Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: pjtn on January 15, 2012, 03:31:04 am

Title: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 15, 2012, 03:31:04 am
Hi everyone, this is my first post on this forum.

I've just started a new style of photography and have been trying to work out what equipment would suit it best. The new style involves a Lee 10 stop filter and long exposures (such as 5 minutes) cropped to square and converted to black and white. I want to make prints at 13"x13" and 20"x20" in size.

Currently I have a Canon 5D MKII and 24-105 ƒ/4 lens. However I have been looking at medium format cameras like the Pentax 645D or a second hand Mamiya 645 AFD with Mamiya DM-22 back.

Would I see any great improvement in image quality from a medium format camera such as these in a 13"x13" or 20"x20" print?

I've heard that on longer exposures MF digital starts to get noisier.

Otherwise I would like to get Carl Zeiss primes such as the 50mm Makro Planar and 100mm Makro Planar for the 5D MKII. Of course there are rumours of a 36mp Nikon D800 coming too and I wonder if this may be worth waiting for given the excellent DR of Sony's recent sensors.

Medium format digital is very expensive for me, but if the quality is really worth it I will likely make it a goal and start saving up.

Here's an example of the work I'm starting on:

(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2224/mg0504v.jpg)
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: theguywitha645d on January 15, 2012, 11:28:42 am
Five minute exposures are very good with the Pentax 645D. And can make longer as well. Some long exposure artifacts can appear, but they are easy to clean up.

Whether you will care about the difference in quality, I cannot say because that is your call. But there is a significant jump in quality from 35mm to MFD.

Whether a new high pixel 35mm DSLR will serve you better is a question mark. There is more to image quality than the number of pixels. But that would be your call as well.

Since you are not ready to spend, I would start saving and research you options. The camera market is constantly changing and who knows what is coming. When you are ready to jump, then look at your choices.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: fotometria gr on January 15, 2012, 12:07:08 pm
Hi everyone, this is my first post on this forum.

I've just started a new style of photography and have been trying to work out what equipment would suit it best. The new style involves a Lee 10 stop filter and long exposures (such as 5 minutes) cropped to square and converted to black and white. I want to make prints at 13"x13" and 20"x20" in size.

Currently I have a Canon 5D MKII and 24-105 ƒ/4 lens. However I have been looking at medium format cameras like the Pentax 645D or a second hand Mamiya 645 AFD with Mamiya DM-22 back.

Would I see any great improvement in image quality from a medium format camera such as these in a 13"x13" or 20"x20" print?

I've heard that on longer exposures MF digital starts to get noisier.

Otherwise I would like to get Carl Zeiss primes such as the 50mm Makro Planar and 100mm Makro Planar for the 5D MKII. Of course there are rumours of a 36mp Nikon D800 coming too and I wonder if this may be worth waiting for given the excellent DR of Sony's recent sensors.

Medium format digital is very expensive for me, but if the quality is really worth it I will likely make it a goal and start saving up.

Here's an example of the work I'm starting on:

(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2224/mg0504v.jpg)
Phase One P25+ and P45+, are without a doubt, the world champions (by far) for long exposures. Regards, Theodoros. www.fotometria.gr
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: uaiomex on January 15, 2012, 01:26:23 pm
This is a link for pictures from an exhibit taken with a 5D2 2 years ago. Exposures were around 5 minutes. Of course you can go much more without building much noise. If you can afford them, as said by Theo, the P25+ or P45+ backs is the way to go. Actually my dream backs.
Eduardo

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11310&highlight=zensorial
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: theguywitha645d on January 15, 2012, 07:24:21 pm
If you can afford them, as said by Theo, the P25+ or P45+ backs is the way to go. Actually my dream backs.
Eduardo

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11310&highlight=zensorial

I have both the P25+ and Pentax 645D. For long exposures, the Pentax does much better.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: uaiomex on January 15, 2012, 08:00:33 pm
How about comparing the Pentax 645D to the P45+?

Thx
Eduardo

I have both the P25+ and Pentax 645D. For long exposures, the Pentax does much better.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: theguywitha645d on January 15, 2012, 08:10:39 pm
How about comparing the Pentax 645D to the P45+?

