Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer  (Read 8096 times)

Cerb-CH

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« on: June 26, 2014, 05:30:54 pm »

I am using a Nikon D800E  with some lenses for my landscapes. This camera has changed my  workflow a lot,  I  use rarely more than iso 100, and I use most of the time a tripod (Gitzo).

Which MF Camera might  be the right tool for me? ( I am not biased)


Best Regards
Cerb-CH 

Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2014, 06:50:23 pm »

Some important questions that will help everyone give you better advise:

Are you looking to use a tech camera (Arca/Alpa/Cambo/etc), a view camera, or an SLR (h4x, h5, df+ etc)?
Are you okay with a limit of 30-60 seconds for your longest exposure?
What's your ballpark budget range?
What's the widest lens you use on your d800?
Do you shoot mostly from a car or backpack? (ie how important is weight to you)?
Where are you located? (Can effect dealer availability and service times)

As you can imagine there are many good options and very few bad options. So the question is mainly one of priorities and budget. A tech cam will get you the best lenses and built in movement along with a very tactile/mechanical/traditional manner of shooting but will also be slower to shoot with and more involved to learn. A view camera provides maximum movement flexibility but is large and heavy. An SLR is the easiest to learn but don't have very-wide lenses that compare to those on a tech camera.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 07:51:50 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

KirbyKrieger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422
    • Kirby Krieger Pictures
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2014, 07:10:11 pm »

So the question is mainly one of priorities and budget.

Excellent response.  Branching out for myself:

Highest IQ, as measured by most majestic prints in the (roughly) 24 x 36 to 48 x 70 range.  Weight not a concern.  Speed of use not a concern.  Need short telephoto (c. 135mm on FF) more than wide.  T/S a bonus.  60 s maximum exposure duration OK.  Budget so low I have to rent.  Pennsylvania.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2014, 09:13:49 pm »

I am using a Nikon D800E  with some lenses for my landscapes. This camera has changed my  workflow a lot,  I  use rarely more than iso 100, and I use most of the time a tripod (Gitzo).

What problem are you trying to solve with a move to MF? Could you share some of the images that you currently don't find satisfactory and what is wrong with them?

One advise would be not only to consider the downsides of your current equipment, but also what currently works fine but may not be as easy with the new gear. That's tougher because you may not even be aware of some things not going wrong at the moment. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Cerb-CH

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2014, 09:26:30 pm »

Some important questions that will help everyone give you better advise:

Are you looking to use a tech camera (Arca/Alpa/Cambo/etc), a view camera, or an SLR (h4x, h5, df+ etc)?
Are you okay with a limit of 30-60 seconds for your longest exposure?
What's your ballpark budget range?
What's the widest lens you use on your d800?
Do you shoot mostly from a car or backpack? (ie how important is weight to you)?
Where are you located? (Can effect dealer availability and service times)

As you can imagine there are many good options and very few bad options. So the question is mainly one of priorities and budget. A tech cam will get you the best lenses and built in movement along with a very tactile/mechanical/traditional manner of shooting but will also be slower to shoot with and more involved to learn. A view camera provides maximum movement flexibility but is large and heavy. An SLR is the easiest to learn but don't have very-wide lenses that compare to those on a tech camera.

thanks for your response I am trying  to  answer it.

I think I will start with a SLR, maybe I will try a tech  or a view camera later.
Yes I think so.
It depends  how big the gain on quality is.
The 14-24mm, but I use it most of the time at 24mm.
Both, weight is not that important.
Switzerland
Logged

Cerb-CH

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2014, 10:06:24 pm »

What problem are you trying to solve with a move to MF? Could you share some of the images that you currently don't find satisfactory and what is wrong with them?

One advise would be not only to consider the downsides of your current equipment, but also what currently works fine but may not be as easy with the new gear. That's tougher because you may not even be aware of some things not going wrong at the moment. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard


Thanks for the reply.
Yes that is a interesting point.

My D800E is a very nice camera ( although the support here in Switzerland is terrible ),   
I want to have the possibility to print very large. I did some prints which were at the shot side more then 30" wide, at this point I could see how the image quality dropped.

With primes I could improve the image quality a bit, but the differences are (If DXO can be trusted)not that big.

I will keep my Nikon System, I know a MF can't be a around camera.


Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2014, 10:18:34 pm »

I want to have the possibility to print very large. I did some prints which were at the shot side more then 30" wide, at this point I could see how the image quality dropped.

In case it is applicable to your applications, have you considered stitching?

Cheers,
Bernard

Cerb-CH

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2014, 10:47:20 pm »

In case it is applicable to your applications, have you considered stitching?

Cheers,
Bernard


Already done, with my gigapan epic pro, but it's too slow.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2014, 01:55:15 am »

Already done, with my gigapan epic pro, but it's too slow.

OK, but if I may ask, why did you opt for a robotic pano head?

Unless you are shooting for gigapixel images, high end manual pano heads are faster to set up and operate and enable to reach easily hundreds of megapixels. They are also much more compact and light for field operation.

Most of my pano contain between 5 and 20 images, and the shooting time overhead above exposure time is typically around 1 sec per frame. Set up probably takes at most one 40-45 sec more than basic tripod ball head set up.

