Going full frame

[Nick Smolinske]

So I’ve started to run into the limitations of my Ricoh GR when it comes to low-light photography.  Milky way shots, low-moonlight star trails shots and also the half hour or so after sunset.  So I decided to go full frame with a used Sony A7.

The question is, which lens to get?  I jumped on a good deal for the 16-35mm f/4 zoom.  It should arrive tomorrow.  It’s clearly the lightest way to get the focal length range I’d like, at just over a pound.  However, it’s only f/4 – so I’m upgrading to a bigger sensor but getting a slower lens.  I’ll either keep it or I might sell it used in a couple months, if I decide to go with option B.

Option B is to get two prime lenses – first is the Sony 28mm f/2 lens, which is relatively small and light (8 oz or so).  That would be a better walkaround lens for use during the day.  I would pair it with the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for wider-angle shots.  Both lenses are faster, an advantage at night.  And the 28mm would probably be nicer during the day.  However, the weight penalty for this solution is 10 oz!  If you count extra batteries I’d be carrying 3 pounds in just camera and lenses.  Add another half pound for my trailpix tripod + extra trekking pole and that’s 3.5 lbs just for camera gear.  Ouch.

Truth be told, I prefer prime lenses to zooms and I would go with the two lens solution without question, except for the weight.  That’s a tough pill to swallow when I’m doubling my camera weight as it is.  The question really is, do I *need* f/2.8 for astrophotography, or is f/4 good enough?  We’ll see. For star trails shots I’m sure f/4 is good enough, but I haven’t experimented much with the milky way.

 Alternatively, I could sell the A7 and switch to an A7s.  This is the advantage of having used gear, the resale value is basically the same as what I paid for it.

So anyway, that’s the current dilemma.  Thoughts?  The solution for now is going to be to test the 16-35mm zoom out over the next month or two.  I’ll try it in the conditions where my Ricoh hasn’t been good enough, and see what I think.  I’ll update this thread if I think it’s a good enough lens for my uses, or if I break down and get the extra primes.

[Noah K]

I made the jump to the sony full frame system a little while back as well.  At the moment we’re a bit limited in lens choice.  But you might consider this set up:

 

Instead of the 28mm f2, use the 35mm f2.8.  You lose a stop, but the images are fantastic, the lens in tiny, and weighs only 4.2 oz, 3 oz lighter than the 28.  For wide angle, you could look at the loxia 21mm.  Its pricey at $1500 and brand new so you won’t find a used copy just yet, but its also f2.8.  The gimmick is its manual focus only, but that means it can be smaller and lighter, and for landscape and astro you usually dont use auto anyway.  It’s only 13.9oz, 5 oz lighter than the 16-35.

 

Voightlander will also be releasing some super wide angles soon.  10, 12, and 15mm.  They’re pretty slow at f4.5, but being so wide means you could take a longer exposure to compensate, and they’re also small and light.  Just something to think about.

[bayden cline]

If you take a look over at lonely spec website you could see how he was able to do with the voitlander 15mm f4.5 and a7ii to get an idea of what would be possible with an f4 lens

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/voigtlander-15mm-f4-5-heliar-iii-astrophotography-review/

 

 

[Nick Smolinske]

Interesting – thanks for the information.  I hadn’t thought about using the Voigtlander just due to the f-stop factor, but it’s not much slower than the zoom.  They’re releasing it in E-mount soon.  In any case I got the 16-35mm zoom yesterday and took it out for a little walk.  I can say it’s a great lens, but I don’t think I’d ever fall in love with the one-lens solution for what I’d like to do.  It’s too bulky for one-handed operation and easy access while walking.  Great if you’re just out on a photo shoot, not if you want to carry it all over the place.  Plus, I like primes lenses.

