Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Cerb-CH on June 26, 2014, 05:30:54 pm
-
I am using a Nikon D800E with some lenses for my landscapes. This camera has changed my workflow a lot, I use rarely more than iso 100, and I use most of the time a tripod (Gitzo).
Which MF Camera might be the right tool for me? ( I am not biased)
Best Regards
Cerb-CH
-
Some important questions that will help everyone give you better advise:
Are you looking to use a tech camera (Arca/Alpa/Cambo/etc), a view camera, or an SLR (h4x, h5, df+ etc)?
Are you okay with a limit of 30-60 seconds for your longest exposure?
What's your ballpark budget range?
What's the widest lens you use on your d800?
Do you shoot mostly from a car or backpack? (ie how important is weight to you)?
Where are you located? (Can effect dealer availability and service times)
As you can imagine there are many good options and very few bad options. So the question is mainly one of priorities and budget. A tech cam will get you the best lenses and built in movement along with a very tactile/mechanical/traditional manner of shooting but will also be slower to shoot with and more involved to learn. A view camera provides maximum movement flexibility but is large and heavy. An SLR is the easiest to learn but don't have very-wide lenses that compare to those on a tech camera.
-
So the question is mainly one of priorities and budget.
Excellent response. Branching out for myself:
Highest IQ, as measured by most majestic prints in the (roughly) 24 x 36 to 48 x 70 range. Weight not a concern. Speed of use not a concern. Need short telephoto (c. 135mm on FF) more than wide. T/S a bonus. 60 s maximum exposure duration OK. Budget so low I have to rent. Pennsylvania.
-
I am using a Nikon D800E with some lenses for my landscapes. This camera has changed my workflow a lot, I use rarely more than iso 100, and I use most of the time a tripod (Gitzo).
What problem are you trying to solve with a move to MF? Could you share some of the images that you currently don't find satisfactory and what is wrong with them?
One advise would be not only to consider the downsides of your current equipment, but also what currently works fine but may not be as easy with the new gear. That's tougher because you may not even be aware of some things not going wrong at the moment. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Some important questions that will help everyone give you better advise:
Are you looking to use a tech camera (Arca/Alpa/Cambo/etc), a view camera, or an SLR (h4x, h5, df+ etc)?
Are you okay with a limit of 30-60 seconds for your longest exposure?
What's your ballpark budget range?
What's the widest lens you use on your d800?
Do you shoot mostly from a car or backpack? (ie how important is weight to you)?
Where are you located? (Can effect dealer availability and service times)
As you can imagine there are many good options and very few bad options. So the question is mainly one of priorities and budget. A tech cam will get you the best lenses and built in movement along with a very tactile/mechanical/traditional manner of shooting but will also be slower to shoot with and more involved to learn. A view camera provides maximum movement flexibility but is large and heavy. An SLR is the easiest to learn but don't have very-wide lenses that compare to those on a tech camera.
thanks for your response I am trying to answer it.
I think I will start with a SLR, maybe I will try a tech or a view camera later.
Yes I think so.
It depends how big the gain on quality is.
The 14-24mm, but I use it most of the time at 24mm.
Both, weight is not that important.
Switzerland
-
What problem are you trying to solve with a move to MF? Could you share some of the images that you currently don't find satisfactory and what is wrong with them?
One advise would be not only to consider the downsides of your current equipment, but also what currently works fine but may not be as easy with the new gear. That's tougher because you may not even be aware of some things not going wrong at the moment. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks for the reply.
Yes that is a interesting point.
My D800E is a very nice camera ( although the support here in Switzerland is terrible ),
I want to have the possibility to print very large. I did some prints which were at the shot side more then 30" wide, at this point I could see how the image quality dropped.
With primes I could improve the image quality a bit, but the differences are (If DXO can be trusted)not that big.
I will keep my Nikon System, I know a MF can't be a around camera.
-
I want to have the possibility to print very large. I did some prints which were at the shot side more then 30" wide, at this point I could see how the image quality dropped.
In case it is applicable to your applications, have you considered stitching?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In case it is applicable to your applications, have you considered stitching?
Cheers,
Bernard
Already done, with my gigapan epic pro, but it's too slow.
-
Already done, with my gigapan epic pro, but it's too slow.
OK, but if I may ask, why did you opt for a robotic pano head?
Unless you are shooting for gigapixel images, high end manual pano heads are faster to set up and operate and enable to reach easily hundreds of megapixels. They are also much more compact and light for field operation.
Most of my pano contain between 5 and 20 images, and the shooting time overhead above exposure time is typically around 1 sec per frame. Set up probably takes at most one 40-45 sec more than basic tripod ball head set up.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
With primes I could improve the image quality a bit, but the differences are (If DXO can be trusted)not that big.
