Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Stark2k on October 13, 2010, 07:00:39 am
-
Hello everyone. I'm a new member here although been an avid reader of the site in general for sometime. My intention is to become a fulltime landscape photographer and I am working towards that goal. The one issue I am having problems resolving is which gear-path to go down.
I'm not a gear-head and prefer to spend time and resources in learning and getting to locations. But, I do need images of enough quality to be able to produce gallery quality images in the near future.
I use to shoot medium format 120 6x6 but prefer the wider aspect. At the moment I've dipped my toe in digital with a Nikon D40. I enjoy the lightness and speed of digital, and will not go back to film as I process all my images via Aperture 3/CS 5.
So my question is - are there many pro's making gallery quality fine art prints from DSLR's? Are these viable options over MF and LF (which I don't want to use) camera's?
If DSLR's are of the quality, then the next obvious questions is what are the more popular models? I notice that a few amateur shooters use the 5D MKII and others use the Nikon D700 - would either of these models coupled with good lenses be a good investment for large exhibit quality prints?
I would really appreciate some help and guidence on this issue as I don't want to invest in a system that ultimately won't give me what I need, but on the other hand I don't want to spend 10K plus on digital medium format.
Thanks in advance.
-
Have a look into stitching. Most of my landscapes are 8-12 D700 frames stitched togther and the resolution is very impressive. It's not a perfect solution but it's pretty damn good and enough to make me sell my 6x7 gear.
-
Hi mark,
Thanks for the suggestion, it is something I had considered, but how is it possible with long exposures at low-light (dusk/dawn) - won't the sky/water/wind prove too much movement to get a smooth stitch? Most of my work is coastal and I worry that it will be too difficult to get a seamless stitch with all the movement that goes on within each individual frame.
-
Hi,
In my view a "full frame" 24.6 MP DSLR is on par with a Pentax 67 using Velvia and CCD based film scanner. The image from the DSLR is smoother.
You can check my article on the issue: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
So if you are satisfied with 67 on film you would probably be satisfied with a full frame DSLR having > 20 MPixels. That would be Nikon D3X, Canon 5DII and Sony Alpha 850/900.
Nikon D700 has less resolution. Many authors say that 12 MPixels are enough for print sizes up to A2.
There is little doubt that MFDBs can offer better image quality, but it's not very obvious what is meant by image quality.
I'd also point out that some people still like film.
Best regards
Erik
Hello everyone. I'm a new member here although been an avid reader of the site in general for sometime. My intention is to become a fulltime landscape photographer and I am working towards that goal. The one issue I am having problems resolving is which gear-path to go down.
I'm not a gear-head and prefer to spend time and resources in learning and getting to locations. But, I do need images of enough quality to be able to produce gallery quality images in the near future.
I use to shoot medium format 120 6x6 but prefer the wider aspect. At the moment I've dipped my toe in digital with a Nikon D40. I enjoy the lightness and speed of digital, and will not go back to film as I process all my images via Aperture 3/CS 5.
So my question is - are there many pro's making gallery quality fine art prints from DSLR's? Are these viable options over MF and LF (which I don't want to use) camera's?
If DSLR's are of the quality, then the next obvious questions is what are the more popular models? I notice that a few amateur shooters use the 5D MKII and others use the Nikon D700 - would either of these models coupled with good lenses be a good investment for large exhibit quality prints?
I would really appreciate some help and guidence on this issue as I don't want to invest in a system that ultimately won't give me what I need, but on the other hand I don't want to spend 10K plus on digital medium format.
Thanks in advance.
-
I print 24x36 with the Canon 1Ds3 with no issues. I've printed larger on canvas and also with stitching as Mark suggested, and up to ~42 with very careful processing.
Any of the full frame cameras with 21MP+ will be capable and have their particular Pros/Cons. You may want to look at lens choices of the various makes to help with your decision.
Good luck.
-
Thanks for the suggestion, it is something I had considered, but how is it possible with long exposures at low-light (dusk/dawn) - won't the sky/water/wind prove too much movement to get a smooth stitch? Most of my work is coastal and I worry that it will be too difficult to get a seamless stitch with all the movement that goes on within each individual frame.
Depends on the subject matter. Water can be tough especially with shorter exposures (up to a few seconds). Stitching software is quite good at accommodating most scenes, although you will run into ones which won't stitch properly and/or will have to do manual post work.
