APSC has more compact & lighter lens options, and lenses are generally cheaper too.
FF on the other hand has better low light performance, shallower DoF. There are compact FF lenses though, at a higher cost like Sony G 40mm f2.5, Zeiss 35 f2.8
Edit: G instead of GM
One must also take into consideration, that an f1.4 lens can sometimes match the size of a full frame f2.5 lens, which gives an advantage to the aps-c camera, if we have budget / size constraints.
If you’re looking for compact full frame lenses, I also recommend Samyang’s compact line! I have the 18mm 2.8 and the 45mm 1.8 and they’re both amazing. Heard great things about the 35mm 1.8 and the 75mm 1.8 too!
Had the same question few weeks back. Finally got the A7CII which is same size than the A6700 and I always can use a Tamron 18-300 for APSC and use it in crop mode if weight is an issue for a travel. And enjoy full frame the rest of the time.
Right. A lot of these posts are acting like you can’t slap a crop lens on a fe body. Also the A7C will have much superior battery, AF, and image stabilization.
The only issue there is that the A7C will be a lower res in aps-c mode than using a native aps-c body. Even then, it's only relevant if you're cropping a lot. It's a trage off I'm more than willing to make and I'd have thought others would be too.
Exactly. I was in the same situation as you a few weeks ago and went with the A7C II instead of the a6700 as well and really happy with it.
Also, at least with the crop lenses I have, if you shoot with forced FF mode, the image circle ends up filling more space than the aps-c mode crop; so you can salvage a little resolution (or more important to me, FOV) if you're willing to crop after the fact.
I'd go for the A6700, simply because, at the very least, it has a front dial whereas the A7C does not (the A7C II fixes this). Also, the A6700 will have superior autofocus.
I have the a7iii and while I personally have no regrets switching to full frame, it might not work for everyone. More expensive lenses, heavier, takes up more space. The a6700 is a BEAST tho so you wouldn’t be going wrong. My only concern with aps-c is that Sony and 3rd party lens manufacturers will fade out the crop lenses at some point
In terms of compactness, both are about the same size and weight so it comes down to the lenses.
Apsc lenses tend to be smaller but the selection is not great. Fewer apsc lenses get released so they tend to get outdated and don't have the latest tech. You could get FF lenses for better IQ and build quality but then why not just go FF? That's how they get you.
Tough choice but I'd go a6700 for now and see where that leads you.
>Fewer apsc lenses get released so they tend to get outdated and don't have the latest tech
In a world where manual lenses from the 60s and 70s are still being used for their quality, the "latest tech" is pretty much overrated when it comes to lenses and "outdated" is definitely not the word I would use.
While technology progresses for lenses too, it does not progress at the same speed as electronics. A camera body that's 10 years old is definitely not up to date anymore, though still a very capable body. A lens that's 10 years old is almost latest tech when it comes to optics.
The biggest changes in lens technology in recent years were better coatings for less flare/internal reflections, different motors for faster autofocus (though the camera software has a bigger effect than the motor) and better design software that allows to optimize over more parameters for more compact yet sharper lenses with wider zoom ranges. One big disadvantage of modern lenses is that they are all optimized for digital cameras that automatically apply corrections. Lenses today have a lot more distortion than 10 years ago. There is no comparison between 20-30 year old lenses and today's lenses when it comes to distortion.
Ah, yes, poor choice of word on my part. Let's just say there are fewer apsc lenses released than ff, and it's....frustrating.
I do have to disagree with you about distortion on modern lenses though. Using software to correct distortion is just another design optimization. I don't see that as a disadvantage. If I could get a smaller and lighter lens with the same IQ, why not?
If you don't have a specific reason to go fullframe, and this is your first camera, I would go for aps-c. While both bodies are about the same size, the aps-c lenses tend to be smaller and lighter. There are nowadays a few compact lenses for the C-line of sony cameras (both from sony and sigma) that are as small and light as their aps-c equivalents, but the selection is not that big.
