p.1 #1 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
I still have hung on to my A7RIII which has been fine for my use. I will be doing more traveling soon and have several nights (if the weather cooperates ) of astrolandscape shooting. I was curious if the larger photon wells in the lower resolution body was enough to offset advances in sensor technology and noise reduction from downsampling a higher res sensor. I looked at DXO mark and a subjective analysis and perhaps the A7RIII is slightly better. I am not sure the difference hold up after image processing or not. The DR on DXOmark does look a half stop better. I was thinking of trying the A7RVI when it is out but now more concerned about the higher ISO performance. I only use AF a modest amount. Any thoughts appreciated.
p.1 #2 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
Each of these cameras have good sensors.
Are you only doing astro? General travel photography too?
I would be thinking about ergos, battery life, LCD screen quality, EVF quality, video capabilities, speed of operation, improved menus, IBIS, etc etc.
Newer cameras win on all of the above.
p.1 #3 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
Same situation here! Have held on to the A7r3 and sold the A7r5 again because it was just too much camera for me, as Im not shooting such fast moving targets that need the AF. Didnt really like the new Sony menu, so kept the A7r3 for when I need to crop. For ultra low light and fun, Im also using an A73 (full spectrum converted).
Like the guy mentioned in the video you shared ‘if you dont pixel peep, you can make it work”.
Theres better videos on YT with people comparing high gain and low gain ISO performance and compressed vs uncompressed RAW files where they brighten up completely underexposed/dark uncompressed files on the Sony A7r3 with +5 stops and there is comparatively little noise, very impressive indeed!
Be shure to save your RAW file uncompressed if you want to overexpose in post by several stops. Otherwise I always shoot compressed, since I dont need to adjust exposure that much in post.
Important is that the dual gain stage has changed after the A73 series from 640 to 250. This means that youre up in the high gain ISO stage really fast. Not so good if you see that with the A73 series you can get an equally clean image at ISO 640 than at ISO 100, whereas with the 4&5 series you can only get performance equal to ISO100 at ISO 250.
See this chart: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Sony%20ILCE-7M3_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM5_14
p.1 #4 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
For me, the most important astro feature of the Sony cameras is bright monitoring. It makes assessing the composition faster and more effective, and it is substantially easier to focus with that feature. The second most important feature IMO is a flippy screen because you can compose or do panoramas in portrait orientation. The sensor is important, no question, but every Sony camera I have had since the A7R2 has had a great sensor. I currently use the A9, A1, and A75 for astro. All have laggy bright monitoring, but the feature works in all three cameras. Only the A75 has the flippy screen. For me, the A75 wins for that reason alone. I don't really notice the benefits of the sensor so much. For example, I know the A9 has weaker dynamic range than the other two, but I don't notice it with my astro shots. The other features mentioned, however, make astro (a difficult form of photography) a lot more enjoyable.
p.1 #5 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
I shoot landscapes and astrolandscapes as a hobby with A7RV.
It is usable.
There are some annoying things about it:
- It supports timed exposures over 30s (this was new in R series on the A7R5). It however does not support timed mode together with internal intervalometer. External intervalometer can be used, but that for that you need to have one and you need open door which is a risk for wetness to get in. Similarly for daylight I miss bracketed exposures to work with intervalometer.
- For landscape parts of astrolandscapes, I often use ISO 320 and long exposures. They contain quite a lot of hot pixels. I tried subtracting them using dark frames, but it was not working well for me so I usually just create a layer where I apply hot pixel removal in GIMP's G'MIC plugin and use that layer selectively because it destroys sharper details when used with stronger settings.
There are some advantages for astrolandscapes over previous A7RIV and A7III that I had before:
- There is no longer stareater noise reduction in raws when shooting exposures longer than 3.2s. But it means that there is more noise visible but better potential for noise reduction and no hollow or green stars.
- The display angles are much more flexible.