Here some stitched 20-200+ megapixel examples from my portfolio, and some zoomable full-res stitches here (http://www.harrijahkola.com/panoramas.html). None of the ones below had extensive post to fix stitching, most of the ones in the link did.
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/slovakia/Slovakia_-_Bratislava_(Castle_Night_Panorama).jpg)
Slovakia - Bratislava (Castle Night Panorama)
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/finland/Finland_-_Jamsankoski_(Minimalist_Landscape_Panorama_III).jpg)
Finland - Jämsänkoski (Minimalist Landscape Panorama III)
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/spain/Spain_-_Mar_Menor_(Tear).jpg)
Spain - Mar Menor (Tear)
-
Hi,
In my experience I get better results when stitching with AutopanoPro than with Photshop CS5. PtGui is another well know alternative.
Best regards
Erik
Depends on the subject matter. Water can be tough especially with shorter exposures (up to a few seconds). Stitching software is quite good at accommodating most scenes, although you will run into ones which won't stitch properly and/or will have to do manual post work.
Here some stitched 20-200+ megapixel examples from my portfolio, and some zoomable full-res stitches here (http://www.harrijahkola.com/panoramas.html). None of the ones below had extensive post to fix stitching, most of the ones in the link did.
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/slovakia/Slovakia_-_Bratislava_(Castle_Night_Panorama).jpg)
Slovakia - Bratislava (Castle Night Panorama)
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/finland/Finland_-_Jamsankoski_(Minimalist_Landscape_Panorama_III).jpg)
Finland - Jämsänkoski (Minimalist Landscape Panorama III)
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/spain/Spain_-_Mar_Menor_(Tear).jpg)
Spain - Mar Menor (Tear)
-
To offer an alternative view... I have tested and concluded that my Mamiya 7 (6 by 7 medium format) can out resolve my 1Ds3 (Mamiya 80 lens vs Zeiss 35/2 distagon) shooting Kodak Ektar 100 and scanning on a Nikon 9000. This is really visible in bigger prints, but clear in a 22 inch high print, perhaps unsurprisingly as the native resolution is 160dpi for the 1Ds3 and 400 odd dpi for the scanned neg. Both upressed to 600dpi for my HP Z3100 in Qimage.
Having said that, the 1Ds3 can look very good at that size (although it is very subject dependent and some will break up much earlier) and it is much (much!) more convenient. Also, stitching is more easily possible with the canon - though you could stitch with the Mamiya and the 150m lens if the thought of stitching 550Mb files appeals to you...
Either will give you good results, but you may be looking for medium format digital? It depends on what you want in your pictures.
Mike (one who still shoots 400iso, 35mm film)
Hi,
In my view a "full frame" 24.6 MP DSLR is on par with a Pentax 67 using Velvia and CCD based film scanner. The image from the DSLR is smoother.
You can check my article on the issue: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/16-pentax67velvia-vs-sony-alpha-900
So if you are satisfied with 67 on film you would probably be satisfied with a full frame DSLR having > 20 MPixels. That would be Nikon D3X, Canon 5DII and Sony Alpha 850/900.
Nikon D700 has less resolution. Many authors say that 12 MPixels are enough for print sizes up to A2.
There is little doubt that MFDBs can offer better image quality, but it's not very obvious what is meant by image quality.
I'd also point out that some people still like film.
Best regards
Erik
-
As the previous poster has stated, my Mamiya 6 out-resolves my DSLR when using Velvia or some other fine-grained film and scanning on a Nikon 9000.
The issue, sad as I have to admit, is really NOT just resolution, but how the finished print LOOKS. And I'll be the first to admit that prints from my DSLR--a measly Pentax k20d--simply look sharper and smoother. The details are in the film and that can clearly be seen by zooming in on the computer. But digital is able to bring a sharpness and contrast that film is not. When I got my first DSLR, even a 6mp scenic shot simply looked better that subsequent attempts on the same subject on MF. It's what I call the "digital paradox."
-
When I got my first DSLR, even a 6mp scenic shot simply looked better that subsequent attempts on the same subject on MF. It's what I call the "digital paradox."
With the planned upgrade, my first DSLR will be 60Mpx, and I hope that, with a Sinar P3, a quad-stitch and a set of Apo-Digitars, it might be close to the ultimate landscape tool (a multi-shot back would be useful too). A 10m tripod and eShutters will improve the system for some pictures.
...but with a good DSLR and a good long lens you could, in most situations, produce comparable pictures. The man advantage of MF over DSLR pan-and-stitch is when you need to photograph moving subjects.
