Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?

R8.

squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?rather than start with the body, start with what subjects you photograph and most importantly, what glass you will buy and usethen chose

squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF, the Sony A7C is still the body to beat, which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.

CamerEyes wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF,the Sony A7C is still the body to beat,which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.IBIS is a nice to have feature for a few of the primes that don't have IS, but with the Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS and RF 85 F2 IS glass I have (try investing in great RF glass btw - vs cheaper RF glass), this great RF glass i have already has IS, so it is no big dealThe A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EV -- btw that 2.5 stops is 2.5x2.5 = 6.25 times the amount of light needed to focus in low light.  And the A7C only does 10 fps vs the R8's 20 fps and 40 fps.  And the A7C has a higher price.  And oops, what about the 29 min movie limitation of the A7C and where is the 4K 60p...So maybe for you who would continue to justify your purchase that occurred before the R8 was known, but no, for the majority, the A7C is no longer the small FF body to beat, the reviewers say the R8 is the small FF body to beat.

squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I would really need some information about what subjects you would like to shoot and what lenses you would prefer for that. It's simply impossible to answer your question without that info, sorry.

Really someone compares the non-existing camera :-\ ???And as me tioned above: firstly choose lenses you will use then match the body.

The A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EVAs I remember, Sony is against F2 lens while Canon EOS against F1.2 lens. Still there is advantage for Canon, but not as you stated.Look carefully what the manufacturers claim before comparison.

thunder storm wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I would really need some information about what subjects you would like to shoot and what lenses you would prefer for that. It's simply impossible to answer your question without that info, sorry.+2and provide a 3rd criteria, what budget one hasbtw - I think if you are not invested in Canon FF glass, etc, and a great 50 is your thing, then a new A7CII + new sony 50 F1.4, + the puppy 28-60 make a lot of sense as the future winner - depending on what you shoot and if you can afford itfor you storm, that A7CII could be your light carry, and two body carry with your A74

MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF,the Sony A7C is still the body to beat,which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.IBIS is a nice to have feature for a few of the primes that don't have IS, but with the Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS and RF 85 F2 IS glass I have (try investing in great RF glass btw - vs cheaper RF glass), this great RF glass i have already has IS, so it is no big dealThe A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EV -- btw that 2.5 stops is 2.5x2.5 = 6.25 times the amount of light needed to focus in low light. And the A7C only does 10 fps vs the R8's 20 fps and 40 fps. And the A7C has a higher price. And oops, what about the 29 min movie limitation of the A7C and where is the 4K 60p...So maybe for you who would continue to justify your purchase that occurred before the R8 was known, but no, for the majority, the A7C is no longer the small FF body to beat,the reviewers say the R8 is the small FF body to beat.Without any more information from the OP about use cases and preferences it's simply impossible to give any meaningful advice, regardless whatever reviewers are saying.If you need a very good 24-70mm f/2.8 it makes sense to pick the RF L IS USM and slap the R8 behind it. For primes in the 40-90mm range the FE mount has more to offer, and those lenses work better on an A7C.The OP owns the R7 + RF-s 18-150mm. If - but that's an if - that is the main need the OP should probably compare the RF 24-240mm IS USM to the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 first.

Fotoland wrote:The A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EVAs I remember, Sony is against F2 lens while Canon EOS against F1.2 lens. Still there is advantage for Canon, but not as you stated.Look carefully what the manufacturers claim before comparison.ahh, you are correctCanon EOS R8 Compared to the Sony Alpha 7C (the-digital-picture.com)

thunder storm wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF,the Sony A7C is still the body to beat,which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.IBIS is a nice to have feature for a few of the primes that don't have IS, but with the Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS and RF 85 F2 IS glass I have (try investing in great RF glass btw - vs cheaper RF glass), this great RF glass i have already has IS, so it is no big dealThe A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EV -- btw that 2.5 stops is 2.5x2.5 = 6.25 times the amount of light needed to focus in low light. And the A7C only does 10 fps vs the R8's 20 fps and 40 fps. And the A7C has a higher price. And oops, what about the 29 min movie limitation of the A7C and where is the 4K 60p...So maybe for you who would continue to justify your purchase that occurred before the R8 was known, but no, for the majority, the A7C is no longer the small FF body to beat,the reviewers say the R8 is the small FF body to beat.Without any more information from the OP about use cases and preferences it's simply impossible to give any meaningful advice, regardless whatever reviewers are saying.If you need a very good 24-70mm f/2.8 it makes sense to pick the RF L IS USM and slap the R8 behind it. For primes in the 40-90mm range the FE mount has more to offer, and those lenses work better on an A7C.imo, the f2.8 zooms are great from Canon, but if I were spending that kind of money, the bigger and better bodies make sense vs the small puppy bodieswhereas, the small primes sony now has makes sense on the puppy bodiesThe OP owns the R7 + RF-s 18-150mm. If - but that's an if - that is the main need the OP should probably compare the RF 24-240mm IS USM to the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 first.on a puppy body, that tamy is quite a bit lighter

