Sony A7C ii or Nikon Z6 iii

[gman]

The D810 and 70-200 2.8 is going to be retired. Too big and too heavy for a grab and go camera and I'm currently not finding the time for going out to do dedicated photography.

Two at the top of my list is the A7C ii and the Z6 iii. But I'm torn between them. From what I've researched, the Z6 iii actually has slightly better AF, but the A7C ii has better dynamic range, although only to 800 ISO. Has anyone tried both and got any thoughts?

The A7C ii might be a little smaller, but once a lens goes on they seem much the same. It'll either be a 40mm for that compact setup, or I might go with a 35mm 1.4, which will make it a lot bigger but still not a patch on the Nikon D810 setup.

 

[pmac]

Can I ask why you have picked these two? Is it price?
The z6iii is more comparable to a full size a7 in specs and body.

I’m a Sony shooter so would recommend Sony.
I was a Nikon shooter and haven’t looked at the z6 series since the mk1 which was far behind Sony especially in AF, I thought they were still trailing in this regard. I saw them pushing updates constantly for it.

Size wise the larger z6/a7 body’s won’t be hugely smaller in size or weight(maybe more comparable to a d750 size)
For me Sony wins on lens selection and this is where you can reduce size and weight.
Third party glass is far cheaper and more abundant on Sony,
The tamron zooms are far smaller and lighter than anything else and preform great.
The new Viltrox lenses are also cracking for the cost.
The latter offering as much on Nikon I believe just costing abit more.

I’ve just moved to the a7v, but still believe the a7iii is one of in not the best all rounders for the price.

 

[gman]

Can I ask why you have picked these two? Is it price?
The z6iii is more comparable to a full size a7 in specs and body.

I’m a Sony shooter so would recommend Sony.
I was a Nikon shooter and haven’t looked at the z6 series since the mk1 which was far behind Sony especially in AF, I thought they were still trailing in this regard. I saw them pushing updates constantly for it.

Size wise the larger z6/a7 body’s won’t be hugely smaller in size or weight(maybe more comparable to a d750 size)
For me Sony wins on lens selection and this is where you can reduce size and weight.
Third party glass is far cheaper and more abundant on Sony,
The tamron zooms are far smaller and lighter than anything else and preform great.
The new Viltrox lenses are also cracking for the cost.
The latter offering as much on Nikon I believe just costing abit more.

I’ve just moved to the a7v, but still believe the a7iii is one of in not the best all rounders for the price.

Size is the primary objective, with cost following closely behind, mainly because my usage isn't all that high at the moment to justify going into several thousands.

I had a Sony A9 in the past and the AF blew away everything else I'd ever used. Loved it. However, the dynamic range was poor and I was never completely happy with the image rendering. Even at base ISO it often had some sort of noise, it wasn't clean. I think I posted about it on here a long time ago. I read a user comment elsewhere stating similar with the A7C ii, so I'll need to look into that further.

Sony has always been the no.1 choice in my mind with regard to AF performance, but from what I've read and watched I believe the Z6 iii has made huge improvements. The A7Cii with the 40mm was going to be my choice, super compact and the dual motors of the 40mm lens take full advantage of the AF system. But then I started thinking about a 35mm 1.4, which makes the size of the body less relevant.

An A7Cii or Z6 iii with a 35mm 1.4 is absolutely the largest and heaviest I'd want as it's still far smaller than my current gear when including the lens.



Although, if I stick a 35mm 1.4 on the D810 then the Z6iii doesn't look so compact anymore and neither does the A7Cii to be honest.




When just looking at the body and from this angle, the A7Cii really does seem like a more compact package, in fact as I'm writing this I feel like I'm convincing myself that the A7Cii with the 40mm is the way to go because size and bulk is what puts me off grabbing the D810. But there's something that keeps pulling me back to the Z6iii, it might be that I keep coming across reviews of the A7Cii that don't seem particularly great. This one here criticises the AF (LINK)

So if the 40mm lens is the way forward, then Sony's presumably faster dual motor lens will be a better option, but I need to research this image quality thing further to make sure it's just one user's opinion and not an actual thing?

 

[woof woof]

Size is the primary objective, with cost following closely behind, mainly because my usage isn't all that high at the moment to justify going into several thousands.

The A7Cii with the 40mm was going to be my choice, super compact and the dual motors of the 40mm lens take full advantage of the AF system. But then I started thinking about a 35mm 1.4, which makes the size of the body less relevant.

Since I got my A7cII and 40mm f2.5 (24mm f2.8 mini G also) the 40mm has hardly been off the camera. I like smaller kit and the lack of an EVF hump makes the camera feel even smaller for me and makes it easier to get the camera and lens in and out of a bag. I also have an A7III but I much prefer the A7cII despite its issues, the main one for me being the articulated screen as I'd much rather have the do it all screen or a tilting one. The next issue is the 1/4,000 max mechanical shutter speed.