Thx
Eduardo


I don't have one or access to one, so I have no idea. I understand the P45+ is very good for long exposures, but in reference to the 645D, I have seen nothing on which to base a judgement.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 15, 2012, 08:58:37 pm
What I wasn't sure about is if the differences would be noticeable at these two sizes. It seems the general consensus here is that it will be. Pity there's no way to hire the camera anywhere to test whether the difference is enough to justify the price.

I think at this point I would be leaning towards the Pentax 645D if I go in that direction. My plans are also to purchase an Epson 7890 soon. Although it had occurred to me to purchase the Pentax and have a lab print my work instead. It doesn't make as much business sense though as the Pentax is much more expensive and won't save me any money. 20"x20" prints are around $100 so it doesn't take long for it to add up.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 15, 2012, 09:04:22 pm
Uaiomex what sizes did you print your photographs to?
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: uaiomex on January 16, 2012, 02:05:19 pm
The whole work for the Zensorial exhibit was printed 24X24 and 24X36 upsizing with Genuine Fractals. I used Harman FbAl and an Epson 7880.
For long exposures it would be a nightmare or plain impossible to do stitching, so all the prints are only one single frame. I don't see any problem with sharpness or detail.
I dream of a p45+ though.
Eduardo

Uaiomex what sizes did you print your photographs to?
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 16, 2012, 05:38:37 pm
Thanks. I'm starting to wonder if my tripod might not be up to it. I had planned to get a new one at some point but I think I'll get it now. I think the Gitzo GT5541LS looks like a very good tripod, not sure about the 4 leg sections though, I've always preferred three. I'll probably get a nice heavy Arca Swiss head to go on top too.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: JohnBrew on January 16, 2012, 07:39:20 pm
Yes, a sturdy tripod is a necessity for long exposures. I'm having very positive results with a RRS 33, a three section tripod which exceeds my requirements.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: K.C. on January 18, 2012, 03:56:01 am
I'll probably get a nice heavy Arca Swiss head to go on top too.

You don't want weight in the head, you want it underneath. Hang you camera bag, a bag of sand or rocks, whatever, under the tripod. Gitzo and RRS tripods have a hook underneath for just this purpose.

Also, if you haven't already, you might want to check out Michael Kenna's work. (http://www.michaelkenna.net/)
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 18, 2012, 06:07:18 am
Thanks K.C. I was wondering about the weight distribution of the tripod and you have just confirmed it. I think I'll get the Gitzo GT5541LS because that is about 2.8kg and the Arca Swiss Z1 which is 680gm. I've never seen the Z1 before so I'm not sure how big and sturdy it is.

I'm leaning towards the Pentax but have also been considering getting a 4x5 large format camera. I would have to scan with an Epson v700 though so I'm not sure what the quality would be like from a rig like this.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: bill t. on January 20, 2012, 03:54:00 pm
A useful technique with DLSR's is to stack several back to back exposures as layers and average them out.  Noise simply evaporates into creamy smoothness equal to the best large format cameras, and you have the effect of an exposure equal to the sum of all the individual exposures.  Short inter-exposure periods have no noticeable effect.

If you have a stack of 5 images, adjust the transparency of the top image to 1/5 = 20%, the transparency of the second image to 2/5 = 40%, etc with the bottom image totally opaque.

This also can produce wonderful tonality on product shots and such.  If the camera is on a good tripod there is also some apparent sharpness increase in non-moving areas, not to mention glorious weirdness in portraits with a model trying to stay steady.  And light-painted, multiple exposure product shots...ooh!
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: David Sutton on January 21, 2012, 02:25:08 am
Hello PJTN. Here's another opinion FWIW.
I'm using a 5DII and printing to 24” on an ipf6300.
With the caveat that I've only gone to two minute exposures, the 5DII is completely up to the job you want to do. You will see no difference on a 13 inch print between the Canon and a medium format back, and will be hard put with a 20 inch print to see any difference.
The problem is the 24-105 lens. It is not up to the task. It wasn't until I made 24 inch prints that I realised how really bad it is. I've purchased a Zeiss Contax 35-70 with Haoda adapter (for about US$450 all up) and the first comparisons with the 24-105 were absolutely astonishing. So much sharper, better contrast, better colour. The drawback is it's manual exposure, and although the adapter has focus confirmation I don't find it reliable so live view is a must. Also if you go down the adapter route be aware that if the adapter is not well made then it can short out the battery and your camera can burst into flames, or the mirror can break, or it may not be aligned and won't be sharp across the frame.
What I'm saying is that there are some nice Canon and Zeiss primes, and some new zooms in the pipeline, and I think other options would be a waste of money at present. Most folks aren't realising the potential of the 5DII because of poor technique, poor tripods, heads and so on. I also see a noticeable difference when I shoot with a 2kg beanbag on the camera. A pain to carry around though.
Nice photo by the way.
David
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 21, 2012, 02:33:08 am
Thanks Bill T, I never thought to try stacking exposures. I'll give it a try, however I still like the thought of doing it as one long exposure.

