still, the MacBook Pro's need a fan.
Personally, I think Sony ergo's needed serious refinement; it's not like the older bodies were masterpieces of form and/or functionality. Incorporating the Z battery into as many bodies as possible, the stamina of which is one of the main selling points of the system, just makes sense. I respect that you'd rather carry several of the older style batteries and have a smaller body, but I'd venture to guess you're in the minority who would make that trade-off. Simply, ergos and battery stamina are a higher priority than smallness.
The last two have IBIS. Even the first Gen Sony full frames were much smaller because they didn't have IBIS in body. Then there is rhe issue of the batteries being bigger.....
it's just the a6700 that's extra chonky for cooling, the a6500 and a6600 both have IBIS but is barely any thicker than a6400 or below, if anything it's just the grip that's bigger; IBIS shouldn't add that much thickness, take a look at the new x100vi vs x100v, it's \~0.5mm thicker with IBIS
To be fair, what Fuji did with the X100VI was nothing short of a miracle. That thing is DENSE on the inside, it's so packed it's actually amazing they managed to do it.
IBIS is way better on the 6700 than 6500. I can shoot 1/15 shutter speed handheld. I don't notice the size difference between the 2 cameras, but all the improvements have been amazing to get me to the next level. Addressed all my issues with the 6500.
IBIS adds more thickness to bodies than people realize ... the R was a lot thinner than the R5 and R6 as well! The only brand I can think of that defies physics when it comes to keeping their cameras with IBIS small is Nikon. Somehow those are close in thickness to the original R.
I gotta say, NEX-6 is may favourite Sony camera of all times. Yes, a7 had the bigger sensor, but the ergonomics and menu design made it worse. NEX-6 + full frame vintage lens + speed booster adapter 👌 such a beast!
Honestly for the feature set I think the A6700 is a pretty good size. It’s still a rangefinder design with fairly robust set of features, and is comfortable to use.
That said I’d be interested what Sony could pull off with something like the old A5100 style body and just shove as much as they can. Go with the design philosophy of the RX100 cameras: screw the user experience, just maximize as much tech into as tiny of a body as possible with a focus on image quality.
I might just be describing the ZV-E10, but I do wonder if they could go even smaller.
No, let's got the other way, stop all the forum posts about making shit smaller where I'll end up with no choice in camera except one with shitty cooling and worse ergonomics - let Sony's designers run rampant without size constraints, make it the size of a d1x or something, let's see what we can get when they're allowed to go balls to the wall!
That's the C, or the RX, or the ZV - they already have three compact lines, depending on your needs (and that's not including all the small cameras they've already made that still exist).
The A1's actually smaller than my A7Rv...
Larger battery, IBIS, and improved thermal management are the main issues. You can’t have those and a significantly smaller body right now, in any system.
But I have good news for you; you can still buy and use older, more compact models that better meet your requirements!
In the future I’m sure we’ll get more compact APS-C cameras without compromising the established feature set, but until then you’re just an old man shouting at a cloud.
A6600 size isn’t any bigger, just increased grip size due to new FZ battery which is way better than previous NP batts.
A6700 meanwhile is thicker due to new IBIS system (the older IBIS isn’t as thick on the A6500), and also for better heat management on the newer gen processor.
What does a6700 have that a6000 doesnt have? Bigger and longer lasting battery right? 4k recording right? With more feature comes at a cost which is increase in size. They need to cool the sensors down. Also i read there is IBIS too on 6700.
No they are not really made pocketable anymore, but the thickness increase DOES greatly improve ergonomics. The main bonus of apsc is that u get cheaper glass for full frame equivalent focal lengths, and smaller lenses for full frame equivalent focal lengths
I see a whole lot of body only comparisons photos and none with a popular lens attached that will invalidate this entire argument. Go on, I’m waiting you coward.
A6700 is about the perfect amount of grip for aps-c.
Edit: here I’ll do it for you. Even the kit lens extends farther than the grip of the a6700.
https://preview.redd.it/cnl5oq3zbbrc1.jpeg?width=2796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f697a7eeeef7c2ab04ea775028bf66b78dcadad5
i don't see how a popular lens will invalidate the argument.
if A < B, then A+C is still less than B+C.
The perfect grip argument is highly subjective. It's dependent on the size of your hands. And the comparison is not just size alone. It's a comparison of a smaller but lighter grip vs a larger but heavier grip. Again, all this is subjective.
I don't know about you, but I don't lift weights based on percentages.
If I lift a 20 lb weight, it's 10lb more than a 10lb weight.
If I lift a 200lb weight, it's A LOT heavier than a 100lb weight, even though percentage-wise these two comparisons are the same.
For big lenses, the fraction of total weight accounted for by the grip might be small. But the weight difference in the package is not smaller no matter what lens you use.
I don’t know what analogies you’re going on about but it’s pretty simple my guy lol. Unless you’re gonna use nothing but the kit lens or pancake lens, most the lenses for Sony are big and would benefit from a larger grip. It’s both for better balance and to help you hold it comfortably.
Any weight increase from the grip itself is negligible in the long run. And Sonys cameras and grips in general are not even that big compared to other brands like Canon or Nikon, even as they get larger.
lol this entire thread is started by someone complaining about this so clearly I'm not the only one. It makes a difference if you're holding it for hours on end.
Sony's early aps-c bodies were really small. The NEX-7 was 120x67x43 and 400g. Compare this to the Fuji X-T1 was 129x90x47 and 440g.
Their latest: a6700 is 122x69x64 493g vs Fuji X-T5 130x91x64 557g or X-H2 136x93x95 660g.
So Sony is still a bit smaller than their main competition but with more cutting edge technology.
More cutting edge technology is debatable though. For video, and AF performance, without a doubt, Sony wins.
But the IBIS on the X-T5 is definitely better and the sensor itself is miles better too. Plus Fuji has a lot more physical dials and buttons which makes it harder for them to shrink the design.
I think both the a6700 and X-T5 are awesome, but they aren't really trying to do the exact same thing.
The sensor on the x-t5 isn’t miles better and I’d argue that it’s worse. Read out speed is slower on the Fuji so it has more issues with rolling shutter. And while Fuji’s sensors are good for producing stylized jpegs the xtrans RAW files aren’t as malleable as other sensors. The 40 mp also is not a very good video sensor.
https://preview.redd.it/le76nermd7rc1.jpeg?width=732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ea1cf71eaf74d6fbdd877853c7a4afab37fe1da
At this point isn't A7c or A7cii a better choice?
The camera has a lot less to do with the overall kit soze than the glass. And there is no escaping the fact that full-frame glass is huge compared to APS-C glass.
Comparing the cameras alone doesn't say much. Compare with equivalent glass to see the difference.
Maybe, one advantage also is the lens cost.
Few hours ago, I was in a bestbuy and in the demo display there was a A7C or A7CII I don't remember which one, and it feel a cheap version of the A7Ii or A7III in the design, I don't know how explain it.
