Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer  (Read 8101 times)

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2014, 09:11:39 pm »

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)

What he said. I  shoot the same body and lenses with an IQ180 and also have the Rodie 150, used to have the 23 but just sold it to move to the 28. I also stitch 80% of the time.

But I also have a d800e with a Zeiss 50 and 100  Incredibly sharp and I don't think the Rodenstock lens are any sharper (they are lighter however)and have some great images from the Nikon. I prefer the arca because I use shift and tilt most of the time, and I've gotten where I really enjoy the shooting style, but also like the Nikon. (I also have an a7r with Nikon adapter and it's great with the Nikon glass as well

Regarding stitching, I agree with Bernard, manual is the way to go.   The key for me shooting stitches ia pano rotation unit. Set my left point, set my degrees of rotation based on lens, count how many clicks to the right and I can shoot the actual pano very quickly because you don't ever have to look through the viewfinder.  On the Nikon I have it set to a two second delay which is plenty for the camera to stabilize, so a 9 shot stitch only takes about 25 to 30 seconds to shoot depending on shutter speed. Then move back to the first point and repeat. It's accurate enough I can shoot HDR or focus stacks only changing the aperture or focus for each series, helicon focus or PS has no problems getting them aligned.

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2014, 02:04:27 am »

Hi,

The P45+ has about twice the sensor size compared with my Sony Alphas.

The P45+ was realeased in 2007 and the Sony Alpha 900 I also shoot in in 2008. Used P45+ still sells around 10k$, which may be something like 40% of it's price new, not considering inflation. I think the P45+ was still on the price list 2013, wasn't it? For 10k$, you can get 5 A99s or say 2 A99s and 3-4 very good Zeiss lenses.

So I don't know if I agree. The IQ-250 sensor is made by Sony and it is quite clearly better in dark noise than the IQ-260 and the IQ-280, your own samples from the library shoot indicates this clearly. I have earlier compared some raw images coming from an IQ-180 with a Nikon D800E using Capture One and later a shot by Chris Barret using IQ-260 and Sony A7r, both cameras at 100 ISO, both one stop above base ISO. Chris exposed both to maintain highlights. The Sony could handle 2s exposure while the IQ-260 blew out highlights at 2s, so Chris used a 1s exposure, giving the Sony a one stop edge in the shadows. Also, the Sony didn't need LCC, which also helps shadow detail. So the comparison was biased a bit in Sony's favor, but that bias was coming from real life shooting. The IQ-260 image had better detail, of course, that is a true advantage of using a 60 (or 80) MP digital back with an excellent lens.

Here is the Chris Barret list: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84842.140

The IQ-280 / D800E images were courtesy of Tim Ashley, article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=3

No doubt the A7r had much better details in the darks. That is the reason I have some doubts about the Phase One pixels.

Obviously, the IQ-260 and the IQ-280 have more pixels, and quantity has a quality of it's own.

It is my understanding that Phase One has been involved with the design of the IQ-260, achieving long exposure capability. Also, it seems that the IQ-260 works well with lenses having large beam angles, the IQ-280 less so.

The way I see it.

You need:

- Maximum image size (for enlarging) -> go IQ-280 on a technical camera
- Ultra wides with movements -> go IQ-260 or IQ-250 with Canon T&S lenses
- Maximum DR and live view -> go IQ-250

I would say live view is essential for pin point focusing accuracy, not least with rental equipment which may have been subject to some rough handling. MF is often used stopped down a bit more than DSLRs which reduces the need for exact focusing, but medium apertures would still be advisable for maximum sharpness.

Best regards
Erik



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.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 07:55:01 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2014, 03:46:24 am »

Hi,

Nothing wrong with being biased, especially not if the bias is stated.

So, what back would you put on the camera? Would you use an IQ-250, which has live view or an IQ-260 more tolerant for lenses with large beam tilt? How would you focus, using laser distance meter? The distance meters I have checked (Leica Distos) have a range of 200 m, don't know if that is long enough for say a 200 mm lens.

Personally, I very much like live view for accurate focus and I would guess that the IQ-250 may be a game changer on technical cameras, but it may have problems with tilts and shifts

I presume that you would use Alpa lenses on the Alpa?

Best regards
Erik

I am biased.

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


« Last Edit: June 28, 2014, 07:47:14 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

gerald.d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 438
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2014, 09:40:08 am »

Focus with the IQ250, and then slap on the IQ280 for the shot :D

Hi,

Nothing wrong with being biased, especially not if the bias is stated.

