Sony a7Rii for travel/street/astro photography

Hi all,

 

This year I have a lot of travel on the books - so far a trip to iceland and another to ireland, with a US cross country road trip in the works. I don't get the chance to travel much, and I want to get some more professional gear in preparation.

 

I'm mostly a film photographer these days because I just love everything about film, but also because I absolutely hate digital noise. I currently have a Canon Rebel t6i with a 28-135 f3.5 USM which sees little to no use aside from when I have a high volume project that I know will be well lit.

 

I need digital because I'm the sort of person to take way too many photos and film would be exorbitantly expensive, so I may as well invest in digital. I want to get setup which will allow me to minimize noise and get great detail for wide landscape shots but which will sustain general street photography and low light portraiture, which my canon struggles with deeply. Most of that is the lenses ofc, but in my brain that also means better, bigger full frame sensor.

 

I'm a little enamored right now by the Sony a7Rii, and I was curious if anyone had any strong opinions about it. I know about the star eater issue affecting shots over 4 seconds exposure and don't think it will affect the type of astro photos I'm looking for. I also know the battery life is not great, which is a concern in travel scenarios. I don't have any desire to be charging and carrying 5 batteries at a time.

 

I know the a7Riii has the same sensor, are the other upgrades that come with it worth the extra $1000 to you? It definitely sits on the edge of what's affordable for me. I feel it makes more sense to get the ii and put the extra $ into a better lens.

 

The other options on the table are continuing with Canon DSLRs and getting a 6D Mark ii or a 5D mark iii.

 

I'm feeling very much spoiled for choice and right now any advice, especially anecdotal, would be amazingly useful.

 

Thanks!

Following the first firmware upgrade, the A7Rii was subject to "star eating." The intent was to reduce thermal noise and "hot" pixels" for exposures longer than about 3 seconds. The effect was to wipe out most or all of the smaller star images. Oddly, the sharper the lens, the more stars are lost (yes, you can get pixel level resolution). Subsequent firmware upgrades did little to reduce this effect.

 

The A7Riii seems to have corrected this problem, improving the image processing and dynamic range, with the same sensor. In addition the model 3 battery has twice the capacity and the camera takes 40% less power to operate. Instead of changing the battery every 2-3 hours on a day's outing with the A7Rii, I go all day and 600+ images with the newer version.

 

You will still need a good (great) lens to match the 42 MP sensor on either camera. For a one-lens kit, the 55/1.8 or 35/2.8 Sonnar are very good, but the new Zeiss Batis 40/2 is even better for color and resolution.

I too vote for the a7RIII, if you can find a way to afford the increased price. The a7RIII has substantial improvement in battery life and dynamic range (including high-ISO performance). That body, with the FE 24-105mm G OSS, makes for an incredibly versatile travel photography package. The following Flickr Album was shot entirely with the a7RIII/24-105mm combo:

 

Queen Mary 2 - 2018/2019

 

 

Here's a taste:

 

Lower Manhattan - From Our Balcony by David Stephens, on Flickr

Oh, BTW, I switched from Canon to Sony, selling around $30,000 of Canon investment to make the switch. The Sony feels like "cheating" vs. the Canon rigs. The WYSIWYG EVF is something that I now can't live without. Lock-on eye-detect AF will spoils you, as will the various other lock-on modes with the native lenses.

The best lens for landscapes is sharp all over, but particularly in the corners, with no noticeable CA. Distortion is less important, because there are no straight lines in nature, and distortion is easily corrected in firmware or in editing. The lens I use most is a Sony 24-70/2.8 GM. It is expensive and heavy, but nearly as good as the primes it replaces, and in aggregate, less expensive and lighter. It is as close to a "one lens" kit that really works. I used it extensively throughout Iceland and Ireland, along with a rented Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6. Primes are more comfortable when walking any distance, and less obtrusive in urban situations. I used an A9 and A7Rii about equally in Ireland this Spring, rarely at the same time.

 

The example below is an iron-age circle fort on the Kerry peninsula, Ireland. I circumnavigated the island on the Wild Waves Way with my brother.

 

Sony A9 + Sony 24-70/2.8 GM @ 39 mm, 1/80, f/8, ISO 100

Take closer to home, at least a place I visit yearly, this shot of Mt. St. Helens, Washington, was taken with a Sony A7Riii and a Loxia 35 mm lens. I held off replacing the A7Rii for a long time, but glad I finally did. The A7Riii is a major improvement. On this trip, I used manual primes almost exclusively, for maximum image quality, control and portability. The complete set of lenses fits in a medium-sized fanny pack (ThinkTank Hubba Hubba Hiney).

