Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: larkis on March 09, 2010, 04:56:50 pm
-
I'm not a professional photographer but my hobby away from the computer graphics studio is landscape photography. Recently I have been considering upgrading my digital camera, the D100 which was mostly used for photographing textures to something I can use in place of my 4x5 film camera for landscape photography. Since this is a hobby, top of the line gear is probably out of my range, but I also don't like to get cheap equipment.
If anyone with hands on experience could jump in and let me know how cameras like the nikon D3x and a digital backs such as the P25+ compare to each other. They have a similar amount of megapixels but the digital back has a much bigger sensor, yet the SLR's seem to be able to shoot in low light which is sometimes useful but not a must have for me.
What would you guys choose for landscape work for under $ 25,000 ? A low end digital back or a high end slr with a few top of the line lenses ?
-
Having and using both, the difference between the Canon 1DS MkIII and the P45+ back in moderate to large prints is huge, especially in prints larger than 20x30. The ultimate test for me is what I am willing to carry on back (as I only weigh 130lbs). The medium format comes unless there's absolutely no way to carry it. The only area where MF loses is with telephoto lenses, but it's amazing what you can get away with in cropping MF, as there's no blur filter. There should some excellent deals out there in MF backs, so definitely try them out.
Paul
I'm not a professional photographer but my hobby away from the computer graphics studio is landscape photography. Recently I have been considering upgrading my digital camera, the D100 which was mostly used for photographing textures to something I can use in place of my 4x5 film camera for landscape photography. Since this is a hobby, top of the line gear is probably out of my range, but I also don't like to get cheap equipment.
If anyone with hands on experience could jump in and let me know how cameras like the nikon D3x and a digital backs such as the P25+ compare to each other. They have a similar amount of megapixels but the digital back has a much bigger sensor, yet the SLR's seem to be able to shoot in low light which is sometimes useful but not a must have for me.
What would you guys choose for landscape work for under $ 25,000 ? A low end digital back or a high end slr with a few top of the line lenses ?
-
You should add up prices for various options but for a hobbyist, a "V" series Hasselblad + a CFV39 back or similar used phase back would be an option. I have a three year old, "entry level" Hasselblad CFV16 MP back, and even with the "old" tech" I am continually amazed with the photos compared to my Nikon. It takes more work and better technique but the results are worth it, IMHO.
Steve
-
Having and using both, the difference between the Canon 1DS MkIII and the P45+ back in moderate to large prints is huge, especially in prints larger than 20x30. The ultimate test for me is what I am willing to carry on back (as I only weigh 130lbs). The medium format comes unless there's absolutely no way to carry it. The only area where MF loses is with telephoto lenses, but it's amazing what you can get away with in cropping MF, as there's no blur filter. There should some excellent deals out there in MF backs, so definitely try them out.
Paul
It's also hard to decide since there are very few real world sample images that were shot on digital backs so comparison's are hard to do. Does phase one have downloadable samples hidden somewhere ?
-
It's also hard to decide since there are very few real world sample images that were shot on digital backs so comparison's are hard to do. Does phase one have downloadable samples hidden somewhere ?
Capture Integration posted some files here: http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/comparisons/ (http://www.captureintegration.com/tests/comparisons/) look in the middle of the page. Honestly, I suggest you do your own tests. With my work the advantage of medium format is much greater than apparent in the tests.
BTW, Capture Integration has been wonderful to work with. I get much better service and support from them than my local dealer.
Paul
-
What a great thread to be in. I feel safe like at home
I'm totally in tune with the posts here.
If I was into sports or news, I would not hesitate for a DSLR of course. Then in your case, for 35mm you might also consider the choice of Sony Alpha 900 FF that is cheap and according to the users here that I've asked, a very good bargain price/quality. It is good to know this option.