So, what back would you put on the camera? Would you use an IQ-250, which has live view or an IQ-260 more tolerant for lenses with large beam tilt? How would you focus, using laser distance meter? The distance meters I have checked (Leica Distos) have a range of 200 m, don't know if that is long enough for say a 200 mm lens.

Personally, I very much like live view for accurate focus and I would guess that the IQ-250 may be a game changer on technical cameras, but it may have problems with tilts and shifts

I presume that you would use Alpa lenses on the Alpa?

Best regards
Erik

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2014, 10:20:32 am »

Hi,

Sounds like bright idea. I never thought of the IQ-250 as a focusing device! Of course you can use the IQ-250 vertically mounted and stitch three exposures, would give a 100 MP image (or so).

Best regards
Erik

Focus with the IQ250, and then slap on the IQ280 for the shot :D

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Cerb-CH

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2014, 09:38:13 pm »

Thanks for the helpful responses

I read  a little bit on the HP's of the different companies ( Mamiyaleaf,Hasselblad,Phaseone, Leica,Pentax)

I do prefer AF, which means, for now I will  stay with DSLR.
Are the  lenses of the tech cameras much better then the Phaseone oder Hasselblad lenses?
Does LS makes sense if you never work in the studio?

What would you do?



If I understand it right, on LL  most Users prefer Phaseone   to   Hasselblad and Mamiyaleaf, although there is a big price difference between them ( for example IQ260/160,H5D 60 and Credo 60 ).
What are the advantages of Phase One?




P.S. The main reason  for me to buy a MF camera ,  is the much better image quality  I expect from the MF System.



Logged

Joe Towner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1365
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2014, 10:28:52 pm »

LS lenses cost more than the non-LS lenses because of the shutter, but Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses are all LS lenses as their body doesn't have a focal plane shutter.  Some folks here can speak to specific nuances with the LS verses D models of lenses, and some lenses are only available one way (ala the new 40-80mm LS lens).

LL has a wide variate of users - and we are pretty good about disagreeing with each other.  ;D  Keep in mind that Phase One owns Leaf and has a stake in Mamiya.

Generally, when talking about MF, you are getting into a workflow situation.  Some people end up investing in Phase/Leaf gear to take advantage of Capture One as their workflow tool.  Some people purchase a Hasselblad H4X and HC/HCD lenses and a Phase One back because the like the feeling of the H body compared to the Phase One/Mamiya 645 DF+.  Same for Contax users, as Phase/Leaf backs can be used on their cameras.  I'm leaving Leica and Pentax out, but they too could be the tool you're looking for.

Look around and see where your dealers are at for these brands.  See who will work with you in testing out the cameras to see how they work for you.

Download the trial of Capture One and give it a try with your Nikon - it's really slick even for 35mm cameras if you ever work tethered. 
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7.aspx

Consider a photography trip that includes using this gear, such as offered by some of the folks here at LuLa and PODAS.  Our collective experience can help you troubleshoot an issue, but none of what the internet says beats having the cameras in your hands.

http://podas.info/
Logged
t: @PNWMF

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2014, 12:34:35 am »

Hi,

Leica S has the advantage of taking both Hasselblad H and Contax 645 glass with full AF, but it has a small old generation sensor.

Pentax 645D has similar sensor to Leica S, while the newer 645Z has a new sensor from Sony.

I would say that Hasselblad may be worth a look, it is a well designed system, it seems to me. But, it lacks live view and doesn't have 80MP, if you need 80 MP Phase One and Leaf are the options.

With Leaf backs you also have the Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod 2 as an option.

I would suggest waiting for what is coming at Photokina in a couple of months.

Best regards
Erik


LS lenses cost more than the non-LS lenses because of the shutter, but Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses are all LS lenses as their body doesn't have a focal plane shutter.  Some folks here can speak to specific nuances with the LS verses D models of lenses, and some lenses are only available one way (ala the new 40-80mm LS lens).

LL has a wide variate of users - and we are pretty good about disagreeing with each other.  ;D  Keep in mind that Phase One owns Leaf and has a stake in Mamiya.

