Digital Cameras for landscape photogrphy 2013

[miles_hecker]

<p>Hi All,<br /><br />I've posted my latest thought on digital cameras for landscape photography as of January 2013.<br /><br />See <a href="http://wyofoto.com/Digital_landscape_cameras_2013.html" target="_blank">http://wyofoto.com/Digital_landscape_cameras_2013.html</a><br /><br />It's likely to be controversial in some quarters. <img title="Wink" src="http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" /><br /><br />Enjoy,<br />Miles</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Very controversial. I disagree with a great deal of it. Not the least of it the assertion that the D800E:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The D800E has no anti-aliasing filter and as a result has a bit higher effective resolution. It will probably have to be coupled with a set of Zeiss manual focus prime lenses to fully capture this extra bit of detail edge to edge.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell me. How did you arrive at your conclusions? <br>

You are telling your readers that Nikon lenses are not acceptable on the 800E and that they should go to manual focus as well? I think that is just wrong. </p>

<p>For example. How did you conclude that 18MP is required for 20-30 prints? I have seen acceptable 20X30" prints made with 6 MP cameras. Better ones with 12 MP. </p>

<p>I am a Nikon shooter also. I disagree with your assessment of Canon cameras. </p>

<p>It is all about technique Miles. You can't buy a game. First tell people how to take the picture then worry about the cameras. A great photographer with a D70 will almost always take a better picture than a beginner with a D3X. </p>

<p>I respect your work and experience. No doubt you have good reason to publish what you do. The thing is that I think we do our audiences a disservice by making the discussion about the camera. IMP the only reason to consider another camera is when your current one is unable to take the picture than you want. The D800E is very expensive. Nice camera. Totally unnecessary for the vast majority of landscape photographers. I would rather look at landscapes than peep pixels.</p>

[miles_hecker]

<p>I do fine art printing professionally. I've made many hundreds of prints that are hanging in commercial galleries in the US. You can see some at the Brookover Gallery in Jackson WY, if you care to visit it.<br>

The article is about the ultimate high quality print size that one IMO can achieve with a given camera under ideal conditions. Of course the photographer matters. In fact 90% of all cameras are better than the people that use them. However the buyer believes he or she has the potential for taking a great picture and would like to know which camera is the "best". I get a least one email a month asking about this very question.<br>

I have published an article like this for about eleven years to give people my opinion on the matter. It is my opinion, based on my experience, of course YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_brody]

<p>I read the article and basically agree. Miles' opinion about the megapixels needed for a given size print is his opinion and is not measurable anyway. What is acceptable definition to one person, is hopelessly fuzzy to another. You can't beat the laws of physics. Generally speaking, there's no substitute for film or sensor real estate. That's why Ansel used an 8x10 camera. He could have used a Leica or a Contax 35mm camera. In my film days, I used a 4x5, basically because I could not justify or carry (I'm 5'4") an 8x10. The detail I can now obtain from my D800e with Nikon PC-E lenses is nothing short of amazing. That's simply incredible technology at work despite the relatively diminutive sensor size. No doubt a larger sensor, eg the Pentax 645D or a Phase IQ180 could be even more impressive in the rendering of fine landscape detail. I just find that $3,300 for a D800e to be a price and quality point I can live with (I am very fortunate) rather than the $48,000 for an IQ180. Were I wealthy enough not to care how much I spend, I'd have an IQ180 in a heartbeat.<br>

Rick, I agree that a skilled photographer will likely do better with a D70 than an unskilled person with a D3x. That's true of ANY tool. That's why I leave finish carpentry to a skilled carpenter though I own a hammer and a saw. There are lots of areas of photography where technique might be secondary to the impact of an image, eg photojournalism, but landscape photography absolutely demands the highest technique in addition to good composition and all the other things that make a good image.<br>

That's why the best lenses (Nikon primes are pretty darn good, Zeiss are not always better), and the largest sensor with the best technology (all sensors of a given size are not equal), are what is needed, along with photographic and technical skill in the demanding world of landscape. <br>

But most importantly for people like me, who do not earn a living from our photos, I have a lot of fun with my camera and lenses.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I'm a Canon user (not shooting landscapes) and I don't think there's anything at all controversial in that piece - there's no question that at low ISO where most landscape photographers live, current Sony sensors make life easier.</p>

<p>I will say however that with intelligent conversion and PP decisions, the much-lauded<strong> <em>low ISO </em></strong>DR advantage of these sensors over Canon can be significantly reduced.</p>

<p>I emphasise "low ISO" above because the DR advantage goes away quickly, Miles: your article - specifically<strong> "The thing that makes this an easy call over the Canon full frame offerings is the extra 2 stops of dynamic range found in the sensor</strong>" - implies that it exists throughout the ISO range, and it does not.</p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>I don't print larger than 14x21 and I'm using a d800. I recently made a print this size with my Panasonic LX3 and it looks surprisingly good. However, now I can make prints at this size without up sampling and can even print at 720 dpi! This is a substantial improvement from my d300. Miles has been writing articles for the Luminous Landscape for years. I'd love to see his work at a gallery. </p>