MAC wrote:thunder storm wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I would really need some information about what subjects you would like to shoot and what lenses you would prefer for that. It's simply impossible to answer your question without that info, sorry.+2and provide a 3rd criteria, what budget one hasbtw - I think if you are not invested in Canon FF glass, etc, and a great 50 is your thing, then a new A7CII + new sony 50 F1.4, + the puppy 28-60 make a lot of sense as the future winner - depending on what you shoot and if you can afford itThat 50mm f/1.4 GM is probably the sweet spot for just one prime for both walk around purposes and portraits.for you storm, that A7CII could be your light carry, and two body carry with your A74It should have a front dial and 32Mp. Not sure if that happens. And at that point I would sell the R5.  I don't want three full frame bodies. Low light AF with both the 50mm f/1.2 GM and 28mm Art is good enough with the A7IV.Selling the R5 means ditching the EF 24-70mm mkII as well, and R5 is also the preferred camera for the RF 105mm f/1.4, at least for handling, and very likely for AF too (didn't test it yet with the A7IV). Of course I could ditch the 105 Art as well and use the 85mm f/1.4 DN in stead, but the 105mm has better AF on the R5 than the 85mm DN on the A7IV.  I also expect the 85mm DN to have a less nice rendering, but that's too early to tell from my own experience for now.The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII is replaceable (by something darker and a bunch of primes), but the 105mm art isn't.  If Sony releases an 85mm f/1.2 GM with for linear XD motors and a nice rendering it could be game over for Canon for me. I don't need the A7CII for that, a second A7IV might do as well.

MAC wrote:thunder storm wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF,the Sony A7C is still the body to beat,which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.IBIS is a nice to have feature for a few of the primes that don't have IS, but with the Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS and RF 85 F2 IS glass I have (try investing in great RF glass btw - vs cheaper RF glass), this great RF glass i have already has IS, so it is no big dealThe A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EV -- btw that 2.5 stops is 2.5x2.5 = 6.25 times the amount of light needed to focus in low light. And the A7C only does 10 fps vs the R8's 20 fps and 40 fps. And the A7C has a higher price. And oops, what about the 29 min movie limitation of the A7C and where is the 4K 60p...So maybe for you who would continue to justify your purchase that occurred before the R8 was known, but no, for the majority, the A7C is no longer the small FF body to beat,the reviewers say the R8 is the small FF body to beat.Without any more information from the OP about use cases and preferences it's simply impossible to give any meaningful advice, regardless whatever reviewers are saying.If you need a very good 24-70mm f/2.8 it makes sense to pick the RF L IS USM and slap the R8 behind it. For primes in the 40-90mm range the FE mount has more to offer, and those lenses work better on an A7C.imo, the f2.8 zooms are great from Canon, but if I were spending that kind of money, the bigger and better bodies make sense vs the small puppy bodiesI disagree here. The L zoom is stabilized and enables fast AF. The R8 is enables fast AF and the sensor has great specs.  The bokeh of the lens is pretty nice so you can do your headshots with the standard zoom. And for handling: just use two hands, and if balancing is that important just find the centre of gravity of the combo.  Spoiler alert: That centre of gravity can be on the lens in stead of the body, but that doesn't mean it's not there. ;-).whereas, the small primes sony now has makes sense on the puppy bodiesThe OP owns the R7 + RF-s 18-150mm. If - but that's an if - that is the main need the OP should probably compare the RF 24-240mm IS USM to the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 first.on a puppy body, that tamy is quite a bit lighterI'm reading mixed reports, so I'm not convinced (yet).

The "magic" of the A7C II would be the improved menus and SOOC color rendition. The new Sony's are pretty good. Simply because something new comes out doesn't mean it's better, well it usually is, but better than what you have? Not necessarily.Choose a system based off lens/es.For example, I don't recommend folks switch to the RF-S yet from the M system if the lenses they desire don't exist yet.M users can't do without a 11-22 or 32mm.I myself am "glued" to RF due to the RF 28-70 F/2L. That's a lens I simply can't do without. Even though it's pained me at times.Speaking of the RF-S mount, the 18-150 itself is pretty fierce, it's a superzoom ported form the M, that doesn't "stink". That lens alone is worthy of folA7C II potential users should consider it for the 28-60 and the Samyang f/1.8 prime collection, IMO. And some of the Tamrons and Sigmas.Where a hypothetical matchup comes to play? That 24-50 vs the 28-60. Also, what other lenses will come in tow if you're considering either that someone already has, or wants? That's how to decide. That A7 IV sensor is better, but the story is the improved handling and color rendition. Should a A7C II emerge, it levels the playing field where most cameras these days all themselves are "good", with certain caveats.

