Sony A7C ii or Nikon Z6 iii (or A7V)

the black fox said:
The main advantage of choosing the Nikon is all your current lenses will work via the adaptor so your only changing a body not your whole system ,also applies to flash guns etc . The range of compatible Z mount lenses is currently improving as well as is the range of adaptors to use other brands of lens
Click to expand...
Bit late for that advice.
 
gman said:
Just being do some quick off the cuff tests with the family and dog in the kitchen... oh how I've missed you eye-AF....

They look good in the LCD screen, but I guess anything on a small screen so importing to LR now. I think the A7Cii or A7V would have both been a good choice, especially with the auto subject detect which is very handy.

Time to pass the I have now gifted* :naughty: my D810 + 70-200mm to my son.


EDIT: oops, 30fps lol

View attachment 488965


*Sorry Andrew, I couldn't resist...
Click to expand...
I have mine set up as follows which works well for me
cnt shooting - low 5fps
c4- mech to elec shutter toggle on /off
once in elec
C1 pre capture toggle on/off (0.5sec)
cnt speed boost toggle on/off(30fps)

A.F settings are what I'm still trying to get my head around, I switched up following jarred settings as a lot said they were good but I'm bit unsure I like it, I'm still stuck on BBF and that leaves both on. a tracked setting, where as I like one to just be a fixed point focus.
 
the black fox said:
The main advantage of choosing the Nikon is all your current lenses will work via the adaptor so your only changing a body not your whole system ,also applies to flash guns etc . The range of compatible Z mount lenses is currently improving as well as is the range of adaptors to use other brands of lens
Click to expand...

Thanks, I only have one Nikon lens so it left me open to switch brands.
 
robj20 said:
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on them both.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot about your post. I never got a chance to feel both and decided to take a chance instead, I was impatient! lol Thankfully the A7V is more than compact enough for me especially with the 40mm. I'm sure the A7C ii would be a little more compact if that's absolutely necessary.

The dedicated joystick is handy because I keep forgetting it's a touchscreen and need to centre the tracking focus point. I've now just flipped the screen so it's got that protective plate there instead as I tend to use the viewfinder unless doing a low dog shot. I think the touch option can be turned off, so I might do that. I was also worried about fast dog shots and the higher potential of rolling shutter with the A7C ii, but my guess is that it's probably not an issue unless a very fast subject - which doesn't appear to be my dog these days.
 
gman said:
Thanks all, appreciate the various input from everyone.

I downloaded a RAW for the A7C ii and at base ISO it is showing that strange noise that my A9 did in certain areas. A RAW from the Z6 iii doesn't seem to have this in a similar area, although I'll admit my brief test may not be accurate nor comprehensive so I'm still open minded about this. Photos are at the end.

I do remember with my A9 that I often switched to electronic shutter to overcome the mechanical shutter's 1/8000 when using my 1.4 lens in sunlight and the A7C ii's electronic shutter only goes to that. But I doubt I'll get a 1.4 lens for this setup because the size factor gets ruined, so perhaps a moot point.

I see that the A7V also has a partially stacked sensor (and a mechanical shutter) yet achieves much higher dynamic range than the Z6 iii. I've done some brief skimming and is it to do with the Dual Gain Output tech of the A7V being applicable from base ISO, hereas the Z6 iii has more of a conversion type DGO which comes into play at ISO 800? Or have I got that totally wrong... lol

That A7V does look like the complete package, but I'd need to look at the size. Even the size of the Z6 iii is now making me wonder if my primary goal of a smaller system is being compromised. I'm keepin the D810 for specific landscape panos, which has excellent dynamic range, so perhaps I shouldn't be so concerned with the DR of the CSC I get? I do like Nikon colours though, although does that really matter so much if using RAW?

This is turning into a bit of a minefield for me.

Here's the photos I was talking about, the first two are the A7C ii and have that noise at base ISO. The last one is the Z6 iii which doesn't seem to be as bad. I tried to get similar areas of lighhting to demonstrate it,

View attachment 487618

View attachment 487619

View attachment 487620
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you’re getting this noise at base ISO, I’ve never had that on any Sony mirrorless :thinking:
 
I know it’s too late now but for others that may read this, I wouldn’t concentrate on the camera so much and think about the system as a whole, for example you may save weight with a particular body but then the lens is much heavier and vice versa.

Nikon Z lenses do tend to be bigger and heavier than Sony, and a number of Canon too.
 
snerkler said:
I’m not sure why you’re getting this noise at base ISO, I’ve never had that on any Sony mirrorless :thinking:
Click to expand...

I don't know either, but they aren't my photos but ones I downloaded. I did get similar with my previous A9, but thankfully it seems like the A7 V doesn't do it.
 
snerkler said:
I’m not sure why you’re getting this noise at base ISO, I’ve never had that on any Sony mirrorless :thinking:
Click to expand...

I've never seen this either, even after high boosts have been applied as per my examples above. Gosh knows what was done to those high noise pictures to make them so bad but there's definitely something not normal going on.
 
gman said:
I don't know either, but they aren't my photos but ones I downloaded. I did get similar with my previous A9, but thankfully it seems like the A7 V doesn't do it.
Click to expand...
Could it be people doing underexposed test shots at base ISO and then raising exposure in post to make them appear properly exposed, but with noise?
 
Faldrax said:
Could it be people doing underexposed test shots at base ISO and then raising exposure in post to make them appear properly exposed, but with noise?
Click to expand...

I tried that and couldn't get the results to look as bad.

If results that bad are possible two questions arise, how often would this occur and be a real world issue and can any other similar camera do better in the same scenario?
 
robj20 said:
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on them both.
Click to expand...

gman said:
Sorry, I forgot about your post. I never got a chance to feel both and decided to take a chance instead, I was impatient! lol Thankfully the A7V is more than compact enough for me especially with the 40mm. I'm sure the A7C ii would be a little more compact if that's absolutely necessary.

The dedicated joystick is handy because I keep forgetting it's a touchscreen and need to centre the tracking focus point. I've now just flipped the screen so it's got that protective plate there instead as I tend to use the viewfinder unless doing a low dog shot. I think the touch option can be turned off, so I might do that. I was also worried about fast dog shots and the higher potential of rolling shutter with the A7C ii, but my guess is that it's probably not an issue unless a very fast subject - which doesn't appear to be my dog these days.
Click to expand...

Just to expand on this, I finally managed to get into WEX and check them out in the flesh, fortunately they had the A7Cii, A7V and the Z6iii out on display. I didn't feel much difference between the two Sony's other than a little height, but not enought to make either a game changing decision for me.

I think if I absolutely had to be able to get the camera in a pocket, then the A7Cii and a pancake style lens would do such a job fairly easily and provide a very powerful setup for such a compact package.

The Z6iii definitely looked and felt a little bigger, noticeably so. The Z8 seemed massive in comparison!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top