Sony a7Rii for travel/street/astro photography

How well does the A7Riii do for wide-field astrophotography? I took this last July in Washington state, in the Cascades near Lake Wenatchee. I'm looking forward to using it with a 4" telescope I just purchased. The rig is all trimmed and ready to go, in case it ever clears up in Chicago. There are about 100 Messier objects on my bucket list.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 25/2.4, 10 seconds @f/2.4, ISO 800.

 

 

Orion from my front yard, with a lot of light pollution. The nebula is clearly visible as the middle "star" of Orion's sword. The Milky Way, if it were visible in this light, would run horizontally across the top of this image.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 85/2.4, 10 seconds @f/2.4, ISO 400

Edited January 19, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

I think the requirements for Astro and Landscape are vastly different from Street photography - whatever the many definitions of 'street' may be.

 

Does anyone need 42 megapixels for snapshots of strangers performing before a lens? Not really, I'd say. Nor even for 'posed' pictures of characters, since you'll be working handheld I'll venture.

 

My camera of choice for street photography, would be small, light and unobtrusive. Something like my a6000 with a small prime attached.

 

I'm sure the A7riii is almost unsurpassed for detail when stuck on a tripod, but for roving the streets; probably not such a good idea. Do you really want to risk getting mugged and lose several thousand dollars/pounds worth of camera and lens? When a relatively cheap, used 24 megapixel camera will do the job more than adequately.

 

My used a6000 cost (much) less than any decent lens for the A7riii, and an even cheaper Jupiter-8 lens makes for a very compact outfit. At a pinch the 16-50 kit lens will suffice as well, and gives AF.

 

This picture by Henri Cartier-Bresson is one of my favourites, and would gain nothing by being pixel-sharp at 42 Mp.

Sony RX100 M6, it's starting to grow on me:)

 

100% crop

Edited January 19, 2019 by Nick D.

How well does the A7Riii do for wide-field astrophotography? I took this last July in Washington state, in the Cascades near Lake Wenatchee. I'm looking forward to using it with a 4" telescope I just purchased. The rig is all trimmed and ready to go, in case it ever clears up in Chicago. There are about 100 Messier objects on my bucket list.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 25/2.4, 10 seconds @f/2.4, ISO 800.

[ATTACH=full]1279664[/ATTACH]

 

 

Orion from my front yard, with a lot of light pollution. The nebula is clearly visible as the middle "star" of Orion's sword. The Milky Way, if it were visible in this light, would run horizontally across the top of this image.

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 85/2.4, 10 seconds @f/2.4, ISO 400

 

Fantastic. I'm always torn about how much noise reduction to apply. You seem to go light on the NR, which I think is a legitimate way to go. What's your philosophy?

I think the requirements for Astro and Landscape are vastly different from Street photography - whatever the many definitions of 'street' may be.

While true to an extent, the OP included landscape and astro photography in the initial post and title. Cartier-Bresson's style of photography was based on the moment, and only minimal technical quality was required. Ansel Adams died before DSLRs became commonplace, along with pixel-peeping. Given his affection for large and medium format photography, 42+ MP would have been an obvious choice.

 

Image stabilization has rendered tripods almost unnecessary, but not completely. I use one mostly for consistency between shots, long exposures (> 3/F), or when I'm striving for maximum resolution. In-body stabilization is great for lenses 50 mm or less, but longer lenses (e.g., 85 + mm) benefit from a tripod unless equipped with optical stabilization too. Without stabilization, resolution of the camera is irrelevant. Camera shake (at 1/F) gives you the equivalent of 6 MP.

 

Astrophotography presents a mixed bag of choices. On one hand, you can get very good results with an APS-C or Micro 4/3 camera, but at the expense of 50% or more noise than a FF camera. The biggest issue is reach, specifically too much reach, for wide-field, lunar, and deep space objects extending more than about 1 arc-degree. You need a large aperture to gather up sparse photons, which usually comes at the expense of a long focal length. Short, wide telescopes are specialty items, relatively expensive, and almost useless for visual observation. On the other hand, the more magnification the better for planets, within constraints imposed by the atmosphere, "seeing" conditions, and the quality of your telescope and mount.

