I am planning on upgrading my current camera body (Canon 10D) and potential lenses. In Colorado I don't find the need to go UW as much as I did when I lived near the coast. But I am also planning on moving back to the coast, hopefully the PNW.
In the mtns. if you go really wide it can tends to dwarf the mtns and diminish their majesty.
However I found the opposite to be true at the coast as a wide view of the water, rocks and foerground provide a really interesting perspective.
Waterfalls seem to vary the most since you can shoot close up or from a further distance. The shot here 13mm x 1.6 crop in the Tetons last summer.
I have Canon gear now but am considering Nikon and even the new Sony FF flagship. So I am open to other brands.
I would like to hear the widest you normally like to shoot in the PNW?
Wide is less about where you are....and more about what story you wish to tell about where your shooting. Neither wide or long lenses are "right or wrong" they are only tool to achieve a goal, and the story is the picture. I can see the same falls shot you just posted here with a HUGE expanse of foreground water with a wide lense and moving a bit closer to the falls to get a totally diffrent perspective (even wading into the water) or pulling way back with a longer lens into a row of trees downstreem to compress the dense forest around the falls like a frame. Makes neither picture right or wrong...just changes how it looks.
I have a superwide (12-24) a wide (17-55) and a longer lens(70-200) in my kit at all times and that will cover 85-90% of any shooting you will do for landscape. My style of shooting shows that my two widest lenses are my most used.
A wll rounded kit of just a few lenses will take you a long way.
I agree with you regarding no right or wrong way to shoot. Obviously one's personal style and vision comes into play here. But certain places just lend themselves more toward SW compositions or the reverse depending on your subject.
For example when shooting in the Tetons at some of the classic spots such as the Snake River Overlook you don't want to go super wide as it will dwarf the Tetons.
Currently I have the same basic focal coverage you have for my cropped DSLR - 12-24, 35-70, 70-200. But I find I use 24mm+ much more often. Can you tell me if you are using a cropped camera or FF with those lenses?
Hey Derek... This is just my 2-cents worth of advice but it might save you a lot of grief. If you make the move please test the area with gear you already own and are familier with before buying new stuff. You might be surprised to find how quickly a "sold" lens becomes your most un-availible asset when shooting the typical 3 minute 'start to finish' Oregon Coast sunsets that happen here more often than not.
I use my 11-22 lens about as much as 14-54 lens -- the extra range is often handy for waterfall and mountain scenes in the PNW where you are trying to mimic a large format camera by having some relatively close detail in the foreground. Of course, that also means spending a lot of time on the damp, PNW ground..!
Just got back from a day in the Gorge, where I used the 11-22 exclusively. Very damp... and about 3/4 of the images were zapped with water spots on the lens, despite an umbrella. You might want to get one of those lenses equipped with windshield wipers if you move to the PNW, Derek...
Yes Larry, I plan to use my old tried and true gear next month out there on our PNW Spring vacation. So I have a feeling that will give me a better idea of what I will want to use going forward.
If I go full frame with Canon that will change even my current lenses 'effective' focal length. But I must say I have been looking at the incredible results/reviews from the new Nikon wide (14-24) and mid range (24-70) and considering a move to the 'Dark Side,' or depending on perspective a move 'Into the Light.'
Then of course there is the new Sony 24mp flagship with Zeiss glass. Geesh, there are a lot of good choices right now. I'll probably wait for the dust to settle this Fall and see what more the big three come out with. Canon's 5D II is projected to be released then as well.
But right now I am leaning toward the Nikon lens line as I know bodies will continue to evolve.
Tom, I'll have to get used to using an umbrella again. Here in Colorado umbrellas and rain just don't mix. We have way too much lightening with our rain. People take it very seriously as hits and death by lighting strikes are an unfortunate but regular occurance.
Sorry Derek... I mis-understood your question. Go with a full frame body if you plan on selling large prints and hang on to any glass that works with the format.
