Sony a7R V vs a7S III vs a7 IV - Astrophotography Test and Comparison

There are a lot of opinions out there on which Sony camera is the best for night shots, but we can finally put that to rest by rigorously testing each of the top of the line models available from the Sony Alpha brand. In this comparison, I explore the strengths and weaknesses of each full frame camera, and let you see for yourself which ones outperform the others on noise, detail, and other metrics.
#sonyalpha
Follow my Instagram page for star pics and more:
/ amplifyreality
Cameras in this video:
Sony a7 IV, Sony a7R V, Sony a7S III, Sony a6500
Music by Hidden URL:
/ hiddenurl

[@abbc5156]

Thank you for your great comparison. It was exactly what I was looking for.

[@DesmondButler]

I'm very glad to hear that! Thanks for commenting!

[@tornado5783]

Fantastic video! I love my A7RV!

[@DesmondButler]

It is such a great camera for professional photography.

[@LoriGraceAz]

I've have the Sony a7RIII and a7III which were great at the time. Then I purchased both a7SIII then the a1 when they came out. I agree with the performance of the a7SIII and use it for stills in many other projects including capturing lightning during storm chasing. Sharing those images from the a7SIII at 12mp bears no noticeable difference when shared online. Also of note, the a1's low light capabilities have blown me away. So much that I would love a second a1 if I could afford it. I've captured sprites above thunderstorms in the distance in extremely dark situations with exceptional image quality. Overall I can't walk away from the a7SIII and the a1. They're both on the tripods when it's night. Great breakdown, thanks!

[@DesmondButler]

I've never had the chance to use the A1, but it sounds like it would be a lot of fun! Thanks for sharing your take!

[@1337ghomri]

Please share your website, Instagram or what ever.

[@XDR2201]

I started astro photography with A7iii and was really happy about it. The only issue I have with it is the non flip screen. I had problem shooting it from high and low position. Later I upgraded to Ha moded A7IV, couldn’t be happier. It’s perfect blend of resolution and noise performance.

[@DesmondButler]

Those seem to be the two most commonly mentioned models in astrophotography discussion. Some would say that is all due to the affordability, but I'd have to say comparisons show that its more than that. The a7R V is already better than most cameras at low light, and yet the a7 IV is shown to be significantly better. We can see that it isn't on the level of the a7S III, but when you take it without the compromises in resolution and cost, it just makes for a really smart choice.

[@1337ghomri]

Very nice video. Thanks for making such a nice and in-detail comparison! It's actually pretty impressive how good the results are when using them at ISO 3200. I personally think they all have extremely and nicely useful images. Even by using a faster lens, the noise would be less pronounce. The a7 IV really stand out as great value comparing megapixels and noise.

[@DesmondButler]

I totally agree, I would be comfortable using any of these to create a print or social media post. They are all within the threshold that good editing could turn into a presentable finished product. And you're right about the a7 IV, a great middle of the road option with strong noise performance and a reasonable price point. Thanks for watching!

[@br2v]

Very Nice comparison: concerning the astro photographers the Sigma FP is the best concerning dynamic range / noise, it has the lowest read noise, The Nikon Z6 (1 / II) is also better for astro, low read noise. Many of the Sony's tend to have more amplification noise, I once checked the A 7 III vs de Nikon D750 and Z6, the A 7 III had quite some issues there. I can't say anything about the A 7 IV or A 7 R V

[@DesmondButler]

I've read a few things that have led me to believe that I need to test the Z6. Hopefully I can get my hands on one soon. Thanks for the comment!

[@antondeputat8814]

So incredibly happy, that the 6500 gets attention

[@DesmondButler]

Glad to hear from my a6500 people 😄 It has been such a great little camera for me. I still prefer it for a lot of things I shoot, and I've even won some contests shooting night landscapes with it.

[@lcambilargiu]

I have shot the night sky with an a6600 which had the same sensor as the a6600. Wow.

[@antondeputat8814]

@@lcambilargiu why're you telling me that? One would assume, you'd make that a seperate comment, not an answer....

[@lcambilargiu]

@@antondeputat8814 I'm happy our APSC setups get love. I've heard that the best camera (and therefore a compelling reason to check out what other people are having success with) is the camera you have. I'm pleased the a6500 got mentioned.

