Using a DSLR for landscape photography

Godfrey, I use a Contax G2 with 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. Usually, I carry 2 or 3 lenses in a waist pack and another on the camera itself. This kit is extremely light and compact and, other than having to change lenses frequently, is a pleasure to use. Also, the lens quality is superb. I will hate to give it up, and perhaps I won't.

You will probably have to test for yourself. That is the only way you will know for sure which is better for you. I shoot very little slide film and landscapes is not something I do that often or print that large. For me I prefer the grainless look of digital for most of my work. A 12x16 inch wedding portrait from digital looks nice and very smooth. Negative film would give me better dynamic range but as I usually get to control how I shoot the dynanic range of digital can be worked around most of the time. As I get nice looking prints I am generaly happy as the prints are what counts for me.

Lets assume that ther is no significant difference between film and 8mp DSLR. If one knows how to use the film then why would he want to switch to digital?

 

In order to double the resolution of 6mp one would need a 24mp sensor. (sensor is two dimentional and the resolution should be doubled in both directions) 10mp sensor is better that 6mp, but to a much lesser degree that a 3mp sensor is better that a 2mp one.

 

For the best performance a small sensor with tiny photoelements will require a ?perfect? (very sharp) lens. (check the prices of Zeiss F or Zeiss-Sony lenses) One should be ready to pay for it big, very big money. What if this peron needs more than one lens?

Robert Goldstein:<br>

<i>..."I use a Contax G2 with 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. Usually, I

carry 2 or 3 lenses in a waist pack and another on the camera itself. This kit is extremely

light and compact and, other than having to change lenses frequently, is a pleasure to use.

Also, the lens quality is superb."...</i>

<br><br>

I had the Contax G2 with a similar mix of lenses (16, 28, 45, 90). I used to carry it in the

same bag that I use to carry the Nikon FM and 20, 35, 50, and 85mm lenses. Seems about

the same size and weight overall, the G2 body is thinner and the Nikon lenses a little

bulkier ... not by much.

<br><br>

You'll likely find that the mid-range DSLRs (Canon30D, NIkonD200, Pentax K10D, etc) are

thicker and a bit bulkier, but not by much. Lenses are a bit larger depending upon the

lenses you want to use. Since the format for the DSLRs is different, the lens mix will be

too.

<br><br>

My standard DSLR kit of the past year and a half (Pentax *ist DS body with three lenses)

fits in the same bag the the Contax G2 kit did also. The new 10Mpixel Pentax body is a bit

larger, but there's room in the bag for it. The Pentax DA21, FA35 and DA70 lenses are all

extremely compact and excellent performers; the ultrawide DA14/2.8 (equivalent to your

21) is a bit bulky but also an excellent performer.

<br><br>

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

<br><br>

best, <br>

Godfrey

<Lets assume that ther is no significant difference between film and 8mp DSLR. If one knows how to use the film then why would he want to switch to digital?>

 

There are practical advantages to digital cameras, some of which were enumerated by Godfrey far up this thread. As for myself, I would very much appreciate getting instant feedback regarding exposure. And surprising even to myself, I would like to try shooting with a zoom lens mounted on an SLR. I believe that this would encourage a slightly different style of photography that what I have been practicing. Fixed focal length lenses would still be the choice for landscape work, however.

<i>"What are better colors? That's a totally subjective standard."</i><p>

 

Yup, and that's what this discussion should be about, not some minute absolutes that are essentially meaningless. We all have subjective reasons for using our preferred medium, which may or may not be important to the next guy. I shoot transparencies (primarily 4x5) for landscapes because it gives me the look I want for the type of shots I take. I do most of my landscape work on overcast days and for me, digital simply cannot replicate Velvia's response under these conditions. For me, digital is just too flat and lacking here. Sorry.<p>

 

<i>As to fewer artifacts, do you shoot JPEG's, or convert from raw to TIFF?</i><p>

 

Okay, here come the minute, essentially meaningless (to most) absolutes. I shoot RAW (NEF) exclusively and yes, there are artifacts with digital that will sometime stick out in some images. Purple fringing, moiré, "faked" detail and poor highlight roll-off are a few that will show up more often than I'd like. Perhaps this is a by product of the Bayer array and associated demosiacing, I don't know. Regardless, the ONLY artifact I've ever gotten from my film scans is grain-aliasing, which as I've explained is easily taken care of with Noise Ninja and the extreme number of pixels which essentially results in oversampling.<p>

 

Anyway, in the context of this discussion, and considering the fact that the original poster is happy with 35mm for landscapes, he should be more than pleased with a DSLR, but I would at least recommend the Canon 5D for this application. Why? The availability of good wide-angle primes which are not available for cropped format DSLRs. Also, the extra megapixels, increased dynamic range and the bigger viewfinder are very useful for landscape type images. Couple the above with Canon's current rebates and owning a FF DSLR is almost a no-brainer.

