Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Captian Light on August 01, 2012, 11:04:29 am
-
Hello!
I've spent probably 50 hours this week on LL, reading so many different opinions that my head is spinning. I'm tired on the mediocre quality images that come from Canon vs Nikon, and 35mm in general; just seems like something is missing. Medium format just seems to envelop the viewer in the photograph. So what is the best setup for landscape photography? Is it a 645 w/ a Phase One back? Is it a Blad H4D, Leica S2? What the heck is that Alpha TC looking contraption?
Besides the atmospheric aspect of medium format photography, I need a system that has the least distortion, the most sharpness, and usable in the outdoor environment. Now before someone jumps at me as say "the best camera is the one you have with you", I've gone down that route, and it's just not the right answer for me. The best camera, is the one that does what I need it to do; and that is capture the essence of my environment. I've saved my money wisely and have a maximum budget of $50K. Hope to get some sense out of all the information presented on LL, and ultimately reach photographic nirvana. Thanks in Advance!
CL
-
You need to state more about what focal lengths you like...
Do you want tilt and shift...
Film or digital....
Are you considering stitching...
What level of weather sealing do you want...
Water housing....?
How important is redundancy and reliability.... do you travel to the point that one camera is not enough?
MFD is not as reliable as one would expect from the prices.
-
You need to state more about what focal lengths you like...
Do you want tilt and shift...
Film or digital....
Are you considering stitching...
What level of weather sealing do you want...
Water housing....?
How important is redundancy and reliability.... do you travel to the point that one camera is not enough?
MFD is not as reliable as one would expect from the prices.
Hi Fred, thank you. Reliability is important, as I may only be able to afford one digital back.
As far as focal lengths go, I'm not well versed on how they would translate to MF, but to reference 35mm sensors, I like 35-50mm, sometimes 24mm, but that is really wide for my liking. This would be a great example of focal length I like: here (http://acebourke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/east_5-600x4001.jpg)
Digital just seems like a better option these days, doesn't it? Why spend all that extra time and money on developing when you could do it on a beautiful monitor.
I don't like stitching at all. I just want to be able to take my time composing one single photograph at a time. Edge sharpness in a lens is very important. From what I've read, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue with MF, compared to 35mm.
I would like to be able to take the camera to Iceland and maybe Antarctica. I wouldn't dream of taking any camera in white out conditions, I would like the equipment to be able to handle cold temperatures well, though.
Many thanks!
-
Oh, no! Yet another "rich dentist" looking for nirvana in all the wrong places :(
-
Rich dentist? No sir, you have it wrong. I work in Apple's corporate retail sector. ; )
-
get an H4D-50 and a 35-90mm zoom, and be done with it :)
The 50/80/120mm(macro) prime are all very sharp too, but I used the 35-90 zoom on a friend's H4D-60, and was very impressed at how sharp it was(not as much as the primes IMO, just a tad less) compared to the 35/50/80 primes. But on prints 16x20 and under, I'd probably not be able to tell the difference.
Personally, I use an H2 with film, it really kicks ass! I still optically print in the darkroom w/ black+white film(Tmax 400), but for color(neg/chrome) I drum scan it and send the edited files to a pro lab for printing on their lightjet.
-Dan
-
get an H4D-50 and a 35-90mm zoom, and be done with it :)
The 50/80/120mm(macro) prime are all very sharp too, but I used the 35-90 zoom on a friend's H4D-60, and was very impressed at how sharp it was(not as much as the primes IMO, just a tad less) compared to the 35/50/80 primes. But on prints 16x20 and under, I'd probably not be able to tell the difference.
Personally, I use an H2 with film, it really kicks ass! I still optically print in the darkroom w/ black+white film(Tmax 400), but for color(neg/chrome) I drum scan it and send the edited files to a pro lab for printing on their lightjet.
-Dan
Thank you for the insight.
What would one lose (besides megapixels) in the H4D-31 compared to the H4D-50? I'm assuming one could purchase either 31 or 50 DB and place them on a H4D, I think.
Good to hear you're shooting with film. I would love to got that route, unfortunately the demands of my job take a lot of my time up.
CL
-
Let's be clear, you are looking for a camera that will capture the essence of your environment, the set of attributes that make your environment what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses identity?
Good luck.
Hah, nicely put. I'm not being unreasonable. I've spoken with medium format photographers, they're not all crazy, and will testify that MF provides a certain photogenic quality to landscapes, that others do not. Be it DOF though a larger sensor, the level of detail, and aspect ratio. I'm not looking for a bag of lenses, backs, and bodies; one back, one body, one lens, and something that will handle colder, humid temps.
-
Thank you for the insight.
What would one lose (besides megapixels) in the H4D-31 compared to the H4D-50? I'm assuming one could purchase either 31 or 50 DB and place them on a H4D, I think.
Good to hear you're shooting with film. I would love to got that route, unfortunately the demands of my job take a lot of my time up.
CL
Well, if you're looking to "save time", use a lab to process your film. Same with scanning. A Mamiya 645, or a Mamiya 7II rangefinder w/ a few lenses will set you back MUCH MUCH less $$$-wise than an H4xxx.... Quality drum scans usually run $75-125 for larger scans, $50-75 for smaller ones(like up to 16x20" or so). At least that's what I charge my friends, and they aren't balking ;).
If you're looking for a digital solution, and feel like dropping a crapload of cash, look at the Pentax 645D. Its been out for a while now, the latest AF lenses are super high quality, the build-quality of the body is quite robust, and accessories are quite plentiful! Not to mention you can get 40MP in a smaller package :)
just another option
-Dan
-
isn't there an app for this ?
In any case the Mamiya 7II is a good start .
-
Hi,
Contrary to your view, I'm very happy with Image quality from DSLRs. The impression I have is that a technical camera with a high end digital back is the ultimate way of achieving maximum image quality. But it also seems that if you care about image quality, convenience and cost the D800E may be the optimal solution.
Best regards
Erik
I'm tired on the mediocre quality images that come from Canon vs Nikon, and 35mm in general; just seems like something is missing.
