Sony A7R III in APS-C mode for Macro

[kaleun96]

I'm still on the Sony A6000 and have been waiting close to a year for a replacement. My original idea was to wait for the fabled A7000 and stick with APS-C due to the advantages for macro (e.g. lens coverage less of an issue), lighter equipment, and cheaper gear. Instead we got the A6600 and I'd rather switch to Fuji XT-3 than buy that.

The A7 III has been tempting but what puts me off is the low resolution EVF and LCD display as well as the 10.6MP APS-C mode. On the other hand, the A7R III has a 18.6MP APS-C mode and higher resolution EVF and LCD.

Given that I can buy a A7R III body (via e-infin) for less than an A7 III body (via Amazon), I'm tempted to go with the A7R, though it is a slightly older camera.

Has anyone here had much experience with the A7R III for macro? I came across a few threads but not too much in the way of user reviews. Am I placing too much value on an 18.6 vs 10.6MP APS-C mode?

I assume the A7R may not perform as well in low-light given the higher pixel density but are there any other consequences for macro to having a higher pixel density? Though it would seem that the pixel density on the A7R III is somewhere between the A7 III and A6000 anyway.

[Lou Jost]

Ten MP is pitiful resolution nowadays. You can never have enough pixels. You don't need to use them all if the situation does not require it; you can always reduce resolution.

[enricosavazzi]

Using a full-frame camera to always shoot in APS-C format sounds rather wasteful. If you, as probable, use a number of different lenses for macro work, you can better utilize their image circle (which is likely somewhat different for each lens and magnification) by shooting in full-frame mode and then cropping to different extents in post-processing.

This could be made more efficient by storing macros or actions for a few different crop modes in the software you use for post-processing, so that you can select one crop mode and apply it to a whole batch of image files.

Some subjects may also require the best sharpness only in a largish central region, while the corners can be allowed to "go bad" without significant losses of information or aesthetic appeal. In these cases you could use a crop factor that uses a larger portion of the original sensor pixels.

If you plan on frequently using substantial amounts of cropping, then the Sony A7R series (like the A7R III or IV) makes more sense than the Alpha 7 (non-R, non-S) series. The A7R II and III give you 17 Mpixels in built-in APS-C mode, for example, and the A7R IV even more.

For the times when a macro lens up to 1x can suffice, the Sony 90 mm f/2.8 G macro lens is designed to take full advantage of the full-frame sensor, and if you use it in APS-C crop mode you still get the equivalent coverage of a 135 mm FL at 1.4x on full-frame.

[ray_parkhurst]

The Canon Rebel XS has EFSC and the excellent EOS Utility to tether it. It also can run EOS Utility Live View while allowing hardwire triggering for the mjkzz/WeMacro/StackShot or other systems. It is APS-C with 10.2MP so has about the same pixel size as the A7Rm3. You can buy them on eBay with low shutter count for typically <$100.

[Scarodactyl]

The xs works great, but has one annoying ussue: live view seems to always be a lot dimmer than the actual picture. They fixed this in later versions. But at ~60 bucks on a deal it is an unbeatable value.

[ray_parkhurst]

The xs works great, but has one annoying ussue: live view seems to always be a lot dimmer than the actual picture. They fixed this in later versions. But at ~60 bucks on a deal it is an unbeatable value.

Live View is dim in M mode, but when in Av it does an "exposure simulation" and adjusts the Live View to look like the final image. This is the same for my T2i as well, so I think it's a general EOS Utility "feature".

[kaleun96]

Using a full-frame camera to always shoot in APS-C format sounds rather wasteful. If you, as probable, use a number of different lenses for macro work, you can better utilize their image circle (which is likely somewhat different for each lens and magnification) by shooting in full-frame mode and then cropping to different extents in post-processing.

Yeah that is a good point, I'd probably stick to APS-C if I were just shooting macro. I do mainly shoot macro but I also like to shoot a bit of landscape when travelling and ideally wildlife when I invest in a better telephoto.

For the times when a macro lens up to 1x can suffice, the Sony 90 mm f/2.8 G macro lens is designed to take full advantage of the full-frame sensor

I was recently deciding between this and the Laowa 100mm f.28 2x and went with the latter. The main reason I didn't like bringing my Sigma 105mm 1x out in the field was that 1x often wasn't enough and it's a pain changing out a Close Up lens for that extra magnification. So the Laowa was better in that respect, and cheaper, but you don't get any favours with the Sony version as there's no EXIF and the aperture is manual.

The Canon Rebel XS has EFSC and the excellent EOS Utility to tether it. It also can run EOS Utility Live View while allowing hardwire triggering for the mjkzz/WeMacro/StackShot or other systems.

Thanks Ray but I've decided to stick with Sony due to the hassle of changing gear. I'd probably get the XT-3 if I were to change systems.

I do have to change out some lenses anyway since they're APS-C lenses but it's a bit of an extra hassle to sell the remaining and the Sony compatible gear. If the XT-3 had IBIS I'd probably do it though.

It is APS-C with 10.2MP so has about the same pixel size as the A7Rm3. You can buy them on eBay with low shutter count for typically <$100.

