Sony a7C II vs a7CR, what are they and how do they compare?

Introducing Sony’s compact twins

Sony has just made the slightly unexpected decision to not only replace its compact a7C full-frame mirrorless camera but to also introduce a higher resolution sister model alongside it.

These comparatively compact 33MP and 61MP models sit on either side of the existing a7 IV, but both gain the dedicated ‘AI processing unit’ co-processor we originally saw further up the model range, promising better subject recognition and AF performance and bringing a series of features absent from that camera.

So where does this leave Sony’s lineup? We look at both cameras, what they offer, how they compare to one another and the broader line-up. If you’re thinking of buying an E-mount camera, we hope to make sense of things for you.

Common hardware and handling

In terms of hardware, the two cameras are nearly identical, sharing a relatively compact magnesium alloy body design that Sony says is dust and moisture resistant.

They look a lot like the recent a6700, a slightly deeper, blockier iteration of the a6x00 design but improved in two significant ways. Firstly, the sub-APS-C-DSLR viewfinder of the first-generation a7C: it’s still a 2.36M dot panel (which is recognizably low-res when you use it), but improved viewfinder optics give it a much more respectable 0.7x magnification. This is primarily due to size concerns – the current higher-res panels are 30% larger – but it means the a7CR feels significantly under-specced for a $3000 camera.

The second improvement is the addition of a front command dial, which means you can have an exposure parameter at the tip of your forefinger rather than having to do everything with your thumb, as was the case on the original a7C.

Both cameras feature high-precision gyro sensors, better camera/lens communication, updated algorithms and greater processing power to boost the image stabilization performance to a rating of 7EV. Both also use the usefully large NP-FZ100 battery to give circa-500 shot-per-charge battery life ratings. They also both depend on a single SD card slot, located on the side of the body, which sets them apart from the likes of the a7 IV and a7R V.

Another things setting them apart from the rest of the Sony range is the use of smaller, simpler shutter mechanisms that use the turning on of the sensor (rather than a mechanical first curtain) to start the exposure. This can affect the bokeh in images shot at high shutter speeds with wide apertures but also limits the maximum shutter speed to 1/4000 sec and the flash sync speed to 1/160 sec.

Common features

The addition of a co-processor specifically designed to cope with the complex algorithms developed by machine learning sees both cameras gain more sophisticated subject recognition AF. So, in addition to being able to detect people, cats and dogs, the a7C II and a7CR can detect a wider range of animals, birds, aircraft and vehicles. Human detection has been made more sophisticated and can try to recognize the way people move (a capability Sony is branding ‘Human Pose Estimation’ in the way it always seems so keen to do), the intention being that it can continue to track the same person, even if they move in such a way that a different person becomes a more obvious subject.

On top of this are options such as focus bracketing and support for time-lapse capture. There are also a host of video features that Sony has recently developed, including auto framing, focus map, breathing compensation and 10-bit capture.

Feature differences: pixel shift

The only major feature difference between the two cameras beyond this is that the a7CR includes a multi-shot pixel shift mode, which is absent from the a7C II (and a7 IV). As with several of Sony’s other high-res cameras, you get the choice of shooting four images to get a 61MP image with full color information at every pixel location or sixteen shots that does the same thing, then offsets the sensor to capture four shots at an interstitial position, capturing four sets of four images.

In both cases, the set of Raws needs to be combined using software on a desktop computer, and in both cases, you gain an improvement in tonal quality and noise simply as a result of sampling the scene multiple times.

In common with the a7R V and a1, the a7CR lets you apply motion correction to the results: using a single image for areas of the scene in which there was movement. This lowers the detail levels in those parts of the frame but also avoids the cross-hatched pattern that could appear in earlier implementations and makes the mode that little bit more usable.

Grip extension

Another difference between the two cameras is that the a7CR comes with the GP-X2 grip extension unit, whereas the a7C II doesn’t (it’s a $160 optional accessory).

The GP-X2 is an interesting idea: a screw-on accessory that gives your hand a little more room to extend onto. We were surprised how much more comfortable we found it made the camera, especially when working with larger lenses, even though it’s normal to cradle more of a large lens’s weight with your other hand, not by holding the grip tighter.

The GP-X2 is a simple enough affair but seems reasonably well thought through: the attachment screw is drilled to allow attachment to a tripod, exactly in line with the original tripod socket, and there’s a large hinged section to maintain access to the camera’s battery compartment. That said, given the a7C models have a decently large battery and offer USB charging, it’s unlikely you’ll need to physically swap batteries very often, and mercifully, the efforts to keep the size down haven’t gone so far as to put the SD slot in the battery compartment.

We like the idea that you can extend the camera when you need to or make it smaller when that’s useful, and it’s interesting to note that Canon did something very similar with its EOS RP and R8: another pair of cameras that use a simpler single-curtain shutter mechanism to help keep their size down.

Performance differences

The other differences stem from the use of different sensors, This means the a7C II can shoot at a maximum of 10 fps, compared with the a7CR’s 8 fps, but the biggest differences are in terms of video.