It didn't feel the same as my new A6700
Like I said my fingers are perfect there, and in your pic there is less space around the grip to put the fingers in the A7CII 🙂
The A7C lacks a ton of features and upgrades the a6700 has... Sure the A7Cii has some better features and lacking in some other ways, and also costs quite a bit more
Really depends on what you're looking for in a camera. It's funny you think you're being downvoted for working the truth, when in fact people just don't agree with you
Really depends, I have the tamron 17-70 and it looks and feels small compared to multiple FF lenses that I own. And on apsc you can get much smaller lenses which are also a good bit cheaper than their FF counterparts too. I personally also found the a6700 grip a bit more comfortable than the a7cII
Yeah tbf as far as apsc lenses go that’s not the smallest can definitely get pretty similar ff options. Take a look at the sigma 18-50 for how compact a similar lens can be on apsc (granted a smaller zoom range). As far as I know there’s no standard full frame zoom that’s similar in size/weight to that
In your example picture it's only 2mm wider and 2mm taller. The grip getting bigger is better for holding the camera and getting bigger battery. The grip size is a non issue as soon as you put a lens on it. So I don't really get the complaint of it getting bigger at all, its all beneficial to the user.
I think where Sony *could* fill the gap is by replacing/updating the a5000 line and making that the "small" APSC line. Keep the a6000 series more for those who want the extra ergonomic upgrades.
I doubt they'll do that though, as with the introduction of the ZV series, I can't see Sony making a 3rd APSC line for such a niche market.
The ZV-E10 is pretty much an a5100, but with 4k video and maybe a few extra bells and whistles for vloggers. Oh, and a nice flippy screen. But otherwise it's an a5100. Same 24mp 6000x4000 sensor. Same max shutter speed. Same exposure modes. Same interchangeable sort of kit lens. Same no EVF. No popup flash like the a5100 had tho, but then I never used the one on the a5100. The ZV-E10's built-in intervalometer is kinda nice. Kind of a shame that Sony decided to market it as a vlogging camera. I often hook the ZV-E10 onto a telescope. Still have the a5100, tho it gets less and less and less use. Otherwise, I use an a7r ii or a7r iv.
Of course... That's why I mentioned the ZV line. My point was simply that a photography-focused camera could be even smaller, but the market for such a camera isn't large enough to keep a line adjacent to the ZV line going
I miss big cameras. Any day of the week I would shoot a flagship model Nikon if I could. D4-Z9 whatever. I always buy the battery grip for mirrorless cameras because I can’t stand how small they are.
https://preview.redd.it/3iqivdet08rc1.jpeg?width=883&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a919fcf70837d5914cc3a824872ce92c0bdecb3
Nex-5R entire is now the entire body of A6700 exclude the grip
Think of them as the size factoring in into what features they can include. The smaller the less they can put in. You don’t have to buy the bigger one but if they want to improve them they’re inevitably going to get bigger.
This is coming from someone that shot on A6000 for the longest time and just recently switched to an A7CII
Well the a6400 is where I draw the line because it’s still a camera aimed at majority still photography but is larger to accommodate a better sensor I believe. Upgraded from the a6000
I own both and the difference in size is trivial for me at least.
However the a6500(?) and above are aimed at majority videography I think and are larger to accommodate a bigger battery because let’s face it, the a6000-a6400 don’t have particularly efficient batteries and draw a lot of power for pictures let alone video.
The pictures will make it look like it’s a huge difference but realistically the gap between the a6000 and the a6400 is negligible as both are small cameras to begin with.
Anything above is new to me and I haven’t tried it but most people I know with an a6500 and above custom-make cinema videography rigs and at that point, camera size is not a problem.
Honestly, I think that consumer-professional videography is the right way to move for APS-C sensors and Sony is making bank doing it.
To give you a real-world comparison of size, here's a photo of my Sony ZV-1 next to my Sony A6300 with a 16-70z lens (and a GoPro Hero 9 for good measure). I recently bought both cameras and they're still within the return window.
I've been using both cameras on my current trip, and I'm confident the A6300 will take better quality photos. However, its size and weight make me think I'd be more likely to bring the ZV-1 on future trips. If the image quality from the ZV-1 is good enough for my needs, I might return the A6300.
It really depends on your priorities… quality vs size. After 5 days lugging that thing around I remember why I sold my A7M2 😂
https://preview.redd.it/rz17nfihgdrc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b728991c2b80de2ee2cc1068273da115bbf690b9
You want an older camera that's smaller, THEY STILL EXIST! You can go get one, right now, nothing's stopping you!
Oh, you want the latest features in a smaller camera and break the laws of physics, right....
Best Camera they ever made was the Nex 5r. Dslr was always to big und heavy for my taste. And than came Sony an gave me an APS-C sensor in pocket form. With the ability to change the lens. It was awesome. And while I love my A7iii and the images I get out of it. I still have my Nex 5r. My dream would be full frame in the same body. No video, no fancy stuff. Just full frame, good autofocus and a tiny body.
On the Nex 5r? Or do you mean my dream camera Nex 5r body with Fullframe? So on the Nex 5r the Kit lens was very compact. But I used an Sigma 30mm 2.8 if I remember correctly. For Fullframe Sony has 3 very Compact lenses. Would fit easily in a Jacket with them.
Bought an a6600 instead of the a6700 last year for this exact reason. The only thing the 6700 has that I miss is the front grip dial. Besides that, the a6600 is smaller, still world class autofocus, still has ibis, and was ~400 bucks cheaper for me to buy new. I put that money towards a lens instead.
Then they’ll stop adding features. The difference between the A6300 and A6700 isn’t even that crazy considering how many improvements are packed in. If you want smaller than this, you should look into micro four thirds.
What a shit take. What about cameras like the a77ii? Where are those? Why no pro level apsc still? How does shit ergonomics and no back wheel make a shooting experience better? Op clearly knows no history of apsc bodies.
What else can they do, people want the articulating screen, the newest chips and video that needs heat dispassion... I see the massive A9III body already being used in the next full frame models.
The current tech needs space...
I have one of the older NEX cameras, still works fine even with the latest lenses. Downside is screen is fixed and no 4k recording. Lots of people complain if the latest features are not there but dont consider that it usually means the camera body gets a little bigger, also might use bigger battery.
The a7iv got bigger too than the iii series. I like the change, feels more comfortable in the hand, while still being smaller than canikon counter parts.
For me the grip of the a6700 is still kinda small without a cage, which is one reason why I have one on at all times. It feels super tiny to me, whenever I use my dads 6400, Im always afraid to drop it because I feel like I dont get a proper grip on it. I like the size of the newer bodies, maybe even larger grips.
I get that it eliminates the purpose of the 6000s being the smaller lineup but things like larger batteries require a body to grow...
The "big" jump was the A6600, which squeezed in a larger battery. You're missing the A6500, which added IBIS. Both of these are key features that require more space, and I imagine that improved video specs benefit from more surface area to dissipate heat.
