Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2014 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

Apologies for the long post, hope you have the patience to help me think through this. Feel free to be as critical as you want about my assumptions and thinking!

Background

About a year from now I will hopefully have the opportunity to go half-time at my day job for one year and thus dedicate a lot of time to landscape photography in my favorite locations for that year (mostly Mojave desert but some of the eastern Sierra as well).

I do not anticipate selling "fine art" gigantic prints and I have limited wall space so I doubt I'll ever print something super large either. So lets assume 13x19" is plenty big and any bigger would be a canvas wrap anyway. Yeah, notionally I might like to print a real gangbusters shot out large - but I have what I consider a few of those already and haven't printed them very large.

If all goes well I might write a book about the area which would be a mixture of photography and natural history, land use etc. writing.

In the past I've shot everything from 4x5 film down to using the Panasonic LX3. I've bounced around the IQ vs. size space quite a lot. I've not shot FF digital though, APS-C is my largest digital experience.

Presently I shoot m43 and my main landscape lenses are primarily the 7-14 and the 14-45. Rarer longer focal length shots with the 45-200 or 45-175 - both of which leave a little bit to be desired. I will seriously consider adding the 12-35/2.8 and 35-100/2.8 for next year as they give a bit of a boost to the corners for landscape shots.

I previously shot Canon APS-C with mostly L glass (10-22, 17-40, 24-105, 70-200). I found it offered almost no practical IQ advantage over the m43 offering and sold it all (again, the longer focals being an exception - nothing quite like the 70-200/F4 in the m43 stable at this time, though the 35-100 is probably the closest fit).

I shoot landscapes with zooms. My composition technique is to compose without the camera to find the perspective and framing I want, then I get out the camera and appropriate focal length to match my chosen framing. I don't find prime shooting to jive with my landscape shooting - "zoom with your feet" simply does not work because it changes perspective. Cropping primes pretty quickly causes them to lose their IQ advantage to a zoom set to the desired focal length - unless of course you carry a mountain of primes.

The Question

I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, is it worth my "upgrading" to for this special year?

To date I have to travel by air to the Mojave so the compactness of m43 is excellent. For this opportunity I'd live in driving distance of the Mojave and so I could go larger. I think I'd still use m43 on most hikes, but many shot locations in twilight are relatively close to my vehicle so again going bigger seems reasonable.

Notionally it seems all the APS-C options just aren't significantly better than m43. So I'm looking at FF then.

Again, restricted to zooms and still a bit size adverse what really are my options?

The A7/A7r seems half baked, glass has to be adapted, shutter shock, etc. etc.

Canon FF sensors are pretty poor, but maybe a new one in the next year?

So Nikon it is? And SLR then...

Lastly, what am I honestly looking at size wise if I want zoom coverage from say about 15 to 200 and what sort of IQ improvement am I getting with that?

I'm under the impression that it is awfully hard to realize a large IQ gain going FF with zooms and to get even close I'll definitely be going with SLR instead of mirrorless lens offerings. Am I wrong about that?

What am I looking at most likely? Nikon FF of some form? 14-24 perhaps? Some sort of 24-70? I'd sure like to be able to lug around quality F/4 zooms rather than 2.8 since I'll always be shooting F8-11 anyway.

Worth it?

I often tell myself I can always do stitched panos with smaller formats for "great shots". However, to date a fair fraction of those have occurred in very dynamic light and some need HDR stacks as well so single frame exposures are desired.

I worry this will be a quest for IQ that I'm the only one who will ever see zoomed in at 200% in LR...

Thanks for taking the time to read this far!

