Opinions about RF (maybe G2) for landscape work please?

[ian p]

"still is a rangefinder"....Yea Gods, heresy indeed. Have to say I agree with you though, Jeff.

 

Why not try a G1 and 45mm, Jedidiah? Got to be the best value bang-for-buck out there, optically. Contax G 28mm isn't too much more than the 45mm so there's no chance of breaking the bank.

[kentish_townie]

"Unless you want to carry a tripod around th eworld, do not buy medium format, it's not good

hand held as it rattles a lot.."

 

Surely, not with something like a Mamya 6 or Mamiya 7 and their leaf shutters? Also, medium

format cameras have been known to be successful for portraiture, as well.

[drjedsmith]

Jeff, thank you much for that Contax pages link! Great info there - I am really leaning toward purchasing a G2...I think I could live with 28mm and just take a couple steps back (I'm used to 24mm with my Minolta SLR).<BR><BR>

Stan, yes the Fuji GA645zi has a remarkable lens on it! Couldn't believe how sharp that one roll of test film I shot through one came out...<BR>

So I've been thinking...would a killer system be Contax G2 primarily for color, and the Fuji GA645zi primarily as a B&W film camera? The larger neg would probably help in the darkroom.<BR>

Maybe I will start with purchasing a G2 and a lens and see if the quality is acceptable...might not really be a need for the Fuji.<BR>

Thanks,<BR>

Jed

[julian_koplen]

Jedediah,

 

After seeing your portfolio, I am satisfied you will take good pictures, regardless of format. If there is an elusive "look" you're after, then by all means try the Leica RF and see if that "look" is there for you. You can buy fairly beat up Leicas and lenses (cosmetically) and still get very fine pictures. For landscape, I echo the suggestion to start with a 35mm focal length, but it doesn't have to be that.

 

Then try a G2. Then pick what *you* like.

 

The technical information displayed above seems to be of fine quality.

 

I don't think you will learn any more, except by your own trials.

 

I admire your photo talent and opportunities.

 

Julian

 

Use what you like. You're gonna be OK either way.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Unless you want to carry a tripod around th eworld, do not buy medium format, it's not good hand held as it rattles a lot."

 

This simply is not true for all cameras. Yes, some SLRs, such as the Pentax 67, have large mirrors and are difficult to hand hold. But rangefinders and 645 SLRs with well-damped mirrors are fine. I even hand hold my 4x5 Crown Graphic and get excellent sharpness (but it has no mirror).

[francisco_fernandez_diez]

Since many years ago I work mainly taken photographs to landscapes and the aim are to positiv in a big size.

Whatever camera you will want to use, you need a tripod. Always a tripod. You never may compare a picture taken with a M 7 in front of an other taken with a 6x7, 6x9 camera and TRIPOD. The best pictures, with big format. With 35mm you could bike and take good photographs but never like 120,s film.

[fourfa]

The original requirement was for shooting landscape at f8-11. Presumably with slow slide film. Objective is very high image quality.

 

Does anyone think this will be anything but 100% tripod mounted? Anyone think shooting handheld with small apertures will yield the results he wants? At least with a small RF the tripod can be very lightweight.

[peteradownunder]

Good landscape photography is very difficult. You can make sort of landscape shots with anything - but the amount of foreground detail and how it fits with the total scene is a very important consideration - unless all you wish to capture are distant views ala what has been posted above. People call all sorts of things 'landscapes' I have seen a lot of excellent work made using Leica gear - however, these typically involve a near or relatively near view of a central subject - like a tree.<i> If you want to actually print large landscapes which take your breath away - you have to get up early in the morning or be around for sundown, you have to learn how to use neutral density filters, polarising filters and graduated filters ( how do you use this stuff with a Leica?) </i>and you have to have a film surface large enough or a digi chip with enough megpixels to act as same in order to capture the amount of detail required to make a large print. <p> You will discover that there is a major compromise to be made between portability and functionality. ideally you will wish to end up with large format tilt and shift to get everything right - but you wont want the hassle of the weight. If you want light - <i>a Mamiya 7 with their 43mm lens is hard to beat</i>. <p>Alternatively you can take a 10 megapixel camera a tripod and a decent panorama head along with you and make stunning capture of still scenes and stitch them. Or you can use a linhof Technorama type se up or Fuji equivalent aand themn manage the logistics of scanning your 6x9 or wider. Or you can do what I have decided to do as a compromise and use Schneider lenses on a MF digi back hanging of an Alpa frame.<p> the more exacting your requirements the more compromises that have to be considered..<p> A leica is a great snapshot camera as are any other 35mm bodies with half decent lenses...but true landscape capable cameras for large print and anally retentive exactitude in framing composition tonal width and size - well sorry no 35mm camera can deliver what is needed - they just dont have the grunt.<p> It all depends on your definition of 'landscape' work and what quality you are aiming for and what type of print you wish to make..work backwards from print size - subject matter and treatment and you will arrive at the right answer.