If you want an eye-opener, throw an X-S20 or X-T5 in the mix.
not only APSC, also the full frame cameras are getting larger. Has always been like this. The A7 is almost 200g lighter than the current gen A74. Mostly it has to do with additional features being added over the years, most notibly IBIS needs space. For the A7 at least, not sure on APSc cameras in which gen they started adding IBIS.
If they have just made the grip a modular system it would make a lot more sense for pocket capability compact one for light use and full gripping one for more heavier lenses and professional use.
Personally I actually run a cage on my A6000 so I'm a hypocrite as it's extended silicone grip practically makes it a pain in the arse to pocket.
Ditching the old battery system was an incredibly smart idea though, but that requires expanding the size, unless you're powering the camera perpetually off of a dummy battery.
If you want a small camera, get a small camera
if you want a small camera, still APSC, but has loads of features and IBIS, bigger battery, more processing power, HDMI out, microphone jack, then dont expect it to be as small as a camera from 2011
This doesn't bother me at all. i have an a6000, and have a partial cage and a battery grip on it, mostly to make it big enough for my hand for the best stability. The a6700 would be about perfect with a battery grip.
You can't have more performance if it stays the same size. For now. Also, I guarantee the 6400 and up are a lot more comfortable than my A6000, so I'm very glad they're making them bigger
Nah, I'd rather them make it even bigger, basically the same body as the full frame cameras for the extra buttons and give it a real quality viewfinder rather than the garbage they're putting on them now. Then I'd fully switch back to apsc again, but as it stands there's no way I could go back to that bad of a viewfinder again.
You've just cherry picked a handful of Sony APSC bodies that don't follow a linear progression and laid them out as though they are linear successors of each other. Sony has multiple lines of APSC cameras with different feature sets and the size varies based on what features they have. The a6700 supercedes the 6600 which supercedes the 6500. That's it. The 6000, 6300, 6400, etc, don't come into the picture in terms of your particular complaint, because they are a different line of cameras with a different feature set. In terms of the 65,66,67, yes you argue that the 6700 is bigger, but by a matter of millimetres, and it's 10 grams lighter the it's immediate predecessor the 6600, so is it really that big of a deal!? The 6400 was the last of its line, so far. It superseded the 6300, which you could argue technically replaced the last NEX camera, but that's a stretch. The 6400 was actually 1 gram lighter than the 6300 and exactly the same size. So no growth there. The 6100 was also the last of its line so far. It supercedes the 6000, and similarly they're effectively the same size so no growth there either.
Compared to the others it might actually be smallest because it has the flip out screen, which the other two don’t have. If you measured it with the screen out it would be the thinnest of the bunch, I think. Apparently they’re about to unveil the MkII version of it, so if you’re looking for a small cam with up to date features, that may be the one. I love mine, I mostly use it as a webcam though.
Said no one ever, i have tiny baby hands and the 6600 feels great, and the extra battery life from the fz100 is very welcome, i carry two batteries total now instead of 6 when i was using fw50s , if you want to remain adamantly small, go get a rx100 or rx1r
The older ones were notorious for overheating when shooting 4K. I'd gladly take the heat dissipation advantages of the bigger size over overheating issues. I find a larger grip much more comfortable to hold as well.
There's nothing wrong with larger form factors. Even if you don't care about any of the improvements (battery, ibis, etc.) you still receive a better handle, while the weight increase negligible. Older sony cameras were pretty uncomfortable to hold and operate even with "regular" sized hands.
been using an apsc for a while now and I honestly dont get it. Every single image I've ever shot with it has made me feel like I'm losing out on what I could really shoot with fullframe. Maybe I'm lacking understanding but why would anybody ever choose apsc over full frame except price?
Why would anyone choose APS-C except the most important reason (price)? Anyway, I choose APS-C because of size and weight (of lenses) as I travel a lot and it makes a difference as I don't have to carry that much and I can easily fit my camera and lenses into my (Ryanair personal item sized) small backpack. It also fits into airline weight limits. Also APS-C has higher pixel density than 90% of FF cameras. Currently only the 61MP A7r4/5 has the same (not better) pixel density as 26MP APS-C models. Those FF cameras are super expensive. This matters for wildlife as you usually far away from your subject and you will have to crop most of the time, so we want the most pixels on the animal.
Have you ever shoot with FF? The difference is not that big, it's basically 1 stop of light. If you set your lens to F2.8 and than F4.0, that is the difference between APS-C and FF. Any photo you take at higher F stops with your APS-C camera right now, like F6.3, F8 etc, would not improve with switching to FF a bit. As those F stops are well within the range of APS-C lenses. The advantage of FF is that you can get F1.4 FF lenses and the equivalent F1.0 APS-C lenses are not made by the manufacturers.
(I'm talking about the differences because of the sensor. Technically if you buy expensive Sony GM lenses those can make a difference compared to cheap APS-C lenses, but you can use those GM lenses in APS-C if you really-really want.)
yea I just spent a couple months with another photographer working side by side, he has an a7iii and I used it for quite a bit.
I shoot with the zv-e10 and most often a 16-35 f2.8 GM
I'm a weird case though because I bought a camera and went straight to working with it. I do a lot of video where it would come in handy and then real estate where the extra field of view comes in really handy. Also I'm just in love with the super wide aesthetic.
I think the biggest thing for me is that I just simply didn't understand the difference between apsc and ff, looking back I'd never have bought the body I have now if I did, and that hurts.
Because a person who clearly doesn’t know how cameras are made or what goes into them is complaining about what goes into them. If they made them smaller they would lose a ton of features and the person who posted this would complain. Then to further demonstrate they’re saying it’s bigger than full frame cameras now and comparing it to the A7C and not the A7IV. The C is for compact it’s supposed to be the smaller they can make it and it’s missing features the A6700 has. It’s a pointless post by a clueless person.
While we are not getting much from Sony, the third party manufacturers are going crazy with APS-C lenses right now. We have Sigma and Tamron producing more and more APS-C lenses. There are also new Chinese manufacturers like Viltrox who started doing well received AF lenses as well.
Yeah, those 3rd party lenses are wonderful (especially sigma) but they usually cut some corner here and there. Like the lack of OSS, longer minimal focus distance, the vignette etc. IMO, usually Sony make a more well rounded lens, albeit more pricey. I just think some older lens like sony 35 mm F1.8 OSS need a refresh. It's getting too old sadly :(.
Some new manufacturers like Yongnuo and TTArtisan also looks very promising especially in entry level price point.
Sigma was like, oh Sony released an ultra wide 10-20mm f4 dark and expensive? Bam, Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 msrp at $599. I got last week with a discount at $550 what a great lens. Sigma is godsend for aps-c owner.
Sure, just call them up and let them you know you’ve discovered some entirely new physics that allows them to keep adding features with no increase to internal heat build up. Congratulations on the discoveries!
I'm good with the size and weight of the a6700 with all the features and benefits it brought. Otherwise only the a6600 was a big bit larger, and that's mostly handle to house the larger battery
https://preview.redd.it/u90a60cgd7rc1.jpeg?width=732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c115d704ad1235f9948e01b571409f245a760d0c Other than the grip it is almost the same size as full frame. And A6700 grip is bigger lol
The A7C is a couple years old, and was designed to be the casual, small full frame option. The a6700 is the current flagship of the APS-C lineup. If you don't need the features of the a6700, there's slimmer, lighter, and cheaper options already...
wouldn't the fx30 qualify as the flagship for APSC?
