Fotoland wrote:The problem is R8 price except for US. It is good price in US for $1500. But everywhere else is something like $1700 or $1800, which seems to fall A7C II price range.Good point.  So Sony keeps the same price price from country to country even considering VAT and other taxes?

MAC wrote:dmanthree wrote:MikeJ9116 wrote:I don't see either camera pulling a person away from the ecosystem in which they are already invested.True, but my answer was based on starting from scratch.you answered the Sony, what lenses would you put on it?Depends on the first uses. For example, for travel the 20-70 plus a compact 70-200 zoom would make a nice travel kit. Lots more choices for that mount right now.

MikeJ9116 wrote:dmanthree wrote:MikeJ9116 wrote:I don't see either camera pulling a person away from the ecosystem in which they are already invested.True, but my answer was based on starting from scratch.The premise of your question isn't applicable in the real world. The number of people who dive into FF ILC photography starting with a $1,500-$2,000 camera plus thousands of dollars in lenses and other accessories, are very, very few. I would wager a person just getting into photography would buy Canon gear based on their reputation. Many people know Canon as a quality camera company. I don't think the first thing most people who are just becoming interested in photography will think about Sony as an option. The overwhelming majority of people buying ILCs these days have been doing so for a long, long time and are already invested in a brand.I was answering the OP's question, nothing more. He asked that if I was in the market for a compact FF cam, what would *I* buy?

dmanthree wrote:MAC wrote:dmanthree wrote:MikeJ9116 wrote:I don't see either camera pulling a person away from the ecosystem in which they are already invested.True, but my answer was based on starting from scratch.you answered the Sony, what lenses would you put on it?Depends on the first uses. For example, for travel the 20-70 plus a compact 70-200 zoom would make a nice travel kit. Lots more choices for that mount right now.list them specifically please and we'll add up the weights

dmanthree wrote:MikeJ9116 wrote:dmanthree wrote:MikeJ9116 wrote:I don't see either camera pulling a person away from the ecosystem in which they are already invested.True, but my answer was based on starting from scratch.The premise of your question isn't applicable in the real world. The number of people who dive into FF ILC photography starting with a $1,500-$2,000 camera plus thousands of dollars in lenses and other accessories, are very, very few. I would wager a person just getting into photography would buy Canon gear based on their reputation. Many people know Canon as a quality camera company. I don't think the first thing most people who are just becoming interested in photography will think about Sony as an option. The overwhelming majority of people buying ILCs these days have been doing so for a long, long time and are already invested in a brand.I was answering the OP's question, nothing more. He asked that if I was in the market for a compact FF cam, what would *I* buy?The OP owns Canon gear to include the R7.  IMO, his best choice is the R8 unless he wants the expense and hassles of running two independent systems.  Especially since it appears that he is migrating from the M system to the R system for his APS-C needs.

MAC wrote:CamerEyes 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.In the first place, I have an R6Mii and an R7. So no, I don't need to justify my purchase of the A7C.good for uI am sharing my perspective of competitive entry-level FF cameras.which is different thanmajorreviewersIBIS is no longer nice to have.We could also say video recording more than 29 minutes is no longer a nice to have - look, you had to buy more bodies to get basic featuresWe could also say, spending more than $1500 for a body should get you more than 10 fpsEven Fuji's recent models have them.Fuji is heavy pricing to pay for APSC and heavy system for APSC for a system that lags behind in subject trackingThe lenses you mentioned are not within the price range of first FF camera buyers.The RF 85 F2 IS most certainly is, particularly during xmas pricingand three xmas's ago I got my RP + RF 24-105 F4L for $1700, less than the price you paid for your A7C.The RF16mm and the RF50mm lenses are very affordable to them, except that they don't have IBIS.if this affordability is the thing, then these 2 lenses are not the reason to get FF. One is better off with APSCAnd you exaggerated the focus acquisition spec to justify your preference of the R8,you exaggerate one reason out of several I gaveand yes, R8 is still better focusing in low light, which becomes an issue with slower glassa camera you do not own,An R8 camera that I have pre-ordered, after using more than 15 Canon bodies over two decades, and has beenwidely reviewed by major reviewershave not used versus my A7C with which I have taken hundreds of photos by now using five different lenses.hundreds? well I guess that is what happens with limited use and only 10fpsI've taken more than a million shots in more than 2 decades, and prefer to take advice from major reviewersYour armchair critiquing is getting old.What gets old is you claiming I have little experienceActually it appears I have more investments in RF glass than you doGo 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.I do shoot. 25 weddings as primary with a pro second shooter. Many paid events. Nowadays travel being retired. The R8 has most of the guts of the R6II in a small body. The major reviewers say it is hard to beat for the price. I know the RF glass I intend to run on it.And then of course you will justify that with the millions of YouTube reviewerscorrection, Major Reviewers who have used production camerasFor all the limitations on videos, etc. that you mentioned regarding the A7C, that is why I remain invested in the RF system,and the reason why, in part, many including me would not buy the A7C - we want more than it offersfor which both my R6Mii and R7 are stellar. They are however not entry-level FF cameras.RP was what I'd call entry level - I got mine for $850. With the R8 having many of the guts of the R6II, I'd call it a powerhouse puppy for the priceAnd again, that's based on actual shooting experiences inside studios and out in the field.for travel, A7C with the greater selection of small lenses is fine (40 f2.5, 28-60). But some of us want more than that and the major reviewers provide those distinguishing features, with most of the guts of your R6II for just $1499Would you like me to link to the major reviewers? Or do you just watch all the minor youtubers?Singing praises before you even get to use the camera. Dime a dozen in this forum.