Do you mean the A7m3? The A7Rm3 should be 18.6MP in APS-C mode.

[ray_parkhurst]

Ten MP is pitiful resolution nowadays. You can never have enough pixels. You don't need to use them all if the situation does not require it; you can always reduce resolution.

What's so wrong with 10MP? It really depends on how you use the final image. I generally publish images at 1200x800 or 864x864 (sometimes 800x800).

Turns out that the sensor dimensions for the T2i...T7i and the XS are in an interesting ratio. The 18MP sensors are 5184x3456, while the XS sensor is 3888x2592. So if you reduce the T2i image by 4x, it is 864 pixels tall, same as if you reduce the XS by 3x. The result is that either sensor size can essentially produce an online-sized image with good demosaicing color correction and sharpness.

Now, if you're wanting to print huge images or do crops with good sharpness and color, then of course more pixels are better.

[ray_parkhurst]

The Canon Rebel XS has EFSC and the excellent EOS Utility to tether it. It also can run EOS Utility Live View while allowing hardwire triggering for the mjkzz/WeMacro/StackShot or other systems.

Thanks Ray but I've decided to stick with Sony due to the hassle of changing gear. I'd probably get the XT-3 if I were to change systems.

It is APS-C with 10.2MP so has about the same pixel size as the A7Rm3. You can buy them on eBay with low shutter count for typically <$100.

Do you mean the A7m3? The A7Rm3 should be 18.6MP in APS-C mode.

My suggestion to go for an XS was a bit hyperbolic, though not invalid.

I did mean A7m3. Freudian slip I guess.

[chris_ma]

What's so wrong with 10MP? It really depends on how you use the final image. I generally publish images at 1200x800 or 864x864 (sometimes 800x800).

I find with the new retina screens, images look better with a bit higher resolution, say 1600-2000pixel wide.

the irony is that on a retina iMac, images still look worse at 2000pixels then on my old school Eizo at 1200pixels - but 1200 on a retina iMac definitely looks worst of these three combos.

[ray_parkhurst]

What's so wrong with 10MP? It really depends on how you use the final image. I generally publish images at 1200x800 or 864x864 (sometimes 800x800).

I find with the new retina screens, images look better with a bit higher resolution, say 1600-2000pixel wide.

the irony is that on a retina iMac, images still look worse at 2000pixels then on my old school Eizo at 1200pixels - but 1200 on a retina iMac definitely looks worst of these three combos.

I have eschewed Apple products since the late 90's. There is really nothing that I can say about the Apple company or a lot (not all) of its employees without using language that would get me thrown off this group.

[Lou Jost]

Ray wrote:

What's so wrong with 10MP? It really depends on how you use the final image. I generally publish images at 1200x800 or 864x864 (sometimes 800x800).

Of course. That's why I said:

You don't need to use them all if the situation does not require it; you can always reduce resolution.

[chris_ma]

I have eschewed Apple products since the late 90's.

well, since nearly all phones and tablets and lots of windows laptops use retina screens as well (plus I would expect most separate screens to follow), I think it's a good idea to use a bit higher resolution for web publishing to future proof things.

but 10MP probably should still do for quite a while

[kaleun96]

The Canon Rebel XS has EFSC and the excellent EOS Utility to tether it. It also can run EOS Utility Live View while allowing hardwire triggering for the mjkzz/WeMacro/StackShot or other systems.

Thanks Ray but I've decided to stick with Sony due to the hassle of changing gear. I'd probably get the XT-3 if I were to change systems.

It is APS-C with 10.2MP so has about the same pixel size as the A7Rm3. You can buy them on eBay with low shutter count for typically <$100.

Do you mean the A7m3? The A7Rm3 should be 18.6MP in APS-C mode.

My suggestion to go for an XS was a bit hyperbolic, though not invalid.

I did mean A7m3. Freudian slip I guess.

I wasn't familiar with the Canon model and assumed you dropped a zero in that price you quoted

[ray_parkhurst]

The Canon Rebel XS has EFSC and the excellent EOS Utility to tether it. It also can run EOS Utility Live View while allowing hardwire triggering for the mjkzz/WeMacro/StackShot or other systems.

Thanks Ray but I've decided to stick with Sony due to the hassle of changing gear. I'd probably get the XT-3 if I were to change systems.

It is APS-C with 10.2MP so has about the same pixel size as the A7Rm3. You can buy them on eBay with low shutter count for typically <$100.

Do you mean the A7m3? The A7Rm3 should be 18.6MP in APS-C mode.

My suggestion to go for an XS was a bit hyperbolic, though not invalid.

I did mean A7m3. Freudian slip I guess.

I wasn't familiar with the Canon model and assumed you dropped a zero in that price you quoted

The XS was one of the first Canon models (2008) with EFSC. I have been recommending it since 2013 for coin photographers trying to put together low-cost setups. It's still hard to find a better camera for that purpose. In 2013 they cost $175, and are now in the <$100 range. I even see recent sales in the $60-$80 range. That is quite a bargain, though this camera shows wear from use very quickly. It has a rubberized grip which wears off easily on the edges.