I am going to participate in a project shooting landscapes/nature photography and I receieved $5500 to purchase a camera system. I already have a set with Nikon F6 but I am hesitant to make a decision on coverting to digital system.
I never shot digital (skeptical on landscape Image Quality) but I thought that this is maybe the time to say goodbye to the film.
I am close to Nikon D3 but I am not sure of its landscape capability in term of IQ. Will I get superb IQ shooting landscape from this camera? If not, what should I consider?
Thanks
Posted by Basil Greber on April 4, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Looking at the stuff the people on NPN produce with their digitals, I don't think you need to worry about digital.
The D3 - well, given how popular the Canon EOS 5D is at similar resolution, but with an older sensor, it should do fine (I've never shot landscapes with a D3, only some test snaps in a camera store ). But what you should be aware of is that Nikon will most likely announce a D3X (or whatever) with a 24 MP FX sensor some time soon - which might be what you're looking for (low ISO, high resolution photographs).
Just my thoughts...
BG
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Instead of thinking about a camera, it's usually best to think first of lenses. You could buy a decent camera that does not cost as much as a D3 and put more money into very useful lenses. Consider looking at a Nikon D300, the new Nikon 24mm tilt/shift lens, and the Nikon 17-40mm, Tokina 12-24mm. If you want to stay with film, you would be better off with a 4x5 field camera such as Shen Hao and maybe four lenses, such as 75mm, 90mm, 150mm, 300mm.
Mohsen, I recall in a message you posted a while back now that you were having a big issue with getting your film processed around the area you lived in. If this is still a big issue it could possibly even be worse with LF sheet film. One of the main reasons I shoot LF is I have a friend locally who processes it overnight for me. He also does my MF in about 2 hours time. With that all said your better choice might be to move to Digital, but I also think Kent's approach is a good one with LF gear, if again the processing is not an issue for you.
If you decide on 4x5, the Shen Hao or the Tachihara are very nice cameras. For lenses, I would suggest the following: 90, 150, 210, and 300 in Copal shutters. Also, keep in mind that you will also need other accessories to complete a large format kit. If you decide to go the Large Format route, let us kow and we'll fill you in regarding needs for a kit.
Probabaly, I was not clear here but when I said camera, I meant a whole system (camera with its lenses). I know that there many things that I should consider in order to produce superb images (photographer himself is the most important factor among all) but I assume that everything is selected carefully...film, lenses, tripod, tech-knowledge, etc. I am sking of the system.
I agree, I think LF is what I should consider...you are right Paul, film these days can be risky :(
I have a friend who push me since 2 years to convert to digital, lately I was telling him that I may get the D3, he was so happy and is now waiting to tell him that I am with digital. I just want to see his reaction when I say that I get a LF system :) he won't believe it.
First off, congrats. Your work is very nice and I'm sure the grant is well deserved.
I'm also in the LF camp these days, but if you're having trouble processing MF film I don't know. It seems like running E-6 in a home lab is a bit more difficult than B&W development, so if labs in your area stop doing E-6 sheet film, you might be out of luck. I guess you could see if they'll sell you their processing equipment and if you can get the chemicals.
$5500 will definitely fund a nice LF setup though. It should be enough for a camera, some good used lenses, a meter and flatbed scanner plus the film holders/dark cloth/lensboards. I would base your lens choices initially on what you use most on your 35mm. There is roughly a 3.6 conversion factor. The normal focal length for 35mm is technically 42mm. This is roughly equivalent to 150mm on 4X5. 50mm would be pretty close to a 180mm on 4X5, 60mm is roughly 210mm. Also remember that in LF you have lots of film so there is room to crop to a longer equivalent focal length and still get a big print. I would also recommend to you do not discard your 35mm. LF is not well suited to fast changing conditions and you will probably still want the SLR. It just takes a while to setup and focus the LF camera.
I got into LF after having shot with a DLSR for several years (and 35mm film for a decade before that). 35mm digital just can't compete when it comes to large prints and $5500 is not nearly enough to get you into MF digital. But that doesn't mean that 35mm can't produce some really nice work. And there are lots of advantages like not having to pay for film ever again and not having the incremental cost of development and not waiting to get scans made. Trust me, at roughly $2.50 per sheet and another $2.50 to develop, you do start to think about the photos you take.