I’d prefer 28mm over the 35mm for astrophotography.  I don’t always want an ultrawide composition, but wide angle is often good.  On my Ricoh I’ll shoot sometimes with the 28mm lens without adding the wide angle adapter.  So I went ahead and ordered one of those.  Thankfully I’m buying all of this gear used (or at very good deals new) so I can probably sell the 16-35mm for the price I bought it for.  Or I can switch later to the 35mm and have “rented” the 28mm for a low price.  The wonders of living in a small town with no camera store!

And . . . Sony just made my choices more complicated by announcing the 18mm Batis f/2.8.  It’s more compact than the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and should be very good optically, although it remains to be seen whether it has coma problems when shooting stars f/2.8.  And at 303 grams it’s only 2 oz heavier than the Voigtlander!  That’s worth it to gain a stop for astro.  Wouldn’t be worth it for landscapes.

Unfortunately it’s $1500!!!  I might hold onto the 16-35mm or replace it with either the Rokinon or the Voigtlander.  Then I can wait until the street price of the batis drops, and see if I sell any of the prints I just put up in a local brewery here.  I sold two of my last three and that’s what convinced me to take the leap to full frame.

The issue I have with the Rokinon, other than weight, is that they have mediocre build quality and I’ve heard that they become decentered over time, especially if rattled on a lot of dirt roads.  I hate the culture of cheap and disposable things so I’d almost rather buy the Batis new, plus 18mm is a little better focal length for me.  And, of course, lighter.  By 300 grams.  Here’s a shot I took at 21mm – I’d prefer it to be a little wider but not a lot:

 

[Garrett McLarty]

Just to throw a wrench in your thought process:)

I went from full frame down to mirco four thirds because I wanted lens options, and lightweight.

This thread, http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1127925/354 helped me decide.  Especially the night photography of dukenukem / Diego Martin https://www.flickr.com/photos/thedukenukem/

Peace

[Stuart .]

Understood that the Ricoh GR is hitting its limits, but realise that the Depth of Field of your f/4 lens on a full frame camera is actually better than the DoF on an f/2.8 on an APS-C. The GR’s equivalent max aperture on a FF camera is f/4.5

[Nick Smolinske]

Garrett, those are some pretty impressive pictures on that instagram page!  Although I’m not convinced that those milky way shots would look good printed large, which is something I like to do with my photography (I’ve got shots up on the wall at a local brewery and I like to give large prints as gifts as well).  It’s hard to argue with the physics argument for a larger sensor when it comes to low-light photography and noise.  I’m hoping to print 24×36 with the Sony.  That said, you could probably stitch milky way shots in panoramas with a micro 4/3rds system to get a super high-res photo, then downsize to reduce noise.  Hmm.

Stuart, that’s an interesting point about the DoF.  Although in my case I’m more worried about the light-gathering abilities of a smaller aperture than I am about the DoF.  But it’s a nice bonus – at some point I’ll probably get a fast 50mm to go with the camera for portrait shots, although I might not take it backpacking.

After playing around with the 16-35mm zoom some more I decided to pre-order the 15mm E-mount Voigtlander.  The 16-35mm is just too big for me to love shooting with – ergo the Rokinon would be even worse.  Night shots on a tripod are one thing but I’d also like to shoot landscapes freehand.  I’ll sell the zoom once the Voigtlander arrives.

From the reviews I’ve seen of the M-mount Voigtlander it sounds like an absolute joy to use for landscape photography, and it will work fine for star trails.  Plus it’s well-constructed and light.  I can always switch to the Batis 18mm later when the price drops somewhat, if it proves to be good for night photography.

One factor in the decision was the realization that the *only* thing I want wide-angle f/2.8 for is the milky way.  Star trails are fine at f/4.5.  But I can always shoot the milky way in panoramas with the 28mm f/2, or just shoot a bunch of exposures with the Voigtlander and median average to drop the noise.  Also I can downsize the files to 12MP to get similar results to an A7s, without the price tag.