[@fotovylety]

Thank you for nice comparison. When upgraded a7riv to a7rv last fall I noticed that a7rv no longer has that star eater long exposure (>3.2s) noise reduction. To my surprise this was not publicly discussed before. My post on dpreview (jtra username) shows it and others have confirmed it. So in this sense all other cameras in this review have spatial noise reduction (bright pixels are darkened when surrounded by dark pixels) so it is not completely fair for those longer exposures. It might be interesting to reduce 60mp to 15mp by computing minimum of the four pixels or lower quartile of them and then compare to 12mp camera. That might get rid of the bright noise in dark shadows on the land.

[@DesmondButler]

Thanks for sharing that information from your firsthand testing. That's an interesting hypothesis regarding reducing the output resolution. I suspect that it won't meaningfully close the gap, given that it features significantly lower native ISO values than the a7S III, but since you've suggested it, I'll have to give it a shot the next time I have them both out on a shoot.

[@jeroenvdw]

Great tests, though I'm curious to see one more test. The A7RV has a feature to take small, medium or large sized images without cropping. 16MP, 26MP and 61MP. Would be nice to see how the images hold up against the others if you lower the resolution in-camera. I expect the images to be cleaner, but the A7SIII would probably still beat it regarding noise.

[@DesmondButler]

Another viewer suggested trying this. I agree with you that the a7S III would likely still outperform, but I'm curious enough that I might try it if I get the chance.

[@nickmorgan5933]

nice comparison. Important to note that if you aren't shooting tracked shots, you aren't going to really see much of the star eater V1 or V2 issues. The raw filtering that treats stars as noise needs them to be sharp and small and that's when they start to disappear, get hollowed out, or turned green (depending on which version of the algorithm is used). Thus, having a bit of trailing significantly reduces the negative effects of the star eating algorithm. What you can also see in these shots is the built in noise reduction for all but the A7RV. The A7RV has more finer grain, but that will nicely stack out.

[@DesmondButler]

Thanks for this comment, it sounds like you have some valuable experience with the phenomenon I tried to describe. I've read quite a few different things about the "star eater algorithm". Some have said that that issue was resolved after recent software updates, but I don't have the experience to say one way or another. To be absolutely clear, every one of these cameras had noise reduction turned off. I do know that for video, Sony has added something extra going on in the background with the a7S III that still performs noise reduction at high ISO values, but I'm not aware of any other sneaky noise reduction. The images I've displayed are just the raw images, no tricks, no alterations unless otherwise disclosed.

[@kururuvai]

interestingly enough, you picked the a7rv for comparison. In the astro community its has been proven that this was the first camera that sony finally decided to turn off their star eater algorithm off for. since then it looks like two other cameras no longer suffer from star eater, those are the new a7c cameras. We can only hope for the future cameras sony produces to carry on this trend. as for your method in turning everything off that could maybe affect star eating, you did it right, no issues there. but individual sony models still controls how the camera interprets fine points of light(stars) and at what SS(depending on the gen of the algorithm) it chooses to take action. then it uses its interpretation of those fine points and treats them as fine noise, unfortunately star eating is baked into the cameras raw filtering/processing, it doesnt matter if long exposure noise reduction is turned off. star trailing certainly helps along with the use of a less sharp lens, if the lens cant resolve the points of light then it the camera wont treat the stars as noise. Great review!

[@DesmondButler]

@@kururuvai That's fascinating. I really appreciate you guys for leaving these comments. Its such an esoteric element to how these cameras are engineered, and I have had almost no experience with it. As I indicated in the earlier response, I knew Sony had some background algorithms going on for some things, but I wasn't sure how far it goes or which features are affected. To me, it sounds like the main impact would be on deep sky imaging, and perhaps most landscape astrophotography wouldn't be terribly altered by these background processes. Does your experience suggest otherwise though?