-
Hi,
Contrary to your view, I'm very happy with Image quality from DSLRs. The impression I have is that a technical camera with a high end digital back is the ultimate way of achieving maximum image quality. But it also seems that if you care about image quality, convenience and cost the D800E may be the optimal solution.
Best regards
Erik
Not crazy about the closed system of the Pentax. I've tried the D800/E, and I don't care for Nikon's quality these days.
-
Unreasonable?
If you imagine a camera, any camera, can deliver "the essence of your environment" then you're certifiable.
Perhaps, you're thinking a bit too literally. : )
-
isn't there an app for this ?
In any case the Mamiya 7II is a good start .
Hmm, interesting. What would be the differences between the Mamiya 7II and a Alpa TC?
What would the lens options look like? Are we still in Hasselblad quality territory?
Thanks to everyone with helpful responses. I didn't realize this would become such a volatile thread.
-
the best camera still is :
the 8 x 10 inch film camera
(in a way)
-
the best camera still is :
the 8 x 10 inch film camera
(in a way)
For colour?
-
I am really not sure what would be more bothersome: that it turns out you are a troll or it turns out you are serious.
-
Hmm, interesting. What would be the differences between the Mamiya 7II and a Alpa TC?
What would the lens options look like? Are we still in Hasselblad quality territory?
Thanks to everyone with helpful responses. I didn't realize this would become such a volatile thread.
Should this maybe become an Olympic sport ? Or has it ?
In any case, with the Alpa you will need a digital back .The platform per se will not record images.
-
The best camera is?...
The one you didn't buy.
-
Hi Fred, thank you. Reliability is important, as I may only be able to afford one digital back.
The digital backs are not the problem.
Reliability issues are with camera bodies and some of the lenses.
There are also problems with functions freezing or the camera software hanging up.
Shutters dying in lenses and bodies.
I gave up on the Phase One DF because of camera freezes and controls freezing.
Pull battery and everything comes back. I just could not put up with it happening
on set with a subject under the lights.
Similar issues with Hasselblad. Pick up the camera and autofocus on the 100mm would not work.
Happened on several rentals. Take lens off, battery out... wait.... repeat... etc etc.
I think this has a lot to do with the modular nature of these cameras.
There is a lot to be said for cameras like the Pentax 645D.
That said Hasselblad is very quick and responsive to problems and has fast repair turnaround.
I can't say good things about Phase One customer service, but that's another story.
You should definitely wait until Photokina and see what is going on with the main MF vendors.
Phase One is way over due with a DF replacement. They really make brilliant backs, but the camera is junk in comparison.
Phase has already made industrial cameras and repro cameras. I think there is a chance that they will present a new body.
Hasselblad will be making some kind of big announcement at Photokina, but it may be just Hasselblad logo on a smaller camera.
Pentax my be coming out with a higher res 645D now that it has been under Ricoh's wings for a while.
While reliability is an issue it's also feasible to add a Nikon d800E as a side kick to a fine tech camera with a top of the line digital back.
Both would complement each other quite well. The Linhof Techno is a gem
(http://www.linhof.de/images/linhof_techno_front.jpg)
Me personally I ditched MF digital for a combination of three systems.
35mm DSLR Nikon D800./D800E
6x8cm Film camera Fuji gx680 ....
8x10 inch film (and paper negative) camera Toyo with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. .... bought for pennies
-
For colour?
8x10 is still the best IMHO.
Just the look of the lenses is hard to beat.
A friend of mine with deep pockets and is a director of photography working with state of the art still and motion picture
digital still prefers a 4x5 film camera to anything digital out there. Actually I know quite a few digital directors of Photography that
shoot film for their stills.
You can also consider film as "digital". There are many advantages to shooting film and then taking it into digital post.
It's also cool to shoot hifi with fine grain film and then throw in a paper negative and shoot a totally different look
with the same camera.
I am also experimenting with direct to positive paper. Each image being unique. Interesting in the fine art world.
-
The digital backs are not the problem.
Reliability issues are with camera bodies and some of the lenses.
There are also problems with functions freezing or the camera software hanging up.
Shutters dying in lenses and bodies.
I gave up on the Phase One DF because of camera freezes and controls freezing.
Pull battery and everything comes back. I just could not put up with it happening
on set with a subject under the lights.
Similar issues with Hasselblad. Pick up the camera and autofocus on the 100mm would not work.
Happened on several rentals. Take lens off, battery out... wait.... repeat... etc etc.
I think this has a lot to do with the modular nature of these cameras.
There is a lot to be said for cameras like the Pentax 645D.
That said Hasselblad is very quick and responsive to problems and has fast repair turnaround.
I can't say good things about Phase One customer service, but that's another story.
You should definitely wait until Photokina and see what is going on with the main MF vendors.
Phase One is way over due with a DF replacement. They really make brilliant backs, but the camera is junk in comparison.
Phase has already made industrial cameras and repro cameras. I think there is a chance that they will present a new body.
Hasselblad will be making some kind of big announcement at Photokina, but it may be just Hasselblad logo on a smaller camera.
Pentax my be coming out with a higher res 645D now that it has been under Ricoh's wings for a while.
While reliability is an issue it's also feasible to add a Nikon d800E as a side kick to a fine tech camera with a top of the line digital back.
Both would complement each other quite well. The Linhof Techno is a gem
(http://www.linhof.de/images/linhof_techno_front.jpg)
Me personally I ditched MF digital for a combination of three systems.
35mm DSLR Nikon D800./D800E
6x8cm Film camera Fuji gx680 ....
8x10 inch film (and paper negative) camera Toyo with Schneider and Rodenstock lenses. .... bought for pennies
Very informative! Thank you. I will indeed be watching Photokina before diving into the market. There seems something very gimmicky about the Phase One system. You charge 10-40K for a sensor and only offer up a mediocre body...seems like their priorities are off.
What kind of lens options do you get with the techno?
-
8x10 is still the best IMHO.
Just the look of the lenses is hard to beat.
A friend of mine with deep pockets and is a director of photography working with state of the art still and motion picture
digital still prefers a 4x5 film camera to anything digital out there. Actually I know quite a few digital directors of Photography that
shoot film for their stills.