Now, I have no doubt that a MFD (and also consider the sinar backs options) is in another league. I'm actually on to savings for embrassing MFD and also LF field cameras. The Sinar is high on my list. I sold all my DSLR and lenses, and bought a little Pentax KX just for street photography because I had already the pentaxes lenses (no need of gadget adapter), and its impressive low-light performance for a cropped. It is just because I want to learn and improve street photography where of course a small and light-weight camera was required. It could have been a MFT Oly or Pana.
But I do not like dslr feeling, ergonomics and weight-balance and most importantly, Like Jack (sorry Jack you have been discovered ) I simply hate the files. Also, here I sound like Ken Rockwell, those stupid 50000 options useless menus that are called features in order to impress the erasmus students and 400 pages user manual more complicated than the space shuttle cockpit...sorry but this marketing it is not my cup of tea.
More importantly and more seriously, Paul pointed exactely my thoughts, having worked with the 1Ds mark 3 for big enlargements in arquitecture with tilt-shift, the files are not impressives at all compared to MFD and the gap is not a little but huge. I confirm Paul's thoughts. To reach the same kind of enlargements required a profesional printer had to trick the Canon's files for 3 days with the master while with MFD it took 2 hours of work for a much better result...choose your camp
Also, these dslr (thank god I got rid of them) are better with certain type of lenses, but for wide angle and d.o.f no way. If you are willing to spend time in learning and will use severe post production process and you plan to print big, there is no alternative more serious than MFD, even a second hand system will always be a better and safer invertion.
The only reason why I would buy in the future a FF 35mm would be for the video capability. That is why I asked David Groover in this Forum if he thought that Hasselblad will come to video. Of course, it all depends on the sensor disponibility and agreements between companies but his answer (reading between lines) was that we will probably see in a not so far future video capabilities in MFD.
Best regards,
Fred.
-
To me, it's about what you will use the most and shoot the most with. The main issue aside from price, is that medium format gear is cumbersome and tends to require a setup that is more geared towards a studio or set shoot versus actually carrying it around with you and, well, using it. 25MP(or more with the next generation when they come out) for the price that you can now get a DSLR for is amazing. Professional photographers make a living with these things, so there's really no issue there as fasr as quality for us smei-pros and hobbyists and the like.
Now, if you want to do it for art and go large, I really suggest you look into large format. It's a whole other world and you can get a start in it for only a couple of thousand dollars(less used of course). Keep the DLSR for normal use and tha large format camera for those special occasions and shots.
-
To me, it's about what you will use the most and shoot the most with. The main issue aside from price, is that medium format gear is cumbersome and tends to require a setup that is more geared towards a studio or set shoot versus actually carrying it around with you and, well, using it. 25MP(or more with the next generation when they come out) for the price that you can now get a DSLR for is amazing. Professional photographers make a living with these things, so there's really no issue there as fasr as quality for us smei-pros and hobbyists and the like.
Now, if you want to do it for art and go large, I really suggest you look into large format. It's a whole other world and you can get a start in it for only a couple of thousand dollars(less used of course). Keep the DLSR for normal use and tha large format camera for those special occasions and shots.
Yes I really agree with your point Plekto.
To me, the choice for MFD is not because I think that 35mm FF can not deliver spectacular results. They actually can, and the latests like the D3x that I have not worked with to date, seems to be outstanding. My choise is determined first for a personal feeling in hand, the output I want to acheive for a certain type of works, a phylosophy, the files for certain complicated post prod etc...and the need to print big. All that points lead me to mfd but not only IQ. But then, Plekto argument about LF is absolutely to take into consideration. I'm also into that and been asking a lot of information here to the LF users. This is an incredibly friendly, passionate and knowledgable "community" inside the Lu-La users and their advices are very informatives and professionals.
Fred.
-
To me, it's about what you will use the most and shoot the most with. The main issue aside from price, is that medium format gear is cumbersome and tends to require a setup that is more geared towards a studio or set shoot versus actually carrying it around with you and, well, using it. 25MP(or more with the next generation when they come out) for the price that you can now get a DSLR for is amazing. Professional photographers make a living with these things, so there's really no issue there as fasr as quality for us smei-pros and hobbyists and the like.