I find there's a big difference between primes and zooms on the 800e.
Have you tried the 28 1.8G ? or either of the 85's ?
On A2 prints I find them both very good.
I also assume at some point everyones going to stop making the same expensive 50 something mm lens and have a shot at a decent super wide for FF 35's.
Not trying to talk you out of MF.
Some of the stuff I've seen from the good ones is absolutely amazing.
-
I would not recommend getting a MF camera only for the image quality, that will put you in an unhealthy strive for better and better and better and better. A tech cam gives you a very different shooting experience and some new possibilities concerning composition, so that is what I would recommend.
If you like the D800 shooting experience and just want to bump the resolution, I would wait and see what the reception of the new Pentax 645Z is. Not only because it's more cost effective, but I also guess it's a more robust camera concerning outdoor use than Hasselblad and Phase One 645 cameras, but if that matters or not will depend on your shooting style. For me that hike with the gear and live in a tent robustness is important though.
But of course, if you want the best single shot resolution, the full frame 645 backs is the way to go, say IQ260 or Credo 60 + Alpa tech cam with Rodenstock Digaron-W lenses. I would not recommend the 80 megapixel backs for other than the SLRs, I think there are too much cast/crosstalk/ripple issues with the tech wides, even the Rodenstocks.
-
Ah, then you're hitting up against a pretty expensive point. 40MP isn't going to do you much good, so you're at the 50/56/60MP range. To use with a technical camera, either now or later, you're looking at a Phase One or Leaf setup, or a Hasselblad H4D-60 or H5 series. One thing to consider is the ratio on the sensor - most MF chips are a 3x4 ratio, while your Nikon is a 2x3. The Leaf Aptus II - 10 is also a 2x3 ratio, and may be worth looking into more, as it'll give you the widest image without going to the 80MP.
Sony (36MP) = 7,360 × 4,912
Aptus II 10 (56MP) = 9,334 x 6,000
Credo 80 / IQ260 = 10,320 x 7,752
-
I am using a Nikon D800E with some lenses for my landscapes. This camera has changed my workflow a lot, I use rarely more than iso 100, and I use most of the time a tripod (Gitzo).
Which MF Camera might be the right tool for me? ( I am not biased)
Best Regards
Cerb-CH
For wide angle up to normal focal length landscape work a tech camera like a Arca RM3Di is an ideal setup. Things you gain over even the best dslr bodies and lenses:
1- Lens quality. Not even close. Most of the current lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock offer superb edge to edge resolution, low distorsions and low aberrations plus large image circles for camera / back movements.
2- Camera movements. The Arca rM3di offers back shift/rise/fall and tilt with every lens you mount. Alpa and Cambo also offer bodies with those options.
3- Camera / lens size and weight reduction. Tech camera lenses are much smaller and lighter compared to most high end SLR lenses. Some tech camera bodies are also quite small, compact and simple.
4- Sensor quality. The current crop of 50/60/80mp backs combined with the high quality tech camera lenses provide amazing system resolution and overall image quality that its just well above what you can get with the best dslr setup in dawn till dusk landscape situations. This is more pronounced in wide angle work. For night photography the current 50mp sony sensor (as in the phase IQ250) is at least equal or superior to any dslr otherwise dslrs are generally best for night landscapes although the IQ260 and the p45+ offer superb hour long exposure capabilities also.
5- System configurability. You can order many different lens, body and back combinations to suit your needs/wants and budget. There are a LOT of options. That is why it is recommended to work with a dealer.
(I own an Arca Rm3di, phase IQ160 back and Rodenstock 40mm and 70mm HR-W lenses. Digital Transitions in NY helped me in getting everything)
-
What's your budget? Round about...?
-
Sony (36MP) = 7,360 × 4,912
Aptus II 10 (56MP) = 9,334 x 6,000
Credo 80 / IQ260 = 10,320 x 7,752
This of course assumes all pixels are created equally. If you believe that I have a 41mp camera phone to sell you :).
-
thanks for your response I am trying to answer it.
I think I will start with a SLR, maybe I will try a tech or a view camera later.
Yes I think so.
It depends how big the gain on quality is.
The 14-24mm, but I use it most of the time at 24mm.
Both, weight is not that important.
Switzerland
So if you are considering a tech camera later then that would imply you'd want a digital back, which excludes the Leica S2 and 645D/645Z.