I have some videos of me shooting and processing astrolandscapes with A7R5:
Video with dual audio Czech and English:
Video with Czech voice and corrected English subtitles:
Video with Czech voice and corrected English subtitles:
Video with Czech voice and corrected English subtitles:
Video with Czech voice and corrected English subtitles:
p.1 #6 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. The shadows will clean up a bit better on the A7Riii, but it is affected by Sony's star-eater algorithm, which the A7RV isn't. Once you just for image size, the noise difference will be slight. Instead of worrying about noise, are there other features the A7RV has that would be valuable to you? It has better stabilization, higher resolution and a much better focusing system. None of that may matter for astro, but it could make a difference in landscape, travel portrait, etc. Also, the flippy screen on the A7RV is great, especially for vertical astro shots.
p.1 #7 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
Very much appreciate the comments. I sometimes reduce the intensity of some stars so the star eater hasn't bothered me as much as I thought it might. I'd rather make my own processing errors though. I actually like the smaller grip on the RIII but certainly do not like the lack of timed bulb or flippy screen. The shutter app works fine for timed foreground shots with any cheap usb-c cable. I may be doing some travel portraits this Summer and not sure how much better the eye AF has become. I hadn't felt compelled to buy the subsequent models but may reconsider. I occasionally use my Mini genie at night for pano's and not sure that will work with usb-c with no multi-port. Inertia is powerful.
p.1 #8 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
Michael Gordon wrote:
Very much appreciate the comments. I sometimes reduce the intensity of some stars so the star eater hasn't bothered me as much as I thought it might. I'd rather make my own processing errors though. I actually like the smaller grip on the RIII but certainly do not like the lack of timed bulb or flippy screen. The shutter app works fine for timed foreground shots with any cheap usb-c cable. I may be doing some travel portraits this Summer and not sure how much better the eye AF has become. I hadn't felt compelled to buy the subsequent models but may reconsider. I occasionally use my Mini genie at night for pano's and not sure that will work with usb-c with no multi-port. Inertia is powerful. ...Show more →
The rV still has the multi-port. I had mine set up with the two mini genies for panos and those and the slider for time-delay.
If I were you, I'd want to know how the rV's files look in comparison when downsized to 42MP via software or when using the MRAW setting (less than 42, but not by much). I'm not saying it's apples to apples- there's more than a resolution difference between sensors, but I think you'd be amazed at how close they come. And I mention this because the rV comes with two big upgrades for MF shooters. First, there's the screen. Perfect for macro, great for waist level-shooting. It won't do much for astro, but it's cool. Second, and most important, you get a big EVF upgrade that will be all-around helpful until you start using AF and bursting. It's lovely at full resolution and will have a nice impact on every aspect of MF shooting.
p.1 #9 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
freaklikeme wrote:
If I were you, I'd want to know how the rV's files look in comparison when downsized to 42MP via software or when using the MRAW setting (less than 42, but not by much).
I recommend to avoid using RAW Lossless compressed M and S. They have 1.5EV less highlight headroom over other modes.
This is my rating of the RAW modes:
Uncompressed: image is perfect but file size is big.
Lossless Compressed L: image is perfect, file size is ok. This is the one I use.
Lossless Compressed M and S: less highlight recovery by 1.5EV.
Lossy compressed: artifacts on high contrast edges, it also switches sensor reading from 14 to 12 bits so more noise in shadows when using low ISO. File size is smaller. On A7R4 there were significant buffer advantages to use this over uncompressed which was only other RAW option, but I am not sure if they are any left on A7R5 compared to Lossless L.
p.1 #10 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
My experience on single exposure astrology photography is mainly northern lights. A7rV suffers considerably more if I have to raise ISO. With bright lights and a good lens, I like to use 24GM, it gives very good results. A7rIII was much less critical. Using low ISO was not so important with it.
I owned briefly A7cII. Bad EVF made MF a little difficult but image quality wise It was an excellent camera for astro! The resolution difference between A7rV and A7cII is not important if shooting higher than base ISO and tweaking the shot a little. In this kind of scenario A7rV has no real resolution advantage.
I still remember fondly Nikon Df files (D4 sensor). No wonder Nasa still used D5 in Artemis mission
p.1 #11 · Is the A7RIII discernably superior to A7RV for astrolandscape?
So I have shot a bunch with different cameras and have been doing astro landscape for more than 11 years on on the original A7r, A7r II, A7 III, and more recent bodies.
The III series (R and non-R) have the lowest thermal noise of the group which is a nice bonus. The DR of any of these cameras at any ISO you are going to use for astro (i.e. ISO 1600 and up typically unless you are potentially doing long exposure with a tracker) is not going to be different. I've never found the star eater to be a problem for what I shoot FYI.
Unless you really need 61mpx or what to upgrade for other reasons (AF, etc), you are probably fine where you are. I use a modded A7 III and a7r III for my astro still and will get an A7V for when I need AF and can shoot at low ISO to get its better dymanic range.