You can also consider film as "digital". There are many advantages to shooting film and then taking it into digital post.
It's also cool to shoot hifi with fine grain film and then throw in a paper negative and shoot a totally different look
with the same camera.
I am also experimenting with direct to positive paper. Each image being unique. Interesting in the fine art world.
Very interesting. Is there a good resource for examples of 8x10 and 4x5 film photographs? Perhaps a post/thread from LL?
-
Hi,
Have you seen this: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Best regards
Erik
Very interesting. Is there a good resource for examples of 8x10 and 4x5 film photographs? Perhaps a post/thread from LL?
-
The best medium format DSLR camera today is Hasselblad H4D.
Period.
The best lenses for H4D are: 28mm, 50mm II, 120mm II and 100mm, 35-90mm zoom and probably HTS 1.5 tilt and shift adapter.
Evgeny
-
The best medium format DSLR camera today is Hasselblad H4D.
Period.
The best lenses for H4D are: 28mm, 50mm II, 120mm II and 100mm, 35-90mm zoom and probably HTS 1.5 tilt and shift adapter.
Evgeny
Please elaborate.
Would you take it to Antarctica?
-
... I need a system that has the least distortion, the most sharpness, and usable in the outdoor environment....
The Leica S2 is weather sealed when used with the Leica S lenses. Not a huge lens selection (yet) but Hasselblad H lenses including T/S can be used with full function through Leica's H-to-S adapter. Pentax 645D is also weather sealed, but if you want the least distortion and most sharpness the Leica S lenses will be very difficult to beat.
I know of at least one photographer who took his S2 to Antarctica and was delighted with its performance in this enviornment.
-
The best medium format DSLR camera today is Hasselblad H4D.
Period.
Evgeny
period... what period?
please explain...?
because this thread sounds a bit like 'Bach is better than Mozart'...
-
The 50/80/120mm(macro) prime are all very sharp too, but I used the 35-90 zoom on a friend's H4D-60, and was very impressed at how sharp it was(not as much as the primes IMO, just a tad less) compared to the 35/50/80 primes. But on prints 16x20 and under, I'd probably not be able to tell the difference.
Hmm, it's f/4-5.6. That's a serious limitation for some kinds of work.
-
The Leica S2 is weather sealed when used with the Leica S lenses. Not a huge lens selection (yet) but Hasselblad H lenses including T/S can be used with full function through Leica's H-to-S adapter. Pentax 645D is also weather sealed, but if you want the least distortion and most sharpness the Leica S lenses will be very difficult to beat.
I know of at least one photographer who took his S2 to Antarctica and was delighted with its performance in this enviornment.
The S2 looks like a wonderful camera, but 22K for a body!?
I wonder how the Leica lenses compare to the Hassy's?
-
I wonder how the Leica lenses compare to the Hassy's?
There are differences in character that aren't easily quantified so there's some subjectivity involved in comparing them, but those who have compared them using the H-to-S adapter on the S2 body find the S lenses are typically sharper, especially at the wider apertures. Comparing S lenses on the S2 with H lenses on the H4D introduces additional variables but it's a valid comparison if those are the systems you'd consider using. In a print the S2 with S lenses have a bit less of an advantage compared with the H4D and H lenses.
Best to find a dealer who has both systems and try for yourself.
-
Please elaborate.
Would you take it to Antarctica?
I would not take any medium format digital equipment to a place with hard weather conditions, including beach, desert, and cold locations, unless it is a top dollar paid work.
But it's just me.
Evgeny
-
I will indeed be watching Photokina before diving into the market.
Captain, perhaps a few days off work in September and a trip to Cologne is all you really need...
In One day you can hold all these cameras in your hands and get a feel for their handling, see how they work, get a rundown of the various configurations and options and come away with some shiny brochures and perhaps with a shiny new camera as well...who knows you might even choose that one you currently think you dislike the most????
Seriously...do you really expect to form an educated opinion by listening to a bunch of geezers (myself included) driven by their own (somewhat limited) experiences, agendas and biases? I mean come on!!!
Looking forward to seeing you in hall 9.1 at the messe on September 18th ;)
-
The S2 looks like a wonderful camera, but 22K for a body!?
I wonder how the Leica lenses compare to the Hassy's?
Leica S2 has reliability issues and service takes for ever... experience of a friend of mine that owns two of them.
Also it's barely medium format. 33x44mm sensor... not really much bigger than 35mm
With 35mm being so close to MFD today I think that considering anything that is not full frame is rather pointless.
-
Thanks everyone for the informative and helpful responses! I cannot wait for Photokina! Going to be some very interesting developments.
The search continues!
CL
-
With 35mm being so close to MFD today I think that considering anything that is not full frame is rather pointless.
There's a discussion of that question here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s2-forum/222581-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2.html
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers did a controlled shootout between the S2 and the Nikon D800 and found that the Nikon was better.
My understanding is that the Nikon was focused using live view while the Leica was focus bracketed.
The test is here: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/compare-LeicaS2-mosaic.html
Best regards
Erik
There's a discussion of that question here:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-s2-forum/222581-nikon-d800e-vs-leica-s2.html
-
As long as 36 megapixels in 3:2 format are sufficient for your application, I would suggest to look at D800E.
It is a very fine still camera, with the greatest range of its use. 1080p is a free bonus.
Medium format bodies are capricious. If reliability is a priority, multiple D800E bodies can be afforded for a single MFDB price. Just get two... might as well shoot stereo;)
Spend more on finest lenses with the F mount. After all, lenses will remain and at some point you will upgrade the body for newer technology.
-
The Leica S2 sensor is actually 45x30, providing a 3:2 proportion. The Pentax 645D and the Hassy H4D-40 use a 44x33 sensor, essentially yielding 4:3 proportion format. As good as the Leica and its glass is, if one is going to produce 4:3 images, there'll be some cropping on that long dimension, reducing somewhat the 37 Mp capture.
