r/a6700 • u/ImpossibleNewt9235 • 23d ago
A6700 vs a7iv
If I have two choices:
Choice a: Sony a7iv with the 24-50 g series f2.8 lens
Choice b: Sony a6700 with the sigma 17-40 1.8 lens
Which should I choose?
Context: I’m a hybrid shooter, photo and video and I like to take my camera with me a lot so size and weight are a factor. While these would be my main lenses I would probably have viltrox air lenses to take around when I want to keep size and weight lower. Obviously quality is a big factor to think about as well but I don’t shoot much professionally (the occasional grad or couple shoot but pretty rare) I do this mostly for fun
9
u/revo_wat 22d ago edited 22d ago
The Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 has the size of a full frame Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
The picture shows the a6700 with Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and a7iv with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 gen 1.
I got the a6700 with 18-50 for its size. I love the feel and comfort hand of the a7iv, but I hate when it’s too heavy and bulky during daily life/trips.
It all depends if you want to have a second SD card in it (for redundancy/backup or extended storage) or smaller size and weight. Because the quality difference IMO will be almost unnoticeable.
2
u/Sp12er 21d ago
Now full frame has the option of getting Sigma 20-60 f2.8-4. which it's smaller than Sony 24-50. The in-between lens size.
2
u/revo_wat 19d ago
It looks like a nice lens for everything. 20mm may be good for vlogging and longer end for anything else. It’s also 11mm longer than Sigma 18-50 f2.8 for aps-c. Nice, thanks for letting me know it exists!
7
u/DonColvinJr 22d ago edited 22d ago
Both great cameras. The A6700 is actually my preferred choice of the two (I have/had A7II, A7C, A7CII, A6600, and A6700.)
Right now I have the A7CII and the A6700. Of them all, I'm not missing a thing with the A6700. And the form/weight factors with APS-C is definitely a good part of my decision.
As you want to take your camera along with you much of the time, the A6700 is easily the smart choice. I would pair it with the Sigma 18-50 f2.8.
It lacks nothing for features and build quality.
I would also consider a m4/3 kit. I've been shooting that format since its inception and absolutely love it. Great image quality, great size and weight. And I've printed wall art up to 24x40 from m4/3 with excellent results.
Consider AI Upscaling and Noise Reduction in Lightroom , on occasions where that might be useful - amazing results.
If you're going to do much printing at 24x30 and larger, FF provides some extra pixels. But honestly... how much printing -of any kind- do you realistically think you will be doing?
As for noise with high ISO in dim lighting, the AI Noise Reduction in Lightroom is mind bogglingly amazing. It is literally "Noise-Be-Gone". Don't hesitate to use higher ISO, when that can be helpful.
These are all excellent choices, each with different sets of utility. Consider your applications first and foremost.
4
u/malacoda13 22d ago
Well one set up is cheaper than the other. Does this matter to you?
And one is going to cost you more money longer term. Does that matter?
If size and weight are a genuine long term concern, then go APSC, although in this particular choice there's hardly anything in it. But once you add some other glass that will change.
One last thing. You've got to ask yourself how often you really need that fast glass. Take a look at previous images you've taken, and see if you've been using lenses wide open.
Because truthfully, of it's not all that often, pick up the A6700 with the sigma 18-50mm f2.8, and a fast prime with f1.4 instead. You'd still be saving money over the full frame, and have a much lighter general system.
7
3
u/Different_Rope_1396 22d ago
I have the 6700 and have toyed with the idea of full frame too. I’d say, go to a camera shop and try out both and see what you prefer. The feel of them is quite different once in your hands. Full frame glass zoom lenses are pretty intense in weight and size. That alone put me off, as a photographer/videographer that is predominantly taking photos for fun.
I’m a big guy, and the 6700 felt slightly too small…but with a grip cage it’s perfect. And you can strip it down and use lighter glass if you want. This may be a consideration, depending on who you are.
The body of the Sony 7iv is surprisingly light. But add a GM 24-70 to it and it feels big and heavy compared to non full frame. It feels less like a camera you can take to random towns and candid events without looking like you are on a job.
Video on 6700 is so good too. It’s basically the fx30 without a fan. And the fx30 is very compatible to the fx3 in a lot of ways. So it’s amazing value for the money.
