Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Ancient Tiger on February 22, 2018, 04:44:59 am
-
The new Pentax K1 II has been announced and it seems like the perfect landscape camera.
Handheld dynamic pixel shift must make this a camera to consider.
Too bad about the slightly less lens selection the Pentax mount gives you.
Kudos to Pentax though for the improvements.
-
Most serious landscape work being done on tripod at low ISO I am not sure what the mkII adds compared to the MkI that makes it more of a landscape camera?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess the pixel shift facility has now apparently improved. I'd like to see tests first obviously. Even for tripod work, pixel shift suffered badly from any mild movement in the subject matter making it less than useful except for studio work. If they have been able to control that aspect somewhat and can compensate well for mild subject movement (like leaves moving in the breeze) that would seriously improve it as a landscape camera. Time will tell.
-
The new Pentax K1 II has been announced and it seems like the perfect landscape camera.
Handheld dynamic pixel shift must make this a camera to consider.
Too bad about the slightly less lens selection the Pentax mount gives you.
When considering a camera, I look at them as a system, not just a camera body. Lenses are the first thing I evaluate. For heavy landscape use I would not buy a system that did not offer me at least two tilt/shift lenses.
Kent in SD
-
My pick was a Nikon D850 with three Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. 21mm, 28mm, 85mm
It was an upgrade from my Phase One XF/IQ180 in every regard except resolution.
Pretty amazing camera.
Some might argue Sony but I am not a Sony fan. Had an RX1 didn't like it
-
'Handheld' and 'landscape' barely belong in the same sentence. If I'm looking for a pure landscape camera, I don't care how it performs handheld - I would assume I'd be using it on a tripod.
At the moment, I'd say A7r3, just beating the D850 by a nose.
The main reason is pixel shift. You can shoot a set of pixel shift frames and benefit from it anywhere there isn't movement, masking out any movement artifact with a single frame from the set. The D850 can't do this.
Yes, the Nikon gets ISO 64, but, with typical, nonmoving landscape subjects, you can duplicate this by shooting two frames at ISO 100 and just averaging them, for an effective ISO of 50.
Lens-wise, it's probably also a slight nod to Sony for landscape purposes - you can put any lens on the A7r3 and use it for landscapes (no AF required), while the 100-400 is just exceptional as a landscape lens, covering almost all telephoto landscapes and being prime-sharp corner-to-corner, especially stopped down. (The 70-200 does a similar job for Nikon, but tops out at 200mm).
-
'Handheld' and 'landscape' barely belong in the same sentence. ...
I would have agreed with this statement in the old film days when I was using my Rollei SL66, but with today's digital full frame cameras, while I still almost always have a small but adequate Gitzo with me, the vast majority of my landscape shots are hand held. Even those with soft flowing water as well as tack sharp shorelines are hand held, multi-frame composites. See, for example, the recent Iceland waterfall shots on my web page, near the end of the currently small B&W set. True, a tripod would have saved Photoshop time, but for me, time in the field is much more restricted than time in front of the computer (unfortunately).
To a certain extent, I see photography as a game of percentages. Good photographers get a higher percentage of excellent shots. However, at least with me, what I consider an excellent shot is still a small minority of all that I take. As such, I find that if I keep moving quickly to new locations, sometimes noting that I need to return to a location at a certain time to get better lighting, I will end up with a higher total number of good shots. This approach is resulting in a higher net success rate than the slower approach mandated by the old Rollei SL66 on a tripod.
As in life itself, time is the ultimate scarce resource. I find that being fast with my gear and shooting hand held optimizes this limited resource.
FWIW,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
I agree with Paul. A tripod is usually going to help IQ, but sometimes you just can't use one. That doesn't necessarily rule out landscape shooting.
Both these images resulted from hand held photography. D800, 24-85 lens. Recently shown on a fifty foot wide movie screen with a Christie digital projector.
Both the audience and I loved 'em.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4655/40442257281_fe7eebe749_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4652/39731845984_df07fcdcef_c.jpg)
-
Most people are shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 for landscape. There are a heck of a lot of lenses that are pretty darn good at f/5.6 to f/8, including my lowly Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens. I find it hard to believe that Pentax doesn't have suitable high quality lenses for landscape use. What it doesn't have is OEM tilt-shift lens for K mount. You can get the Rokinon 24 mm, which I understand is "ok, not great", or you can mount a medium format lens with a K mount adapter (there are tilt shift and plain shift MF lens (several brands) to K mount camera adapters out there). Pentax K mount flange focal distance is longish (45.46 mm) for SLRs, so adapters without optical elements are impossible for Canon (44 mm) and Nikon (46.5 mm).