If 24mm equivalent is ok then you don't have to worry about sensor size; you can get that wide with any of the medium format sensor sizes including the smallest modern size (33x44mm). You can use our focal length equivalency calculator (https://digitaltransitions.com/page/tech-camera-visualizers). But 24mm equivalent is not a challenge. If on the other hand you want the equivalent of 14mm then you'll probably want a full frame sensor like the IQ160/260 or IQ180/IQ280 or P65+ (or the hassy full frame systems), because only some exotic combinations (e.g. an Alpa FPS with Canon lenses and a digital back) could get wide enough to provide a 14mm equivalent if you go with a crop sensor.
The long exposure bit is mostly a question of whether you can live with most backs which are limited to around 30 seconds or 60 seconds. Or whether you need one of the very few backs which can do multi-minute exposures with ease. The P65+ for instance is limited to 1 minute (at base ISO, in normal ambient temperatures) while the P45+, IQ260 and IQ250 can do an hour long exposure.
If you can stand the learning curve and cost of entry (both in time and money) then I'd consider jump directly to a tech camera.
But I wouldn't do a thing until you spend some time with one or two relevant systems that seem to check off the right boxes. Nothing will replace hands on experience. You may find you fall in love with the wooden handles, old-fashion mechanics, design simplicity, tactile interface, and methodical workflow of a tech camera - or you may absolutely despite it and long for touch-to-autofocus, upload-to-facebook, and other gizmo-gadgetry. No one can tell you which one it will be - you have to find out for yourself.
Best guess, without knowing more about you is you'd be very happy with an IQ260, Arca Swiss RM3Di, and a small number of lenses (e.g. 32HR, 60XL, 120XL) and then possibly an SLR body with a long lens (e.g. 240mm or 300mm) and macro lens (120mm macro) - two areas where an SLR is much easier to use than a tech camera. But that's only a very rough guess with limited information and no idea what your budget is.
(Since you're new I'll direct you to mind my signature. I work for a Phase One dealer. I try to give good and fair advice, but I would never claim to be unbiased.)
-
This of course assumes all pixels are created equally. If you believe that I have a 41mp camera phone to sell you :).
I fully agree, not all pixels are created equally. Based off the users comment with regard to large prints, it makes sense to point out the resolution, especially when moving from a 2x3 to a 3x4 ratio. Going to a 40MP CCD, while better pixels, a lot of those pixels are in the added dimension (height), rather than in a higher density of the width.
All told, the Gigapan may be the issue here - as in too much setup to do a quick 3 shot pano, but amazing for a 20 shot pano . Knowing what your nodal point is on a lens/body combo and having a Novoflex VR-II that can be setup easily at any point would be much easier.
-
Well,
Sony seems to know how to make good pixels… Phase One, I don't know…
I have a P45+, it is still in the 10000$ (US) range and I don't know if it is any better than a 2000$ Sony Alpha 99 of 2012 or a 2000$ Sony Alpha 900 of 2008 which I also happen to own.
I have no doubt that the IQ-250 delivers, as I have seen evidence on it. On the other hand, I know that the 41 MP phone cam does deliver, as I have seen evidence for it. Stefan Steib, the man behind the Hartblei HCam is quite impressed by the 41 MP phone cam. You know, it has a Zeiss designed lens with all aspheric elements designed for it.
My take is really that I enjoy my P45+, but the Sony is better in all aspects except resolution. Ask for any parameter except resolution and the Sony is the winner. I shoot a lot with the P45+ on my Hasselblad 555ELD, because I enjoy it. But Sony wins in all aspects except resolution, and the simplicity of the Hasselblad.
A way to put it: The Hasselblad with the P45+ is fun to shoot, but does not make great pictures. The Sony Alpha is functional and makes great pictures, less fun but more functional.
For the best image quality I would go with a technical camera with an IQ 280. If I wanted the best results, I would go with a technical camera and the IQ 250 and use live view focusing. Or I may go with the Pentax 645Z.
Would I need the best image quality at reasonable price, I would go Nikon D810 with good lenses.
But, right now I am shooting with a Hasselblad 555 ELD/P45+, and a Sony Alpha 99, being quite happy with both. But, the Alpha 99 is the more functional camera of the both. By the way, I also shoot a Sony Alpha 77, which I use for street and wildlife. The Alpha 77 has smaller pixels at APS-C frame size. I can shoot 400/5.6 on the Alpha 77, or 400/5.6 with 1.4X extender on the Alpha 99 at f/8. Results are to bee pretty similar.
Best regards
Erik
This of course assumes all pixels are created equally. If you believe that I have a 41mp camera phone to sell you :).
-
Which MF Camera might be the right tool for me? ( I am not biased)
I am biased.
