Digital SLR for landscape work.

This is a two part question:

 

There have been several statements lately about 6 MP DSLRS not being

the best choice for landscapes. I assume this refers to the level

of detail in, lets say, an 11x14 print as compared to medium format

film 11x14 print. However, being the type who rarely enlarges

greater than 6x, if I'm happy ptinting 6x9 prints from a DSLR, will

the detail match or exceed a 6x film enlargment? (I hope what I'm

asking is clear. Scott, you shoot DSLR and MF, can you comment)

 

Question number two is which camera. I have no real investment in

lenses. Some possibilites:

 

The new EPSON digital RF. I can use my M rokkor and 135 elmar.

 

The Canon 10d. My wife has a rebel 2000 and a 28-105 zoom.

 

The Pentax what do you call it. With the new firmware, lots or

cheap lenses avaliable.

 

Nikon d100/70.

 

Sigma SD9/10. They're cheap.

 

Smaller is better and it must have mirro lock up. Any advice?

I've been using a D100 for a few months now after working with 35mm film for landscapes in the past (which wasn't great). I've also used medium format recently, though only 6x4.5. Just printed my first 8x10s (more like 6x9) from the D100 on an epson 3200 and I'm very impressed with some of the results. I am just starting out with this process, so there are some big hurdles still, but I can say that some of the prints are startlingly good. I have a beseler 23C II set up and can easily shoot and process film. I haven't shot 35mm in a long time, given what I get out of my D100. For that once in a great while over the top landscape, I'd still use the medium format (and really should have a large format). Friends who visit steal my D100 8x10s to put on their walls at home. I think I'm pretty picky about detail in these prints, though I'm sure no where near as demanding as some who will answer this.

I use the 10D. More resolution is always good, but 6MP is plenty for a 6x9 enlargement. And yes, the 10D has true, bonafide cable-released mirror lock up. In fact, the 10D is the only one that does offer real mirror lock up. Unfortunately, it doesn't take the same cable release as your wife's Rebel 2000. Plus, the 10D has a pentaprism viewfinder compared to your wife's pentamirror viewfinder. You'll want the brightness of a pentaprism viewfinder because the view through a DSLR viewfinder is already smaller due to the cropped-down view. But the 10D body is larger than the Rebel 2000. The two smallest bodies from your list are the Pentax *-ist D and the Nikon D70. The Pentax has a pentaprism viewfinder, but no mirror lock up. The Nikon doesn't have either one.

�There have been several statements lately about 6 MP DSLRS not being the best choice for landscapes.�

 

Jeff, as a preliminary matter, you can shoot landscape photographs with any camera you want. Former Nat Geo photographer Bruce Dale shoots awesome landscape panos by stitching Nikon D-series DSLR images together:

 

http://www.brucedale.com/Panoramas/images/prevs/prev14.jpg

 

http://www.brucedale.com/Panoramas/images/prevs/prev7.jpg

 

However, for serious ametuer and professional landscape shooters, the bar has been set rather high over the decades by 4x5 and 8x10 view camera images from photographers like Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Richard Misrach, Elliot Porter and even more calendar-photo-oriented shooters like the Muenches.

 

I will tell you without fear of contridiction that if you are indeed �happy� enlarging to no more than �6x9 prints,� you will be perfectly happy with a 6MP DSLR. In fact, when I print at 400 d.p.i. from a converted 10MB Uncompressed RAW file from a D100, I have to throw pixels away and rez down at 6x9.

 

Then too, often, MF and LF images don�t really show their resolution and contrast until you get them up to 8x10 or so. By way of comparison, a 35mm negative or 6MP DSLR�s images seem to �pop� at 4x6 and look great at 6x9.

 

I will also tell you that at 11x14, I would rather scan and print from a 6x7cm MF negative (giving me a 500MB file) than work from a 10MB Uncompressed RAW file from a D100. I will probably even have to rez down to print 11x14, but I start with a better, cleaner image and I�m not working at the edge of a DSLR file�s resolution.

 

This isn�t to say that I haven�t seen some very good 11x14s from 6MP DSLRs. It is just that at 11x14, it is hard for any 35mm or 6MP DSLR to beat MF.

 

As to your second issue, I have sold Nikon, Canon, etc. for 23 years. I have shot Nikon for that long as well and currently shoot an F100 and two D100s.

 

If I were to lose all my Nikon gear, I would turn around and buy Canon. Canon simply has a better stable of DSLRs, which is what I�m mostly shooting with 35mm lenses. Also, Canon has a better variety of lenses with internal focusing motors. You wouldn�t go wrong with Canon or Nikon, but I like Canon a little better right now.

I think Eric nailed it. Best wishes . . .