thunder storm wrote:CamerEyes wrote: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.That's the problem with the RF mount in a nutshell.Or an opportunity to shoot with two systems, which is what I did. Best of both worlds considering their gears are no longer cost prohibitive, not like most people who are getting their hands into their very first FF camera.

MAC wrote:thunder storm wrote:MAC wrote: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 planThat is a financially point of view. The thing is: the camera is creating very nice pictures for me, and I'm not ready to part with it.I see that, thanks for showing us the photos belowLow 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 -3EVMaybe. A zoom wins for immediacy, can't beat that with a dual camera setup.I heard Dustin Abbott say he loves his. And I think I read his site where Tamy is doing firmware updates to improve speed when they canSelling 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 testI'm not in a hurry. I just did a shoot with my daughter in the arboretum, 50GM on the A7IV, 105Art on the R5. I rather spend my time enjoying the glass without lens changes than spilling time on AF tests. I know from a lot of personal experience the R5 + 105mm delivers for AF tracking for me, and that's more important than anything.Never change a winning team.got it,agree with the matches made in heavenIn that arboretum I also had to pose as a model by the way, as my daughter shoots an M100 + 32mm f/1.4 (didn't have the time to sell that lens, so...). She's also photographing flowers, insects, and the information boards to remember what tree it is.now that is priceless time spent with your daughter -- and she gets the great lens - that is precious!!!Good times. And spring is just starting.Maybe I should just do this every weekend with every week other trees and bushes with blossoms and flowers.yes indeed, as much as you can!AF tests with an MC11? Hell no. There are more important things in life.Looks like you got your priorities right!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.are there other alternatives to the heavy 105?Beside the EF 85mm f/1.4 IS USM maybe it's the best "85mm" for fast AF (beside some f/1.8 options maybe, but I want a wider aperture). It's also the best portrait lens for round bokeh balls and other rendering aspects. A large front element is heavy, but you will get IQ in return.I see that in your photo with the 105 belowThe RF 28-70mm f/2.0 has the best rendering of any standard zoom for the same reason. It's not just the f/2.0 spec.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?Too much compression for my taste, and even less flexible than the 105mm. 105mm can be a pain sometimes already. You will loose light as it's also f/1.8 in stead of f/1.4. Without ILIS a longer FL needs faster shutter speeds as well.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 possibleI do find it nice to reduce some weight, however, I'm not obsessed with it. No 85mm DN in the bag today. Nice bokeh makes lenses less heavy:Thank you for posting these storm wide open, SOOC, and iso 100seeing your 105 mm shot, I can see why this lens is known as the Bokeh Master!and seeing your 50 mm examples, I agree with Atsuo!"Speaking as an optical designer, it's no exaggeration to call this lens the pinnacle of the G Master series, with the ultimate in resolution and bokeh." [Atsuo Kikuchi, Sony]for this one, if you take the SOOC shot and apply a one click in photoshop on auto tone and then apply a bit of vibrance and a bit of saturation, the photograph warms up and just pops bigtimeDon't worry, I will.105mm&f/1.4 SOOC (Is it better than the A7IV?). -0.3 EC was wrong, the R5 is smarter than I am sometimes.....This is the 50mm f/1.2 GM btw:yes, the SOOC tone and colors of your 50 are more pleasing than your 105 - but you can process your 105 photos to pop alsof/1.2 SOOC Is it me or is are the warmer colours more pleasing?ahh, nice memories, and great activity together and glad you gave her one of the best lenses on the planet!f/1.2 not the greatest composition in the world, but there where very few spots with some botanic colours as spring is just starting here. I liked the contrast with the brown autumn leaves which apparently have forgotten about seasons.The cloudy day overall acted like a giant softbox -- a great lighting situation to avoid shadows for iso 100Most of the time those clouds where blocking the light a bit too much.the one below had some backlit situation with the water reflections which is more challenging SOOCR5 does these kind of situations very well.\There's a person in the background unfortunately. f/1.2 helps though. Maybe this is the A7IV pic with the least pleasing SOOC.and the bokeh torture test did better than most other lenses could doI'm satisfied with this result for sure.f/1.2 Bokeh torture test. My daughter liked the shapes of branches of the "tree" so she commanded here photographer to take this picture.f/1.2 as a landscape aperture. 32Mp only though. I'm so sorry the corners are either out of focus or blown out. If you pixel peep you'll see a bridge in the background on the right side of the picture just on the left of the chimney. That's 15.9 Km away, and we're at 50mm here.thanks again for posting picsThis is all f/1.2, but remember, the f/1.4 GM is very close for creating bokeh and just as sharp wide open, and it does itweighting only 516 grams.In my opinion that's a huge benefit of the A7C over the RP.I'd agree with that if 50 mm prime is the main thing for the buyerthen again, such a great lens may deserve a better body like your A74Makes sense.for me, the RF 24-105 F4L and RF 85 F2 IS were the main things for Rp and soon the new R8 i will receive - and will someday add the RF 100-400 and 1.4 ext to the R8 lineupGood stuff.The pictures of me taken by my daughter are her intellectual property, so unfortunately I can't show those pics here to get some feedback on my posing skills.hehe, she keeps pictures of you to herself -- sweet memories for sureMy daughter posing like this and steering her photographer makes me contemplating my needs for AF tracking speeds. For my youngest kid those needs are out of doubt, but apparently these things can change. The 4x XD linear motor equipped 85mm f/1.2 GM or RF 85mm f/1.2 (Ü)USM mkII might come too late for me.I think you've helped me understand the need for speed with these primes -- one invests in the latest technology for subject tracking and then has to resort to spot focus with stm focus systems -- so what Sony is doing with those motors is great to be able to keep up with the bodies auto subject tracking -- hopefully they push Canon on improving the speed motors in their primes.I hope so.Now if we are talking zoom sports lenses like the RF 70-200, Canon has us covered.That's what most photographers will use for tracking action anyway.For me the pop can sized RF 70-200 F4L may be in my future. When subjects are moving fast, I care about focus primarily, bokeh is not on my mindContinue to enjoy!Thanks, I will.  Let me know when your R8 has arrived.

