Camera and lens for landscape and astrophotography.

[us3r]

Hi, thinking to buy DSLR or maybe mirrorless FX camera with some really good lens. Firstly let's talk about body. I like Nikon D810 (D810A), Canon 5D Mark IV and Sony a7S II. Nikon is simple to use, at least for me, but Canon has newer body with some features, and Sony is the best with ISO, but it's small size and only 12 MPX, so I like DSLR more. Maybe better to wait for Nikon's update?

Now lenses. I looking for something close to f/1.0, but some of them too expensive or have different mount, I'm not sure how to use them with any of these cameras. Nokton f/0.95 and similar lens have good price (except Leica - 10000$), also I like Otus f/1.4 28mm, but it's 5000$. Anyway I don't know what to choose - 24, 28, 35, 50mm or something else? I need mostly for landscapes and astrophotography, but sometimes I can try something new. Any advices?

 

[Designer]

Well, I'm a Nikon owner, so there's that. I would pick the D810.

Why do you want a VERRRRY fast lens? What's the point? None, that I can see.

I can't help you with astrophotography, but most people adapt their camera to the eyepiece of a telescope, so you just need an inexpensive adapter and you're in business.

For landscape, most people use a fairly wide lens (50mm or shorter) on a FX camera. However; I wish to caution you that a wide lens will probably not end up being the best choice in all cases. The reason is that a wide lens makes everything smaller, and sometimes you just want something in the shot that is not tiny.

 

[photo1x1.com]

As for the Sonys: I do own the a7sII and the a7rII - for photography I´d go with the "r" hands down. Much faster focus, awesome resolution. I hardly take any pictures with the "s" - not even when I shoot the night sky. I haven´t done a real comparison, but the resolution outperforms the ISO in my opinion.

 

[goodguy]

That's easy, the Nikon D810

 

[Ido]

Nikon is simple to use, at least for me,

I take it that you've actually tried these cameras? To appreciate the ergonomics and determine which one is best for you, there's no substitute to getting your hands on them.

but Canon has newer body with some features,

What features, in particular, interest you? How will they help in your photography?

and Sony is the best with ISO,

Please use this comparison tool.

but it's small size and only 12 MPX, so I like DSLR more.

Coming back to the first point, have you tried it? You can't possibly know if its smaller form factor is a positive or a negative, without handling it.

As for the lower resolution…

• How large do you want to print?
• What cameras have you used before? What has your experience been like with the resolution?
• Have you checked out the Sony a7R II?

Maybe better to wait for Nikon's update?

Is there anything in particular that you find lacking in the current Nikon?

Now lenses. I looking for something close to f/1.0, but some of them too expensive or have different mount, I'm not sure how to use them with any of these cameras. Nokton f/0.95 and similar lens have good price (except Leica - 10000$), also I like Otus f/1.4 28mm, but it's 5000$. Anyway I don't know what to choose - 24, 28, 35, 50mm or something else? I need mostly for landscapes and astrophotography, but sometimes I can try something new. Any advices?

You're all over the place at the moment. First settle on the focal length, or range of focal lengths, then go from there. You wouldn't make the same photo with a 24mm and with a 50mm, and you may find a place for both in your photography. If you're not sure, or if you have no previous experience, get a standard-range zoom for a start, and venture into the more specialized lenses later on.

 

[TCampbell]

Unless by "astrophotography" you actually mean landscape photos that include the night sky, the answer to your question turns out to be different cameras.

To explain "why" is a long post. But the cameras that are best for, say, "planetary" imaging are different than the cameras that are best for "deep sky objects", which are different than the cameras that are best for typical photography (including landscapes).

BTW, for deep-sky objects (DSOs), you would typically connect the camera to a telescope and the telescope is tracking the object (on an equatorial mount). But it turns out many telescopes can't provide a flat-field out to the diameter needed for a full-frame DSLR (roughly 44mm) and have issues with field curvature. You can buy high-end scopes that CAN provide a flat field, but that's going to add to the price tag.

So most astro-imagers tend to use cameras with APS-C size sensors rather than full-frame cameras. Also, if they're shooting DSO's then they tend to use "modded" cameras that don't trim the visible spectrum to mimic the sensitivity of the human eye -- but instead grab every available photon of light they can manage to get.