I would say that if cost were not an issue and quality the same between some sort of LF digital and LF film system, I would choose the digital path hands down. I have no special attachment to film. Its just that there isn't anything comparable to large format in that price range. I can shoot 6000 sheets of film before breaking even with the price of a digital medium format back. I'll probably shoot 300 sheets or so this year.
Also, I'm not sure how much dust and sand you see in your area. I've seen some of your work and it is quite beautiful, but it makes me ask this. Large format shutters are probably somewhat susceptible to problems when they're exposed to alot of dust or sand. They are not weather sealed. I figure you know, but the shutter is built into the lens. They are generally pretty easy to clean with lighter fluid from what I understand, but if you do not have someone who can repair them when a part breaks in your area you might get frustrated with the shutters in the long run. Because of this, I would suggest that you limit your used lens search to lenses modern Copal shutters because new shutters can be purchased. I have several lenses in old Compurs and while I like the Compur shutters better, they are no longer available and parts are limited.
Was it Canon or Nikon that came out and said, the only way they could improve on digital now days, was to completely change the resolution capabilities of their lenses to resolve more definition. Can't remember which one it was now, think it was Canon though. In other words they would have to make lenses you could not afford in order to get better quality images from digital........... compared to 35mm film only. Large format is totally different in quality for sure. So I wouldn't go near that assumption with large format.
Anyway, IMO, you have nothing to worry about, join the club.
Danny.
Posted by Kent Staubus on April 4, 2008 at 5:49 PM
The problem with buying a D3 is that all your money would go into a camera, leaving nothing for a decent tripod and first class lenses. The camera is the least important thing.
I was just doing a search for a statement from Canon but couldn't find it.
I did however find this interesting article, from what I would consider an expert in the field of landscape. So much respect for this guy. An article here at NPN by Darwin. Fascinating read and as we say here, "The proof is in the pudding" (who came up with that)
If landscape is the route you will go, I'd put another vote in for 4x5. My route is the Shen Hao (yeah, not an Ebony, but still a nice camera), 150mm, 210, and 300 mm lenses. Also a 90, and/or something wider. depending on your personal tastes. The price of this setup, assuming Nikon (used only) or Fuji lenses, plus accessories such as film holders, light meter, darkcloth, etc, will put you under $3,500. Add a good flatbed (Microtek M1), a load of film and you'll still have plenty of cash to pay for gas to go somewhere.
In all honesty, I don't consider film processing to be a serious issue. There are a couple of very good labs that do good, fast work. Lighthouse Imaging in Mishawaka, Indiana and AGX Imaging in Sault Ste. Marie (MIchigan) are stable, good and recommended.
In all honesty, I don't consider film processing to be a serious issue. There are a couple of very good labs that do good, fast work. Lighthouse Imaging in Mishawaka, Indiana and AGX Imaging in Sault Ste. Marie (MIchigan) are stable, good and recommended.
That's true in the States Dan, but I would have no idea about Saudi Arabia where Mohsen lives. Don't know that I'd want to pay postage on film to the US only to have it blasted with X-rays in transit.
Mel, thanks. I didn't catch the country he was from and dumbly assumed it was North America.
Check into local film processing before going to LF. If you can't reliably get it done in your region, go digital without thinking about. Digital at the high end is good - not 4x5, but good none-the-less.
Not withstanding all the technicals regarding cameras, lenses and which systems would be best, it would be helpful to know what your "project" is about. Are you tasked with shooting a particular subject (landscapes is pretty vague,) a theme, a story. Perhaps 1 image/day or do you need to have maximum coverage for a given period of time? In other words, If you only have 2 days to shoot at a location you've never been to, personally I don't think LF would be suitable. If time and quantity is not related to the project, then LF should be a consideration.
But not having that information, I would consider these in order of importance:
1. The photographer (as you mentioned,) 2. Lenses and lastly, 3. the camera.
Lastly, depending on the importance and timing of this project, it might be a handicap to be learning a new technology or format at the same time trying to produce quality work.
