Best FF Landscape camera?

[Wayne Fox]

Eh?  Nikon D90, 18-200mm consumer-grade Nikkor lens, 1/1000 at f/5.6.

that’s not a landscape, it’s a wildlife shot.  Different beast, hard to shoot wildlife (especially birds) with a standard tripod.  Certainly one camera can provide functionally for both, but the technique including use of tripod is not necessarily the same. I don’t shoot wildlife and if I were shooting that shot I’d be ignoring the bird and shooting at a slow enough shutter speed to get some flow to that water.

Use of a tripod is all about what your end goal is and your circumstance.  Printing 8x10’s and 11x14’s or putting some shots on a website or facebook or even projecting them on a large screen where the audience is seating a normal distance away and it won’t make any difference  If you're trying to print large prints (40”-80” or larger), those handheld shots taken in soft evening light at 1/10th of a second or slower probably won’t hold up as well.

Certainly there are a few landscape conditions where you can use a faster shutter speed, but with landscape an important concern is the best light is usually morning or evening which provides the soft sculpting light without harsh contrast that most of us are looking for.

[MattBurt]

I've pre-ordered a K-1ii so I guess I'll know in April just how good it is. I didn't order it because I'm excited about the new features, but just that I needed a FF body and I'm already invested in K mount lenses. They ran a deal with a free battery grip which are stupidly expensive for what they are but I like them for events.

Improved AF and better noise handling at high ISO should come in handy for sports and starscapes but I'm not expecting any miracles.

[BAB]

Tripods are 1. for low light situations 2. a means of slowing down and thinking about composition.

And there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow! Image Stacking, Level Horizon, Long Exposure, Group Photo, Studio Work (head shots & tabletop), long lenses, and many other shooting solutions that the image requires close to absolute perfection.

[BJL]

Eh?  Nikon D90, 18-200mm consumer-grade Nikkor lens, 1/1000 at f/5.6.

Nice — and of course once the heron (or even far slower moving elements in the scene) pushes up the shutter speed needed, a tripod adds little.

[BJL]

If you're trying to print large prints (40”-80” or larger), those handheld shots taken in soft evening light at 1/10th of a second or slower probably won’t hold up as well.

If that 1/10th is with a good modern 5 stop [32x] IS system, it is about as good for camera motion blur as 1/320 in the bad old days; at the mostly "wide to a bit beyond normal" landscape focal lengths, that should still work quite well.

BTW, I agree that "projecting them on a large screen where the audience is seating a normal distance away ... won’t make any difference" — but then nor will printing large when people are doing the normal thing of viewing from a distance comparable to or greater than the image's short dimension (that is my observation of how almost all people view large prints, except when print-sniffers are checking out the technical quality rather than viewing the image.)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Wayne,

Good points. By all means, I am no classic landscape shooter who always looks for that warm morning or evening light.

But, I still find that a tripod is needed for good composition.

The other observation is that "standard viewing distance" is quiet forgiving. That used to be corresponding to the diagonal of the image. So, standard viewing distance would correspond to 13" for an 8"x12" print, that would probably correspond to 6MP. Going to say 16"x23" would not change anything, as the viewing distance would increase in proportion.

But, close viewing can also be a part of a good viewing experience and for close viewing we need sharp image.

I just went trough some very nice pictures I shot on Iceland. They look great on screen, but looking at actual pixels they are not sharp. Viewing images on screen doesn't say much about image quality, unless we go to actual pixels. But, actual pixels can be a bit too analytic.

The short thing is, a web size image doesn't say anything about image quality. I am pretty sure that I could make the same image with my 150$ cell phone and my 3000$ Sony A7rII (say 3800$ with lens) and make web size images that would be hard to tell apart, 16" x 23" which I normally print, is probably a different thing.

Best regards
Erik

Use of a tripod is all about what your end goal is and your circumstance.  Printing 8x10’s and 11x14’s or putting some shots on a website or facebook or even projecting them on a large screen where the audience is seating a normal distance away and it won’t make any difference  If you're trying to print large prints (40”-80” or larger), those handheld shots taken in soft evening light at 1/10th of a second or slower probably won’t hold up as well.

[Chris Kern]

If you're trying to print large prints (40”-80” or larger), those handheld shots taken in soft evening light at 1/10th of a second or slower probably won’t hold up as well.

Are you printing that large from a single full-frame capture, or are you stitching or using a larger format camera?  I've never tried to print larger than 21 inches on the long edge from a single frame of my 36 Mpx D800E, but my impression is that 40 inches and certainly 80 would be a stretch (pun intended).