-
I think handheld pixel shift is a significant development. I have a 645Z and a K-1 and when using PS the K-1 rivals the output of the 645Z and is a noticeable improvement over a single exposure. Sometimes use of a tripod is just not possible for a variety of reasons and I certainly don't want pass up on shot because of that. A recent example taken from a car with the 645Z and 80-160mm, while stopped in the middle of the road. Pulling over and setting a tripod was not possible. The overall scene and a crop at 1200%. Of course it would have been better to use a tripod, but not much.
Tom
-
Thanks guys. I was a little disappointment with the initial responses saying that any serious work is always with a tripod. I find that is the ideal scenario but many times you can't get the tripod out, set it up and then take the photo because the opportunity is lost as the lighting may have changed or something else has changed.
Tamron supplies Pentax with lenses and there are a few good lenses in their arsenal. It would have been good if Sigma made all their Art lenses compatible and obviously if Zeiss did too.
-
Hi,
Nice to hear you like the Nikon!
Sony A7rIII crossed my mind as a recommendation. It has two advantages:
- EVF - it has magnified live view in the viewfinder - which I feel is essential for accurate focus.
- Great flexibility with third party glass - I often use it with a pair of Yashica era Zeiss zooms with a TS adapter.
If you need those features, Sony is at advantage. Other than that the Nikon is a good choice.
Best regards
Erik
My pick was a Nikon D850 with three Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. 21mm, 28mm, 85mm
It was an upgrade from my Phase One XF/IQ180 in every regard except resolution.
Pretty amazing camera.
Some might argue Sony but I am not a Sony fan. Had an RX1 didn't like it
-
Thanks guys. I was a little disappointment with the initial responses saying that any serious work is always with a tripod. I find that is the ideal scenario but many times you can't get the tripod out, set it up and then take the photo because the opportunity is lost as the lighting may have changed or something else has changed.
Tamron supplies Pentax with lenses and there are a few good lenses in their arsenal. It would have been good if Sigma made all their Art lenses compatible and obviously if Zeiss did too.
When I'm serious about my photography, I carry my camera attached to my tripod. Personally I've never shot an outstanding landscape handheld...some nice photos, but nothing like I get shooting from a tripod.
-
The K1 is certainly a fine camera, but it is let down for the lack of lenses, as a system.
IMO, in terms of portability and small size, it is hard to beat the Sony Alpha 7 these days. Quality sensor matched to quality native lenses, from several sources: Sony, Sony-Zeiss, Zeiss, Voigtlander. And of course you can adapt to your hearts content.
I also use a tripod most to the times, but certainly with IS, OIS, IBIS, and whatnot, together with higher quality higher ISOs, it is possible to shoot landscapes say during the golden hours. If you are at 1 sec and 100 ISO, for example, it is feasible to go to 1/4 sec at 400 ISO, with a 20mm or 24mm lens.
-
Personally I've never shot an outstanding landscape handheld
Eh? Nikon D90, 18-200mm consumer-grade Nikkor lens, 1/1000 at f/5.6.
-
The K1 is certainly a fine camera, but it is let down for the lack of lenses, as a system.
IMO, in terms of portability and small size, it is hard to beat the Sony Alpha 7 these days. Quality sensor matched to quality native lenses, from several sources: Sony, Sony-Zeiss, Zeiss, Voigtlander. And of course you can adapt to your hearts content.
I also use a tripod most to the times, but certainly with IS, OIS, IBIS, and whatnot, together with higher quality higher ISOs, it is possible to shoot landscapes say during the golden hours. If you are at 1 sec and 100 ISO, for example, it is feasible to go to 1/4 sec at 400 ISO, with a 20mm or 24mm lens.
With the high resolution sensors out there I find it extremely hard to get tack sharp images at shutter speeds longer than 1/100 second. Try a test of handholding an image and using same setup on a tripod and compare the two images. You’ll be surprised at how blurry the handheld image is in comparison.
-
Eh? Nikon D90, 18-200mm consumer-grade Nikkor lens, 1/1000 at f/5.6.
Ummm, ok. Personally I would not hang that on my walls, but tastes differ, I understand.