Look no further: http://www.alpa.ch/de/home.html (http://www.alpa.ch/de/home.html)
http://vimeo.com/98330650 (http://vimeo.com/98330650)
-
Sony seems to know how to make good pixels… Phase One, I don't know…
I think the fact the P45+, with a sensor made in 2005, can even be considered in competition in pure image-quality with your Sony from 2012 says a lot. And it's letting you use a body and lenses you like using.
-
For wide angle up to normal focal length landscape work a tech camera like a Arca RM3Di is an ideal setup. Things you gain over even the best dslr bodies and lenses:
1- Lens quality. Not even close. Most of the current lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock offer superb edge to edge resolution, low distorsions and low aberrations plus large image circles for camera / back movements.
2- Camera movements. The Arca rM3di offers back shift/rise/fall and tilt with every lens you mount. Alpa and Cambo also offer bodies with those options.
3- Camera / lens size and weight reduction. Tech camera lenses are much smaller and lighter compared to most high end SLR lenses. Some tech camera bodies are also quite small, compact and simple.
4- Sensor quality. The current crop of 50/60/80mp backs combined with the high quality tech camera lenses provide amazing system resolution and overall image quality that its just well above what you can get with the best dslr setup in dawn till dusk landscape situations. This is more pronounced in wide angle work. For night photography the current 50mp sony sensor (as in the phase IQ250) is at least equal or superior to any dslr otherwise dslrs are generally best for night landscapes although the IQ260 and the p45+ offer superb hour long exposure capabilities also.
5- System configurability. You can order many different lens, body and back combinations to suit your needs/wants and budget. There are a LOT of options. That is why it is recommended to work with a dealer.
(I own an Arca Rm3di, phase IQ160 back and Rodenstock 40mm and 70mm HR-W lenses. Digital Transitions in NY helped me in getting everything)
What he said. I shoot the same body and lenses with an IQ180 and also have the Rodie 150, used to have the 23 but just sold it to move to the 28. I also stitch 80% of the time.
But I also have a d800e with a Zeiss 50 and 100 Incredibly sharp and I don't think the Rodenstock lens are any sharper (they are lighter however)and have some great images from the Nikon. I prefer the arca because I use shift and tilt most of the time, and I've gotten where I really enjoy the shooting style, but also like the Nikon. (I also have an a7r with Nikon adapter and it's great with the Nikon glass as well
Regarding stitching, I agree with Bernard, manual is the way to go. The key for me shooting stitches ia pano rotation unit (http://www.manfrotto.us/panoramic-rotation-unit). Set my left point, set my degrees of rotation based on lens, count how many clicks to the right and I can shoot the actual pano very quickly because you don't ever have to look through the viewfinder. On the Nikon I have it set to a two second delay which is plenty for the camera to stabilize, so a 9 shot stitch only takes about 25 to 30 seconds to shoot depending on shutter speed. Then move back to the first point and repeat. It's accurate enough I can shoot HDR or focus stacks only changing the aperture or focus for each series, helicon focus or PS has no problems getting them aligned.
-
Hi,
The P45+ has about twice the sensor size compared with my Sony Alphas.
The P45+ was realeased in 2007 and the Sony Alpha 900 I also shoot in in 2008. Used P45+ still sells around 10k$, which may be something like 40% of it's price new, not considering inflation. I think the P45+ was still on the price list 2013, wasn't it? For 10k$, you can get 5 A99s or say 2 A99s and 3-4 very good Zeiss lenses.
So I don't know if I agree. The IQ-250 sensor is made by Sony and it is quite clearly better in dark noise than the IQ-260 and the IQ-280, your own samples from the library shoot indicates this clearly. I have earlier compared some raw images coming from an IQ-180 with a Nikon D800E using Capture One and later a shot by Chris Barret using IQ-260 and Sony A7r, both cameras at 100 ISO, both one stop above base ISO. Chris exposed both to maintain highlights. The Sony could handle 2s exposure while the IQ-260 blew out highlights at 2s, so Chris used a 1s exposure, giving the Sony a one stop edge in the shadows. Also, the Sony didn't need LCC, which also helps shadow detail. So the comparison was biased a bit in Sony's favor, but that bias was coming from real life shooting. The IQ-260 image had better detail, of course, that is a true advantage of using a 60 (or 80) MP digital back with an excellent lens.
Here is the Chris Barret list: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=84842.140
The IQ-280 / D800E images were courtesy of Tim Ashley, article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts?start=3
No doubt the A7r had much better details in the darks. That is the reason I have some doubts about the Phase One pixels.
Obviously, the IQ-260 and the IQ-280 have more pixels, and quantity has a quality of it's own.