 

For wide-field astrophotography (e.g., the Milky Way), you would need a 12-18 mm lens instead of the 25 mm used in my post. Ironically, shorter lenses are either more expensive or of lesser optical quality, and often larger than lenses closer to "normal." The process is complicated by the fact you often can't see what you're pointing at without binoculars and/or a virtual reality astro guide. Ten seconds at ISO 800 is about 1000x as bright as you see with your eye.

Fantastic. I'm always torn about how much noise reduction to apply. You seem to go light on the NR, which I think is a legitimate way to go. What's your philosophy?

I leave High ISO NR at medium, but turn long exposure NR off completely. (known for "eating" stars). The A7Riii has relatively low noise up to ISO 1600 or more, and exposure times under 30 seconds. Light pollution far exceeds CMOS sensor noise within 30 miles of a major city. Rather than in-camera NR, you can stack exposures, which reduces random noise by averaging. Combined with dark exposures (hot pixels) and flat-frame (vignetting), there are several astrophotography applications which can stack images effectively.

 

I use "Starry Landscape Stacker" regularly. I'm struggling with the steep learning curve of "PixInsight". "Deep Sky Stacker" is free, but only available for Windows (I'm a MAC convert).

There is so much to learn about astrophotography, even on a hobby level. In addition to the technical requirements for acquiring an image, there can be a lot of equipment to haul around and assemble under near total darkness, the pack up without losing things in the grass. The best "seeing" is often on cold winter nights, so staying warm with minimal activity for an hour or three can be challenging. One quickly discovers that images which look so striking in print are the result of arduous post-processing, often taking far more time than the photography itself.

 

This is the unprocessed view of the Milky Way I presented above. Believe it or not, this is how it looked to the unaided eye - the faintest band of light in a starry sky, which you can barely see if you zoom in on this image. I did not have my iOptron tracker, so the exposure was limited to 10 seconds to minimize star trails. I tried stacking, I tried AuroraHD, but in the end, processed this image using tools within Adobe Lightroom.

 

 

Back in Chicago, you have the opposite problem. Light pollution limits the maximum exposure time to between 10 and 30 seconds. At least you can see the principal stars. There is a visible cloud around Orion's belt, which is part real and part due to vignetting of the lens when wide open. The nebula mainly consists of ionized hydrogen (the alpha line), which is largely blocked by the IR filter on the sensor.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

While true to an extent, the OP included landscape and astro photography in the initial post and title.

 

- I realise that.

I wasn't suggesting an a6000, or something similar, as a one-camera solution. I was suggesting it as a supplement for street photography, since the A7riii isn't the obvious or most suitable choice for that.

 

My used a6000 didn't cost a lot - peanuts in comparison to an A7riii or even A7rii - and yet is perfectly adequate for street use. And I wouldn't cry too hard if it was damaged or stolen.

- I realise that.

I wasn't suggesting an a6000, or something similar, as a one-camera solution. I was suggesting it as a supplement for street photography, since the A7riii isn't the obvious or most suitable choice for that.

 

My used a6000 didn't cost a lot - peanuts in comparison to an A7riii or even A7rii - and yet is perfectly adequate for street use. And I wouldn't cry too hard if it was damaged or stolen.

 

I primarily shoot nature, but I also shoot people in nature and street, particularly when I travel. I don't find a full-frame body to be an hindrance. Just take your pictures. I have NEVER had someone object. I don't avoid eye contact. If they seem to want to talk, I'll acknowledge in a friendly way and say something like, "I hope you didn't mind me taking a picture that included you." I have a model release app on my phone, but I've only used it once or twice, when I thought the subject might be something I'd try to sell. (Usually not). A few times I've said, "I'd never try to sell anything without a model release." I also ask, if they've engaged me in conversation, if they'd like a copy to do with as they like. Several have taken me up on that offer, over the years.