-
This has turned into a fascinating thread, thanks for all the replies. Feppe - those stiches look fantastic and would be exactly the kind of thing I would be looking to do and you have put my mind at rest that stitching software is capable of dealing with cloud/water movement.
I would in an ideal world go for a digital MF but I just simply don't have the budget for it - maybe in a few years if the prices come down, and my earnings increase it would be an option, but at the beginning of a career I think a 24mp DSLR and stitching is probably the way to go as I am committed to digital processing and will never go back to film. My strenghts are in digital processing and I really appreciate the freedom and convenience it brings (and low costs with regards to film).
So, carrying on the theme of stitching as this seems the way to go for large prints; what are the key things in regards this technique? I'm assuming I wouldnt need to use a wide-angle lens if I'm stitching? What about tripod and head? Are there specific heads that help with the panning of the stitch?
Thanks again for all the info so far, it's been very helpful.
-
I find I get excellent stitches handheld. Yes, it's nice to use a tripod, MLU and remote shutter release, but I suppose I've been doing it long enough to get about the same results both ways. And for me CS4 works just fine.
-
I find I get excellent stitches handheld. Yes, it's nice to use a tripod, MLU and remote shutter release, but I suppose I've been doing it long enough to get about the same results both ways. And for me CS4 works just fine.
Unfortunately that wouldn't work for me as I do many shots that require shutter speeds less than 1/15th and upwards to 10 secs, and I feel I get better compositions when I use a tripod as it slows me down and makes me think more, I get a bit wayward when I start free-hand shooting.
-
I have some write up on this:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/panorama-and-stitching
Check also this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=36973
And yes, Feppe's panos are fantastic!
BR
Erik
This has turned into a fascinating thread, thanks for all the replies. Feppe - those stiches look fantastic and would be exactly the kind of thing I would be looking to do and you have put my mind at rest that stitching software is capable of dealing with cloud/water movement.
I would in an ideal world go for a digital MF but I just simply don't have the budget for it - maybe in a few years if the prices come down, and my earnings increase it would be an option, but at the beginning of a career I think a 24mp DSLR and stitching is probably the way to go as I am committed to digital processing and will never go back to film. My strenghts are in digital processing and I really appreciate the freedom and convenience it brings (and low costs with regards to film).
So, carrying on the theme of stitching as this seems the way to go for large prints; what are the key things in regards this technique? I'm assuming I wouldnt need to use a wide-angle lens if I'm stitching? What about tripod and head? Are there specific heads that help with the panning of the stitch?
Thanks again for all the info so far, it's been very helpful.
-
Here's some of really, really, really nice work done with a DSLR ....
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/hebrides/warren-text
-
Here's some of really, really, really nice work done with a DSLR ....
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/hebrides/warren-text
Thanks for this link, I forgot about Jim, I watched a video of him shooting in scotland for an aperture 3 video, these are really stunning images. The 3 image composite ones; am I right in thinking they are three shots vertically and then stiched?
-
Here's some of really, really, really nice work done with a DSLR ....
DSLR's are good for back-packing as they are light and rugged.
-
In terms of absolute resolution as measured by charts and pixel-peeping, 35mm velvia slides scanned with a high-end scanner are competitive with a 20MP full frame dSLR, except way more grainy and mushy (you need to sharpen tons, adding additional grain). So you'll then get large format enthusiasts saying "large format is 300 megapixels!" but what they forget is this:
In terms of how prints "look" three megapixels beats any 35mm color film print as this very site proves:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
Medium format may resolve a tiny bit more detail if drum scanned, and large format may resolve a little more than that (though due to issues of film flatness and bad lenses/diffraction, large format is barely better than medium format, just less grainy, which isn't an issue with digital). Medium format film is still grainier than even digital point and shoots are. And most of the detail is fuzz. Digital cameras resolve >100% mtf until they hit extinction, at around 80lp/mm on high-end dSLRs. Velvia, the subjectively sharpest color film, falls to under 100% mtf around 20lp/mm, hence grain/fuzz issues.
For all REASONABLE purposes, unless your viewer is going to study your prints under a microscope, the Canon 5DII should equal or surpass large format film, though APS-C digital may not. High-volume photographers have all gone digital. David Meunch, the big name in color 4x5 landscapes, switched from a Linhof 4x5 to a point and shoot, which he uses handheld if needed.