For reference, for those of you who don't know me, these are some sample shots I've taken over the years as an example of shooting style:


	http://www.kenandchristine.com/photos/i-F6Gkw8K/1/XL/i-F6Gkw8K-XL.jpg


	http://www.kenandchristine.com/photos/i-Jd9pVPR/0/XL/i-Jd9pVPR-XL.jpg


	http://www.kenandchristine.com/Trips/Death-Valley/Death-Valley-2010/i-Gbcmnpg/0/XL/101213_DVNP_P7030666-Edit-XL.jpg


	http://www.kenandchristine.com/Pretty-Pictures/Favorites/i-NFfZ6JN/1/XL/091108_DVNP_P7000477-XL.jpg


	http://www.kenandchristine.com/Trips/Death-Valley/Death-Valley-2013/i-3RFwJmn/1/XL/130311_DV2013_IP00068-58-Edit-XL.jpg

Aug 16, 2014 at 05:34 PM

alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

First of all, your photos are fantastic. Secondly, I don't see any reason for you to move beyond MFT, given your requirements. I have a Sony A7 and love it, but i dont see that it gives me any advantage over my previous aps-c sonys in stopped-down landscape.

Aug 16, 2014 at 06:00 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

I think you've pretty much answered your own question with meaningful responses to all the various options, needs and considerations for your own workflow.

I'd personally go with an A7r (shutter shock is pretty isolated and not a common issue, look at the A7(r) thread for example, plenty of fantastic work in there) but at your print sizes I don't know if it would pay huge dividends, even though it has great DR, and you sound like your against used adapted glass, not to mention the size is bigger.

Seems like your current rig works great, so not really sure why you'd want to change, other than for the fun of changing.

Great (and sellable) photography is possible with everything from a smartphone to a MFDB these days, especially if your not looking at huge fine art prints.

I've seen some really nice quality books done with images from a Sony RX100 and you'd never guess it unless the author mentioned it.

Bottom line, seems like if you've got something that works for all your needs, then why sink a bunch of money into something new ? That only is going to diminish your profits.

People ask me at every football game why I haven't upgraded to Nikon D4's and I tell them that my D3s are paid in full, so everything make counts as profit. If I was to go drop $15k or so updating my gear I'd hardly see a profit for the rest of the year, and its not like my clients are complaining.

If you want to upgrade just for the fun of upgrading, that is one thing, but if your looking at it as a partial business move, then having equipment that is already paid for which you can put to work makes the most sense.

I've known a few buddies who thought they'd go out and buy all MF gear, larger printers etc, and they never saw a dime because they spent so much on better gear.

I've also known buddies who are still shooting the original 5D, getting prints made at Costco and making a few grand a month selling at local shows, because people like their images.

From the fine samples you've shared, I see nothing where an otherwise nice image was "ruined" by the lack of DR, excessive noise, lack of detail etc, do you ?

Other than maybe being able to print slightly larger, I don't really see how a different camera would of made any of those images any better, or any worse.

All it really comes down to is having gear you want to go out and shoot with and a rig you just want to stick by the car with due to weight etc isn't one that is going to produce great images.

Aug 16, 2014 at 06:08 PM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

At 13x19 max, you're not going to see a big difference in switching to a larger format IMO. T

Within your current kit, the 35-100 is a nice step up from the other telezooms, though if your standard zoom is the original Panasonic 14-45 you won't see hardly any improvement going to the 12-35 or Oly 12-40 for landscape use, given how good that little kit zoom is. If you need the speed, if course, they're good options.

Aug 16, 2014 at 06:09 PM

rattymouse
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

Wow, those are great photos. You certainly have the eye and that is far more important that gear. I really don't see any reason at all to upgrade from what you have. The results you present speak pretty loudly.

Aug 16, 2014 at 06:35 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

I guess you need to decide if there is anything lacking for yourself in what you currently use. If you have struggled with noise or dynamic range for instance, those are areas you might see smoe benefit from a move up in format. The D810 with some of the better Nikkor zooms might make sense if that's the case. Even if you don't need the MP's, interpolating down in size will give you increased dynamic range and less noise. I think it's a something only you can decide though. Maybe rent the gear and see if it makes a positive difference for you.