-
The Leica S2 sensor is actually 45x30, providing a 3:2 proportion. The Pentax 645D and the Hassy H4D-40 use a 44x33 sensor, essentially yielding 4:3 proportion format. As good as the Leica and its glass is, if one is going to produce 4:3 images, there'll be some cropping on that long dimension, reducing somewhat the 37 Mp capture.
Very good point! One of the reasons I admire MF is the 4:3 ratio. Anyone have any experience with the H4D-31? Seems like a good balance of affordability and function. The biggest I would ever want to print is 5' X 7'
-
Why has nobody has mentioned the HASSELBLAD 500C w/ a CFV-50 digital back?
-
What I consider the best camera will in all likelihood not be your pick. What suits me may not suite you. This is like a wife asking if the pants makes her butt look to large. There isn't a simple answer because it isn't a simple question.
I read all the replies here and the only one agree with is Yair. Buy a ticket go to Cologne and spend some quality time at Photokina. Touch them, feel them and try out the various systems. Ask questions there specific to the system you have in your hands. Ask yourself how they feel in your hands. Try to get it down to 2 or 3 systems then do some more hands on research.
In the end you'll find the best camera is the one you use the most.
Just my 2¢ for what its worth.
Oh - I use a Cambo WRS 1000 (since fall 2008) and currently a Phase One IQ160 as well as a Phase One DF body to help "capture the essence of my environment". I like that term.....
-
Hi,
I guess that you need to know what you are dissatisfied with regarding Canon and Nikon images. There is no difference between formats. A larger format is simply larger. Now, there are advantages with size.
A sensor is an electronic device, by and large, it just captures photons. There is no magic in sensors. Color is not created by the sensor it self but by the color grid array in the front of the sensor and the software processing the raw image. It is well possible that some CGAs (Color Grid Arrays) are optimized for better color separation (like Velvia) and some others may be optimized for better high ISO performance.
The colors we see are created by the software and they are always tweaked, except when scene referred rendering is used. The tweaking depends on software. Some software may have better profiles for the camera.
So color is CGA and software (with format not at all involved).
Noise which is related to smoothness and DR depends mostly on the number of photons captured. A larger format will collect more photons, if exposure is the same. The darkest parts of the image will be affected by readout noise (from the electronics) this is an area where MF is not very good but recent sensors from Sony, Nikon, Pentax and others excel.
Resolution is mostly depending on sensor. More pixels, better resolution. Fine detail contrast depends much on lens and AA-filtering. A larger format will show any detail larger on the sensor, that is good for fine detail contrast. Stopping down excessively causes diffraction, with larger formats you need to stop down more for DoF, so diffraction may affect fine detail contrast more.
Another important factor is focusing accuracy. Modern DSLRs have live view, where you can see the actual image on the sensor. If live view is enlarged so you see each pixel you can focus exactly, but your focus can still be spoiled by focus shift.
With MF it may be difficult to achieve optimal focus. Alpa allows the back to be shimmed within 0.01 mm, and has extremely long calibrated focusing gear. You can use it with a laser rangefinder to focus exactly.
I'd suggest that the article below is recommended reading:
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
But issues do exist with all formats.
The most important factor is the photographer making the best of his/her equipment. The equipment you know you can rely on is the one that best for you.
Best regards
Erik
Hello!
I've spent probably 50 hours this week on LL, reading so many different opinions that my head is spinning. I'm tired on the mediocre quality images that come from Canon vs Nikon, and 35mm in general; just seems like something is missing. Medium format just seems to envelop the viewer in the photograph. So what is the best setup for landscape photography? Is it a 645 w/ a Phase One back? Is it a Blad H4D, Leica S2? What the heck is that Alpha TC looking contraption?
Besides the atmospheric aspect of medium format photography, I need a system that has the least distortion, the most sharpness, and usable in the outdoor environment. Now before someone jumps at me as say "the best camera is the one you have with you", I've gone down that route, and it's just not the right answer for me. The best camera, is the one that does what I need it to do; and that is capture the essence of my environment. I've saved my money wisely and have a maximum budget of $50K. Hope to get some sense out of all the information presented on LL, and ultimately reach photographic nirvana. Thanks in Advance!
CL
-
So color is CGA and software (with format not at all involved).
Really? If that's true then there are a lot of electronics engineers who can be out of work tomorrow...
Noise which is related to smoothness and DR depends mostly on the number of photons captured. A larger format will collect more photons, if exposure is the same. The darkest parts of the image will be affected by readout noise (from the electronics) this is an area where MF is not very good but recent sensors from Sony, Nikon, Pentax and others excel.
Erik no offence but I think that if you want to make this sort of statements you should back them up with images and not with articles and graphs...
Resolution is mostly depending on sensor. More pixels, better resolution. Fine detail contrast depends much on lens and AA-filtering. A larger format will show any detail larger on the sensor, that is good for fine detail contrast. Stopping down excessively causes diffraction, with larger formats you need to stop down more for DoF, so diffraction may affect fine detail contrast more.
There's more to it than just the size of the sensor and the number of pixels....not all pixels are created equal you know...there are different shapes of pixels, different readout designs, different ways of dealing with light spillage, different shapes and arrangements of microlenses etc. etc.
BR
Yair
-
Hi,
Regarding color I stated that it is not depending on format but only on CGA (Color Grid Array) and processing. Have you tried to crop an image and see if it changes color?
Regarding noise and DR I'd suggest that this is a standard reference: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html
Adequately made comparisons of MF and DSLR images are not easy to come by, unfortunately. Here is a comparison between Leica S2 and Nikon D3X, based on images from Lloyd Chambers "DAP" site, the images used with the kind permission of the Lloyd Chambers: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images
Marc McCalmont has started a long thread here on LuLa comparing his new Nikon D800E to his IQ180: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=67333.0
Best regards
Erik
...
Erik no offence but I think that if you want to make this sort of statements you should back them up with images and not with articles and graphs...
...
There's more to it than just the size of the sensor and the number of pixels....not all pixels are created equal you know...there are different shapes of pixels, different readout designs, different ways of dealing with light spillage, different shapes and arrangements of microlenses etc. etc.
