MarcG19
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · For landscape, what is worth stepping up to from m43? | |
OP, briefly skimmed the whole thread, and I think I'm up to date, but apologies if I address something you've already made a decision on.
I'm a m4/3 shooter who "grew up" shooting landscapes on a Nikon D90 and D2x (mind you, I'm not as good as you are). I briefly tried the D7000 and the D600. I chose the EM-5 (and now EM-1) over the D7k and D600 because I found very little practical advantage for my photography over the EM-1, with much more bulk. (I shoot mostly landscapes, and also do some "street" "travel" "general portraiture" etc. photography) Like you and others have mentioned, the m43 is often great because if I am going on a non-photography trip, even the D90 and a few consumer zooms (11-16, 18-55 and 55-200) took up about 1/3 a carry-on bag. So, m4/3 has been excellent, allowing me to take it with a careful selection of lenses without much weight/bulk, both on planes and in the field. (it's great traveling with a small camera with one mounted prime strapped around your neck and 1-2 primes in your pocket).
Even in a world where money was no object, I would need substantially better image and lens quality to move up from the EM-1.
I believe, resolution has diminishing marginal returns. The D810's max resolution is 7360 x 4912 compared to the EM-1's 4608 x 3456, a difference of 1.6x in linear resolution (not taking account the different width to height ratios). So, we get 60% more linear resolution. Not bad, but anything less IMO is not worth it just from a pure resolution standpoint - IIRC the D610 doesn't even give you 1.3x the linear resolution. In truth, from a resolution perspective, the Pentax 645Z (8256 x 6192) is more interesting, but even that does not quite achieve twice the EM-1's linear resolution)
Dynamic range and detail is a concern. Again, however, I again grew up with a D90, and am quite content with the EM-1 since it's far better. I find the EM-1 roughly on par with the D7000, though all things being equal I might slightly prefer the D7000's sensor (D600 was a huge turnoff: same body as the D7000, but I paid $1400 more essentially for a sensor, which I did not think was $1400 better. And I had them both at the same time). I would not bother with APS-C, having owned all the cameras listed plus the 7D (my second favorite APS-C camera after the D2xs).
From what I've heard, only when you get to the D800e or D810 do I really begin to get interested in better dynamic range, better micro detail, and better uncompressed raw files. Again, the Pentax 645Z is even more interesting here too, from the little I've read on it.
As much as people disparage the Canon 5Dm3, a generation ago the 5Dm2 was supposed to be the greatest thing for landscape photography. It would seem to me to still be a good choice, thought it may not have as much detail/microcontrast/whatnot as the D800e.
Lenses: You need excellent lenses to take advantage of the D800e or D810's sensor. (Same with the Pentax if you go that route). That means, either big expensive zooms 14-24, 70-200 f/4 or 2.8, and the f/2.8 mid-range zooms of you really need a midrange zoom. I have little use for such things. Or exotic high quality, generally manual focus primes.
I think primes are the way to go if you really know your photographic habits. The 35mm focal lengths for most of my serious non-animal photography are 20mm, 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm. On a D810 I would be good with the manual focus Zeiss (made by Cosina) or Voightlander (made by Cosina) primes in roughly these focal lengths, since the reputation of the Zeiss lenses are excellent (I sometime see complaints about the Voigtlander lenses, and sometimes see compliments. Honestly I have a difficult time believing there's a great difference between them that can't be accounted for by price).
Bottom line: there's diminishing marginal returns to spending more money. if I wanted to spend more than the EM-1 for landscape photography, I think it makes sense to spend big for big gains. I'd also be very sure about the photography I do, the focal lengths I use (which doesn't seem to be a problem for you), and carefully extracting every last bit of improvement I can. D800e and Voightlander primes minimum, though I would also consider the Pentax 645 if that's in your budget. Spending less for lesser gains in specs, sensors, and lenses will net you even lesser actual gains, from my admittedly small experience.
|
I believed this myth for a while myself, but it's nonsense. I shoot uncompressed raw, and whether I got the focus or not is very obvious if you magnify on the screen.