switching to digital

<p>First let me say that I HAVE read a lot of previous posts on this and still have questions. Seems like nobody is in a similar situation. I am a semi-professional landscape photographer. I shoot medium format using Mamiya equipment and a hand held light meter. I then scan in the images using a relatively good film scanner (minolta dimage mult-scan pro). I have given up waiting for Mamiya to get their act togeather and make an affordable back for my camera. It seems clear that by the time Mamiya wakes up and produces an affordable back, the '35mm' digital stuff will be equivelent size wise to the 'medium format' digital stuff and then the inherit advantage to the shorter focal lengths of the '35mm' cameras will make 'medium format' obsolete. So, I am trying to figure out how best to go digital. I am used to shooting at relatively slow shutter speeds (1 sec, 1/2 sec, etc), carrying 15-20lbs of gear around with me - and a tripod, doing my own focusing and shooting 'mirror-up'. I do not intend to start trying to shoot animals or videos (or flash). The obvious advantages of digital (that I see now) are that i would no longer have to scan in my positives with all the accompanying dust, I could try Photoshop's merge to HDR feature to capture highlight and shadow detail using multiple raw images and, of course, I would save on film. (I had also hoped that i would discover that there were sensors out there that could adjust pixel by pixel to the available light so that dynamic range was adjusted at the point of capture.)<br>

I assume that there are a host of changes that will have to make as part of the switch to digital and I want to avoid two things (1) relearning more that is necessary because i have invested time in a system that I cannot continue with and (2) starting over because the system I started with is limited in its options. So. I assumed I would buy a solid, slightly out of date Nikon system that I could learn with and replace the body only as larger - pixel-wise - models came down in price. In the course of my research to date I have come up with four imponderables and many unanswered questions.<br>

1. Only a few Nikons seem to have a 'mirror-up' mode and neither the old ones nor the new ones do. Is that because image stabilization makes it unnecessary or because no one uses these cameras at a low shutter speeds.<br>

2. These cameras seem to be made out of plastic. What's up with that?<br>

3. Everyone seems to worry about linking up with auto-focus lenses. Is that because you can't really manually focus a digital camera? I want to be in control of what's in focus and what isn't.<br>

4. No one seems to be concerned with the software packages in these cameras. Why is that?<br>

I realize that this is a long post and appreciate eveyone's patience in reading it and look forward to whatever help you can provide.</p>

<p>If you are interested in Nikon, I would look into the D700, or if you have a lot of money, the $7000 D3X. But I would also consider the Canon 5D Mark II. I am suggesting full-35mm-frame format (Nikon FX or equivalent) for landscape photography because their super wide lenses are better and there are more perspective-control lens options.</p>

<p>The Nikon DSLRs have a one-second exposure delay for any mirror slap to die down. Therefore, mirror lock up is not that necessary any more, but it is still available. I am sure those bodies I mentioend above are solid enough. For landscape photography, I would use the modern "live view" option where you can magnify a small portion of the frame on the back LCD to fine tune focusing. AF is typically not necessary for landscape photography.</p>

<p>The Canon 5D Mark II is a 21MP DSLR and a few more pixels can be an advantage.</p>

<p>The transition to digital will require some effort. It took me a little while back in 2002, 2003 even though I have graduate degrees in computer science. I am sure you can do it too.</p>

<p>Don't forget Sony's A900 and A850, luminous landscape has posted positive reviews <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml">here</a> and <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony-a900.shtml">here</a> that cover the strengths (viewfinder size, Zeiss lenses, stabilized sensor, dynamic range and color space at low iso) and weaknesses (high iso performance, no video) of the A900 relative to Canon and Nikon's offerings. The main resource for Sony Alpha tech questions and lens reviews is <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a900-a850_forum46.html">dyxum.com</a> where you'll also find more info on how the A850 and A900 compare. Sony's own software is generally the weakest link in its camera system, but third-party software like lightroom 3 and the latest DxO seem to cover the gap very well.</p>

<p>3. Of course you can manually control everything on a pro digital SLR. Go look at dpreview.com at the top end Canons and Nikons and see all the controls that are available. The biggest adjustment will be getting the locations and features of the controls into your physical memory so you stop having to check the manual every other shot.</p>

<p>4. Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture. No professional uses the packages that come with the cameras.</p>