Cheers,
Bernard

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2014, 03:52:46 am »



With primes I could improve the image quality a bit, but the differences are (If DXO can be trusted)not that big.


I find there's a big difference between primes and zooms on the 800e.
Have you tried the 28 1.8G ? or either of the 85's ?
On A2 prints I find them both very good.
I also assume at some point everyones going to stop making the same expensive 50 something mm lens and have a shot at a decent super wide for FF 35's.

Not trying to talk you out of MF.
Some of the stuff I've seen from the good ones is absolutely amazing.
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2014, 04:28:09 am »

I would not recommend getting a MF camera only for the image quality, that will put you in an unhealthy strive for better and better and better and better. A tech cam gives you a very different shooting experience and some new possibilities concerning composition, so that is what I would recommend.

If you like the D800 shooting experience and just want to bump the resolution, I would wait and see what the reception of the new Pentax 645Z is. Not only because it's more cost effective, but I also guess it's a more robust camera concerning outdoor use than Hasselblad and Phase One 645 cameras, but if that matters or not will depend on your shooting style. For me that hike with the gear and live in a tent robustness is important though.

But of course, if you want the best single shot resolution, the full frame 645 backs is the way to go, say IQ260 or Credo 60 + Alpa tech cam with Rodenstock Digaron-W lenses. I would not recommend the 80 megapixel backs for other than the SLRs, I think there are too much cast/crosstalk/ripple issues with the tech wides, even the Rodenstocks.
Logged

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2014, 10:52:41 am »

Ah, then you're hitting up against a pretty expensive point.  40MP isn't going to do you much good, so you're at the 50/56/60MP range.  To use with a technical camera, either now or later, you're looking at a Phase One or Leaf setup, or a Hasselblad H4D-60 or H5 series.  One thing to consider is the ratio on the sensor - most MF chips are a 3x4 ratio, while your Nikon is a 2x3.  The Leaf Aptus II - 10 is also a 2x3 ratio, and may be worth looking into more, as it'll give you the widest image without going to the 80MP.

Sony (36MP) = 7,360 × 4,912
Aptus II 10 (56MP) = 9,334 x 6,000
Credo 80 / IQ260 = 10,320 x 7,752
Logged
t: @PNWMF

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2014, 12:33:36 pm »

I am using a Nikon D800E  with some lenses for my landscapes. This camera has changed my  workflow a lot,  I  use rarely more than iso 100, and I use most of the time a tripod (Gitzo).

Which MF Camera might  be the right tool for me? ( I am not biased)


Best Regards
Cerb-CH  



For wide angle up to normal focal length landscape work a tech camera like a Arca RM3Di is an ideal setup. Things you gain over even the best dslr bodies and lenses:

1- Lens quality. Not even close. Most of the current lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock offer superb edge to edge resolution, low distorsions and low aberrations plus large image circles for camera / back movements.

2- Camera movements. The Arca rM3di offers back shift/rise/fall and tilt with every lens you mount. Alpa and Cambo also offer bodies with those options.

3- Camera / lens size and weight reduction. Tech camera lenses are much smaller and lighter compared to most high end SLR lenses. Some tech camera bodies are also quite small, compact and simple.

4- Sensor quality. The current crop of 50/60/80mp backs combined with the high quality tech camera lenses provide amazing system resolution and overall image quality that its just well above what you can get with the best dslr setup in dawn till dusk landscape situations. This is more pronounced in wide angle work. For night photography the current 50mp sony sensor (as in the phase IQ250) is at least equal or superior to any dslr otherwise dslrs are generally best for night landscapes although the IQ260 and the p45+ offer superb hour long exposure capabilities also.

5- System configurability. You can order many different lens, body and back combinations to suit your needs/wants and budget. There are a LOT of options. That is why it is recommended to work with a dealer.

(I own an Arca Rm3di, phase IQ160 back and Rodenstock 40mm and 70mm HR-W lenses. Digital Transitions in NY helped me in getting everything)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 05:00:15 pm by Ken R »
Logged

weinlamm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 168
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2014, 12:39:48 pm »

What's your budget? Round about...?
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2014, 01:02:59 pm »

Sony (36MP) = 7,360 × 4,912
Aptus II 10 (56MP) = 9,334 x 6,000
Credo 80 / IQ260 = 10,320 x 7,752

This of course assumes all pixels are created equally. If you believe that I have a 41mp camera phone to sell you :).

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2014, 01:12:37 pm »

thanks for your response I am trying  to  answer it.

I think I will start with a SLR, maybe I will try a tech  or a view camera later.
Yes I think so.
It depends  how big the gain on quality is.
The 14-24mm, but I use it most of the time at 24mm.
Both, weight is not that important.
Switzerland


So if you are considering a tech camera later then that would imply you'd want a digital back, which excludes the Leica S2 and 645D/645Z.