Generally, when talking about MF, you are getting into a workflow situation.  Some people end up investing in Phase/Leaf gear to take advantage of Capture One as their workflow tool.  Some people purchase a Hasselblad H4X and HC/HCD lenses and a Phase One back because the like the feeling of the H body compared to the Phase One/Mamiya 645 DF+.  Same for Contax users, as Phase/Leaf backs can be used on their cameras.  I'm leaving Leica and Pentax out, but they too could be the tool you're looking for.

Look around and see where your dealers are at for these brands.  See who will work with you in testing out the cameras to see how they work for you.

Download the trial of Capture One and give it a try with your Nikon - it's really slick even for 35mm cameras if you ever work tethered. 
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7.aspx

Consider a photography trip that includes using this gear, such as offered by some of the folks here at LuLa and PODAS.  Our collective experience can help you troubleshoot an issue, but none of what the internet says beats having the cameras in your hands.

http://podas.info/
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

mjrichardson

  • Guest
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2014, 01:57:33 am »

Thanks for the helpful responses

I read  a little bit on the HP's of the different companies ( Mamiyaleaf,Hasselblad,Phaseone, Leica,Pentax)

I do prefer AF, which means, for now I will  stay with DSLR.
Are the  lenses of the tech cameras much better then the Phaseone oder Hasselblad lenses?
Does LS makes sense if you never work in the studio?

What would you do?



If I understand it right, on LL  most Users prefer Phaseone   to   Hasselblad and Mamiyaleaf, although there is a big price difference between them ( for example IQ260/160,H5D 60 and Credo 60 ).
What are the advantages of Phase One?




P.S. The main reason  for me to buy a MF camera ,  is the much better image quality  I expect from the MF System.





Hi

I know we all work in different ways and have different priorities but if you are looking for a great landscape system then I don't really understand the need for AF or laser range finders or all that stuff, or even live view if I'm honest. Using most lenses in their optimum apertures, especially when you're talking tech cameras and the like, everything is in focus! I loved my Alpa even with the older P25+ back I had, at optimum apertures, I could be happy that on a tripod I'd have everything from infinity to a couple of meters in front of me perfectly sharp, the screen on the back was perfectly adequate for framing and histogram view, I don't think I ever needed more than 3 shots to get composition and exposure right. The real benefits to the tech cam for me was being able to shift within the image circle, such a great way of working. Nowadays I work with a dslr and manual focus zeiss lenses for landscape, f11 on a Zeiss 21 f2.8 backed off from infinity a bit and everything from just in front of the tripod to the horizon is sharp, I just need to point it at what I want.

Like I said, we all work differently but I think it's possible to look for too many options when it's actually pretty simple, with the Alpa, I could practically set focus and aperture and wander about wherever I like just worrying about framing, not having to think about focus, like a high quality range finder set at hyperfocal distance, pretty easy really. If I wanted a dedicated landscape setup now and I wasn't printing larger than 24" x 36" it would probably be an alpa, Phase P25+ and some decent glass, spend the rest on going to nice places to point it at, Printing larger I'd go for the P65+ and most importantly learn how to use it and get the most from it.

Just my view though, different disciplines may benefit more from the modern backs but I just don't feel you will as a landscape shooter.

Mat
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2014, 05:59:28 am »

I wouldn't equate landscape shooting with ultra wides at infinity. I often shoot landscapes with long lenses and  not always at infinity.

I would also add that a funktional live view is most helpful also on tilts, specially if peaking is well implemented.

Best regards
Erik


Hi

I know we all work in different ways and have different priorities but if you are looking for a great landscape system then I don't really understand the need for AF or laser range finders or all that stuff, or even live view if I'm honest. Using most lenses in their optimum apertures, especially when you're talking tech cameras and the like, everything is in focus! I loved my Alpa even with the older P25+ back I had, at optimum apertures, I could be happy that on a tripod I'd have everything from infinity to a couple of meters in front of me perfectly sharp, the screen on the back was perfectly adequate for framing and histogram view, I don't think I ever needed more than 3 shots to get composition and exposure right. The real benefits to the tech cam for me was being able to shift within the image circle, such a great way of working. Nowadays I work with a dslr and manual focus zeiss lenses for landscape, f11 on a Zeiss 21 f2.8 backed off from infinity a bit and everything from just in front of the tripod to the horizon is sharp, I just need to point it at what I want.

