Great review man. I own an A7Riv with a 20mm f1.8 for Astro. 15 seconds at 1.8 with 1600-3200 iso is what I get my best photos with. After running a de-noise tool in Lightroom the photos are so good they don’t even need to be stacked.
Thanks! I've been using the Denoise process in Camera Raw (I bet it's very similar to the one in Lightroom) and I have to say that I'm very impressed with how well it removes the noisy pixels. Sounds like you have a great setup!
@@DesmondButler True, never seen an in camera version. I have found it works really well on hard textured surfaces like roads, cars, walls etc. But can make things like grass and trees look horrible.
@@leboned3076 Haha, yes, I was going to mention trees if you didn't. It's always the trees that come out a bit odd. But honestly it's surprisingly good with noise among stars, leaving things like satellites and planes alone. It says on Adobe's website that Lightroom is built on the Adobe Camera Raw framework, so we indeed are using the same process.
Some flickering is normal with aurora timelapses, but this was the most unusual storm we've ever seen in North America, so the frequency may have been elevated. That said, flickering in timelapses in general is still quite common. One thing you can do is buy the DEFlicker plugin made by RE:Vision Effects. I mentioned in my timelapse tutorial video how the plugin has a setting specifically designed for timelapses. I used it this weekend for some flickering I was seeing in one of my Milky Way timelapses, and it did a great job.
@@jasonmordecai8212 Oh, I get what you're saying. I'm not seeing it on my end, but it would make sense that RU-vid compression is turning it into quadrant noise. It's a lot of color data to reproduce for these stripped down codecs.
Wow, this is super insightful. I'll be photographing the Northern Lights in Lapland and have been conflicted which body to rent since I prefer to use only one for both photos & videos. a7siii is a given for video, but the photos/timelapses looked great too.
Trailed stars aren't good for showing noise reduction algorithms, since they tend to impact more smaller details, so the issues will be more evident with smaller trails or even worse if you're using a tracker that gives you pinpoint stars. If one really wants a camera for astro unfortunately (I say unfortunately because of the prices of lenses and awful 3rd party support) Canon is still the best choice because it's the only one that doesn't ruin the color of the stars.
I've never seen a comparison that demonstrates what you're saying about star color, but I'm willing to believe you given what I have seen with Canon color science in my other tests. But I think your conclusion lacks nuance. I've used the new mirrorless Canon cameras on this channel as well as the EOS 6D that so many rave about, and there is absolutely no way I'm going to prefer one of those over the a7S III for shooting a Milky Way timelapse. For whatever pinpoint stars it may flicker in and out of existence, it more than makes up for in foreground dynamic range and fidelity. Nothing comes close. So it really just depends on what we're talking about. It may very well be the case that if we're not shooting night landscapes but instead anything connected to a telescope lens, some Canon models may have an advantage. In my eagle nebula test shoot video from last year, you can see for yourself that the Canon EOS R6 is clearly outperformed by the Sony a7R V. Which Canon model do you recommend for that type of comparison? If you let me know, I will make it a focus to try to obtain one and test it.
@@DesmondButler I've seen many astrophotographers started using the R after switching from the 6D, however the R6 should also be pretty good. In that comparison the A7rV wins in detail because of the 60mpx but I really don't see much difference in SNR between the two.
@@v0ldy54 It's not just the detail that photographers would be looking for, but also the light capture. It's a little harder to decipher in that nebula comparison I did, but in the Milky Way shootout I did that same summer, you can see that the Sony a7R V reproduces way more light in the exact same situations than the Canon R6. To be getting more detail AND more light when its already split between a lot more pixels is pretty crazy. I've heard that the R6 Mark II is quite a step up from the Mark I in terms of low light performance, so maybe I need to hunt one down for testing.
It would be possible to capture some stars, but it would be way too dark and way too noisy to meaningfully make out the details of the dust clouds and nebulae. In that respect, the a7S really does stand alone.
Interesting comparison, thank you! I'd be curious to see how the A6600 or A6700 would perform in this test with a 16mm-ish lens @ f/1.8 (same ISO, same exposure)..
I've never owned a wide angle lens with an aperture under f2.0, but it's on my wish list. I am currently working on getting my hands on the a6700 to do some comparisons. Thanks for the suggestions!
That's... Not what star eater is. Star eater only kicks in if you have pinpoint stars. The only camera here that doesn't have star eater anymore is the a7rV, and that's due to its newer firmware. The same can be observed in any camera released after it.
Would be interesting to see the old A7III compared with others, since it has lower megapixel count than A7IV and according to DxOmark it performs better
This is a comparison a lot of viewers seem interested in. Perhaps a full head to head between the two models would be in order if I ever get my hands on the a7 III. Thanks for your input.
Major problem and flaw with this video. It's not using native ISOs to compare performance, this kinda of voids all comparisons in a sense. Each came will preform differently and different ISOs. Some will preform better at 3200iso while another camera might beat it at say 6000ISO. It's been long known that each model of camera has their best rated ISO and it's different than other models. A lot of the cameras now have 2 high preforming ISOs sometimes referred to as BASE ISOs. Also the base ISOs are also in relation to picture profiles and the ISOs are different in Video vs Photo even in the same cameras. To do a realistic comparisons you have to look up all the high preforming ISOs for each model of camera and compare them based on that. Otherwise it's best to take what this video shows are a very small grain of salt.
