Landscape Photography Gear ?

tcole1983

I had the 12-24 and I actually found it to be wider then I needed in most cases. When I was out in the mountains taking shots I didn't need the 12 mm. It was fun to use in some cases but I went on a camping trip this last fall to the same place I went the year before. First time I had the 12-24 and this time I used my 17-55...I really thought I got better pictures without the 12-24 and didn't feel like I ever needed wider. But it really depends on your subjects and shooting style...if you want to stand at the base of something and shoot the whole thing then the UW might help.

As for the body I think you will find the dynamic range important and the d600 wins there. I don't think you can go wrong with either though. It seems too many people have a stigma of this camera is for this or that when you can take any type of pictures with any body...some just might do it a little better or more easily at least.

tc88

A number I saw commonly used before is 300dpi. I don't remember where it comes from. Probably from the time when printers/scanners hit 300dpi, people thought the quality was getting pretty good. So 12x18 will be 3600x5400 which is about 20MP. Now if you crop a little bit, you will lose some. Sometimes you may just want to tilt your picture slightly to make it level, and that will also cost you some since you will have to crop afterwards. So I feel 24-36MP is about ideal for 12x18.

TaoTeJared

Everyone has had some great comments. Here is a couple of points that I think has been left out:

FX vs DX debate and new debacle:
Everyone must realize that we are now on the 3rd generation of FX sensors (Canon 5d mk1-nikon passed on, D3/D700, D3s, D800/D4) and the arguments of DX vs FX has now changed drastically with the introduction of the D7000, D800D600 & D4. That compairson was easy when all the camera's were 12mp - but that day is gone - long gone in my mind.

• D4 holds on to the old DX/FX arguments.
  
  
• The D600 and D800 does not, and has rewritten the arguments which I have not seen any good arguments other than the D800 has huge resolution. The arguments for DX/FX can be applied to the D800 vs. D4 but where the winner is, varies greatly. The Noise argument changed since now with the D800 the noisey pixels are 1/4 smaller, but it is not better than the D4. The tests, show the D800 as being better than we would expect. In pratice this works. BUT the color depth of the D4 outshines it and you don't notice the noise. I believe it is a far superior in the regard - it may have noise, but you don't notice it.
  
  
• High iso - D4. But the D800 blows a 16mp D7000 out of the water when the older arguments would say the D7000 would have a slight edge. DXo says the D600 is slightly better than the D800, the D4 is only slightly better than the D800, and the D3s is still king. But anyone who has studied the photos each produces, the D4 wins hands down against all of them and should be ranked much higher, the D800/D600 just a bit higher as well for each. I think some of DXO's test should be addressed to reflect the new technology.
  
  
• Sharper images - previous FX (D700 vs D300) the D700 produced more detail due to the size of the photo diodes were larger. That is not the case and the D800 wins which is counter to the old arguments.
  
  
• Dynamic range - FX wins yet, but not to a indescribable amount vs the newest DX sensors. Even m4/3ds sensors have a DR that is just behind FX and better than most DX sensors. The new DX sensors seem to score really close to the D600 on almost every mark. That too is counter to the old arguments.

Point being, the difference even on the extremes, have become so small that for LANDSCAPE type of situations or even others where you control more (rather than say sports where you control nothing) the old "absolutes" are that, old.

Wide angle and DX:
I have used a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina for about 6 years. That is a 18-36mm equiv. Nikon has a 10-24, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Sigma 8-16mm and Tamron has 10-24mm as well. All have received great reviews, and I have used all the Tokina and Nikons and they are all phenomenal. I have tried the Sigma's, maybe not the best of the bunch but they are nothing I would pass on if a great deal came my way on them. People that say there are "no good wide angles" for DX need to expand their experiences and knowledge. The DX wide angles exist, they are great, and they will not be replaced soon, because they are so good. The nikon 14-24mm is so good that Canon users buy it all the time - that lens is so far superior to anything else using that as a baseline is just like saying every car made sucks because it is not a space ship.

