Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: jeremyrh on December 16, 2016, 10:24:20 am
-
The question arises because I am visiting a remote bit of Norway in the near future and wondering what to take. Getting there requires 3 plane journeys, at least one probably on a small plane. Once there I will be humping up and down hills. Obviously it would be nicer to just take my OMD-EM1 kit and leave my Nikon D800 kit in the cupboard. But .... I am going there to take pictures, so maybe I should take the kit that gives the better pictures (DR, resolution). Or maybe the difference is actually small outside of pixel-peeping. Or maybe not. Or ... ?
-
As usual, it depends ;)
I took a GH4 to Norway and got some good prints at 13" x 19" from the trip, but I felt the lack of larger sensor trying to shoot the Aurora and I don't think the files would stand being printed too much larger for my tastes. But man was it good to have such a small and lightweight shooting kit with excellent battery life.
I bought a Sony A7RII not long after the trip which has since supplanted the GH4 (and the Hasselblad) for all my landscape work. I still use the GH4 for video and especially timelapse. And I'd take it on a trip if it was going to be very remote, I guess, but in fact I've hardly shot a stills frame with it since getting the Sony.
Is taking the heavy camera kit going to stop you getting shots because you haven't got to the top of the hill, where you might have done with the m4/3? If so, the best camera is the one you have with you- take the Olympus. Or are you going to be annoyed forever after by going on a probably-expensive trip and not coming back with the best image quality your kit cupboard can provide?
And how abstemious are you capable of being with lenses? If you can cover your focal range with a small number of lenses, maybe the penalty for the Nikon isn't so bad, but if you like to carry around a sack of f/1.4 primes, maybe the m/43 kit bag is the way to go :D
Hope you have a good trip! I must get back to Norway soon!
Cheers, Hywel
-
I owned a complete m4/3 kit, various cameras culminating in a GH2. I liked the lenses and the files were decent at low ISOs. I do agree that 13x19 is probably my limit for printing anything with fine detail, though I once made a 16x20 print of a portrait from half of the image area from a GF1 shot. Looked fantastic. :)
So, it depends. You are in a good position to test the two side by side and make prints at whatever size you want, and see what sort of quality you get.
If it were me, I would go for portability, but then I leave my big Canon at home all the time in favor of the Fujis, so I've already made that choice.
Hope you have a great trip.
-
It is going to be different for everyone. It depends what your goals are. It also depends on your technique. I have 24" prints hanging on the wall from a 12mp FujiX100 that look excellent. As far as Olympus goes for travel, the 12-40 and a telephoto, or the 12-100mm lens are hard to beat. In terms of lenses, they are absolutely excellent, and focus at 1:3 macro. I leave the macro lens at home most of the time now. You may want an ND filter though depending what you do. I shoot at ISO200 at F/7.1 for all my landscape work. That is the ideal. I can push to F/11 if needed and its not giving anything notable up.
In terms of printing, the latest m43 sensors print well. The colors are great and the rendering actually comes out better looking than the digital file. I just printed two 20" metal prints for a client from an E-M1 shot at 3200ISO. It was a twilight exterior of a building put together with the milky way rising behind in. Two shots combined, and in print there is no noise to see.
The E-M1mkII native file at 300dpi is approx. 13x17 inches. Now that is as shot from the camera. Someone mentioned 13x19 being the max for these cameras...that doesn't even make sense to me. it would imply the files coming out of camera aren't good enough to print from at virtually native size. (again, subjective) A 30" print should be no problem from a native file from that camera. Its barely 2x enlargement. It will look good. I know because I have printed plenty of images, and my clients have printed as well. (my clients from 16mp sensors, as I have not delivered client work on the Em1mkII yet) The file sizes coming from the APSC sony's and Fujis are no different. Nor from the 36mm 24mp sensors. It's just not that different in real world use. At least in my findings. Yes, 50mp will show a world of difference at 100% on screen. And you can crop a bunch. However, at 24" and below, the printed difference is so slight. And the working difference, and lenses need to get the best at that point no longer made sense for me if I'm not getting paid to haul it, or getting paid to pay someone else to haul it.