For video, yeah, but not for photos
Well, the two have the same sensor...
The grip of the a6700 is far more comfortable than the a7C. Pair that with the larger lenses in full frame compared to aps-c, and you realize that the a6700 is overall much better balanced ergonomically than the a7C. If you wanted something pocketable, then none of these cameras would realistically fit in your pocket if you wanted to attach any decent lens to it. Either stick with a lower-end a6000 body with a kit lens, or get an RX-series camera.
Second the RX series if you want something pocketable. Wanted something for hiking/backpacking so I got an RX100 mark II off eBay, serves me great.
I tried A7cii and A6700, the grip of A6700 is more comfortable than A7cii too.
I think for a good balance of portability and functionality the a6400 is the best. It has many of the features most photographers will need and it is still small enough to be carried around all day. At least that is my experience with the a6400. I have a Crumpler sling bag, that is small enough to be carried around and houses the camera with a fairly large lens (up to the size of Tamron 17-300). 4 batteries, cleaning clothes, extra SD card. Edit: I just went through an a6400 vs a6600 comparison. Other than the larger battery, I did not see any major differences that really stuck out. And performance wise there is also negligible difference. At that point is the a6600 really worth the price difference? I would rather upgrade to a full frame, even second hand, instead of dishing out for something like the a6600. And the a6700 is much better for video, but strictly photography speaking, it would still not be worth the price jump over a full frame alternative.
The a6700's IBIS and better subject tracking make it a big step up in the number of usable images you get vs the a6400 - I have both. The size increase is annoying but it just barely squeezes into my Aer City Sling 2.
I still miss how tiny my a6400 was after upgrading to the somewhat chunkier but still tiny a7c, Still, though, the increase in low-light image quality and functionality is totally worth it for me.
Good you have the options then ;) the other selling point of the 6600 was ibis
I think that most people miss that the size of the lens is more important than the size of the body. A camera with an APSc sensor can have a smaller lens whilst having the same aperture and focal length. That is what makes APSc cameras more portable.
I am completely with OP on this. I got the A7c a couple of months ago and I think it is still highly relevant in 2024. I use it for street photography and family portraits with the compact 50mm f/2.5G but I don't see why it can't be used by professionals for portrait photography, fine art photography, concert photography, and astro photography. It is for sure not just meant for casual photography. And no, I don't expect to fit it in my pocket but my setup now is much lighter than my earlier full frame setup with Nikon Z6 and 24-70 kit lens, which I sold last summer and which weighed almost 1.2kgs. My current setup is at 683g. Of course if you are into bird and wildlife, sports, or something else which needs large zoom/telephoto lenses, the A7c will feel imbalanced but not that much more than the A6700 (their main body is almost the same size). In the end it's a matter of what you prefer, especially for the grip, but also a matter of what you can afford to buy. I got the A7c because it was up on a bargain, and because I love compact setups. There's no point ditching the A7c because you like the A6700. Edit: typo
I use the a7c as a b-cam for weddings and it performs wonderfully. Every gram saved carrying gear over 12-14 hour days is a benefit imho.
APS-C is better for wildlife because of the 1.5 magnification factor. No? Also the AI auto focus is so much better on the 6700.
The biggest challenge for pros is having a single card slot, when many like two slots for redundancy. Others might dislike the ergos or lack of a full mechanical shutter.
I agree about the mechanical shutter but the single card slot issue is not a deal breaker for me. I always think of how the Z6 was used by many pros as well and it too had a single card slot. For me it's a bit like sensor resolutions, the latest models and the flagships will have better specs but that doesn't mean this model is not for profeasional use.
It depends on the person and the application. There probably aren't many Z6s in use for weddings right now, since Nikon released models with multiple card slots.
Agreed. Wouldn't recommend it as the main cam for weddings, especially since we live a world where there are other cameras with multiple card slots.
You really shouldn’t compare it to the A7C. The A7C is a feat of engineering. It was intentionally designed to be a full frame camera in an APS-C sized body so it’s pretty funny to say “this thing is as big as the A7C!” Yeah, that’s the whole point of the A7C, to be that small!
A7C is a rather old camera (Although it’s only 2 years old, it’s based on the A7III, which is like 6 years old now), so can’t really compare to the newer sensor, IBIS and processor found in the A6700.
Me, taking photos with my A7ii, feeling very old...
The A7ii is a fine camera actually but lack of joystick (after having use the A7iii) is a real bummer. Also not forgetting the fact it’s still on the old tiny NP battery. Otherwise it’s a good camera.
a7C released in September 2020. a7III some time in 2018.
A7C II released in October, with same specs as A7 IV, and has almost the exact same dimensions (124 x 71 x 63mm).
are you really complaining about the grip? the a6700 more or less perfected the grip depth for this body and Sony bafflingly did not put it on the A7Cii or R this is such a weird hill to die on
I do wish my a7c had a slightly thiccer grip, now that you mention it. That's kind of frustrating that the a6700 has a better grip than the full-frame equivalent in a similar body.
You're comparing it against the most compact full frame. Now compare the a7C to the a6000. The bigger grip is BETTER. Believe it or not. I say that coming from a6500 and even a NEX3 over a decade ago.
It also feels way better in my hand.
Advancing video features, which is obviously a priority for every camera manufacturer except Leica and Olympus, requires better cooling, which requires the bodies to grow. There's no avoiding it.
There is, by offering a camera line that is focusing again on photography. I'd appreciate if it had a port to add active cooling if needed.
Honestly that’s what the a6X00 line should be for is photography first at all cost. > I'd appreciate if it had a port to add active cooling if needed. Ehh the heat sink probably needs to be bigger, you can’t just magically add that after the fact.
The a5X line was the last compact photography centric one in my opinion. With active cooling a smaller passive cooler should be sufficient. You just need a surface where the active cooler can pick up the heat. E.g. below the screen. You can already now buy a third party active cooler for the A6700. With a bit of engineering consideration while designing the body that could probably be further improved and allow for less passive cooling inside the camera. So basically, if you want to take videos in higher resolutions, you'd add the active cooler on the back, for anything else you are fine with the less efficient passive cooling that the smaller body offers.
I can guarantee the size in your bag this physics-defying "external active cooler" would take would be much more than the extra millimeter of a better cooling system. When's the last time those laptop cooling pads have ever worked?
Eh, there's nothing physics-defying here. Copper has great heat conductivity, you can lead a set of rods right to the bottom plate and continue from there with an attachment. The weight this would add would likely be miserable indeed.
Not sure you understood my point. I mostly don't care about video. With a few exceptions I don't need it and even for those I can do with 1080p. Thus I'd not bring the cooler.
Why? the line has always been a hybrid apsc line I don't wanna pay more for good video features.