Now, if you want to do it for art and go large, I really suggest you look into large format. It's a whole other world and you can get a start in it for only a couple of thousand dollars(less used of course). Keep the DLSR for normal use and tha large format camera for those special occasions and shots.
I use a large format camera now (4x5) but it's film based. Setting up big gear is not really something that bothers me if the results are what I'm looking for. My weak link right now (besides having to buy film) is my scanner. Unless i go to a drum scanner or top of the line imacon, i can't get the tonality out of the images that i'm looking for. They are still a lot better than when I can get out of my D100, but not sure if going to a FF dslr will resolve all the fine micro details that make quality landscape photos sing. I'm hoping a P25+ class MF back would produce better results than a 4x5 sheet of film scanned on an epson scanner.
-
For what it is worth, I find my D3x to be superior in image quality to the 22MP AA filter less Mamiya ZD it replaced. Phase backs are said to be better though.
The D3x really shines with good lenses like the Zeiss 100mm f2.0 where the very low mid-tone/shadow noise enables the usable of very small radius/high intensity sharpening without degrading image quality. This combined with a lens offering great micro-contrast like the Zeiss delivers detail that is very close to what AA filterless backs offer.
I have provided a link to this image before, but here it goes again: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...647680/sizes/o/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/3900647680/sizes/o/)
This was shot with a 300 f2.8 handheld by the way. I overdid the sharpening a bit, but the slight aliasing that results is not worse than what you often get when looking at 22MP generation backs images at 100% on screen.
If really high image quality is your priority, then stitching is the only way to go anyway.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I use a large format camera now (4x5) but it's film based. Setting up big gear is not really something that bothers me if the results are what I'm looking for. My weak link right now (besides having to buy film) is my scanner. Unless i go to a drum scanner or top of the line imacon, i can't get the tonality out of the images that i'm looking for. They are still a lot better than when I can get out of my D100, but not sure if going to a FF dslr will resolve all the fine micro details that make quality landscape photos sing. I'm hoping a P25+ class MF back would produce better results than a 4x5 sheet of film scanned on an epson scanner.
Maybe this?
http://cgi.ebay.com/IMACON-HASSELBLAD-FLEX...=item4cedd64389 (http://cgi.ebay.com/IMACON-HASSELBLAD-FLEXTIGHT-PRECISION-II-PHOTO-SCANNER_W0QQitemZ330407756681QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4cedd64389)
i have a mostly unused PRecision III sitting on a table for some time, it works very well for 4x5 slides! Way better than Epson 750 althoug it is only 2000 DPI.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would not recommend a hassy system they are up for sale. The hassy lenses are 1 stop more contrasty than Mamiya or Phase lenses. Having 1 more stop to hold can hard and why do it. They are up for sale anyway.
The Mamiya and Phase lenses have every lens you could possibly ever want, and will want to use. If could manage a P45 and some lenses you can go 40x60 one shot in prints. But if you go with medium use Capture One. Tim
-
Yes, the Nikon D3 serie is probably the best 35mm camera available for steals and capable of reaching (if not beating in some cases, and here I trust the users like Bernard) some MF backs. The Canon 1D M3 that I know, no. Nikon's approach is probably the best in terms of pure photographic aspect.
It seems also that there is a general consensus in LF users that the MFD backs are reaching or beating the 4x5 scanned with Imacon, but the 8x10 is still in a class in itself.
I think there are a lot of questions and parameters involved in order to choose a system, and each person is different. The sensation is subjective, the time and space that once have, the kind of work etc...and the money of course.
I would really look for other aspects than image quality: handling, feeling, needs of modularity or not, philosophy, transport etc...
cheers,
Fred.
-
You can have top of the line gear.
You should get a use Contax 645 system. It has useable, accurate AF, is very durable, has top-line Zeiss glass including some of the best lenses ever made in MF, and is very reasonable on Ebay. You could probably score a body and four or five lenses for $6K. This leaves you$19K for a back.
