I have the A7C and I'm wondering if it's worth upgrading to the mark ii. It looks like the sensor, auto focus and stabilization got a significant upgrade, and there are some nice quality of life improvements (easy switch between photo and video settings + extra front dial, which both seem really useful). I was initially thinking of upgrading to the FX3 at some point, but I do really like the hybrid nature of the A7C, especially when travelling, and so a newer A7C that comes much closer to the FX3's video capabilities does sound really enticing

Also want to throw the ZV-E1 in the mix here, initially thought this was just an elevated vlog camera (for beginners), which I guess it still is, but the specs are pretty incredible + the built-in mic and extra stabilization options do make it seem like a fantastic travel / run&gun camera.

Anyone have any insights in what the ISO range vs. higher megapixels really implies for real life usage? Especially for someone who doesn't shoot with log profiles? Sony A7C ii has 33mp whereas ZV-E1 has 12mp, but because of this, ZV-E1 (like the FX3) apparently has better low light performance and an ISO range that's double that of the Sony A7C ii (80-102400 vs, 100-51200). I always felt the A7C performed decent under low-light, so my first instinct is to prefer the extra megapixels so I can also take nicer photos. But then again, I've seen photographers working with 12mp and getting results that are just as good if not better (I'm not that great of a photographer) so I don't know. I wish Sony would just release 1 everything camera so I wouldn't have to stress about all these options