dan_south

<blockquote> <p>"A 50mp print is a 50mp print provided the pixels are big enough that the noise level isn't overwhelming."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> In your experience, do 24 MP APS-C sensors match the image quality of 24 MP full frame? Do 12 MP cell phones compete head to head with the Nikon D3?<br> <br> Have you worked with files from the Pentax 645Z or the Phase One and Hasselblad cameras that use 50 MP sensors? Can you confirm first hand that these cameras offer no image quality gain over the Canon 5DS R? Perhaps you can post some 100 percent crops showing your test results.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the responses!</p>

<blockquote> <p>"It seems as though HDR and enhanced color saturation images look better on screen than more naturalistic images, which tend to appear "drab" by comparison."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> HDR images can look completely natural, or they can make a normal landscape look like a photograph of an alien planet. It depends on how the files are processed and/or what presets were applied.<br> <br> Which looks "better" is a matter of individual taste. I don't care for the hyper-processed HDR look, but if you like it, that's fine. It's difficult to suggest settings, because I don't know exactly what look you want. I would guess that you start by trying different Lightroom presets for your camera and tweaking the contrast slider, but that's only a starting point.<br> <br> HDR landscapes, as you call them, do not need a separate category, because the concept of HDR is not new in landscape photography. Historically, HDR-like effects were be created in the black and white dark room or with the use of special "graduated" filters. In recent years, HDR software has added a convenient way of achieving a similar result. But the HDR concept has been around for a long time.<br> </p>

<p>I am at an age where I can no longer focus on close objects without the use of reading glasses. I wear contact lenses that set my eyes to focus at infinity; I wear the "readers" over my contacts.</p> <p>The power of my reading correction has changed over time. Currently, I'm using a +2.0 adjustment in order to read text at a normal reading distance of 14-20 inches. I use the same glasses to read the LCD on the back of my digital cameras.</p> <p>Will this condition hamper my ability to use a camera with an electronic viewfinder? </p> <p>I already adjust the viewfinder diopters on my SLRs. Will a similar amount of diopter correction enable me to see an EVF clearly, or do EVFs require a different level of correction?</p> <p>Do EVFs place different demands (different than OVFs) on the eye's ability to focus, i.e. as though you are looking at a television screen that's less than an inch from your eye?</p> <p>Thank you very much in advance!</p>

<p>The f/1.8 prime lenses that Nikon has been producing for the last couple of years are small, lightweight, and extremely sharp.</p> <p>24mm, 35mm, and 85mm would make a nice, easy to carry kit, although other focal lengths are available.</p> <p>I use the 24-70 f/2.8 (2007 version) and 70-200 f/2.8 VR II for landscapes, but they are HEAVY and EXPENSIVE, and the 24-70 isn't as sharp as prime lenses (but it is sharper than other mid-range zooms). I picked up the 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 recently, and I have been very impressed with both of them.</p> <p>I would stay away from PC-E lenses unless you absolutely need (and understand) what they can do for you. </p>

<p>I don't hear those questions anymore. Photo taking has become so ubiquitous that people no longer give it much thought. Either that, or maybe I finally look as though I know what I'm doing.</p>

<p>I have found micro fine-tuning to be very helpful on some cameras and lenses and completely unnecessary on others.</p> <p>If you'd like to try it, mount your camera on a solid tripod and shoot repeated frames at a stationary, planar subject (like a page from a magazine taped to a wall).</p> <p>Make sure that your camera is NOT in Live View mode, or it will be using contrast detection autofocus. Micro fine tuning has no effect on contrast detection autofocus.</p> <p>Go to the AF fine tuning menu on your camera and take three shots each at -20, -15, -10, -5, 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20. Be sure to use a cable release and, if your camera features it, mirror lockup.</p> <p>Put the fine tuning setting back to 0. Load the images onto your computer and review them carefully. I recommend that you use the software that came with the camera so you have access to all of the fine tuning information in the application.</p> <p>If the sharpest images are at 0, fine tuning isn't necessary. If the sharpest images are elsewhere on the spectrum, repeat the exercise and take multiple shots at every setting in that range, not just incrementing by fives.</p>

<p>My advice to someone starting out in landscape photography would be to forget about filters for now. Learn how to recognize good lighting (quality and direction). Learn how to compose well. Learn about depth of field and focus. Get a solid tripod and learn about camera stability and creating sharp images.</p> <p>All of these things are more important than any filter that you can place over your lenses.</p> <p>I use neutral density and graduated neutral density filters for landscape work. But these are not of much value until they can be coupled with an understanding of the elements listed above.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Use 1.4 lenses and move up to the D810. Problem solved.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> How does that solve the problem if the composition requires an f-stop of 5.6? Or 11?</p>

<p>Planning to buy one? No. Considering the possibility? Yes.</p> <p>I like the handling of the 5D series. The 5DII was one of my favorite cameras ever. I have some concerns about the 5DS®, but until production models are tested, I don't know how serious these issues will be.</p> <p>For instance, Canon's shadow noise is problematic when compared with the clean DR of the competition. More resolution equals more detail, but if you blow the prints up, the noise becomes even more noticeable. </p> <p>Also, for a while I shot the 7D side by side with the 5DII. The 7D images were always softer even though the MP was nearly equivalent. I suspect that the small pixel pitch puts more strain on lenses. So, I'm not sure how much extra detail the 5DS will really deliver. I'm sure that it will beat the 5DIII, but will it exceed the D810 that I'm using currently?</p> <p>A thought on file size:</p> <blockquote> <p>Working with big files can get tedious.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> This will vary widely depending on your workflow. My 2009 iMac processes 36.3 MP Nikon files just fine in Lightroom. Other workflows might be less forgiving.</p>