If you want to print HUGE (wall-sized) and do near/far compositions, a tilt/shift lens and tripod may be worth it. Otherwise a couple IS zooms and some filters may suffice. But digital is flexible so you can bring the tripod only when you need it for stitching/focus stitching (to defeat diffraction)/hdr/etc.
That said, there is something "nice" about technically perfect huge (40''x50'' or larger) large format prints that I've yet to see even from medium format digital--and some films have nice, inaccurate but dramatic color rendition (which only matters if you don't post-process, but it still looks cool). But if you plan to shoot more than five images a year and spend less than a thousand dollars on each print, a full frame dSLR will look as good as large format film on first impression, better than medium format, and will be much better than either in general by virtue of being way more flexible and less expensive past the initial investment. There might just be a tiny bit less detail than large format if you walk up to the print and squint, but does that matter to your average viewer?
Personally, I don't like stitching since the best light is fleeting, but digital gives you the option to stitch if you want to make huge prints so why not? Three stitched dSLR images will trounce large format in terms of subjective sharpness and likely surpass it in terms of actual detail, too.
And, full disclosure, I shoot large format so I've had to convince myself there's a difference in image quality. Ask people who've switched to digital, they may disagree and say dSLRs already beat large format. Almost no pros still shoot large format.
-
Not sure that I agree with all the views expressed here, though your conclusion may well be reasonable in many circumstances. Some comments below
Mike
In terms of absolute resolution as measured by charts and pixel-peeping, 35mm velvia slides scanned with a high-end scanner are competitive with a 20MP full frame dSLR, except way more grainy and mushy (you need to sharpen tons, adding additional grain). So you'll then get large format enthusiasts saying "large format is 300 megapixels!" but what they forget is this:
In terms of how prints "look" three megapixels beats any 35mm color film print as this very site proves:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
The article expresses MR's (experienced) opinion, but anyone really interested should do their own tests. I'm not convinced that this applies in all circumstances as print size, viewing distance etc will impact on the results.
Medium format may resolve a tiny bit more detail if drum scanned in my experience there is no comparison between 6 by 7 and 35mm - Mamiya 7 compared to Zeiss Ikon, and large format may resolve a little more than that (though due to issues of film flatness and bad lenses/diffraction, large format is barely better than medium format, just less grainy not done this comparison myself, which isn't an issue with digital). Medium format film is still grainier than even digital point and shoots are not true in my experience - though the last 400 iso film I ran through the Mamiya was T-Max 400 which was able to make outstanding 27 by 22 inch prints unlike any P&S I've used at iso 400. And most of the detail is fuzz a bit exagerated, but MTF characteristics are very different and film resolves more at lower mtf's compared to digitals typically high mtf until somewhere approaching nyquist Digital cameras resolve >100% hopefully only 100% before sharpening, which wouldn't be necessary if they really achieved 100% MTF mtf until they hit extinction except that AA filters and Bayer arrays mean the don't really achieve this, at around 80lp/mm on high-end dSLRs. Velvia, the subjectively sharpest color film, falls to under 100% mtf around 20lp/mm Film mtfs vary significantly - consider fine grain black and white - but generally their mtf falls from 100% (and plus) at low frequency to 0 at high frequency in a smooth curve. This looks different than digital capture, hence grain/fuzz issues.
For all REASONABLE purposes, unless your viewer is going to study your prints under a microscope, the Canon 5DII should equal or surpass large format film, though APS-C digital may not. Only the photographer can decide what they consider reasonable High-volume photographers have all gone digital. Yep, film is not tenable for volume today David Meunch, the big name in color 4x5 landscapes, switched from a Linhof 4x5 to a point and shoot, which he uses handheld if needed. Does this prove much? He could have switched to 1Ds3 or D3x etc
If you want to print HUGE (wall-sized) and do near/far compositions, a tilt/shift lens and tripod may be worth it. Otherwise a couple IS zooms and some filters may suffice. Agree they may suffice for lots of purposes But digital is flexible so you can bring the tripod only when you need it for stitching/focus stitching (to defeat diffraction)/hdr/etc.