The a7C II’s lower resolution sensor means it can read out the full width of its sensor to deliver UHD 4K from 7K capture at up to 30p, with 60p being delivered from a 4.6K APS-C crop. However, there’s significant rolling shutter in the full-width footage, with the sensor taking around 26.5ms to read.

The a7CR has an even harder time of things simply by having so many more pixels. The full-width 4K is sub-sampled, so will be significantly less detailed than the a7C II’s footage. There’s less of a crop to achieve 4K/60, but again it’s done by sub-sampling the sensor rather than using all the available pixels, as the a7C II does. APS-C mode is oversampled (taken from a 6.2K region of the sensor). This is available at up to 30p.

Sony hasn’t yet published the expected overheating limits for either camera, but they’re pretty low on the a6700, even with the temperature limits relaxed, and given the lack of promises of longevity when we were briefed, we’re not expecting either camera to be optimal for committed videography.

Vs. Sony ZV-E1

Although on paper the a7C II and a7CR have impressive video specs (10-bit capture, 4K/60, uploadable LUTs), each has its drawbacks, whether that be the need to crop and sub-sample or just slow readout leading to rolling shutter. So where does that leave them, relative to the $2200 ZV-E1 vlogging camera?

The ZV-E1 is built around a video-focused sensor, so it can deliver up to 4K/60 using the full width of its sensor (or 4K/120 with a slight, 1.1x crop) rather than having to crop or sub-sample. This footage is taken from a 4.2K region, so it’s not quite as detailed as the a7C II’s full-width footage, but it’s got spectacularly better rolling shutter (around 9ms, rather than 26.5ms). That’s the difference between the dreaded ‘Jello effect’ being a non-issue and a constant concern.

It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that a camera marketed for vlogging is a much better video camera than the more photo/hybrid Alpha models, but just to hammer it home, it’s worth remembering that the FX3 in Sony’s Cinema series is built around the same sensor. Notably, you’ll need the FX3 with its built-in fan if video is important enough to you to need to shoot for extended periods: the relatively compact body of the ZV-E1 is much less effective at heat management.

If you’ve much interest in stills, the ZV-E1 might be less suitable than one of the little Alphas: 12MP is sufficient for a lot of applications, but 33 and 61MP buy you a lot more flexibility. And, in principle, the higher resolution sensors of the a7C II and a7CR should give them higher resolution capture when using the cropped-in ‘Auto Framing’ modes that automatically ‘punch-in’ and follow the chosen subject around to give a more dynamic look to your video. This will all depend on whether all three cameras process to 4K first, then crop in and upscale or if they sample varying sensor crops as they ‘zoom.’

Another thing that makes the ZV-E1 less appealing for stills shooting is its reliance on an electronic shutter. The a7C twins only have mechanical second curtains, which can affect bokeh if you shoot with a wide aperture at high shutter speeds, but by omitting that second curtain, the ZV-E1 will be prone to more obvious rolling shutter in stills. It also lacks a viewfinder or the additional dials of the a7Cs.

Vs. Sony a6700

The new a7C models leave the a6700 in no-man’s land: it’s less expensive than the a7C II, but is it sufficiently less expensive to justify the move to a smaller sensor? The difference in list prices is $800 (the same as the gap between the a7C II and a7CR, as it happens).

The smaller sensor means around 1.3EV lower tonal quality and higher noise when shot at the same exposure settings, along with the depth-of-field comparable with stopping down one of the a7s by the same amount (assuming you’re trying to shoot the same photo from the same position).

The a6700 can capture bursts of images marginally (rather than meaningfully) faster, but it’s a much better video camera than the a7C II. Lower rolling shutter and no change in crop to achieve 60p (so no need to change lenses) make it much easier to just jump from stills to video shooting and back.

The use of a smaller sensor means the camera can be used with smaller body/lens combinations if you use dedicated APS-C lenses or achieve greater reach with telephoto lenses (though its pixels are exactly the same size as those on the a7CR, so cropping the 61MP camera should give extremely similar results).

In general terms, sensor size is a trade-off between image quality, size and price. We think the appreciably lower price, better video performance and option to travel still lighter leaves enough space for the a6700 (and other mid-high-end APS-C models) to still comfortably make sense.

So where does that leave us?

The a7C II and a7CR are interesting additions to Sony’s lineup. They offer more compact options both to the mainstream photographer who might otherwise buy an a7 IV and an interesting high-res option for people looking to travel light.

It’s interesting that the a7C II offers better specs in many regards than the a7 IV that sits above it. It would have been easy for Sony to use a smaller battery or cut corners in other ways to protect one of its most popular models, but most of the differences in spec (smaller viewfinder, lack of AF joystick and simpler shutter mechanism) can be genuinely attributed to attempts to keep the body size down, not just naked product differentiation.

Buyers of the a7R V probably aren’t going to lose much sleep over the introduction of a less expensive model with a single card slot and much more lowly viewfinder, nor does either camera invalidate the a6700, in our opinion. But what both do pretty effectively is squeeze the a7 IV, providing a wider range of choices.