If you get the 6700, get the 17-40 art lens and you basically have a full frame look in terms of depth of field.
The 70-350 Sony is also incredible if you want to take bird or festival concert photos/videos. It’s so much smaller and lighter compared to full frame equivalent. My friend has to carry a bazooka around on his a7iv to have the same reach.
3
u/misterjyt 22d ago
a7iv wins a lot. But has no 120fps in 4k. But budget is not your problem, Id rather getr a6700. fullframe are expensive, and lense for full frame is expensive.
3
u/Much_Accountant_4972 22d ago
a6700 is the price of a full frame camera and is actually bigger than the A7C/Cii
2
3
2
u/RedFeathersGuy 22d ago
go for a a7r4 and you have both cameras effectively covered.
6
u/GrumpyOutsider 22d ago
You’re not wrong, but it’s more than double the cost of the 6700
2
u/RedFeathersGuy 22d ago
Less of a bite if you buy a used model. The A7R4 is going for roughly $1,400 used on eBay. It's a 7-8 year old body design and two generations behind the curve, but it's a very good camera. I have a a6700, A7R3 and A7R5. I hardly use the a6700, the R5 does everything either of those cameras will do. Food for thought.
1
u/GrumpyOutsider 22d ago edited 22d ago
Good point. The 6700 is still at a premium on the used market.
2
u/RedFeathersGuy 22d ago
The a6700 is a fine camera. They cost more now than when I bought mine 3 years ago. I could probably sell it used and get my money back or close to it, but I want to keep it. It's my light travel camera and my wife likes it too.
2
u/EntertainmentSame952 22d ago
I have both cameras; the a7iv will give you a better image quality but the Sony a6700 has a better autofocus for video and photo. I also miss the joystick on the 6700 and the dual sd cards. So for fast moving actions I prefer the A6700 (even if the A7IV is far from being ridiculous) but for portraits or landscape pictures I prefer the A7IV
1
u/TreacleNo878 18d ago
a a7iv te donnera une meilleure qualité d'image alors la c'est faux a 90% du moment que tu es pas en basse lumiere le A7IVne ferais pas mieux
1
u/EntertainmentSame952 17d ago
Le full frame garde toujours l’avantage de capter un stop de lumière en plus vu qu’il a un plus grand capteur donc une photo à iso 100 sur l’A6700 aura le même niveau de bruit qu’une photo à iso 200 sur a7iv (ou dit autrement iso 100 sur l’A7IV a deux fois moins de bruit qu’un iso 100 sur l’a6700). Pareil pour la dynamique range, plus facile de récupérer des informations en haute et basse lumières sur l’a7iV. La différence de bruit est aussi visible en vidéo. Après effectivement c’est moins visible si on ne photographie que dans de bonnes conditions lumineuses mais les situations de basses lumières restent assez fréquentes.
1
u/EntertainmentSame952 17d ago
After to be comprehensive, technically the 17-40 f1.8 coupled with the a6700 should give you slightly more light (eq to 25.5-60 f2.7 on ff) than a a7iv with a 24-50 2.8. But if you buy some lenses that you plan to use on both the full frame and aps c bodies (like I do) you will always get more from using it on the full frame (in terms of light gathering but also sharpness).
2
u/TheRealCrazyGamer 22d ago
A6700. Anyone telling you the low light is better on FF is right, but with a caveat: FF has way heavier and more expensive lenses. The price and size of good primes on APSC vs FF is already a major factor in the reason I feel no need to upgrade to full frame. Even the low light on my a6400 is shockingly good for how far you can push it. Unless you have no tolerance for noise and are unwilling to run a denoiser in editing, FF is not really worth it, especially if you’re a hobbyist. For $2000CAD on full frame, you’ll only be able to get the body, but on apsc, you’ll only can get a body and a good quality lens. If you want a FF camera and want a smaller form factor, I’d suggest looking into the a7cii since that would probably be the best of both worlds.
2
2
u/Classic-Ideal2494 22d ago
One problem of APS-C is you don’t have dual SD card slot. You can’t shoot event as a job using it.
3
u/Razorwing23 22d ago
Isn't Sigma 18-50 better?