Aug 16, 2014 at 07:01 PM

sflxn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

I would probably wait a few months to see if Sony delivers on the 16-35/4 FE. If you don't care about size and weight, go with the D810. I wouldn't cling onto the idea that aps-c is only marginally better than m43. Those claims are made by m43 owners. I can't claim to know for myself since I abandoned that format during the first gen 12mp sensor, but I have read too many accounts from people who have recently upgraded from m43, claiming lack of DR, crunchy files, and noise at base ISO.

With that said, you need to ask yourself why you feel you need to upgrade. If your images are from m43, then I don't think you should be in a rush to upgrade. I like using FF and aps-c mainly for the lattitude it gives me in post processing. If you want to consider aps-c, then the A6000 with the 10-18 is very good. I think your solution is easy if you simply answer the following questions. How important is weight and size? How important is PP lattitude? How important is pixel count? How important are lenses? If utmost IQ and ready system with lenses is all that matters, the D810 is an easy choice... today. You could also just rent the Nikon for those landscape trips and keep m43 for everything else.

I, myself, carry an A7r with primes for people shooting, and an A6000 with zoom lenses for landscape (till Sony and Zeiss flesh out the FE lenses). You maybe printing 13x19 today, but who knows what you'll want to print on tomorrow.

Aug 16, 2014 at 07:10 PM

snapsy
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

I own both FF and MFT for use with landscapes. I use my FF when not traveling or traveling by car and my MFT when traveling by air or otherwise wanting to go light. Whenever I start processing my MFT images I find some that I wish I had shot with my FF, in terms of noise and malleability, even for base ISO shooting. In contrast, whenever I take my FF setup for travel I usually curse about the weight and wish I had taken my lighter MFT setup. Such is the nature of compromise for today's offerings. For me the weight savings usually wins out

Aug 16, 2014 at 07:48 PM

LightShow
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

While I don't see a reason to change cameras, the A7r is a formidable imaging apparatus, especially with the Canon TSE's (17 & 24), it would be my choice for trying/renting to see if it works for you.
I'm not a big fan of using zooms for landscape, composing in your head has helped you avoid the laziness that zooms tend to enable.

Aug 16, 2014 at 08:39 PM

kwalsh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

Wow, hey guys thanks for the quick and very thoughtful replies!

I'm not super worried about the expense because I'd likely buy the FF setup for the year I need it (most of it used probably) and the resell at the end of the year. So just transaction costs and depreciation of the body.

I wonder how much practical IQ improvement I'll get for my needs, thanks everyone for the sanity checks on that.

I am worried snazzy FF gear might distract me from actually focusing on the composition and hunt for shots. I'm an engineer and so always at great risk of making "a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

Good points on seeing how the A7 and FE line develops between now and when I start my "sabbatical" next year. Besides that it seems Nikon FF SLR (big, heavy compared to what I've got for sure) is what I should ponder.

@snapsy - That's the conundrum I imagine myself in! However, I actually have no DR problems with m43 for landscape. I got on board with the G1 and had to deal with that ugly 12MP sensor. Since then the sensors are much better, but I use the same techniques.

For landscape the solution is pretty easy - HDR bracket. Since it involves no camera movement/recomposition like a pano it is trivial and fast to do in the field. All the modern m43 cameras have fast shutters and fast write times with a good SD card.

Editing these is trivial and seemless since LR now supports processing of HDR *files*. That is no need to tone map outside LR, just create a HDR file with PS (automatically from LR) and edit it just like most any regular file using the LR controls. I usually do 7 exposures at 0.5 EV spacing. These things completely blow away the DR of a single FF exposure. Here's an example, this is a color crop from the B&W image that follows. On the left is a single exposure in which the highlights are just clipping a color channel. On the right is the HDR merged version. Note the essentially identical processing of the single and HDR exposures by having LR edit the full HDR file rather than doing ugly tone mapping during the HDR merge.

This is 3x view (or maybe it is 6x view for you guys, I never know what exactly my Retina display is doing...)