jumpthesnark wrote:CamerEyes wrote: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.Classic deficit thinking.Deficit thinking is focusing on the deficit versus exploring a solution via appreciative inquiry. I did not problem-solve, in fact. I appreciated what was available from other systems, which frees up my options. It made me decide to pursue an opportunity to try other camera systems from other brands. And while I am still invested in RF bodies and RF / EF lenses, I am now developing the acumen to operate two systems.

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?First of all, I don’t think it will have the a7iv innards, for two reasons, 1.) Sony always tends to carry forward all new developments from cameras, what exactly that means in this case i don’t know, but the a7c had real time tracking, which the a7iii did not. Some of the more advanced af from the a7rV would be great, as would the more effective ibis. 2.) the a7c body would not be equally effective at dissipating heat, so maybe some of the higher end video modes would need to be cut.second, the weakest part of the a7c is the evf, not so much resolution, but size, so whether they choose to do something about that, is the most important question imo.third, there is no guarantee that it retains the same body. In fact, no Sony full frame camera to date has retained the previous gen body. If anything I think smaller could make more sense. Along those lines, there is no guarantee it continues to share sensor with the a7 line. In many ways, it would make more sense if it dropped the physical shutter and adopted the a9 sensor. Or, alternatively, got a higher res sensor like the 42 or 61mp.

