schonphotography

<blockquote>

<p>Sony Alpha 65 (24MP, stabilized with all lenses, no mirror slap, electronic first curtain shutter, $900).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why didn't anyone think of this before? I know I'm a bit biased against Sony just because of lack of history, but how can we be recommending Nikon's and Pentax's if they all use Sony sensors anyway? You can't really beat the 24mp here. Anyone know if it's full frame or crop?</p>

I don't know if I would go with Canon for landscape if you're going to be picking up a new system. The 5D is a great

camera, no doubt, but if the 1DX is going to be their flagship in the future, then it appears as if their focus is more on

wildlife and sports (as it traditionally has been) than on areas that demand high resolution, like fashion and landscape.

This is just a thought to ponder, not really for debate.

<p>For me, the choice between the D7000 and D5100 was really easy. The D7000 overall is a better working camera, has a faster focusing system, is weather sealed, great metering, big and bright lcd on the back (I've heard the 5100's is over saturated), dual sim cards, can accept a battery grip, etc. The list goes on for quite a bit.</p>

<p>I don't know about Canon cameras, but I would go with whatever system you already have gear for.</p>

<p>For the D7000/D5100 your print size at 300dpi (highest quality) is roughly 16" x 24" from what I've <em>read</em>, but is actually 11" x 16.5" from what I've <em>shot</em> (just checked with a print from today. I shoot in raw, 16.2 MP). At 220 dpi (high quality, no visible loss of print quality), you're looking at around 15" x 22.5", and to obtain 20" x 30", you have to print at around 165dpi, (major loss of print quality). Also keep in mind that for large landscapes, you'll most likely be doing a long, thin crop, so you're losing data there too. For large prints on a digital camera, your best bet is still probably panorama/stitching photos together, but the D7000 is an absolutely fantastic camera for just about anything you can throw at it.</p>

<p>Just took a quick look at your portfolio, and you have a lot of experience with medium format film already. I would say go that route for now, until full-frame DSLR's drop in price. With the new Nikon and Canon pro bodies coming out soon, expect a drop in things like the D3X. I'm not sure how much the price will go down, but hopefully put us within reach to afford them.</p>

<p>Landscape photography doesn't need to be expensive. In fact in many ways, it can be one of the cheapest genres of photo.</p>

<p>Get a shorter lens, a good tripod, and do a panorama instead of trying to capture the scenery in one shot. Even with the smallest and cheapest DSLR like the D40 (6.1 MP), with a 10 picture panorama, you now have a 61MP image, the same as if you were using a $33,000 Phase One P65+ digital back.<br>

<br />Another option, albeit expensive, is if you have the equipment or know someone who does, go back to film with a medium (dare I suggest large) format camera. I wouldn't suggest this if you're looking to replace your primary camera though. With a slow 120 film (25iso), you can usually get the equivalent of a 200MP image. A medium format body and sharp lens in good condition will run you anywhere from $150 to $500 on ebay, but keep in mind the cost of film and developing.<br>

<br />A d7000 (crop sensor, 16.2 MP) is a good camera for just about anything that's now just over $1000 new. You won't be able to find anything full frame for under $2000 though, or image that's as good quality.</p>

<p>Keep in mind you're going to need really sharp glass too, usually primes are best for this. If you don't have a good short lens, consider buying an older MF one. You don't really need auto-focus for landscapes because you'll mostly be shooting at infinity, and it certainly doesn't have to be real fast if you want to capture all the detail of the image (f/ 5.6 is the widest you'll ever really need in landscape, and it usually provides the best image quality).</p>

<p>Best of luck!</p>

Nothing yet here in PA. The oaks are turning brown and falling, but we havn't had a frost yet so it's a mix of brown and green

everywhere. High winds and lots of rain isn't helping either.

<p>So why go with a sidekick if a full-sized gimbal head is just $75 more, and is probably sturdier?</p>

<p>I have found myself in quite a predicament here, and am unable to find the answer anywhere: what head should I buy for a smaller telephoto? Obviously the best choice for the huge lenses (400mm f/2.8, 600mm f/4, etc.) is a gimbal head, and a ball head for small lenses, but I'm somewhere in the middle and have been hearing mixed responses on what to use.</p>

<p>The lenses I'll primarily be using are the 70-200mm f/2.8 (could use a ballhead or just handhold) and a 300mm f/2.8. A gimbal for a 300mm just seems overkill, but when using it with a teleconverter to make it a 500 f/4, make it almost necessary to get rock-solid support.</p>

<p>A thought I had was to use a fluid head to sort of bridge the gap between a ballhead and gimbal, as I have seen it used in the field for the big lenses, and it seems to work pretty darn well for some photographers (for ex., Tom Mangelsen's setup when shooting polar bears: <a href="http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS9.jpg">http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS9.jpg</a> and <a href="http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS5.jpg">http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS5.jpg</a> )</p>

<p>All thoughts and suggestions are very welcome, as I'm in need of some guidance from people who have used all sorts of support. Thank you very much!</p>

Are there any mid-level monolights you could recommend then? Adorama's flashpoints are supposed to be quite good for the money. I

realistically only need 2 for key and fill, I might as well use the 1000w and 500w continuous lights for background, hair, etc. now that I

have them.