thunder storm wrote:MAC wrote:thunder storm wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I would really need some information about what subjects you would like to shoot and what lenses you would prefer for that. It's simply impossible to answer your question without that info, sorry.+2and provide a 3rd criteria, what budget one hasbtw - I think if you are not invested in Canon FF glass, etc, and a great 50 is your thing, then a new A7CII + new sony 50 F1.4, + the puppy 28-60 make a lot of sense as the future winner - depending on what you shoot and if you can afford itThat 50mm f/1.4 GM is probably the sweet spot for just one prime for both walk around purposes and portraits.agreefor you storm, that A7CII could be your light carry, and two body carry with your A74It should have a front dial and 32Mp. Not sure if that happens.we shall seeAnd at that point I would sell the R5. I don't want three full frame bodies.understood, perhaps sell now with migration planLow light AF with both the 50mm f/1.2 GM and 28mm Art is good enough with the A7IV.agreeand perhaps even re-consider the tamy 35-150 f2.8 -- @ f2.8 is should be ok with -3EVSelling the R5 means ditching the EF 24-70mm mkII as well, and R5 is also the preferred camera for the RF 105mm f/1.4, at least for handling, and very likely for AF too (didn't test it yet with the A7IV).ahh, you need to do that testOf course I could ditch the 105 Art as well and use the 85mm f/1.4 DN in stead, but the 105mm has better AF on the R5 than the 85mm DN on the A7IV.are there other alternatives to the heavy 105?I also expect the 85mm DN to have a less nice rendering, but that's too early to tell from my own experience for now.The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII is replaceable (by something darker and a bunch of primes), but the 105mm art isn't.a 135 perhaps?If Sony releases an 85mm f/1.2 GM with for linear XD motors and a nice rendering it could be game over for Canon for me. I don't need the A7CII for that, a second A7IV might do as well.consider with your prime approach a two body carry solution -- but not carrying heavy $10,000 of stuff as you travel as light as possible

RLight wrote:The "magic" ofthe A7C II would be the improved menus and SOOC color rendition.^thisThe new Sony's are pretty good. Simply because something new comes out doesn't mean it's better, well it usually is, but better than what you have? Not necessarily.Choose a system based off lens/es.For example, I don't recommend folks switch to the RF-S yet from the M system if the lenses they desire don't exist yet.M users can't do without a 11-22 or 32mm.^thisI myself am "glued" to RF due to the RF 28-70 F/2L. That's a lens I simply can't do without. Even though it's pained me at times.Speaking of the RF-S mount, the 18-150 itself is pretty fierce,^ I was surprised this lens is not the lens you orderedit's a superzoom ported form the M, that doesn't "stink". That lens alone is worthy of folA7C II potential users should consider it for the 28-60 and the Samyang f/1.8 prime collection, IMO. And some of the Tamrons and Sigmas.well, the new Sony 50 f1.4 lens is light and a killer lensWhere a hypothetical matchup comes to play? That 24-50 vs the 28-60.for me those are ok, but boring.  The sony 50 f1.4 would be excitingAlso, what other lenses will come in tow if you're considering either that someone already has, or wants? That's how to decide. That A7 IV sensor is better, but the story is the improved handling and color rendition. Should a A7C II emerge, it levels the playing field where most cameras these days all themselves are "good", with certain caveats.for me the R8 is about the great RF F4L zooms and the good RF 85 F2 IS and the RF 100-400 + extthe A7CII would be about the great sony 50 f1.4 and the good 28-60the R10 would be about the RF 18 -150 but that doesn't have its foot in the door for lowlight indoors whereas my Rf F4L's on FF dothe R50 would drive me crazy without a BBF and having to hit another button to switch the only one dial

MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF,the Sony A7C is still the body to beat,which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.IBIS is a nice to have feature for a few of the primes that don't have IS, but with the Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS and RF 85 F2 IS glass I have (try investing in great RF glass btw - vs cheaper RF glass), this great RF glass i have already has IS, so it is no big dealThe A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EV -- btw that 2.5 stops is 2.5x2.5 = 6.25 times the amount of light needed to focus in low light. And the A7C only does 10 fps vs the R8's 20 fps and 40 fps. And the A7C has a higher price. And oops, what about the 29 min movie limitation of the A7C and where is the 4K 60p...So maybe for you who would continue to justify your purchase that occurred before the R8 was known, but no, for the majority, the A7C is no longer the small FF body to beat, the reviewers say the R8 is the small FF body to beat.In the first place, I have an R6Mii and an R7. So no, I don't need to justify my purchase of the A7C. I am sharing my perspective of competitive entry-level FF cameras.IBIS is no longer nice to have. Even Fuji's recent models have them. The lenses you mentioned are not within the price range of first FF camera buyers. The RF16mm and the RF50mm lenses are very affordable to them, except that they don't have IBIS. And you exaggerated the focus acquisition spec to justify your preference of the R8, a camera you do not own, have not used versus my A7C with which I have taken hundreds of photos by now using five different lenses.Your armchair critiquing is getting old. Go out and shoot. Buy those cameras. Use them. Observe. Share your experience. You are postulating from a position of specs - totally without any first-hand experience. And then of course you will justify that with the millions of YouTube reviewersFor all the limitations on videos, etc. that you mentioned regarding the A7C, that is why I remain invested in the RF system, for which both my R6Mii and R7 are stellar. They are however not entry-level FF cameras.And again, that's based on actual shooting experiences inside studios and out in the field.

thunder storm wrote:MAC wrote:thunder storm wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?I answered this question even before the R8 came out: For entry-level FF,the Sony A7C is still the body to beat,which is why I bought it and sold my RP. The RP and R8 both do not have IBIS, which is me is a major omission. Not least, the battery life from LP-E17 is a joke compared to what Sony uses in the A7C.The A7Cii will likely have IBIS as well. Canon needs to stop making IBIS a "premium feature" as well as come up with a better battery solution for smaller bodies.IBIS is a nice to have feature for a few of the primes that don't have IS, but with the Canon RF 24-105 F4 IS and RF 85 F2 IS glass I have (try investing in great RF glass btw - vs cheaper RF glass), this great RF glass i have already has IS, so it is no big dealThe A7C lacks a sufficient viewfinder, has a poorer focus acquisition spec of only -4 EV vs the R8's -6.5 EV -- btw that 2.5 stops is 2.5x2.5 = 6.25 times the amount of light needed to focus in low light. And the A7C only does 10 fps vs the R8's 20 fps and 40 fps. And the A7C has a higher price. And oops, what about the 29 min movie limitation of the A7C and where is the 4K 60p...So maybe for you who would continue to justify your purchase that occurred before the R8 was known, but no, for the majority, the A7C is no longer the small FF body to beat,the reviewers say the R8 is the small FF body to beat.Without any more information from the OP about use cases and preferences it's simply impossible to give any meaningful advice, regardless whatever reviewers are saying.If you need a very good 24-70mm f/2.8 it makes sense to pick the RF L IS USM and slap the R8 behind it. For primes in the 40-90mm range the FE mount has more to offer, and those lenses work better on an A7C.imo, the f2.8 zooms are great from Canon, but if I were spending that kind of money, the bigger and better bodies make sense vs the small puppy bodiesI disagree here. The L zoom is stabilized and enables fast AF. The R8 is enables fast AF and the sensor has great specs. The bokeh of the lens is pretty nice so you can do your headshots with the standard zoom. And for handling: just use two hands, and if balancing is that important just find the centre of gravity of the combo. Spoiler alert: That centre of gravity can be on the lens in stead of the body, but that doesn't mean it's not there. ;-).whereas, the small primes sony now has makes sense on the puppy bodiesThe OP owns the R7 + RF-s 18-150mm. If - but that's an if - that is the main need the OP should probably compare the RF 24-240mm IS USM to the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 first.on a puppy body, that tamy is quite a bit lighterI'm reading mixed reports, so I'm not convinced (yet).Agree on center of gravity being with the lens on my RP, which is similar to the dimensions of the R8.But at what price point, compared with other entry-level FF systems? The RF24-70mm and other stabilized lenses plus the cost of an R8 is likely not within the reach of first-time FF buyers.

squarewave wrote:Let's say the A7C II is announced with the same form factor, buttons, physical controls etc and the only changes are that it has the new menus, the A7 IV sensor, and cropped 4K 60 recording for $1800.If you were in the market for a compact FF camera and the choice was down to the R8 or A7C II as described above, which would you choose?Depends on what you shoot and also how each camera handles for you. I don't have the Sony A7C but I have a similar rangefinder form with the A6600. I love it for travel and walkabouts. It's my go-to camera for those activities.Unsure if Sony will bump up the MP to 33MP and that would be plus if it will use the A7IV sensor.Obviously the lenses available for each camera matters.If you are planning to shoot sports I'll favour the R8. But again it also depends on the lens availability and budget.