If 24mm equivalent is ok then you don't have to worry about sensor size; you can get that wide with any of the medium format sensor sizes including the smallest modern size (33x44mm). You can use our focal length equivalency calculator. But 24mm equivalent is not a challenge.  If on the other hand you want the equivalent of 14mm then you'll probably want a full frame sensor like the IQ160/260 or IQ180/IQ280 or P65+ (or the hassy full frame systems), because only some exotic combinations (e.g. an Alpa FPS with Canon lenses and a digital back) could get wide enough to provide a 14mm equivalent if you go with a crop sensor.

The long exposure bit is mostly a question of whether you can live with most backs which are limited to around 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Or whether you need one of the very few backs which can do multi-minute exposures with ease. The P65+ for instance is limited to 1 minute (at base ISO, in normal ambient temperatures) while the P45+, IQ260 and IQ250 can do an hour long exposure.

If you can stand the learning curve and cost of entry (both in time and money) then I'd consider jump directly to a tech camera.

But I wouldn't do a thing until you spend some time with one or two relevant systems that seem to check off the right boxes. Nothing will replace hands on experience. You may find you fall in love with the wooden handles, old-fashion mechanics, design simplicity, tactile interface, and methodical workflow of a tech camera - or you may absolutely despite it and long for touch-to-autofocus, upload-to-facebook, and other gizmo-gadgetry. No one can tell you which one it will be - you have to find out for yourself.

Best guess, without knowing more about you is you'd be very happy with an IQ260, Arca Swiss RM3Di, and a small number of lenses (e.g. 32HR, 60XL, 120XL) and then possibly an SLR body with a long lens (e.g. 240mm or 300mm) and macro lens (120mm macro) - two areas where an SLR is much easier to use than a tech camera. But that's only a very rough guess with limited information and no idea what your budget is.

(Since you're new I'll direct you to mind my signature. I work for a Phase One dealer. I try to give good and fair advice, but I would never claim to be unbiased.)
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 01:16:21 pm by Doug Peterson »
Logged

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2014, 01:30:42 pm »

This of course assumes all pixels are created equally. If you believe that I have a 41mp camera phone to sell you :).

I fully agree, not all pixels are created equally.  Based off the users comment with regard to large prints, it makes sense to point out the resolution, especially when moving from a 2x3 to a 3x4 ratio.  Going to a 40MP CCD, while better pixels, a lot of those pixels are in the added dimension (height), rather than in a higher density of the width.

All told, the Gigapan may be the issue here - as in too much setup to do a quick 3 shot pano, but amazing for a 20 shot pano .  Knowing what your nodal point is on a lens/body combo and having a Novoflex VR-II that can be setup easily at any point would be much easier.
Logged
t: @PNWMF

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2014, 01:33:18 pm »

Well,

Sony seems to know how to make good pixels… Phase One, I don't know…

I have a P45+, it is still in the 10000$ (US) range and I don't know if it is any better than a 2000$ Sony Alpha 99 of 2012 or a 2000$ Sony Alpha 900 of 2008 which I also happen to own.

I have no doubt that the IQ-250 delivers, as I have seen evidence on it. On the other hand, I know that the 41 MP phone cam does deliver, as I have seen evidence for it. Stefan Steib, the man behind the Hartblei HCam is quite impressed by the 41 MP phone cam. You know, it has a Zeiss designed lens with all aspheric elements designed for it.

My take is really that I enjoy my P45+, but the Sony is better in all aspects except resolution. Ask for any parameter except resolution and the Sony is the winner. I shoot a lot with the P45+ on my Hasselblad 555ELD, because I enjoy it. But Sony wins in all aspects except resolution, and the simplicity of the Hasselblad.

A way to put it: The Hasselblad with the P45+ is fun to shoot, but does not make great pictures. The Sony Alpha is functional and makes great pictures, less fun but more functional.

For the best image quality I  would go with a technical camera with an IQ 280. If I wanted the best results, I would go with a technical camera and the IQ 250 and use live view focusing. Or I may go with the Pentax 645Z.

Would I need the best image quality at reasonable price, I would go Nikon D810 with good lenses.

But, right now I am shooting with a Hasselblad 555 ELD/P45+, and a Sony Alpha 99, being quite happy with both. But, the Alpha 99 is the more functional camera of the both. By the way, I also shoot a Sony Alpha 77, which I use for street and wildlife. The Alpha 77 has smaller pixels at APS-C frame size. I can shoot 400/5.6 on the Alpha 77, or 400/5.6 with 1.4X extender on the Alpha 99 at f/8. Results are to bee pretty similar.

Best regards
Erik

This of course assumes all pixels are created equally. If you believe that I have a 41mp camera phone to sell you :).
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 01:38:37 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

laughingbear

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2014, 01:58:29 pm »

Which MF Camera might  be the right tool for me? ( I am not biased)

I am biased.

Look no further: http://www.alpa.ch/de/home.html

« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 02:01:41 pm by laughingbear »
Logged

Doug Peterson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4210
    • http://www.doug-peterson.com
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2014, 03:30:38 pm »

Sony seems to know how to make good pixels… Phase One, I don't know…

I think the fact the P45+, with a sensor made in 2005, can even be considered in competition in pure image-quality with your Sony from 2012 says a lot. And it's letting you use a body and lenses you like using.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up