Like I said, we all work differently but I think it's possible to look for too many options when it's actually pretty simple, with the Alpa, I could practically set focus and aperture and wander about wherever I like just worrying about framing, not having to think about focus, like a high quality range finder set at hyperfocal distance, pretty easy really. If I wanted a dedicated landscape setup now and I wasn't printing larger than 24" x 36" it would probably be an alpa, Phase P25+ and some decent glass, spend the rest on going to nice places to point it at, Printing larger I'd go for the P65+ and most importantly learn how to use it and get the most from it.

Just my view though, different disciplines may benefit more from the modern backs but I just don't feel you will as a landscape shooter.

Mat
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2014, 07:17:54 am »

I wouldn't equate landscape shooting with ultra wides at infinity. I often shoot landscapes with long lenses and  not always at infinity.

I would also add that a funktional live view is most helpful also on tilts, specially if peaking is well implemented.

Best regards
Erik



Yes, the IQ250 is a rangefinder that can also take pictures :)
One might make a small sensor back just as a rangefinder ...

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

mjrichardson

  • Guest
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2014, 07:21:06 am »

Fair point Erik, it doesn't need to be a wide, one of my favourite landscape lenses is 135mm but I stick by my basic point, it is possible to take beautiful landscape images without needing all the latest kit and AF lenses for landscape, to me are just unnecessary.

Tilt for product shots etc. in the studio, sure, I can see how live view would benefit but I'd rather be tethered anyway so less important, tilt in the field, that's just about knowing your equipment surely? You can set-up outside in the garden, set tripod at full height and work out very quickly how much tilt you need to get everything in focus from just a few practice shots, then lower your tripod and do the same etc. etc. Doing this, I personally know that when I arrive at a scene, based on my framing, I can set the tripod up, set focus and tilt knowing exactly how much I need to cover foreground to horizon, that's just basic understanding of your equipment. Looking at every scene afresh and working through setting up tilt seems pointless to me.

Of course it doesn't matter how I work you would be entirely within your rights to think my processes are daft, but my idea of a landscape is a beautiful view, in focus from front to back, that's just my interpretation though, regardless of whether you use tilt, shift, stop down or whatever. If I could go back 20 years knowing what I know now, I would not have bothered buying half the stuff I have, people who buy images want to be blown away by the content of the image, the scene, the emotion, the weather, whatever it is, as long as it resonates with them, nobody has ever commented to me that if i had taken the photograph using different/better equipment, they'd have bought it, lots have commented that if I'd pointed it at something nicer they'd have bought it but that's a different matter entirely!

I print a lot and have learned that where I am, a 24x36" print, matted and framed is just about as big as most people can fit in their houses, I can print from pretty much any camera available now and get a beautiful print at that size. People like seeing bigger prints and often comment how great they look but rarely do people have space. That said, if i was to buy a landscape kit now it would be a 40mm rodi on an Alpa STC with a P25+ back and that's it, because I could buy all that for less than the price of a IQ250 and still have money to drive across Europe and point it at lovely things, we all want different things though and I'm not daft enough to think my choices would matter to anyone other than me.

Mat

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2014, 02:44:01 pm »

Hi,

I didn't want to be impolite in any way…

I must admit that I was not thinking about tech cameras having exact click stop at infinity, nor that landscape pictures are often made at hyperfocal distance.

When the Alpa was discussed by Mark Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann here on LuLa much of the discussion was about the finely geared focusing and using a laser distance meter for accurate focus.

Personally, I am shooting many sorts of landscape and other pictures, and focus my cameras manually using live view at maximum magnification, whenever possible. I don't find it very easy to focus on ground glass.

The original poster wants maximum sharpness and is using medium to long lenses.

Best regards
Erik

Fair point Erik, it doesn't need to be a wide, one of my favourite landscape lenses is 135mm but I stick by my basic point, it is possible to take beautiful landscape images without needing all the latest kit and AF lenses for landscape, to me are just unnecessary.

Tilt for product shots etc. in the studio, sure, I can see how live view would benefit but I'd rather be tethered anyway so less important, tilt in the field, that's just about knowing your equipment surely? You can set-up outside in the garden, set tripod at full height and work out very quickly how much tilt you need to get everything in focus from just a few practice shots, then lower your tripod and do the same etc. etc. Doing this, I personally know that when I arrive at a scene, based on my framing, I can set the tripod up, set focus and tilt knowing exactly how much I need to cover foreground to horizon, that's just basic understanding of your equipment. Looking at every scene afresh and working through setting up tilt seems pointless to me.