BR
Yair
-
Many camera systems can be considered best in some ways, but base on your criteria, and in friendlier package and the "look" factor, may be S2 is the one.
It really needs very capable hand and well trined eyes to make and tell the meaningful difference between the major offerings today. If you are not shooting professionally that a large system support is concerned, Leica S2 is a good choice for customers with good job income, care for having the best, and looked the best. OK, medium format digital backs are bigger and heavier but less friendly to travel and not looked as smart.
Pingang
Hello!
I've spent probably 50 hours this week on LL, reading so many different opinions that my head is spinning. I'm tired on the mediocre quality images that come from Canon vs Nikon, and 35mm in general; just seems like something is missing. Medium format just seems to envelop the viewer in the photograph. So what is the best setup for landscape photography? Is it a 645 w/ a Phase One back? Is it a Blad H4D, Leica S2? What the heck is that Alpha TC looking contraption?
Besides the atmospheric aspect of medium format photography, I need a system that has the least distortion, the most sharpness, and usable in the outdoor environment. Now before someone jumps at me as say "the best camera is the one you have with you", I've gone down that route, and it's just not the right answer for me. The best camera, is the one that does what I need it to do; and that is capture the essence of my environment. I've saved my money wisely and have a maximum budget of $50K. Hope to get some sense out of all the information presented on LL, and ultimately reach photographic nirvana. Thanks in Advance!
CL
-
I've tried the D800/E, and I don't care for Nikon's quality these days.
What does that mean?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What does that mean?
Cheers,
Bernard
Returned two D800's. Both were faulty. First had AF issues, second had a dead LCD. The one that worked the most, had considerable moire.
-
Returned two D800's. ... The one that worked the most, had considerable moire.
If D800 moiré bothers you, I hope you realize that DMF backs will almost certainly have more, not less, due to their lack of AA filters.
If you wish to explore MF for the first time and want some ruggedness for that Antarctic trip, one thought is to experiment first by spending a relatively small portion of that $50,000 budget on a Pentax 645D with one or two lenses, use that kit for a while (like in Antarctica) and then decide how to divide the substantial remaining budget between (a) improving ypur gear (b) classes, travel, and other opportunities to further improve your skills with the gear you have.
Edit: I mention the Pentax system because as fas as I know it is the only weather-sealed DMF camera, and its design is more oriented to outdoor usage while all other "larger than 35mm" systems are more oriented to studio usage. But other who know more might want to correct me on this.
-
If D800 moiré bothers you, I hope you realize that DMF backs will almost certainly have more, not less, due to their lack of AA filters.
If you wish to explore MF for the first time and want some ruggedness for that Antarctic trip, one thought is to experiment first by spending a relatively small portion of that $50,000 budget on a Pentax 645D with one or two lenses, use that kit for a while (like in Antarctica) and then decide how to divide the substantial remaining budget between (a) improving ypur gear (b) classes, travel, and other opportunities to further improve your skills with the gear you have.
Edit: I mention the Pentax system because as fas as I know it is the only weather-sealed DMF camera, and its design is more oriented to outdoor usage while all other "larger than 35mm" systems are more oriented to studio usage. But other who know more might want to correct me on this.
How are the quality of lenses for the Pentax?
-
Hi,
I can see that you are not satisfied. Nikon is known to have issues with AF on the 800D, I don't know how bad.
Regarding moiré, it really depends on the sensor outresolving the lens. To see it you need to have correct focus, nearly optimal aperture and so on. Moiré is normally much worse on MF than on DSLRs as DSLRs have OLP (Optical Low Pass) filtering an MF does normally not.
It is said that stopping down a Leica S2 to f/11 takes care of the Moiré issue, but I have seen statements to the contrary.
What are you shooting? Very few people seem to have issues with Moiré on the Nikon D800E, so it's interesting to hear.
Best regards
Erik
Returned two D800's. Both were faulty. First had AF issues, second had a dead LCD. The one that worked the most, had considerable moire.
-
I mention the Pentax system because as fas as I know it is the only weather-sealed DMF camera
The Leica S2 is also weather sealed.
-
What are you shooting? Very few people seem to have issues with Moiré on the Nikon D800E, so it's interesting to hear.
Best regards
Erik
I'm shooting landscapes in Iceland, Antarctica, and Austria. For personal enjoyment only. My job is a lot of hard work, and photography, and being in these environments are the only things that makes me truly happy.
-
It is said that stopping down a Leica S2 to f/11 takes care of the Moiré issue, but I have seen statements to the contrary.
Erik
You will get all sorts of fuzzy information on Moiré.
There are many variables that influence it. Stopping down to f11 may help at times if diffraction at f11 reduces resolution just enough.
However this depends on how detailed and how repetitive the texture you are photographing is.
There will be plenty of cases where Moiré will not go away at f11 or even with an OLPF
However Moiré is quite simple to remove. Nikon's software does a very good job with the D800.
However it's important to remember that Moiré removal is done by removing high frequency color differences
that are produced by the interference between the pixel array and the detail of the subject.
This can be a problem if you have both false colors as well as fine color detail in the subject that you want to maintain.
The real solution is quite simple.... shoot film ;)
-
Doug,
Are you using the S2 personally? I know you have the DMR and like it plus the R glass. I'm just asking because I also had a DMR and liked it and the R8 body that I had. Great experience overall, but that lead me to be underwhelmed by the S2 when I handled one. After the DMR, I went to a Rollei 6008AF and phase p20 with the excellent Schneider lenses. I feel the DMR was a wonderful camera/back but I never regretted the switch. Now I use a Rollei AFi-ii 12 primarily which I'm quite happy with.
Eric
-
You will get all sorts of fuzzy information on Moiré.
There are many variables that influence it. Stopping down to f11 may help at times if diffraction at f11 reduces resolution just enough.
However this depends on how detailed and how repetitive the texture you are photographing is.
There will be plenty of cases where Moiré will not go away at f11 or even with an OLPF
However Moiré is quite simple to remove. Nikon's software does a very good job with the D800.