It is my understanding that Phase One has been involved with the design of the IQ-260, achieving long exposure capability. Also, it seems that the IQ-260 works well with lenses having large beam angles, the IQ-280 less so.
The way I see it.
You need:
- Maximum image size (for enlarging) -> go IQ-280 on a technical camera
- Ultra wides with movements -> go IQ-260 or IQ-250 with Canon T&S lenses
- Maximum DR and live view -> go IQ-250
I would say live view is essential for pin point focusing accuracy, not least with rental equipment which may have been subject to some rough handling. MF is often used stopped down a bit more than DSLRs which reduces the need for exact focusing, but medium apertures would still be advisable for maximum sharpness.
Best regards
Erik
I think the fact the P45+, with a sensor made in 2005, can even be considered in competition in pure image-quality with your Sony from 2012 says a lot. And it's letting you use a body and lenses you like using.
-
Hi,
Nothing wrong with being biased, especially not if the bias is stated.
So, what back would you put on the camera? Would you use an IQ-250, which has live view or an IQ-260 more tolerant for lenses with large beam tilt? How would you focus, using laser distance meter? The distance meters I have checked (Leica Distos) have a range of 200 m, don't know if that is long enough for say a 200 mm lens.
Personally, I very much like live view for accurate focus and I would guess that the IQ-250 may be a game changer on technical cameras, but it may have problems with tilts and shifts
I presume that you would use Alpa lenses on the Alpa?
Best regards
Erik
I am biased.
Look no further: http://www.alpa.ch/de/home.html (http://www.alpa.ch/de/home.html)
http://vimeo.com/98330650 (http://vimeo.com/98330650)
-
Focus with the IQ250, and then slap on the IQ280 for the shot :D
Hi,
Nothing wrong with being biased, especially not if the bias is stated.
So, what back would you put on the camera? Would you use an IQ-250, which has live view or an IQ-260 more tolerant for lenses with large beam tilt? How would you focus, using laser distance meter? The distance meters I have checked (Leica Distos) have a range of 200 m, don't know if that is long enough for say a 200 mm lens.
Personally, I very much like live view for accurate focus and I would guess that the IQ-250 may be a game changer on technical cameras, but it may have problems with tilts and shifts
I presume that you would use Alpa lenses on the Alpa?
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Sounds like bright idea. I never thought of the IQ-250 as a focusing device! Of course you can use the IQ-250 vertically mounted and stitch three exposures, would give a 100 MP image (or so).
Best regards
Erik
Focus with the IQ250, and then slap on the IQ280 for the shot :D
-
Thanks for the helpful responses
I read a little bit on the HP's of the different companies ( Mamiyaleaf,Hasselblad,Phaseone, Leica,Pentax)
I do prefer AF, which means, for now I will stay with DSLR.
Are the lenses of the tech cameras much better then the Phaseone oder Hasselblad lenses?
Does LS makes sense if you never work in the studio?
What would you do?
If I understand it right, on LL most Users prefer Phaseone to Hasselblad and Mamiyaleaf, although there is a big price difference between them ( for example IQ260/160,H5D 60 and Credo 60 ).
What are the advantages of Phase One?
P.S. The main reason for me to buy a MF camera , is the much better image quality I expect from the MF System.
-
LS lenses cost more than the non-LS lenses because of the shutter, but Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses are all LS lenses as their body doesn't have a focal plane shutter. Some folks here can speak to specific nuances with the LS verses D models of lenses, and some lenses are only available one way (ala the new 40-80mm LS lens).
LL has a wide variate of users - and we are pretty good about disagreeing with each other. ;D Keep in mind that Phase One owns Leaf and has a stake in Mamiya.
Generally, when talking about MF, you are getting into a workflow situation. Some people end up investing in Phase/Leaf gear to take advantage of Capture One as their workflow tool. Some people purchase a Hasselblad H4X and HC/HCD lenses and a Phase One back because the like the feeling of the H body compared to the Phase One/Mamiya 645 DF+. Same for Contax users, as Phase/Leaf backs can be used on their cameras. I'm leaving Leica and Pentax out, but they too could be the tool you're looking for.
Look around and see where your dealers are at for these brands. See who will work with you in testing out the cameras to see how they work for you.
Download the trial of Capture One and give it a try with your Nikon - it's really slick even for 35mm cameras if you ever work tethered.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7.aspx
Consider a photography trip that includes using this gear, such as offered by some of the folks here at LuLa and PODAS. Our collective experience can help you troubleshoot an issue, but none of what the internet says beats having the cameras in your hands.
http://podas.info/
-
Hi,
Leica S has the advantage of taking both Hasselblad H and Contax 645 glass with full AF, but it has a small old generation sensor.