Super happy I found this site because y'all have a ton of useful insight! I popped by my friendly neighborhood camera store to try things in the hand and I've gotta say, everything feels awful clunky in the hand - maybe I'm just too used to the simplified Canon models I've used but the a7 series seems like hell to get the hang of just in the way of interface navigation. I looked at the new(ish) Nikon Z7 and Z6 too, which seems slightly easier to use but not by a ton. Even the Canon R is a huge difference.

 

I actually liked the Z7 the most in hand, but maybe the Alphas would be reasonably improved with a grip. An issue for both seems to be lens availability, the Z mount has a whopping 3 native lenses and the E mount isn't a whole lot better, though they do have what I need right now.

 

All that said, I think I'm leaning toward the a7iii and a real sharp 16-35 lens to start, and a 35 or 50 pancake down the road. Realistically I don't think I'll be printing large enough frequently enough to justify the expense for the extra resolution, and the point about lower resolution equalling larger photoreceptors is well taken.

 

Anyone jump from Canon to Sony? How'd you feel about the interface on the camera? The physical feel of it? Would you buy it again?

...

 

Anyone jump from Canon to Sony? How'd you feel about the interface on the camera? The physical feel of it? Would you buy it again?

 

I moved from a 5D IV/ 5DsR rig to an a9/a7RIII rig. I found it an easy move. I shoot RAW in Manual mode 99% of the time, so the EVF made things way easier on the Sony. There's a shutter speed horizontal wheel on the top-back of the body and an aperture control wheel opposite on the front and you change ISO with the big wheel on the back. You see it all in the EVF and you see the exposure changing in the WYSIWYG EVF as you change parameters, so exposure is a breeze. I think it's far better than Canon.

 

The toughest thing to learn is all the AF options and when it's best to use each. It's easily changed in the programs that show in the EVF when you hit the button above the control wheel. That's the subject of a whole new thread. The options are all very useful and much better than the Canon equivalents, but you need to learn which one is best for each situation.

 

After the Firmware update coming, making eye-detection full-time and including many animals, the AF, which may already be the best, will be unbeatable. I think it's superior to the 1D-X II, particularly with the lock-on functions and eye-detection.

My only concern for choosing Sony over Canon is the very different colour generated by the Sony. I have used seven Canon and Nikon DSLRs over the years and just last year added a Sony A6000 for sports, to use alongside my Canon 5D II which I use for landscapes. I have never had a problem adjusting the colour from Canon and Nikon cameras to my liking. Last fall I shot the A6000 alongside my 5D II using my Canon 17 TS-E on both for landscape photos. I needed to make very significant and time consuming adjustments to get the Sony photos even close to the Canon photos and in a few instances I could not even use the Sony photos. I nearly decided to upgrade to one of the A7R models but thankfully just upgraded the 5D II to a used 5DS R.

RAW images have no color. It is added later by the RAW converter. In-camera JPEGs are processed using a default profile, but can be "seasoned to taste" by camera settings. Choosing cameras on the basis of their JPEG color was the only choice in 1997, but not relevant now.

I don't use jpegs. It is the Sony output of their RAW image files that is significantly different than what Canon and Nikon do. I use ACR for post processing. Perhaps Sony has their own converter which may correlate better to their output data, but they certainly did not send any software with their camera. I will have to look into this.

 

 

P.S. There is no dedicated converter for Sony. While many people like other generic converters there appears to be nothing in them to make them any better at Sony conversion than ACR. I will continue experimenting with the A6000 and ACR and determine what situations that I can use the Sony in.

Edited February 12, 2019 by John Crowe

I have a couple friends who went from dSLRs to Sonys.

Both said the Sony menus "stink." But they got used to it and put up with it, for the camera.

Compared to Nikon, with the left hand column of general topics, Sony doesn't fare well. It was improved greatly in the A9/A7Riii and presumably the Aiii. Each page has a heading for general, AF, Video, etc., so you don't have to scour each page for the info you need. I still scratch my head and think, "Why is this there?"

