Switch from A7II to A7R for purely landscape photography?

Switch from A7II to A7R for purely landscape photography?


  • Total voters
    0
with the a7r you get 14.4x magnification in the evf; you can't do that with an a7rii, i think that it's maxed out at 12.x at full mag... a7r is a wonderful platform for manual focusing, especially for landscape shooting, where you need every bit of magnification that you can get.

 
If you don't care about lower flash sync speed
I don't
And you can always resort to HSS, which works fine on a set up with the A7R.
worse corners with rangefinder lenses
Don't have any
and some shutter shock,
This is something I fear, but is it really an issue at very low SS (I mean, several seconds)?
Most pictures I take are either high speed (over 1/800) or long exposure (over 5s)...
Sturdy tripod, conscious choose of SS and proper handling solves the vast majority of problematic scenarios. High megapixel cameras do not like the 1/Fl 'rule'.
 
Looks awesome....on my cell phone. I do not have 4K monitor so cell phone is just as good or better than my computer!
 
Aside from the video quality, the most irritating feature of the A7 is the loud and clunky shutter. I understand the A7r is even worse (and that the mk2 models fixed that), partly because of the lack of EFCS.

Owning an A7 and looking into replacing it with the A7r, my thinking has been that bad to even worse isn't that bad a transition, though.
 
Last edited:
Aside from the video quality, the most irritating feature of the A7 is the loud and clunky shutter. I understand the A7r is even worse (and that the mk2 models fixed that), partly because of the lack of EFCS.
There is no doubt the A7r shutter sound is annoying, but in the grand scheme of things, how important is the shutter sound? In a typical landscape environment it will not bother you. Inside a church during a wedding ceremony, sure it will but that is not what anyone would recommend this camera for anyway.
 
I have been considering just the opposite. I have had the A7R for a couple years. Since I never use a tripod I think I'd be better served by the IBIS on the A7II. I have some nice old Minolta lenses that would benefit.
You two could trade cameras if you live close enough...
 
I have been considering just the opposite. I have had the A7R for a couple years. Since I never use a tripod I think I'd be better served by the IBIS on the A7II. I have some nice old Minolta lenses that would benefit.
You two could trade cameras if you live close enough...
Seriously, sounds like a good match!
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
I don't get this. Why would they be focusing at f/8? Don't they focus at f/2.8 and then stop down for the exposure?
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
The 90mm is a fantastic lens, but it is a hunter, not sure if it's the camera you should be blaming. I used it on a 6300 and now the a6500 and it can be a slog to nail a shot. But when it does....wow!! By the way, off topic, what other lens would match the sharpness of the 90mm or is it in a league of its own? Thanks.
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
The 90mm is a fantastic lens, but it is a hunter, not sure if it's the camera you should be blaming. I used it on a 6300 and now the a6500 and it can be a slog to nail a shot. But when it does....wow!! By the way, off topic, what other lens would match the sharpness of the 90mm or is it in a league of its own? Thanks.
For all macro photography - isn't MF much preferred? DOF is so shallow, the camera would never know where EXACTLY you want to place the focus.
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
depending on the evf settings, i think that the 90/2.8 on my a7r sets focus with the aperture wide open, then stops down to take the shot... sony zooms may behave differently, but whatever you saw may have been affected by the "setting effect:ON" or OFF setting.

i did have issues with af hunting when trying to shoot difficult material right at the mfd of the lens... using af for serious macro is pretty much a fail.

that oly 60mm macro lens isn't playing in the same league as the ff offerings, if for no other reason than it doesn't have good resolution across the frame, even stopped down in this comparison... the corners/sides are really bad wide open.



74498e21574e4d9d9c8581cee00f2e05.jpg







--
dan
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
The 90mm is a fantastic lens, but it is a hunter, not sure if it's the camera you should be blaming. I used it on a 6300 and now the a6500 and it can be a slog to nail a shot. But when it does....wow!! By the way, off topic, what other lens would match the sharpness of the 90mm or is it in a league of its own? Thanks.
For all macro photography - isn't MF much preferred? DOF is so shallow, the camera would never know where EXACTLY you want to place the focus.
True true. I usually use manual focus, but every now and again I forget and try to auto focus. Thanks for the reply!
 
Another subject I might use FF for is macro, but I'm still unsure if IQ difference is worth the extra cost, size and weight. I have to make more trials.
My experience with the first gen A7 cameras is they aren't that great for macro. The problem is they don't focus well when stopped down to f8+. The 90mm f2.8 hunts and hunts, wheres my Em5+60mm nails the focus much more often.
The 90mm is a fantastic lens, but it is a hunter, not sure if it's the camera you should be blaming. I used it on a 6300 and now the a6500 and it can be a slog to nail a shot. But when it does....wow!! By the way, off topic, what other lens would match the sharpness of the 90mm or is it in a league of its own? Thanks.
Sony has so few good lenses the 90mm really stands out.
 
Sony has so few good lenses the 90mm really stands out.
sony has four lenses in the dxo top-10-sharpest list, which is two lenses more than any other company:
DXO is full of it. They take a lens that they rank as average on an APS camera and slap it on a 40mp FF and call it very sharp. They rank the lenses based on the SENSOR, which is ridiculous. You put the same lenses in a REAL optical test, you'd get a real result and it wouldn't "change" because the sensor changed.
 
Sony has so few good lenses the 90mm really stands out.
sony has four lenses in the dxo top-10-sharpest list, which is two lenses more than any other company:
DXO is full of it. They take a lens that they rank as average on an APS camera and slap it on a 40mp FF and call it very sharp. They rank the lenses based on the SENSOR, which is ridiculous.
it's true that canon has six 51mp 5dsr bodies on that list.

however, only one canon lens made the cut... so there is more to it than just sensor mp.

isn't canon supposed to have the best lenses? evidently not.
You put the same lenses in a REAL optical test, you'd get a real result and it wouldn't "change" because the sensor changed.
given a fixed sensor size, the result will usually increase with higher mp counts, on all types of tests.

the point was that the oly 60mm macro was weak across the image plane, you can see that again here, as compared to other oly lenses:



349bfc3a7ff245208981c2647691bcc0.jpg







--
dan
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top