In need of a camera for landscape work

[ned1]

<p>I'll swear by my Pentax 67 with the 75mm perspective correcting lens. Gives you the PC of a large format without the hassle. The combo will costs about a grand so you'll have room left over for a nice tele.</p>

[ivan_j._eberle1]

<p>The choice of 645 seems to me an excellent first step up in format, you'll probably get to use it more as it will be quick to set up and work under more adverse conditions. The best 645 wide angle lenses tend to have higher resolving power than larger formats, leveling the differences in film size as you're at the threshold of lens-limited and not film-limited resolution. Ektar 100 renders film-grain questions moot. If you scan at 4000K+ dpi resolution, native 645 resolution even before interpolation will be more than adequate for 20x24 prints.<br>

I have the Pentax 645N and manual-focus 35mm f/3.5 lens, bought used but separately for under $700 on eBay last year. What makes the Pentax so appealling is that the matrix and spot metering and winder are all integrated to the body. The lack of film insert interchange mid-roll isn't too big an issue with 120/16 exposures. When pre-loaded these are very quick to swap out in the field, one handed, as they have a really slick quarter-turn latch mechanism.<br>

Just got back last night from the Sierra where it dumped 2 feet of powder snow on the Pacific Crest Trail. The P645N in a Lowe TLZ2 pack on a Think-Tank belt is my go-to camera in such conditions. I also took my 4x5 gear on this trip, but didn't get to use it due to the wind and the weather.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Cody-</p>

<p>I have a near mint Fuji GW 670 III (the most recent, but discontinued after about 2000 or so) with very low number of shutter clicks and well maintained, which is looking for a home. Not cheap used ($750), but very high quality to price ratio. If you want 6x9 instead of 6x7, they also made a GW and GSW 690 III (the GW cameras have a 90mm f3.5 lens, the GSW, a 65mm f5.6 lens). Manual cameras, but landscape work often benefits from separate exposure metering.</p>

[frank_bunnik]

<p>There is just too much choice. I used a Fuji GW670III and a Fuji GS645S on my trip last summer to Ladakh and the quality of the images is simply superb. These cameras are not too heavy to carry for long distances.<br>

If digital in the future is not necessary, there is a cheap solution: a Crown Graphic 4x5 camera. I know, you did not want to go the large format path. However, get a camera with a graflock back and you can use all kind of roll film holders, from 6x6 up to 6x12. You can probably get a camera with 3 modern (used) lenses for less then what a Hasselblad with one old lens would cost you. And should you get the desire to shoot 4x5, you already have the cameras and lenses so all you need to get are some sheet film holders. These cameras fold up very compact too.<br>

I recently bought one of these cameras and I wish I had done it years ago...<br>

Good luck with your choice,<br>

Frank<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover">www.flickr.com/photos/asialover</a></p>

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

<p>I like shooting with my shift&tilt lens WIESE-TECHNOPLAN MC 3,5/45mm on my CONTAX 645 AF with excellent results!</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[hclim]

<p>Referring to Mac Moss's response, the Foveon sensor may be good but the SD14 and upcoming SD15 resolution are so low by today's standards.</p>

[frank_bunnik]

<p>I forgot to mention that although the Mamiya 23 / Universal are excellent cameras, they offer hardly any movements and weigh a ton. Everything for this system is very old. The Fuji GX680 system is indeed an excellent camera but it weighs even more, also more than most 4x5 inch cameras while still offering "only" a 6x8 cm image.l It weighs almost 1 kg more than my Crown Graphic. The Fuji is completely electronic and is no longer made or supported by Fuji. If something breaks down, chances are that the camera can not be repaired. It is huge, bulky, not made for backpacking into the countryside but for the studio or near your car. Excellent optics but also huge.</p>

 

[kparratt]

<p>I agree with you Frank that the Mamiya 23 is a heavier than many alternatives, and offers little movement compared to other fully specified, and more expensive technical cameras, ... BUT, a great amount of landscape work can achieved without movement at all, and for many scenes, all one really needs is a modest amount of tilt to give the image an edge. I recall a photograph in Hasselblad's FORUM magazine, in an issue not long after the release of the FlexBody. It really held my attention, having the feel of large-format about it. From the middle foreground right up to the camera was a spread of wildflowers, rendered so beautifully, I do not think it could have been created better with anything more sophisticated than what the photographer used: FlexBody, 50mm Distagon > with a few degrees of tilt. I have not handled the Mamiya 23 Super, but looking at available images, I find it very desirable, especially with a 6x9 negative.</p>

<p>I will again come back to one of my favourite gems of advice from Jonathan Eastland, author of the Leica M and R Compendiums, "If you can't dig any deeper into your pocket, dig deep into your imagination." (... in reference to which lenses to buy.)</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>That suggestion of the Ebony 23 is interesting. I had a Pentax 67II for landscape stuff and I loved it. Great quality, portable enough and it was reliable. Then I moved to LF. Got an Ebony 45S customised. It was everything I had hoped for. It was about the same weight if not lighter than my P67II, it didn't need such a beefy tripod, it had movements, it didn't require much more time to set up compared to the P67... Overall, there was not much gained in taking the P67II over the Ebony in a landscape situation.<br>

The Ebony 23 is an interesting choice because it is basically a scaled down LF camera. It still has the same workflow but it is tiny. Reading your post, you seem to have a desire to move to LF sometime in the future. I would personally say just go straight to LF and not waste time with MF but if you really want MF, then it makes sense to get something that can add to your learning experience with LF... and that would be where the Ebony 23 comes in :)<br>