[@astrotennessee]

@@DesmondButler Sorry, posted the first comment on the wrong account. Deep-sky actually works a little better against the star eating algorithm as the stars tend to cover more pixels. However, then you run into the baked in lens corrections creating circular patterns when you stack and stretch. The star eater is worst with wider lenses (under 200mm) tracked. I almost always shoot tracked, so it was a deal breaker for me. I've used the A7S for a lot of timelapses because it's uneffected by star eating under 30seconds. I've now started using the A7RV, however, and just sent it off for modification because it has solved all these issues and performs well enough in the noise department. You do a great job showing how the A7Siii preserves details, but stacking can solve that problem, too. Allyn Wallace had a great video on the A7Siii showing how much the star eater would remove and dim stars. The A7RV, A7Cii, and A7CR all might be the best current non-cooled astro cameras because they have fixed these issues that other manufacturers still have in some capacity. If I was buying a camera that I planned to use a lot for astro, those three would be my only choice.

[@stkuj]

It will be interesting to see what Sony brings later this year as it's expected to have the A7Siv (rumored 24mp) & A7V (prob partial stacked sensor like Z6iii).

[@DesmondButler]

I've seen speculation that Sony will be shifting focus over to the FX line and release a successor there while ending the S line. I kind of hope that's not the case, but I guess I'd understand it if they did. Either way, I'll still probably make my studio get the new one 😄 It would be exciting to see a re-engineered a7 this year as you've described. Guess we'll soon see.

[@TSAlpha2933]

I have to say that if noise is your concern, take a series of exposures at your slowest possible shutter speed (without creating start trails) then stack the images in something like DSS. I would be more concerned about the loss of dynamic range, and find that you're often better off just taking a series of exposures at your native or 2nd native ISO and stacking them. You'll have much more data to play around with in the end, and little to no noise if you stretch everything properly. (in my experience, if you shoot at either of the native ISOs with most newer Sony mirrorless, you will get nearly zero noise in the results)

[@DesmondButler]

Those are useful approaches, but not all astrophotography is stacked or tracked, particularly timelapses. And the fact remains that for extremely deep objects, an ISO value above even the second native ISO of the a7S III is absolutely necessary, so understanding the differences between these sensors is important to potential buyers.

[@lcambilargiu]

I like the a7sIII sky video! I wonder if there is a way to take a few seconds of that video and stack the twinkling stars into a frame. Would such a strategy reduce noise compared to a single exposure?

[@DesmondButler]

Photo stacking with timelapses would be tricky, since the primary intent is to show changes with the atmosphere and foreground, details that are smeared or omitted by the stacking process. I know that some photographers do create one stacked image and then just comp it into the back of a masked out foreground, but I personally find this to be pretty dishonest. One effective way to maintain star brightness is to get out into the deep desert on a clear night. I've had decent success with that, but I also don't mind a little twinkling.

[@lcambilargiu]

@@DesmondButler thanks for the thoughtful reply and I suppose you have a point. I found with my setup I can only take 7 second exposures before stars start streaking. I wanted to be taking longer exposures and so... Also i found that faint stars often look like noisy pixels, to complicate the stacking process and also the de noise you would have to ignore pixels that only appear in a single frame.... I suppose the foreground would be from the base image, or the last image depending, and I don't want clouds... I guess I need to think about what I'm trying to do, another astro photographer was saying that he removes some stars which seemed odd to my thought of trying to include more.

[@DesmondButler]

​@@lcambilargiu I agree with you, selecting stars for exclusion seems like it would make stacking more difficult. But then again, stacking is a strange and complex process, so maybe he is on to something. I guess if it actually did work, more images fitting inside your stack would be worth losing a couple stars. Very interesting.

[@lcambilargiu]

@@DesmondButler I am thinking that stacking is more about enhancing the information of the milky part of the image and less about capturing more stars. That seemed funny to me at first.

[@PierGiorgioZuccaro]

Good morning and great video. Could I compare the a6500 (which I had with great satisfaction) to the new a6700?

[@DesmondButler]

This is an important question. I'm not sure how much better the a6700 is when compared to the older a6500. Sony introduced a backside illuminated sensor for the a6700 which is supposed to give it noticeably better low light performance. I haven't been able to test this myself, but it is very high on my to-do list.

[@PierGiorgioZuccaro]

@@DesmondButler Very kind in answering me, if I can I will try to take some shots with A7r5 and a6700 and see what comes out at night!