However it's important to remember that Moiré removal is done by removing high frequency color differences
that are produced by the interference between the pixel array and the detail of the subject.
This can be a problem if you have both false colors as well as fine color detail in the subject that you want to maintain.
The real solution is quite simple.... shoot film ;)
Yes, but moire doesn't seem to be an issue with natural landscapes. Don't you lose "something" during the process of scanning the image. I've yet to see a scanned film image that outclasses a digital, in terms of color and tonality. Perhaps you avoid moire...
-
moire doesn't seem to be an issue with natural landscapes.
It shouldn't be a problem with natural landscapes. Sometimes there is a problem with feathers.
-
I've got both an IQ180 and a D800E, for what it's worth "Lens, Lens, Lens" is everything
My IQ 180 is a bit disappointing with some of my older Mamiya lenses but is outstanding on my WRS w/Rodenstock HR lenses
My D800E is very good with some of the Nikkors but outstanding with the Leica R's, so just my 4 cents worth find the best lenses that suit your personal taste and build a camera around your lenses. You would be happy with the following:
Phase one IQ 180 w/either schneider or rodenstock lenses
Leica S2/ Leica lenses
D800E/Leica R's
I have no experience with hassy's but I sure there is a good solution there also
Marc
-
DR depends mostly on the number of photons captured. A larger format will collect more photons, if exposure is the same.
DR depends on many factors.
Sensor size actually does not have that much do do with it.
Sensor efficiency and quality has a lot more to do with it.
How much space there is between photosites... but even that is not always true.
Fuji's super CCD had better dynamic range than anything else for many years and it had large spaces between
photosites, but had a dual array. Photosites for highlights and photosites for shadows and midtones.
Just look at the excellent dynamic range of the D7000 with it's tiny sensor.
D7000 has the same dynamic range as the Phase One IQ180
D800 has better dynamic range than the IQ180, but a sensor half the area size.
-
Hi,
Diglloyd has tested most of the Pentax 645D lenses. The short version is that some are very good and some are less good. But one has to keep in mind that Lloyd is pretty demanding.
Interestingly he also compared the Nikon D800 with a Zeiss 100/2 macro Planar and a Leica S2 with a 120/2.5 Apo Macro Summarit and it was pretty even. Nikon better in the corners and Leica better at center. Leica had a lot of Moiré.
In general, Lloyd complains a lot about difficulties focusing without live view. He also tested the Hasselblad H4D50, with two lenses the 28/4 and the 100/2.2 and he found both lenses lacking.
I would recommend the Diglloyd site for anyone considering the Leica S2 or the Pentax 645D as there is a lot of useful info on those pages. It's a pay site but probably worth it.
Miles Hecker of Wyofoto fame has a 645D and loves it, he found that the weather proofing really works.
Best regards
Erik
How are the quality of lenses for the Pentax?
-
Not crazy about the closed system of the Pentax.
But you are considering the closed system of the S2? Pity, because the 645D sounds like a very good match for what you want to do.
-
But you are considering the closed system of the S2? Pity, because the 645D sounds like a very good match for what you want to do.
Adapters for Hasselblad V, Hasselblad H, Pentax 67, and Mamiya lenses are available for the S2. The Hasselblad H adapter allows full use of the lens' functions including AF and shutter. Leica also reverse-engineered profiles for the H lenses for processing software.
A forum with several discussions of non-Leica lenses on the S2 is at http://www.reddotforum.com/forumdisplay.php/5-Alternative-Lenses
-
But you are considering the closed system of the S2? Pity, because the 645D sounds like a very good match for what you want to do.
It could be. However, upon reviewing images from various cameras, the photographs coming H3D-39 seem to fit my photographic style the best. It may not be the most weather sealed, but it looks like it can be set up rather quickly to get the shot I need.
-
This (http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1010/bh1010-1.html) is exactly what I wish to accomplish with my camera. I think I might go with the H3D-39.
-
Hi,
I actually wrote:
Noise which is related to smoothness and DR depends mostly on the number of photons captured.
So you quote me selectively. There are several factors affecting noise. The major source of noise is shot noise that is coming from the statistical distribution of incident photons. Quantum efficiency does have little to do with noise. If QE is low you can increase exposure to compensate. ETTR, expose to the right.
How many photons a pixel can hold depends mostly on it size. But how many photons a sensor can detect depends on the silicon area. So larger sensors have an advantage, other factors being constant.
DR is a technical term and is essentially FWC (Full Well Capacity) / read noise with both expressed in electrons. Roughly one electron corresponds to one photon.
The Fuji super CCD has some trick using dual sensors. I imagine that for that to work the highlight sensels must have some kind of grey filter or aperture. Anyway the super CCD is not a mainstream technology now.
The reason that the D7000 has an excellent DR is that it has very little readout noise. That depends on the sensor having a massive array of on chip ADC (Analog to Digital Converters).
If you check DxO-mark you can see that the Nikon D7000 has similar DR to the Phase One IQ180 (albeit at much higher ISO) but the IQ-180 has better tonal range. Tonal range is similar to DR but does not use SNR=1 criteria but a stiffer one.
My guess is that the D7000 sensor has a readout noise of perhaps 2 electrons and the IQ-180 about 12 electrons.
Best regards
Erik
DR depends on many factors.
Sensor size actually does not have that much do do with it.
Sensor efficiency and quality has a lot more to do with it.
How much space there is between photosites... but even that is not always true.
Fuji's super CCD had better dynamic range than anything else for many years and it had large spaces between
photosites, but had a dual array. Photosites for highlights and photosites for shadows and midtones.
Just look at the excellent dynamic range of the D7000 with it's tiny sensor.
D7000 has the same dynamic range as the Phase One IQ180
D800 has better dynamic range than the IQ180, but a sensor half the area size.
-
... upon reviewing images from various cameras, the photographs coming H3D-39 seem to fit my photographic style the best...
There are only three cameras in the world that have their own style: Holga, Diana (medium format) and Lomo (35 mm format).