Pentax 645D has similar sensor to Leica S, while the newer 645Z has a new sensor from Sony.
I would say that Hasselblad may be worth a look, it is a well designed system, it seems to me. But, it lacks live view and doesn't have 80MP, if you need 80 MP Phase One and Leaf are the options.
With Leaf backs you also have the Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod 2 as an option.
I would suggest waiting for what is coming at Photokina in a couple of months.
Best regards
Erik
LS lenses cost more than the non-LS lenses because of the shutter, but Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses are all LS lenses as their body doesn't have a focal plane shutter. Some folks here can speak to specific nuances with the LS verses D models of lenses, and some lenses are only available one way (ala the new 40-80mm LS lens).
LL has a wide variate of users - and we are pretty good about disagreeing with each other. ;D Keep in mind that Phase One owns Leaf and has a stake in Mamiya.
Generally, when talking about MF, you are getting into a workflow situation. Some people end up investing in Phase/Leaf gear to take advantage of Capture One as their workflow tool. Some people purchase a Hasselblad H4X and HC/HCD lenses and a Phase One back because the like the feeling of the H body compared to the Phase One/Mamiya 645 DF+. Same for Contax users, as Phase/Leaf backs can be used on their cameras. I'm leaving Leica and Pentax out, but they too could be the tool you're looking for.
Look around and see where your dealers are at for these brands. See who will work with you in testing out the cameras to see how they work for you.
Download the trial of Capture One and give it a try with your Nikon - it's really slick even for 35mm cameras if you ever work tethered.
http://www.phaseone.com/en/Imaging-Software/Capture-One-Pro-7.aspx
Consider a photography trip that includes using this gear, such as offered by some of the folks here at LuLa and PODAS. Our collective experience can help you troubleshoot an issue, but none of what the internet says beats having the cameras in your hands.
http://podas.info/
-
Thanks for the helpful responses
I read a little bit on the HP's of the different companies ( Mamiyaleaf,Hasselblad,Phaseone, Leica,Pentax)
I do prefer AF, which means, for now I will stay with DSLR.
Are the lenses of the tech cameras much better then the Phaseone oder Hasselblad lenses?
Does LS makes sense if you never work in the studio?
What would you do?
If I understand it right, on LL most Users prefer Phaseone to Hasselblad and Mamiyaleaf, although there is a big price difference between them ( for example IQ260/160,H5D 60 and Credo 60 ).
What are the advantages of Phase One?
P.S. The main reason for me to buy a MF camera , is the much better image quality I expect from the MF System.
Hi
I know we all work in different ways and have different priorities but if you are looking for a great landscape system then I don't really understand the need for AF or laser range finders or all that stuff, or even live view if I'm honest. Using most lenses in their optimum apertures, especially when you're talking tech cameras and the like, everything is in focus! I loved my Alpa even with the older P25+ back I had, at optimum apertures, I could be happy that on a tripod I'd have everything from infinity to a couple of meters in front of me perfectly sharp, the screen on the back was perfectly adequate for framing and histogram view, I don't think I ever needed more than 3 shots to get composition and exposure right. The real benefits to the tech cam for me was being able to shift within the image circle, such a great way of working. Nowadays I work with a dslr and manual focus zeiss lenses for landscape, f11 on a Zeiss 21 f2.8 backed off from infinity a bit and everything from just in front of the tripod to the horizon is sharp, I just need to point it at what I want.
Like I said, we all work differently but I think it's possible to look for too many options when it's actually pretty simple, with the Alpa, I could practically set focus and aperture and wander about wherever I like just worrying about framing, not having to think about focus, like a high quality range finder set at hyperfocal distance, pretty easy really. If I wanted a dedicated landscape setup now and I wasn't printing larger than 24" x 36" it would probably be an alpa, Phase P25+ and some decent glass, spend the rest on going to nice places to point it at, Printing larger I'd go for the P65+ and most importantly learn how to use it and get the most from it.
Just my view though, different disciplines may benefit more from the modern backs but I just don't feel you will as a landscape shooter.
Mat
-
I wouldn't equate landscape shooting with ultra wides at infinity. I often shoot landscapes with long lenses and not always at infinity.
I would also add that a funktional live view is most helpful also on tilts, specially if peaking is well implemented.