I still stand by using a tripod for say 95% of my landscape images as it allows me to find tune an exact composition and then I can wait for the right light while composition does not change. I carry a light compact camera on my pack for quick grabs, but they are for memory shots, not something I would print large.
-
With the high resolution sensors out there I find it extremely hard to get tack sharp images at shutter speeds longer than 1/100 second. Try a test of handholding an image and using same setup on a tripod and compare the two images. You’ll be surprised at how blurry the handheld image is in comparison.
I fully agree with tripod use. But of course the result depends on the ability to hand hold. Today I can quickly grab the camera when the light shows up momentarily, and get the shot quickly. Higher ISO and IBIS on my Sony A7II can save the day:) Granted, I am only at 24mp.
-
I would have agreed with this statement in the old film days when I was using my Rollei SL66, but with today's digital full frame cameras, while I still almost always have a small but adequate Gitzo with me, the vast majority of my landscape shots are hand held. Even those with soft flowing water as well as tack sharp shorelines are hand held, multi-frame composites. See, for example, the recent Iceland waterfall shots on my web page, near the end of the currently small B&W set. True, a tripod would have saved Photoshop time, but for me, time in the field is much more restricted than time in front of the computer (unfortunately).
To a certain extent, I see photography as a game of percentages. Good photographers get a higher percentage of excellent shots. However, at least with me, what I consider an excellent shot is still a small minority of all that I take. As such, I find that if I keep moving quickly to new locations, sometimes noting that I need to return to a location at a certain time to get better lighting, I will end up with a higher total number of good shots. This approach is resulting in a higher net success rate than the slower approach mandated by the old Rollei SL66 on a tripod.
As in life itself, time is the ultimate scarce resource. I find that being fast with my gear and shooting hand held optimizes this limited resource.
FWIW,
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
I think I agree too, Paul. Obviously there are times when a tripod is absolutely necessary. However, what I find myself doing when hand holding a shot is similar to what a hunter will do when shooting a rifle, take a deep breath and hold it. Also, since digital is 'free', I am not adverse to taking multiple shots to give myself a better chance of getting the most 'still' shot. Of course, how you hold the camera and brace yourself is important too.
Patrick
-
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%. Burst mode shooting also works for tripod-mounted macro with breeze-stirred flowers, and for hand-held landscapes at 1/60 to 1/30 second. Tripods are 1. for low light situations 2. a means of slowing down and thinking about composition.
BTW, Chris Kern, I like your waterfall landscape with bird. The bird (GBH) makes the photo.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Somewhat OT: Hey, fellow tripoholics - check out the "tripod measurement" thread on this subforum for an interesting new website.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"):
-
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.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Iceland-2006/i-5HxdXPB/0/85b2b330/X3/PICT9663-Edit-2-X3.jpg)
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.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Technical/Failures/i-c2GCvsV/0/2556a9a7/X3/20170813-_DSC9994-X3.jpg)
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 :-)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Technical/Failures/i-5rMm3WS/0/d0c8675e/X3/20170813-_DSC9963-X3.jpg)
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.
-
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 still shoot 4x5, and sometimes 5x7 (b&w only). I've been shooting three shot stitches with the Nikon D800E & 24mm t/s and am quite happy with the result.
Somewhat OT: Hey, fellow tripoholics - check out the "tripod measurement" thread on this subforum for an interesting new website.
I am a tripodholic, but I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Kent in SD
-
Monopolic? or is that someone who incessantly plays Monopoly?
-
Monopolic? or is that someone who incessantly plays Monopoly?
On the matter of monopods, I would prefer the duopod trick, where's a light tripod is used with only two legs extended, usually the two side-supporting ones.
It offers excellent stability in one axis, letting you control the image in free-style on the other axis. This is far easier to pick up and move if you feel you want to alter the framing just a little. It works reasonably well with my Nikon bodies and the 8/500 Reflex, which I find completely impossible to frame with on one leg alone.
Tilting manually (unsupported by a leg) on the up/downwards axis feels a lot more natural than trying to do it on the sideways axis.
Rob
-
Without starting a new thread, I recently upgraded to the D850. I'm currently using the Tamron 15-30 for most of my landscape work and am reasonably happy with it, but is there a better lens I should consider? I've heard maybe the Zeiss 21mm is a killer, and I've also heard about the 19mm tilt shift, but at $3.5k it's outside my budget.