 

Once you've gone through it page by page and learned what the commands do, you're okay. It takes less than 15 minutes to reset the camera, or set up a new one the second time around.

 

There are two customized menus, the Fn (two rows on the bottom of the viewfinder) and "STAR" as the last heading in the main menu. It's easy to program buttons for things for which you need real-time access. You can assign different functions to the same buttons for still and video. "Eye Focus" can only be accessed via a programmed button, and must be held down during the exposure. Firmware V5.0 (March) is supposed to fix that.

 

The most confusing settings concern auto focus. You have various spot sizes, locking or not, face recognition or not, expandable spot or not, and all combinations thereof. If you aren't in a hurry, any setting will work. If you like to drive with your foot pressed to the firewall, there are settings for that too, but the camera is more picky. If someone would like to write a book about Sony AF, I'll buy the first copy.

 

Kidding aside, "Focus and Recompose" is my favorite casual method, wither AF-C + DMF or AF-S, both single medium spot, center. For action (like a bumblebee in flight), Center Expandable Spot, AF-S, Tracking (Locking), Face Recognition (it seems to like bees). The spot can be steered with the joy stick, or returned to center. The location usually stays where last used.

Hi to all,

Hope everything is fine in your place, considerign the actual situation..

I'm a newby taking pictures at the night sky and started with the easiest, which is taking photos of the moon.

I have a Sony A7R3 and an A9, but for the sky pictures I prefer the A7R3 for the higher megapixel and better cropping possibilities.

The problem I find with the R3 and the 200-600 @ 600mm is that I get this weird pattern when I enlarge the image, even before doing any processing. I don't know if it is the camera sensor , the lens or the atmosphere between me and the moon, but need to know what it is and if there is a way to cancel or at least reduce that ugly effect.

In this case I'm shooting at 100 ISO and shutter speeds between 1/80 and 1/250. The f stop is between f/8 and f/16 I have tried both with autofocus and manual with the same results.

I have also tried taking as much as 50 exposures one after the other, then using PIPP and AutoStakker, and finally doing some adjustments in Photoshop, and of course the end image is near amazing, but one way or the other, I cannot get rid of the weird pattern (it is actually increased if anything).

I include one shot I took yesterday, without any processing; then maybe some kind soul can guide me on how to improve my night photography ; )

 

I cannot get rid of the weird pattern....

You shouldn't be getting those artefacts at 100 ISO. They might be coming from a low quality JPEG setting.

 

Have you tried shooting RAW and using the free Sony software to process them?

 

Also try the 4 shot pixel-shift setting, which reduces colour effects by producing co-sited colour pixels. Again, it requires RAW capture and the use of Sony's software.

 

Failing all that, you can simply desaturate the image to get rid of any colour patching. The moon is pretty much neutral grey anyway.

This was with a 1000mm f/11 mirror lens on a 24mp DX camera. Still heavily cropped.

Edited November 1, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Hi to all,

Hope everything is fine in your place, considerign the actual situation..

I'm a newby taking pictures at the night sky and started with the easiest, which is taking photos of the moon.

I have a Sony A7R3 and an A9, but for the sky pictures I prefer the A7R3 for the higher megapixel and better cropping possibilities.

The problem I find with the R3 and the 200-600 @ 600mm is that I get this weird pattern when I enlarge the image, even before doing any processing. I don't know if it is the camera sensor , the lens or the atmosphere between me and the moon, but need to know what it is and if there is a way to cancel or at least reduce that ugly effect.

In this case I'm shooting at 100 ISO and shutter speeds between 1/80 and 1/250. The f stop is between f/8 and f/16 I have tried both with autofocus and manual with the same results.

I have also tried taking as much as 50 exposures one after the other, then using PIPP and AutoStakker, and finally doing some adjustments in Photoshop, and of course the end image is near amazing, but one way or the other, I cannot get rid of the weird pattern (it is actually increased if anything).

I include one shot I took yesterday, without any processing; then maybe some kind soul can guide me on how to improve my night photography ; )

 

[ATTACH=full]1362912[/ATTACH]

Try to turn off image stabilization.