[harvey_edelstein1]

The Pentax P67 slr with 45mm lens or Pentax 645 with 35mm lens or the Mamiya M7 with 43mm (21mm FOV) or 50mm (25mm FOV). All these combos are way better than 35mm film or digital and way less costly than a digital back MF outfit. The P67 is indeed a bargain for the results you get but the P645 and Mamiya are more all around cameras handheld.

[drjedsmith]

Thank you everyone so far. This has been a really good discussion for me. It is sure making me think...<BR><BR>

Ah, Peter you bring up a point that I wondered about, but hadn't really thought through yet. Is there no way to use ND grad filters with the rangefinder? I do not use any color filters because that is "cheating" in my book, but I do use ND grads - you have to because slide film just can't take that many stops of data...and sky washes out. I also use an occasional polarizer, but not extensively.<BR><BR>

Well, shoot, that might kill the G2 plan right there...if that is the case, I may well look into the 6x4.5 option or just stick with the Minolta for now. I realize this is now way off topic for the Leica forum, but does anyone know relative size comparison of say a Minolta AF 645 vs a Maxxum 9?<BR>

Jed

[drjedsmith]

EDIT: I am willing to check out 6x7 too like Harvey suggested, but the Mamiya RZ67 is too bulky...maybe the Pentax is better in that regard? Are there others?<BR>

Jed

[jay_chadney]

I have a G1 and G2 outfit available on rff. I will email you the info. I have taken great shots with the Contax stuff. I also own a Mamiya 7II and leica gear. Something had to go, so the Contax stuff is for sale. I have yet to take any true landscape shots with my Leica (or even with my Mamiya for that matter), so I can't directly compare for you.

[peteradownunder]

Look at the Mamiya 7 with 43mm lens - it is a rangefinder, is light makes a lovely 6x7 negative and the 43mm lens is fantastic. You still have the issue of how do you use polarising and other filters though...<p> re 'cheating' - remove this naive notion from your mind right now - otherwise you will never be free to explore and create. <p> Rules are useless - because as Cicero said - <i>"a life lived in fear is a life half lived"</i>.

[jay_chadney]

Photo.net isn't sending me your email address, so here is the link to the page my cameras are. It changes, so you may have to search the classifeds for my stuff under "JayC" or "g2" or "g1"

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showcat.php?cat=all&page=3&perpage=12&sort=1&limit=last7

[drjedsmith]

Thanks Jay, I will check out the link. Not sure why my email isn't working? It's jedtsmith@Hotmail.com<BR><BR>

Anyway...maybe I should say the heck with filters and slides - and just shoot negatives...and get a G2. I just looked at the photos on the Contax web site of it...wow.<BR>

Jed

[Nowhereman]

Jedidiah:

<p>

Landscape seems to mean quite different things to different people. If you're after Peter

A.'s definition of "true"landscape pictures then formats larger thn 35mm are necessary, or

the equivalent digital quality such as the M8 and larger sensor didital cameras. Throwing

in your own snapshots of your familly , which obviously aren't landscapes at all, throws me

off what you're getting at, but then looking at your photo.net gallery I can see what you

like, from which it would seems a larger format camera like the Mamiya M7 would make

sense.

<p>

My own preference is for expressive B&W landscapes, in which I want the grain to show,

like the following two shot with the Ricoh GX100, which shows that depending on personal

taste very different types of cameras can be used for landscape:

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/

1311/1417684704_51ab9ea250_o.jpg" width=863 height=648></center>

<p>

<center><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1430/1430746110_8369e05f0f_o.jpg"

width=648 height=863></center>

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[bobmichaels]

Mamiya 7 is incredible in every way. Only downside is the cost. But it is has become my #1 camera. And I'm a hand held documentary photographer.