EDIT: Yikers, the full resolution comparison image was really large for a forum post - downsized version now displayed here and link to the full resolution provided below. I warned you I don't understand how my Retina display works!

http://www.kenandchristine.com/photos/i-PLKNkQL/0/XL/i-PLKNkQL-XL.png

Full resolution of above screen grab.

http://www.kenandchristine.com/Trips/Death-Valley/Death-Valley-2012/i-FVBw2pb/1/L/120329_DV2012_P9010535-Edit-L.jpg

Edited on Aug 17, 2014 at 12:05 AM · View previous versions

Aug 16, 2014 at 08:45 PM

snapsy
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

kwalsh wrote:
@snapsy - That's the conundrum I imagine myself in! However, I actually have no DR problems with m43 for landscape. I got on board with the G1 and had to deal with that ugly 12MP sensor. Since then the sensors are much better, but I use the same techniques.

For landscape the solution is pretty easy - HDR bracket. Since it involves no camera movement/recomposition like a pano it is trivial and fast to do in the field. All the modern m43 cameras have fast shutters and fast write times with a good SD card.

Editing these is trivial and seemless...Show more →

Yep, if you're shooting in situations where you can bracket and merge then you can pretty much work with any modern camera and get great results. For MFT I prefer to ETTR instead on a single exposure, mostly because I'm lazy in post

What FF brings to the table is 2EV better noise performance, which again helps for those who either need or prefer to work with single exposures. Here is a comparison I did between a single-exposure D800 image and a two-shot merge (link)

Aug 16, 2014 at 09:08 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

Perhaps instead of replacing your gear, add some unique options too it such as the Sigma DP2M or DP3M, you can pick them up quite cheap these days, under $500, and in the right conditions they can produce IQ that rivals an A7r or D800 with the best glass (Owned both)

They are slow, battery life sucks, really are only good at base ISO, but for your type of shooting those things wouldn't be an issue, and the cameras are quite small and light.

The way the Merrill's can render fine detail and texture would prove very useful for your shooting environments. The per pixel resolution and spacial resolution just can't be matched by any Bayer sensor. They will do a very nice 40" print which is pretty unreal given its coming from little P&S looking $450 camera.

Aug 16, 2014 at 09:18 PM

Bluffer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

OP, I can't see you can improve on what you already achieve. Save your money.

You are the reincarnation of Ansel Adams.

That said, the A7r ain't bad, shutter shock is an internet 'semi' myth. I have one, it's great. I also picked up a properly centered Samyang 14mm f/2.8 the other day in Pentax K mount and use the Rayqual Pentax K to Sony E-mount adapter to stick it on the A7r.

Results so far are very promising, especially now there's a couple of lens profiles that sort out the complex mustache distortion. The Samyang 14/2.8 is also bizarrely cheap. Like really weirdly cheap. Don't let the low price put you off.

Mount the lot on a decent tripod. I use an Induro CT-414 with BHL-3 head. Good to go.

Aug 16, 2014 at 09:28 PM

snapsy
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

I know you came to this thread looking for help but looking at your images has convinced me to stop being so lazy in post and to start bracketing more often. Thanks for that.

Aug 16, 2014 at 09:37 PM

FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

A7 takes cleaner pics than my em1 and the files have more latitude. But to get what you want, you need to step up to medium format for the equipment to actually start making a big material difference.

Aug 16, 2014 at 09:44 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

If I were in your position, that would be all the excuse I'd need to start looking at digital medium format, and I'd probably end up with the Pentax 645z. Paired up with a Hassy 100/3.5, I'd be in landscape heaven. Given your focal length requirements, it probably wouldn't do it for you, but to me that says "special year."

If a good solid line up of system lenses is important to you, go with Nikon. If you want a lot of options and are willing to put up with adapters and some quirks, go with Sony.

Aug 16, 2014 at 10:09 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

freaklikeme wrote:
If I were in your position, that would be all the excuse I'd need to start looking at digital medium format, and I'd probably end up with the Pentax 645z. Paired up with a Hassy 100/3.5, I'd be in landscape heaven. Given your focal length requirements, it probably wouldn't do it for you, but to me that says "special year."