You need to treat the smaller camera just as any other. Just because it is small doesn't mean you can skimp on technique and support. I think that is what trips people up. Yes the new IS is miraculous...but it's not physics bending. If you want a vibration-less shot that maximizes the potential of the data capture, you still need to lock down, set a timer, stop moving your feet, and wait. And ensure your tripod is beefy enough to suppress the vibrations of the conditions you are in.
I personally gave up larger formats in my nature and landscape shooting, and virtually all my personal shooting. The difference the extra resolution made at prints under 30" was just not enough of a justification. Especially because no larger camera allows me to work as efficiently and effectively as an E-M1. (again, personal preference) It is really a pleasure to a have a 300mm F/2.8 equivalent that has close focus in a 1.6lb day pack. It changes the way you work. Just my opinion. The Sony A7rII and two lenses might do it for you as well. Smaller...not as light...but lighter.
Whatever you choose, make sure you can use it with gloves! These small cameras don't always make that easy depending which model you go with!
-
... It is really a pleasure to a have a 300mm F/2.8 equivalent that has close focus in a 1.6lb day pack. It changes the way you work. Just my opinion. ...
i have a nikon d810 and the 300mm f4 PF - it weight 800 grams ( 1.6 LB?) and has a stunning image quality... even at F4...
( one of the new barriers Nikon has broken when it comes to lens design)
just saying...
So choose what you think you need. I am sure you already know what that is.
I walk up and down the mountain with all my camera stuff+ tent + cooking stuff.
never had a problem.
-
The question arises because I am visiting a remote bit of Norway in the near future and wondering what to take. Getting there requires 3 plane journeys, at least one probably on a small plane. Once there I will be humping up and down hills. Obviously it would be nicer to just take my OMD-EM1 kit and leave my Nikon D800 kit in the cupboard. But .... I am going there to take pictures, so maybe I should take the kit that gives the better pictures (DR, resolution). Or maybe the difference is actually small outside of pixel-peeping. Or maybe not. Or ... ?
Hi,
Well, as usual, your input requirements depend on your output requirements.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. In fact I think this sums it up:
So choose what you think you need. I am sure you already know what that is.
I think I need the Nikon. It's a long way to go and a lot of money to spend to come home without getting as good images as I could have!!
-
i have 43 and Canon FF and that's the conclusion i usually come to - for low light and dynamic range as much or more than resolution.
-
The question arises because I am visiting a remote bit of Norway in the near future and wondering what to take. Getting there requires 3 plane journeys, at least one probably on a small plane. Once there I will be humping up and down hills. Obviously it would be nicer to just take my OMD-EM1 kit and leave my Nikon D800 kit in the cupboard. But .... I am going there to take pictures, so maybe I should take the kit that gives the better pictures (DR, resolution). Or maybe the difference is actually small outside of pixel-peeping. Or maybe not. Or ... ?
Yes, depending on the size prints you want and how much of a sharpness nazi you are. I can get great 22 x 30 " prints from my 16MP EM1 using excellent optics, careful technique, and appropriate post-processing.
-
If your technique is excellent, Stitching could speak to some of your needs for larger files...it has for me.
Peter
-
If your technique is excellent, Stitching could speak to some of your needs for larger files...it has for me.
Peter
+1
The photo above is made with stitched 50mm images.
If you have a good technique you can make very precise stitches without a tripod as long as the subject is far away as is the case with this photo.
here a detail showing the quality...
-
To answer your original question...Yes it is!
If you've already decided, then, so be it. If you're not yet firm, consider this perspective...
FWIW, earlier this year, I made a conscious decision to leave behind my D800E system of 3 zooms (between 18mm and 200mm) + 300mm in favour of a 1" sensor Sony RX10iii. Last year, I took the whole kit with me to the Galápagos and, while not regretting it (I'm thrilled with the photos!), I was frequently juggling lenses and carrying significantly more weight in equipment than I really needed.
