Review: Sony A7R With Canon Glass

[Rienzphotoz]

Resolution - 21MP used to be BIG, it's become about average now. I often print landscapes large and would love not to have to interpolate. The extra detail offered by higher resolution is always going to benefit my images, regardless.

ISO - It's true I shoot predominantly low-iso long esposures, but I also find myself in situations where higher-iso is needed. On the 1DS III, I'm hesitant to run above 400iso when I want a clean image. It seems to me that high-iso IQ is the area that has improved most in those 7 years.

So, I'm now in a position where I feel tempted by a little Sony which appears to offer the things I'd benefit from. I could probably fund its purchase by selling the 1DS III (retaining my glass). My question is; should I? Do you guys think I'll realise significant improvement from such a move, or so little I should stay-put?

Thanks for your time

Welcome to CR.
Going by what you've mentioned, and IF your work involves shooting landscapes and "general purpose/walk-around" focal lengths, then the Sony a7R will give far superior images then the 1DS III ... but keep in mind that there are only 3 good quality native lenses at the moment (i.e. 24-70 f/4, 35 f/2.8 & 55 f/1.8 lenses) and the maximum number of lenses Sony plans on releasing (till the end of 2015) is 15 (not sure how many will be useful for your needs) also Sony does have a reputation for dropping several of their product lines ... but you can use all the Canon EF lenses with the Metabones adapter ... I bought a7 as a supplement/compliment to my existing Canon gear and I will not sell my Canon glass or the 5D MK III ... personally, if I was in your place I wouldn't sell the 1DS III, but I would still get the a7R, if I can afford it.

 

[DigglerDawg]

Thanks Rienzphotoz,

Yes, I would be shooting 90% landscape and would anticipate solely using my existing lenses via an adapter, particularly the tilt/shift.

I fear perhaps your right - There's a lot of sense in keeping the 1DS III and saving the money for something else in addition, rather than replacement, at least to begin with.

Interesting that you think it would still be a worthwhile investment. I've ignored the A7 in favour of the A7R for obvious reasons, but do you notice a significant improvement in general image quality and DR over your 5D III?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

but do you notice a significant improvement in general image quality and DR over your 5D III?

Absolutely! ... but the a7R is even more awesome for landscapes, the difference between that and the 5D MK III is significant.
I plan on getting the a7R as well, sometime before end of June, to be used specifically for landscape photography.

 

[DigglerDawg]

Interesting, thanks very much for your replies.

Heh, I always manage to find people who's opinions encourage me to spend more money! ;D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I always manage to find people who's opinions encourage me to spend more money! ;D

Welcome to the club brother ;D

 

[lenstrack26]

Hmmm.....What am I missing? Since most of the discussion here centers on landscape photography and DR, why not bracket the exposures and use a restrained HDR approach, or even combine the shots manually in Photoshop to optimize detail? Granted this would not work perfectly in every situation (windy conditions -- waving plants, or at the coast with moving waves or wildlife in motion), but it might help to level the playing field. Also, suppressing noise in the shadows with a Photoshop plug-in should help, too. Admittedly an extra step, but better than spending $2400 plus purchasing an unreliable adaptor. Just sayin'.............

 

[DigglerDawg]

You kinda answered your own question there. My landscape work often receives the restrained blending/HDR treatment but, being primarily coastal and windy, the less I need to use extra exposures, the better. cloud and water movement, as well as any loose objects in the scene can cause all sorts of problems and bizarre effects after blending. I'm not entirely sure how much the extra DR translates to my style, but for me at least, every stop is gold-dust.

Whether it's worth the financial outlay or not is what I'm trying to figure out. Certainly if I was upgrading from highly inferior, cheaper gear, it'd be worth every penny.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Hmmm.....What am I missing? Since most of the discussion here centers on landscape photography and DR, why not bracket the exposures and use a restrained HDR approach, or even combine the shots manually in Photoshop to optimize detail? Granted this would not work perfectly in every situation (windy conditions -- waving plants, or at the coast with moving waves or wildlife in motion), but it might help to level the playing field. Also, suppressing noise in the shadows with a Photoshop plug-in should help, too. Admittedly an extra step, but better than spending $2400 plus purchasing an unreliable adaptor. Just sayin'.............

For almost 2 years I have used "restrained HDR approach" with my 5D MK III and I like it very much. However for those who are not interested in HDR (even if it is "restrained") there are several benefits to having a Sony a7R
1. Superior image quality for landscapes
2. Generally landscape photographers tend to travel quite a bit, so they will appreciate the light weight
3. You can use superior optics from Canon or Nikon e.g. Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 prime lens or the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 lens.
4. It makes for a great back-up body
Considering its strengths, $2300 is a reasonable amount of money (if one can afford it) for the a7R.
Finally, it seems to me that your comment about "unreliable adapter" is based on what you read online, instead of actually having used it ... in addition to owning the Metabones adapter, I have met 8 people (in Australia, Singapore & the Middle East) that own the Metabones adapter (3 Nikon & 5 Canon versions) and all of them are very happy with their excellently performing Metabones adapters ... all products including the most expensive Canon/Nikon lenses will have variation from copy to copy, yes there will be some that will have a problem, but that does not stop people from buying them.
Obviously it is not for everyone ... for photographers who already have some excellent UWA lenses and want to get even better results than their current camera and they can spare/afford $2300+$350 (Camera+adapter), then this is a fantastic camera for landscape.

 

[jonsjons]

ok, so I've been seriously considering picking up the a7r and metabones adapter for a while now, but I've been waiting for more info on the corner issues with wideangle lenses. this review is encouraging, but for my landscape work I often shoot REALLY wide - my favorite lenses for this are the Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 14-24. what do you guys think? does this sound like a good idea? the a7r would make a great hiking camera, and if image quality is better than my 5d2 it may take over all of the on-tripod duties....

 

[Albi86]

ok, so I've been seriously considering picking up the a7r and metabones adapter for a while now, but I've been waiting for more info on the corner issues with wideangle lenses. this review is encouraging, but for my landscape work I often shoot REALLY wide - my favorite lenses for this are the Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 14-24. what do you guys think? does this sound like a good idea? the a7r would make a great hiking camera, and if image quality is better than my 5d2 it may take over all of the on-tripod duties....

DSLR lenses usually have no problem at all. The problem with WA can occur with RF lenses.