The 40mm stays on my A7cII and the A7III mostly gets used with the 24mm mini G or a fast prime. That 40mm f2.5 is IMO a bit of a game changer on the A7cII. It is IMO such a good lens.

Good luck choosing.

 

[gman]

Since I got my A7cII and 40mm f2.5 (24mm f2.8 mini G also) the 40mm has hardly been off the camera. I like smaller kit and the lack of an EVF hump makes the camera feel even smaller for me and makes it easier to get the camera and lens in and out of a bag. I also have an A7III but I much prefer the A7cII despite its issues, the main one for me being the articulated screen as I'd much rather have the do it all screen or a tilting one. The next issue is the 1/4,000 max mechanical shutter speed.

The 40mm stays on my A7cII and the A7III mostly gets used with the 24mm mini G or a fast prime. That 40mm f2.5 is IMO a bit of a game changer on the A7cII. It is IMO such a good lens.

Good luck choosing.

Thanks, that's good to hear. The case for the Z6iii is getting weaker by the post lol

 

[gman]

The slow sensor readout of the A7C ii resulting in pretty bad rolling shutter is giving me pause for some extra thought. I'll need to consider if I want to be switching back and forth to mechanical shutter when shooting the dog etc.

 

[imattersuk]

It's not even close, the Z6 III is by far the better camera, plenty of Youtube reviews out there detailing it's strengths and weaknesses better than I can articulate. I have the ZR which has the same sensor and it's just fantastic. The ZF or Z5 II are also worth a look. I'd be amazed if the Sony has better DR in the real world.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

I'm miles out of date with this stuff, but I picked up a cheap z6 mk1 and a 40mm f/2 and it's an incredible combo! Lens is brilliant, quick focusing, sharp from wide open, lightweight. Shot a production with it last week and it didn't miss a beat.

 

[JohnMcL7]

It's not even close, the Z6 III is by far the better camera, plenty of Youtube reviews out there detailing it's strengths and weaknesses better than I can articulate. I have the ZR which has the same sensor and it's just fantastic. The ZF or Z5 II are also worth a look. I'd be amazed if the Sony has better DR in the real world.

That's surprising because all the comments and tests I've seen show the Z6III's partially stacked sensor to have less DR (the A9 with the original stacked sensor also had less DR):

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8412798138/early-testing-suggests-nikon-z6-iii-pays-a-price-for-its-speed/

Overall, then, there is a read noise price to be paid for the camera’s faster sensor, in a way that slightly blunts the ultimate flexibility of the Raw files at low ISO and that results in fractionally more noise at ultra-high ISOs. But we suspect most people will more than happily pay this small price in return for a big boost in performance.

Given the OP mentions they didn't like the DR on the A9, that seemed to be a reason to go for the A7CII which uses a conventional non-stacked sensor.

 

[imattersuk]

That's surprising because all the comments and tests I've seen show the Z6III's partially stacked sensor to have less DR (the A9 with the original stacked sensor also had less DR):

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8412798138/early-testing-suggests-nikon-z6-iii-pays-a-price-for-its-speed/

Given the OP mentions they didn't like the DR on the A9, that seemed to be a reason to go for the A7CII which uses a conventional non-stacked sensor.

As I said, in the real world that Nikon sensor has fantastic DR, as does the non stacked one in the ZF / Z5 II. I learn't years ago to stop reading BS tests and just go shoot to find out for myself. The latest Nikon's also have the cleanest high ISO performance i've ever seen.

 

[nandbytes]

If you can fork extra money for Sony A7V, that probably gives you the best of both worlds in terms of dynamic range, AF+shooting speed

Personally I am not a fan of Z6iii, the base ISO dynamic range is on the level of APS-C sensors, wouldn't work well for me.

At the same time A7Cii has other limitations like 1/4000s mechanical shutter which also isn't great in my experience especially when shooting action and/or with fast f1.4 primes.

you could also look at something like canon R6ii which might be better balanced for the price. Though for my shooting canon don't have the lenses.... but it might satisfy your needs.

 

[gman]

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,

 

[gman]

The A7V seems smaller than I though. Anything bad about it I don't know about?

 

[imattersuk]

Yes the Z6 III is not that small and the button layout is cramped on the back.

 

[pmac]

It’s going to be the same as the z6 in size and will be exactly the same as the a9.
I don’t find it overly heavy and with a small prime to me it’s very light.
For me I couldn’t ask for more except a larger buffer.
the dr is great , a.f has been faultless for what and how I shoot. Hi iso is improved or the same with an added 11mp( coming from the a7iii)WB seems better. FPS is silly
Over all it’s a very refined camera.
I’ve shot a few thousand images now including my daughters sports day, olders high school graduation / award and prom and 99.9% I’ve shot in electric.