<p>After you spend some time with the camera of your choice, zoom in to 200% and check the noise in the sky or some other large monochromatic area.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have given up waiting for Mamiya to get their act togeather and make an affordable back for my camera. It seems clear that by the time Mamiya wakes up and ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You did well to give up, because Mamiya will never "wake up". Mamiya went out of business back in 2006. Their parent decided to concentrate entirely on sporting equipment and sold all Mamiya's photographic equipment assets (IP, tooling, and parts inventory) to Cosmos Scientific Systems. Cosmos retained under 15% of the Mamiya staff, only those involved in the design and production of bodies and lenses. The only back Mamiya ever made, the ZD was mothballed. In 2009, Cosmos sold their Mamiya assets to Phase One.</p>

<p>As I understand it, most of the DSLRs have finders that are not well suited to manual focus. So, you either need a really good eye, change the focus screen to a third party one designed for MF, or use the "Live View" feature with the LCD screen.</p>

<p>While all the modern cameras are coated in plastic, and the lower end consumer lenses have plastic lens mounts ( Yech ), the top end ones are plastic and rubber coated metal bodies. </p>

 

<p>Have you considered going the other way and moving to large format?</p>

<p>I think your digital choices for a reasonably portable system probably come down to the Nikon D700, the Canon 5D Mk II and the Sony A900. There are heavier options of course but these would be a baseline to start with. The Nikon has the big advantage of having the new Nikon 14-24 lens which seems to be a real benchmark for ultra wide angles.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>1. Only a few Nikons seem to have a 'mirror-up' mode and neither the old ones nor the new ones do. Is that because image stabilization makes it unnecessary or because no one uses these cameras at a low shutter speeds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />All Canon DSLRs have mirror lock up and I believe all Pentax and Olympus DSLRs have it. I am not sure on Nikon. However that said mirror slap is generally only an issue at a shutter speed of 1/15. Longer and shorter exposures are not effected because the vibration is gone before the exposure is complete or the exposure is so short that mirror vibrations are not an issue. The only time I saw it was when I was using a cheep tripod. If you have a good tripod mirror slap shouldn't be an issue.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>2. These cameras seem to be made out of plastic. What's up with that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Modern designs with plastic are very durable. Additionally the exterior doesn't tell you what the inside is made from. The Olympus E-P1 is metal on the outside but it is only sheet metal. Most of the camera is plastic. The Canon 5D is plastic on the outside but is mostly metal on the inside. In early December there was a post about a Canon Rebel DSLR that was accidently dropped from a plane at 2000ft. It's has all plastic construction and it was not damaged althought it did land in a muddy field.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3. Everyone seems to worry about linking up with auto-focus lenses. Is that because you can't really manually focus a digital camera? I want to be in control of what's in focus and what isn't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />All DSLRs can be manually focused. The viewfinder is also smaller than medium formate viewfinders which can make focusing more difficult. However Manual focus cameras generally have viewfinders that have split prism or micro prism focusing aids. Autofocus camera generally don't have any focusing aids in the viewfinder. Additionally some autofocus lenses don't have very good manual focus controls. So some people want to use the cameras focusing sensor to very they have manually focused correctly. Unfortunately the autofocus sensor doesn't work with all older Nikon lenses.</p>

<p>If you plan to do manual focusing you probably will want to replaced the focusing screen with one that has a focusing aid. However Nikon and Canon don't make view screens with focusing aids for all of there cameras. However there are other vendors that make view screens with focusing aids.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No one seems to be concerned with the software packages in these cameras. Why is that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon, Canon, and others provide software with basic editing capabilities. If those are not enough for you get a software program from another vendor. Any software package will be able to read DSLR Raw files. The DSLR market a very large so most software vendors constantly update there software to keep up with the DSLR raw formates. With medium formate digital cameras, there are fewer users and therefore the market is smaller. As a result not all sencond source software will support medium formate raw files.</p>

<p>For a semi pro with your experience taking landscape photographs I would recommend getting a full frame camera and get good lenses for it. In my opinion the Canon lens linup is more complete than the Nikon or Sony lens offerings. You might want to look at <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3989561">G Dan Michell's web site</a>. He uses a 5D MkII with canon L lenses and his main focus is landscape photography.</p>