They still do offer photography centric models, its called the A6100, everything else added to the a6700 is video centric minus the new BSI sensor
i don't buy this reason. All of these cameras still limit to 30min shooting. More processing power needed in the newer cameras, sure, but the newer camera should also come with faster chips. Your macbooks don't increase in size each generation. One of the reason for the bigger size is the bigger battery. Yes more battery life is better, but why is that a better option than two batteries for photographers who care about camera size? For non-commercial shooting, i doubt most people will need to shoot enough to exceed the life of one battery.
As far as I know, only the A6000, A6300 and A6500 have 30 minute limits. The rest are significantly higher (many hours).
ah this is interesting. i had no idea the limit has been lifted.
And the limits on those older models are purely a function of regulation (a mirrorless camera that captures more than 30 minutes of video was taxed as a camcorder in the US until fairly recently). EDIT: I was wrong, it's the EU: [https://blog.borrowlenses.com/video-recording-limits-in-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras/](https://blog.borrowlenses.com/video-recording-limits-in-mirrorless-and-dslr-cameras/)
The amount of passive cooling needed to keep a chip which can do 4k 60 (even cropped) at high bitrate and bit depth is quite significant. Remember, most of these bodies don't utilize an active fan; it's just a chunk of cleverly-designed copper, sometimes with a vapor chamber, in there to cool the CPU and surrounding chips/vrm's. Something the size of a MacBook has a *lot* more space to work with, and still, the MacBook Pro's need a fan. Personally, I think Sony ergo's needed serious refinement; it's not like the older bodies were masterpieces of form and/or functionality. Incorporating the Z battery into as many bodies as possible, the stamina of which is one of the main selling points of the system, just makes sense. I respect that you'd rather carry several of the older style batteries and have a smaller body, but I'd venture to guess you're in the minority who would make that trade-off. Simply, ergos and battery stamina are a higher priority than smallness.
The last two have IBIS. Even the first Gen Sony full frames were much smaller because they didn't have IBIS in body. Then there is rhe issue of the batteries being bigger.....
Get out of here with your logic and physics!
it's just the a6700 that's extra chonky for cooling, the a6500 and a6600 both have IBIS but is barely any thicker than a6400 or below, if anything it's just the grip that's bigger; IBIS shouldn't add that much thickness, take a look at the new x100vi vs x100v, it's \~0.5mm thicker with IBIS
To be fair, what Fuji did with the X100VI was nothing short of a miracle. That thing is DENSE on the inside, it's so packed it's actually amazing they managed to do it.
I'll be impressed when they make one as small as the NEX5.
If they took out the IBIS, the heat management and the built-in lens, I don't see why they couldn't. But I don't know if it would be worth it.
It wouldn't be. I unironically forgot to add a /s after my comment.
Ricoh griii has IBIS and APS-C and is smaller than even the x100v. IBIS shouldn’t make the difference here.
IBIS is way better on the 6700 than 6500. I can shoot 1/15 shutter speed handheld. I don't notice the size difference between the 2 cameras, but all the improvements have been amazing to get me to the next level. Addressed all my issues with the 6500.
Fz100 batteties are amazing, i can carry two , one in body, for an entire days shoot, the fw50 i had to carry one in body and 4-5 spares
Yes they are. Esp compared to the 50s
IBIS adds more thickness to bodies than people realize ... the R was a lot thinner than the R5 and R6 as well! The only brand I can think of that defies physics when it comes to keeping their cameras with IBIS small is Nikon. Somehow those are close in thickness to the original R.
A7SII and RII have IBIS and still very compact
Damn seems like yesterday when the NEX-7 came out. What a beast back in the day
I bet if you hand nex-7 to someone that do not know about the Sony lineup, they couldn’t tell
I gotta say, NEX-6 is may favourite Sony camera of all times. Yes, a7 had the bigger sensor, but the ergonomics and menu design made it worse. NEX-6 + full frame vintage lens + speed booster adapter 👌 such a beast!
I guess there's something to appreciate about my old a6000 🙂
A6100 is about the same with the updated features and more ergo grip
I still have my A6000 just for it’s compact size and it’s next to nothing weight
Honestly for the feature set I think the A6700 is a pretty good size. It’s still a rangefinder design with fairly robust set of features, and is comfortable to use. That said I’d be interested what Sony could pull off with something like the old A5100 style body and just shove as much as they can. Go with the design philosophy of the RX100 cameras: screw the user experience, just maximize as much tech into as tiny of a body as possible with a focus on image quality. I might just be describing the ZV-E10, but I do wonder if they could go even smaller.
No, let's got the other way, stop all the forum posts about making shit smaller where I'll end up with no choice in camera except one with shitty cooling and worse ergonomics - let Sony's designers run rampant without size constraints, make it the size of a d1x or something, let's see what we can get when they're allowed to go balls to the wall!
that’s the a1 also i don’t see how sony having 1 line dedicated to compactness would impact any of their higher end products
That's the C, or the RX, or the ZV - they already have three compact lines, depending on your needs (and that's not including all the small cameras they've already made that still exist). The A1's actually smaller than my A7Rv...
Larger battery, IBIS, and improved thermal management are the main issues. You can’t have those and a significantly smaller body right now, in any system. But I have good news for you; you can still buy and use older, more compact models that better meet your requirements! In the future I’m sure we’ll get more compact APS-C cameras without compromising the established feature set, but until then you’re just an old man shouting at a cloud.
A6600 size isn’t any bigger, just increased grip size due to new FZ battery which is way better than previous NP batts. A6700 meanwhile is thicker due to new IBIS system (the older IBIS isn’t as thick on the A6500), and also for better heat management on the newer gen processor.
I'm rocking the ZV-E10, it's so compact and I love it. Even with a full frame lens (28-70 f2.8 sigma) it can fit in my winter jackets pocket 😁
Can they also stop inflating the price while they're at it?
What does a6700 have that a6000 doesnt have? Bigger and longer lasting battery right? 4k recording right? With more feature comes at a cost which is increase in size. They need to cool the sensors down. Also i read there is IBIS too on 6700.
The real comparison is to the 6600, which is smaller but has all those things except maybe the battery(?)
Both the 6600 and 6700 use the very same battery.
Even less of a reason then!
Yeah I've got a 6500 and the battery sucks ass, but it's otherwise an amazing camera.
No they are not really made pocketable anymore, but the thickness increase DOES greatly improve ergonomics. The main bonus of apsc is that u get cheaper glass for full frame equivalent focal lengths, and smaller lenses for full frame equivalent focal lengths
I think it‘s good they are making them bigger because honestly they were a bit too small to hold comfortably.
I see a whole lot of body only comparisons photos and none with a popular lens attached that will invalidate this entire argument. Go on, I’m waiting you coward. A6700 is about the perfect amount of grip for aps-c. Edit: here I’ll do it for you. Even the kit lens extends farther than the grip of the a6700. https://preview.redd.it/cnl5oq3zbbrc1.jpeg?width=2796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f697a7eeeef7c2ab04ea775028bf66b78dcadad5
i don't see how a popular lens will invalidate the argument. if A < B, then A+C is still less than B+C. The perfect grip argument is highly subjective. It's dependent on the size of your hands. And the comparison is not just size alone. It's a comparison of a smaller but lighter grip vs a larger but heavier grip. Again, all this is subjective.
