Need help deciding

[LexRoma]

I need help deciding between the Sony A7C and the A6600. My two must haves: Good low light camera and with lenses a system that won’t weigh me down. I currently have an a6300 with a couple of lenses but I’m not happy with its low light capabilities. I’m more into stills than video. Both the 7c and the 6600 are similar in size and price. What other key factors should I consider to make an informed decision? I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I do believe the A7C is unarguably better in low light. If that is the top of your priorities for buying, then I think it's a no brainer. Also AF is an upgraded version of the A7III off the top of my head, which was obviously a brilliant system already.

Just a thought though, I've noticed the A7IV is going for really good prices recently. A7C's are are $2,600 in Australia, I seen a shop selling the A7IV for $3,100 yesterday...

All the A7 cameras are actually small cameras, so size should never be an issue I think, if that is a reason for the two cameras you mentioned too.

On another note, seeming that you already have a few APSC lenses, another (even larger cost) part of buying an A7 body is the fact you will also want to buy FE lenses to suit, and then the real party starts...

 

[Hank]

What other key factors should I consider to make an informed decision? I appreciate your thoughts.

On another note, seeming that you already have a few APSC lenses, another (even larger cost) part of buying an A7 body is the fact you will also want to buy FE lenses to suit, and then the real party starts...

The A7C has is a full frame sensor so in order to take advantage of that you will need full frame (FE) glass. So keep that in mind.

Out of interest, which lenses do you have? Maybe the answer is in better glass.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Hi Hank. My lens collection is as follows:

Sony 16-35mm f2.8 GM.
Sony 20mm f1.8 G.
Sigma 24-70mm DG DN Art.
Tamron 28-200mm Di III.
Sigma 85mm DG DN Art.
Sigma 105mm DG DN Macro Art.
Sony 200-600mm G.

I run an A7RIII body.

 

[Hank]

Hi Clint, nice collection of lenses there.

I should have arranged the quotes better. I was really directing that question to OP.

 

[LexRoma]

I do believe the A7C is unarguably better in low light. If that is the top of your priorities for buying, then I think it's a no brainer. Also AF is an upgraded version of the A7III off the top of my head, which was obviously a brilliant system already.

Just a thought though, I've noticed the A7IV is going for really good prices recently. A7C's are are $2,600 in Australia, I seen a shop selling the A7IV for $3,100 yesterday...

All the A7 cameras are actually small cameras, so size should never be an issue I think, if that is a reason for the two cameras you mentioned too.

On another note, seeming that you already have a few APSC lenses, another (even larger cost) part of buying an A7 body is the fact you will also want to buy FE lenses to suit, and then the real party starts...

Thank you Maskless Crusader, I very much appreciate your prompt response. I don’t really have many APSC lenses other than the kit lens for the 6300 and a sigma 30 mm. You have helped me steer my decision to the A7c. Yes I will have to buy full frame lenses but thats okay. My photographic interests are street, macro and birds and animals ( I live in Florida so I take trips to the Everglades). What would be the top lenses you would recommen?

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Thank you Maskless Crusader, I very much appreciate your prompt response. I don’t really have many APSC lenses other than the kit lens for the 6300 and a sigma 30 mm. You have helped me steer my decision to the A7c. Yes I will have to buy full frame lenses but thats okay. My photographic interests are street, macro and birds and animals ( I live in Florida so I take trips to the Everglades). What would be the top lenses you would recommen?

You probably shoot similar style to me by the sound of it.

I started out with mostly zoom lenses, then decided I wanted to go to primes, then I ended up going back to zooms. I find that on cliffs, standing in a waterfall, riverside etc you more often than not can't walk forwards or backwards so the zooms are generally way better in my opinion, although I am very fond of my primes that I have but I use those for specific things. Keep in mind that I'm only talking about what feels best for me and I'm sure there are many people here who have a different opinion. Aperture wise, I'm happy with f2.8 lenses, that aperture is all I need so any lens I have which is bigger than that was not bought for that reason.

I'll list in order of what I think is important.
1. 24-70mm f2.8 zoom.
2. 16-35mm zoom.
3. Up to 600mm zoom.
4. 70-200mm zoom.
5. Macro lens.
6. 20mm or 24mm prime.

My actual lens suggestions:
1. Sigma DG DN Art or Sony GM II.
2. Sony GM or the new Sony f4 G.
3. Tamron 150-500mm or Sony 200-600mm.
4. Tamron 28-200mm or Tamron 70-180mm.
5. Sigma 105mm DG DN Macro or Sony 90mm Macro.
6. New Sigma 24mm DG DN or Sony 20mm G.

I think if you get all of these lens types in any of those models I've listed then you will have an extremely solid do it all kit. The 20mm or 24mm primes are absolutely fantastic for street photography, definitely a lovely little luxury to have if you can.

Hope this helps you out a bit mate.

 

[LexRoma]

Thank you buddy for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive list of lenses. I know it’s just your opinion but it seems you know your stuff and have been in Photography for a while. There many different voices out there and I can go crazy entertaining so many different opinions. You said something important about zooms especially since when traveling I don’t want to take too many lenses on the road. I will consider a couple of primes, such as the Tamron 24mm and the Sigma 105mm for local use. Again, thank you for your time and sage advice.

