« Random Excellence: Paul De Zan | Main | Joe Kashi's Wedding Present from his Wife (a Nagaoka) »

Wednesday, 16 September 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This Sony is somewhat interesting to me. I was thinking the other day at a difference site, that what I really want is a digital Barnack that is better than the E-PL1 I have now for that purpose.

So I was pondering the idea of how to find a camera with at least APS-C, built in VF, cheap enough for me and higher rez than the 12mp I currently have with the sole purpose of adapting old Leica screw mount and M mount lenses.

This is high on the cost side and I wonder how their sensor would handle the edges of the Leica lenses on full frame (APS-C cuts off the most troublesome areas inherently) but it might just work for what I want.

But with that price tag I won't be holding my breath. I'll just stick to my D7100 and 45/2.8 AI-P combo.

I don't get it. A rangefinder?

I have a fuji x100t. I'm pretty sure it has video but I've never used it. I tend to use my phone for that. I wonder how much (if anything) video capability adds to the price and detracts from the image quality of a camera?

Sorry, I must have dreamed it was a rangefinder. Don't see it now.

The Leica M-D, type 262, didn't have video.

It looks a lot like my Minolta APS SLR, the Vectis:

I tell ya, you're lucky to walk outta that corner on W 34th with anything in your wallet.
This looks like a fun body to shoot classic Pentax and Leica glass on - small with a big sensor without too many photosites. For actual e-mount lenses, the body is small but the lenses....are not except for a few, somewhat compromised offerings? If you have lots of light, great, but a big part of what I'd look for in a full-frame body is low-light performance, so we're back to huge lenses and defeating a lot of the purpose.

Spec seems good but disagree on lens focal lengths. A 30mm to 60mm f4 would have made more sense. Another question is weight. Yet another is: will Sony make a 'pancake' 40mm fastish lens?

"Snub-nose Sony" ... I love it! As a small boy in Chicago's streets we always knew that the plain-clothes cops all carried S&W snub-nose .38s in holsters under their coats. They were LOUD, something I discovered the first week we moved to an apartment adjacent to a long alley. I was awakened to a ruckus in the middle of the night. Police were chasing a guy through the dark alley. When one detective caught-up with him hiding under a car there was no negotiation; the cop just blasted the guy 3-4 times under the car with his "snub-nosed" .38. It was more than a bit shocking to my 9 year-old eyes (and ears) peering out my bedroom window watching this unfold!

Anyway, I was eager to see the Sony a7C. I've been a fan of Sony's "NEX" camera designs from their beginnings, and I still have a trusty a6500 that has walked many miles of streets with me. But honestly, the a7C doesn't really call to me. The a6500 offers me the same size file from a small, stabilized APS-C body with articulating lcd and good-enough evf already. Plus, I actually like the ability to also mount Sony's diminutive APS-C lenses as well as larger full-frame glass.

I certainly understand the attraction of this camera and salute Sony for carrying that big-sensor-in-small-body concept forward. But -I- just don't need it.

As an aside, my Fujifilm X-T30 has become my favorite small-but-powerful ilc-style camera these days. No ibis but oooh-la-la!


Sony a7C vs. Fujifilm X-T30

Sony a7C vs. Sony Alpha a6500

Yay flippy screen. At last, I don't have to hook up an external monitor to do waist level vertical. I can hold the camera at arm's length pointing in one direction while I am facing another.

I would have pre-ordered one already for the flippy screen if I were doing much people photography.

Mike doesn't like flippy screens but Mike also has a low opinion of the RB Graflex. Now if only Sony or an independent lens maker would make a leaf-shutter lens or better yet Sony would get a global electronic shutter that would synch with flash at high speed I would stop complaining about cameras. When global shutters come it will be the video market that will drive it not the still photographers that want to use fill flash at noon in the desert, so video is fine by me.

As for video, I saw a demo of a photographer using a RED camera to do a portrait and sort through the video to pick the frame. The ability to capture micro-expressions while conversing with the subject was quite impressive. I seem to be really good at capturing micro-expressions that make subjects look like they had a stroke.

10fps still speed with silent shutter would be nice too

Okay, my prediction is Panasonic will follow with a full frame Lumix no larger than the GX series.

BTW: My Sony a850 (bought partially on your recommendation for the a900) has no video capabilities. Heck, it doesn't even have live view! Still a very capable 24 megapixel camera, though.

It's getting fashionable to bring back a pair pf big brother and small brother team - like Lone Ranger and Tonto, Batman and Robin, Nikon and Nikkormat - so that folks can have a choice depending on tastes, budget, size of hands and preference for handguns.

Fuji already makes the small bro' X-E3.

I'm of the old school too who do not take to video like fish to water.

