jerry_gardner1

Most of the prints I do make (when I bother to make prints at all) are 8x10's with just a rare few 11x14s.

 

I don't think either the D3 or 5D2 will have any problems at this size. If I decide to go larger (e.g. 16x20 or 20x30), I can take another approach. Since all of my landscape work is done on a tripod anyway, I can just zoom in tighter, take four exposures panning the camera in between shots, and splice the shots together in Photoshop. This way I have 4x the pixel count without affecting low-light handling. So, if I get the D3, then using this method I effectively have a 48.4 MP camera.

Interesting discussion; thanks.

 

Just some clarifying points and I'll try to respond to some of the posts:

 

The Contax gear is gone--I've already sold it to pay for the new DSLR, so the availability of a Contax to EOS or NIkon adapter is not a concern.

 

I'm not looking for absolute IQ, just the best I can get in the DSLR form factor. I have Mamiya RZ67 and 4x5 outfits (yes, I even have Schneider lenses ;) that I don't use anymore. They're both too big and bulky to carry around in the field and I'm not getting any younger. I much prefer the smaller and lighter 35mm format even though it may not yield the best IQ. Most of the work I do ends up thumbtacked to the wall of my office for my own enjoyment.

 

Film and processing are getting harder and harder to find, especially the latter (I sold my Jobo years ago; not interested in doing that anymore). Since I've gone to a completely digital workflow with Photoshop and an inkjet printer, I had the transparencies drum scanned at a cost of $50 for 6x7 and $65 for 4x5. This isn't very cost effective in the long run for what amounts to a hobby.

 

One poster recommended looking at a 20x30 print made from a 1DS MkIII. Good idea--any recommendations as to where I can go to do this?

I'm primarily a landscape photographer and prefer the "big vista" type of landscapes that Ansel Adams was famous

for. That being said, I want to move from film to digital. I currently use a Contax RTS-III system to do most of

my work, so that leaves me in the position of not having an existing set of lenses for any current DSLR system

and frees me to choose either Nikon or Canon.

 

There seems to be two primary differences between the D3 and the 5DII that would affect my work: pixel resolution

and build quality. (I don't care about video, so that feature of the Canon is not relevant.)

 

The 5DII is 21MP and the D3 is 12MP. For landscape work where my typical print is either 8"x10" or 16"x20", how

much difference will 9 additional MP of resolution make? If this is a significant factor, then this will probably

sway me towards the 5DII (the EOS 1DS mark III is out of my price range).

 

The D3 is Nikon's top-of-the-line "pro" DSLR. Is its build quality significantly better than an "enthusiast" DSLR

like the 5DII? I'll be carrying whatever I buy around in a rucksack in sometimes dusty conditions--will a pro

model make much of a difference here?

Kodak recently discontinued all Readyload films, so when the supply in the channel runs out, that's it.

My son is still in high school, so the educational discount probably isn't in the cards at this point, although perhaps my wife and I can find a Photoshop course to enroll in at the local community college ;-)

Does Adobe offer a family license for Photoshop that allows installation on several computers at a discount over

the individual license costs (e.g. like Microsoft does with their "Home and Student" editions of Office)?

 

I suspect the answer is no and that Elements is intended to fill that niche, but just want to be sure.

"People were photographing with "film" long before kodak, fuji, agfa or ilford came along. I already know that I can process my own film, how far fetched is it that I can produce my own film if it ever comes to that? What do you think Louis DaGuerre, or William Henry Talbot would say to this question?"

 

B&W sure, but E6 film (which I use) would be very difficult (if not downright impossible) for an amateur to produce at home.

"And eventually, we won't even need X-ray film"

 

You're way behind the times. Digital X-ray has superseded film X-rays almost everywhere except perhaps in little backwoods clinics.

"I bet that crystal ball will show that when film is gone, the oldest processes such as tintypes will continue."

 

Even that is doubtful as it's very difficult for individuals to get the chemicals requires owing to the belief that anyone buying chemicals is either a terrorist making a bomb or a drug dealer making meth.

Your 4x5 equipment list is suspect: how do you meter? Do you carry a meter, or do you estimate exposures? Do you carry filters, lens shades, dark cloth, cable release?