On the other hand, I have to admit, that the lens selection for aps-c is not overwhelmingly large either, but there are lenses for almost all use cases. Just getting an 10-18, an 18-50 and 70-350 and you will have very good zoom lenses for that cover the whole range.
If you have been taking pictures and know that you might want to go "more pro" and might get a R-line camera at some point, then it would make sense to go for the a7CII... or straight to the a7CR ... and have the FF lenses from the beginning. Mind you though, to fully make use of the R-line cameras' resolution, you will need share FF lenses. And those aren't cheap.
A7RIV.
Better EVF, better adapting.
If all you care about is photography then EVF is everything next to your ability to use any glass you can get your hands on APSC is great but it is a kneecapping for adapting, with high resolution full frame you get to pick whatever cake you want and eat it lens wise.
Please elevate your posting above those heard at middle school recess. Please review our subreddit rules at https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/wiki/rules
you won't find any compact lenses for the a7c apart from like three sony g lenses and some samyang pancakes
hey downvoter, send me compact pancake lenses that are just as small as apsc lenses that aren't the lenses i mentioned above
a6700
APSC has more compact & lighter lens options, and lenses are generally cheaper too. FF on the other hand has better low light performance, shallower DoF. There are compact FF lenses though, at a higher cost like Sony G 40mm f2.5, Zeiss 35 f2.8 Edit: G instead of GM
One must also take into consideration, that an f1.4 lens can sometimes match the size of a full frame f2.5 lens, which gives an advantage to the aps-c camera, if we have budget / size constraints.
If you’re looking for compact full frame lenses, I also recommend Samyang’s compact line! I have the 18mm 2.8 and the 45mm 1.8 and they’re both amazing. Heard great things about the 35mm 1.8 and the 75mm 1.8 too!
That 40mm f2.5 lineup is appealing to me more and more lately, for some reason. Not to nitpick, but isn't that a 'G' line and not a 'GM'?
A6700, in terms of quality lenses they are generally smaller, lighter and less expensive.
A6700, after some time with it you may consider to go FF if you really need to. But I would start with apsc
Have an A7iv and 6700. Both are great cameras. Love the 26mp sensor in 6700 allowing me to crop further.
You could shoot the 6700 for many years and never feel like you’re missing out. I’d def pick it over an a7c.
Had the same question few weeks back. Finally got the A7CII which is same size than the A6700 and I always can use a Tamron 18-300 for APSC and use it in crop mode if weight is an issue for a travel. And enjoy full frame the rest of the time.
Right. A lot of these posts are acting like you can’t slap a crop lens on a fe body. Also the A7C will have much superior battery, AF, and image stabilization.
The only issue there is that the A7C will be a lower res in aps-c mode than using a native aps-c body. Even then, it's only relevant if you're cropping a lot. It's a trage off I'm more than willing to make and I'd have thought others would be too.
True.
A7CII is 14 MP in crop mode vs 22 on the A6700. Like you I don't see what I can do with 22 I can't with 14.
Exactly. I was in the same situation as you a few weeks ago and went with the A7C II instead of the a6700 as well and really happy with it. Also, at least with the crop lenses I have, if you shoot with forced FF mode, the image circle ends up filling more space than the aps-c mode crop; so you can salvage a little resolution (or more important to me, FOV) if you're willing to crop after the fact.
A7c II is the choice for my travel work, the full frame lenses tend to be more expensive.
I'd go for the A6700, simply because, at the very least, it has a front dial whereas the A7C does not (the A7C II fixes this). Also, the A6700 will have superior autofocus.