All other cameras are just boxes with one round and one rectangular or square opening, and can not possibly have a style of their own. It is the photographer who might have a style. If one is extremely generous, he might allow that certain lenses (or lens manufacturers) have "style" of their own. But that's it. The rest is photographer's style, either at the moment of capture or in post-processing.
And while we are at it, would you show us some of your photographs that define your style?
-
This (http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1010/bh1010-1.html) is exactly what I wish to accomplish with my camera. I think I might go with the H3D-39.
There is absolutely nothing in that photo that is unique to H3D-39. It could have been shot with a number of other MF cameras, film or digital, with an equivalent focal-lenght lens. That is, if you subscribe to the theory that MF has something "extra" other (smaller) formats do not. If you do not, then the same image could have been taken with several 35 mm cameras with equivalent focal-lenght lenses, especially if we are talking about "style."
-
... upon reviewing images from various cameras, the photographs coming H3D-39 seem to fit my photographic style the best.
Unless web is your intended display medium, don't use web-sized images to make such a costly purchase. Personal habits and preferences often make one photographer hate one camera while another photographer producing similar images loves how the same camera works. Ergonomic design, placement of buttons/switches and odd accessories can make or break the usefulness of a camera; try several before committing your $$$$$. I suspect nearly all the cameras mentioned in this thread can make photos like the ones in the link you provided.
-
Hi,
I actually wrote:
So you quote me selectively. There are several factors affecting noise. The major source of noise is shot noise that is coming from the statistical distribution of incident photons. Quantum efficiency does have little to do with noise. If QE is low you can increase exposure to compensate. ETTR, expose to the right.
How many photons a pixel can hold depends mostly on it size. But how many photons a sensor can detect depends on the silicon area. So larger sensors have an advantage, other factors being constant.
DR is a technical term and is essentially FWC (Full Well Capacity) / read noise with both expressed in electrons. Roughly one electron corresponds to one photon.
The Fuji super CCD has some trick using dual sensors. I imagine that for that to work the highlight sensels must have some kind of grey filter or aperture. Anyway the super CCD is not a mainstream technology now.
The reason that the D7000 has an excellent DR is that it has very little readout noise. That depends on the sensor having a massive array of on chip ADC (Analog to Digital Converters).
If you check DxO-mark you can see that the Nikon D7000 has similar DR to the Phase One IQ180 (albeit at much higher ISO) but the IQ-180 has better tonal range. Tonal range is similar to DR but does not use SNR=1 criteria but a stiffer one.
My guess is that the D7000 sensor has a readout noise of perhaps 2 electrons and the IQ-180 about 12 electrons.
Best regards
Erik
I quoted you selectively because I was making a point regarding just what I quoted, but let me elaborate.
I am talking about photon to electron conversion.
Take a look at this article. It explains what I am referring to.
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/cmos_01.html (http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/cmos_01.html)
-
Adapters for Hasselblad V, Hasselblad H, Pentax 67, and Mamiya lenses are available for the S2. The Hasselblad H adapter allows full use of the lens' functions including AF and shutter. Leica also reverse-engineered profiles for the H lenses for processing software.
A forum with several discussions of non-Leica lenses on the S2 is at http://www.reddotforum.com/forumdisplay.php/5-Alternative-Lenses
So, the Pentax 645D can only use adapted lenses from Hasselblad V, Pentax 67, and Leica Visoflex. The Pentax 67 adapter allows the use of the auto-diaphram. The AF system in the 645D is far superior and is a far more versatile camera with a larger selection of native lenses. It also has a great ISO 1600 and unlimited exposure time. Plus, you can buy two bodies for the price of one S2.
-
This (http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1010/bh1010-1.html) is exactly what I wish to accomplish with my camera. I think I might go with the H3D-39.
Can't do that with a 645D as there is no 28mm lens available. It does have a 25mm lens that is weatherproof however.
-
BTW, it the Hasselblad blows your hair back, go for it. It is a fine camera and you will be able to get great images out of it.
-
So, the Pentax 645D can only use adapted lenses from Hasselblad V, Pentax 67, and Leica Visoflex. The Pentax 67 adapter allows the use of the auto-diaphram. The AF system in the 645D is far superior and is a far more versatile camera with a larger selection of native lenses. It also has a great ISO 1600 and unlimited exposure time. Plus, you can buy two bodies for the price of one S2.
I'm not trying to prove one camera is better than the other. I'm only trying to present some facts. "Far superior" and "far more versatile" are quite subjective and whether meaningful or not can depend to a very large degree on the photographer's needs. Can we stick to the facts? This doesn't need to degenerate into a typical internet pissing match. I'm pretty sure the OP can look up the prices all by himself.
-
BTW, it the Hasselblad blows your hair back, go for it. It is a fine camera and you will be able to get great images out of it.
You sir, just may be the only sane person in this thread. Thanks for the honest reply.
-
... It is a fine camera and you will be able to get great images out of it.
Two proposed edits to the above and I am 100 % with you (sane or otherwise):
- replace "it" with "any camera under discussion so far"
- replace "will" with "might"
-
I'm not trying to prove one camera is better than the other. I'm only trying to present some facts. "Far superior" and "far more versatile" are quite subjective and whether meaningful or not can depend to a very large degree on the photographer's needs. Can we stick to the facts? This doesn't need to degenerate into a typical internet pissing match. I'm pretty sure the OP can look up the prices all by himself.
I am just messing with you. The S2 is no more an open system than the 645D is. No need to quote my post.
-
I am just messing with you.
I guess LuLa is no better than anywhere else.
-
I have been reading this thread with great interest. I have flip flopped between thinking that the OP is a legitimate poster with a (to him/her) legitimate question and thinking that the OP is a troll looking to stir the pot then sit back and laugh. I still am not sure about this. But, I did think to do an internet search for the word "Captian". I thought originally that the person had misspelled the word Captain, which would have been evidence supporting the troll theory. A person who works in "Apples corporate retail sector" would probably not make such an error in spelling. But, now I know that the word Captian does exist on the www. From definition-of.net: Pertaining to one who is supreme. The name of a person who exceeds in every aspect of life. An amazing human being. A Captian.Anyone who is known as amazing, awesome, stellar, or freakin sweet.