That said, there is something "nice" about technically perfect huge (40''x50'' or larger) large format prints that I've yet to see even from medium format digital-and this is the nub of the argument, that I do agree with-and some films have nice, inaccurate but dramatic color rendition (which only matters if you don't post-process, but it still looks cool)agree, though reproducing the same dramatic look is not always that easy. But if you plan to shoot more than five images a year and spend less than a thousand dollars on each print come on, you can probably manage 15 to 20 good images using film, and that would use up my yearly stock on film or digital:), a full frame dSLR will look as good as large format film on first impression, better than medium format, and will be much better than either in general by virtue of being way more flexible and less expensive past the initial investment. There might just be a tiny bit less detail than large format if you walk up to the print and squint, but does that matter to your average viewer? Which will look better is liekly to have more to do with how you treat the images thanthe original source imho, but it's true that most viewers don't even notice what source they were shot on or whether one has more or less detail than another. A lot aren't even really aware of the tonality or colours in monochrome images
Personally, I don't like stitching since the best light is fleeting, but digital gives you the option to stitch if you want to make huge prints so why not? AgreeThree stitched dSLR images will trounce large format in terms of subjective sharpness and likely surpass it in terms of actual detail, too. Don't know, but I've got 7 frame stitched panoramas that look mightly impressive 60 inches wide.
And, full disclosure, I shoot large format so I've had to convince myself there's a difference in image quality. Ask people who've switched to digital, they may disagree and say dSLRs already beat large format. Almost no pros still shoot large format.
Full disclosure - I shoot film and digital and they are very different. Further disclosure - I shoot a lot of monochrome film and not much colour as I tend to use digital for colour now. I just prefer black and white film for mono. I know I could use silver efex.
Apology - I'm not usually as grumpy as this, just thought that there was a bit of simplification here. Fundamentally, I agree. If you print at normal sizes then a dslr will suit most things perfectly well. And certainly, digital 'outperforms' its Mp rating when compared to film scans from similar sized 'sensors'. Also, point and shoots are much better than they are given credit for in the right circumstances.
Mike
-
My post was pretty grumpy, too... I've just started with 4x5 and have a love/hate relationship with it. Tried a 7D over the weekend and I was just amazed by how easy it is to use and how relatively difficult it is to screw up. No need to worry about shielding for light leaks, bringing a tripod absolutely everywhere, constantly fidgeting with the front standard to line it up precisely, protecting the fragile bellows, obsessively spot-metering and calculating for bellows compensation when you have a half stop of latitude on velvia, focusing under a dark cloth, carrying at most like eight sheets of film and having to load them in absolute darkness, stressing about depth of field versus diffraction limits, and so forth. I mean, you can even zoom! And see images in the viewfinder after shooting them! Quality scans don't cost $100! If I had any intentions of making money, I would ditch film and get a 5D, as the pros I know have done.
The Mamiya 7 is the best small camera there is, though, and has the best lenses. Plus b&w film still beats b&w digital. The best large format lenses are half as sharp in linear terms as the Mamiya, maybe? All you gain from large format (beside lens movements, which matter a lot to me but not everyone) is better tonality, necessary for color. To me 4x5 still looks better than what you get from a dSLR (and 8x10 looks significantly better than that, substantially beyond anything else I've seen), but that's just me. From an image quality perspective dSLRs are good enough--and from a business perspective, film, unfortunately, usually isn't.
But velvia 50 still has nice greens.
And agreed that point and shoots are underrated.
-
It seems that the dilemma is something like "I want the most detailed image possible". Solutions include MF (digital or film), or DSLR (possibly stitching for increasing the resolution). The pro of stitching is that you can use relatively cheap, ergonomic and flexible equipment, the con is for movement.
It seems that another candidate would be going super-resolution. Get the AA/OLPF filter removed from a FF DSLR. Take 8-16 exposures. Then add some details via the aliasing "backdoor". Pro: each image has value on its own. Taking the whole set means that you (in principle) can be limited only by optics (right?), while being able to exclude some shots or parts of the shot due to movement. Con: Still need great lense, the improvement is limited (unlike stitching), ideally need to permanently modify camera,
http://www.photoacute.com/
www.maxmax.com
-
Not a pro, but have shot landscapes with MF and LF for decades, and now use DSLR's for the same purpose. Being in my 50's I can say the switch to digital has become a welcome one, although, instead of film bags, we have tons of cables and batteries ;D
I have had a few very large prints in my dental office from the 90's, done with 4x5 Velvia, they are still some of my most favorite images and have remained up for the last dozen years or so. That said, dslrs have totally replaced all my gear except 4x5 which has not seen daylight in 5 yrs. It is held on to for nostalgia and in case I get the film bug again. It is like a virus, it is there forever and can come back from time to time. Short of 4x5 film there is little that I can't accomplish with my 12-16Mp digital cameras. One can get really nice straight 24x36 inch prints from a single frame yet alone an insane amount of detail from stitching. The record for me so far was a 5 frame stitch from my D300 and 28mm AIS prime lens in Zion about two years ago. Looking at detail from that easily matches or best some 4x5 with better color, tone and contrast. I used to spend hours in a darkroom making prints, now is done in a fraction of the time digitally and I get to print and control all the parameters in a finite way, one could not do with film if an outside lab was involved. JHMO, YMMV... best of luck...