[Garrett McLarty]

Nick,

I definitely agree that there are some advantages to a larger sensor.  And the a7 is smaller than the Canon full frame I had.  Yet, I always found that the Canon stayed home more than I wished because of its size and weight. So now I am happy with the size and weight of the micro four thirds while being satisfied with its IQ.  However, if you bring a larger sensor with you, I can’t disagree that it has better IQ especially printed large.

Peace

 

[Stuart .]

Hmm, my last post didn’t take. Here it is once more.

Hi Garrett, is there a m4/3 body you consider particularly appropriate for backpacking? I have a couple of primes, but the Panasonic GF3 disappointed in IQ and had a horrible way of overriding my settings. I’ve looked at a number of Olympus and Panasonic bodies recently, but none compares with my Ricoh GR for its intuitive user interface. I want a system that works with, not against me.

[Garrett McLarty]

Stuart,

Of course, UI is a very personal thing, so what I like may not be someone else’s favorite.

I haven’t played around with the newer EM5 mkii, but I did not like the small buttons of the EM5 mki.  Weather sealing was really important to me as I take my cameras out in all conditions.  So for the last couple of years, I have used an EM1 with both primes and the 12-40 2.8 (35mm equivalent 24-80 2.8).

It has been very comfortable to use, though I did add a leather grip which gives a bit more height so my little finger isn’t left dangling.

When I am not extremely concerned with eight and want weather sealing, the 12-40 has been all but submerged with no problems.

I have taken just the 17 1.8 (35 mm standard) up to 16,00ft when I was super weight conscious on a multiple day traverse where weather sealing would have been nice, but the unsealed 17 and body were no worse for the wear.

Again, m4/3 does not have the extreme IQ of a full frame, but if you take a look at some of the photos in my last post links, I think most of us would be OK with the IQ.

Of course the EM1 mkii is coming in the fall….always next year’s model to anticipate.

[Nick Smolinske]

Well I got my lenses and got my first star trails shot with the A7 the other week!  This was taken with the 16-35mm zoom (which I put up on Ebay) – I got the Voigtlander 15mm in the mail a few days later.  I’m pretty happy with it for what I’m doing.  For this shot I had a lot of camera shake (high wind gusts), which didn’t affect the star trails much, but the foreground was blurry in almost every shot.  I was able to get enough detail out of just the sharpest one to make a large print – this should print to 24×36 or larger.

With my Ricoh GR I generally needed to average foreground exposures to get good detail and low noise.  That wouldn’t have been possible with the camera shake this time around.

The Voigtlander is a joy of a lens indeed, so I’m happy to see the zoom go out the door in a few days.  I’m glad I went with the choices I did, because the A7 with either lens is about as heavy as I would like a camera to be.  Plus they are both pretty small, so I’ll be able to use the same hipbelt camera case when shooting with either lens.  Now to make that camera case…

[Ian]

Nick,

I’ve been lamenting over my wide angle options for a while now but since it’s recently available with E Mount and it looks like they finally got the recipe right with version three for digital optimization, I think I’m going to go with the Voightlander 15mm instead of the Rokinon 12mm.

My largest concern is the permanent hood and how to use a variable ND filter with it.  Google suggests using the Voightlander 12mm filter adapter but notes that it’ll have to be modified with electrical tape to make it work.

Do you have any insight on this?

[Nick Smolinske]

Ian,

So I haven’t used a variable ND filter.  But I have used a circular polarizer on the Voigtlander for flowing water shots, and it works. It’s not the easiest filter to use, because you can only hold it in 4 small places along the outside.  I bring some tiny cut pieces of rubber band with me to add friction when removing the filter, just in case.  A filter wrench wouldn’t work with the hood in the way.

I got an B+W XS-Pro, which is the slimmest circular polarizer they make.  I don’t experience any vignetting but with a thicker filter you might.

Alternatively, you could hacksaw off the hood.  It’s not a super big or useful hood anyway.  Resale value of the lens might go down, however…

[Ian]

Thanks Nick.

[Author]

Posts