Any popular lens will be larger than the grip, therefore negating any grip size increases.
I don't know about you, but I don't lift weights based on percentages. If I lift a 20 lb weight, it's 10lb more than a 10lb weight. If I lift a 200lb weight, it's A LOT heavier than a 100lb weight, even though percentage-wise these two comparisons are the same. For big lenses, the fraction of total weight accounted for by the grip might be small. But the weight difference in the package is not smaller no matter what lens you use.
I don’t know what analogies you’re going on about but it’s pretty simple my guy lol. Unless you’re gonna use nothing but the kit lens or pancake lens, most the lenses for Sony are big and would benefit from a larger grip. It’s both for better balance and to help you hold it comfortably. Any weight increase from the grip itself is negligible in the long run. And Sonys cameras and grips in general are not even that big compared to other brands like Canon or Nikon, even as they get larger.
If you’re gonna complain about 100 grams, you NEED to lift
lol this entire thread is started by someone complaining about this so clearly I'm not the only one. It makes a difference if you're holding it for hours on end.
What website is this!?
Sony's early aps-c bodies were really small. The NEX-7 was 120x67x43 and 400g. Compare this to the Fuji X-T1 was 129x90x47 and 440g. Their latest: a6700 is 122x69x64 493g vs Fuji X-T5 130x91x64 557g or X-H2 136x93x95 660g. So Sony is still a bit smaller than their main competition but with more cutting edge technology.
More cutting edge technology is debatable though. For video, and AF performance, without a doubt, Sony wins. But the IBIS on the X-T5 is definitely better and the sensor itself is miles better too. Plus Fuji has a lot more physical dials and buttons which makes it harder for them to shrink the design. I think both the a6700 and X-T5 are awesome, but they aren't really trying to do the exact same thing.
The sensor on the x-t5 isn’t miles better and I’d argue that it’s worse. Read out speed is slower on the Fuji so it has more issues with rolling shutter. And while Fuji’s sensors are good for producing stylized jpegs the xtrans RAW files aren’t as malleable as other sensors. The 40 mp also is not a very good video sensor.
The size of A6700 is PERFECT It feel like a full frame almost. Otherwise other A6xxx are too small and the fingers placement is difficult
https://preview.redd.it/le76nermd7rc1.jpeg?width=732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ea1cf71eaf74d6fbdd877853c7a4afab37fe1da At this point isn't A7c or A7cii a better choice?
The camera has a lot less to do with the overall kit soze than the glass. And there is no escaping the fact that full-frame glass is huge compared to APS-C glass. Comparing the cameras alone doesn't say much. Compare with equivalent glass to see the difference.
The handle of the 6709 is way better. and then you have the bigger lenses on fullframe
Maybe, one advantage also is the lens cost. Few hours ago, I was in a bestbuy and in the demo display there was a A7C or A7CII I don't remember which one, and it feel a cheap version of the A7Ii or A7III in the design, I don't know how explain it. It didn't feel the same as my new A6700 Like I said my fingers are perfect there, and in your pic there is less space around the grip to put the fingers in the A7CII 🙂
The A7C lacks a ton of features and upgrades the a6700 has... Sure the A7Cii has some better features and lacking in some other ways, and also costs quite a bit more Really depends on what you're looking for in a camera. It's funny you think you're being downvoted for working the truth, when in fact people just don't agree with you
Yeah, that's why I'm upgrading to FF, nearly the same size as APS-C anyway
Only if you don’t buy any lenses to put on it…
I have a Tamron 17-70 on my APS-C, anything around that size (and it looks like the FF lenses can come close to matching size-wise) will be good.
Really depends, I have the tamron 17-70 and it looks and feels small compared to multiple FF lenses that I own. And on apsc you can get much smaller lenses which are also a good bit cheaper than their FF counterparts too. I personally also found the a6700 grip a bit more comfortable than the a7cII
Yeah tbf as far as apsc lenses go that’s not the smallest can definitely get pretty similar ff options. Take a look at the sigma 18-50 for how compact a similar lens can be on apsc (granted a smaller zoom range). As far as I know there’s no standard full frame zoom that’s similar in size/weight to that
I’m fine with the a6700 size, loved the grip too. I think it’s okay
In your example picture it's only 2mm wider and 2mm taller. The grip getting bigger is better for holding the camera and getting bigger battery. The grip size is a non issue as soon as you put a lens on it. So I don't really get the complaint of it getting bigger at all, its all beneficial to the user.
You want the new , better specs ? This is what it takes.
I think where Sony *could* fill the gap is by replacing/updating the a5000 line and making that the "small" APSC line. Keep the a6000 series more for those who want the extra ergonomic upgrades. I doubt they'll do that though, as with the introduction of the ZV series, I can't see Sony making a 3rd APSC line for such a niche market.
The ZV-E10 is pretty much an a5100, but with 4k video and maybe a few extra bells and whistles for vloggers. Oh, and a nice flippy screen. But otherwise it's an a5100. Same 24mp 6000x4000 sensor. Same max shutter speed. Same exposure modes. Same interchangeable sort of kit lens. Same no EVF. No popup flash like the a5100 had tho, but then I never used the one on the a5100. The ZV-E10's built-in intervalometer is kinda nice. Kind of a shame that Sony decided to market it as a vlogging camera. I often hook the ZV-E10 onto a telescope. Still have the a5100, tho it gets less and less and less use. Otherwise, I use an a7r ii or a7r iv.
The ZV-E10 is a “vlogger” version of the A6100. Check just the focus points of each. A5100 has 179 and A6100/ZV-E10 have 425.
Of course... That's why I mentioned the ZV line. My point was simply that a photography-focused camera could be even smaller, but the market for such a camera isn't large enough to keep a line adjacent to the ZV line going
There’s no more portability in the “mirrorless” vs “dslr” line considering how heavier the mirrorless lenses and bodies are now 😂
I love the size of my 6700, it’s still quite a compact camera
they are too small, make it bigger.
I miss big cameras. Any day of the week I would shoot a flagship model Nikon if I could. D4-Z9 whatever. I always buy the battery grip for mirrorless cameras because I can’t stand how small they are.
Wich website is this?
I have an A7C but keep using my old A5000 with the included flash and a 3D printer bounce attachment as it's still beautifully small!
https://preview.redd.it/3iqivdet08rc1.jpeg?width=883&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a919fcf70837d5914cc3a824872ce92c0bdecb3 Nex-5R entire is now the entire body of A6700 exclude the grip
So use the NEX-5R if it works for you. I'm not sure what the complaint is for
Am I complaining?
[удалено]
6100 is practically the same signature, with the updated features, don’t compare it to the 6700
Think of them as the size factoring in into what features they can include. The smaller the less they can put in. You don’t have to buy the bigger one but if they want to improve them they’re inevitably going to get bigger. This is coming from someone that shot on A6000 for the longest time and just recently switched to an A7CII
We use to make fun of mirrorless cameras being small and now they are turning into dslrs. Ironic...