"And we're never going to get one camera that leaves video off altogether, are we?"
Mike, I don't shoot video with my 'Real Cameras" either, although I have some cinema experience, all 16mm Bolex edited with razor blades.
What video I shoot is shot on my phone.
But video capability is inherent in the nature of the today's sensors, so "leaving it out" wouldn't save anything and would add lots of cost to offer two versions of the same camera. I don't use it either, but It does not bother me that it is there. Plus, it enables features like live view which can be very helpful. I guess I only care about what I use and not about what I don't use. Am I missing something?
Is there some important reason I'm missing?

To follow uo on the comment by Rob L, I'd like to pivot to another announcement today from Nikon with another massive 50 mm f1.2. Can I ask a question that I've been asking for years in the hopes of getting a real answer?

If the glass on the Leica M primes is premier and able to be sooooo small, why is this not possible on new ff mirrorless bodies like Sony,Nikon and Canon? I do understand that autofocus, which I DO want, requires some bulk. But that does not account for the difference in size of the front element.

The Nikon 50 1.4 from a few years back was very small and light, albeit still much bigger than the Leica comp. But I always accepted that because of the flange difference, mirror, etc. But haven't we eliminated that piece of the equation? The new Nikon or Canon or Sony 50 1.4's are massive.

Is there anything stopping a 50mm 1.4 native lens for N/S/C mirrorless from being this size (link) in terms of the glass elements? (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/332585-USA/Leica_11891_50mm_f_1_4_Summilux_M.html)

I won't ask the followup regarding adding AF to that size lens until I hear why or why not it might be possible.

On other sites, the writers and commenters are snubbing this camera.

Samyang has some primes from 18mm to 45mm and f1.8 to f2.8 that make the perfect short barrel on this snub-nose.

Excuse me but this camera is just a Sony a7iii with a flat top and a very small view finder. It's not much smaller the Sony a7iii. And just about every part, in and out, is from older Sony cameras.

Check out Jarid Polin's review of this camera. He's on YouTub.


[Not everyone is snubbing it. DPReview said, "The Sony a7C is a really significant camera, in part because it's the first mass-market full-frame model from Sony to be developed after Canon, Nikon and Panasonic entered the full-frame mirrorless market. It's also the biggest deviation from the existing a7 design since that model line was launched back in October 2013." --Mike]

This looks like the replacement for my Rx-1 to me - complete with interchangeable lens. But since I would probably just stick a 35 mm lens on it and leave it there, I think my Rx-1 is safe for the time being. But a 40 mp plus sensor with ibis version of this at the same size and weight (preferably with a higher res. EVF for my ageing eyes) would be more than close enough to my ideal mirrorless camera. I would pay a LOT for that camera (although I would hope a couple of bodies plus several lenses for somewhat less than the Leica M10R body I am trying to save for...).

This looks right up my street but also leaves me irrationally (I suppose, though I can no longer tell) wanting a new Micro Four Thirds body with a modern BSI sensor and the image stabilisation of the Panasonic G9, just for those small and very capable MFT lenses. Ideally, it would have an excellent viewfinder that tilts, like the GX8’s.

It’s not just the small lenses—I’ve come to like the 4:3 aspect ratio a great deal, too, and so have many iPhone users, I suspect.

You know, if I didn't have three systems already, I could go for this camera. It's actually a hair smaller than a Panasonic GX9, and has a sensor that really is in a sweet spot -- FF, 24mp, the same as a Nikon Z6, but more compact. If only...that lens was f/4 across the full range. An f4 28-60 would handle all my wide angle stuff (I don't "see" wide) add a quality 85 for portraits and a mid-to-long f/4 zoom and there I'd be. I even like the looks, somewhat reminds me of the old Yashica Electro-25.

Everything about this announcement was good (lens looks cute, new flashgun is tidy).

Except the viewfinder.

There’s no way I would pay that kind of money for a camera with that standard of viewfinder. I'm sure the EVF is fine but what good is it in a physical design that is so limiting? It’s really a pain if you wear glasses,

That same viewfinder style on my cheap, secondhand NEX-6? I’ll totally live with it. But with that price tag? Heck no.

The A7C seems pitched primarily at video but if Sony were to produce an A7CR pitched more towards travel/landscape e.g perhaps 42meg and definitely with a better EVF then it would be close to my "perfect" camera.

I like it. I might even buy it. I want a small full frame (or bigger) camera. I would buy the body with one lens but key point is that I want to be able to use my existing large number of lenses (Leica M and R mount ones being at the top of the list). Some should perform well, some probably not so well, but that is okay. My current list of alternatives have all some shortcomings. Hasselblad X1Cxz2 or whatever and the big Fuji 50R(?) would be nice and are supposed to work with full frame Leica lenses without at least too much vignetting. I have couple of suitable hasselblad lenses that should do well on these. But the Fuji body is a bit big and heavy and the ‘blad is a bit pricy. I have fondled both of them in a shop. Sigma Fp 1 is good size but lacks viewfinder. Hard to do manual focus. The new mirrorless Nikons, Canons and Panasonics (and the Leica and Sony) are SLR style, I want smaller, not with viewfinder bump in the middle. I want Leica Q with removable lens. So this new Sony is more or less right. Need to find out how well it performs and is it responsive. What are the compromises and shortcomings. I don’t much care for the kit zoom lens but it is good to have one compact autofocus lens for general use, so it could do well for that, and the price is right.