[peter_e]

<p>This is a nice overview, but obviously focusing on the camera bodies. My initial choice to go with Canon (many years ago) was motivated primarily by the lens options, and I would argue that Canon has some advantages here for landscape shooters. On the Canon discussion in this article: I recently upgraded from the EOS 5Dii to 5Diii as my main camera, primarily to get a second body, and find that the AF of the 5Diii has a marked advantage over the 5Dii for landscape photography. The statement "It's excellent 61 point focus system doesn't matter for landscape work." simply does not hold up--at least not compared to the AF of the 5Dii which I always considered marginal. This comment is something we see repeated on this forum here over and over again (and I believed this as well until I got the 5Diii and found out for myself). Focus with the center point and recompose is standard procedure with the 5Dii but frequently not practical for tripod work. Yes, the 5Diii can be considered overpriced, and maybe not worth the upgrade for many, but it does go along way in the field.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p>I generally agree with Miles' article although I've found that printing on canvas enables the envelope to be pushed considerably more so than when printing on a fine art paper, when it comes to file size. I shoot with a 645D and a Pentax K5, which uses the same sensor as the Nikon 7000. The K5 has a more rugged weatherproof body, shoots equally fast, has an equally good viewfinder and is now available in a version without an AA filter, FWIW.</p>

<p>If you're shooting professionally, and successfully, you shouldn't have to justify the purchase of a digital medium format system to your wife. :-)</p>

[Robin Smith]

Seems fair to me. Not sure why it would be controversial. Agree about 5D II vs III. If you want to focus hyper-accurately use Live View. I personally think all the flim flam about dynamic range is the most overused non-issue these days for most people, but I guess it allows all sorts of statements to be made about which sensor is "the best" etc. People do so like to make lists.

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I personally think all the flim flam about dynamic range is the most overused non-issue these days for most people</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steady Robert! It's obviously the <em>only</em> thing that matters ever since DxO decided to measure it - and coincidentally, overnight everybody became hyper-demanding low ISO landscape photographers!</p>

<p><img src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHDBhpAuE4xZfaZIpX6kluy0Spho2pBtCXZHxk5KzcwGDEHjAR" alt="" width="229" height="220" /></p>

[machts gut]

<p>"That's why Ansel used an 8x10 camera. He could have used a Leica or a Contax 35mm camera."<br>

He did use a Contax occasionaly and to the end of his life he said he would rather use a Hasselblad, because the quality of film improved so much until that time and the camera is much lighter and smaller and easier to carry. One of my favourite landscape artists, Hamish Fulton, once said he didn't want a camera heavier than his Nikkormat and a 50mm lens, because his work is about walking. IMO landscape photography is about perception and transforming that into a photo. Soemtimes it might need high resoultion, but not necessarily. This is more a matter of convention and not of originality.</p>

 

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>IMO landscape photography is about <strong>perception and transforming that into a photo.</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>All</em> photography is inherently about that.</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>Ansel and Christopher Burkett both used Hasselblads, Chris still does and to good effect. This just adds to what I said earlier about technology making smaller film/sensors "better." Newer lenses, better films, better sensors, and better software all together make it easier to achieve technically impressive results now than 50 years ago. The new technology alone does not make a better photographer though. It takes study, time, and talent to be a great photographer. The tools are just that, tools. Today's tools, as outlined by Miles just make it easier and more fun.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<blockquote>It will probably have to be coupled with a set of Zeiss manual focus prime <br />lenses to fully capture this extra bit of detail edge to edge.</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry but that is just plain nonsense. I have five Zeiss lenses and love them but they all fit on my <em><strong>Hasselblad</strong></em>. For film and digital it is Nikon all the way. You DO NOT have to go with Zeiss lenses to maximize the resolving potential of that 36 MP sensor. Nikon makes some <em><strong>very fine</strong> </em>lenses, and not to mention <em>many of them</em> are the old manual focus AIS ones too. For the price of most Zeiss lenses you could buy TWO of Nikons best lenses in that focal length.</p>

<p>And honestly, and I will bet I have made this statement well over a hundred times in my life, the camera and lens are <em><strong>nothing but a recording device</strong></em>. All they make is an image. It is what (who) is BEHIND that camera that makes a <em><strong>photograph</strong></em>. Ansel Adams made some of photography's most iconic and endureing images and he used very low tech and old 8x10 view camera and lenses. In fact his enlarger was a converted 11x14 view camera. Were he still alive today, I am sure he would also preach that when all is said and done, the <em><strong>number of</strong> <strong>megapixels don't amount to a hill of beans</strong></em>, the artistic abilities of the photographer is what makes the photograph most memorable.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>For the price of most Zeiss lenses you could buy TWO of Nikons best lenses in that focal length.</em></p>