Instead of talking more in the abstract, I was able to dig up some actual photos we can look at here.

 

Awhile back, I was curious about the behavior of Provia 100 relative to Reala (both in 35mm.) I shot exposures using both films, and included a few using my Canon XT. The comparison of the two films can be found in this thread, http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GEEM.

 

I was primarily interested in comparing the films, so the XT had a difference lens on the body. This is unfortunate in the current context, but the images still basically convey the spirit of the three different medium. The film images were shot with a 24-70 f2.8L, while the digital had a 50mm f1.8 on the body.

 

Okay, here's the reduced full frame from the XT.<div></div>

Now, a 100% crop from the XT. On a 17 inch LCD panel running 1280x1024 (i.e., 96dpi) the whole image would be about 30in by 20in.<div></div>

100% crop from Reala. Scanned on a Nikon CS4000 at 4000dpi.<div></div>

100% Provia 100 crop. Again, scanned on the same Nikon at 4000dpi.<div></div>

Robert Goldstein asked originally whether 35mm film and current DSLRs are comparable. In real life uses, it's an unqualified yes.

 

I no longer shoot reversal film. It's limiting in resolution and latitude; just not worth the hassle.

 

I still used Kodak Gold 100 quite often. This is one emulsion that noticeably and significantly exceeds 8MP digital in usable resolution, with a color palette that's just right. It's only downside is higher than typical grain.

Robert Goldstein:<br>

<i>.."And surprising even to myself, I would like to try shooting with a zoom lens

mounted on an SLR."..</i>

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW3/large/47c.jpg"><br>

Cliffs south of Davenport, California - 2003<br>

<i>©2003 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Canon 10D + Canon 70-200mm f/4 L @70mm<br></i>

</center><br>

Yes, it is indeed a different way of shooting. You'll enjoy it!

<br><br>

Godfrey

Godfrey,

I'm sorry but may be i'm missing something..... Any b&w film can do it....

Actually any film can do it

I'll post a couple of pictures. Both were taken on a very bright sunny morning in Santa Fe.

Film - HP5+. There are no clipped highlights, all shadow details are preserved. (check

histograms) You may want to reproduce them (out of curiosity) using DSLR and any software.

That's why I use my Cont ND not very frequently. DSLRs are not as gentle with light as film.

You may want to check more pictures at:

\http://www.flickr.com/photos/90094587@N00/

Their quality is somewhat better

I'm completely in the dark as to what you're trying to demonstrate, Stan, or what message

you're responding too.

 

My last post to this thread was showing a landscape photo made with a Canon 10D and a

70-200/4L zoom lens, to show that using a zoom lens could be a viable way of doing

landscape photography.

 

Beyond that, I have never said that it was impossible to do landscape photography with a

35mm camera, given a reasonable expectation on quality (compared to larger format film,

of course). I did that for at least 30 years.

 

What I have said, and remain quite comfortable in saying, is that today's digital SLR

cameras can produce landscape work at least on par with 35mm quality, and that I

consider them better tools for the task.

 

Now, what are your examples intending to demonstrate?

 

Godfrey

Godfrey,

I completely agree with you re. zoom lenses and landscapes.

Sometimes I also use Vario-Sonnar 45-90 for landscapes.

Too sad the the dynamic range of a typical DSLR is a lot narrower that that of the film. It results in black shadows and blown out highlights.

I was trying to demonstrate the dynamic range of the film.

"Robert, do you have the reduced version of the Reala and PRovia as well?"

 

Yes. I posted the reduced full frame in the link to the original thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GEEM. You'll have to scroll down a bit to get to the images.

Les,

 

Please stop trying to provoke me. I will not be addressing you or your ravings in any further

discussion.

 

thank you,

Godfrey

<center><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/large/33-half.jpg"

target=new1>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/large/33.jpg" border=0>

</a><br>

Cows Enjoying Sunrise - Isle of Man 2006<br>

<i>©2006 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + DA21/3.2 Limited<br>

ISO 400 @ f/6.3 @ 1/25 sec, Av</i><br><br>

Click image above for a larger rendering.<br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/large/33-half-bw.jpg"

target=new2>Click this link for a larger rendering in B&W</a><br>

</center><br>

 

Stan: <i><br>

> I completely agree with you re. zoom lenses and landscapes.<br>

> Sometimes I also use Vario-Sonnar 45-90 for landscapes. Too sad<br>

> the the dynamic range of a typical DSLR is a lot narrower that<br>

> that of the film. It results in black shadows and blown out<br>

> highlights. I was trying to demonstrate the dynamic range of the<br>

> film.</i><br>

<br>

Stan,

<br><br>

Thanks for clarifying. I couldn't make out what you were trying to demonstrate. <br>