It's funny David because both my fiancee and myself had basically decided we will get the 645D and then you had to say that ;-)
I certainly don't want to spend $10,000 on a camera to find the quality looks no different.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: David Sutton on January 21, 2012, 05:10:47 pm
It's funny David because both my fiancee and myself had basically decided we will get the 645D and then you had to say that ;-)

 :D
Hello again PJTN. If I were in your situation I'd spend the money on things that would make an immediate difference. A good lens and the means to really hold the camera rock steady. The beanbag I use is particularly for the 70-200 lens, as it will pick up wind and very slightly vibrate. If you upgrade the tripod and head first then that will stand you in good stead if you go medium format later. But try before buying!
I too would like a 645D but I have come to the belief that with the latest digital cameras, the lenses are more important than the bodies (and number of pixels). Perhaps if I were printing larger than 24 inches things would be different. As it is, I frequently have to slightly blur my images to make them believable. The last thing I want is for someone to say “Heavens, that's sharp!” when they first look at one of my prints. Um, yes, but what about the content?
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: Ellis Vener on January 22, 2012, 12:25:19 pm
It looks like you are venturing into Michael Kenna territory.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: bill t. on January 22, 2012, 03:24:37 pm
But the market seems almost insatiable.  The only problem is not tripping over the deeply rutted footprints and tripod holes already in the sand.   :)
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: Kerry L on January 23, 2012, 02:12:29 pm
The only problem is not tripping over the deeply rutted footprints and tripod holes already in the sand.

That's getting to be a problem in a lot of spots.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: Ellis Vener on January 23, 2012, 04:30:04 pm
One thing is for sure: I can think of many worse and less successful fine art and commercial photographers to imitate than Kenna.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 24, 2012, 10:37:32 am
My intention was never to imitate Michael Kenna. I love minimal aesthetics and have been trying to find a way to use that in my photography. Murray Fredericks work has been a huge inspiration in that area for me.

Personally Michael Kenna's work has not appealed to me on a huge level, it may be that I haven't studied it enough. Michael Levin's work on the other hand I find very nice.

Most landscape photography I see is much the same, same places, same angles, same colours. I think the B&W long exposure approach makes the location much less important and places much stronger emphasis on the design aspects in the photo (composition, repetition, balance, textures, shapes, lines, etc).

It's getting very hard to create something 'original' when much of everything has already been done, and statements like yours, GBPhoto, don't really help at all.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: Ellis Vener on January 24, 2012, 11:03:51 am
t's getting very hard to create something 'original' when much of everything has already been done, and statements like yours, GBPhoto, don't really help at all.

Everything already has been done, but not by you and that is precisely why you should do it. Ignore the snark and just do the work. If it is good or great it will stand on its own merits. It really doesn't matter what everyone else has done or who other people compare your work to.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 24, 2012, 11:07:07 am
Everything already has been done, but not by you and that is precisely why you should do it. Ignore the snark and just do the work. If it is good or great it will stand on its own merits. It really doesn't matter what everyone else has done or who other people compare your work to.

Thanks Ellis, the comment irritated me but certainly won't stop me. It reminds me though of a quote by Isaac Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

Also we see the great works of Socrates, then Plato and Aristotle. Each was an apprentice to the former. None were copying the other, just pushing the work further where someone else left off.

Not photography related but still relevant I think.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: pjtn on January 24, 2012, 11:13:45 am
:D
Hello again PJTN. If I were in your situation I'd spend the money on things that would make an immediate difference. A good lens and the means to really hold the camera rock steady. The beanbag I use is particularly for the 70-200 lens, as it will pick up wind and very slightly vibrate. If you upgrade the tripod and head first then that will stand you in good stead if you go medium format later. But try before buying!
I too would like a 645D but I have come to the belief that with the latest digital cameras, the lenses are more important than the bodies (and number of pixels). Perhaps if I were printing larger than 24 inches things would be different. As it is, I frequently have to slightly blur my images to make them believable. The last thing I want is for someone to say “Heavens, that's sharp!” when they first look at one of my prints. Um, yes, but what about the content?