Downsides are that when you do go to LF, you will be stuck with an obsolete camera. If you get a common MF camera like a P67 and the like then you will at least have a camera that you could use for other things like street photography etc. The Ebony 23 is not really very conductive to hand held work and speedy shots. Also Ebonys are expensive! You could easily blow your budget with the camera and a single lens. However resale value is high.<br>

If you decide to go with a normal MF camera then I would recommend the P67(II). I was in a similar situation to you when I was looking for a camera. I wanted an upgrade from my 135 kit and I was open to all suggestions. As a landscape camera the P67 has the other choices beat because it is portable, has a large film area, has a great selection of accessories and is cheap! 6x6 is good if you like squares otherwise you need to crop. My sister has a Bronica SQA and she finds the square annoying. When I need square I just crop from 6x7. 645 is nice and compact but I find it a bit too small. Great quality work can be done but I personally find it a bit lacking. BTW, the Pentax 645 is probably the most popular landscape film camera here in Japan. Larger formats like 6x9 etc are limited in their lens choice and they can get pretty huge (i.e. the Fuji 680 mentioned above!). Folders and rangefinders are just too limiting as a single camera for serious landscape photography with filters etc. As a secondary camera for those special occasions they are great but not as your one and only do-it-all camera. That leaves the 6x7 format and specifically SLR designs. Of all the 6x7 choices, the P67 and Mamiya RB/RZ67 stand out. However the Mamiya is freakin HUGE! Its much heavier than the P67 and the ergonomics aren't up to the P67s "135 SLR on steroids" handling. One thing the Mamiya has over the P67 is film backs. However 10 shots is not very many and I find that you only really need 2 films at most, i.e. a colour and B+W film. So, carry 2 cameras or just learn to look at what you want to photograph before you load the film. Shutter shake/mirror slap are a minor problem. Get a decent tripod and you will be fine. More important than the tripod though is the head and how you connect it to your camera. Make sure you get a good solid head and decent quick release system. I had the Pentax QR plate system and it was OK but it rotated slightly on the tripod head due to a rubber pad that was supposed to prevent rotation, but it actually reduced stiffness. Another problem was that the QR lever screw decided to gradually work its way loose which could have been catastrophic. I now use an Arca Swiss head with the RRS plates. That combo is not going to move/creep ever. Solid as a rock.</p>

<p>Anyway, I personally recommend you go straight to LF but if you really want MF then get a P67II.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Have the Mamiya Universal. Never thought of it has super heavy. Also, there have been those that have modified it to make negs as long as Polaroid pack film.<br>

<a href="http://bigcamera.com/articles/Mamiya%204x5x6x12.htm">http://bigcamera.com/articles/Mamiya%204x5x6x12.htm</a><br>

also, have heard from some who had the pentax 67 on the internet. they said using it in vertical mode was a pain.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>If you don't need movements then a Mamiya RB/RZ or a Bronica GS-1 will work. I actually use the GS-1 mostly hand held with a plain prism finder and a Speed Grip. This is heavy but it works. A Mamiya RB/RZ is much more difficult to use hand held. </p>

[macmoss]

<p>Re: Foveon. Yes, the SD14 and upcoming SD15 yield native 4.5 Mp photos. One step up during raw processing to about 9Mp results in almost imperceptible slight degradation. <br /><br />If you are of the 'more megapixels = more resolution" school, then you probably shouldn't be looking at the very serious, very high quality analog cameras being mentioned here anyway.<br /><br />I am reminded of a few things:<br /><br />1. In my early film days, I thought fine grain = more resolution, and used slow films with diluted Microdol. It was quite a revelation to find out how wrong that was.<br /><br />2. In teaching Photoshop, I used to project 1.2 Mp landscape images wall-sized as part of the opening and closing of the class, derived from LF images. Students kept marveling at the quality of the images. It was a dramatic demonstration of how much the fidelity of the numbers is so much more important than how many numbers there are.<br /><br />3. In very practical terms, the quality versus quantity issue needs to be balanced against the intended output. If the output is online images, then the SD14 etc. are absolutely superior. Prints up to about what I do (13x19 inches) are fine (just barely). Bigger than that, use LF with drum scans, or any one of the many fine cameras discussed here. As an aside, my main system is 12.8 Mp Canon 5D, which might yield more individual eyelash detail, but can't hold a candle to the overall image quality of the Foveons. </p>

[cody_goodfellow]

<p>Once again thanks for all the advice. Another question i have since i am once again considering large format cameras is will my tripod handle any possible large format cameras even though it is not indicated on the manual?<br /> I have a Manfrotto 055xprob with a 460mg three way head.</p>

[macmoss]

<p>I have both a Tachihara Cherry and Toyo 45CF. There is a big difference between 4x5 versus larger LF (4x5 is a lot easier to work with), between field cameras versus the big rigs, between lightweight materials (e.g. either the Cherry or carbon fiber above) versus the heavier weight (e.g. the Arca or Ebony). <br /><br />I don't know your specific tripod, but all the above play into that. Also you have to factor in the portability of LF gear plus accessories plus tripod versus your age, weight, health, and strength.<br /><br />Also, be prepared for VERY long exposures if you shoot LF at small apertures. That is why people get very fussy about tripod quality. That can be especially difficult if you are shooting foliage e.g. East of the Mississippi (like here in NC). If I am elected president, I will pass a law forbidding foliage from blowing in the wind when being visualized by LF gear. <br /><br />None of this is to disparage LF, which I love. There are complications like the above, but the image quality potential is fabulous, and it also makes you change the way you think.</p>

[cody_goodfellow]

<p>I ended up getting a Toyo 45cx with a Redenstock 1500mm lens</p>