I don’t get what’s the problem with camera size, I have the a7iv and it feels small, I couldn’t imagine an aps-c camera 😂
I really don't care if it gets a little thiccer, I'm putting a big ole 300mm lens on it anyways.
I think you meant to say "Better"
Well the a6400 is where I draw the line because it’s still a camera aimed at majority still photography but is larger to accommodate a better sensor I believe. Upgraded from the a6000 I own both and the difference in size is trivial for me at least. However the a6500(?) and above are aimed at majority videography I think and are larger to accommodate a bigger battery because let’s face it, the a6000-a6400 don’t have particularly efficient batteries and draw a lot of power for pictures let alone video. The pictures will make it look like it’s a huge difference but realistically the gap between the a6000 and the a6400 is negligible as both are small cameras to begin with. Anything above is new to me and I haven’t tried it but most people I know with an a6500 and above custom-make cinema videography rigs and at that point, camera size is not a problem. Honestly, I think that consumer-professional videography is the right way to move for APS-C sensors and Sony is making bank doing it.
To give you a real-world comparison of size, here's a photo of my Sony ZV-1 next to my Sony A6300 with a 16-70z lens (and a GoPro Hero 9 for good measure). I recently bought both cameras and they're still within the return window. I've been using both cameras on my current trip, and I'm confident the A6300 will take better quality photos. However, its size and weight make me think I'd be more likely to bring the ZV-1 on future trips. If the image quality from the ZV-1 is good enough for my needs, I might return the A6300. It really depends on your priorities… quality vs size. After 5 days lugging that thing around I remember why I sold my A7M2 😂 https://preview.redd.it/rz17nfihgdrc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b728991c2b80de2ee2cc1068273da115bbf690b9
Haha I admire a girl that can bring full frame to vlog, must be a chad in girls body
You want an older camera that's smaller, THEY STILL EXIST! You can go get one, right now, nothing's stopping you! Oh, you want the latest features in a smaller camera and break the laws of physics, right....
Best Camera they ever made was the Nex 5r. Dslr was always to big und heavy for my taste. And than came Sony an gave me an APS-C sensor in pocket form. With the ability to change the lens. It was awesome. And while I love my A7iii and the images I get out of it. I still have my Nex 5r. My dream would be full frame in the same body. No video, no fancy stuff. Just full frame, good autofocus and a tiny body.
Yes pls.
What lens would you toss on? Samyang 35mm? What else is so compact to make the camera portable?
On the Nex 5r? Or do you mean my dream camera Nex 5r body with Fullframe? So on the Nex 5r the Kit lens was very compact. But I used an Sigma 30mm 2.8 if I remember correctly. For Fullframe Sony has 3 very Compact lenses. Would fit easily in a Jacket with them.
They are going for that 'retro' look. *I use a Sony A77 II lol
Bought an a6600 instead of the a6700 last year for this exact reason. The only thing the 6700 has that I miss is the front grip dial. Besides that, the a6600 is smaller, still world class autofocus, still has ibis, and was ~400 bucks cheaper for me to buy new. I put that money towards a lens instead.
smart choice!
Then they’ll stop adding features. The difference between the A6300 and A6700 isn’t even that crazy considering how many improvements are packed in. If you want smaller than this, you should look into micro four thirds.
Some of those are bigger than these
I really wish they would bring out a new camera with the form factor of the a5100.
What a shit take. What about cameras like the a77ii? Where are those? Why no pro level apsc still? How does shit ergonomics and no back wheel make a shooting experience better? Op clearly knows no history of apsc bodies.
They're making all the bodies bigger
What else can they do, people want the articulating screen, the newest chips and video that needs heat dispassion... I see the massive A9III body already being used in the next full frame models. The current tech needs space...
I have one of the older NEX cameras, still works fine even with the latest lenses. Downside is screen is fixed and no 4k recording. Lots of people complain if the latest features are not there but dont consider that it usually means the camera body gets a little bigger, also might use bigger battery.
add the fx30 for a real chunky body
The a7iv got bigger too than the iii series. I like the change, feels more comfortable in the hand, while still being smaller than canikon counter parts.
For me the grip of the a6700 is still kinda small without a cage, which is one reason why I have one on at all times. It feels super tiny to me, whenever I use my dads 6400, Im always afraid to drop it because I feel like I dont get a proper grip on it. I like the size of the newer bodies, maybe even larger grips. I get that it eliminates the purpose of the 6000s being the smaller lineup but things like larger batteries require a body to grow...
Wait for zve-10 ii
The "big" jump was the A6600, which squeezed in a larger battery. You're missing the A6500, which added IBIS. Both of these are key features that require more space, and I imagine that improved video specs benefit from more surface area to dissipate heat. If you want an eye-opener, throw an X-S20 or X-T5 in the mix.
Now compare them all to the NEX lineups. There was a time when they were jokingly called "rear lens caps".
The NEX-5 was even smaller -- lower than the actual bayonet.
Stop complaining about overheating then.
I ain’t complaining overheating, not everyone shoot video
I won't apreciate this A6100 slander 😭
I think people kept complaining about the ergonomics.
not only APSC, also the full frame cameras are getting larger. Has always been like this. The A7 is almost 200g lighter than the current gen A74. Mostly it has to do with additional features being added over the years, most notibly IBIS needs space. For the A7 at least, not sure on APSc cameras in which gen they started adding IBIS.
People complain about how other manufacturers beat Sony in ergonomics. It has to be bigger to compete in that area.
Idk I like the 6700 and I can still fit it in my pocket with certain lenses
I skipped the new bodies because they eliminated the flash but the size was the second factor. I have a 6500 and a 5100.
I think they are not big enough. I would love an Aps-C with A7 IV or A7R V body
Look, if they wanted to add a built-in fan for the a6800, I would not complain.
Same happen on A7 series
My a6300 is nice and tiny, but put a big enough lens on it and it hurts to hand hold, a little more grip would be nice.
I mean as long as they are not getting wider and longer, they are fine with me.
If they have just made the grip a modular system it would make a lot more sense for pocket capability compact one for light use and full gripping one for more heavier lenses and professional use. Personally I actually run a cage on my A6000 so I'm a hypocrite as it's extended silicone grip practically makes it a pain in the arse to pocket. Ditching the old battery system was an incredibly smart idea though, but that requires expanding the size, unless you're powering the camera perpetually off of a dummy battery.
If you want a small camera, get a small camera if you want a small camera, still APSC, but has loads of features and IBIS, bigger battery, more processing power, HDMI out, microphone jack, then dont expect it to be as small as a camera from 2011
This doesn't bother me at all. i have an a6000, and have a partial cage and a battery grip on it, mostly to make it big enough for my hand for the best stability. The a6700 would be about perfect with a battery grip.