CamerEyes wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes 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.In the first place, I have an R6Mii and an R7. So no, I don't need to justify my purchase of the A7C.good for uI am sharing my perspective of competitive entry-level FF cameras.which is different thanmajorreviewersIBIS is no longer nice to have.We could also say video recording more than 29 minutes is no longer a nice to have - look, you had to buy more bodies to get basic featuresWe could also say, spending more than $1500 for a body should get you more than 10 fpsEven Fuji's recent models have them.Fuji is heavy pricing to pay for APSC and heavy system for APSC for a system that lags behind in subject trackingThe lenses you mentioned are not within the price range of first FF camera buyers.The RF 85 F2 IS most certainly is, particularly during xmas pricingand three xmas's ago I got my RP + RF 24-105 F4L for $1700, less than the price you paid for your A7C.The RF16mm and the RF50mm lenses are very affordable to them, except that they don't have IBIS.if this affordability is the thing, then these 2 lenses are not the reason to get FF. One is better off with APSCAnd you exaggerated the focus acquisition spec to justify your preference of the R8,you exaggerate one reason out of several I gaveand yes, R8 is still better focusing in low light, which becomes an issue with slower glassa camera you do not own,An R8 camera that I have pre-ordered, after using more than 15 Canon bodies over two decades, and has beenwidely reviewed by major reviewershave not used versus my A7C with which I have taken hundreds of photos by now using five different lenses.hundreds? well I guess that is what happens with limited use and only 10fpsI've taken more than a million shots in more than 2 decades, and prefer to take advice from major reviewersYour armchair critiquing is getting old.What gets old is you claiming I have little experienceActually it appears I have more investments in RF glass than you doGo 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.I do shoot. 25 weddings as primary with a pro second shooter. Many paid events. Nowadays travel being retired. The R8 has most of the guts of the R6II in a small body. The major reviewers say it is hard to beat for the price. I know the RF glass I intend to run on it.And then of course you will justify that with the millions of YouTube reviewerscorrection, Major Reviewers who have used production camerasFor all the limitations on videos, etc. that you mentioned regarding the A7C, that is why I remain invested in the RF system,and the reason why, in part, many including me would not buy the A7C - we want more than it offersfor which both my R6Mii and R7 are stellar. They are however not entry-level FF cameras.RP was what I'd call entry level - I got mine for $850. With the R8 having many of the guts of the R6II, I'd call it a powerhouse puppy for the priceAnd again, that's based on actual shooting experiences inside studios and out in the field.for travel, A7C with the greater selection of small lenses is fine (40 f2.5, 28-60). But some of us want more than that and the major reviewers provide those distinguishing features, with most of the guts of your R6II for just $1499Would you like me to link to the major reviewers? Or do you just watch all the minor youtubers?Singing praises before you even get to use the camera. Dime a dozen in this forum.and it is ironic that you dis the R8 against your A7C having never even used the R8so we need to consider what folks have to say who have used bothso David is a pro reviewer who has used the A7C for years and he spent days with the R8, certainly taking more than your few hundred shots with your A7C, and here is what he has to say:Canon EOS R8 Review: The Best Full-Frame Canon for Most People | PetaPixel

MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes 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.In the first place, I have an R6Mii and an R7. So no, I don't need to justify my purchase of the A7C.good for uI am sharing my perspective of competitive entry-level FF cameras.which is different thanmajorreviewersIBIS is no longer nice to have.We could also say video recording more than 29 minutes is no longer a nice to have - look, you had to buy more bodies to get basic featuresWe could also say, spending more than $1500 for a body should get you more than 10 fpsEven Fuji's recent models have them.Fuji is heavy pricing to pay for APSC and heavy system for APSC for a system that lags behind in subject trackingThe lenses you mentioned are not within the price range of first FF camera buyers.The RF 85 F2 IS most certainly is, particularly during xmas pricingand three xmas's ago I got my RP + RF 24-105 F4L for $1700, less than the price you paid for your A7C.The RF16mm and the RF50mm lenses are very affordable to them, except that they don't have IBIS.if this affordability is the thing, then these 2 lenses are not the reason to get FF. One is better off with APSCAnd you exaggerated the focus acquisition spec to justify your preference of the R8,you exaggerate one reason out of several I gaveand yes, R8 is still better focusing in low light, which becomes an issue with slower glassa camera you do not own,An R8 camera that I have pre-ordered, after using more than 15 Canon bodies over two decades, and has beenwidely reviewed by major reviewershave not used versus my A7C with which I have taken hundreds of photos by now using five different lenses.hundreds? well I guess that is what happens with limited use and only 10fpsI've taken more than a million shots in more than 2 decades, and prefer to take advice from major reviewersYour armchair critiquing is getting old.What gets old is you claiming I have little experienceActually it appears I have more investments in RF glass than you doGo 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.I do shoot. 25 weddings as primary with a pro second shooter. Many paid events. Nowadays travel being retired. The R8 has most of the guts of the R6II in a small body. The major reviewers say it is hard to beat for the price. I know the RF glass I intend to run on it.And then of course you will justify that with the millions of YouTube reviewerscorrection, Major Reviewers who have used production camerasFor all the limitations on videos, etc. that you mentioned regarding the A7C, that is why I remain invested in the RF system,and the reason why, in part, many including me would not buy the A7C - we want more than it offersfor which both my R6Mii and R7 are stellar. They are however not entry-level FF cameras.RP was what I'd call entry level - I got mine for $850. With the R8 having many of the guts of the R6II, I'd call it a powerhouse puppy for the priceAnd again, that's based on actual shooting experiences inside studios and out in the field.for travel, A7C with the greater selection of small lenses is fine (40 f2.5, 28-60). But some of us want more than that and the major reviewers provide those distinguishing features, with most of the guts of your R6II for just $1499Would you like me to link to the major reviewers? Or do you just watch all the minor youtubers?Singing praises before you even get to use the camera. Dime a dozen in this forum.and it is ironic that you dis the R8 against your A7C having never even used the R8so we need to consider what folks have to say who have used bothWe know a lot about the R8 already since it uses the same basic internals as the R6/2, has the same menu system and basically the same firmware.so David is a pro reviewer who has used the A7C for years and he spent days with the R8, certainly taking more than your few hundred shots with your A7C, and here is what he has to say:Canon EOS R8 Review: The Best Full-Frame Canon for Most People | PetaPixel