 

Sony A7Riii + Zeiss Loxia 35/2, 1/100 at f/6.3, ISO 100

I own the 24-70mm GM also, but I MUCH prefer the 24-105mm G OSS as an all around travel lens. It's corrected in RAW conversion, giving up almost nothing to primes and I find myself using the OSS almost daily. I feel like the OSS and IBIS combined is more effective than IBIS alone.

 

The shot below is 1/30-sec, ISO 100 and f/22 (for star effect) with no worry at all about hand-holding, thanks to excellent stabilization:

 

Sunset On The Caribbean Sea by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

I'm thinking seriously about selling the 24-70 GM. Where I might use f/2.8, portraits, the focal length is shorter than I prefer (I like around 90mm to 105mm for portraits).

Lets have a little think.

 

Big bucks. Really, on a A5 print could any pixel peeper tell the difference from any camera. No, this has been proved time and time again, until we reach the land of utter boredom. So, lots of coin burning holes in your pocket to spend...and you will be be the last word as a master photographer. Just need a A7 something.

 

My mate Ed( Edward to his mates ) with his mastery of technical prose has taken you truly sad lot to the promised land... Its a new dawn, a new chapter, and all you need is a7 something.

 

Praise Edward and Sony towers.

Wish I took this photo with a poor handling A7 thing with a great honking lens.

 

Very cheap Leica, payed 400 gbp. Probably best Leica ever built, just one piece of aluminum.

 

1.1 Chinese lens stuck on it. Magic.

 

Thoughts for folks without pockets of burning gold.....and rare as hens teeth, a actual photo on PN from this combination.

Edited January 12, 2019 by Allen Herbert

Remember 1.1.

Leica T.

 

Artisan 50mm 1.1.

Lets have a little think.

 

Big bucks. Really, on a A5 print could any pixel peeper tell the difference from any camera. No, this has been proved time and time again, until we reach the land of utter boredom. So, lots of coin burning holes in your pocket to spend...and you will be be the last word as a master photographer. Just need a A7 something.

 

.

 

Why would you shoot landscapes and limit yourself to A5 prints? If that's your standard, then almost anything will do the trick. Although, dynamic range is an important factor in any size and 15-stops is VERY noticeable. Shadow detail is amazing with the a7RIII.

Is this better, Mr. Herbert? The insert is full-sized, pixel = pixel. I can't upload the original image in PN, even displayed as a thumbnail. At 200 dpi, it would print at 26"x40", without resampling. At typical screen resolution (96 dpi), it would be 52"x80".

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 25/2.4, 1/250 @ f/8, ISO 100

Is this better, Mr. Herbert? The insert is full-sized, pixel = pixel. I can't upload the original image in PN, even displayed as a thumbnail. At 200 dpi, it would print at 26"x40", without resampling. At typical screen resolution (96 dpi), it would be 52"x80".

 

Sony A7Riii + Loxia 25/2.4, 1/250 @ f/8, ISO 100

[ATTACH=full]1278858[/ATTACH]

Honestly the sheer detail in that little insert might be what sells me on that a7r3. Guess it'll come down to how kind the us government is with my tax returns :D

I used pixel-shifting, which is a feature included with the A7Riii. I also used a #3 Really Right Stuff tripod, a 2 second delay (in lieu of a remote release), and automatic sequencing. Pixel-shifting renders four consecutive exposures in a way to eliminate Bayer interpolation. It effectively doubles the resolution (equivalent to 170 MP). You can't use it if anything in the subject (or camera) moves without creating bazaar artifacts. I took the same shot without pixel-shifting, which would be perfectly useful when enlarged. Sometimes it's fun to challenge yourself and the capabilities of the camera.

 

Pixel-shifting is most often used for product photography and archival images of artwork and historical documents.

Leica T.

 

Artisan 50mm 1.1.

Only just now getting to look at the camera you're talking about, Leica T would go for $1000 new, 500-1000 used. It doesn't come with a viewfinder which personal preference I would like to have. It's also a crop sensor, so I'll need to buy extra extra wide lenses for landscape shots, meaning I either get lots of distortion with a cheaper lens or have to buy a real nice one. Smaller sensor also means lots more noise, which will turn my blue and white astro shot into a fuzz of green and magenta, especially with the max ISO at 12500 compared to just over 100k. I appreciate the perspective and fully agree that the newest thing is not ever necessarily the best thing, but that particular camera is definitely not for me. As someone who shoots primarily film, and does so on cheaper cameras from the 70s, I get it.

 

Detached from the actual content of the question, I'm not sure where the 'my mate Ed (Edward to his mates ) .... ' line comes from and it makes me think you're here just to be contradictory?

 

(Edit: spelling corrections)

Honestly the sheer detail in that little insert might be what sells me on that a7r3. Guess it'll come down to how kind the us government is with my tax returns :D

 

I print 52" and 72", so that level of detail is important to me. Also, the superb dynamic range at base ISO and then at extended ISO, all the way up to ISO 50000 (really), is another reason. If you don't print large, then dynamic range may be important to you.

