Sony Landscape on a budget...

Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
Morning folks.

Hope you've all had an excellent festive period.

Ultimate goal is A7R IV and 20mm f1.8. But at £4k+(after cashback) it's a bit rich for me at the moment.

Was thinking of buying the lens and a cheaper body to get me started. But I'm not sure if it's worth it... Or worth just waiting and saving until I can get the combo I want.

Currently using iPhone 12 Pro Max which isn't too shabby but looking to get back into a camera.

Any advice or guidance?

EDIT also want to do some astro at some point

Thank you
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,905
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
Is it only for landscapes?
You could buy an A7ii and the lens, and upgrade the body later if you feel you need to.
I shot some great landscape stuff with my A7ii, and only upgraded because I wanted better af for birds/wildlife...
 
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
Mostly landscapes. If anything, I'd want to do some astro too.

I'll keep my eyes open for a7r ii and iii!

Thank you both.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'd try get an A7r (something) over a A7. Reason - resolution is a lot higher which is great for landscapes.

I'd recommend a Grey Import from Panamoz, longer warranty and cheaper. If you cannot afford the A7r4, try a7r3 or a7r2.

20mm 1.8 is an amazing lens for landscapes, sharp centre to edge and more than wide enough. It will open up astro doors for you too.

Edit. Perhaps Nikon z6 is enough. It will gazillion times better than some phone!!!! Pretty much anything will be. Only question is if you can print A1, a0 or even larger
I'd aim for the z7, but z7ii prices are nuts also. Bit more dynamic range on the Z7 over the A7r4 but a bit less resolution.
 
Last edited:

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,765
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
I'd aim for the z7, but z7ii prices are nuts also. Bit more dynamic range on the Z7 over the A7r4 but a bit less resolution.
Just remember where op is coming from - an iPhone! Still easy A1 printing and less chance to cock it up due to some slight shake or mis focusing.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Just remember where op is coming from - an iPhone! Still easy A1 printing and less chance to cock it up due to some slight shake or mis focusing.
I know this GAS pathway - the 24mp won't be enough and they'll end up upgrading the body later. A lot do. I'd bite the bullet on the high res body first. Particularly now with 4k screens etc.

I would find myself very, very limited with just 20mm for 'landscapes'

My 21mm is my least used lens. Don't fall for the trap that landscapes = wide angle.

True - but I reckon there's a lot of creative possibilites with a wide lens, and the 2.8 70-200 and 2.8 24-70 lenses can come later. Actually, no, I'd get the 24-70 first, then the 20 then finally the telephoto.
 
Last edited:

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,765
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
I know this GAS pathway - the 24mp won't be enough and they'll end up upgrading the body later.
I'm not convinced actually. As an all-rounder 24mp is just easier to live with and edit. Guess which one of mine gets more use
 
Messages
4,769
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
I use a Sony A7Rii and am very happy with it.

If you've not tried a 4 then you won't miss what it provides over the 2.

I'd go for a 16-35 for landscapes.

The F4 is a really good lens by all accounts but there are also Sigma ones in this range.

I'd also not like to be tied to a 20mm prime.

It's not just the focal length but the perspective as well.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm not convinced actually. As an all-rounder 24mp is just easier to live with and edit. Guess which one of mine gets more use
As soon as I got my 36mp the 24mp hardly got used and I replaced it with another 36mp. Now on 50mp, like you :D

The advantage of high res is more cropability, lovely detail at 100% etc. But yes, more PC power needed as you've found out.
 
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
I'll be doing zero video and zero portait. (I mean zero as in it'll be for casual shots/videos of the dog only).

I'll definitely be buying longer than 20mm but I need to start somewhere. Any recommendations?
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'll be doing zero video and zero portait. (I mean zero as in it'll be for casual shots/videos of the dog only).

I'll definitely be buying longer than 20mm but I need to start somewhere. Any recommendations?
24-70 2.8 then a 70-200 2.8

If you prefer primes a 24, 35, 50, 85 1.4/1.8 then a big zoom as 105, 135, 200 primes weight a ton.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,765
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
As soon as I got my 36mp the 24mp hardly got used and I replaced it with another 36mp. Now on 50mp, like you :D

The advantage of high res is more cropability, lovely detail at 100% etc. But yes, more PC power needed as you've found out.
You only do landscapes? That's why.

I think 50mp at 35mm is deep inside the zone of vanishing returns. It requires quality primes and very careful execution or you come back with 24mp just with more hassle
I'll be doing zero video and zero portait. (I mean zero as in it'll be for casual shots/videos of the dog only).