MAC wrote:dmanthree wrote:MAC wrote:dmanthree wrote:MikeJ9116 wrote:I don't see either camera pulling a person away from the ecosystem in which they are already invested.True, but my answer was based on starting from scratch.you answered the Sony, what lenses would you put on it?Depends on the first uses. For example, for travel the 20-70 plus a compact 70-200 zoom would make a nice travel kit. Lots more choices for that mount right now.list them specifically please and we'll add up the weightsnah, I've made my point. Not going to start a "this vs that" thread. Pointless.

MikeJ9116 wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes wrote:MAC wrote:CamerEyes 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.In the first place, I have an R6Mii and an R7. So no, I don't need to justify my purchase of the A7C.good for uI am sharing my perspective of competitive entry-level FF cameras.which is different thanmajorreviewersIBIS is no longer nice to have.We could also say video recording more than 29 minutes is no longer a nice to have - look, you had to buy more bodies to get basic featuresWe could also say, spending more than $1500 for a body should get you more than 10 fpsEven Fuji's recent models have them.Fuji is heavy pricing to pay for APSC and heavy system for APSC for a system that lags behind in subject trackingThe lenses you mentioned are not within the price range of first FF camera buyers.The RF 85 F2 IS most certainly is, particularly during xmas pricingand three xmas's ago I got my RP + RF 24-105 F4L for $1700, less than the price you paid for your A7C.The RF16mm and the RF50mm lenses are very affordable to them, except that they don't have IBIS.if this affordability is the thing, then these 2 lenses are not the reason to get FF. One is better off with APSCAnd you exaggerated the focus acquisition spec to justify your preference of the R8,you exaggerate one reason out of several I gaveand yes, R8 is still better focusing in low light, which becomes an issue with slower glassa camera you do not own,An R8 camera that I have pre-ordered, after using more than 15 Canon bodies over two decades, and has beenwidely reviewed by major reviewershave not used versus my A7C with which I have taken hundreds of photos by now using five different lenses.hundreds? well I guess that is what happens with limited use and only 10fpsI've taken more than a million shots in more than 2 decades, and prefer to take advice from major reviewersYour armchair critiquing is getting old.What gets old is you claiming I have little experienceActually it appears I have more investments in RF glass than you doGo 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.I do shoot. 25 weddings as primary with a pro second shooter. Many paid events. Nowadays travel being retired. The R8 has most of the guts of the R6II in a small body. The major reviewers say it is hard to beat for the price. I know the RF glass I intend to run on it.And then of course you will justify that with the millions of YouTube reviewerscorrection, Major Reviewers who have used production camerasFor all the limitations on videos, etc. that you mentioned regarding the A7C, that is why I remain invested in the RF system,and the reason why, in part, many including me would not buy the A7C - we want more than it offersfor which both my R6Mii and R7 are stellar. They are however not entry-level FF cameras.RP was what I'd call entry level - I got mine for $850. With the R8 having many of the guts of the R6II, I'd call it a powerhouse puppy for the priceAnd again, that's based on actual shooting experiences inside studios and out in the field.for travel, A7C with the greater selection of small lenses is fine (40 f2.5, 28-60). But some of us want more than that and the major reviewers provide those distinguishing features, with most of the guts of your R6II for just $1499Would you like me to link to the major reviewers? Or do you just watch all the minor youtubers?Singing praises before you even get to use the camera. Dime a dozen in this forum.and it is ironic that you dis the R8 against your A7C having never even used the R8so we need to consider what folks have to say who have used bothWe know a lot about the R8 already since it uses the same basic internals as the R6/2, has the same menu system and basically the same firmware.yes indeed, you and I are finally on the same wavelength after all these yearsexcited to get mine - note that David below says the subject tracking AF of the R8 is better than the R5, better than the R6, better than the A74, better than the Nikon offerings and certainly better than FujiSo for the first time in all my years with RP and M6II where I didn't use it much, I'll be using AI subject tracking MOST of the time with the R8so David is a pro reviewer who has used the A7C for years and he spent days with the R8, certainly taking more than your few hundred shots with your A7C, and here is what he has to say:Canon EOS R8 Review: The Best Full-Frame Canon for Most People | PetaPixel