In Iceland, with lighter gear, scrambling up and down volcanoes and glaciers was so much more pleasurable. I also found I needed a tripod far less than with the FF gear. I wasn't shaking with exhaustion ( ;)), but also, with the smaller sensor, I could use f/5.6 to get decent depth of field, so could use faster shutter speeds. Yes, my DR was less, but a couple of HDR exposures took care of that. And, when the amazingly dramatic, can't-be-missed trophy shot appeared, I shot multiple "stitchable" frames to get the IQ needed for really big (larger than 16") prints. Exactly what Phil suggested.
You see, it all boils down to what you intend to do with the photos. Do you have professional uses for the photos already lined up? Are you selling through a gallery? Will photos of backwoods Norway be saleable in volumes great enough in your home country to warrant carrying the FF gear? Or are these shots for your wall, a photo book, your website, etc.; a few "trophy" shots plus extras to remember the amazing experience of being there? Let's face it; the gear many photographers are carrying around right now has IQ far beyond what they will ever use, unless they are shooting professionally.
After being at this for 40 years with 35mm, 6x7, 4x5, and now digital, I'm only just now finally believing, it really isn't what your shooting with that counts, it's what you do with it. Need more DR? Shoot HDR frames and blend (responsibly!). Need greater detail? Shoot stitchable frames. The only ones you're satisfying with the FF gear are the pixel-peepers (and perhaps your own ego when everyone else shows up with FF! Equipment envy drives many of the gear purchases these days!
I'll make a few "16x20s". Side-by-side with the same shot made with FF gear, one might see a difference. But I've also learned, the only ones who really look that closely are other photographers and they sure aren't buying my work! If someone loves your work, it's because of the content, not the equipment.
If I was to "do it all again" now, I just might pick up the Oly system Kevin raved about recently (https://luminous-landscape.com/olympus-om-d-e-m1-ii-hand-preview/). That 12-100mm zoom combined with the updated M4/3s sensor sounds just about perfect. Throw in a wider prime and a TC or 200mm and you have a great, lightweight system capable of doing everything a FF system will do.
That's my experience, anyway. Tough decision. Good luck! Sorry for blabbing on about it.
-
I'm confused by your question regarding is it "good enough". Since you already own both, and you're into landscape photography, I assume you have used both. You probably have the answer in the files you've already taken. Or, if you want, go shoot the identical scene, tripod mounted, side by side and then make a couple prints of the sizes you typically make. Compare one to the other. You'll have your answer. It might be a different answer than I or someone else would get from the same images, but that doesn't matter. It is only YOUR opinion of the image quality balanced with the weight/size or lens availability differences that matter.
Brad
-
Interesting question.
Can a m43 system be realistic alternative to a Canon 6D with TS-E 24LII in terms of sharpness and details? Printing in size A3+ mostly.
Are there any m43 primes in 12mm focal length with equal or better sharpness than Canon TS-E 24LII?
-
I don't know but do you know about the focus bracketing and focus staking features? Might they be used to enhance DOF in landscape, much like the effects of tilts and shifts? I frequently use stitching to increase the pixel count and field of view.
-
I'm confused by your question regarding is it "good enough".
Ooh - good challenges! Thanks guys!
True that resolution and DR can be overcome by stitching and bracketing, though I'd prefer to get "the goods" in one shot! What to do I want to do with the images? Looking around my home I have a number of images blown up to approx metre size. Of these maybe the most impressive is a shot of yaks in Nepal. It was taken handheld with a Pana GH1 and any inspection reveals blown highlights and low resolution, but it's still a great (IMO :-) ) picture!
I can (and will) make a test of the two outfits side by side, but I'm expecting some extremes of contrast between bright snow and ice and dark mountains and sky that I won't get in my local environment :-) Also - I am thinking that for capturing aurora lights with long exposures I may be better off with the larger sensor.