<br>

I disagree with your statement that the dynamic range of the typical DSLR is a lot narrower

than that of film, but I understand the misconception that a lot of people have about this

issue. It comes down to a basic difference in how digital exposure works with respect to

capture and how images from digital capture need to be processed to maximize dynamic

range. And to the fact that there's been a great increase in sensor dynamic range in recent

years. <br>

<br>

While more dynamic range is always a good thing, current generation sensors from about

2002 onwards in almost all the higher-end cameras have had sufficient dynamic range to

be on par with most film emulsions. The problem is in the fact that correct exposure

evaluation and subsequent RAW conversion processing is poorly understood and is not the

same as for film. <br>

<br>

Also, storage format for captures makes a difference. Those who store captures in JPEG or

TIFF format, in-camera, are throwing wasy about 60% of the data captured by the sensor

using the in-camera RAW conversion for gamma correction and chroma interpolation, as

well as converting from the typical 12bit quantization to 8bit. This has the effect of

reducing dynamic range from the ideal situation, measured 9 stops available in RAW

capture to the 4-6 stop range, which is quite a lot. <br>

<br>

By comparison, most color transparency films in my experience have between 3-5 stops of

dynamic range, and most color/B&W negative films have 6-8 stops of dynamic range.

Some B&W films go beyond that, typically with "exotic" developers like TD3 and other

formulations, and can get as much as 10-11 stops of dynamic range. <br>

<br>

You can obtain the full dynamic range of a digital sensor by capturing in RAW format. You

must expose for the scene in such a way as to maximize the differentiable tones

mathematically, and this requires a different technique than film exposure because sensor

characteristics are different. If the scene you are capturing has a difficult, contrasty

lighting situation, you cannot process the RAW files with the conversion defaults either ...

you have to tailor the RAW conversion processing to extract all the tonal differentiation

with minimum losses. And sometimes you have to process the same exposure more than

once at different settings in order to capture everything the sensor captured and then

blend the results, particularly when outputting to 8bit devices like monitors and printers.

<br>

<br>

The photograph posted at the top of this response was made as the sun was rising. That

beautiful cloud formation in the sky metered out at several stops above the foreground

where the cows were. With JPEG capture, no amount of fussing the exposure would have

given me the entire range of values I wanted. Capturing in RAW would obtained all the

tonal values, but I needed to do some special processing to compress them down for

expression in the 8bit tonal range that a JPEG can render. (BTW: you can see both color

and B&W renderings in a larger format by clicking on the image above and the supplied

accessory link.)<br>

<br>

best,<br>

Godfrey<br>

By measurement, experimentation and testing, Les. I don't care what some marketing

department wants to tell me in a white paper.

 

I care what the equipment does, and the photographs it produces. See the discussion

posted above in this thread.

 

BTW, some B&W films can capture a larger dynamic range using special developers like

TD3 and Pyro by one or two stops, but that's outside the domain of color films and

standard processing of B&W films.

 

Godfrey

Here's a test I conducted shortly after getting my D50.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=332985">Test images</a><p>

Minuet

 

Holy moses, Batman, i've discovered a new word.

least as good image quality<div></div>

That shot (with cows) is quite difficult for digicams. The sky is completely gone and there

is no chance to recover it.

Film/development compress highlights, sensor cuts them off completely. Look at my b&w

pictures and check their histograms. Highlites are preserved. Even the flare on the head of

the angel is not "white", there are some details. The reflection of the street in the store

window has details in the most bright ares. Believe me that morning in Santa fe was very

bright. On both pictures we see a very reasonable amount of the shadow details (actually

shadows are almost perfect.)

Digicams can not handle so much light, except few ones with very expensive sensors. I'm

talking about cameras/backs that cost a lot more than typical DSLRs.

You may want to look at my gallery (at flickr.com). There is a shot Chimayoinside. Both

highlites and shadows are preserved, another shot I'll attach to this message.

In both casesi used Contax ND. One should not forget that it is ot a "typical" DSLR. The

sensor only is about $2000. NDs still go for about $3500 on ebay.

I compared ND and film and I shoul admit that in general the film handles light much

better.

Stan Belyaev:<br>

<br>

> That shot (with cows) is quite difficult for digicams. The sky is<br>

> completely gone and there is no chance to recover it.<br>

<br>

Bullshit, Stan. <br>

<br>

In the Cows photo, areas in the sky which are white were WHITE, with no detail, the nature

of sunlight reflecting from cloud and fog. No highlights were lost or clipped ... the rising

sun was reflecting off the solid white cloud and fog. If I'd underexposed it sufficiently, it

would simply be blank gray and the rest of the photo would be mostly black (and noisy).

<br>

<br>

Godfrey