To answer your question, I am currently using a D300 (1.5 crop factor) with the focal legnths I quoted. My plan is to sell both of my shorter lenses and buy the new Nikon 14-24 and the 24-70 in the hopes of eventually moving up to the Nikon D3X (or whatever they may end up calling it) when it comes out. Till then I will probably miss some of the wider (12-14MM) range, but should be fine.
Your plan sounds very similar to what I am considering right now. Nikon's wide (14-24) and mid range (24-70) are stellar, class leading lenses. I am a most inclined to go with the highest quality 'glass' available at this point. I am not as concerned with the current DSLR bodies as much as I know they will continue to evolve.
But many Nikonians have said that Nikon's strategy has been to work on producing the best quality glass 'first' before releasing higher resolution FF bodies. That way once those bodies are released the new glass will support their higher resolving power. And as I look ahead I think sensors will continue to increase into the 30+ mp range within the next five years. So that is why for me the glass is the most important factor right now. Ok, I admit that a bit of my techno engineer nerd plays a part in this. But it just seems to make sense to me.
And if I put the 14-24mm on the Nikon D300 (1.5 crop) right now I am not sure I would be missing that much at the wide end. My 12-24mm Tokina on the Canon (1.6 crop) is equivalent ~ 19mm FF. 14mm on the D300 = ~ 21mm FF. So I would be only losing ~ 2mm at the wide end. And of course if I eventually go FF Nikon that would become 'much' wider. Hmmm... Decisions, decisions....
Well...unless physics changes....I am guessing about 24MP is going to be the hard limit for 35MM sensors. Any thing with denser pixels will suffer with diffraction issues chokeholding us to an f/stop of f/11-f/13. 24MP on a FF sensor will give us "close" to the pixel density of the D2X/D300 range...and those are the limits most are experiencing.
I dont know how they would get to 30MP without unduly limiting photographers options.
For more MP....after about 24MP...I would have to start looking at MF digital to go that far.
Actually Phase One just introduced a camera (a rebadged Mamiya 645) with a phase one back on it. Kits are starting under or around $10,000 I will be looking REALLY hard at the P25 kit when it comes out. If you want more MP....start saving your pennies...
I know what you mean with regards to physical chip limits. But I think the top sensor manufacturers have some of the sharpest minds working on this currently and will figure out a way to place more into this same space. The only real question for me is will IQ degrade too much thus effectively negating this extra resolution with noise? I think if there is any possible way to increase resolution while maintaining lower noise levels someone will do it. But of course this is all merely speculation and only time will tell.
I guess I am considering both since either seem to be current limitiations based on the size of the FF sensor. All I am saying really is based on 'current' mathematical models these things appear to be fixed limits. But with newer inovative sensor technology those elements could become variable. The only real static element is the size of the sensor itself.
For example in the past these same factors came into question when cropped sensors reached 6mp. It was hypothesized that this was as far they could go without noticable noise and diffraction taking over. But new sensor technology allowed for higher resolution with lower noise on the same sized chip. And now we have 12-14mp cropped sensors with the same apparent diffraction limits as on the old 6mp cameras.
So while the current FF resolution may be maxed out at 24mp I have no doubt that the top three will attempt to push that envelope further. Whether they suceed or not is really the question for me.
How do you find the noise & diffraction on the D300 BTW? Just curious as I am considering that body.
Noise is great and so is the DR.....and diffraction hard limit is f/11 for me (same as my old D2X). It is just getting a little soft then but dosnt effect my large prints. I try to stick closer to f/9 or f/8 though when I can. Probably part of the reason I like the wide to super wide. Hyperfocal distances are more forgiving at those f/stops. Long lenses start to get pretty limited.
Great guess! Yes it is Hidden Falls on the western side of Jenny Lake in June. Here is actually my favorite comp of the falls. I like how the wide angle landscape orientation captures the flow of the water more: http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/231436652_qEmTU-L.jpg
This was taken from the trail and there was 'a lot' of mist coming off the falls at this time of the year. I think it would have looked nice from the water's edge as well. I am just not sure I could keep the lens dry enough to pull off a shot down there.