Another issue that I am considering is the performance of batteries in cold weather and the needs of an electronic viewfinder. I know that is surmountable with a pocket full of spares :-)
Thanks again for your comments!
-
My take: if you need a tripod, you need the Nikon. If you don't, you've got tons of alternatives, including a smartphone.
Cheers,
Jack
-
Not sure About the primes in a head to head... but the 12-40 pro at 12mm produces better shots than any canon 24mm in my opinion. I've seen this head to head in my own gear, and I'm a professional architectural photographer. In fact my backup to my tech camera is my 12-40 at 12mm. The canon gear stays at home. I know a few other photographers shooting amazing interiors with the 12-40 as well.
Interesting question.
Can a m43 system be realistic alternative to a Canon 6D with TS-E 24LII in terms of sharpness and details? Printing in size A3+ mostly.
Are there any m43 primes in 12mm focal length with equal or better sharpness than Canon TS-E 24LII?
-
The very best landscape photos, IMHO, don't come on trips, they come closer to home where you've actually spent a lot of time contemplating some specific landscape. So maybe you don't need FF quality, if you're taking tourist photos.
I went to Iraq as a reporter several years ago, carrying a D3 and the three Nikon f2.8 zooms and a couple of other specialty lenses, and it damned near killed me carrying all the required military crap along with that bag full of gear. On the other hand, I can fit my Panny GX8 body, three excellent f2.8 zooms that give me coverage from (equivalent) 14-200, the charger, and two spare batteries in a Dopp (shaving) kit, which slides into my business backpack. I would have killed to have that system in Iraq. I also have a D800, with that full Nikon system, and rarely use it. m4/3 is better than any film I ever shot, and film was basically good enough for me...YMMV.
-
Someone mentioned 13x19 being the max for these cameras...that doesn't even make sense to me. it would imply the files coming out of camera aren't good enough to print from at virtually native size. (again, subjective) A 30" print should be no problem from a native file from that camera. Its barely 2x enlargement. It will look good. I know because I have printed plenty of images, and my clients have printed as well.
In fairness that's not what I said ;)
I said I HAVE printed them at 13" x 19" - which is the largest size I regularly print to and sell at. At that size, I can't really tell the difference between GH4, Canon 7D and Sony A7RII pictures. As you point out that's 300 dpi native size.
I can tell the difference on-screen of course, especially pixel peeping. And the few times I've printed larger I notice the difference, but not at normal viewing distances.
For me, if I were printing too much larger, I'd feel the need for the "head room" of more pixels. Perhaps unnecessarily: I'm not claiming you can't produce 20" x 30" prints from a m43 image. At 13" x 19" nothing is lost by shooting on m43. Printing too much larger than that and something is lost- it just may not be significant to you or your customers, especially at normal viewing distances.
The point I should have been making was that if you only print up to 13" x 19" or so, there's no functional difference at output resolution between shooing on a 16 megapixel m43 vs. a 42 megapixel Sony. But if you may print larger, you should factor that in to your decision.
Regards,
Hywel
-
When I downsized from Canon DSLR system, I tried m43; not good enough for my long exposures.
Then I found Sony A7 system, perfect for me, in terms of quality and size-weight.
-
Correction understood! And I totally agree with your statement. :)
In fairness that's not what I said ;)
I said I HAVE printed them at 13" x 19" - which is the largest size I regularly print to and sell at. At that size, I can't really tell the difference between GH4, Canon 7D and Sony A7RII pictures. As you point out that's 300 dpi native size.
I can tell the difference on-screen of course, especially pixel peeping. And the few times I've printed larger I notice the difference, but not at normal viewing distances.
For me, if I were printing too much larger, I'd feel the need for the "head room" of more pixels. Perhaps unnecessarily: I'm not claiming you can't produce 20" x 30" prints from a m43 image. At 13" x 19" nothing is lost by shooting on m43. Printing too much larger than that and something is lost- it just may not be significant to you or your customers, especially at normal viewing distances.