[hogloff]

Are you printing that large from a single full-frame capture, or are you stitching or using a larger format camera?  I've never tried to print larger than 21 inches on the long edge from a single frame of my 36 Mpx D800E, but my impression is that 40 inches and certainly 80 would be a stretch (pun intended).

I regularly print up to 48" from my A7R2 and have prints 72", but on canvas. My landscape work is always off a tripod with a remote release in order to obtain the best sharpness possible. Many times the aperture is f8 or smaller and shutter speeds more than 1 second.

[NancyP]

Somewhat OT: Hey, fellow tripoholics - check out the "tripod measurement" thread on this subforum for an interesting new website.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have glossy prints that are 39" on the long side from 24x36 at 24 MP and they are pretty good. I have also 47" prints from 24x36, but they are on canvas that is not that demanding. I also have a couple of prints at 3'x10' and 3' by 13' on glossy from 24x36, but those are panoramas. All those prints are pretty good. What I mean is that you can look close and they are good.

I have also been shooting with an MFD back, a P45+ on Hasselblad V. But, I have not printed above 32" wide on glossy from that format as i did have few compelling photographs. I have some decent size prints on canvas, though.

My take is a bit that:

• We can make excellent prints from 24x36 mm, presuming good lenses and proper technique.
• I am pretty sure that 24x36 mm can deliver excellent quality at 24-42 MP, because I have been there and done that.
• I don't think that say 39 MP on MFD offers an advantage over 42 MP on  24x36 mm, because I have been there and done that.
• I would think that excellent lenses combined with excellent work on 44x33mm may yield an advantage over 24x36. I have no experience of my own and I have not seen any images to prove it, but it is quite credible.
• I am pretty sure that 100 MP would yield better images than 50 MP, pretty much regardless of format, presuming optimal workflow. But, I have not really seen any great image printed at adequate size from 100 MP medium format.
• I was at a Stockholm Photo Exhibition a week ago and I have not seen any image at any exhibition boot that was great. Subject matter, photographer and processing matters more than gear. But, there were few really well made really large prints and there was not really good light. There were some really good photographs, but those were not at vendor's booths and possibly not taken with the greatest gear.
• I had the opportunity to check out the Fuji GFX. The sample pictures were not better than the sample pictures from the APS-C cameras. Anyway, I really liked the GFX, but playing around with a camera for a few minutes doesn't tell much about it. Checking out DPReviews test and standard shots tells me about 1000 times more than dabbling around with the cameras and seeing some mediocre prints.
• I hoped to check out the Hasselblad X1D, but they had no boot at the main photo exhibition in the capital of Sweden, how odd! A few weeks ago I hoped to dabble around with the X1D at the Photography Museum in Stockholm where they are supposed to have a store, but they had just a couple of non working samples on exhibit with a couple of DJI drones. Just to explain, Hasselblad X1D is handmade in Sweden and Stockholm is the capital of Sweden. If you cannot get a demo of Hasselblad in Stockholm, you may ask, why?!

So, to sum up. I would think that MFD may make for a very nice landscape camera. But, I may think that 24x36 mm is perfectly capable of the job. It is very nice to have Fuji GFX giving us an affordable option and that also goes for the Hassy X1D. But Hassy not showing at two obvious places indicates that Hassy is still in the cost cutting mode and that makes me wonder.

I wouldn't argue with anyone saying that say IQ3 100MP may make sense for really large prints. Unfortunately, I have not seen great prints of great images to prove it.

An obvious question is how forthcoming 100 MP on 44x33 mm on Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D will match existing 100 MP from Hasselblad and Phase One. Obviously, both Phase One and Hasselbald will move on to 150 MP, the sensors are announced and the cameras will follow.

No doubt, there will be photographers who make best use of the large format (54x40 mm) 150 MP sensor on technical cameras using Rodenstock HR lenses and making optimal use of Scheimpflug at medium apertures and those photographers will benefit from the very finest sensors.

I am not sure about MFD SLR like the Phase One XF and the Hasselblad 6D making that much sense. I would almost wage a bet that a camera system designed around the 100 MP 44x33mm sensor is a better choice.

Best regards
Erik

Are you printing that large from a single full-frame capture, or are you stitching or using a larger format camera?  I've never tried to print larger than 21 inches on the long edge from a single frame of my 36 Mpx D800E, but my impression is that 40 inches and certainly 80 would be a stretch (pun intended).

[Maverick02]

Are you printing that large from a single full-frame capture, or are you stitching or using a larger format camera?  I've never tried to print larger than 21 inches on the long edge from a single frame of my 36 Mpx D800E, but my impression is that 40 inches and certainly 80 would be a stretch (pun intended).