I'll definitely be buying longer than 20mm but I need to start somewhere. Any recommendations?
24-70
That should be like the first thing most people get
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
You only do landscapes? That's why.
True - and it sounds like the OP is in the same usage style. Res wise an R2 onwards will stay relevant for a long long time and will be ideal for their goals.

I think 50mp at 35mm is deep inside the zone of vanishing returns. It requires quality primes and very careful execution or you come back with 24mp just with more hassle
So go up a format ;)
 
Last edited:

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
No point now. I can't even go to Wales. Landscapes are mega boring here

One day I will.
For you it has to the Fuji - you can even use some of your EF mount glass on it (some of the lenses have a wide enough image circle to cover it) and you've not quite got the aversion to mirrorless systems that I do.

Soon you will - and you will be back in the Alps - this madness just won't last forever. In the interim it seems a good idea to use spare money that would otherwise be spent on travel on updating PCs, gear, processing etc.
 

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
15,765
Name
[Censored] Fruitcake
Edit My Images
No
For you it has to the Fuji - you can even use some of your EF mount glass on it (some of the lenses have a wide enough image circle to cover it) and you've not quite got the aversion to mirrorless systems that I do.
Believe I am very sensitive to rubbish viewfinders. I'd rather wait for next gen Fuji or whatever. I think the current ones are missing out on a lot of features from the current smaller Fuji's and Sony's, like decent AF and faster FPS.

While technically I could mount ef glass not many would actually deliver proper peripheral sharpness. Reviews say even 24mm TSE has major issues. Perhaps you could get way with good telephoto primes and obviously the big whites. The rest I would go native
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Believe I am very sensitive to rubbish viewfinders. I'd rather wait for next gen Fuji or whatever. I think the current ones are missing out on a lot of features from the current smaller Fuji's and Sony's, like decent AF and faster FPS.

While technically I could mount ef glass not many would actually deliver proper peripheral sharpness. Reviews say even 24mm TSE has major issues. Perhaps you could get way with good telephoto primes and obviously the big whites. The rest I would go native
Native the 45-100 and 100-200 don't look too prohibitive cost wise and not a huge cost leap over G master glass, Canon red ring, Nikon Gold ring glass etc. It's not impossible. I'm kicking myself, was going to buy a 45-85 off wex today and the price has gone up by £400. Will hold off....
 
Messages
14,905
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
I use a Sony A7Rii and am very happy with it.

If you've not tried a 4 then you won't miss what it provides over the 2.

I'd go for a 16-35 for landscapes.

The F4 is a really good lens by all accounts but there are also Sigma ones in this range.

I'd also not like to be tied to a 20mm prime.

It's not just the focal length but the perspective as well.
This is probably the most sensible suggestion.....
Too much willy waving goes on sometimes.....
Does 50mp make you a better photographer than using 24mp?
God knows how we managed with 3/6/12 mp cameras....
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015,FPOTY 2020
Messages
10,268
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I would find myself very, very limited with just 20mm for 'landscapes'

My 21mm is my least used lens. Don't fall for the trap that landscapes = wide angle.
This ^^^ and you don't need f1.8, you can get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for less or similar money.
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015,FPOTY 2020
Messages
10,268
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
True, but what if 28mm isn't wide enough?
Worry about that later? pick up a cheap Canon 16-35 second hand and get an adaptor? I think a lot of people have moved on from ultrawides and those dizzying, improbable foregrounds ;)
 
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
As I missed on my OP but added later, I'd like to do some astro at some point. A 20mm fast ish prime is definitely preferred.

Thanks all for the feedback so far though. Lots to think about.
 
Messages
17,231
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
As I missed on my OP but added later, I'd like to do some astro at some point. A 20mm fast ish prime is definitely preferred.

Thanks all for the feedback so far though. Lots to think about.
Tamron also sell a 17-28 f2.8 that would cover the focal lengths for a lot of things.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
5,083
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I've gone for primes for my type of landscape photography. I love my 21mm and use it a lot, and I have a 15mm on order (though I don't expect it to have as much use). The other lenses are 28mm f2 Sony, and 45mm and 75mm Samyangs. I've gone off zooms because a) I have historically only used zooms at their wide or long ends, seldom in the middle, b) primes make you stop and consider composition more, and c) I find zooms bulky. But that's just my point of view. Others may argue otherwise, and their opinions will be just as valid.
 
Messages
2,490
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
As I missed on my OP but added later, I'd like to do some astro at some point. A 20mm fast ish prime is definitely preferred.

Thanks all for the feedback so far though. Lots to think about.
I've done astro with a 21mm f/3.5 Voigtlander lens before. Yes, faster keeps the ISO lower but it's not essential for something you may just do occasionally.

A7r? body & a Tamron zoom would be a good starter set up. They have three f/2.8 ones to choose from so plenty of options.....

