Digital Cameras for Landscape Photography 2008

If you are interested in purchasing a digital SLR for

landscape photography the following might be of interest.

 

I've posted a web article comparing the suitability of the various 35mm SLR type

digital cameras available in early 2008, for that purpose.

 

Price is taken into account.

 

See http://wyofoto.com/Digital_landscape_cameras_2008.html

Man, that Sony really looks bada$$!

Well They say IF you want attention you have to come out with something BIG , I guess a lot of folks will start saving for this one for when it comes out : I can only hope sony does take canon and Nikon

of their High Horse's : thanks for the post:

A weakness that the article doesn't mention the highest resolving APS sensor on the market.

Also, why mention the Pentax K10D thats out of production in 2008?

Digital landscapes are fine as long as you are willing to throw lots of money at it. Sometimes it's hard to argue with tradition. A 4x5 is cheaper and has way more detail than the Sony. Even a 6x7 with Velvia 50 will be hard to beat with digital, if at all.

I respectfully disagree with Steve.

My 5D equals in all ways a drum scanned 645 Velvia transparency shot with my Pentax 645N2.

 

My old Pentax 6x7 or Fuji 6x9 trannys have a little bit more resolution.

The 6x7's have about 70% more film area. If Sony and Zeiss do there jobs right a 25MP FF sensor should equal or exceed 6x7 in image quality.

My statement stands until they can beat my 6x7 and Velvia 50 with something for less money. Have you noticed how all the 4x5 landscape pros have abandoned film? Not!

Why would a 645 Velvia transparency shot with my Pentax 645N2 need to be scanned at all?

 

Why would you inject the quality of a scanner into a comparison of film and digital output. You want to win you argument show us how a print made from a 5D can better a true optical print from a 645 format film camera. Not a digital print from a scan that compares the scanner to the camera not the film to the file.

 

We want to compare apple and oranges your adding pears!

 

And a 6X7 has has over 1.55 times the area of a 645 so what you have just said in effect is that a 6X7 format shot and scanned the same as your 645 example would be 1.5 times as good as the 5D which you state is equal to the 645

 

Unless I missed the math here.

Steve, I think in time the 4x5 pros will abandon film. Digital is only a few years old and look how far it has come. If they can make a 36mm sensor they can make 4x5 or 6x7 sensor, Just a matter of time.

 

Regardless, the FF digital produces a picture that rivals 4x5.

"If they can make a 36mm sensor they can make 4x5 or 6x7 sensor, Just a matter of time."

 

They have made huge leaps in number of megapixels crammed on sensors, but look at the progress that has actually been made in sensor sizes. Not that much. The biggest sensors are about 40x50mm and have been for the past three years. 24x36mm sensors have been around for about ten years now. Their cost has come (marginally) down, but size has not really increased.

Ilkka, it took digital 10 years to match, exceed,what film and film 35mm slr's did in what, 75 years? Do you really think it would have been good for business for Sony to have skipped that 1.5 crop sensor with 4 mp's and go straight to the 4x5 33 mp sensor?

 

Are you saying that the size of the sensor has not got large enough in 10 short years? And who had a 24x36mm sensor 10 years ago? I thought Canon was the first 3 years ago?

If you really wanted to you could take a Nikon D70 or any dslr with a pc lens or any lens without distortion and make a photo that would cover 80x100mm with god only knows how many MP's.

Thanks for your relatively Sony-friendly review. It's well-written, too, but not so well

researched. You didn't to mention the millions of Minolta lenses available for use on Sony

SLRs. True, there are no current lenses under the Sony brand, but later-model Minolta

telephotos have sterling reputations for optical excellence and build quality. They're

relatively rare, especially in the US, because our pros were well settled into the N-C

duopoly by the time Minolta reached the top of its game. But the dyxum.com lens

database shows some really tasty big glass, sable to reach out and touch tiny birds: a

300/4, a 400/4.5, and a 600/4, all APO'ed. There's also the 500 & 600 reflex (mirror)

lenses, and a pair of 80-200/2.8 zooms under Minolta's brand. Sigma and Tokina were

hard at work making alternative A-mount lenses, too. Heck, my humble, lightweight 100-

300/4.5 APO zoom is a powerful tool with sharpness and vividness that stand out even on

my computer monitor.

 

Don't forget that all of these lenses are stabilized by the KM/S in-body system. Believe

me, it works. And who else makes 600mm mirror lenses with IS/VR, much less an 11-18

available new for under $500? Those big birder lenses still command top dollar, however,

compared to the much more common Canon glass.

 

When I finally got into D-SLRs a couple of years ago, I had no legacy lenses and no firm

brand preferences. I could have made any other choice, but I'm still happy I chose this

one. The availability of used Minolta lenses at lower prices was the biggest reason I chose

KM, and I'm pleased with what Sony's brought to market so far.

Sorry, yes I did overlook the big oldish Minolta glass.

 

Taking a quick look at the KEH website I don't see used samples any of it for sale.

 

I don't find mirror optics suitable for anything, your mileage may vary however.

"Do you really think it would have been good for business for Sony to have skipped that 1.5 crop sensor with 4 mp's and go straight to the 4x5 33 mp sensor? "

 

I don't understand what you mean. You seem to be saying something along the lines that Sony (or Canon or...) could have brought a 6x6 sensor with 100mp on the market five years ago, but they decided not to do so because it is better marketing to do gradual improvements, first 6mp on 1.5x then 10mp on 1.5x then 14mp etc etc. That is just bullshit. All manufacturters will bring out the best they can, as soon as they can. Sometimes a bit before they actually should because the product is not yet quite ready.

 

"Are you saying that the size of the sensor has not got large enough in 10 short years?"

 

I said nothing of the sort. 24x36 is big enough for most people. Still, there are some who are willing to pay a lot of money for a larger sensor. My point was that the improvement in sensor sizes has been fairly slow, much slower than the increase in megapixel counts. I do not expect a 6x6cm sensor on the market anytime soon.

 

"And who had a 24x36mm sensor 10 years ago? I thought Canon was the first 3 years ago?"

 

There were medium format backs with 24x36mm sensors well before Canon came up with the 1Ds.