I still use my 1DS Mark III, my work is on aluminum (all landscape), start at 24 x 36 and up, sell a lot of 30 x 45, but go much larger, just sold one 40 x 60, so you should be able to get much larger prints than 21" Chris with your D800E.

[Chris Kern]

I'd have to use a lab to print anything that would exceed the capacity of my desktop printer, and my wife already complains that my 17x22-inch and smaller prints are intruding into wall space she needs for her art collection, but I'm tempted to try something larger just to see how much upsampling I could get away with on those D800E files and still be satisfied with the level of detail.

[Geods]

Everyone has their own biases and opinions. Having come from a large format background (up to 8x10), I have found that single shot images from 36MP cameras in 30-inch sizes (on the short end) are unacceptable (call me spoiled because I am). I don’t believe in “viewing distances.” Sure, an image might look wonderful from across a room or from several feet away, but up close they fall apart, and there usually aren’t baracades setup to prevent close analysis. Even at museums, a significant number of patrons look intently at the brush strokes of paintings.

I believe in being anal-retentive about ones work and attempting the best quality within reason. Sensor shift is amazing, but eventually Foveon-like technology will work its way into mainstream equipment. That said, it will be unlikely to top image stitching that is available today. That means a tripod and gimballed mount for most work. TS lenses are no longer a requirement for focus control or perspective correction as they can be done on gimbal and in software with improved resolution over a single shot image. Further more, stitching allows great quality from APS-C, Micro-4/3, and smaller formats.

I think any professional FF camera is capable of making great images. My feeling is that the K1 Mk II is too limited with respect to lenses. Sony has great potential but needs another generation or two to fill out the system and allow complete in body sensor shift (without software). Nikon and Canon have been too conservative and are significantly behind. We shall see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat and blow us away with their mirrorless prowess. My recommendation would be to wait until the fall and see if any new professional quality mirrorless system come into existences, then make a move. If you must make a move, I’d recommend any of the 40+MP FF cameras with top quality prime lenses...

[Maverick02]

I'd have to use a lab to print anything that would exceed the capacity of my desktop printer, and my wife already complains that my 17x22-inch and smaller prints are intruding into wall space she needs for her art collection, but I'm tempted to try something larger just to see how much upsampling I could get away with on those D800E files and still be satisfied with the level of detail.

My wife doesn't complain, the 30 x 45's brings in $2000, and the 40 x 60's $3000. 

[BJL]

Re: hand-holding. I do hand-held 1:2 to 1:1 macro (chasing feeding insects in brighter light, no flash used) using burst mode. Very often one of the photos in the 1 to 2 second burst (~10 images) will be spot on at 100%. ...

Thanks Nancy! I attempt lots of hand-held macro shots, because often either the subject or my companions are not going to wait around for tripod fiddling, but out of rigid old habits, I had not thought of using burst shooting in that situation.

[fredjeang2]

The D800/E is still a very competent package in today's standarts and
It's possible to get a new one for about 1000 euros which at this price point has
No rival. No fancy gimmicks camera but a tool despite its age.
And with the money saved to put it into good lenses instead.
Pentax does great small robust bodies but their market is reduced
And you don't have as much offers availables (new and used) as with
Nikon or Canon. The fact that there is a dynamic used market ww is an advantage
And not being stucked into an exotic brand in the long term but using
An industry standart that has proven to be the choice of most professional photographers ww in what FF is concerned. With Nikon or Canon you are "safer", so to say.
Above a tool such as the D800, if I had a ridiculous amount of cash to spend, I'd go for sure for a
Leica S ecosystem.

[Chris Kern]

The D800/E is still a very competent package in today's standarts and
It's possible to get a new one for about 1000 euros which at this price point has
No rival. No fancy gimmicks camera but a tool despite its age.

It's interesting to reflect on the intense debate over the risks of "neutralizing" the anti-aliasing filter that was prompted by the introduction of the D800E six years ago.  In all the years I've been shooting with one, I've only experienced a few instances of noticeable moire—and, if memory serves, I've always been able to deal with them adequately in post.

[Wayne Fox]

but then nor will printing large when people are doing the normal thing of viewing from a distance comparable to or greater than the image's short dimension (that is my observation of how almost all people view large prints, except when print-sniffers are checking out the technical quality rather than viewing the image.)