Best regards
Erik
Hi
I know we all work in different ways and have different priorities but if you are looking for a great landscape system then I don't really understand the need for AF or laser range finders or all that stuff, or even live view if I'm honest. Using most lenses in their optimum apertures, especially when you're talking tech cameras and the like, everything is in focus! I loved my Alpa even with the older P25+ back I had, at optimum apertures, I could be happy that on a tripod I'd have everything from infinity to a couple of meters in front of me perfectly sharp, the screen on the back was perfectly adequate for framing and histogram view, I don't think I ever needed more than 3 shots to get composition and exposure right. The real benefits to the tech cam for me was being able to shift within the image circle, such a great way of working. Nowadays I work with a dslr and manual focus zeiss lenses for landscape, f11 on a Zeiss 21 f2.8 backed off from infinity a bit and everything from just in front of the tripod to the horizon is sharp, I just need to point it at what I want.
Like I said, we all work differently but I think it's possible to look for too many options when it's actually pretty simple, with the Alpa, I could practically set focus and aperture and wander about wherever I like just worrying about framing, not having to think about focus, like a high quality range finder set at hyperfocal distance, pretty easy really. If I wanted a dedicated landscape setup now and I wasn't printing larger than 24" x 36" it would probably be an alpa, Phase P25+ and some decent glass, spend the rest on going to nice places to point it at, Printing larger I'd go for the P65+ and most importantly learn how to use it and get the most from it.
Just my view though, different disciplines may benefit more from the modern backs but I just don't feel you will as a landscape shooter.
Mat
-
I wouldn't equate landscape shooting with ultra wides at infinity. I often shoot landscapes with long lenses and not always at infinity.
I would also add that a funktional live view is most helpful also on tilts, specially if peaking is well implemented.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, the IQ250 is a rangefinder that can also take pictures :)
One might make a small sensor back just as a rangefinder ...
Edmund
-
Fair point Erik, it doesn't need to be a wide, one of my favourite landscape lenses is 135mm but I stick by my basic point, it is possible to take beautiful landscape images without needing all the latest kit and AF lenses for landscape, to me are just unnecessary.
Tilt for product shots etc. in the studio, sure, I can see how live view would benefit but I'd rather be tethered anyway so less important, tilt in the field, that's just about knowing your equipment surely? You can set-up outside in the garden, set tripod at full height and work out very quickly how much tilt you need to get everything in focus from just a few practice shots, then lower your tripod and do the same etc. etc. Doing this, I personally know that when I arrive at a scene, based on my framing, I can set the tripod up, set focus and tilt knowing exactly how much I need to cover foreground to horizon, that's just basic understanding of your equipment. Looking at every scene afresh and working through setting up tilt seems pointless to me.
Of course it doesn't matter how I work you would be entirely within your rights to think my processes are daft, but my idea of a landscape is a beautiful view, in focus from front to back, that's just my interpretation though, regardless of whether you use tilt, shift, stop down or whatever. If I could go back 20 years knowing what I know now, I would not have bothered buying half the stuff I have, people who buy images want to be blown away by the content of the image, the scene, the emotion, the weather, whatever it is, as long as it resonates with them, nobody has ever commented to me that if i had taken the photograph using different/better equipment, they'd have bought it, lots have commented that if I'd pointed it at something nicer they'd have bought it but that's a different matter entirely!
I print a lot and have learned that where I am, a 24x36" print, matted and framed is just about as big as most people can fit in their houses, I can print from pretty much any camera available now and get a beautiful print at that size. People like seeing bigger prints and often comment how great they look but rarely do people have space. That said, if i was to buy a landscape kit now it would be a 40mm rodi on an Alpa STC with a P25+ back and that's it, because I could buy all that for less than the price of a IQ250 and still have money to drive across Europe and point it at lovely things, we all want different things though and I'm not daft enough to think my choices would matter to anyone other than me.
Mat
-
Hi,
I didn't want to be impolite in any way…
I must admit that I was not thinking about tech cameras having exact click stop at infinity, nor that landscape pictures are often made at hyperfocal distance.
When the Alpa was discussed by Mark Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann here on LuLa much of the discussion was about the finely geared focusing and using a laser distance meter for accurate focus.
Personally, I am shooting many sorts of landscape and other pictures, and focus my cameras manually using live view at maximum magnification, whenever possible. I don't find it very easy to focus on ground glass.
The original poster wants maximum sharpness and is using medium to long lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Fair point Erik, it doesn't need to be a wide, one of my favourite landscape lenses is 135mm but I stick by my basic point, it is possible to take beautiful landscape images without needing all the latest kit and AF lenses for landscape, to me are just unnecessary.