You have just made perfectly clear to every other viewer that you did not watch the video, nor do you seem to comprehend the specific use case here. "Base" ISO, more ubiquitously referred to as native ISO, is a concept explained in depth in this video (something you would know had you actually watched the video). Furthermore, to have set each individual camera to their respective second native ISO values, which I specifically outlined, would in no way assist potential buyers. Conversely, by showing the performance of these cameras at multiple ISO values well above those native levels, a photographer interested in low light landscape image capture will come to understand the differences between these sensors, helping them to choose the right camera for their purposes. Astrophotographers understand this intrinsically. Those interested in a comparison of low light video capture between these models can watch my previous video, which demonstrates the advantage of the second native ISO for dealing with low light video noise: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HdPAfAMPnls.htmlsi=jishhtEdOKQTkaPO
@@0palev Great question! That is the exact lens I used in my five camera comparison last summer (mine is branded "Rokinon", but they are the exact same fabricator). For the price, I don't think you can beat it for full frame lenses. It doesn't even stretch the stars at the edges as badly as you might expect from an inexpensive lens. Though, you will have to be patient with manually focusing every shot. If you want to see some sample images, you can check out that video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4OvRnfRykwI.html
Good eye. It's somewhat common to catch shooting stars in Milky Way landscape photos because they're so much wider, so that is pretty cool that the R6 spotted a tiny one.
On my A7RV I have been getting extremely noisy images at 20”, f2.8, ISO 3200 when set to medium RAW. Almost unusable. Large RAW is better but still a lot of blue pixels. Is this normal? Never had this in my a7iv
The a7 IV will definitely produce noticeably less noise on low light high ISO exposures than the a7R V, but the blue pixels does sound odd. I've had that camera produce some magenta vignetting when the scene is extremely dark, but that's true of most cameras. You might want to reach out to other Sony shooters to see if anyone else has had the issue.
Most of my viewers are more interested in a multipurpose camera that can capture night shots proficiently. You're absolutely right if we were only talking about deep sky imaging, but it would be pretty silly to shoot Milky Way landscapes with a ZWO camera.
Very interesting comparison. I find myself to have moved away from Sony for astro. I started with a6300 ->A7 ->A7S and then bought a USED Canon 6D....I NEVER looked back.I'm working on a video on my channel comparing Canon EOS R, 6D, 7R II, 7S, 6300, Nikon Z6 all in a bortle 2 sky as apples to apples as I could get. BUT I didn't have my A7 IV when i went out in the field to compare them so I may go back and try to get some shots with it to be true to Sony's CURRENT offerings. I think it will add a lot to this type of discussion. I just prefer how Canon renders milky way images. I have a A7 IV now, and from my limited testing with it am just unimpressed with it for astrophotography. There's way less color and natural look to the shots than my 6D. I DO use a star tracker, because then you are getting your signal above the noise floor, and the 'low light performance' no longer matters as much as the way the images look. The 'budget' option for people really should be the canon 6D (not Mark II that's worse) IF they are wanting a dedicated astro body. if you want the camera for other things, as most do, then I would buy the A6500 as the budget option or a Canon EOS R The exception here, is that I still use my original A7S for TIMELAPSE of the milky way, as the signal to noise ratio is just so good, you can get great timelapses with short exposure frames. I actually sent it to be full spectrum modified because it is SO GOOD for filming milkyway travels at night.
It sounds like you and I have come to a lot of the same conclusions. I hear you on color science, people do have legitimate reason to prefer Canon, but I would still call this a personal preference rather than an objective standard, and I imagine you'd agree with that. With only one exception, the comparison videos I've done are all for untracked, uncomposited, authentic single exposure Milky Way images, and for that reason my videos have primarily focused on noise. Perhaps I should do a test using a tripod tracker with the main cameras I've featured. At that point, we would be comparing other aspects than noise, as you rightly pointed out. My main comparison video from last summer featured the a7R V and the EOS 6D, and I have to tell you that while the 6D is really good, the Sony appeared to produce far less noise. Check it out sometime if you're at all curious: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4OvRnfRykwI.html Thanks for the comment! It's always cool to hear experience from photographers who are trying similar things to what I do here.
what do you think of purchasing the ZV-E1 for these type of night lapse shots (video and photo lapse).... i like the compact form factor and it comes with the same sensor if im not mistaken.
Yes, I actually mentioned in my latest video that the ZV-E1 is the same sensor. There are some drawbacks, but for everything I did in this video, the differences would not matter. The ZV-E1 should perform exactly the same for low light video and photos as the a7S III at normal recording settings. I think there are a lot of good reasons for amateur photographers to go with the more stripped down model, and price is definitely one of them. Thanks for asking this question!
@@DesmondButler thanks for the incite... sony really makes it hard to choose since they have such a wide range of sensor/body combinations. I will head over to watch that video!