<I>Scott, you shoot DSLR and MF, can you comment) </i><P>Assuming this is directed at me, I've come up with a good analogy to address this debate. <P>When I shoot with my Canon 10D, I think of it as shooting 645 format print film in terms of tonal range and quality, albeit with a more limited dynamic range. This means it's great for some subject matter, and not so great for others. If I exclusively shot landscapes and artsy stuff, along with had good scanning skills, I'd stick to MF slide film over dSLR.<P>Digital cameras provide the best landscape images when shot in moderate to higher contrast conditions to exploit their full dynamic range. Just like print film, you'll find digital capture to look pretty un-amazing under low contrast or overcast skies unless your subject matter is really bold. This is where 100 speed slide films will always provide more visceral and intense color saturation, and that translates into bolder prints. Given a choice of 100 speed print film or my 10D, I'll take my Canon about, oh, 99% of the time. My 10D can't compete with my RB loaded with 100 speed slide film, but then again, most of my subject matter doesn't benefit by using slide film anyways. Those times that slide film will provide a better image simply doesn't have enough weight to overtake the greater flexibility of the 10D. You ask a really tough question without a definite answer, but I will tell you to stick to the name brand large sensor dSLR's.

Eric,

 

Thanks for the info. I never trust anyone who says they can print great 16x20's from 35mm. Nice to have you confirm my enlargment goals.

 

Scott,

 

Yes, that was to you. Don't worry, I'm not getting ride of my MF or LF stuff, but I do want to migrate away from 35 film, which with two small kids often in tow, is what I end up using the most (Which is why a smaller camera is better, fits better in the diaper bag!).

 

thanks,

What's that Epson anyway?

I see no reason at all to bother with my 35mm gear anymore even though in some limited respects my FE-2 handles better than my 10D. Mostly I miss the awesome, in your face viewfinders of the classic cameras vs the 'end of the tunnel' view of looking through my 10D. In an 8x10 print though my 10D destroys anything I could achieve with my 35mm with the exception of films that are no longer made.

 

I totally agree with you about 16x20s. Not bad if made full frame from RG-25 or drum scans from Provia/Velvia, but nothing I'll brag about. That's what the RB is for. All these nitwits arguing about resolution of this film vs that digital camera aren't seeing what's really relevant, and that's the vastly different way slide film, especially larger format slide film, renders a scene vs digital capture. Any photographer with a clue will rapidly dismiss the resolution arguement and quantify what type of look they prefer. If you like print film you'll *love* the Rebel, or the 10D, or the D100. If you like to shoot and scan MF slide film, you'll likely keep both cameras.

 

I thought I'd need mirror lock for Macro work on my 10D, but so far I haven't needed it.

Olympus E-20 is small and needs no mirror lockup (pellix mirror). It is a true SLR only it has a fixed 4x lens. My wife makes tack sharp 8.5 x 11 inch prints - and loves it for its simplicity.

 

In truth, for 6 x 9 prints any 3 meg and up camera will do just fine.

If you need interchangable lenses the D70, D100, and the D300 would be my choices - in that order.

"I never trust anyone who says they can print great 16x20's from 35mm."

 

Right, for landscape photography, the generally accepted norm is technical perfection- grainless images with bottomless sharpness. Since, the subject isn't going anywhere, it is generally difficult to excuse not using slow film in sizeable acerage and a tripod.

 

I have two black-border 12x18 archival prints on the wall at home made on Ilford HP5 at ISO 400. One image was shot with a 35mm Leica M Summicron lens and one was shot with a 35mm f/2.0 AF Nikkor. The images- not traditional landscapes- are very sharp, but of course you can see the grain. This is forgiveable in images designed to exhibit a kind of East-Coast-irony; but the same technique would look stupid if I were reproducing scenes previously shot by Ansel Adams or John Sexton.

 

Years ago, a high school art teacher of mine went to Europe and shot some cool, off-beat images, like a sort of leaning, off-center shot of the Eiffel Tower. He told me that if he wanted a perfect architectural view of the Tower, he would have bought a postcard, pointing out, quite correctly, that there were architectural photographers with view cameras who lived in Paris and who could wait for the perfect time and lighting to shoot famous monuments. He wasn't going to try copying their work with a 35mm camera and a 28mm lens.

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/47c.jpg"><br>

<i>Davenport, CA - Canon 10D + 70-200/4L</i><br>

</center><br>

 

I've been shooting landscapes with a 10D and been satisfied with the results. Prints up to

11x17 at a satisfactory quality level are possible. I find that I prefer shooting landscape

with longer lenses (50mm and up) rather than with wider views I prefer on 6x6cm film.

<br><br>

The photo above was taken with the 70-200mm f/4 L lens, tripod mounted. The photo

below was made with the 50mm f/1.4 hand held. Both have been printed to 11x17 inch ...

they look far nicer in print then they do in these down-rezzed web display files.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW3/large/53.jpg"><br>

<i>Pidgeon Point Lighthouse, CA - Canon 10D + 50/1.4</i><br>

</center><br>

Epson showed a Leica M mount digital RF at PMA. It's bassed on the bessa R/R2. It's kind of funky, is a real manual focus rangefinder, even has a wind on lever for shutter cocking! More information is due on the 11th of March.

Jeff, people from my store who were at PMA and saw that digital R2 under glass described the display as "strange" and "cobbled together." I mean, a digital camera with a film advance crank?

 

We'll see if a working camera emerges at Photokina. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Eric,

 

The guys I talked to at my store said they heard more than once that the camera in the case actually worked! That may not be the final layout, but it may actually be here before we think. Epson is pretty good at getting things out quickly (ok, as compared to others).