<p>I don't find that to be the case at all. The Zeiss primes for the F mount are competitively priced and often less expensive than the closest matching high end Nikkors. The Zeiss lenses have high contrast wide open and this together with their precise focusing rings makes focusing easier when doing work on a tripod on a stationary subject (where live view would be used anyway). Same thing for video - if you want to alter the focus during the take you need to do it manually if you don't want to annoy the viewer with focus jitter (arguably not relevant for landscape photographers, but not completely). Modern Nikkors have way too fast manual focus rings and often there is annoying slack in the mechanism, which in the case of a high resolution camera makes focusing a frustrating experience (and the full resolution capability really cannot be realized using phase-detect AF in many cases).</p>

<p>Some Zeiss lenses are indeed more expensive than corresponding Nikkors, but usually it is because they have unique features and/or quality. E.g. the Makro-Planars have f/2 maximum aperture which is unusual in macro lenses, and they have excellent corner-to-corner sharpness. With the 60mm and 105mm AF-S Micro-Nikkors the edge of the frame often has softness and/or substantial CA (at some distances - that's the issue; inconsistent quality). The 25/2 ZF.2 also edges out the much more expensive 24/1.4 AF-S Nikkor in sharpness, though there is something to be said for the bokeh and speed of the latter. It is rare that the products are completely comparable. In some cases I prefer Nikkor and in others Zeiss. That's why they both are in the market. You get to choose the style of rendering and build quality that you prefer.</p>

<p><em>Nikon makes some <strong>very fine</strong> lenses,</em></p>

<p>True. But they also make some which are not so great yet are quite expensive.</p>

<p><em>the camera and lens are <strong>nothing but a recording device</strong>. All they make is an image. It is what (who) is BEHIND that camera that makes a <strong>photograph</strong>.</em></p>

<p>This is just semantics; IMO the photograph is what is drawn by the light, not a hand and mouse (which is what is used to create digital art or a digital drawing).</p>

<p>I do agree that the content of the image is what matters most, and that is chosen by the photographer, not the camera or lens. However, the quality of the print does depend on what equipment is used. I think a well-conceived image deserves also a good lens and camera so that the technical quality is not worse than the concept. Would you read a novel which has a lot of typos and missing words, etc. no matter how brilliant the plot is if it's unfinished, has a lot of loose ends and leaves an impression that it's not really though out to the end, then it's annoying to read. Similarly if the main subject in a photograph is slightly out of focus and something that shouldn't be in focus, is in better focus, distracts from the message of the image and makes it difficult to view as communication. The characteristics of the image depend on the equipment used and a part of the task of the photographer is to take everything as far as it will go to attract the viewer and communicate the message effectively.</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Controversial indeed, but a nice set of opinions, based on experiece, which I value. Having chosen the EOS system many years ago, I still stick with it, becuase I do not have the financial means to keep switching whenever a particular system seems to have the upper hand.<br>

In this regard, my recommendation relative to the RX100 would be: sure it is a nice camera (I have one, that my son somehow managed to borrow indefinitely...); but there is something out there that is much better, the Canon EOS M with the 22mm lens. This is a fantastic combination, and not much more expensive than the RX100. With the bonus of being able to mount all the EOS lenses ever made...<br>

As for the segment of the entry level full frame, you seem to have forgotten about the Canon EOS 6D? This is a much better proposition than the 5DMKIII for landscapists on a budget; I bought one, it is a very good camera, solid and reliable. The 5DMKIII is like a full frame 7D, a jack of all trades (able for landscapes, travel, and sports). The 6D with integrated GPS is actually more useful, potentially, for landscapes.<br>

I think that your piece also lacks on lenses. Lenses are really the core of systems, and they should ultimately guide your decision. It may well be that people end up with a D600 (with oil in sensor warts and all...) or a D800, plus the wonderful new Canon TSE lenses (17 and 24mm).</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I shoot B&W film and dislike digital for most everything, but on my one foray into LF color landscape photography (slow, heavy) I carried a LF camera, a MF camera, and my ancient Fuji E-550 digital P&S. Think it's 6MP. The MF camera gave me great shots, and I printed a 12x18 inkjet from the Fuji that was just wonderful. If you want color, why not use digital for that? OK, it wasn't as nice as the transparencies from the LF camera, but if you didn't have that to compare it to, it looks good to me.</p>

[emily_rowland]

<p>I am still in a fix for selecting wider range of cameras..I agree Nikon 7000 shows quite favored features which might run outrageously for nature photography..</p>

<p><a href="http://www.busandtramblinds.co.uk/european-busblinds-gallery/">Bus scrolls</a></p>