20mm, 28-75, 70-180?
17-28, 50mm, 70-180?
20mm, 50mm, 70-180?

I shoot 40mm, 80-200mm & 21mm - In that order.
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
E infinity, panamoz... No need to waste cash on the same product

I'd want want to avoid ii and iii for much inferior evf (so you have even less idea what you are composing) and worse ergonomics.
I have a MK1 and whilst it may not be as good as the very latest it's more than good enough for composing and even for a degree of accuracy when focusing simply impossible with any optical DSLR.

If the Mk2 and 3 are the same or better (and they will be one or the other) composing and focusing are going to be non issues.
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Morning folks.

Hope you've all had an excellent festive period.

Ultimate goal is A7R IV and 20mm f1.8. But at £4k+(after cashback) it's a bit rich for me at the moment.

Was thinking of buying the lens and a cheaper body to get me started. But I'm not sure if it's worth it... Or worth just waiting and saving until I can get the combo I want.

Currently using iPhone 12 Pro Max which isn't too shabby but looking to get back into a camera.

Any advice or guidance?

EDIT also want to do some astro at some point

Thank you
The Sony 20mm f1.8 is a just about perfect lens but it wouldn't be my first lens let alone my only lens but if you know what you want then go for it and it might just be a nice lens for astro.
 
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
The Sony 20mm f1.8 is a just about perfect lens but it wouldn't be my first lens let alone my only lens but if you know what you want then go for it and it might just be a nice lens for astro.
What would your first lens be?
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
What would your first lens be?
I tend to live in 35 or 50mm land but we're all different. I'm deffo a prime person.

Years ago I had a Sigma 20mm f1.8 for my Canon DSLR's and for a while it was my most used lens. I then ditched Canon DSLR's for the A7 and recently got the Sony 20mm f1.8. I'd have been happy if it had just matched that old Sigma I had but it's in a completely different league. I've read reviews which say it's a just about perfect lens and I agree. There really is very little to even begin to criticise. It's very very good.

Another lens which has impressed me recently is the Sony 28mm f2. That lens has been criticised by reviewers but I think it's a good lens considering what it is, relatively cheap, relatively compact and light. If you're used to smartphone photography maybe something in the 28mm region could be worth thinking about as that's what a lot of phone cameras tend to be? Unless you know that 20mm is significantly wider?

As long as you know that 20mm is wide and can be limiting for some uses and challenging for others but also can be quite striking and effective if you get it right :D
 
Messages
17,847
Edit My Images
No
Morning folks.

Hope you've all had an excellent festive period.

Ultimate goal is A7R IV and 20mm f1.8. But at £4k+(after cashback) it's a bit rich for me at the moment.

Was thinking of buying the lens and a cheaper body to get me started. But I'm not sure if it's worth it... Or worth just waiting and saving until I can get the combo I want.

Currently using iPhone 12 Pro Max which isn't too shabby but looking to get back into a camera.

Any advice or guidance?

EDIT also want to do some astro at some point

Thank you
Is there a particular reason you want the A7RIV? The reason I ask is that most people don’t need all those megapixels and can even be a hindrance. You might be better off with the A7III or something. The Nikon Z6-II and Z7-II could be a good option too.

I’ve personally always found primes too limiting for landscapes, sometimes you see a different shot, or you want a different perspective. That’s why I like my 16-35mm f4, however I don’t shoot Astro. If I did then I’d probably choose the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8
 
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
Evening.

Not against going to a different brand. Just been reading lots of reviews and the A7R IV seems to be consistently good.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening.

Not against going to a different brand. Just been reading lots of reviews and the A7R IV seems to be consistently good.
It is good, as is the R3 and R2 models in the correct hands. I personally do not like the EVF's and small form factor but for lens choice, quality the sony stuff hits it out the park. They seem to have incredibly long rated shutter life as well.

Look - Colby Brown uses this camera and his work is some of the best in the world. If you use this camera well, process it well then you will take amazing landscapes with it.


I like lots of MP's though and if you can afford the R4 - do - and then build a top class lens system around it.

On here they certainly have their followers.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,847
Edit My Images
No
Evening.

Not against going to a different brand. Just been reading lots of reviews and the A7R IV seems to be consistently good.
It is excellent, but you’d be hard pressed to find a bad modern camera tbh. I’ve been lucky enough to have had the Nikon D750, D850, Z7 and now Sony A7RIV and tbh I’m hard pressed to tell a difference between any of them. In fact some of my favourite landscapes have been with a 16mp micro 4/3 camera.

I’m not trying to dissuade you from the A7RIV btw, just making sure you’re buying it for the right reasons (y)
 
Top