<p>There is always going to be some noise, even if you're shooting as low as ISO 400. You can shoot at ISO 3200, 6400, or higher depending on the final usage and the amount of processing that you're willing to do.</p> <p>If you print 4x6 or upload small JPEG files to the web, the noise won't be very noticeable. If you plan to make a large print or upload a full resolution file, then the noise in an unprocessed file will be visible. </p> <p>Can you reduce the effect of the noise? In most cases, yes, you can reduce it substantially.</p> <p>If you shoot in raw format, you can use Lightroom or other software to reduce the amount and effect of the noise in the image. If you prefer to shoot JPEG and skip post processing (e.g. if you are on a publishing deadline), the camera's built in High ISO Noise Reduction feature will be a big help. Do everything that you can to avoid underexposure.</p> <p>I have a friend (Canon guy) who shoots at or above ISO 12,800 regularly. He sells and publishes lots of photos. If Canon can do it... ;-)</p>

<p>Three grand...choke! gasp! For a lens that distorts everything and doesn't accept filters. Wow!</p>

<p>For stability you need quality tripod legs of the proper size for your camera and lenses. Gizto is historically the expert in this area, but other companies offer nice solutions, as well.</p> <p>However, I have found the tripod to camera interface to be even more critical. I attach custom L-brackets and lens plates from Really Right Stuff to all of my gear. The camera or lens mounts to the tripod head with the stability of a good vice. This level of stability helps at critical shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Perhaps the bigger news it that after many, many years, Canon finally designed an answer to Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8G wide-angle zoom. If you have three grand to drop on a wide angle zoom that distorts everything and doesn't accept filters, your dream lens has arrived. :-)</p>

<p>I own Canon lenses and have used 5D bodies extensively, but I'm not in a rush to run out and buy their new 50MP body. The poor dynamic range of their sensors results in noise in the shadows all too often. At higher resolution, that's going to be even more annoying. Plus, I don't like the 5DS's limitation of 1/200th flash sync. I prefer to work at 1/250 for the added sharpness, and my Nikon bodies give me that capability.</p> <p>My 5D Mark III collects dust in the closet, because I prefer the clean output of the D810 and 800E for MOST applications. I still think the Canon's autofocus is better than anything that Nikon has ever designed; it works very well for events in dark spaces. But for any other application, I grab my Nikons.</p> <p>I love resolution (I've shot a lot of 4x5 film). If Nikon and Sony come up with a sensor with more pixels than 36.3M, I would be interested in evaluating it. But the D800E and D810 are such amazing bodies. It's likely that they'll be my workhorses for years to come. And I won't have to spend all of my post processing time trying to remove ugly noise from the shadows.</p>

<p>Interesting designs. The test shots show amazing resolution. I'm a big fan of the 5D3's autofocus system; I'll assume that the 5DS series is similar.</p> <p>Dynamic range, high ISO noise, and low ISO shadow noise are often a concern with Canon sensors. We'll have to wait for the test results. The DR of the D8x0 series is impressive and has saved some important shots taken in challenging lighting situations. In most cases, I would prefer to have clean 36MP files over gritty 50MP files. But under the right circumstances, a 5DSR would make my TS-E24 f/3.5L II very, very happy.</p>

<p>"Get closer."</p> <p>It's a suggestion, a technique that works in some cases better than others. </p> <p>Ultimately, you'll want to understand WHY this suggestions works when it does and why it comes up short in other cases. This will require some experimentation, but the knowledge that you'll gain from that effort will help you to expand and enhance your own style.</p> <p>Instead of cluttering your mind with other people's ideas, strive to establish your own set of techniques based on the results that YOU want to achieve. Don't worry if your ideas aren't perfect; you can always revise them over time.</p> <p>Even if a person has some level of notoriety, they're still not you. They don't know what you like or what you want to accomplish. They offer advice, but eventually you'll have to make the decisions if you want to create photographs in YOUR OWN style. No one can do that for you.</p>

<p>It's been on my list. I think I'll visit the exhibition this week.</p>

<p>Fred: Thank you very much for those thought-provoking quotes!</p>

<p>I am very excited to see this upward trend in pricing for photographic prints. I'm planning to offer a series called Billionaires On A Budget with prices starting at only $650,000.00</p> <p>:-)</p>

<p>I stop by Luminous Landscape from time to time to see if they're featuring anything interesting. Today, that effort was rewarded with a very special treat. These photos of Yellowstone in Winter are stunning. Congrats to the photographer, Nigel Turner, for enduring the bitter cold to bring us these lovely images.</p> <p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/yellowstone_in_winter.shtml">Nigel Turner's Photos of Yellowstone in Winter</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>You'll find this to be the case on every camera body that provides AF in live view. Live View uses contrast detection autofocus. It analyzes the JPEG preview of the shot. This takes more time than phase detection autofocus, but it can be more accurate. Contrast detection autofocus works best when the subject isn't moving. Therefore, the time to focus doesn't matter.</p>

<p>I bought a few gray market lenses when I first started out. In one case, I saved $900, and the lens was very sharp. In other cases, I ended up with some lenses that didn't perform well. Perhaps the USA version was equally bad, but I have a feeling that these were bad copies that no one wanted and therefore were marketed as "gray market."</p> <p>Today, I won't take the chance.</p>

<p>85mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses are expensive, because of the diameter required. 85mm / 1.2 = 71mm, which is nearly 3 inches wide. The front element probably needs to be a little bit wider than that to prevent vignetting.</p> <p>Producing glass elements that size that are sharp edge to edge at a wide aperture requires quality materials, a very good design, and demanding manufacturing tolerances. You get what you pay for.</p>

<p>I recall reading that Santa Barbara has some strict regulations.</p>