 

[gman]

Thanks. The A7V doesn't look much bigger than the A7C ii, especially with the lens on. I'll maybe pop into WEX when I'm back in Glasgow and have a feel of them, hopefully if on the shelf.

 

[imattersuk]

Thanks. The A7V doesn't look much bigger than the A7C ii, especially with the lens on. I'll maybe pop into WEX when I'm back in Glasgow and have a feel of them, hopefully if on the shelf.

I had the A7IV and it was incredibly comfortable.

 

[woof woof]

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,...

This looks odd so I've just looked at some A7cII shots at ISO at 100% and I haven't seen anything like it. One thing to take into account is that the Sony is 33mp and the Nikon AFAIK is 24.5 so I wonder if the crops need to be of the same size to do a fair comparison or if the shots are under exposed and boosted post capture?

A7cII at ISO 100. Whole picture and then 200% crop of the bottom of the boat as marked in red and then the raw showing quite a bit of boost.







More. This was taken as a part of a panorama so not exposed or focused for this shot. Original and then with big boosts to exposure and shadows at 200%.





It's only in this big boost of an under exposed area that I begin to see nastiness at 200%. I don't think I'd be making a decision based on those example shots you posted as something seems to be way off. IMO the articulated screen and mechanical shutter limitations are more of a reason to cross the A7cII off the list than IQ at ISO 100.

 

[nandbytes]

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

The Nikon shot looks better lit than Sony ones. Can't really draw much conclusions from this

Anyway as a general comment I find Sony bodies and lenses to be on the smaller side while Nikon on the larger side (and canon somewhere in between)

Personally that's ones of the reasons i shoot with Sony along with access to sigma lenses. I don't have many lenses now and most of my gear fits in PD sling 10l bag. Equivalent Nikon setup would be larger.

Honestly I wish Sony would make a A7ciii with sensor from A7V so it'll make the electronic shutter more usable. Though I'm sure Sony will find an annoying way to cripple it!

 

[gman]

I had the A7IV and it was incredibly comfortable.

Thanks, if it's similar to the original A9 then it should be fine with me. The A7V is firmly on my radar now. (I missed Peter mentioning it in the beginning).

 

[gman]

This looks odd so I've just looked at some A7cII shots at ISO at 100% and I haven't seen anything like it. One thing to take into account is that the Sony is 33mp and the Nikon AFAIK is 24.5 so I wonder if the crops need to be of the same size to do a fair comparison or if the shots are under exposed and boosted post capture?

A7cII at ISO 100. Whole picture and then 200% crop of the bottom of the boat as marked in red and then the raw showing quite a bit of boost.

View attachment 487638

View attachment 487639

View attachment 487637

More. This was taken as a part of a panorama so not exposed or focused for this shot. Original and then with big boosts to exposure and shadows at 200%.

View attachment 487635

View attachment 487636

It's only in this big boost of an under exposed area that I begin to see nastiness at 200%. I don't think I'd be making a decision based on those example shots you posted as something seems to be way off. IMO the articulated screen and mechanical shutter limitations are more of a reason to cross the A7cII off the list than IQ at ISO 100.

Yours look ok, I think with the ones I posted there was some shadow lifting and I think it's only in certain areas of exposure after this has happened. I just remember my A9 being bad for it, especially compared to the current D810, although maybe that's not a fair comparison as the D810 does have quite the legendary sensor at base ISO. It just gets poor fast when the ISO ramps up (the D810). I'll look at some more RAWS and see if it's more of an anomaly under very specific conditions.

 

[gman]

The Nikon shot looks better lit than Sony ones. Can't really draw much conclusions from this

Anyway as a general comment I find Sony bodies and lenses to be on the smaller side while Nikon on the larger side (and canon somewhere in between)

Personally that's ones of the reasons i shoot with Sony along with access to sigma lenses. I don't have many lenses now and most of my gear fits in PD sling 10l bag. Equivalent Nikon setup would be larger.

Honestly I wish Sony would make a A7ciii with sensor from A7V so it'll make the electronic shutter more usable. Though I'm sure Sony will find an annoying way to cripple it!

Aye, I was trying to find some examples with similar lighting but struggled. I'll keep looking just to put my mind at rest, but it was something that really annoyed me about my A9.

I forgot about battery life, I'm sure I read that the Z6 iii isn't great with the Sony gear being far better, especially under load?

I wonder if the global shutter from the A9 iii will be where the future focus will be?

 

[robj20]

Good to read this, A7V is high on my list to replace my A7C, did consider both the A7Cii and A7CR as well but I don't enjoy using the EVF on these smaller cameras.
I also don't like the flip out screen, prefer a tilting screen A7V has multi flippy screen so best of both worlds.