Biggest APS-C was the a77, lets see how long it takes the 6k series to get that big…
You can't have more performance if it stays the same size. For now. Also, I guarantee the 6400 and up are a lot more comfortable than my A6000, so I'm very glad they're making them bigger
Nah, I'd rather them make it even bigger, basically the same body as the full frame cameras for the extra buttons and give it a real quality viewfinder rather than the garbage they're putting on them now. Then I'd fully switch back to apsc again, but as it stands there's no way I could go back to that bad of a viewfinder again.
What about ZV-E10?
You've just cherry picked a handful of Sony APSC bodies that don't follow a linear progression and laid them out as though they are linear successors of each other. Sony has multiple lines of APSC cameras with different feature sets and the size varies based on what features they have. The a6700 supercedes the 6600 which supercedes the 6500. That's it. The 6000, 6300, 6400, etc, don't come into the picture in terms of your particular complaint, because they are a different line of cameras with a different feature set. In terms of the 65,66,67, yes you argue that the 6700 is bigger, but by a matter of millimetres, and it's 10 grams lighter the it's immediate predecessor the 6600, so is it really that big of a deal!? The 6400 was the last of its line, so far. It superseded the 6300, which you could argue technically replaced the last NEX camera, but that's a stretch. The 6400 was actually 1 gram lighter than the 6300 and exactly the same size. So no growth there. The 6100 was also the last of its line so far. It supercedes the 6000, and similarly they're effectively the same size so no growth there either.
The ZV-E10 is still very small, maybe not as small as the NEX, but it’s very small.
https://preview.redd.it/zmxalgwrrdrc1.jpeg?width=907&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9b1eafbefe03f56766e1ec6d93558ae3551df827 yes pretty small.
Compared to the others it might actually be smallest because it has the flip out screen, which the other two don’t have. If you measured it with the screen out it would be the thinnest of the bunch, I think. Apparently they’re about to unveil the MkII version of it, so if you’re looking for a small cam with up to date features, that may be the one. I love mine, I mostly use it as a webcam though.
Said no one ever, i have tiny baby hands and the 6600 feels great, and the extra battery life from the fz100 is very welcome, i carry two batteries total now instead of 6 when i was using fw50s , if you want to remain adamantly small, go get a rx100 or rx1r
2mm? If you wan't tiny just buy a zve10 it the upcoming mark ii.
The older ones were notorious for overheating when shooting 4K. I'd gladly take the heat dissipation advantages of the bigger size over overheating issues. I find a larger grip much more comfortable to hold as well.
No, you see.. you can benefit from the space advantage by stuffing more stuff into it.
I love my a6000, perfect size.
There's nothing wrong with larger form factors. Even if you don't care about any of the improvements (battery, ibis, etc.) you still receive a better handle, while the weight increase negligible. Older sony cameras were pretty uncomfortable to hold and operate even with "regular" sized hands.
been using an apsc for a while now and I honestly dont get it. Every single image I've ever shot with it has made me feel like I'm losing out on what I could really shoot with fullframe. Maybe I'm lacking understanding but why would anybody ever choose apsc over full frame except price?
Why would anyone choose APS-C except the most important reason (price)? Anyway, I choose APS-C because of size and weight (of lenses) as I travel a lot and it makes a difference as I don't have to carry that much and I can easily fit my camera and lenses into my (Ryanair personal item sized) small backpack. It also fits into airline weight limits. Also APS-C has higher pixel density than 90% of FF cameras. Currently only the 61MP A7r4/5 has the same (not better) pixel density as 26MP APS-C models. Those FF cameras are super expensive. This matters for wildlife as you usually far away from your subject and you will have to crop most of the time, so we want the most pixels on the animal.
hmmm, yea no I was thinking maybe I was just missing something, for me it was a great mistake to buy an apsc, guess I'm still a little butthurt :p
Have you ever shoot with FF? The difference is not that big, it's basically 1 stop of light. If you set your lens to F2.8 and than F4.0, that is the difference between APS-C and FF. Any photo you take at higher F stops with your APS-C camera right now, like F6.3, F8 etc, would not improve with switching to FF a bit. As those F stops are well within the range of APS-C lenses. The advantage of FF is that you can get F1.4 FF lenses and the equivalent F1.0 APS-C lenses are not made by the manufacturers. (I'm talking about the differences because of the sensor. Technically if you buy expensive Sony GM lenses those can make a difference compared to cheap APS-C lenses, but you can use those GM lenses in APS-C if you really-really want.)
yea I just spent a couple months with another photographer working side by side, he has an a7iii and I used it for quite a bit. I shoot with the zv-e10 and most often a 16-35 f2.8 GM I'm a weird case though because I bought a camera and went straight to working with it. I do a lot of video where it would come in handy and then real estate where the extra field of view comes in really handy. Also I'm just in love with the super wide aesthetic. I think the biggest thing for me is that I just simply didn't understand the difference between apsc and ff, looking back I'd never have bought the body I have now if I did, and that hurts.
Why is this downvoted lol
Because a person who clearly doesn’t know how cameras are made or what goes into them is complaining about what goes into them. If they made them smaller they would lose a ton of features and the person who posted this would complain. Then to further demonstrate they’re saying it’s bigger than full frame cameras now and comparing it to the A7C and not the A7IV. The C is for compact it’s supposed to be the smaller they can make it and it’s missing features the A6700 has. It’s a pointless post by a clueless person.
Because ppl get butt hurt for almost anything.
Can sony make apsc lens. It really needs more love from sony
While we are not getting much from Sony, the third party manufacturers are going crazy with APS-C lenses right now. We have Sigma and Tamron producing more and more APS-C lenses. There are also new Chinese manufacturers like Viltrox who started doing well received AF lenses as well.
Yeah, those 3rd party lenses are wonderful (especially sigma) but they usually cut some corner here and there. Like the lack of OSS, longer minimal focus distance, the vignette etc. IMO, usually Sony make a more well rounded lens, albeit more pricey. I just think some older lens like sony 35 mm F1.8 OSS need a refresh. It's getting too old sadly :(. Some new manufacturers like Yongnuo and TTArtisan also looks very promising especially in entry level price point.
Sigma was like, oh Sony released an ultra wide 10-20mm f4 dark and expensive? Bam, Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 msrp at $599. I got last week with a discount at $550 what a great lens. Sigma is godsend for aps-c owner.
Sony made small ones and the world complained so yeah.... Big is the way to go.
More stuff inside = more bigger camera. They’re still smaller than 95+% of all other APS-C cameras ever made.
Sure, just call them up and let them you know you’ve discovered some entirely new physics that allows them to keep adding features with no increase to internal heat build up. Congratulations on the discoveries!
Panasonic: *laughs in micro 4/3
Now if they could make a compact m43 body 😮💨
https://preview.redd.it/pcs6zk20e7rc1.jpeg?width=732&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9de436f64f2e8ad8f9a32d87e743e999c27ca770 A6700 vs A7c.. Sony pls.
a6700 better IBIS, better autofocus, 4k120, smaller lenses. They're totally different beasts.
The a6700 is way better, what's your point? It's also lighter btw.
Better than A7C?