I would want that snubby lens for my A7R2, but DPR's sample shots don't look very good at all.

It's not quite only an A7III with the faux prism box cut off. It also includes Sony's latest autofocus algorithms, which are superior to what's in the A7III. Of course, they'll no doubt be in the A7IV.

On the other hand, the A7c has the older Sony menu, which is not great but I can deal with.

But $1799 body only. Maybe $200 less when it eventually goes on sale. And that's exactly the way I would buy this new Sony. I already have a number of compact (for full frame) Sony and Samyang primes that would fit and balance nicely on the A7c. All featuring f/1.8 or f/2.0 apertures.

Great concept however, you'd just have to hope that the lens is better than the 16-50 they supplied with my NEX-6. I know, software correction, but I'd still like there to be some slight attempt to keep vignetting and distortion under control.

I'm not interested in this in part because any lens(es) that I would be interested in would be so big as to make the reduction in size of the A7c pointless. The 28-60 doesn't quite do it.

I do use a Panasonic GM5 with 12-32 lens which is admittedly not as capable at the limits but covers what I want in a small camera/lens combo a lot better, and I can combine it with the 35-100/4-5.6 and the Laowa 7.5mm/2 for an extremely capable small combo.

As for the comments here and elsewhere about the size of lenses, we have to start with the desire of customers and lens companies to want ever higher levels of performance. We can get lenses with extremely high levels of performance right now for all systems, but they tend to be huge. Only Leica (mostly) produces lenses that are very high performance and small. But extraordinarily expensive. As Peter Karbe, Leica's lens designer has said: "High performance, small size, low cost. Pick two."

Stupid stupid stupid screen! I love shooting waist-level and just want the damn screen to flip from flat to 90 degrees, like my gen-1 Olympus E-M10 does. I never, ever want it flopping out to the side.

I’d never buy it because of the screen, but it looks pretty great otherwise.

For William Lewis, re: the edges of the frame:

it really varies! Some lenses seem to work particularly well but a few do not; my M mount Voigtländer 35mm f/2.5 Color Skopar is wild.

I may be preaching to the choir, so my apologies, but you may wish to research LCC (lens colour cast) profiles, which help you ascertain and then correct for the vignetting and colour casts that you can see with some lenses.

I'm with you, I'm a walk-around photographer. And I also prefer tilt screens. (The flip-out ones are clumsy for tap-to-focus-and-shoot, which is the fastest and easiest way to focus and shoot.)

This camera is incredibly advanced for the size.

Only downside is that the FF format means that most lenses are big.


I have a NEX6, nice little camera. But not well supported. I have a A99 which is another good camera. But not well supported. You might want to wait a year or so to see if Sony will or will not jump onto something else. In the meantime my A99 with my old Minolta lens makes very printable images. Not going to waste money buying into a whole new system every few years. It is kinda like the computer industry isn't it.

Laugh-out-loud humour awards on this one so far to:

Hugh Crawford, Dan Khong, Bhahi and Ilkka.

I needed that.

The lack of two control dials for aperture and shutter kill this for me.

I know you can use the spinning wheel on the back and maybe it's just me but I find moving my thumb down and back uncomfortable and I'd much rather have two dials towards the top of the camera, front and back would be nice but two at the back could work too. What doesn't work for me is the spinning wheel half way down at the back. I find it uncomfortable to use and too easy to knock.

I don't think Sony will change this as people have been asking for two control dials on the A6xxx series ever since they dropped them and nothing has changed.

Can I second Bahi's and JOHN GILLOLLY's comments? I'm a micro 4/3rds person, too. I've never liked the controls on and handling of Sony's cameras when I've picked them up.

I wish that "full frame" digital would fill the gap where micro 4/3rds may have just imploded, namely smaller lens with small body. I happen to prefer the handling/feel of Olympus over Panny, so maybe they could take a few extra design cues from Olympus for the controls and their placement?

It looks like Sony purposely designed the body to look cheap and uncomfortable, despite the spec packed inside.

I wish Sony had sold Oly its sensor for cheaper, and that Oly could then have been able to move on to a BSI sensor update. Right-sized lenses and controls for me.

Or I wish I hadn't my Leica CL and Rokkors burglared from my house a few years back. Then maybe I'd be following Rob L's idea and mounting them on this 7C?

Oh, I wish I wish I wish.

The a6600 has the same specs, the A7C's larger pixel area aside, for 6 bills less, and sports my preferred tilt screen.

The pixel area difference does not give me GAS.

the little s&w36 was the ultimate expression of a concept...it was light, fit in any pocket and was dependable and accurate...a perfect point and shoot

that sony ain't that...not even close

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007