-
Take a look at the work of various photographers and see whose work most closely matches your current vision, then find out what they shoot.
For instance, three colleagues here in Northern California who are tremendous landscape shooters are Elizabeth Carmel, Charles Cramer and Bill Atkinson. All three shoot MF digital capture and produce 30x40 prints rivaling 4x5 film. However, this route costs more than most midsize cars and that's before you add camera, lenses, filters, computers, file storage, printers.
You will be working very slowly and methodically on a tripod dealing with a system mainly optimized for the studio but repurposed for the field. Batteries last about 20-25% the frames you get with your D40 and file sizes can be overwhelming, and packing this stuff in the field will make your back scream, but that image quality.
You've better have a great market for your work or a large fortune for which to make your smaller fortune before you start in this direction!
One avenue coming to fruition is the Pentax 645 digital which Pentax hopes to get going for the many still shooting the Pentax 6x7 and 645 film cameras. Time will tell if it will gain a foothold as another digital MF contender. I know that there are still quite a few still shooting landscape with this system and then having their best scanned into the digital workflow and that's still a valid method.
That said, if your market for prints doesn't get much beyond 24x36 and you shoot more loosely, like the work of Galen Rowell, for instance, you will be perfectly fine with a FF camera or even the newer generation of DX cameras with selected premium lenses. Since one of my facets is shooting landscape (cultural landscapes for the most part), my D2x, D200, D700, and D300 are more than enough to produce quite excellent 24x36 (the right image with my 6MP D100 had this potential) and even a few 30x45 inch images. Granted, they won't have the same overall IQ that a digital MF can produce but with proper crafting and viewed from reasonable distances, they are still quite stunning and best of all produce enough sales to more than pay to keep my big Epson printers in ink and paper.
Why not take a MF digital workshop or rent a system and give it a whorl or rent a high-end DSLR system for a few weeks or take a workshop where they supply the equipment, try it and see for your self? The best way to really know is to put your hands on the stuff and experience things first hand or hang out with those that do what you want to do and learn from them.
From my experience is yes, you can do it, but know what are the limits then keep pushing them.
-
This entire thread so far assumes that resolution is the only element of image quality. Color, detail rendition, bokeh (if anything is out of focus), distortion, dynamic range, gradations/tonality, amount and feel/look of noise (if any) and "3Dness" are all elements of a large format print.
Then there are the non-image quality elements like how well you and your camera "get along" which involves ergonomics, aesthetics, user interface, and other elements of individual preference. In other words if you told me I could start taking "pictures" using a computer program and a database of other peoples images (something which will likely be a commonplace ability in 10 years) I wouldn't care about the image quality because the visceral pleasure of shooting would be gone. Likewise I enjoy shooting with a technical camera body more than an SLR when shooting landscape - it's a nice side benefit that the image quality is also higher than an SLR.
Then portability, reliability, consistency, and niche abilities (such as long exposures, multiple exposures, IR/UV, etc) should come into consideration as well as cost (up front cost and expected longevity).
Resolution has been the key selling point for cameras for far too long. Very high resolution is still a tremendous asset to a large format landscape printer but it is NOT the only factor of image quality, and image quality is not the sole reason to select a camera.
Just some points to ponder.
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
-
Don's right. Total image quality is a major key.
It's the ink on the paper that settles all arguments, anyway.
FYI, H'blad is doing an H4D landscape/pano workshop in Moab at the end of March 2011 including food, lodging, use of equipment and a large print. It may be a good way to get the feel for MF digital before spending every last cent and then having to resell at a loss if it doesn't work.
It's called the Moab Panarama Workshop if you want to google it.
-
Don's right. Total image quality is a major key.
It's the ink on the paper that settles all arguments, anyway.
FYI, H'blad is doing an H4D landscape/pano workshop in Moab at the end of March 2011.
I hear that Hasselblad UK are planing a view camera workshop, date to be announced shortly, I think.