Thanks again David. I've been considering what you said and may very well stick with the 5D MKII. I'm going to order a much heavier and sturdier tripod whichever direction I choose and if I stick with the Canon I'll get better lenses. However, I've also been trying to arrange a demo with the 645D. If I get the chance I'll be able to better make the decision I think. It would not be smart spending $11,000 on a camera to see no difference in the print :)
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: Ellis Vener on January 24, 2012, 11:44:55 am
It reminds me though of a quote by Isaac Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

When Newton wrote that he was taking a slap at  his predecessor at Cambridge...who was a dwarf.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 24, 2012, 12:01:01 pm
I'm going to order a much heavier and sturdier tripod whichever direction I choose

I bought arguably the biggest and sturdiest stills tripod out there.  The Gitzo GT 5560SGT.  I've never regretted it, not even when walking for miles with it on my shoulder.

For long exposure inspiration, look at Mitch Dowbrowner's work.  There are very few tripod holes and footprints visible in his portfolio.  I believe he uses a Sony SLR, but I have no proof of that.
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: bill t. on January 24, 2012, 02:08:35 pm
Sorry for the collusional snipe earlier, but it really came out of the frustration we all feel at finding our favored subjects more shopworn with every passing day.

For instance, searching "pier ocean long exposure" on flickr produced the attached picture on page 4.  I was able to find about 1 pretty good Kenna-esque image per 3 or 4 pages.  I could have easily done the same for my genre, probably would have got a good one every page.

So what's a photographer to do?  I noticed that on flickr there is now a sub-clique that is moving the camera under piers, but facing as before.  As others have stated, just keep shooting.  You're right to forge ahead, it's all we can do.

Perhaps by giving up the old meme that our photos should have the quality of being "original" we can free ourselves to explore other aspects of imagery.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbuk1/5081877574 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbuk1/5081877574)

ps have http image attachments been disabled here?

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbuk1/5081877574/)



Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: ChristianRandwijk on January 24, 2012, 03:13:14 pm
On the matter of walking in someone's shoes, using someone's tripodholes, standing on someone's shoulders, well, imitating someone's style, I think that is the first great step towards originality. Hell, if you go look at landscape painters from the last couple of centuries or so, we're definately all on their shoulders too. As far as learning goes, in most fields I think, that is the beginning. Finding someone you admire; be it an architect, photographer, painter, philosopher, physicist, or sociologist, and emulate that style (yes, science also has a style). At some point you are going to take a detour, wing it, do something different just because it feels right, and that's when you are going to be on the path towards developing/discovering your own style. I am of the opinion that you can't design your own style, you'll come into it at some point, and maybe/probably even be surprised at the result. To me that is beautiful, wondering at a picture you made, which you find beautiful, and wondering, just why did you do it THAT particular way. Then, slowly, you'll find out why you did what you did. I think emulating, copying, whatever you call it, is a fantastic LEARNING tool. I have done, and will keep doing, for some time at least, very very very cliché coastal landscapes with long shutterspeeds and ND grads, the whole nine yards. I won't show them to anyone, but I'll keep working to get into the grind, and discover my own style in there somewhere. Maybe I'll succeed, maybe I won't, maybe I'll find out that architecture is really my thing (which I'm beginning to suspect). Just some thoughts...
Title: Re: Choosing the right equipment for long exposure landscapes
Post by: 250swb on January 24, 2012, 04:53:16 pm
It has all been done to death, just as colour saturated 'Velvia' landscapes were done to death a few years ago. Nothing dates a photographer by being a year or two late. But, lets be realistic, all artists freely borrow from generations that have gone before, nothing is totally original, its all a progression. So if the OP wants to have a go and get it out of his system that is great. I just wouldn't recommend spending money on a camera especially to do it. The upside is that he could take it further, add his own twist, find a style to make his own and it all becomes a worthwhile excercise. But simply copying will only impress family and friends. In the UK there are some special locations that you see photographed and published in magazines and posted on the internet time after time, all looking exactly the same but by a myriad of photographers who got their special ND filter from Ebay. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

Steve