Tilt for product shots etc. in the studio, sure, I can see how live view would benefit but I'd rather be tethered anyway so less important, tilt in the field, that's just about knowing your equipment surely? You can set-up outside in the garden, set tripod at full height and work out very quickly how much tilt you need to get everything in focus from just a few practice shots, then lower your tripod and do the same etc. etc. Doing this, I personally know that when I arrive at a scene, based on my framing, I can set the tripod up, set focus and tilt knowing exactly how much I need to cover foreground to horizon, that's just basic understanding of your equipment. Looking at every scene afresh and working through setting up tilt seems pointless to me.
Of course it doesn't matter how I work you would be entirely within your rights to think my processes are daft, but my idea of a landscape is a beautiful view, in focus from front to back, that's just my interpretation though, regardless of whether you use tilt, shift, stop down or whatever. If I could go back 20 years knowing what I know now, I would not have bothered buying half the stuff I have, people who buy images want to be blown away by the content of the image, the scene, the emotion, the weather, whatever it is, as long as it resonates with them, nobody has ever commented to me that if i had taken the photograph using different/better equipment, they'd have bought it, lots have commented that if I'd pointed it at something nicer they'd have bought it but that's a different matter entirely!
I print a lot and have learned that where I am, a 24x36" print, matted and framed is just about as big as most people can fit in their houses, I can print from pretty much any camera available now and get a beautiful print at that size. People like seeing bigger prints and often comment how great they look but rarely do people have space. That said, if i was to buy a landscape kit now it would be a 40mm rodi on an Alpa STC with a P25+ back and that's it, because I could buy all that for less than the price of a IQ250 and still have money to drive across Europe and point it at lovely things, we all want different things though and I'm not daft enough to think my choices would matter to anyone other than me.
Mat
-
Didn't think you were being impolite, it's just a discussion.
The OP stated he mainly used his 14-24 at 24 on his D800E and was looking to lift quality, hence suggesting a 40 on a tech cam with a db, it just doesn't need to be a fancy one to get great quality. I didn't realise you hadn't used a tech camera before, I thought you were talking from experience, I have no idea why finely geared focus and laser meters are mentioned, maybe people like using that stuff, but having shot many thousands of frames with an Alpa I can say that for landscapes it is a wonderful tool and I knew by feel how far to adjust the focus back from the stop to get everything in focus, it's just practice. Working with it on a couple of commercial projects, I only did a couple with it, I never needed more than 3 shots maximum to have everything dialled in, exposure, framing and focus, less than a minute. Out of curiosity I set up a long tape measure once then took a shot at a variety of focus lengths marked on the lens, all of them were exactly right, very impressive but I never needed any of that for landscapes. I guess you could measure out a subject and shoot wide open but a tech cam just feels like the wrong tool for the job, I'd just grab a DSLR.
Anyway, each to there own, maybe all the OP has to do is buy some Zeiss glass for his D800 unless he's printing really big in which case stitch as Bernard suggests, either that or buy a IQ250, Alpa and a whole set of Rodenstock lenses, why the hell not if that's what he wants, maybe get a laser rangefinder too!
-
Hi,
I guess I mixed up some of the postings and threads, I thought the OP wanted to shoot longer lenses, sorry.
I am not shooting a technical camera, but I own and try to use a Hasselblad Flexbody in addition to my V series Hasselblad. I do find focusing a bit of a challenge.
Very sorry for irrelevant posting, anyway.
Best regards
Erik
Didn't think you were being impolite, it's just a discussion.
The OP stated he mainly used his 14-24 at 24 on his D800E and was looking to lift quality, hence suggesting a 40 on a tech cam with a db, it just doesn't need to be a fancy one to get great quality. I didn't realise you hadn't used a tech camera before, I thought you were talking from experience, I have no idea why finely geared focus and laser meters are mentioned, maybe people like using that stuff, but having shot many thousands of frames with an Alpa I can say that for landscapes it is a wonderful tool and I knew by feel how far to adjust the focus back from the stop to get everything in focus, it's just practice. Working with it on a couple of commercial projects, I only did a couple with it, I never needed more than 3 shots maximum to have everything dialled in, exposure, framing and focus, less than a minute. Out of curiosity I set up a long tape measure once then took a shot at a variety of focus lengths marked on the lens, all of them were exactly right, very impressive but I never needed any of that for landscapes. I guess you could measure out a subject and shoot wide open but a tech cam just feels like the wrong tool for the job, I'd just grab a DSLR.
Anyway, each to there own, maybe all the OP has to do is buy some Zeiss glass for his D800 unless he's printing really big in which case stitch as Bernard suggests, either that or buy a IQ250, Alpa and a whole set of Rodenstock lenses, why the hell not if that's what he wants, maybe get a laser rangefinder too!
-
I also use longer lenses ( longer than 24mm).