Those who listened to the video heard it clearly stated that that ISO value would be ridiculous to use and that those test images are strictly for demonstrating the differences between sensors. The point is to prove beyond any argument which cameras perform best against low light noise. This was already accomplished at the lower ISO value, but some viewers are difficult to persuade.
Amazing comparison video! I'm really happy that you included the A6500 since it shows how capable even APSC camera can be in this challenging scenario.
Thanks! I agree, it is important for amateur photographers to understand that they can still capture something they can be proud of on a budget. Furthermore, you can see from some of my earlier comparison videos that Sony APS-C cameras really stand out for low light performance.
@@DesmondButler I don't have the A6500, but the A6000 and I struggle to get clean photos (even after denoising) of the northern lights, but your videos give me hope that the newer models are indeed good enough and I won't have to upgrade to A7. I don't even have a good lens for night sky photography, but maybe I'll get the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f2 soon and step up my game.
@@Meg_A_Byte Could be worthwhile to have a closer look at the Sony 11mm f/1.8, Meike 10mm f/2, or Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 instead - each being a better lens than the Samyang/Rokinon.. Also, seems like the A6400/6600 are even a little bit better in low light than the A6500. But all arae definitely way ahead of the A6000..
If you’re not a professional, A6500 is the winner. Great low light performance, just enough to post in instagram or for a wallpaper on your laptop. If I’d seen your video 2 years ago I wouldn’t had bought A7 iii 😅😅Thanks for really good review 👍👍
Thanks for saying that. That's really what I hoped this video would do for potential buyers. Wish I could have warned you earlier 😅 I think I agree with how you described the a6500. That being said, I still love mine. Its still the only camera I take on vacation 😅
I been thinking of getting the Sony A7 IV but many have said about the stars having a tinge of green in them, myself at the moment is using the old canon 6d which is great for astro but getting a bit heavy for my these days as its built like a tank but I have taken many pics from birds in flight to star trails using bulb mode it's been great. But as many have mentioned about the colour of the stars with the A7 IV i'm unsure about it and have anyone had any green colour issues with it?
I can't say I've noticed that, but I would say that canon does seem to have a slightly different color science, and some do prefer what that produces. For me, it depends on the scene. I actually really like Sony color for night shots. As far as the stars looking green, maybe someone else here knows.
@@DesmondButler thanks for getting back to me, I have been looking at the A7 IV as Alyn Wallace used this model as he did Astrophotography but sadly passed away not to long back also he lived here in Wales a few miles from me, you might have seen him on RU-vid... Have you tried the Canon R6ii for astro? as I was also looking at this one.
@@darkshaman7087 I have heard important upgrades were brought to the R6 Mark II, but so far I've only gotten my hands on the Mark I. I will definitely have to test it out in the future. I had not heard about Alyn. That is terrible news. I'm just now reading the articles about his passing. He will certainly be missed here. What an absolute tragedy.
@@DesmondButler the r6ii seems a good camera also I have heard the mk 3 is coming out soon so the price might drop on the mk2, but it's a hard choice between the Sony and the Canon I will have to do some more research into them... I found out Alyn was suffering from an underlying condition also in some of his videos he seems weak, it's a pity as he was so young and such a big loss, he moved from here in Wales and lived in Turkey and that is sadly passed away... If you type in on google about Alyn it will mention about his passing.
I personally haven't experimented with altering the camera's sharpness settings. The built in long exposure noise reduction is pretty good, but in recent years I find myself using the denoise process in Adobe Camera Raw more often. The next video I'll be putting out this summer will go over the process, but it's pretty straight forward, just two clicks. For me, the balance with sharpening and noise reduction is easier to find in post with tools from Adobe.
For Milky Way photography, you're absolutely right. The major difference is the 8k video, which is far superior to 4k for planetary imaging using the "lucky imaging" technique. If you don't care about capturing planets, then the a7R IV is essentially the same product but less expensive. One additional caveat might be high speed wildlife photography, where the AI model on the a7R V is said to be better, but I'd venture to guess its marginal in practice.
What a fantastic video. Great job with the detailed specs with analysis of the real time pictures and videos. It was a very scientific yet entertaining learning experience. Thank you. I expect your channel to blow up.
I got the Sony A7R V for doing wildlife photography here in Alaska but did end up getting the Viltrox 16mm 1.8 and did some northern lights photography with it and they turned out really good for me so ended up loving this camera with this lens for night time photography
Seems like if you could afford 2 cameras, then the A7R5 + A7S3 combo looks like a winner, and if you can only afford 1, then the A7IV is a pretty good in-between.
Very good comparison. I would like just to comment that newest models, A7RV, A7RC, A7CII have not longer the star eater issue according to reports in cloudynights. The A7CII has the same sensor as the A7IV but they have managed to solve the star eater problem. Personally, I'm considering an A7CII or Canon R6II, the A7RV looks fantastic but expensive.
Thanks for sharing that info! I've been told that the Canon R6 Mark II has low noise, but I've seen charts that say that the Mark I has lower noise than the Sony a7R V, and that is verifiably false from some of my other comparison videos. I need to test the Mark II though. It seems safe to assume that the a7C II would be a great choice, both economically and for noise.