All other things being equal (i.e. tripod, technique etc.), the D3 will give you better detail and dynamic range than 35mm film so if you're happy with your F6, the D3 will likely be a step up. I'll caveat that with the fact that some people like the "look" of film, regardless of detail or latitude so it's hard to say which one is "better".
Large Format is a different beast. It's not only a step up in image quality, it's an entirely different workflow, some new tools, much higher cost of consumables, etc. all of which can take a big hit on productivity. In my opinion the 4x5 camera is not a direct replacement for 35mm. My suggestion is to get the DSLR first if you're looking for an upgrade, then consider adding a 4x5 for those times when you really need movements and extreme detail.
I used 4x5 exclusively for a few years. I was convinced I had all my needs covered... until I got a DSLR and realized how much I was missing. I travel with both now, and they are both on active duty. I no longer feel one can truly substitute for the other.
Well, the prject is to shoot locations in remote places that has never been photographed before or rarly photographed professionally. For example, a week in the empty quarter desert, then another week in the mountains of wetern Arabia called Hijaz here, then another couple of days in some islands. It will last for about one year. The program is to visit a location one day prior, study it, choose best time and then shoot on the following days.
The collected images will be used in books, exhibitions, and finally to be saved for comparision run after 10 years for 30 years. Ex. shooting from the same spot three times during 30 years.
I am really finding hard time to decide on the equipments and path to choose. We will start such project probably after 6 months. I called the only one lab in the country asking if they will continue processing E-6 and the guy told me that they are sure they will continue especially after all compititors have closed this business.
My problem is that I never shoot LF, I was thinking that I better start soon studying/practicing this new meduim before the start of the project.
If you think that I better go LF, can someone help me select the right system (camera, lenses, film loader, shutter, etc)?
Is it possible to find a camera that can get me both panoramic and traditional format?
Like Guy, I shoot both LF (4x5) and DSLR. Knowing what I know about the learning curve for LF, the nature of your project, and the differences in IQ, I personally would not try to purchase a LF system and try to master it before embarking on this project.
I imagine that you'll have plenty to be preparing for over the next few months without trying to assemble a LF outfit that is optimized for your needs, then master the techniques - which are very different from 35mm - to the extent that the captured image quality will meet your expectations. Regardless of which system has the potential for higher IQ, the only thing that matters is what your skill level can achieve. I think LF is a system that requires dedication over a longer period of time than 6 months to master, or even gain competence with.
The other thing is lugging a LF system to your remote locations. You don't mention if you're carrying your own gear or having animals assisting, but... the weight of an LF system with all necessary accessories (film, holders, meter, loupe, etc.) can easily far exceed that of a DSLR system, depending on your film needs and film strategy (holders vs. quickloads).
I'd invest in the D3; your familiarity with 35mm and the F6 will serve you well. I think you can easily master the moderate differences between shooting 35mm film and 35mm digital in the time prior to starting your project. The resulting IQ will equal or exceed that of your F6.
Based upon the project you will doing ( I am envious: it sounds like a great opportunity!) I agree with Rick and Guy: a digital system will be much easier to learn and should provide the quality you will need.
I shoot 4x5 primarily, and some medium format. I have a digital point-and-shoot for quick snaps. I would love to get into a digital SLR system for the very reason Guy mentioned above, but, alas, cannot afford it.
Fascinating reading in this thread. Really enjoyed this one.
Guy, Rick and Preston, most of you would have shot LF in desert conditions, all be it in the US more than likely, I know Guy has. What are the problems with sand and dust in those conditions with LF ??. Still have lens changes with DSLR, but how careful do you need to be with LF in that environment, compared to a DSLR.
Mohsen, just sounds like a wonderful project, it just sounds so interesting. If the project is over the next 30 odd years and noting the changes within that time, I wonder how the next person would tackle it, if it were not you doing the rest. Thats what needs to be looked at as well, because film in your country by then, might not be an option anyway, more than likely and might not be an option anywhere by then.