[@echoauxgen]

One thing not stated is shutter speed is increased the higher the pixel count and the size of lens f/# and mm. A faster SS gives way to faster panoramas. Also was camera NR turned on, if not shame shame, for years everyone was saying do not use NR just take multiple shots and do denoise in post but ask yourself what is a extra 10s or even 15s when compared to a full minute doing more images!!! Look just use PhotoPills spot stars to select camera, mm, and f/# to be used. I have all S models as well as the RV and R2 and using the settings and AWB and no filters the S3 and RV are about equal in detail. The S/S2 models have one up on all and that is on camera apps one is "Digital Filter" where you can take two images sky and foreground and different camera setting and get processed in camera jpeg and/or RAW as output and WB selection for sky can be selected vs ground. Lastly today SW will let you upsize but even the A7s's 12MP will print larger than poster size how often will you do that and print companies to upsizing anyway!!!

[@DesmondButler]

In-body long-exposure noise reduction can be very impressive, and is definitely worth a try. But there are two major reasons why some photographers may not want to use it for astrophotography. Capturing a timelapse with Long Exposure NR enabled will literally double the time spent on location, and half of that is lost light capture. When you're already spending a couple hours for just a few seconds of video, it is better to find other ways to mitigate noise and leave it disabled. The second reason is stacking. Cameras may be getting better at this, but from my first hand experience, noise reduced frames will often fail to stack in software stacking applications. As for 12MP prints, its true that those images equate to 14in x 9in (35cm x 23cm) at 300 DPI, but I personally have found that 600 DPI is much better for night shots. More megapixels does make for a better mural, but you're right, it's not absolutely necessary. I've shot images for commercial banners, but most people won't need that kind of detail. It's just good to keep in mind. I would definitely advise against upscaling night shots. I work with these machine learning models every single day, and the technology just isn't there yet. Thanks for watching the video!

[@re42069]

I'm not regretting my A6400 yet. But wow that ISO noise compared to the A7 IV is really making me doubt my decision. I dont want to make you do something, but it'd be nice if you could compare APS-C lenses on full frame cameras compared to APS-C cameras. That might ease my anxiety when looking at the cost of upgrading.

[@DesmondButler]

I have absolutely loved my APS-C a6500 for travel photography. The lenses are inexpensive and a lot smaller to pack around. If you do any kind of on the go shooting, especially handheld, there are major advantages to the APS-C line of cameras, especially when you look at how much cheaper and available the OSS (optical Steady-Shot) lenses are in the smaller form factor. For normal daylight shooting, your camera is still a really great choice, and even for night shots you can still get really awesome results. Most of my IG posts were taken with the a6500. Here's one of my favorites: instagram.com/p/CuvpzsPOOzT/

[@JDFloyd]

For sharper stars, start with the NPF Rule.

[@DesmondButler]

I assume most people watching this video will already understand exposure length equations. These comparison videos aren't tutorials. They're intended to inform potential consumers on the capabilities of different brands and models.

[@arthurgphotography]

Just use photo pills, you can plug in your exact camera and it will provide the exact seconds

[@ChrisKoehn]

Another helpful comment from the "This channel doesn't have any content" crew.

[@eokorie.photography]

Great work on the video... It's nice to see that Sony APS-C cameras can still hold their own when it comes to astrophotography. I have had the a6000, a6400 and now the a6700. I have enjoyed taking pictures with the camera, with each offering better quality than the other. I kind of get the feeling that the a6400 does have an edge over the a6500 in terms of quality; but I may be wrong. But for me the a6700 really been good especially with the BSI sensor. The downside at the moment is trying to shoot any Milkyway in the UK is nigh on impossible with the horrible weather. However I still have the a6000 and a6400 but deep sky stuff, especially as I have had them astro modified... Great video again...

[@DesmondButler]

Like many others, I always say shoot with what you have. There are still good reasons to own an APS-C, and I look forward to testing out the BSI sensor on the a6700 one day. The sensor on the a6400 probably does have some advantages over the a6500, but for what I do, IBIS is a must. Hope you get some cloudless nights for shooting this summer.