 

[gman]

Was out with the D810 today and whilst it's fine for buildings/landscape because I can keep it at base ISO, as soon as I want to photograph the family or the dog, then I instantly worry about switching it to Auto ISO because the dynamic range drops like a stone. I can sometimes get away with underexposing thanks to the excellent latitude with recovering shadows, but often it can be too much and I lose the shot. That's if the AF manages to nail it as well! lol

AF and decent image quality with higher ISO's is high on the requirements after size. Just editing some photos now, painfully slow on this laptop, so I think around the 30-40 MP region will be enough, otherwise I'll need to factor in a new laptop as well. It gets brutal when doing big panos.


EDIT: I checked to see if the D810 produces that noise at base ISO and I managed to kind of get it in the bokeh, but I had raised the shadows by a massive +100.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Was out with the D810 today and whilst it's fine for buildings/landscape because I can keep it at base ISO, as soon as I want to photograph the family or the dog, then I instantly worry about switching it to Auto ISO because the dynamic range drops like a stone. I can sometimes get away with underexposing thanks to the excellent latitude with recovering shadows, but often it can be too much and I lose the shot. That's if the AF manages to nail it as well! lol

AF and decent image quality with higher ISO's is high on the requirements after size. Just editing some photos now, painfully slow on this laptop, so I think around the 30-40 MP region will be enough, otherwise I'll need to factor in a new laptop as well. It gets brutal when doing big panos.


EDIT: I checked to see if the D810 produces that noise at base ISO and I managed to kind of get it in the bokeh, but I had raised the shadows by a massive +100.

View attachment 487648

With the A7III (old tech) raising shadows in LR by 100 doesn't cause any noticeable additional noise. If I do that and raise exposure 3 stops then it's a bit different.

I'd thought the IV and V had better dynamic range.

 

[nandbytes]

Aye, I was trying to find some examples with similar lighting but struggled. I'll keep looking just to put my mind at rest, but it was something that really annoyed me about my A9.

you can try DPreview studio scene RAWs

I forgot about battery life, I'm sure I read that the Z6 iii isn't great with the Sony gear being far better, especially under load?

I wonder if the global shutter from the A9 iii will be where the future focus will be?

The battery life is Sony's are class leading for sure.

Global shutter has its uses but it really craps on both dynamic range and ISO performance. It's on the level of APS-C sensors which isn't bad per say.... but its a specialised camera, but you seem to be after "jack of all trades" type body.

 

[gman]

With the A7III (old tech) raising shadows in LR by 100 doesn't cause any noticeable additional noise. If I do that and raise exposure 3 stops then it's a bit different.

I'd thought the IV and V had better dynamic range.

It seems to be noticable if I zoom in (with the D810), not so much at 100%. One issue I find with raising the shadows too much is that it seems to flatten the contrast.

 

[gman]

you can try DPreview studio scene RAWs



The battery life is Sony's are class leading for sure.

Global shutter has its uses but it really craps on both dynamic range and ISO performance. It's on the level of APS-C sensors which isn't bad per say.... but its a specialised camera, but you seem to be after "jack of all trades" type body.

Yeah, maybe I am asking too much, especially at a decent price point. The A7V does seem to be ticking a lot of boxes now and it would only be the size that would make me go with the A7Cii now, so looking forward to seeing how they feel in real life.

 

[robj20]

Yeah, maybe I am asking too much, especially at a decent price point. The A7V does seem to be ticking a lot of boxes now and it would only be the size that would make me go with the A7Cii now, so looking forward to seeing how they feel in real life.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on them both.

 

[nandbytes]

Yeah, maybe I am asking too much, especially at a decent price point. The A7V does seem to be ticking a lot of boxes now and it would only be the size that would make me go with the A7Cii now, so looking forward to seeing how they feel in real life.

Definitely recommend trying them out especially if possible with lenses you want

Lens sizes can make a big difference too.

 

[ancient_mariner]

It seems to be noticable if I zoom in (with the D810), not so much at 100%. One issue I find with raising the shadows too much is that it seems to flatten the contrast.

It may be less noticeable with the D850 because of the fine pixel pitch compared to a 24/35Mpx sensor.

 

[woof woof]

Yours look ok, I think with the ones I posted there was some shadow lifting and I think it's only in certain areas of exposure after this has happened. I just remember my A9 being bad for it, especially compared to the current D810, although maybe that's not a fair comparison as the D810 does have quite the legendary sensor at base ISO. It just gets poor fast when the ISO ramps up (the D810). I'll look at some more RAWS and see if it's more of an anomaly under very specific conditions.

I don't think it's possible to lift the shadows more than I did in that last one and I had to go to 200% with a 33mp sensor.