Printing:
What an eye can see and not see in prints completely depends on distance from the medium. I have found at art shows and galleries, few ever stand more than 3ft away first, then move back. I try to print and shoot with that in mind and adjust accordingly. DPI of sensors native resolution, DPI/PPI on a print and DPI on a monitor are not equal. Mainly because so many use DPI when there are different terms but all sound the same for each format. You can print great 20" x 30" with 24mp+ with little adjustments to do so and I have read people printing gallery prints with no advance software using the D800 to 45" x 30. With the right software, you can print 8ft walls.

spraynpray

@Golf:

Please straighten the horizon on your last image X_X - it is making me sit at an angle!

I would have thought that your $3K RRS tripod and head wouldn't let you take crooked pictures....

Just kiddin ya man!

heartyfisher

lol the maths..
if you have 100 apples and you want 50% more, then you find 50 apples, which makes 150 apples. so 150 apples is 50% more apples than 100 apples .. but its not double the number of apples :-) and yes I failed maths at school :-(

TaoTeJared

Math... Well actually pixels are less then people are giving it - 50% more pixels only means 25% more resolution.

Then if you really want to get nit picky, it is actually 8% more data per image pixel since RGB is combined for each end image pixel. (But that is really a simplistic view of it.)

GhostRider117

Math... Well actually pixels are less then people are giving it - 50% more pixels only means 25% more resolution.

22% increase in resolution, indeed, as I mentionned earlier. However, I have often read that supposedly, 15-20% was the minimum for people to even notice... Does anyone has credible sources regarding that (and what are the hypothesis to come to that result) ?

And anyway, all else equal, that only matters if you can actually print big enough...

For those who need the math, the long edge will be, in pixels, equal to the square root of 3/2 of the resolution. So basically, a 16Mpix sensor will be 4.24Mpix by 3.27Mpix. Compare that to a 24Mpix sensor that will be 6Mpix by 4Mpix, you have a 22% (=6/4.24-1) increase in the number of pixels over the same distance.

EDIT: Hearty, I bet your headhache is worsening

heartyfisher

Math... Well actually pixels are less then people are giving it - 50% more pixels only means 25% more resolution.

Then if you really want to get nit picky, it is actually 8% more data per image pixel since RGB is combined for each end image pixel. (But that is really a simplistic view of it.)

Go away I am getting a headache ! -- (-crap where are all the emoticons gone ! )

Re your comparisons between the D7000 and the FX sensors .. I think the D7000 is one generation behind .. you should be using the D5200 or D3200 sensors instead of the D7000's. I think that the DXO mark shows that the D3200 sensor beats the D7000 sensor.. and the D5200 sensor is expected to win against the D3200.

JJ_SO

How about comparing for yourself and then present us the results, heartyfisher? Instead of wild guesses [-X



Actually, the D7000 is not so easy to "outperform" B-)

Msmoto

Sometimes these threads become so esoteric it is hard to asses the conclusions. At the present time, a lot of folks in the know think Nikon is coming through with some new bodies, most likely within a couple months. And, with the rapidly advancing sensor technology, it may be the best landscape body is not here yet.

The final decision is based on a multitude of personal preferences, and most important money. Most likely, every body Nikon has available will outperform the operator. The subjective aspect of shooting landscapes is going to be the deciding factor in what the final image looks like.

There are images on PAD which are taken with D70, D40, and other older bodies, and unless I can look at a full sized image, I cannot tell the difference

TaoTeJared

It will be fun to see. I'm still waiting for a DSLR to get 16bit color then it could rival a Medium format system. That will be the next truly huge advancement. A lot of data to push though the chips though.

JJ_SO - thanks for the defense - I know those are the scores, but that is one thing I was pointing to about DXO's scoring - the huge sensors are skewing the results in both directions. The only thing I really trust on their scores is the dynamic range and color depth. Honestly that is all I really pay attention to. The other stuff has objectivity decisions that can push numbers. I don't have access to a bunch of bodies, but it would be fun to play with all of them for a few days and take similar shots. Throw in a D90, D70, and a D2x in the mix as well.

If you haven't caught it on the blog page - Sigma DP3 Merrill was announced. In the comments was a "The Camera Store" video of the DP1 & 2 Merrill editions - with an image compared with a D800e. They do only 1 thing, and they do it very well. I do love that sensor.