The point I should have been making was that if you only print up to 13" x 19" or so, there's no functional difference at output resolution between shooing on a 16 megapixel m43 vs. a 42 megapixel Sony. But if you may print larger, you should factor that in to your decision.
Regards,
Hywel
-
I print things in the neighborhood of 28x36 all the time, and, given the subject isn't extreme low light, the difference between that an FF is essentially zero.
This is w/a GH4 and various Oly and Panny primes, notably the insanely good 75mm 1.8 and the 42.5 1.2
Just nothing else like them.
-
To add another voice... I prefer M43 for landscape.
It's lighter and smaller, which is easier for transport and in the field. I shoot handheld, so both the outstanding IS and greater DoF work to my advantage. The lenses available now are outstanding, the new 12-100 looks like a great choice for landscape, and there are several other potentially excellent lenses on the horizon.
My largest print size is currently 17" x 22". I've done side-by-side comparisons with a Sony A7R II, and the differences in resolution are very subtle -- as in, you'd really only notice when the prints are right next to each other.
DR is a little more noticeable, but only in those situations where the scene exceeds the DR of the M43 but not the 35mm. You also need to be more precise in your exposure. Auto bracketing is an easy way to ensure you've nailed the exposure.
There are several other features I rely on heavily -- e.g. aspect ratios, larger and brighter view in the finder, automatic review in the finder, previewing in B&W.
Since I'm not making wall-sized prints, I have no problems sacrificing a small amount of image quality in exchange for the advantages.
-
My largest print size is currently 17" x 22". I've done side-by-side comparisons with a Sony A7R II, and the differences in resolution are very subtle -- as in, you'd really only notice when the prints are right next to each other.
I'm a MFT user and I have been since the GF1. I now have the GX7, G7 and GX80 and also a Sony A7. I find that one obvious difference is sharpness, the A7 files being noticeably sharper.
In isolation MFT shots do look very nice and most people will not see the differences I (or you...) see but I do think that if we want to see them they're there and for me the big difference is sharpness and side by side it's easy to see.
-
Since I'm doing more plane travel these days, and prefer to avoid checking baggage whenever possible, keeping my photo gear small & light is important. I can fit a Pany GX8 with 12–35/2.8, 35–100/2.8 & three small-ish "prime" lenses in a Domke 803 satchel bag with plenty of room left over for spare batteries, SD cards and accessories. Depending on what else I'm taking the Domke either goes in my rolling bag or over my shoulder, then stowed overhead (or tucked under the forward seat if I want to take in-flight pics).
Image quality in technical terms beats any 35mm film system I've ever used (I still like film æsthetically but have no interest in traveling with film gear) and, as mentioned by Mousecop, results in 15x20" or 14x21" prints (my max size) all but indistinguishable to those from a Sony A7rii (I own one of those too). The Sony's advantages are at the margins…on a photo-centric trip I might opt for it, or if I decide to take just one lens on a trip and get the most out of it.
-Dave-
-
Same here. I'm on vacation now and with a heavy heart I left my Fuji system with the very nice bright primes at home and took the E-M5 mark II with the 12-40 F2.8, 35-100 F2.8, Oly 17 F1.8 and 45 F1.8, Rokinon 8 fisheye F3.5. The main reason was the Pana 35-100 as I have nothing anywhere close for the brightness and reach that is that light.
Now I could have come close with Fuji if I were to give up few primes or forget the telephoto. I still took the instax printer with me though.
At a first look the E-M1 mark II with 12-100 F 4.0 sounds very good for landscape. Then I look at the weight. Still better than some.
But can anyone tell me why not take the Sony RX-10 mark II? Has similar DOF and light gathering ability and some weather resistance. Dynamic range is not that bad either and it's lighter.