The Phase p45+, which gives 39mp AND 1-2 HOUR exposures, essential for creative landscape shots, can be had on ebay for $13000 to 16000 and maybe 17,000 from a good dealer (maybe less). There is also the p30+ option at 31mp and much less expensive. Only Phase "plus" backs give long exposures so REALLY take note here! I find long exposures essential to my most creative landscape work. All other brands can only pride themselves on 1-2 MINUTE exposures. There is no contest as to this feature, Phase stands alone.
Assuming $17K on a back, you would have $8K left. For that, you get the contax body/finder with 80mm 2.0 (1200-1500), 35mm 3.5 (1200), 45-90mm 4.5 zoom (2500), 120 Makro (1300) and 210 tele (1000). You have a little left over for a flash, filters, vertical grip, viewfinder magnifier to nail focus, etc., making a complete system. You also have the option of single focal length 45mm and 55mm lenses if you don't want the zoom, for about the same cost.
The contax is a modern electronic camera with AV/TV exposure modes as well as full manual operation, autobracketing, excellent viewfinder and readouts, mirror lock, and, most important, it was designed with digital backs in mind with all the contacts. Operation with the phase backs is totally seamless. Just place the back, select ISO and WB, and start shooting. It is not a camera full of multiple button presses and arcane menus--nothing gets in the way of you and your shot.
For its durability--pleass see my post of today in the medium format forum under the MF for landscape discussion.
With a $25K budget, this is a no-brainer!
Guy
-
I'm not a professional photographer but my hobby away from the computer graphics studio is landscape photography. Recently I have been considering upgrading my digital camera, the D100 which was mostly used for photographing textures to something I can use in place of my 4x5 film camera for landscape photography. Since this is a hobby, top of the line gear is probably out of my range, but I also don't like to get cheap equipment.
What 5 * 4 do you have?
Could you use a digiback with it, and buy digital lenses as and when you can pick them up at as good price?
-
Interesting comments for Michael here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/brickworks.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/brickworks.shtml)
about the Contax 645.
It seems that is it really a superb choice.
Cheers.
-
Well, as much as I'm reluctant to intrude into fredjeang's comfort zone, I think I'm justified in making a few points here.
When searching for the ultimate image quality without compromise, in circumstances where one has a great deal of control, as in the studio environment, and when the requirement is for a very large print, the MFDB system is undoubtedly unparalleled.
However, the OP stated he was interested mainly in landscape photography. This is one area where subject matter tends towards the 'still life' category and therefore lends itself to multiple shots for the purpose of image stitching. Not always of course, but probably more often than not.
Here's a compressed jpeg of a 16 bit (155MB after cropping) stitched panorama of the Himalayas just after dawn, consisting of 3x5D images with camera held vertical. I've made a print 6ftx2ft to hang on my wall. It's magnificent, and as you all know, I'm very modest.
The prospect of trudging up an 800 metre hill in the dark, in order to catch the dawn, would appeal even less to me if I had to carry the extra weight of an MFDB system with lenses.
[attachment=20856:Himalaya...ter_dawn.jpg]
-
Well, as much as I'm reluctant to intrude into fredjeang's comfort zone, I think I'm justified in making a few points here.
When searching for the ultimate image quality without compromise, in circumstances where one has a great deal of control, as in the studio environment, and when the requirement is for a very large print, the MFDB system is undoubtedly unparalleled.
However, the OP stated he was interested mainly in landscape photography. This is one area where subject matter tends towards the 'still life' category and therefore lends itself to multiple shots for the purpose of image stitching. Not always of course, but probably more often than not.
Here's a compressed jpeg of a 16 bit (155MB after cropping) stitched panorama of the Himalayas just after dawn, consisting of 3x5D images with camera held vertical. I've made a print 6ftx2ft to hang on my wall. It's magnificent, and as you all know, I'm very modest.