SafariBob 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?First of all, I don’t think it will have the a7iv innards, for two reasons, 1.) Sony always tends to carry forward all new developments from cameras, what exactly that means in this case i don’t know, but the a7c had real time tracking, which the a7iii did not. Some of the more advanced af from the a7rV would be great, as would the more effective ibis. 2.) the a7c body would not be equally effective at dissipating heat, so maybe some of the higher end video modes would need to be cut.second, the weakest part of the a7c is the evf, not so much resolution, but size, so whether they choose to do something about that, is the most important question imo.third, there is no guarantee that it retains the same body. In fact, no Sony full frame camera to date has retained the previous gen body. If anything I think smaller could make more sense. Along those lines, there is no guarantee it continues to share sensor with the a7 line. In many ways, it would make more sense if it dropped the physical shutter and adopted the a9 sensor. Or, alternatively, got a higher res sensor like the 42 or 61mp.What you wrote is valid, and it means the entry level A7Cii with IBIS plus some of A7RV's tech will make the entry level Canon FF called EOS R8 look anemic, except for the 40fps at ES which is a very niche feature. In terms of MP, the current A7C is already at 24mp. It is likely that the A7Cii will have 33mp (leveraging the A7IV sensor). Almost 10mp a difference is not meager. No IBIS, which means the R8 will be hungrier for lenses with IS (which tends to be costlier in the RF mount) than the A7Cii.

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?The supposedly A7CIihttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/likely-first-tiny-image-of-the-sony-zv-e1-and-new-confirmed-specs/Price between $2000-$2500, A7S3 sensor so only 12MP, no EVF, R8 look like a much better bargain

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?A7C II. Lens ecosystem > *.

ntsan 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?The supposedly A7CIihttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/likely-first-tiny-image-of-the-sony-zv-e1-and-new-confirmed-specs/Price between $2000-$2500, A7S3 sensor so only 12MP, no EVF, R8 look like a much better bargainThat's not the A7C replacement. That's the A7S III being pushed down the product stack in a rangefinder style body, but without as many of the dedicated video ports/options as the FX3.

unhappymeal wrote:ntsan 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?The supposedly A7CIihttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/likely-first-tiny-image-of-the-sony-zv-e1-and-new-confirmed-specs/Price between $2000-$2500, A7S3 sensor so only 12MP, no EVF, R8 look like a much better bargainThat's not the A7C replacement. That's the A7S III being pushed down the product stack in a rangefinder style body, but without as many of the dedicated video ports/options as the FX3.But that is the only Sony FF camera that is releasing soon.

ntsan wrote:unhappymeal wrote:ntsan 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?The supposedly A7CIihttps://www.sonyalpharumors.com/likely-first-tiny-image-of-the-sony-zv-e1-and-new-confirmed-specs/Price between $2000-$2500, A7S3 sensor so only 12MP, no EVF, R8 look like a much better bargainThat's not the A7C replacement. That's the A7S III being pushed down the product stack in a rangefinder style body, but without as many of the dedicated video ports/options as the FX3.But that is the only Sony FF camera that is releasing soon.They have three releases rumoured for this year. One could very well be the A7C II.