-
Spend a few weeks in Germany this November. I took my D800e with 24-70 for landscape and Gh3 with 7-14 and 25/1.4 pany for everything else.I used the Panasonic gear most of the time. I knew that the weather would be gloomy dark/grey/rain and foggy most days. Jack Hogan's reply earlier was a good one, when I did use the Nikon it was almost always with a tripod (that I also took along). If I did not have the tripod I think I would not even have pulled that Nikon out... if you want to cash in on the FF advantage vs MFT you can't take shortcuts on technique. Not that a tripod won't help any other format if you know what I mean.
William
-
Interesting comparison: http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/omd-em1-mark-ii-vs-fuji-xt2/
I wonder how much validity is in their findings that the dynamic range is similar. I still enjoy the Fuji more but with similar DR and much better stabilization one can shoot closer to the base iso without a tripod, you could probably leave the tripod home if you don't plan night shots.
-
Interesting comparison: http://mirrorlesscomparison.com/fujifilm-vs-olympus/omd-em1-mark-ii-vs-fuji-xt2/
I wonder how much validity is in their findings that the dynamic range is similar. I still enjoy the Fuji more but with similar DR and much better stabilization one can shoot closer to the base iso without a tripod, you could probably leave the tripod home if you don't plan night shots.
If you want dynamic range, the DSLR systems totally beats both the Olympus and Fuji systems. For me, the A7R is the perfect landscape system. It is light enough to carry everywhere with you yet delivers both outstanding resolution allowing you to make very large prints or to crop and still make large prints and it has outstanding dynamic range which in my opinion is critical in landscape photography.
The savings in weight using something like the Olympus system is really not that much...especially when you add a tripod and filters etc... into your package. Those that don't shoot their landscapes with a tripod are really missing something. You are either:
1. Not shooting during the sweet light which happens to be quite dim.
2. You are pushing your ISO which drastically affects the resulting image quality.
3. You are not getting the most quality out of your images as you will inherently introduce some camera shake.
-
I could never imagine leaving a tripod home. If I have to hold my camera...who is going to handhold the filters? Or paint with light? The tripod also allows for shots that require secondary shots with pixel registration. So like HDR bracketing...but for other things. Adding a person in later, removing people, capturing elements in different places, or bracketing focus for deep DOF, etc... Can't be done handheld, no matter how good stabilization is.
Personally I find I have plenty of dynamic range with the equipment that is out there. Even for landscape. I'de much rather shoot a second shot and paint in the parts I need if absolutely necessary, instead of just boosting the shadows. It's often a different look.
-
For one thing these guys got several seconds handheld, that should cover many of the dimmer situations.
The second thing, my particular interest is for backpacking. Last time I brought the tripod. The only time I used it was for a couple of groups shots with me included, could have probably just put it on a rock. It was a short trip but we stretched our limits and there was no time or disposition to use a tripod. Did I get any shots handheld? Here are some: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113795.msg937123#msg937123 , http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113724.msg935987#msg935987, http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113741.msg936105#msg936105
More recent I went and got this: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115806.msg956569#msg956569
No tripod either or golden hour.
Would I carry a tripod with me if weight would be of no concern? Yes.
Would I miss that many shots if I don't? If a couple seconds of exposure handheld are doable there won't be that many.
-
For one thing these guys got several seconds handheld, that should cover many of the dimmer situations.
The second thing, my particular interest is for backpacking. Last time I brought the tripod. The only time I used it was for a couple of groups shots with me included, could have probably just put it on a rock. It was a short trip but we stretched our limits and there was no time or disposition to use a tripod. Did I get any shots handheld? Here are some: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113795.msg937123#msg937123 , http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113724.msg935987#msg935987, http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113741.msg936105#msg936105
More recent I went and got this: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115806.msg956569#msg956569
No tripod either or golden hour.
Would I carry a tripod with me if weight would be of no concern? Yes.
Would I miss that many shots if I don't? If a couple seconds of exposure handheld are doable there won't be that many.
I question your ability to take couple second exposures that are pin sharp. Even with a tripod any little movement will result in degrading the image. If one is happy with 2 second exposures hand held...whose to argue...but that ain't me.
Many of my images are around water where I show movement with exposures into the 10's of seconds. I feel my tripod is one of the most important tools I have in taking landscape photos.