Anyway, just a great thread to read through. Thanks
Danny - my experience has been that LF is much more forgiving than a DSLR in desert environments. The film is always protected - either in a holder or quickload. By the time I pull back the slide or quickload sleeve, any sand/dust has had time to settle to the bottom of the bellows. In Death Valley when the winds were kicking things around, I'd mount the lens with both front and rear caps still on the lens, then remove the rear cap by removing the rear standard and reaching through; took a few extra seconds, but kept sand off of the lens. When sand is flying, the wind tends to be more challenging than sand and dust, especially with the bellows racked out even a little.
Changing lenses on a DSLR when sand is being blown around is much worse. I think the sensors are, literally, sand and dust magnets.
I'm with Rick, here. Camera movement due to the wind is by far the worst evil when shooting LF in any dusty environment. Exposures tend be longer, and the camera, being large and having the aerodynamic properties of a brick, is a real 'wind catcher'. I worry more about the wind, than I do dust.
Mohsen will have to be very careful, and judicious in keeping the inards of the DSLR clean in the conditions that may be present during his project. Happy shooting, Mohsen!
So an advantage to the self cleaning CCD's / CMOS then. Problem is, I don't think they have come up with that for the larger censors yet ??. Thanks Preston.
Kent: The fact that he already has an F6, suggests to me that he probably already has some Nikon lenses. If that is true, the D3 may actually make more sense than the D300, in that is has the so-called "full frame" sensor. Also, while probably not likely a serious factor in "landscape" photography, I have read on other forums that some D300 owners are experiencing problems with AF and power, particularly with longer lenses (although, I often use longer lengths for my landscape shots).
Which leads me to a question for you. What are you using for "wide" shots these days with your D80?
Not to drag this out, but I think you've made a good decision. As much as I love LF photography (and that's all I do now) and would recommend to anyone, I would agree with the others that there's just not enough time to become competent. In my experience starting out with 4x5 some 18 yrs ago was difficult - I almost gave it up. My mistake was trying to shoot both 35mm and 4x5 at the same time. Inevitably, I found myself in fast changing lighting conditions and I shot with 35mm cause I new I could work fast. THEN, I would try and set up the 4x5 and eventually not get the shot and I became frustrated. Once I made the decision to shoot 4x5 as my first priority, soon 35mm became a thing of the past.
Best of luck with your long term project. Sounds like a challenging and hopefully rewarding experience.
Discussion
26 repliesI am going to participate in a project shooting landscapes/nature photography and I receieved $5500 to purchase a camera system. I already have a set with Nikon F6 but I am hesitant to make a decision on coverting to digital system.
I never shot digital (skeptical on landscape Image Quality) but I thought that this is maybe the time to say goodbye to the film.
I am close to Nikon D3 but I am not sure of its landscape capability in term of IQ. Will I get superb IQ shooting landscape from this camera? If not, what should I consider?
Thanks
The D3 - well, given how popular the Canon EOS 5D is at similar resolution, but with an older sensor, it should do fine (I've never shot landscapes with a D3, only some test snaps in a camera store
Just my thoughts...
BG
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/mf/pc_micro/pce_24mmf_35ed/index.htm
Kent in SD
-Preston
I agree, I think LF is what I should consider...you are right Paul, film these days can be risky :(
I have a friend who push me since 2 years to convert to digital, lately I was telling him that I may get the D3, he was so happy and is now waiting to tell him that I am with digital. I just want to see his reaction when I say that I get a LF system :) he won't believe it.
First off, congrats. Your work is very nice and I'm sure the grant is well deserved.
I'm also in the LF camp these days, but if you're having trouble processing MF film I don't know. It seems like running E-6 in a home lab is a bit more difficult than B&W development, so if labs in your area stop doing E-6 sheet film, you might be out of luck. I guess you could see if they'll sell you their processing equipment and if you can get the chemicals.
$5500 will definitely fund a nice LF setup though. It should be enough for a camera, some good used lenses, a meter and flatbed scanner plus the film holders/dark cloth/lensboards. I would base your lens choices initially on what you use most on your 35mm. There is roughly a 3.6 conversion factor. The normal focal length for 35mm is technically 42mm. This is roughly equivalent to 150mm on 4X5. 50mm would be pretty close to a 180mm on 4X5, 60mm is roughly 210mm. Also remember that in LF you have lots of film so there is room to crop to a longer equivalent focal length and still get a big print. I would also recommend to you do not discard your 35mm. LF is not well suited to fast changing conditions and you will probably still want the SLR. It just takes a while to setup and focus the LF camera.