The prospect of trudging up an 800 metre hill in the dark, in order to catch the dawn, would appeal even less to me if I had to carry the extra weight of an MFDB system with lenses.
[attachment=20856:Himalaya...ter_dawn.jpg]
Fortunately Ray, my zone of confort is pretty much extented ( yes, I do also have an extended mode, like those wonderful dslr(s) that I switch when required.
Fred.
-
Fortunately Ray, my zone of confort is pretty much extented ( yes, I do also have an extended mode, like those wonderful dslr(s) that I switch when required.
Fred.
Aw! Shucks! Such a pity. And I thought you might be a woman masquerading as a man. (No offense I hope).
-
Hi,
Stitching is very useful and easy to do. I'm often shooting images to be stitched instead of cropping. It's really easy.
Now, the poster is asking for 4x5 replacement and has financial restraints. From reading on these forums and other sources my impression is that:
1) Large sensor MFDBs match 4x5, but are very expensive
2) Smaller sensor MFDBs are said to have "magic properties" which may or may not exist.
I have some information pages with info which may be useful:
Link collection: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...vs-mfdb-vs-film (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/25-dslr-vs-mfdb-vs-film)
My own evaluation of Velvia 67 vs. Full Frame DSLR: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...-sony-alpha-900 (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900)
Handling the DoF trap: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...ng-the-dof-trap (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap)
I also have some discussion on stitching:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...s-quick-a-dirty (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/21-panoramas-quick-a-dirty) (to "quick and dirty") as pointed out by: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=309465 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=37539&view=findpost&p=309465)
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.ph...a-and-stitching (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/panorama-and-stitching)
Best regards
Erik
Well, as much as I'm reluctant to intrude into fredjeang's comfort zone, I think I'm justified in making a few points here.
When searching for the ultimate image quality without compromise, in circumstances where one has a great deal of control, as in the studio environment, and when the requirement is for a very large print, the MFDB system is undoubtedly unparalleled.
However, the OP stated he was interested mainly in landscape photography. This is one area where subject matter tends towards the 'still life' category and therefore lends itself to multiple shots for the purpose of image stitching. Not always of course, but probably more often than not.
Here's a compressed jpeg of a 16 bit (155MB after cropping) stitched panorama of the Himalayas just after dawn, consisting of 3x5D images with camera held vertical. I've made a print 6ftx2ft to hang on my wall. It's magnificent, and as you all know, I'm very modest.
The prospect of trudging up an 800 metre hill in the dark, in order to catch the dawn, would appeal even less to me if I had to carry the extra weight of an MFDB system with lenses.
[attachment=20856:Himalaya...ter_dawn.jpg]
[color="#FF0000"][/color]
-
Aw! Shucks! Such a pity. And I thought you might be a woman masquerading as a man. (No offense I hope).
Ahhh Ray...No ofense at all, just enjoying some of your...gentleman?..posts
I have pretty much resolved my balance between Yin and Yang, although my wife has no doubt I'm a man.
But you made me laugh with this one
Cheers,
Fred.
-
Hi,
Stitching is very useful and easy to do. I'm often shooting images to be stitched instead of cropping. It's really easy.
Hi Erik,
I agree. Stitching is nowadays very easy. It didn't used to be. In the past I recall wasting many hours on the computer readjusting parameters in order to get a better stitch, and sometimes eventually giving up because the parallax errors were just too great.
Nowadays, programs like Autopano Pro can automatically stitch and merge RAW images to HDR in one go, thus producing even greater resolution and DR than any single shot from an MFDB.
Of course, the standard response to this argument is that one can also stitch MFDB images to get even higher resolution. What size prints do you imagine you would ever want to make? 6ft x 20ft? If so, then it's true you would need to stitch fewer images using an MFDB system.
-
Hi Erik,
Of course, the standard response to this argument is that one can also stitch MFDB images to get even higher resolution. What size prints do you imagine you would ever want to make? 6ft x 20ft? If so, then it's true you would need to stitch fewer images using an MFDB system.
Even for 24" you would get better prints using MF.
