> Is the extra cost of the a7C II worth it over the a6700 for my needs? Ngl the pricing on full frame glass lately is just exhausting. I feel your pain trying to decide because every time I look at a compact full frame setup, the lens prices and weights just make me want to give up. It is so frustrating how a decent set of travel lenses for the Sony a7C II Body ends up costing triple the body price if you actually want that shallow depth of field everyone talks about. Its a constant headache. Looking at the specs honestly:

• Sony a6700 Body: Decent option for travel. AF is reliable. Sensor is good enough for most. Lenses are cheaper.
• Sony a7C II Body: Better low light, but costs way more for the body and the high quality glass. The Sony a6700 Body is the safer bet for most. The a7C II is nice for portraits but then youre stuck buying heavy glass like the Sony FE 50mm f/1.2 GM to really see the difference. Just feels like a total money pit sometimes... it really kills the portability of the system.

Having used both cameras, I'd say it depends on your priorities. The a6700 has the advantage of being more compact and affordable. The autofocus is incredibly fast and the image quality is great for an APS-C sensor.

On the other hand, the a7C II offers a full-frame sensor, which provides better low light performance and shallower depth of field. The in-body image stabilization is also a big plus.

If size and cost are your main concerns, the a6700 is a fantastic option. But if you want the ultimate in image quality and low light capabilities, the a7C II would be my pick. You can't go wrong with either, to be honest.

Commenting to find later

Depends on how much will you pay for lenses, full frame lenses are more expensive and you will have more lens choices, APS-C lenses are cheaper.