I still do not know whether the OP is for real. Why would such a supreme being need to ask the lesser beings for help?
Just sayin'. ;D
-
You could do a lot worse than the H3d-39. Nice back with good DR and color. I had the multishot version of that back but in their CF mount which allowed me to mount it on a variety of cameras. It was the CF-ii 39MS. Still works on the H body but you could also mount it on a Fuji 680, a mamiya RZ, or in my case a Rollei 6008AF all of which are fine cameras and have nice sets of lenses. It's really a shame that Hasselblad killed the CF line of backs.
-
I have flip flopped between thinking that the OP is a legitimate poster with a (to him/her) legitimate question and thinking that the OP is a troll looking to stir the pot then sit back and laugh.
I'm pretty sure y'all been trolled, but it has allowed everyone a nice chance to shake their shibboleths ...
-
D800 has better dynamic range than the IQ180, but a sensor half the area size.
Is this statement based on your actual experience or is it anecdotal in nature?
-
Is this statement based on your actual experience or is it anecdotal in nature?
What is the obsession with the D800, and Nikon in general. In comparison with Leica, Hasselblad, and Canon, Nikon just seems to produce flat and lackluster images. Not to mention the smugness that comes from Nikonians who think they're better than everyone.
-
Hi,
Not exactly the impression I get from the samples I have seen.
Best regards
Erik
...
In comparison with Leica, Hasselblad, and Canon, Nikon just seems to produce flat and lackluster images. Not to mention the smugness that comes from Nikonians who think they're better than everyone.
-
The question was posed since the author makes the statement of fact. In order to better understand what was said I seeking clarification; is the statement based on personal experience with the D800 and IQ180 or is it anecdotal?
And to more directly answer your question. I think a certain amount of "smugness" for lack of a better term can be expected from actual users of any system be it Hasselblad, Canon, Nikon, Leica or Red. It boils down to mine is bigger and better than yours.
-
Speak for yourself ;D
Credit where credit is due ... you did not take the bait ...
-
Is this statement based on your actual experience or is it anecdotal in nature?
You omit a third alternative: examination of test data, sample images including raw files, and reviews based thereon from a variety sources. Even us professional scientists do not rely solely on the results of experiments that we did ourselves. Dynamic range is after all a fairly specific quantitative measure --- we are not talking about more visceral, experiential attributes like "pop" or "3D effect" or the way that different lenses "draw", or how a camera "falls in the hand".
-
I understand the third concept. What I don't understand is the ability to make a factual statement without first having true first hand information. Without the firsthand information you're left with nothing better than hearsay evidence.
My only problem with the statement is that the author makes it as if he has actual experience and not what was picked up along the way on the internet. I've read many issues on the internet, have done a Google search on the subject however there's no way I'd present information in such a factual manor without first adding the caveat that while not actual experience the statement is based on what I've read. I don't have a D800 nor an IQ180 so can't speak to which as better dynamic range. I do have an IQ160 and 1DsIII but that's yet another subject.
-
I understand the third concept. What I don't understand is the ability to make a factual statement without first having true first hand information. Without the firsthand information you're left with nothing better than hearsay evidence.
If you actually understood ... then you wouldn't call scientific data "hearsay" ...
-
When it comes to the photographic community I have always given more credence to a statement that was supported by actual hands-on experience versus a theory or hypothesis of another yet un-named person. While empirical and properly documented evidence is useful in a general term for deciding which stick is bigger or better I need to see it for myself in the situations that I use on a daily basis.
Again to make a statement which gives the allusion of actually seen the evidence firsthand is lacking in my opinion.
I still feel it's a simple request. Is the statement based on first hand experience or anecdotal. Have you actually seen it or have you just read about it. A factual statement is based on facts that the person represents to be true. Of course we are speaking of the internet where no one lies or misrepresents themselves or their statements so everything we read including this thread is factual.
Just feeling cranky today.... :P
-
I still feel it's a simple request. Is the statement based on first hand experience or anecdotal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
I think that you are making a lot of fuzz that there is no reason to make. A fair request would be "did you experience this first-hand?"
While empirical and properly documented evidence is useful in a general term for deciding which stick is bigger or better I need to see it for myself in the situations that I use on a daily basis.
Without those empirical "evidence", you and I may not have had cameras at all.
If you only trust only your own eyes and your own experience, then there is really nothing left to discuss. Go out making images :-)
-h
-
I do have both a D800E and an IQ180 and have previously posted examples, the D800E does have more DR than the IQ180
It is slight but noticeable when pixel peeping and not noticeable in print.
Marc
-
What is the obsession with the D800, and Nikon in general. In comparison with Leica, Hasselblad, and Canon, Nikon just seems to produce flat and lackluster images. Not to mention the smugness that comes from Nikonians who think they're better than everyone.
Case closed.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Trollface.svg)
-
So what is the best setup for landscape photography?
This one is easy :-). A technical camera with an IQ160 back (IQ180 is just more colour cast issues), or if not too fixated with having lots of pixels a 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus-II 7 (you can make quite big prints with that too, and has excellent performance with technical lenses).
Landscape photographers used 4x5" and 8x10" view cameras back in the film days not only for the resolution, but for the movements too. I think having movements is an important part of landscape photography, but as always it depends on your artistic style.
The tech camera should be a model with built-in tilt function as it is important for high resolution landscape photography if you open shoot open scenes (which many indeed typically do). Pancake cameras are easier to use, but I kind of like view cameras (I use a Linhof Techno myself) which have more flexible movements and considerably cheaper lens mounts.
A Nikon D800E is an excellent budget alternative, but the limited availability of excellent tilt-shift lenses does not make it as nice as the MFD tech cameras for landscape. For deep DoF images I don't think there is any "look" advantage of MF systems.
-
The best setup that money can get for me:
Cambo w-rs AE
Phase one IQ180
Rodenstock 40 mm Tilt&swing.
This is the gear I got and I moved from Canon EOS-1 ds mark iii and L glasses.
It is a dream come through.
Check out my pictures at www.ziyatacir.com .
Ziya Tacir