I got into LF after having shot with a DLSR for several years (and 35mm film for a decade before that). 35mm digital just can't compete when it comes to large prints and $5500 is not nearly enough to get you into MF digital. But that doesn't mean that 35mm can't produce some really nice work. And there are lots of advantages like not having to pay for film ever again and not having the incremental cost of development and not waiting to get scans made. Trust me, at roughly $2.50 per sheet and another $2.50 to develop, you do start to think about the photos you take.
I would say that if cost were not an issue and quality the same between some sort of LF digital and LF film system, I would choose the digital path hands down. I have no special attachment to film. Its just that there isn't anything comparable to large format in that price range. I can shoot 6000 sheets of film before breaking even with the price of a digital medium format back. I'll probably shoot 300 sheets or so this year.
Also, I'm not sure how much dust and sand you see in your area. I've seen some of your work and it is quite beautiful, but it makes me ask this. Large format shutters are probably somewhat susceptible to problems when they're exposed to alot of dust or sand. They are not weather sealed. I figure you know, but the shutter is built into the lens. They are generally pretty easy to clean with lighter fluid from what I understand, but if you do not have someone who can repair them when a part breaks in your area you might get frustrated with the shutters in the long run. Because of this, I would suggest that you limit your used lens search to lenses modern Copal shutters because new shutters can be purchased. I have several lenses in old Compurs and while I like the Compur shutters better, they are no longer available and parts are limited.
Anyway, IMO, you have nothing to worry about, join the club.
Danny.
Kent in SD
I did however find this interesting article, from what I would consider an expert in the field of landscape. So much respect for this guy. An article here at NPN by Darwin. Fascinating read and as we say here, "The proof is in the pudding" (who came up with that)
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0105/dw0105-1.html
Hes actually bang on the money in my opinion and so is Kent there.
Danny.
In all honesty, I don't consider film processing to be a serious issue. There are a couple of very good labs that do good, fast work. Lighthouse Imaging in Mishawaka, Indiana and AGX Imaging in Sault Ste. Marie (MIchigan) are stable, good and recommended.
That's true in the States Dan, but I would have no idea about Saudi Arabia where Mohsen lives. Don't know that I'd want to pay postage on film to the US only to have it blasted with X-rays in transit.
Check into local film processing before going to LF. If you can't reliably get it done in your region, go digital without thinking about. Digital at the high end is good - not 4x5, but good none-the-less.
Not withstanding all the technicals regarding cameras, lenses and which systems would be best, it would be helpful to know what your "project" is about. Are you tasked with shooting a particular subject (landscapes is pretty vague,) a theme, a story. Perhaps 1 image/day or do you need to have maximum coverage for a given period of time? In other words, If you only have 2 days to shoot at a location you've never been to, personally I don't think LF would be suitable. If time and quantity is not related to the project, then LF should be a consideration.
But not having that information, I would consider these in order of importance:
1. The photographer (as you mentioned,) 2. Lenses and lastly, 3. the camera.
Lastly, depending on the importance and timing of this project, it might be a handicap to be learning a new technology or format at the same time trying to produce quality work.
Best of luck,
Lon
All other things being equal (i.e. tripod, technique etc.), the D3 will give you better detail and dynamic range than 35mm film so if you're happy with your F6, the D3 will likely be a step up. I'll caveat that with the fact that some people like the "look" of film, regardless of detail or latitude so it's hard to say which one is "better".
Large Format is a different beast. It's not only a step up in image quality, it's an entirely different workflow, some new tools, much higher cost of consumables, etc. all of which can take a big hit on productivity. In my opinion the 4x5 camera is not a direct replacement for 35mm. My suggestion is to get the DSLR first if you're looking for an upgrade, then consider adding a 4x5 for those times when you really need movements and extreme detail.
I used 4x5 exclusively for a few years. I was convinced I had all my needs covered... until I got a DSLR and realized how much I was missing. I travel with both now, and they are both on active duty. I no longer feel one can truly substitute for the other.