-
Jack Dykinga, one of the most respected landscape photographers, who has multiple pictures in almost every Arizona Highways magazine issue, is now using a D3X and the PCe lenses, and publishing those images. http://www.nikondigital.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Tips/ga5bvk2y/all/Natural-Resources.html
That site is a Nikon promo site, but you can see Jack's comments. If you look at the galleries on his site you will see plenty of 4x5 and he hasn't given that up, but you will also see a lot of more recent pictures with the D3X.
I'm embarassed to talk about my shooting in the same post as Jacks, and I am NOT a pro landscaper, though pretty serious about it. However, to give you an idea, I went from 25 years of 35mm film and fooling around with early digital to a blend of digital and 4x5 film because I couldn't see that digital got me the resolution and "presence" I wanted. Then I got a D3X in 2009 when the first came out and haven't shot my 4x5 since then. I will again, but at $7 a shot, plus scan time, plus expensive drum scan if I really liked it, it wasn't worth it when I could get an equally good picture for my purposes printed as large as I wanted, plus able to shift and tilt with the PCe lenses. If I wanted to cover a whole wall, I can easily stitch a scene. I was hot to get a MFDB, but frankly a simple stitched D3X shot is equal in many ways and I own all the lenses now, and don't want to make the further investment for a more clunky, expensive system (not that I can't see some incremental benefit).
-
Jack Dykinga, one of the most respected landscape photographers, who has multiple pictures in almost every Arizona Highways magazine issue, is now using a D3X and the PCe lenses... I was hot to get a MFDB, but frankly a simple stitched D3X shot is equal in many ways and I own all the lenses now, and don't want to make the further investment for a more clunky, expensive system (not that I can't see some incremental benefit).
Magazines and the web might be "real world" market for which there is a market, but MF digital view cameras have massive advantages, particularly when when photographing landscapes including moving objects like trees, boats and vehicles... but the cost is horrendous.
-
Gear.....Gear.....Gear! How about the old BOX CAMERA in the hands of an artist. But that is off topic.
-
I am a "pro-landscaper" on the side. I live from commercial photography. I stop lusting for MFDB's about 6 months ago when I bought a 17TS. Well, it was a combination of things. It's prices, its shortcomings and tired of waiting for Hasselblad to show a smart back for the V system. (my fav camera ever). Now it is in the drawer of oblivion and most likely to stay there forever. Dslr's with the new digital-ready lenses are a dream come true. You can go from a point&shoot to a true fine-art photography rig with the addition of a light tripod. What else can I ask? More resolution, yet better pixels? Yeah, I do but in practice and in real life I don't need more quality than what I get from my dslr now. The best thing about it? To step to the next level is going to cost me less than $3K. Who can argue with that. Actually much less than that after re-selling the "old one".
Best
Eduardo
Jack Dykinga, one of the most respected landscape photographers, who has multiple pictures in almost every Arizona Highways magazine issue, is now using a D3X and the PCe lenses, and publishing those images. http://www.nikondigital.com/Learn-And-Explore/Photography-Tips/ga5bvk2y/all/Natural-Resources.html
That site is a Nikon promo site, but you can see Jack's comments. If you look at the galleries on his site you will see plenty of 4x5 and he hasn't given that up, but you will also see a lot of more recent pictures with the D3X.
I'm embarassed to talk about my shooting in the same post as Jacks, and I am NOT a pro landscaper, though pretty serious about it. However, to give you an idea, I went from 25 years of 35mm film and fooling around with early digital to a blend of digital and 4x5 film because I couldn't see that digital got me the resolution and "presence" I wanted. Then I got a D3X in 2009 when the first came out and haven't shot my 4x5 since then. I will again, but at $7 a shot, plus scan time, plus expensive drum scan if I really liked it, it wasn't worth it when I could get an equally good picture for my purposes printed as large as I wanted, plus able to shift and tilt with the PCe lenses. If I wanted to cover a whole wall, I can easily stitch a scene. I was hot to get a MFDB, but frankly a simple stitched D3X shot is equal in many ways and I own all the lenses now, and don't want to make the further investment for a more clunky, expensive system (not that I can't see some incremental benefit).
-
I would seriously consider the Sony A850, if you decide to go DSLR. It is on sale at B&H right now, and has excellent color and low ISO DR. The new Zeiss 24/2 is excellent, as well.
-
the Sony is a lot of IQ bang for the buck, but i think the lack of liveview is a disadvantage for landscape work compared to Canon or Nikon (liveview being one of the advantages of DSLR over MF)
-
Yes, liveview is a really advantage if you are looking for really sharp images and getting the most out of your system.