Of course it doesn't matter how I work you would be entirely within your rights to think my processes are daft, but my idea of a landscape is a beautiful view, in focus from front to back, that's just my interpretation though, regardless of whether you use tilt, shift, stop down or whatever. If I could go back 20 years knowing what I know now, I would not have bothered buying half the stuff I have, people who buy images want to be blown away by the content of the image, the scene, the emotion, the weather, whatever it is, as long as it resonates with them, nobody has ever commented to me that if i had taken the photograph using different/better equipment, they'd have bought it, lots have commented that if I'd pointed it at something nicer they'd have bought it but that's a different matter entirely!

I print a lot and have learned that where I am, a 24x36" print, matted and framed is just about as big as most people can fit in their houses, I can print from pretty much any camera available now and get a beautiful print at that size. People like seeing bigger prints and often comment how great they look but rarely do people have space. That said, if i was to buy a landscape kit now it would be a 40mm rodi on an Alpa STC with a P25+ back and that's it, because I could buy all that for less than the price of a IQ250 and still have money to drive across Europe and point it at lovely things, we all want different things though and I'm not daft enough to think my choices would matter to anyone other than me.

Mat


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

mjrichardson

  • Guest
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2014, 03:41:54 pm »

Didn't think you were being impolite, it's just a discussion.

The OP stated he mainly used his 14-24 at 24 on his D800E and was looking to lift quality, hence suggesting a 40 on a tech cam with a db, it just doesn't need to be a fancy one to get great quality. I didn't realise you hadn't used a tech camera before, I thought you were talking from experience, I have no idea why finely geared focus and laser meters are mentioned, maybe people like using that stuff, but having shot many thousands of frames with an Alpa I can say that for landscapes it is a wonderful tool and I knew by feel how far to adjust the focus back from the stop to get everything in focus, it's just practice. Working with it on a couple of commercial projects, I only did a couple with it, I never needed more than 3 shots maximum to have everything dialled in, exposure, framing and focus, less than a minute. Out of curiosity I set up a long tape measure once then took a shot at a variety of focus lengths marked on the lens, all of them were exactly right, very impressive but I never needed any of that for landscapes. I guess you could measure out a subject and shoot wide open but a tech cam just feels like the wrong tool for the job, I'd just grab a DSLR.

Anyway, each to there own, maybe all the OP has to do is buy some Zeiss glass for his D800 unless he's printing really big in which case stitch as Bernard suggests, either that or buy a IQ250, Alpa and a whole set of Rodenstock lenses, why the hell not if that's what he wants, maybe get a laser rangefinder too!
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2014, 04:57:08 pm »

Hi,

I guess I mixed up some of the postings and threads, I thought the OP wanted to shoot longer lenses, sorry.

I am not shooting a technical camera, but I own and try to use a Hasselblad Flexbody in addition to my V series Hasselblad. I do find focusing a bit of a challenge. 

Very sorry for irrelevant posting, anyway.

Best regards
Erik

Didn't think you were being impolite, it's just a discussion.

The OP stated he mainly used his 14-24 at 24 on his D800E and was looking to lift quality, hence suggesting a 40 on a tech cam with a db, it just doesn't need to be a fancy one to get great quality. I didn't realise you hadn't used a tech camera before, I thought you were talking from experience, I have no idea why finely geared focus and laser meters are mentioned, maybe people like using that stuff, but having shot many thousands of frames with an Alpa I can say that for landscapes it is a wonderful tool and I knew by feel how far to adjust the focus back from the stop to get everything in focus, it's just practice. Working with it on a couple of commercial projects, I only did a couple with it, I never needed more than 3 shots maximum to have everything dialled in, exposure, framing and focus, less than a minute. Out of curiosity I set up a long tape measure once then took a shot at a variety of focus lengths marked on the lens, all of them were exactly right, very impressive but I never needed any of that for landscapes. I guess you could measure out a subject and shoot wide open but a tech cam just feels like the wrong tool for the job, I'd just grab a DSLR.

Anyway, each to there own, maybe all the OP has to do is buy some Zeiss glass for his D800 unless he's printing really big in which case stitch as Bernard suggests, either that or buy a IQ250, Alpa and a whole set of Rodenstock lenses, why the hell not if that's what he wants, maybe get a laser rangefinder too!
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Cerb-CH

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Which MF Camera makes sense for a Landscape photographer
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2014, 05:49:24 pm »

I also use longer lenses ( longer than 24mm).


Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up