-
Hi,
I had a quick look at: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/989-tamron153028vcff?start=2
It seem the Tamron is a killer lens, too. As almost all zooms, it suffers from distortion, but that is correctable.
So, the Tamron should be a good lens, if you have a good sample. You could try Jim Kasson's screening tests: https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/
Best regards
Erik
Without starting a new thread, I recently upgraded to the D850. I'm currently using the Tamron 15-30 for most of my landscape work and am reasonably happy with it, but is there a better lens I should consider? I've heard maybe the Zeiss 21mm is a killer, and I've also heard about the 19mm tilt shift, but at $3.5k it's outside my budget.
-
Another consideration, especially for landscape farther from the car (where size and weight is more of a consideration) is Fuji. My X-T2 accompanied me for 450 miles on the Pacific Crest Trail last summer. The system is small and light - lenses as well as bodies are smaller than the FF equivalents, with excellent lenses. I'm getting really superb prints up to 24x36". with excellent sharpness and dynamic range.
Is it a D850 if you can carry both to the image with equal ease? Almost certainly not... But it's about half the weight with equivalent lenses, and it has the durability to survive anything you can throw at it. The D850 is also very durable, but most lighter DSLRs and the Sonys aren't. Substitute an A7rIII for the D850, and you lose durability, but not much weight - many of the Sony lenses are huge (there are a few small, sharp primes if you pick carefully, but all the zooms are either big and heavy or lousy).
Fuji's new X-H1 is a little bigger than the X-T2, but smaller than any reasonably durable DSLR except the Pentax KP. but that uses the same APS-C sensor as the Fuji. It's even more durable than the X-T2 - I haven't seen real tests yet, but it may be up there with Olympus, the higher-end Pentaxes and the top pro DSLRs, and it has an IBIS system (for those times a tripod just isn't practical) that looks to be in the same category as Olympus' uncanny version in the E-M1 mk II. Mine is sitting in the back of my car waiting to charge the batteries tonight, but I'm very excited by its potential as a landscape camera - an X-T2 with excellent IBIS, and even more bulletproof...
-
Another consideration, especially for landscape farther from the car (where size and weight is more of a consideration) is Fuji. My X-T2 accompanied me for 450 miles on the Pacific Crest Trail last summer. The system is small and light - lenses as well as bodies are smaller than the FF equivalents, with excellent lenses. I'm getting really superb prints up to 24x36". with excellent sharpness and dynamic range.
Is it a D850 if you can carry both to the image with equal ease? Almost certainly not... But it's about half the weight with equivalent lenses, and it has the durability to survive anything you can throw at it. The D850 is also very durable, but most lighter DSLRs and the Sonys aren't. Substitute an A7rIII for the D850, and you lose durability, but not much weight - many of the Sony lenses are huge (there are a few small, sharp primes if you pick carefully, but all the zooms are either big and heavy or lousy).
Fuji's new X-H1 is a little bigger than the X-T2, but smaller than any reasonably durable DSLR except the Pentax KP. but that uses the same APS-C sensor as the Fuji. It's even more durable than the X-T2 - I haven't seen real tests yet, but it may be up there with Olympus, the higher-end Pentaxes and the top pro DSLRs, and it has an IBIS system (for those times a tripod just isn't practical) that looks to be in the same category as Olympus' uncanny version in the E-M1 mk II. Mine is sitting in the back of my car waiting to charge the batteries tonight, but I'm very excited by its potential as a landscape camera - an X-T2 with excellent IBIS, and even more bulletproof...
I like your thinking and I like where these manufacturers are heading.
I know Sony has packed an A7RIII sensor into a P&S, I'm hoping another manufacturer can figure out the keys to getting it to work, obviously prime lenses are one thing.
My ideal at the moment would be a D850 sensor with 1 FPS or so, decent single point AF, Mirrorless, 14bit lossless RAW and a few lenses which all share the same filter thread size. If someone can do that at half the weight or (hopefully less) than a D850 + wide angle I'd be pretty happy.
I know the Fuji's are getting close to it, I just really want the resolution that they don't have yet.
EDIT: If I was doing any sort of serious hike like you mentioned I would also probably purchase a second camera, lens system and lightweight tripod for it. Most of my images are shot within 2km of my vehicle at the moment, so I just make do and carry the weight.
