Ran into a Great Landscape Pro with Sony a7RIII and 24-105 F4

Funny you raised this, in that I just decided the X-H1 with an adapted prime is an abomination of a combination (again?). A franken-camera. It's perfect with lens of mass, but that's not always how I like to roll when I want IBIS's assist on hand Because the Sony A7 line is a bit of a smaller grip (my hand was aching), I just drove several hours to grab and put the A7r2 back in service.

And here I thought I was saving the Sony for when a study with Fuji wouldn't quite cut it. It's been well over a year, I haven't found the need for that. It's nice to see it do other than sit on a shelf depreciating, anyway.

Gawd, it would be nice to have a X-Tn with IBIS, to only have to charge one battery type - but until then. . . this isn't a complaint, mind you. I'm just surprised, myself.

Hey Greg,

Interesting thread. When you get this landscape photographers site details can I request that you post them on a new thread. I would like to see his work and I may not follow this thread much longer.

Thanks, Mo

stillsmatic said:

Greg, did the gentlemen from your original post give you the go ahead to share his gallery? Would be really interested to see his work.

Click to expand...

Came back to this tread with the same question in mind.

+1

Joachim Gerstl said:

But of course he had no idea what he was talking about. I shot the A7R for a short time. I loved the IQ quality but I hated the ergonomics. WB was wonky but the images were sharp with tons of detail. Dynamic range was very good but probably about 2/3 to 1 stop better than on my Fuji X Pro-2. For sure not 2 stops. Maybe he shot Canon before.

Click to expand...

The A7RIII is a lot better than the A7R. In all aspects.

Interesting to share, thanks. On the whole, thanks to the high res sensor, great DR and some great lenses, the Sony is potentially a better system for landscape, so I know where he is coming from.

Greg7579 said:

No guys really … I swear. I am not playing around here. No exaggeration for comic effect. No hyperbole. I had a great, long and impromptu conversation with a fantastic pro landscape photographer who was on the same basic trip as me.

It was am amazing experience talking to this Sony photographer (who also shot Leica rangefinder on the street for many decades BTW). He was so good and who would not be impressed by that Sony rig? In fact, he was impressed with my Fuji rig and bag of great Fuji lenses. Who wouldn't be?

I stopped bashing Sony a long time ago. I never speak ill of Sony. They are too good. I just like to get in on the comparison talk and defend APSC vs FF a lot because I know what I am giving up and not giving up by choosing Fuji APSC vs now very easily obtainable FF. For me, it is not about the money savings because if I wanted the rig he had I would buy it now (as I have said many times). I know for many that price is a big factor with Fuji vs the FF competition.

I was hoping that the thread would not turn into an APSC vs FF or Fuji vs Sony or any kind of aperture equivalency argument. But that is beyond my control and threads can get derailed by one caustic post, which everyone then replies to.

I was just sharing an experience.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

a perfect example of tools in the right hands.

We all seem to agree he is a pro and shoots excellent landscapes. Unfortunately, I can't see anything outstanding in his work. I can't even tell if he can focus properly.

I am curious... if he used your Fuji camera and lenses instead of his Sony, would you have been any less impressed with his landscapes? If so, why? And, how does he make his pro living with landscapes, magazines? Galleries?

Thanks.

Sal

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However I have never had to buy a grip for the a7 or a7iii, but I felt they were necessary for the X-T20 and X-E3 for using some of Fuji's lenses. Also I have come to detest that button on the front of all Fuji cameras where you change the focus parameters.

I shoot landscape too and Fuji is great for that. It's mostly about the person behind the camera. For me what Sony excels at is focus accuracy in a wide variety of conditions. I've had quite a few disappointments with missed focus and Fuji, though that problem has been somewhat solved. On the contrary, I have been amazed at what the a7iii along with the 24-105mm f4 can achieve in a dark concert environment.

Also battery life is huge. I recently returned from a music festival...six days with thousands of shots and the battery lasted the entire trip.