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>Recently I was given several continuous lights, of which included a Lowel Omni, Lowel Tota, a 500watt tungsten, and two 250 watt tungsten lamps. I was actually about to get into studio photography when a friend gave me these, so I figured I wouldn't need to be spending thousands of dollars outfitting myself in lighting. However, when I tested them out, I found that they just don't provide enough light, especially when using umbrellas/softboxes. To get a decent exposure at f/ 5.6 and ISO 100, my shutter speed has to be around 1/10th.</p>

<p>I feel like this is abnormal, because there is so much light pouring onto the subject (1000watt key into white umbrella, 500w fill into white umbrella, then 250w hair, and the other 250's when blowing out a white background). I really don't want to have to sell off the equipment to try and re-outfit a studio with monolights, seeing as all of this equipment would probably only fetch me about $500/600, and would be a huge hassle to do.</p>

<p>Does anyone know the reason that the setup is so dim, or how to fix this?</p>

<p>Thank you for any and all suggestions, I would love to get a working studio up and running.</p>

<p>I'm in the Philadelphia area, which is known for its lack of pro shops. If I don't end up developing it at home I'll probably ship it off to any of the above recommendations.</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

After a recent trip out to Wyoming I've found myself with many rolls of slow 120 film that need to be developed. My original plan was to ship them off to Dwayne's photo (they've been really good in the past), but I was wondering if anyone can recommend a really good developer for Efke 25 (120). I'm aiming for the finest grain/highest resolving results, but haven't found one that I really like just yet.<br>

On a side note, has anyone used Adox CMS 20 film yet?</p>

<p>Thanks for all your input</p>

For those asking the lens will be used between a D7000 and (when it comes out... 2 more days?) a D800. I was out

using a 70-200mm 2.8 this morning photographing pronghorn antelope and just wishing I could have a little more on

the long end. The results were fantastically sharp though, with a D7000 it's easily cropped. So now I'm split between

all 3 lenses. The 300mm f/4 can be easily used wih a teleconverter to get to 500 f/5.6. But, as with all primes, you

have no short end. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is brilliant; a perfect lens. So that seems like the obvious choice, but it's

something about being able to use a 300mm f/2.8 for under $5000, and still be able to zoom with it that's really

tempting. Unfortunately none of the stores around me carry it (Philadelphia region), so there's no way to see how I like

it without renting (for that lens its expensive) or taking a trip up to New York. How bout I get all 3... That would make

choosing easy!

Please excuse this if it has been asked before.

 

I'm lookIng for a fast, telephoto zoom for Nikon. My brother owns a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and I love it; it's quite hard not too. But after

looking at similar lenses, I began to wonder if there is anything better. The main lens in question is the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS. I

havn't seen anything else like it, and it would be really nice to have that extra reach but still have a fast 2.8 aperture. Has anyone had

experience with this lens in comparison to the Nikon, or does anyone have any recomendations for a lens similar in focal length,

speed, sharpness, and price ($5000 for a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 is way out of the question, and the 300mm f/4 just isn't up to the quality

I feel should be delivered from Nikon; for example no VR and a very poor tripod collar).

 

Thank you for all your help, this is something that's been in the back of my mind for a bit and I'm sure has been for others.

 

-Alex Schon

<p>Earlier I posted a question about exposure compensation on the Mamiya C33's focusing screen. After a very quick reply to the question, I found out the focusing screen in my camera is 3rd party. I removed the screen, cleaned out the camera, but now have a new issue: Different screens were used by Mamiya due to proper focusing, and small adjustments are made to the positioning of the screen to achieve this. Does anyone know the correct way to put the screen back into the camera which maintaining the proper focusing?<br>

Thank you very much</p>

<p>Thank you so much for your help, I guess the screen is 3rd party (a friend gave it to me a few months back for free). I'll see if I can work out the markings, and I'm glad to know the shots from a trip I just took won't be thrown off in exposure.</p>

<p>I was looking over the manual recently to my Mamiya C33, in which they vaguely talked about an "exposure index scale", which is explained in depth below. I see no such scale on the side of the ground glass where it appears it should be in the manual. Is this something I need to worry about when I'm shooting landscapes? The only thought I had was that the scale might be inside the focusing hood, which I do not currently own.</p>

<p>Thank you for your thoughts and help with this.</p>

<p>(Link to manual is here, page 9 of manual is expsure index scale: <em>http://www.cameramanuals.org/mamiya_pdf/mamiya_c33_pro.pdf</em> )<br>

The manual quotes " As the distance between the lens and film becomes greater, the light value will be lower provided the aperture is constant. In this case, the exposure must be increased. First, take a light meter reading to obtain the exposure and make the correction based on the exposure index given by the camera. Figures given on the left side of the ground glass show exposure index. If the reading of the scale is 2 with object in focus, this indicates the necessity of doubling the exposure. For example, if the exposure meter calls for F8 at 1/60 sec., it is necessary to adjust to 1/60 at F5.6 or 1/30 sec. at F8."</p>

<div></div>

I know there have been a few similar questions about films for landscape, but I have a few specifications for what I need to get out of

my film.

 

I will be travelling over to the UK I a few weeks, but my main concern is going out to the Midwest in August (Arizona, Wyoming, etc).

I need a slower film with extremely (virtually no) grain, and for it to have natrual color reproduction (unlike in Orthodox films where it

can be great for portraits, it turns reds deep black. I would not mind this but many of the rock formations and canyons are red hued). A

film I would love to use is Adox CMS 20, but at the moment they only have it in 35mm form. They announced very reently that they

have developed a 120 size roll, but have yet to release it, probably due to the special developers needed.

 

Does anyone have any suggetions from personal use on a good film to use?

Thank you so much,

 

Alex