I shot with a D600/610 for 3 years or so, then went with an A7r last year, and now have an A7R2, and I shoot primarily landscapes. If I was wanting to make an effort to make money with photography, I would probably have gotten an A7R3, since it would be a "write-off", but other than that, I didn't see anything that want me to shell out another $1200 (at the time I bought my camera).
As you have found out, the A73 I would hold onto, and spend the money on some glass.
Just a suggestion: have you ever considered to rent an a7rii/a7riii, take few pics with both cameras (a7iii vs a7riii) and see if you see any any difference based of your shooting style? This shouldn’t cost you more than 100-200$.
chez wrote:
Another option is to pick up the A7R which is a fine landscape camera. They are available for under $700.
What are your thoughts regarding shooting with the A7R on slow shutter speed and no OSS?
I enjoyed the brief time I shot with the A7R but getting slightly blurry/soft shots when shooting from 1/30 - 1/125 bugged me and made me miss some shots.
Regarding to the OP, A7III is more than enough IF you dont need to print big (more than 24x36, past that and you'll lose some quality)
I have a 32x48 picture framed in our living room that was taken from the A7, I also had to crop the image too.
taemo wrote:
What are your thoughts regarding shooting with the A7R on slow shutter speed and no OSS?
I enjoyed the brief time I shot with the A7R but getting slightly blurry/soft shots when shooting from 1/30 - 1/125 bugged me and made me miss some shots.
Regarding to the OP, A7III is more than enough IF you dont need to print big (more than 24x36, past that and you'll lose some quality)
I have a 32x48 picture framed in our living room that was taken from the A7, I also had to crop the image too.
I never had vibration come into play with my landscape images. Typically they are shot at around f11 at ISO 100 and shutter speeds between 1/4 second to up to 20 seconds. I always shoot my landscapes off a tripod so not having IBIS is no big deal.
I shoot landscapes with the A7III (and II). I sold my A7RII and RX1RII. Many would say this was a crazy move, but I often actually prefer the look from the 24MP sensors. The bigger pixels just give me a nicer tonality. The only thing I sometimes miss is the ability to crop more on the R.
I chose to stay with the A7III because I don't only shoot landscapes. Mainly shooting portraits and videos of my family, and I think the A7III is better suited for it, low light and focus wise and less hassle to manage large sizes files...
zurih wrote:
I chose to stay with the A7III because I don't only shoot landscapes. Mainly shooting portraits and videos of my family, and I think the A7III is better suited for it, low light and focus wise and less hassle to manage large sizes files...
I wish the A7III had a better EVF though.
the A7III is running the same EVF as the A7II and not the newer one that the A7RIII has?
chez wrote:
Stitching is fine...but stitched images look well, stitched. You will have a hard time stitching anything that moves. You have a hard time stitching very wide lenses thus being forced to a prescribed near to far relationship.
Personally I don’t feel stitching is a replacement for more pixels.
There is another benefit to stitching .... perspective. I often shoot panos with the 55/1.8 since I get the perspective I want (the mountains stay 'close' and are not 'pushed' into the far distance) in addition to being razor sharp. I took more stitched panos than I ever have in my recent month long trip to Kyrgyzstan, and I'm loving the results. My Loxia 21mm was actually under-used compared to previous trips. And there are way way more pixels in these panos than a one shot solution (though that's another issue - make sure you have a computer that can handle them)!
Chez mentioned an A7r - I still use mine (plus an A7rii) and when it comes to landscapes I don't even bother to look which camera I'm using when it comes to landscapes. Also the best Sony for astros too perhaps with no star-eater algorithms ?
Although in your situation I see no need to buy another camera simply for landscapes, 12, 16 18MP all were more than good enough a few years ago. That said I never go anywhere without a backup camera so an A7r makes sense for landscapes or an A7rii for everything.
What are you trying to say here? If you stitch 55 to the field of view of a 24 while staying in the same spot, the resulting perspective of the image is identical to simply using the 24. You'll get more detail, of course, but perspective is a function of position and distance to subject, not the lens you use.
Frogfish wrote:
There is another benefit to stitching .... perspective. I often shoot panos with the 55/1.8 since I get the perspective I want (the mountains stay 'close' and are not 'pushed' into the far distance) in addition to being razor sharp. I took more stitched panos than I ever have in my recent month long trip to Kyrgyzstan, and I'm loving the results. My Loxia 21mm was actually under-used compared to previous trips. And there are way way more pixels in these panos than a one shot solution (though that's another issue - make sure you have a computer that can handle them)!
Chez mentioned an A7r - I still use mine (plus an A7rii) and when it comes to landscapes I don't even bother to look which camera I'm using when it comes to landscapes. Also the best Sony for astros too perhaps with no star-eater algorithms ?
Although in your situation I see no need to buy another camera simply for landscapes, 12, 16 18MP all were more than good enough a few years ago. That said I never go anywhere without a backup camera so an A7r makes sense for landscapes or an A7rii for everything.
Jman13 wrote:
What are you trying to say here? If you stitch 55 to the field of view of a 24 while staying in the same spot, the resulting perspective of the image is identical to simply using the 24. You'll get more detail, of course, but perspective is a function of position and distance to subject, not the lens you use.
Quite right, of course my physical position hasn't changed so perspective is the wrong phrase to use. I meant to say FoV with regard to the scene as viewed. A lens around 50mm will reproduce the scene in a similar manner to what the eye sees compared to any WA lens, which, in effect, 'push' the features further away from the viewer.
This scene below was taken using 5 x 55mm shots. Note the lack of foreground and sky, had I used the Loxia 21mm (which horizontally could have encompassed the full scene) it would have resulted in more of both features in addition to the increased FoV and would have necessitated substantial cropping to achieve this image. Vertical angle of view with the 55mm being 24.6 degrees compared to 59.5 degrees of the 21mm. Hence although horizontally both final images may have been around 81 degrees the vertical angle of the shots taken with the 55mm remain of course at 24.6 degrees and so gave me the result I was trying to achieve.
Use the money to take a trip, get a lens, buy a high quality tripod and head, or grab some filters. If you enjoy landscape photography and find you want to print big often then buy a higher MP body. What you have is more than good enough to start.
