[quote=travelwp][quote=gwilliams6]I recently traded it in and upgraded to 61mp A7RV

That is an interesting question--lenses should have MP ratings. Lower quality glass cannot provide the resolution that a 61 MP sensor requires, which means that upgrading to 61 MP makes no sense unless you have quality glass that can handle this.

Sony Alpha Blog developed a chart that offers something like MP ratings for lenses. They rate the suitability of all full-frame lenses for the Sony E-mount for their ability to provide good resolution for a 61 MP camera body.
https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

"Traveling light" is the way to go, provided that you have the right equipment. The Sony A7RIII with the Sony 20-70mm f/4 lens is that right equipment: great quality, perfect focal range for this type of trip--and for most trips, really. As I have noted before, f/4 will be just fine for this trip.

OP will be part of an "organized tour," meaning that there usually won't be much time to get the shot, meaning that changing lenses often is not practical--aside from the risk of getting dust on your sensor in the streets of Florence. Primes are great if you have the time and place (like sitting in a church pew) to change lenses. Having a simple kit with the right lens therefore is important. The Sony 20-70 mm is that lens.

Taking a monopod is a bad idea. There won't be time and often space to set it up. Most places where a monopod would be useful, like church interiors, won't allow them, partly for crowd control reasons, and partly because they could damage old wooden or marble floors.

I travel with a Sony A7III and/or A7RIII. My standard travel lens for the past five years has been the Sony 24-105mm, another f/4 lens. I have taken many great night shots in European cities at ISO 5000. I find f/4 fast enough for just about any travel shots. For church interiors I use both the Sony 24-105mm and the Zeiss Batis 18mm. If I had the 20-70 I might leave the Batis at home. In my experience, 35mm would not be wide enough for interior shots. With or without the Batis 18mm, you have a great travel kit.

Clickbait or not--I think that Rick Bebbington made an interesting argument, in two parts. Here is the summary, so that you won't have to watch it.

1) Upgrading to the most recent camera model makes no sense for the vast majority of photographers, even professional photographers, because the improvement from one model to the next are incremental and not usually significant enough to warrant the expenditure. Believing that having the latest model will improve the quality of one's photography is a fallacy. A skilled photographer can get a great image out of any equipment.

2) Equipment still matters. Today's cameras have improved greatly in areas like like dynamic range, low-light capability, auto-focus, sensor resolution, etc. and offer creative potential that older cameras did not have.

His reasonable key point is that if your camera gives you the images you want there is no need for an upgrade as the improvement in image quality will be barely noticeable, if at all. Craving the newest and latest will not make you a better photographer.

That would be awesome. This is not quite as monumental.

The limitation with current electronic shutters has been that they read out in a linear fashion, which can cause two types of issue. The first is banding in certain types of artificial light. The second issue is distortion in fast-moving objects, like a ball traveling in the air looking like an egg. To prevent that we had to return to mechanical shutters.

Global shutters eliminate that problem by enabling cameras to read the whole sensor in one go, which helps prevent issues with rolling shutter. Yes, goodbye to mechanical shutters!

Somehow clumsy UHH does not allow you to delete a message--I meant to respond to the previous post.

Global shutter--that is truly awesome. This is the last step in the transition to fully digital cameras. I have been shooting with an A7III and A7RIII for five years and was determined not to upgrade unless it is a camera with a global shutter. As I am not an A9 shooter I will have to wait just a little longer.

Agreed. The Sony 20-70mm lens is perfect for the A7C series.

Fisheye lenses work great for portraits of people you don't like.

I own two Sony mirrorless bodies and 12 lenses. Obviously I do not take them all whenever I leave the house. So we take what we think that we need. Air travel adds its own limitations in terms of weight and size of what you can take. These are all personal choices, hardly worth having a baraza about.

There is a difference between being paranoid and being careful. Yes, millions of bags are shipped every day, but incidents do happen. I have never lost a checked bag, but I can recall many incidents where my bag only arrived days later. Twice recently, a bag of mine was missing for a whole week on intercontinental flights. Who knows where my bag was and who had their hands in there during this time. The only reason why nothing got stolen is because there was nothing worth stealing.

Nobody talks about leaving cameras or lenses at home. The point here is that it is not advisable to put anything of value in a checked bag, and that includes cameras and lenses.

That is my rule also. I never check photographic equipment.

As others have pointed out, just take camera and lenses out of your bag and put them in a separate tray, and this will not be an issue. If you keep your equipment in the bag it likely will be identified for a hand check, which could easily involve a ten-minute wait time.

The other issue is Spirit's carry-on policies--learn what you can take for free and for what you will be charged. They are a budget carrier and generally enforce their rules strictly. After all, charging for everything extra is their business model.

Two issues are conflated here: focal length and field of view.

The focal length refers to the optical qualities of a lens. This does not vary, regardless what sensor format you use. While definitions wary, I would consider anything wider than 35mm a wide-angle lens.

Field of view refers to how wide the angle is that your lens in combination with your sensor cover. A 40mm full-frame lens is thought to produce a field of view that roughly corresponds to the experience of the human eye--some think that this is closer to 50mm. However, if you use and APS-C system, you would achieve the same angle of view by using a 27mm lens.

So there isn't a straight answer to the question because the same lens strapped on a camera with a different sensor size will give you a different field of view.

But I suspect that OP already knew that. So many posts here are just click bait--the game is to generate the largest possible number of responses to a fairly silly question.