 

The Contax G is also incredible. I have 5-6 years experience with both bodies and the 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. This is my choice when I need to shoot 35mm. BTW, the G1 does everything the G2 does but is lighter and cheaper. I have both and use the G1 about 95% of the time.

 

And I'm convinced you can see the difference in print quality from 6x7 vs 35mm, even at 8x10 print sizes. Some may disagree but I'm convinced. Had it proven last week by a gallery curator reviewing my 8x10 proofs.

[bobmichaels]

Oh, if you like the 2x3 format (ala 35mm), the Fuji 6x9 RF does some incredible work.

[harvey_edelstein1]

If the P67 is too large then the Pentax 645 is a great choice.

First as an slr what you compose is what you get and using filter on a TTL metered camera is easy.

 

Second the 35mm lens is considered as good as anyones wide angle lens.

 

Third, P67 lenses fit the P645 via a Pentax auto adapter.

 

Four, P645 has the smoothest mirror movement and it will not affect you handheld at lower shutter speeds.

 

Fifth, lenses and bodies are very reasonable in price.

 

Sixth, the ergonomics of the P645 are as good as it gets and depending what you want you can get an all manual camera or a fast Auto Focus camera the P645NII. All are compatible with eachothers lenses.

 

The P645 has first class features, its very compact and with its great lenses accurate metering and excellent viewfinder it will give you better results than 35mm can under the same conditions.

[ray .]

There are no rules. As far as I'm concerned, like with any kind of photography- content/

subject, composition, light, camera technique, processing, etc are way more important than

what lens or format you use. Formats are flavors, nothing more than that..<center><a

href=" title="Photo

Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/568683847_7c1b7e002c_o.jpg"

width="900" height="581" alt="" /></a></center>

[ray .]

Don't forget your thought about portability. No matter how great the camera is, if it's

inconvenient to tote you're less likely to use it. Cameras that might not seem that large or

heavy at first glance get heavier the longer you carry them.

[peteradownunder]

Whilst agreeing with the philosophy of what Ray says regarding rules- which is restating what has been said above - the big point of difference I have with such statements is that in fact - different images and different objectives require different tools. Only the most naive or inexperienced shooter doesn't understand this. The pic below is a 25% crop of the main image panorama made with a 24mm Schneider and a 33 megapixel back - very dumbed down for internet display - the full panorama is literally an impossible image to make with a 35mm format and have the edge to edge and DOF detail these tools deliver in a printed size which makes people go ''wow'...<p> I like Ray's shot it is a nice evocative landscape ala Mitch's preferred style I guess but thee shots dont cut the mustard in landscape gallery presentation quality. <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/33093861@N00/875671977/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1292/875671977_32b89eda94_o.jpg" width="1100" height="609" alt="" /></a>

[Robin Smith]

It seems obvious to me that one can take great landscape shots with an rf. Graduated filters and even polarizers are not essential for landscapes and anyway they can be used on a Leica if you are careful. I agree with Mitch Alland's view of landscapes. Of course you can't make 4 x 5 or MF landscapes with a 35mm, but that seems obvious, but there is no reason why you cannot take a superb image with an rf. Leica lenses really shine wide open and most manufacturer's lenses are pretty good stopped down, so you may not notice such a vast difference between the Minolta lenses and Leicas when at f8 or so anyway.

[richard jepsen]

Jedidiah

 

You write; "I go through these phases every once in a while...(plus I think I just like to try new cameras, experience new things)...just getting tired of a clunky pro SLR with three lenses that weigh a ton to pack around...digital and film, sometimes 2 bodies at the same time. Ah, what has photography come to? :-)"

 

I think you are suffering from equipment boredom. Avoid slipping into equipment creep. If you wish to simplify and travel light use a MF 35mm. Landscapes normally have a large depth of field. You will gain nothing buying a G2 vs 1980 Minolta Glass if your shooting landscape at f/5.6 or f/8. I shot with a G2 with 35mm and only saw the difference at f/4.0 and below. A hood and tripod will make a big difference if your not using them. Simplify by shooting your XD-11 with 24mm. Minolta's 24 was terrific. It's the eye behind the camera and not so much the equipment.

[ray .]

gee, I guess this pic taken with a Leica doesn't qualify for a gallery <a href="http://

www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/main.php?

g2_itemId=11932"><p>landscape</a>