The 60Mpx sensors let you print 24" wide (for shift and stitch or perhaps cylinder stitch) at 360 original camera pixels per print inch (or 240 ppi in landscape).
For prints bigger than 30" (with a 60Mpx sensor) I would want to use double row stitching.
-
I'm at the same crossroad as the poster of this topic: low-end MFDB or high-end DSLR.
Unlike most other members my purpose isn't low-volume fine art printing, but high-volume offset printing, from appr. 30 inch up.
I can buy a FF D3x or A900 with 6000 pixels and have about 200 ppi.
But Phase One now brings us:
7216 pixels P45+ > around 240/250 ppi
6496 pixels P30+ > around 220 ppi
5436 pixels P25+ > below 200 ppi
(upscaled to 300 ppi of course to make the printer happy!)
At a printing forum I was told that I don't need magazine quality for such large prints ... but I do.
I was hoping to meet someone at this forum with actual experience with offset printing using both systems (MFDB/DSLR).
Thanks
Laurens
-
What 5 * 4 do you have?
Could you use a digiback with it, and buy digital lenses as and when you can pick them up at as good price?
I have an ebony, i believe they did have digital back adapters for it as well.
That pentax that was announced recently sounds interesting as well.
-
I am a pro and have used various tethered backs since 2003, the Betterlight, Phase H25(22megapixel) anf the Leaf Valeo 17wi(17megapixel). For my personal work, mostly landscape and urban stuff, I have been using a Nikon D300 with a 17-55mm lens. While I have been very satisfied with the D300 images, I was made aware every day at work how good the Leaf 17 back is, in comparison. From Ebay, after a year of searching, I obtained a used Leaf Aptus 22megapixel to go on my Hasselblad 503cw with an older 50mm lens. I got the back about 5 months ago, but have only done a few outdoor tests, back problems and lousy weather in NYC did not help.
I print to an Epson 7600 and the 'small' prints I make are 20" wide. In the case of the D300 - 20x13.5"high and The Leaf Aptus - 20x16" (a 4x5/8/10 proportion). Unfortunately I am old, with old eyes and at that size while I see a difference, it is not great, but younger eyes see a bigger difference. Once you go to a 20x30" or 20X28", the difference becomes much wider, more obvious. In film terms, a 11x14" print from 35mm panatomic-x (slow, fine grain, asa 25, I think) will be easily outclassed by a 11x14" print from a 4x5 neg(asa 125). The MFDB has cleaner, smoother, healthier pixels, that how I would describe or characterize it.
There is something very important to consider and that is shooting style. In my case, I compose in the view finder. I think I see a shot, put the camera to my eye and use the zoom to crop and decide if I have a photo. With the Leaf Aptus 22, I found that a tripod is necessary to gain the full potential of the back. This was in my head, needing a tripod, before I purchased the back, so it wasn't a surprise. The biggest problem was composing a photo with a fixed lens. All I can do is move forward or back with my feet, to change the composition and often this doesn't work, because the landscape you are in goes up and down. Two steps forward, can lower the photo by 2 feet and the shot is not there anymore. I was realizing that some shots were no longer there and what other lenses would I need to carry to get those shots back. If I carried the D300 and a days shooting yielded 10 good images, how many might the Leaf Aptus yield. I am guessing 2-3 images, so am I giving up too much to obtain the highest quality, especially if you consider that the Leaf might come up with the #3, 7 and 8 of the 10, I might get with the D300. If I was getting 7-8 images with the Leaf, that would be great, 2-3 is disappointing. I am not sure that I like the trade off, but need more time to do real landscape work before I can decide. I did try an overall photo to be cropped later, after all I have an abundance of pixels, right. I do not like working this way, I might get home and find out that I have nothing. With the D300, if images are not working, I might try many different angles and crops to get something.
This was a way of working that I thought I could handle, enjoy and be productive. At the moment I am not at all sure. These are the intangibles that rise up and bite us.
Good Luck, Brian