-
Through-hiking is an entirely different beast than day hiking or weekend trips. It isn't just weight and bulk. You have to charge batteries - either by carrying a bunch of charged ones and a charger (or a big storage battery to dispense power to various other batteries), and stopping at a town to recharge on AC house current, or by deploying a solar grid and storage battery on the trail. Backup might also be an issue, if you are nervous about just retiring non-copied filled cards for the duration of the trip.
So, Dan Wells, how did you manage the power issue? And did you back up en route?
Power is a problem with the mirrorless cameras, some more than others. In my mind, the short battery life (~150 shots, with conservative usage) is one of the two or three annoying features of the Sigma DP2 Merrills, the others being the clunky and buggy post-processing (Sigma Photo Pro - crashes more than it should, slow too) and the lack of a wired or wireless release capacity, leading to lots of use of the 10 second delay. Power is something that the DSLRs handle well, I get about 800 shots from my Canon LP-E6 battery (standard size battery for non-gripped SLRs), which is about twice the capacity as the Sigma by battery weight.
-
Hi Nancy,
Good point. It seems that Sony has much improved their power consumption, but charging batteries while traveling light is a big challenge.
Best regards
Erik
Through-hiking is an entirely different beast than day hiking or weekend trips. It isn't just weight and bulk. You have to charge batteries - either by carrying a bunch of charged ones and a charger (or a big storage battery to dispense power to various other batteries), and stopping at a town to recharge on AC house current, or by deploying a solar grid and storage battery on the trail. Backup might also be an issue, if you are nervous about just retiring non-copied filled cards for the duration of the trip.
So, Dan Wells, how did you manage the power issue? And did you back up en route?
Power is a problem with the mirrorless cameras, some more than others. In my mind, the short battery life (~150 shots, with conservative usage) is one of the two or three annoying features of the Sigma DP2 Merrills, the others being the clunky and buggy post-processing (Sigma Photo Pro - crashes more than it should, slow too) and the lack of a wired or wireless release capacity, leading to lots of use of the 10 second delay. Power is something that the DSLRs handle well, I get about 800 shots from my Canon LP-E6 battery (standard size battery for non-gripped SLRs), which is about twice the capacity as the Sigma by battery weight.
-
Regarding power I have the CRANK works great! Many other power options including solar which are lightweight.
-
So far I used either the Fuji X-T2 with the 10-24 and 18-55 or the Oly E-M5ii with 12-40 or 12-100 (prefer the 12-100). Only the Fuji was on a overnight but for both the hikes were quite long, 10-12 hours.
I got results that I liked better from Fuji but it could have been secondary to a particular trip.
Both are workable, with Oly you should be more willing to try some exposure bracketing and sometimes I felt they were a little too flat.
-
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...
In-body pixel shift may seem convenient, but, ultimately, causes more problems than it solves. Doing it in post-processing gives you much more leeway to deal with subject movement - rustling leaves or grass, moving water, even clouds. You can simply mask out the affected areas and cover those with a single-frame image, while using the pixel-shift image for all the static parts of the image. But, if pixel-shift was done in camera and you didn't have the individual component frames, you wouldn't be able to do that and would be stuck with the motion artifact.
For landscape photography, I find that prime lenses are a trap which can just as often reduce your final image quality as improve it. When shooting landscapes, you have little control over the focal length you need for any particular shoot. If you want a particular composition, you need to shoot from a particular location - you can't move trees, mountains and rivers so that you can stand somewhere more convenient. 'Foot zooming' changes the composition, and, even if that isn't a major issue (e.g. if the scene is all background, with no real foreground elements), is often physically impossible. Therefore, there are only three ways to get the angle of view you need - crop, stitch or zoom. Stitching is ideal, but often impractical (wind-related movement being the bane of any landscape photographer). Cropping from a wider lens costs you valuable megapixels. Zooming to the required focal length allows you to get the desired angle of view in one shot, without cropping, but is obviously not possible with a prime lens. And it is not often that the required angle of view corresponds exactly to a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm or 135mm lens.
Given that you're likely to be shooting stopped-down, there is minimal difference in image quality between a good prime and a good zoom, even when using the entire frame. There may be some differences wide open, but you're unlikely to be shooting most landscapes at f/2.8. And, since, with a prime lens, you'll be cropping almost every time you can't stitch, you end up losing further image quality, that you wouldn't lose had you used a zoom that allowed you to use the exact required focal length in the first place. If you need 168mm f/8 for a shot, a quality zoom set to 168mm f/8 is going to beat a 135mm prime cropped to the same angle of view every time.