If a good solid line up of system lenses is important to you, go with Nikon. If you want a lot of options and are willing to put up with adapters and some quirks, go with Sony.

For making 13x19"'s though ?

Aug 16, 2014 at 10:20 PM

kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

First off, you have some fantastic photos and really know how to take some great landscape photos.

Second of all make sure you know what you are getting yourself into if you jump into bed with nikon - you will have access to all nikon glass ever made... and thats about it. The flange distance is too long to adapt any number of older lenses to. Further, as awesome as the 14-24 is, it is a PITA to filter it because of the convex front element. Truly, the 16-35 lenses are fantastic zooms because you can still use traditional filters, and Canon's new one kicks ass.

The a7/a7r are exactly how you described them - half baked/half assed but they still use those magnificent sony sensors and the landscape guys around these parts really enjoy using them. If you don't need/want AF then they allow for a fantastic amount of access to any lens ever made with an adapter. Of course, none of the adapters - literally NONE - are perfect and often degrade the optical performance across the field due to decentering etc.

Canon's dynamic range is an issue for landscapes. Flat out, it pisses me off having to spend serious amounts of time in the field and in post making sure I can fix underexposed areas enough to not have banding issues while still being able to pull my highlights down. That said, I shoot events and PJ stuff and the canon bodies have controls that are significantly easier to access and change on the fly than Nikon bodies (in my opinion).

Pros and cons for each system that I have discovered since playing around with friends cameras and renting others. I suggest you absolutely try a few before committing to a system for a year! Lensrentals.com is phenomenal!

Aug 16, 2014 at 10:46 PM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

I bounced through FF and APS-C after selling my E-M5 last fall. honestly, I found the IQ from the D7100 (24MP AA-less APS-C) to be better than from the D600 (24MP FF) at low ISO's, the slight loss in DR was outweighed by the higher resolution of the AA-less sensor. I ended up back in APS-C mirrorless (Fuji) although that was more due to how the set of deals at the time worked out.

I'm now strongly considering adding another D7100 to my kit rather than a second X mount body (in the interim, I'm actually shooting an old 10MP CCD D200 as a fast/big body, but hey, for $100 why not).

My choice for what you are doing would be the D7100+Sigma 10-20/3.5 or 8-16 and a 16-85VR or Sigma 17-70 OS. You'd want something at the long end too, probably the 70-200/4 VR.

In FF, the D810 would be it, or a deal on one of the 'refurb' D800's Nikon's blowing out right now (all indications are these are mostly leftover new D800's being blown out with refurb warranty's for around $2k). For that add the 14-24, the current 24-120/4VR and the 70-200/4VR for the best IQ per dollar.

Note Nikon's 16-35 is known for issues at the ends of the range (it's sucks from 30-35 and has distortion and field curvature at 16mm, the VR is oddly useful though). The 18-35G is generally considered better for 2/3rds the cost.

Aug 16, 2014 at 10:58 PM

Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43?

Your shots are great! I don't see a new camera giving you much more advantage though. The one thing that could well are shift lenses though. If it were me, I'd go for a Canon body so I could use their excellent 17mm tilt/shift. I'm still shooting 4x5 for landscape work because of the lens movements. I'm quite surprised that no one here has mentioned t/s lenses.

Part of the problem of looking at changing cameras is that on message boards we mostly only look at numbers. The reality is we must "mesh" well with the camera system for it to work well for us. For the past two weeks I've been in British Columbia and have a Nikon D7100 (c.2013) and a Leica IIIc (c.1942) with me. I have to say that the Leica seems like a better "fit" for me and I feel I'm getting my better shots with that smaller camera. While I'm not suggesting you go out and buy one, what I am saying is that the specifications may not be the most important thing. Something more ethereal might be--that "man/machine" subjective connection.

Kent in SD

Aug 16, 2014 at 11:04 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.