(Before anyone comments on the Sigma's - Please make sure you know what the Merrill editions are.)

JJ_SO

@TTJ: 14bit or 16bit, you're sure that makes a huge difference? Personally, I don't want to rival the "medium format". That name's a bit ridiculous, Pentax and Leica have no 42 × 56mm sensors (with which the film era "medium format" started), some of PhaseOne have 40.4 × 53.9 mm. Even if I could afford them financially - they're just not the right tools for what I do.

Same for the Merrill. Fantastic at base ISO but I often need 3200-6400 ISO. Bad luck with Sigma. Nonetheless, I wish them all the best.

TaoTeJared

@TTJ: 14bit or 16bit, you're sure that makes a huge difference?

Oh yeah - unbelievable difference in shots with high dynamic range and color. It will also add to sharpness as you will get more micro contrast. If you look at the Hassy files they are 16bit. Part of it is that tonal graduations are very smooth and I think you get a more "3D look" out of the files with the right lenses. I know Pentax's are not, and I don't know if the Leica S2 is or not - I'm guessing no.

JPEG is an 8-bit file - 8-bit color ((2)8 = 256 colors)
12-bit RGB palette ((2)4)3 = 163 = 4,096 colors
16-bit = 2×64×32 = 65,536 colors

Note that monitors are 24bit or 16million colors.

PB_PM

@JJ_OS People said the same thing when the first 14bit Nikon DSLR's came out (D3/D300). They asked, is it worth using 14bit, when there doesn't seem to be a visual difference between 14bit and 12bit. It's a non-issue today, as most DSLR's are 14bit, with 12bit as an option.

Most people wont notice, because most consumer grade monitors are actually somewhere between 8 and 10bit, with strange dynamic contrast and colour crap. Those of us with higher end monitors might be able to tell, but it wont really be noticeable until you print.

spraynpray

@JJ_OS People said the same thing when the first 14bit Nikon DSLR's came out (D3/D300). They asked, is it worth using 14bit, when there doesn't seem to be a visual difference between 14bit and 12bit. It's a non-issue today, as most DSLR's are 14bit, with 12bit as an option.

Most people wont notice, because most consumer grade monitors are actually somewhere between 8 and 10bit, with strange dynamic contrast and colour crap. Those of us with higher end monitors might be able to tell, but it wont really be noticeable until you print.

All this is the law of diminishing returns. It does make me laugh when people quickly dismiss the D7000 when a test of it against the latest lovely thing shows there is almost nothing in it.

Reading the last dozen or so posts, I am minded of a scene on a beach far away where there are bull Elephant Seals bludgeoning themselves against each other until they are too exhausted to carry on. :P

PB_PM

There are many reasons people might dislike the D7000, image quality usually isn't one of them.

SkintBrit

Considering that 90% of hobby photographers today never print a single image, the difference is meaningless.

Good point. I'm not a hobby photographer, and I can't remember the last time I needed to print one of my photos.

DouxBokeh

Again, thank you all for such great comments and advices… I’m getting more than I had hoped for !

There is TaoTeJared’s insight on old and new arguments (DX vs FX)… and I guess I’ll go with GhostRider117 : COMPROMISE for now… and WAIT AND SEE for the future (D7100/D400). And, as Msmoto puts it, “with the rapidly advancing sensor technology, it may be the best landscape body is not here yet.” and “Most likely, every body Nikon has available will outperform the operator.”

Concerning lenses : tcole1983 wrote “But it really depends on your subjects and shooting style...if you want to stand at the base of something and shoot the whole thing then the UW might help”, and FX lenses for architecture (GhostRider117). Concerning prints : tc88 wrote “So I feel 24-36MP is about ideal for 12x18 (for prints).”

haroldp

When shooting landscape where both I and the landscape are not moving, I will often shoot a multi pane and or multi row stitched panorama. This can create images of incredible detail pulled in by longer( I often use the 24-70 f2.8 at 70 mm f5.6) lenses into images of hundreds of mp. It lets me get as wide as I need by simply adding more frames. Modern software makes stitching much easier. If not prepping for HDR, I usually shoot at one stop higher than base ISO to protect highlights,

On a tripod when I can, with external release and mirror lock. Keep both exposure and focus manual so they don't change between frames.