 

[Jeff A]

My most used lens for my A7M4 is the Sony FE 20mm G lens. It performs like a G Master lens, without the G Master price.

 

[LexRoma]

When you say most used, do you mean that you mostly do street photography? thank you.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

That was a tired me writing that out last night. I meant the 24mm Sigma DG DN prime lens. The new Sigma 20mm is too big so I think the Sony 20mm is the better option. And the new Sigma 24mm is smaller than the Sony 24mm, so I think it's the better option.

Keep in mind that I don't really do people portraits, so someone who does alot of that would obviously think that things like an 85mm or 135mm prime are essential.

That list I wrote is essential to me and I feel that I NEED every one of them, but no lens is specific to just one kind of image. A 20mm can be used for many things, but I just really like it on the street because it's pretty small and I can just stick the camera under my shirt when it's raining or what not, it also gives great wide perspectives but the size is number one to me on those occasions. My 85mm Sigma is also great on the street because of it's size, and that focal length forces me to try to take shots I usually wouldn't want to as my default ideology is wide.

The list I wrote there is if cost isn't really of too much concern. I can also write a budget list that will deliver the same results to 99% of people's eyes.

 

[LexRoma]

Hi buddy, yes I would appreciate a list of lenses so that I won’t have to sell my first born on EBay

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

If you do sell the first born, start with a sign on the front lawn or something, as ebay stings you with their commission these days!

I'd probably approach a budget set-up a little differently though. Three lenses to do it all. Maybe something like a Sigma 16-28mm DG DN with the Tamron 28-200mm would be a good start, followed by the Tamron 150-500mm. Buy 72mm filters and a 67-72mm stepper ring so they fit both the small lenses. Unfortunately the big boy won't come cheap, that's just how it is.

If you wanted to cut it really tight, you could even get a Tamron 20mm or 24mm f2.8 prime and run the 28-200mm with that. US$300 I think, and some of the pictures on this site using those primes looked absolutely brilliant! On a budget, the 28-200mm Tamron is your baby though regardless, even not on a budget it still is, it isn't amazing at anything but it does most things very well and especially if you don't go absolutely nuts over bokeh quality then it will never disappoint you at all, not saying the bokeh isn't completely acceptable because it is, but it is the weakest point of that lens, although it does feel disrespectful to say it's a weakness because it still gets the job done.

I think if you get either of those combinations you will be a happy camper. If you get them at discounts too, you will be able to get most of your money back at some point if you decide to upgrade.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I went for the 6600 because of weight and seeing the results my wife was getting with the 6400.

The real weight saving over full frame is not in the body but in the far lighter and more compact lenses.

As someone else has already commented though, the trade off is in low light performance.

Simply put, you can't have both. Sort of, if I'm out and about travelling, 2 small light lenses cover most of my needs. If however I specifically want better low light capabilities, I can take a lens along that will do the job. Over the weekend, I shot a small circus that visited our village. Lighting was abysmal, but the 70 - 200 f2.8 and aps-c 50 f1,8, combined with the 6600 did a fair job. These were all shot as jpegs at 10000 iso, unedited.

• ILCE-6600
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 90.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/50 sec
• ISO 10000

• ILCE-6600
• E 50mm F1.8 OSS
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 10000

• ILCE-6600
• E 50mm F1.8 OSS
• 50.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/800 sec
• ISO 10000

• ILCE-6600
• FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II
• 118.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 10000

At the moment I'm still debating the purchase of a full frame body with myself. That debates been going for a while though.

 

[Jeff A]

When you say most used, do you mean that you mostly do street photography? thank you.

I have yet to do any Street Photography. This lens is versatile and can be used for many tasks.

 

[LexRoma]

I went for the 6600 because of weight and seeing the results my wife was getting with the 6400.

The real weight saving over full frame is not in the body but in the far lighter and more compact lenses.

As someone else has already commented though, the trade off is in low light performance.

Simply put, you can't have both. Sort of, if I'm out and about travelling, 2 small light lenses cover most of my needs. If however I specifically want better low light capabilities, I can take a lens along that will do the job. Over the weekend, I shot a small circus that visited our village. Lighting was abysmal, but the 70 - 200 f2.8 and aps-c 50 f1,8, combined with the 6600 did a fair job. These were all shot as jpegs at 10000 iso, unedited.

View attachment 25168View attachment 25169View attachment 25170View attachment 25171

At the moment I'm still debating the purchase of a full frame body with myself. That debates been going for a while though.

 

[LexRoma]

Thank you Dave. Those are good results even in low light especially of the pretty lady. Like most things in life you can’t have everything, it’s either the home in the Canary Islands or the apartment in London, the Ferrari or the Maserati, unless I win the Lottery . I’d say 90% of my photography is done during the day so getting a lightweight system should be my top consideration.

 

[LexRoma]

Impressive shots! I will definitely look at the Tamron 17-28/2.8. Which camera did you use? Thanks