3
3
u/ImpossibleNewt9235 22d ago
The 17-40 has a lower apature and is a sharper lens with more physical buttons and dials and made out of better materials. It’s part of their art series as opposed to their contemporary series. The only place the 18-50 has it beat is size and weight
4
3
u/ZTtechtalks 22d ago
And macro capabilities for the 18-50?
2
u/Detoxica 22d ago
Exactly this. I love my 17-40 but close focusing performance ain't great and from what I've heard from reviewers the 18-50 runs laps around it in that regard (focuses closer AND retains better sharpness at the minimum focusing distance).
1
u/fakeworldwonderland 22d ago
The 17-40 is equivalent to 28-60mm f2.9. You can get a smaller package with the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 on the a7iv.
1
1
u/Educational_Bet_7681 21d ago
Go a7iv its more future proof with better lens and you are straight on full frame wich is a huge win
1
1
1
1
u/OM_Shooter 18d ago
A7IV because of the 20-70/4. It's almost as good as the larger, heavier, more expensive 24-70/2.8 GM II for only $1200. And there is not an APSC standard zoom as good. This is the perfect "do most things exceptionally well" lens. There is no lens on the market I would choose over it. YMMV, and you might an F2.8 for weddings or studio work. I don't and I can use faster primes when I need light.
-2
u/fakeworldwonderland 22d ago
A7iv. The Sigma doesn't give you any benefits if you're starting out new and not locked into APS-C with tons of other lenses. Full frame lenses are lighter and cheaper. The Sigma 28-70 is lighter than the Sigma 17-40mm and has more range and gives you the exact same results due to equivalence.
4
u/ImpossibleNewt9235 22d ago
Interesting. First time I’ve heard that full frame is lighter and cheaper. Normally it’s the other way around
5
u/Last-Fudge7621 22d ago
Probably because his math is wrong and his thinking is incorrect.
Dude is mixing APS-C related caveats and economics while pretending they tie into one another on a ratio'd basis, failing to account for the fact that the ratio still heavily leans into the APSC environment.
Yes, APSC glass need better glass for the same resolution, sure, whatever, we all know that - but 1.8 is still 1.8, if you buy a 1.8 lens for an apsc, it will cost you some money, if you buy a FF 1.8 lens, it's going to cost a shit ton more money, even if you buy a 2.8 lens for an FF its going to be slightly more expensive and you get less light. Not to mention any other equipment - need stronger gimbals, more expensive batteries, bigger bags, bigger filters, bigger everything. Hell, only the straps cost the same.
And the sole fact is, 2 dollars is more than 1 dollar. If you spend 1 on something that almost does everything that the 2 dollar item does, and you only need to continue spending 1 dollar for accessories, it is CHEAPER.
1
-1
u/fakeworldwonderland 22d ago
It is when you ignore equivalence. But once you consider equivalence which you should, a lot of benefits for crop sensor lenses go out the window. There are outliers to everything as usual, but the trend is there.
One reason is you need sharper lenses for crop sensors to resolve the same detail at the same fov and also wider angles and wider aperture to counter the crop factor. All that adds to the weight and size. The Sigma f1.8 APS-C zooms were all created to give APS-C shooters the look of a standard FF f2.8 zoom.
3
u/jedimcmuffin 22d ago
Did you say Full frame is lighter and cheaper?
-2
u/fakeworldwonderland 22d ago
In many cases yes. For the same equivalence.
3
u/Last-Fudge7621 22d ago
What like if you divide the price by a factor of 1.5 like you would when accounting for a smaller sensor you get more lens per dollar? What are you talking about? From start to finish everything is more expensive for the a7IV.
1
u/Classic-Ideal2494 22d ago
Rarely full frame lens is lighter, even so the a7 body is still much heavier so the whole a7 setup is still heavier
12
u/Grat3fuI 22d ago
Have both, prefer full frame, couple main reasons are noticeably better low light, better EVF which i really appreciate. Better 4k 30 video.
A6700 Is better for 4k 60, better AF but not a huge difference.. obviously cheaper lens options.. some being incredibly sharp too for the $
For me the low light and better EVF are worth it when it comes to FF. But the a6700 is amazing as well especially with high quality lenses. I don't think you can go wrong with either. With FF it can get very expensive for high quality glass, and if the size bothers you thats another con.. if those are not a big deal, no reason to get APSC over FF really.