I find that modern sensors (I am usually using a D3x or D800e ) have such good noise and DR at ISO 200 that is more important to not risk the highlights.

In a 200-300 mp image, the pixels are so small that noise is simply not an issue on those camera's at any ISO 400 or below, at any rational print size . I print panos at home on a 24 in roll printer (HP z3100).

Regards ... Harold

Paperman

@Harold
" ... I usually shoot at one stop higher than base ISO to protect highlights,

... I find that modern sensors (I am usually using a D3x or D800e ) have such good noise and DR at ISO 200 that is more important to not risk the highlights...

Can you elaborate in this ? What does low/high ISO have to do with protecting the highlights ?

haroldp

The sensor basically records photon hits. At base ISO, when highlights are blown, all of the photosites in the 'blown' area have recorded the maximum possible value for that sensor, and the same value as all of the other 'blown' photosites, which means that subsequent processing cannot recover any differences because there are none . Raising ISO reduces the light hitting each photosite, and then amplifies it digitally, reducing the chance of saturation..

If the light is reduced to less than maximum, then there is difference or 'detail' to be recovered by lowering exposure, 'highlight recovery' or altering the tone curve in post processing . All of this presumes that you shoot RAW, otherwise calculated values are all you will have.

One f-stop is usually enough, but 'specular' highlights (direct light ources or refllections thereof) might still be blown, but they are usually not bothersome.

I hope this is helpful... Harold

Paperman

To be honest, I have never heard/read anything about higher than base ISO helping "recover" lost highlights. That said, my having never heard about it does not rule out your opinion and I really would like to hear other voices on this. If you are right, I will be appalled at my missing such an important detail regarding ISO/highlights all this time - ever since I started shooting digital. I really will be - having read almost everything that could possibly be read on ISO/exposures/highlights. My knowledge is limited to nothing other than higher ISO creating more noise.

" Raising ISO reduces the light hitting each photosite, and then amplifies it digitally, reducing the chance of saturation .

Can't the same be done by just playing with shutter speed/ aperture by simply underexposing ?

Is this the digital version of underexposing the shot and overdeveloping the negative or vice versa - in the film days ? That helped contrast .

Is there any literature on the subject ??

heartyfisher

JJ_SO - thanks for the defense -

LOL You didn't need the defense I was not attacking .. :-) i was just stating the D3200 is newer than the D7000 and should probably be used in your discussions as there is the other variable of it being 24MP(D3200/D5200) vs 16 MP(D7000) I was just curious if that fact would be a factor in your analysis :-)

And 81 is better than 80 no ? ;-) (man I could have used an awesome emoticon here .. where are the now ? )

TaoTeJared

JJ_SO - thanks for the defense -

LOL You didn't need the defense I was not attacking .. :-) i was just stating the D3200 is newer than the D7000 and should probably be used in your discussions as there is the other variable of it being 24MP(D3200/D5200) vs 16 MP(D7000) I was just curious if that fact would be a factor in your analysis :-)

And 81 is better than 80 no ? ;-) (man I could have used an awesome emoticon here .. where are the now ? )

Lol - I got what you were saying.

heartyfisher

re: haroldp 's assertions ..

I think what he is describing is more similar to underexposing slide film than overexposing negatives though we used to do both of that for the same reason. but what do i know.. :-) interesting logic though i am skeptical still .. Will need to think on it :-)

Just re read haroldp's post..
I think the logic is flawed. in effect the process describes what we already do when we underexpose an image to ensure highlights are not lost. The process described of boosting iso, thus reducing exposure time is in effect similar to underexposing at base iso. however by boosting ISO you will still loose the highlight and to a higher degree than at base iso as the sensors internal amplification should still push the highlights past the recordable limit.

If that logic was correct, then at 6400 iso you will be able to recover more highlights than at 100 iso.. I dont believe this is the case.. I am almost certain that at 6400 ISO, highlights get blown more easily than at 100 ISO.


Cool we can do this now !! ... Wheee !!