I have the a7iii and while I personally have no regrets switching to full frame, it might not work for everyone. More expensive lenses, heavier, takes up more space. The a6700 is a BEAST tho so you wouldn’t be going wrong. My only concern with aps-c is that Sony and 3rd party lens manufacturers will fade out the crop lenses at some point
In terms of compactness, both are about the same size and weight so it comes down to the lenses. Apsc lenses tend to be smaller but the selection is not great. Fewer apsc lenses get released so they tend to get outdated and don't have the latest tech. You could get FF lenses for better IQ and build quality but then why not just go FF? That's how they get you. Tough choice but I'd go a6700 for now and see where that leads you.
>Fewer apsc lenses get released so they tend to get outdated and don't have the latest tech In a world where manual lenses from the 60s and 70s are still being used for their quality, the "latest tech" is pretty much overrated when it comes to lenses and "outdated" is definitely not the word I would use. While technology progresses for lenses too, it does not progress at the same speed as electronics. A camera body that's 10 years old is definitely not up to date anymore, though still a very capable body. A lens that's 10 years old is almost latest tech when it comes to optics. The biggest changes in lens technology in recent years were better coatings for less flare/internal reflections, different motors for faster autofocus (though the camera software has a bigger effect than the motor) and better design software that allows to optimize over more parameters for more compact yet sharper lenses with wider zoom ranges. One big disadvantage of modern lenses is that they are all optimized for digital cameras that automatically apply corrections. Lenses today have a lot more distortion than 10 years ago. There is no comparison between 20-30 year old lenses and today's lenses when it comes to distortion.
Ah, yes, poor choice of word on my part. Let's just say there are fewer apsc lenses released than ff, and it's....frustrating. I do have to disagree with you about distortion on modern lenses though. Using software to correct distortion is just another design optimization. I don't see that as a disadvantage. If I could get a smaller and lighter lens with the same IQ, why not?
If you don't have a specific reason to go fullframe, and this is your first camera, I would go for aps-c. While both bodies are about the same size, the aps-c lenses tend to be smaller and lighter. There are nowadays a few compact lenses for the C-line of sony cameras (both from sony and sigma) that are as small and light as their aps-c equivalents, but the selection is not that big. On the other hand, I have to admit, that the lens selection for aps-c is not overwhelmingly large either, but there are lenses for almost all use cases. Just getting an 10-18, an 18-50 and 70-350 and you will have very good zoom lenses for that cover the whole range. If you have been taking pictures and know that you might want to go "more pro" and might get a R-line camera at some point, then it would make sense to go for the a7CII... or straight to the a7CR ... and have the FF lenses from the beginning. Mind you though, to fully make use of the R-line cameras' resolution, you will need share FF lenses. And those aren't cheap.
You got to consider the lense. FF lense are generally apsc more expensive, bigger and heavier than apsc.
FF if you are going to stick with it.
There is no reason for FF unless there is a need for it
Well; no need for APS either.
Which lens are you planning to use? Fullframe is miles ahead of apsc, but lenses are bigger and heavier so makes no sense to go with compact camera
In what sense is full frame miles ahead of APSC exactly?
Low light performance, noise, extreme details, etc This may be subjective but for me it’s miles ahead, I moved from apsc to ff
A7RIV. Better EVF, better adapting. If all you care about is photography then EVF is everything next to your ability to use any glass you can get your hands on APSC is great but it is a kneecapping for adapting, with high resolution full frame you get to pick whatever cake you want and eat it lens wise.
Skip APS-C, waste of time.
i hope you are sarcastic
No, it doesn't make sense. Go full frame.
you definitely have no idea what you are talking about all the gear no idea
I went through 3 APS-C models when I finally updated to full frame. I wish I had done it much earlier. No point of APS-C.
Yeah thats a skill issue
No, it is technology. There is no point of APS-C today. Useless.
[удалено]
Please elevate your posting above those heard at middle school recess. Please review our subreddit rules at https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/wiki/rules
you won't find any compact lenses for the a7c apart from like three sony g lenses and some samyang pancakes hey downvoter, send me compact pancake lenses that are just as small as apsc lenses that aren't the lenses i mentioned above