True, although still better than having no EVF at all. Or even attachment EVF. But not for this price tho. This A7c would have been really attractive at $1000.You forgot the 2008 era LCD resolution and 2012 era EVF resolution too at that price and EVF is a pitiful 0.5x far worse than decent APS-C cameras.
I don't think it's made for large lenses. And if an A6400 can be used effectively with a 200-600 lens, this can be used too.I think it's a very attractive camera, nice for holiday snaps. However, it's possibly too small for handling large lenses...which brings me to my point. For me the whole idea of a 35mm sensor is to utilise the extra stop of clean iso noise and an effective reduction of a stop of depth of field when using fast primes or nearly as fast zooms compared to using an equevelent foacal length on a 1.6/1.5x crop sensor. So the idea of the bundled f5.6 lens (however samll) kind of defeats to point of a 25mm sensor in my opinion. 35mm cameras don't need to be as small as a 4/3rds camera...they operate in different makeets with different strengths and weaknesses. We choose 35mm for the larger sensor...so the camera bodies and lenses are larger proportionally larger. Suck it up...the compromise here is that the we are trading larger bulk for better, brighter glass and potentially slimmer depth of field.
If I put a 70-200 f2.8 or a 85mm f1.2 on this camera...it's going to feel weird and unbalanced. If I put a tiny 28-80 f5.6 on here...sure it's going to be small and compact...but I won't see any difference in the images than if I'd used a 4/3rds camera or a 1.6x crop.
+1. The Canon RF gear may be excellent, but I'm jealous of some of the lenses in the Sony system. If I go mirrorless, I really like the idea of lenses like the Sigma DN Art lenses (including the new 85mm f/1.4 DN Art - the size, weight and price make it a lot more intersteing to me than the RF 85 f/1.2 - and yes, I realise the Samyang may be similar) the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 and even the Sony 55 f/1.8. At the moment, the Canon system either doesn't have an equivalent at least once you factor in size and weight, or what is available is much more expensive. Hopefully the situation will change sooner rather than later (but I'm not holding my breath at this point).Thanks for sharing. He fully and completely shot down all the arguments I had in favor of this new camera. I still have much of my Sony gear (loving the R5), and there are certain pieces of my Sony kit I won't be letting go anytime soon. One of them is the Sigma 24-70, featured in this video, which is possibly the best 24-70 I've ever used. I haven't shot it against the EF 24-70L 2.8, which I still own, but when I trim down, the Sigma is likely to stay with the EF on the chopping block. I also have no intention of purchasing the RF version. No need to duplicate or replace true excellence.
Sony still has an advantage in that their native lens selection at every price point is incomparable. Yes, Canon has put out some incredible high-end RF glass, but I can't buy great Sigma 14-24 f2.8, 24-70, f/2.8, and (soon) 70-200 f2.8 all for under $1500 each in RF mount. I didn't even mention primes like the 35mm 1.2 or the great Samyang 85mm 1.4 (okay, Canon RF has that one too).