 

If you've shot black birds, you know how hard it can be to get detail in the black:

 

Magpie Struts by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

The magpie shot has the added complication of white vs. black and some stunning blues. I couldn't have gotten this detail with my old 5D MkIV.

 

Resolution is a big deal for many of us, but not all, but dynamic range is important to any photographer.

I print 52" and 72", so that level of detail is important to me. Also, the superb dynamic range at base ISO and then at extended ISO, all the way up to ISO 50000 (really), is another reason. If you don't print large, then dynamic range may be important to you.

 

If you've shot black birds, you know how hard it can be to get detail in the black:

 

, on Flickr

 

The magpie shot has the added complication of white vs. black and some stunning blues. I couldn't have gotten this detail with my old 5D MkIV.

 

Resolution is a big deal for many of us, but not all, but dynamic range is important to any photographer.

 

maybe !

 

black bird with a mirrorless camera and 20 year old lens

 

Untitled by c w, on Flickr

I still think the a7R2 is a great camera and while anything updated is going to be better does the value truly justify the cost? Detail is nice but a boring composition is a boring composition. A couple of thoughts on the benefits of the older model, first you can basically buy a7r2 on craigslist right now for a steal (and come on nobody is over using cameras these days - not like it's a ten year old model) It has a 500,000 shutter, who's going to get close to that number? With the costs saving of a used a7r2 you can easily justify an extra lens. There is a piece of mind traveling with less expensive gear in case of an accident or theft. Plus used and third party batteries are plentiful.

 

The battery issue is such an over bloated internet whine - yes I am constantly facing it, under one certain circumstance, when I'm recording 4k for extended (multiple multiple segments longer than twenty minutes in the winter cold) I have never had a single problem shooting stills and I'm normally working eight plus hours continually bracketing - I do have to change batteries but I had to as well on my 5d's. The great feature the a7r2 has is usb power I can plug in a usb power brick and truly extend the length or recharge the battery while at a coffee shop with the usb battery brick. Would I carry three extra batteries with me out walking around yes but I would do that with any camera I've ever owned. Could I get by with two batteries and a slim usb brick, easily.

 

The gripes I have with the older model is the lcd screen scratches easily and the lag time shooting fast action with the black out of the evf. If money was no object sure the latest and greatest is the way to go - do you want to go banging around airports, taxis, and unknown streets with the latest and greatest or would a second lens, extra travel day, additional aps-c body be a better choice? An extra thousand for travel expenses sure comes in handy.

These are the features I use daily, and there are others I find useful on occasion.

 

The number one feature of the A7M3 is the battery life, about 5x as long as that of the A7M2. Another key feature is the ability to use the electronic (silent) shutter for multi-frame shooting. Finally there are two card slots with several options. I use them in parallel for events which I can't repeat. There is also a serial mode, where the camera writes to one card, then switches to the other when the first is filled. You can then hot-swap the first card, ad infinitum.

 

With the M2, I felt it prudent to carry at least 3 spares for a day of shooting (e.g., a photo vacation). With the M3, I never needed to change the battery, so one spare was sufficient. I get about 2.5 hours of continuous video with the M3, using an external recorder to circumvent the 29 minute clip limit (due to import restrictions). The weather in Chicago today was 30 degrees. After two hours walking around and 276 images, the battery started at 80% and now indicates 28%. I normally carry four spares and two bodies. (Today was my periodic one body, one lens excursion.) That's more draw down than normal

 

There are two things I do to prepare a new camera for duty. I purchase a RRS L-bracket to fit, and a Gorilla Glass cover for the LCD. There is nothing to indicate the model on the front of the camera, 2 or 3. If you fear muggings, don't go, or if you have no choice, go prepared.

"line comes from and it makes me think you're here just to be contradictory?"

 

Indeed, not everyone has a bucket of gold coins....nice to other a alternative as opposed to a love in.

 

"this better, Mr. Herbert?. Ed.

 

Seem angry, Ed. No need just gear talk. Hey, Allen or Al would be polite among gentleman.

 

In the real world, folks do not press their nose to a image. From a correct viewing distance, there is little to choose from various sensor sizes. This has been proved time and time again...if the pixel peeps care to do a little research they might come to a understanding beyond a religious faith.

 

Ed, really. Dcstep, I'm a fan of your photos. So, I will not comment.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Allen Herbert

All and any of these photographs can and could be easily emulated by a ACP sensor.

 

Do a search on PN.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Allen Herbert

offer.

Gents...

All and any of these photographs can and could be easily emulated by a ACP sensor.

 

Do a search on PN.

 

Taking an image for posting on PN and printing at 72" are two very different things. You need to know how you'll use the image before you can decide what is "adequate". Emulating and duplicating are two different things.