I don't like Sony's large, heavy, expensive F1.4 lenses at 35 and 50mm. The new 24/1.4 is much better in that regard. So I prefer the 16/1.4 and 23/1.4 where I might get a little more in focus at small apertures due to smaller sensor. They are more reasonable in price/performance/ergonomics for my style.

I prefer Sony for my film lenses, the Zeiss ZM 50/2 and 35/2, and my Voigtlander 21/1.8 and 28/2.

I do prefer Fuji for when I want smaller camera for street or some travel.

I prefer the Sony for portraits. The 55/1.8 and the Batis 85/1.8 along with the focus accuracy are simply stunning!

I like Fuji and its firmware updates much more than Sony.

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

--
Dave

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

stevo23 said:

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

Click to expand...

The extra resolution may not be worth the extra editing the RIII requires to eliminate all the false color/moire. I think it would be visible in landscapes with small details like bare tree branches, twigs, tree bark, etc.











Sal

It certainly would not be worth the effort for most of the photography I do (mainly urban). Moire was an issue, even with my D800 which had quite a strong AA filter.

The Xpro2 can actually out-resolve the D800 in many cases.

57even said:

It certainly would not be worth the effort for most of the photography I do (mainly urban). Moire was an issue, even with my D800 which had quite a strong AA filter.

The Xpro2 can actually out-resolve the D800 in many cases.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Sal Baker said:

stevo23 said:

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

Click to expand...

The extra resolution may not be worth the extra editing the RIII requires to eliminate all the false color/moire. I think it would be visible in landscapes with small details like bare tree branches, twigs, tree bark, etc.

Click to expand...

I've never had moire with branches, twigs etc. Only with periodically repeating patterns. And I think that's par for the course as it is the patterns that trigger it. I wouldn't expect it with twigs and branches.

The place where the high resolution D8xx and A7 Rxx sensors excel is with textures and gradients. The notion of continuous tone starts to become very real.

stevo23 said:

57even said:

It certainly would not be worth the effort for most of the photography I do (mainly urban). Moire was an issue, even with my D800 which had quite a strong AA filter.

The Xpro2 can actually out-resolve the D800 in many cases.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Click to expand...

Responding to Sal. Moire is more likely to be an issue in urban photography (buildings etc.) which have repeating patterns (bricks, railings, linear features). I have lots of examples.

Can't say I noticed it in landscapes but I never tried an FF camera with no AA filter.

stevo23 said:

Sal Baker said:

stevo23 said:

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

Click to expand...

The extra resolution may not be worth the extra editing the RIII requires to eliminate all the false color/moire. I think it would be visible in landscapes with small details like bare tree branches, twigs, tree bark, etc.

Click to expand...

I've never had moire with branches, twigs etc. Only with periodically repeating patterns. And I think that's par for the course as it is the patterns that trigger it. I wouldn't expect it with twigs and branches.

The place where the high resolution D8xx and A7 Rxx sensors excel is with textures and gradients. The notion of continuous tone starts to become very real.

Click to expand...

This is more often an issue with the output medium than the camera. APSC still has far greater tonal depth than any 8-bit output device (screen or print). (Check DXO tonal range data). Can't display more than 256 tonal levels without dithering.

Perhaps if you used a 10-bit UltraHD 8K display, you would notice the difference. Haven't done the maths.

In resolution terms, sure they have a bit more, so you can print a bit larger. Again, you won't notice unless you do. I generally try and keep print resolution to 200 ppi or more, so with 42 MP you have more scope for enlargement. But I don't generally print that big. 24X16 at the most.

57even said:

stevo23 said:

Sal Baker said:

stevo23 said:

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

Click to expand...

The extra resolution may not be worth the extra editing the RIII requires to eliminate all the false color/moire. I think it would be visible in landscapes with small details like bare tree branches, twigs, tree bark, etc.

Click to expand...

I've never had moire with branches, twigs etc. Only with periodically repeating patterns. And I think that's par for the course as it is the patterns that trigger it. I wouldn't expect it with twigs and branches.