Thats' certainly one way to look at it.  But viewing distance of large prints depends on the circumstance, and if you notice large prints and how they are displayed many are in situations where the normal activity of the viewers will place them at a distance closer than what is called normal viewing distance.  I own a gallery in Park City, full of 50-90" prints, all taken with MFDB, many stitched with MFDB.  People enjoy viewing them from much closer than one might think.  Sure many just glance and move to the next, but every day I notice people walking up and looking at things closer, sometimes even pointing out some small detail to others they are with. If the technique doesn't capture and preserve the micro detail so it's available then true, no one will really walk up close and examine the piece, since as they get closer they realize it doesn't offer anything. 

Personally I think it's a little more complicated than we might think.  Maybe a little like the need to preserve tonal detail in high fidelity music.  there is an X factor that isn't obviously noticeable when missing, and maybe not even something casual viewers can identify with.  Lots of conversations with customers about why my work is different than some of the others they have seen elsewhere.

To me the challenge is you never know when capturing just exactly how good the image will be.  Sure you may get excited and anticipate how good it might be, but you really just don't know, and even using a tripod I have images I captured and upon first examination felt were keepers and gallery worthy, only to examine then close and realize they just won't hold up.

To Erik's point, I've never thought about how a tripod aids composition, but I guess that's because I so rarely shoot without a tripod it's just part of the process.  But I would agree, I think it really does allow a person to tweak and refine the composition in camera.

[BJL]

I own a gallery in Park City, full of 50-90" prints, all taken with MFDB, many stitched with MFDB.  People enjoy viewing them from much closer than one might think.  Sure many just glance and move to the next, but every day I notice people walking up and looking at things closer, sometimes even pointing out some small detail to others they are with. If the technique doesn't capture and preserve the micro detail so it's available then true, no one will really walk up close and examine the piece, since as they get closer they realize it doesn't offer anything. 

It might be that with the "hyper-resolution" (well beyond the 12MP or so that is enough for "normal viewing") of modern digital equipment, new styles of viewing have developed. There is surely the one that I succumb too, of zooming and panning around images on my screen, and getting taken by details like the gnarly skin around this alligator's eye (slow moving enough to be part of the landscape?!). Fine for casual onscreen viewing I think, but even more resolution and an even more stable camera might have improved it (Olympus OM-D EM5, 250mm, f/6.7, 1/350s, EI=200, hand-held and cropped 2.5x, so "1250mm equivalent FOV"):

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Wayne,

The way I think it works is that it is natural to see an image at some distance. There are different recipes for viewing distance, but we probably want to see the image as it was composed. But, we may see some interesting detail.

The image below was shot on Iceland, 2006, with my first 6MP DSLR. It is about C-size, a bit below A2. It is sort of OK.



You can see a couple of persons, including a photographer with a hat and a photographer shooting with a 4"x5" camera. It could be that you wanted to see who that photographer is. You can't. This year I revisited the place, together with my friend Pierre, the guy with the hat. And did a little reenactment. That image has not found it's wallspace, at least not yet. In that image there is a lot of detail. It will hold for a close scrutiny.



The tripod is very helpful. When I get to place I often look for a point of view, find a spot, set up the tripod. It sort of slows me down. With the tripod I can also concentrate on the subject and on composition. The first thing is composition, than checking the horizon, last checking edges for things hanging in or out of the image.

And not least, if I have my camera on my tripod I will not make this stupid mistake :-)


Best regards
Erik

Thats' certainly one way to look at it.  But viewing distance of large prints depends on the circumstance, and if you notice large prints and how they are displayed many are in situations where the normal activity of the viewers will place them at a distance closer than what is called normal viewing distance.  I own a gallery in Park City, full of 50-90" prints, all taken with MFDB, many stitched with MFDB.  People enjoy viewing them from much closer than one might think.  Sure many just glance and move to the next, but every day I notice people walking up and looking at things closer, sometimes even pointing out some small detail to others they are with. If the technique doesn't capture and preserve the micro detail so it's available then true, no one will really walk up close and examine the piece, since as they get closer they realize it doesn't offer anything. 

Personally I think it's a little more complicated than we might think.  Maybe a little like the need to preserve tonal detail in high fidelity music.  there is an X factor that isn't obviously noticeable when missing, and maybe not even something casual viewers can identify with.  Lots of conversations with customers about why my work is different than some of the others they have seen elsewhere.

To me the challenge is you never know when capturing just exactly how good the image will be.  Sure you may get excited and anticipate how good it might be, but you really just don't know, and even using a tripod I have images I captured and upon first examination felt were keepers and gallery worthy, only to examine then close and realize they just won't hold up.

To Erik's point, I've never thought about how a tripod aids composition, but I guess that's because I so rarely shoot without a tripod it's just part of the process.  But I would agree, I think it really does allow a person to tweak and refine the composition in camera.