For landscape shooting on a big tripod with good glass it is a must. When landscape shooting with my 1D3 and Zeiss ZE lenses I always use liveview. I am amazed how shallow the depth of field is with wide angle lenses when stopped down when viewing large prints.
-
the Sony is a lot of IQ bang for the buck, but i think the lack of liveview is a disadvantage for landscape work compared to Canon or Nikon (liveview being one of the advantages of DSLR over MF)
I think that nearly every MF system has live view, but on a tethered computer rather than on the back of the camera, but I think that Sinar are about the only cameras that offer good daylight live view without the need for ND filters.
The Sinar 86H/P3 48.8 Mpx multi-shot is at the top of a short list of 1.
-
Thanks for the link to the Nikondigitalconservtion(!) site; great shots, of course, but as almost ever with these things, far too tiny to reveal anything of interest other than the art within the image. In fact, on my screen, a calibrated LaCie 319, the images appear distictly soft.
I have surely posted this other site on LuLa before:
http://www.atacamaphoto.com
and some great stuff appears there, should you be into this genre.
Rob C
-
More .02$.
At what point is bias just judgment, and experience come home to roost? My eyes have gotten tired of DSLR images, with what I read as some sort of image aspects that just aren't pleasing. I'll take MFDB any day over the DSLR for thoughtful work. Admittedly for sports or fast work (wildlife) nothing beats a DSLR.
Consider the following possibilities (in rank of economy):
- an older MFDB back - the P20 is a fine back, and can make some remarkably fine images.
- good lenses on the DSLR - Zeiss or Leica.... will make all the difference. Altho some of the CaNikon lenses are fine also, there seems to be an image difference with the more expensive lenses
- a tripod and MLU.
Full disclosure: my interests are in tonality and in details, so the extra quality of MFDB makes all the difference. I think of it as a portable 4x5, without the movements. Its that good.
-
I've just had a sneak at one of my Mythmas presents - Colin Prior's latest book, High Light - clicky (http://www.colinprior.co.uk/shop/page/item/high_light/)
Some superb images, many spread across two pages (with the annoyance that of course brings - a split down through the centre of the photo!), shot on Fujichrome, taken with a Fuji GX617. Interpersed are equally gorgeous shots taken with a Canon 1DIIs.
This suggests to me that pro-landscape togs use DSLRs, at least some of the time.
-
Thanks for the link - some stunning imagery.
Rob C
-
It makes me smile, now some are saying 21 mp is good enough to match or beat MF film especially stitched frames, it seams such a short time ago to me when people were screaming 3 mp was better than MF.
I keep my library in Apple's Aperture, when I do a search through my archives and a handful of thumbs appear on screen, even at that thumb size the film images stand out to me, smoother deeper colour, but not pumped up colour via the saturation. Not sure what term you use to describe it, organic, gentler, smoother, tactile, call it what you will but the film is easy to spot. Digital did not take off because it is better, it's just quicker and easier and can be cheaper. Where once we consumed film and chemicals we now devour cameras, hard drives and computers. And resolution is not the make or break of most images either.
Kevin.
-
It makes me smile, now some are saying 21 mp is good enough to match or beat MF film especially stitched frames, it seams such a short time ago to me when people were screaming 3 mp was better than MF. I keep my library in Apple's Aperture, when I do a search through my archives and a handful of thumbs appear on screen, even at that thumb size the film images stand out to me, smoother deeper colour, but not pumped up colour via the saturation. Not sure what term you use to describe it, organic, gentler, smoother, tactile, call it what you will but the film is easy to spot. Digital did not take off because it is better, it's just quicker and easier and can be cheaper. Where once we consumed film and chemicals we now devour cameras, hard drives and computers. And resolution is not the make or break of most images either.
Kevin.
Kevin, you're not supposed to remember things like that!
;-)
Rob C
-
I think some of the full frame (35) mm cameras have one advantage or some larger format cameras namely there high(er) iso capabilities. At least this is important to me as a landscape photographer.
-
Can you remember all those wall sized enlargements, stair interpolation, GF etc all magic bullets jumped upon to justify the mortgage for a Canon 30 something?
Kevin.
-
I use a 1ds. And sometimes stitching, I think SLRs are fine, but you've really got to be talking top end.
Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk
-
I use a 1ds. And sometimes stitching, I think SLRs are fine, but you've really got to be talking top end.
Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk
Yes... the H4D-60 is OK ...as long as you discard the SLR bit and put the digiback on a view camera (and stitch if you want High-res)!