Guy
The collected images will be used in books, exhibitions, and finally to be saved for comparision run after 10 years for 30 years. Ex. shooting from the same spot three times during 30 years.
I am really finding hard time to decide on the equipments and path to choose. We will start such project probably after 6 months. I called the only one lab in the country asking if they will continue processing E-6 and the guy told me that they are sure they will continue especially after all compititors have closed this business.
My problem is that I never shoot LF, I was thinking that I better start soon studying/practicing this new meduim before the start of the project.
If you think that I better go LF, can someone help me select the right system (camera, lenses, film loader, shutter, etc)?
Is it possible to find a camera that can get me both panoramic and traditional format?
Please help
Like Guy, I shoot both LF (4x5) and DSLR. Knowing what I know about the learning curve for LF, the nature of your project, and the differences in IQ, I personally would not try to purchase a LF system and try to master it before embarking on this project.
I imagine that you'll have plenty to be preparing for over the next few months without trying to assemble a LF outfit that is optimized for your needs, then master the techniques - which are very different from 35mm - to the extent that the captured image quality will meet your expectations. Regardless of which system has the potential for higher IQ, the only thing that matters is what your skill level can achieve. I think LF is a system that requires dedication over a longer period of time than 6 months to master, or even gain competence with.
The other thing is lugging a LF system to your remote locations. You don't mention if you're carrying your own gear or having animals assisting, but... the weight of an LF system with all necessary accessories (film, holders, meter, loupe, etc.) can easily far exceed that of a DSLR system, depending on your film needs and film strategy (holders vs. quickloads).
I'd invest in the D3; your familiarity with 35mm and the F6 will serve you well. I think you can easily master the moderate differences between shooting 35mm film and 35mm digital in the time prior to starting your project. The resulting IQ will equal or exceed that of your F6.
Based upon the project you will doing ( I am envious: it sounds like a great opportunity!) I agree with Rick and Guy: a digital system will be much easier to learn and should provide the quality you will need.
I shoot 4x5 primarily, and some medium format. I have a digital point-and-shoot for quick snaps. I would love to get into a digital SLR system for the very reason Guy mentioned above, but, alas, cannot afford it.
I wish you the best on your upcoming project!
-PB
Thanks for all your inputs guys...this forum is really of great help.
Guy, Rick and Preston, most of you would have shot LF in desert conditions, all be it in the US more than likely, I know Guy has. What are the problems with sand and dust in those conditions with LF ??. Still have lens changes with DSLR, but how careful do you need to be with LF in that environment, compared to a DSLR.
Mohsen, just sounds like a wonderful project, it just sounds so interesting. If the project is over the next 30 odd years and noting the changes within that time, I wonder how the next person would tackle it, if it were not you doing the rest. Thats what needs to be looked at as well, because film in your country by then, might not be an option anyway, more than likely and might not be an option anywhere by then.
Anyway, just a great thread to read through. Thanks
Danny.
Changing lenses on a DSLR when sand is being blown around is much worse. I think the sensors are, literally, sand and dust magnets.
Danny.
Mohsen will have to be very careful, and judicious in keeping the inards of the DSLR clean in the conditions that may be present during his project. Happy shooting, Mohsen!
-PB
Danny.
Which leads me to a question for you. What are you using for "wide" shots these days with your D80?
Not to drag this out, but I think you've made a good decision. As much as I love LF photography (and that's all I do now) and would recommend to anyone, I would agree with the others that there's just not enough time to become competent. In my experience starting out with 4x5 some 18 yrs ago was difficult - I almost gave it up. My mistake was trying to shoot both 35mm and 4x5 at the same time. Inevitably, I found myself in fast changing lighting conditions and I shot with 35mm cause I new I could work fast. THEN, I would try and set up the 4x5 and eventually not get the shot and I became frustrated. Once I made the decision to shoot 4x5 as my first priority, soon 35mm became a thing of the past.
Best of luck with your long term project. Sounds like a challenging and hopefully rewarding experience.
Lon
Now, into the world of digital, looks there are many mystries along the way :(
But, the baby is beside me now.