The place where the high resolution D8xx and A7 Rxx sensors excel is with textures and gradients. The notion of continuous tone starts to become very real.

Click to expand...

This is more often an issue with the output medium than the camera.

Click to expand...

How would one know?

Member said:

APSC still has far greater tonal depth than any 8-bit output device (screen or print). (Check DXO tonal range data). Can't display more than 256 tonal levels without dithering.

Perhaps if you used a 10-bit UltraHD 8K display, you would notice the difference. Haven't done the maths.

Click to expand...

I don't think trees and twigs will be likely to trigger it unless the pattern of detail is consistent and periodic. The randomness of twigs and limbs is exactly the kind of thing that would tend to defeat moire.

Member said:

In resolution terms, sure they have a bit more, so you can print a bit larger. Again, you won't notice unless you do.

Click to expand...

That's somewhat of a misnomer. I recall "guess the format" which was a website that was dedicated to "guess this format" images. None of them were very large, but it was uncanny how easy it was to identify the D800 images. Not sure why, but it was very clear most of the time.

stevo23 said:

Sal Baker said:

stevo23 said:

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

Click to expand...

The extra resolution may not be worth the extra editing the RIII requires to eliminate all the false color/moire. I think it would be visible in landscapes with small details like bare tree branches, twigs, tree bark, etc.

Click to expand...

I've never had moire with branches, twigs etc. Only with periodically repeating patterns. And I think that's par for the course as it is the patterns that trigger it. I wouldn't expect it with twigs and branches.

The place where the high resolution D8xx and A7 Rxx sensors excel is with textures and gradients. The notion of continuous tone starts to become very real.

Click to expand...

From my understanding it's the bit-rate that determines tonality, not megapixels. (But I may be wrong.) And in the example in the OP of this thread, the photographer has decided to shoot 8-bit jpeg as his output.

Doing so means a large part of the camera's tonality is not being recorded, it's being tossed. Just by shooting 12-bit RAW he would go from only recording 256 shades/tones to close to 17,000 shades tones that the camera is producing.

Sal

Sal Baker said:

stevo23 said:

Sal Baker said:

stevo23 said:

KwhyChang said:

stevo23 said:

Greg7579 said:

I had a travel experience yesterday that had an impact on my thinking as a Fuji travel-shooter. ...

I must admit, as always with Sony I am tempted … really tempted. But I love the XH-1 and the Fuji ergo. I love the Fuji glass. If I got that 42 MP FF Sony, it would not improve my landscapes.

Click to expand...

No question that Sony RIII is a gem and tempting to me as well. All the same sentiments here though - ergonomics go to Fuji. Sony makes some great lenses and the results can be stunning. But I'm not moving.

Click to expand...

True with regard to weight, size, and changing aperture, ISO, etc. with dedicated dials.

However ...

Each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

Yep. I did read it all, just clipped for brevity.

Click to expand...

The extra resolution may not be worth the extra editing the RIII requires to eliminate all the false color/moire. I think it would be visible in landscapes with small details like bare tree branches, twigs, tree bark, etc.

Click to expand...

I've never had moire with branches, twigs etc. Only with periodically repeating patterns. And I think that's par for the course as it is the patterns that trigger it. I wouldn't expect it with twigs and branches.

The place where the high resolution D8xx and A7 Rxx sensors excel is with textures and gradients. The notion of continuous tone starts to become very real.

Click to expand...

From my understanding it's the bit-rate that determines tonality, not megapixels. (But I may be wrong.) And in the example in the OP of this thread, the photographer has decided to shoot 8-bit jpeg as his output.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the bit rate of the D800 is/was compared to the D600, but I could tell them apart every time. Not sure why.

Sal Baker said:

Doing so means a large part of the camera's tonality is not being recorded, it's being tossed. Just by shooting 12-bit RAW he would go from only recording 256 shades/tones to close to 17,000 shades tones that the camera is producing.

Click to expand...

I don't think in jpeg personally. I do know that Hasselblad had 16? bit output at one time compared to the ?bit out put of the D800 and fashion people liked it for it's tonal range.