Landscape Photography Gear ?

DaveyJ

The differences between DX and FX in many cases is quite overrated. I ask many serious photographers how do you share your images. Since big screen HD TV is often the case PB PM's statement on the 2 MP limit is unfortunately very accurate. OK to the large prints.....the biggest lab in the USA I know of tested prints and ISO results and they did not see the differences many believe exist. I have tried that exact path with 35MM DX and FX and came to the conclusion that low ISO's yield little and heaven forbid any thing come along when clicking a slow shutter.

I went back through my photo notes with Hasselblad, Wisner, Fuji, Horseman, etc., with Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor, and Fujinon lens and the exposures with the big gear were slow. In many cases your eye would not see the same scene the way the camera image does. Even within a brand name, like Hasselblad, I had the standard square format and the XPan. Both took nice photos. But even there the question is does the square image get used, or a cropped down one, or go to the XPan, or on to my Linhoff technorama or Fuji GX 617. And then what lens panel??

Take Golf007sd's stream shot. The water effect in the moving water is altered. His eye and mine would both see the water flow as less frothy, less like a cotton candy effect? They are nice shots taken with in my opinion a wonderful camera. Since I am primarily interested in documenting what we see.....I would say in general, I'd take a D7000 and a good lens today and just go take pictures.

I log onto NR because serious photographers like you are using gear I haven't and I would like to go afield with gear I can afford and get results I am happy with. TaoTeJared's use of Tokina lens has caught my eye and eventually I will get to try some of those tactics.

I do have this one thought I'd like to ask you all about. Some scenes out there are so sweeping, panoramic, etc. that they seem to require wide angle. However our eyes see wide angle differently than a 10mm on DX or say a 15mm on FX. When you try to share that on a HD TV aspect ratio the normal 2X3..... well the results are not the way you or I would actually see it. So in some ways our quest for accurately recording grand scenes and events is always subject to some cutting of corners. I am just going to guess a D4 or a D7000 and pretty good lenses, the biggest factor is being there at the decisive moment and having enough talent to get the great shot.

donaldejose

I think this is what we are all going to want to have in a few years to view and display our photographs: http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5972070381/sharp-shows-8k-tv-prototype

Our current HDTVs only display about 2mp of image. This new 84 inch super high definition TV and display 7680 x 4320 pixels. My D800 records 7360 x 4912. Finally, a viewing system which should show all the detail captured by the camera.

sevencrossing

.....the biggest lab in the USA I know of tested prints and ISO results and they did not see the differences many believe exist.

Most " tests" I see are taken in ideal condition with fairly evenly lit subjects

in these circumstances the differences can be very small and you can probably get away with a camera phone

The advantage of Fx becomes becomes more pronounced the more difficult the lighting conditions

This is why, Nikons top sport and photojournalism camera ( the D4) is FX
It is why, Nikon's best landscape and "Studio" camera ( the D800) is FX
and it why the D7000 "upgrade" ( the D600) is FX

My passion is landscapes. In a good year only about 10 of the 1000s of shots I take each year, end up as exhibition prints . When a shot is good enought to print exhibition size, I want the best I can get, and that means FX

If you are passionate about landscapes; when it come to: Which format? nothing has changed . Bigger is always better

Paperman

... On M mode none of the camera settings change. The electronics of the camera simply change the way the image is recorded. ....

Let me just add - On M mode, the exposure meter is adjusted + or - to show a higher or lower exposure value ( by the "< "and ">" arrows telling you which direction to go ) but the camera shoots at whatever it is set at when AUTO ISO is OFF. Second sentence correct only if Auto ISO is ON ( if by change you mean the ISO ).

And how on earth did we come here ?

DaveyJ

@donalddejose: I have followed high definition screen protoypes and some working models for more than a few years. Here are my current thoughts on it. First my income radically dwindled when I retired from the higher paying work I was doing. So my buying power for cutting edge gear dropped very quickly. I have seen both 4K and 8K screens. Sharp's big screen is to me very possibly useful on stills, and a little more sketchy on video. Another issue is how long is an image in view before changing to another. Also what is the viewing distance, and finally how good is the eyesight of the viewer? Here us older photographers start realizing their own eyesight is not as good as it used to be. I personally still lust for higher definition screens. Add another issue in that projected fairly high end Canon projectors aren't as clear as the 2MP limit on my current HD TV Samsung LED both in 40" and 55". Current prices on higher definition screens around the 4k class run way more than I would pay. How fast they drop in price is for me critical as at 68 (still with better than 20/20 vision according to any eye test I have taken, does pose a real threat to m by the time I can buy one my vision wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is now. Well at least images TAKEN with a D800 may be seen and appreciated by those in the future! Thank you for sending that link and moments ago after typing most of this I read the link postings. Very interesting. One reason I read your posts very carefully is knowing you have gear that I need to know how that compares to the corner cutting gear I now use. Would I go back to my Leica Kodachrome even Nikon F5 days? NO! I especially would NOT go back to my larger format days. Yet a higher res HD TV will probably catch my eye for years! Thanks again Donald!