Just another viewpoint. I love the weight savings I get with the Sony system. I used to lug around a Pentax 6x7 camera with 3 lenses, a big heavy tripod and a bunch of film all through the Rockies...so the Sony system is a breeze. ;)
-
I have no ability to hand hold a couple of seconds and get sharp images with the current equipment. The best I might have got was around 0.5 with a Fuji 10-24 @ 10 (15 mm equivalent).
The point is in the link I provided earlier they were able to for several seconds. I added my grain of salt and that's why I say "only" 2 seconds at 24 mm equivalent which should be around 5.5 stops; they claim 6.5 stops.
My question was mostly about the dynamic range. If it's comparable then for backpacking the E-M1ii with the 12-100 (or even 12-40 or 12-60) becomes very tempting. Yes, I could carry more but last time I carried so much crap that I want to make cuts everywhere.
-
My question was mostly about the dynamic range. If it's comparable then for backpacking the E-M1ii with the 12-100 (or even 12-40 or 12-60) becomes very tempting. Yes, I could carry more but last time I carried so much crap that I want to make cuts everywhere.
If dynamic range is your most important consideration, then cameras like the A7R and D810 have 2 stops more compared to the E-M1II at base ISO. Now if you are hand holding you will most likely increase the ISO which will dramatically lower your dynamic range.
No easy way out. If you want top notch landscape photos, you must bring top notch gear including tripods...otherwise you are compromising a lot to save weight. Choose your poisons.
-
People have been making top notch landscape photography for years even without the latest and greatest D810 and Sonys. The bottom line is technique, patience, and having the right tools for the job and desired outcome. Or knowing how to extract the best and use equipment to its limit.
At the end of the day, only you can decide what trade-offs are worth it with any piece of gear. Will 2 stops of dynamic range make all the difference in every shot? Depends if your shots will take advantage of that. What did you do before? All the new features and abilities in cameras today are such bonuses if we think about it.
It's funny, with everything getting smaller...I still think...wow how can I get even lighter. Soon I'll be walking around without a camera and just blinking my eyes at this rate.
-
People have been making top notch landscape photography for years even without the latest and greatest D810 and Sonys. The bottom line is technique, patience, and having the right tools for the job and desired outcome. Or knowing how to extract the best and use equipment to its limit.
At the end of the day, only you can decide what trade-offs are worth it with any piece of gear. Will 2 stops of dynamic range make all the difference in every shot? Depends if your shots will take advantage of that. What did you do before? All the new features and abilities in cameras today are such bonuses if we think about it.
It's funny, with everything getting smaller...I still think...wow how can I get even lighter. Soon I'll be walking around without a camera and just blinking my eyes at this rate.
Sure great photos were taken back in the film days with manual cameras...hey I still shoot a 4x5 Tachihara.
As far as 2 stops of dynamic range...I use on many shots as many of my photos have extremes in them especially during sunrise and sunset. I used to use GND filters or merge multiple exposed images together to gain dynamic range. With the new cameras, the need to go through these hoops has been reduced for me by at least 50% if not more. I'd gladly not have to resort to filters or multiple exposures as those techniques are prone to all sorts of issues which ruin many photos.
I love the lighter mirrorless cameras, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality just for lightness. When I'm out shooting landscapes, I have a backpack which I use to carry my gear. The extra couple of pounds in the pack is a very small price to pay for getting great images.
Everyone makes their tradeoff's. For me, there is no way a m43 system would replace my full frame system for landscapes...the quality is just too high a price to pay for the weight savings.
-
Image quality in technical terms beats any 35mm film system I've ever used...
-Dave-
Same here.
-
Image quality in technical terms beats any 35mm film system I've ever used
I too would agree with this. I'm actually personally putting it up against 645 film, and it's a battle of trade offs. m43 is smaller, and has a lot of technological advantages, but print film still has a higher DR and in all honesty, I enjoy using the more simple cameras sometimes.