That brings up another interesting point regarding water and mist especially along the coast and waterfalls in the PNW. It seems that lenses just take more abuse under those conditions. And so one of the problems with a lens like the new Nikon 14-24mm is its bulbous snout and the inability to place a filter on it.
It seems that one would want to have at minimum a UV filter to protect one's investment when standing at the water's edge or in the water.
For this particular shot I used an 8 stop B+W ND filter to allow for a longer exposure is the brighter mid day light. I actually call that filter my waterfall filter.
Discussion
16 repliesIn the mtns. if you go really wide it can tends to dwarf the mtns and diminish their majesty.
However I found the opposite to be true at the coast as a wide view of the water, rocks and foerground provide a really interesting perspective.
Waterfalls seem to vary the most since you can shoot close up or from a further distance. The shot here 13mm x 1.6 crop in the Tetons last summer.
I have Canon gear now but am considering Nikon and even the new Sony FF flagship. So I am open to other brands.
I would like to hear the widest you normally like to shoot in the PNW?
Thanks,
Derek
I have a superwide (12-24) a wide (17-55) and a longer lens(70-200) in my kit at all times and that will cover 85-90% of any shooting you will do for landscape. My style of shooting shows that my two widest lenses are my most used.
A wll rounded kit of just a few lenses will take you a long way.
Roman
I agree with you regarding no right or wrong way to shoot. Obviously one's personal style and vision comes into play here. But certain places just lend themselves more toward SW compositions or the reverse depending on your subject.
For example when shooting in the Tetons at some of the classic spots such as the Snake River Overlook you don't want to go super wide as it will dwarf the Tetons.
Currently I have the same basic focal coverage you have for my cropped DSLR - 12-24, 35-70, 70-200. But I find I use 24mm+ much more often. Can you tell me if you are using a cropped camera or FF with those lenses?
Just got back from a day in the Gorge, where I used the 11-22 exclusively. Very damp... and about 3/4 of the images were zapped with water spots on the lens, despite an umbrella. You might want to get one of those lenses equipped with windshield wipers if you move to the PNW, Derek...
Yes Larry, I plan to use my old tried and true gear next month out there on our PNW Spring vacation. So I have a feeling that will give me a better idea of what I will want to use going forward.
If I go full frame with Canon that will change even my current lenses 'effective' focal length. But I must say I have been looking at the incredible results/reviews from the new Nikon wide (14-24) and mid range (24-70) and considering a move to the 'Dark Side,' or depending on perspective a move 'Into the Light.'
Then of course there is the new Sony 24mp flagship with Zeiss glass. Geesh, there are a lot of good choices right now. I'll probably wait for the dust to settle this Fall and see what more the big three come out with. Canon's 5D II is projected to be released then as well.
But right now I am leaning toward the Nikon lens line as I know bodies will continue to evolve.
Tom, I'll have to get used to using an umbrella again. Here in Colorado umbrellas and rain just don't mix. We have way too much lightening with our rain. People take it very seriously as hits and death by lighting strikes are an unfortunate but regular occurance.
Good luck with your lens choices!
Roman
Your plan sounds very similar to what I am considering right now. Nikon's wide (14-24) and mid range (24-70) are stellar, class leading lenses. I am a most inclined to go with the highest quality 'glass' available at this point. I am not as concerned with the current DSLR bodies as much as I know they will continue to evolve.
But many Nikonians have said that Nikon's strategy has been to work on producing the best quality glass 'first' before releasing higher resolution FF bodies. That way once those bodies are released the new glass will support their higher resolving power. And as I look ahead I think sensors will continue to increase into the 30+ mp range within the next five years. So that is why for me the glass is the most important factor right now. Ok, I admit that a bit of my techno engineer nerd plays a part in this. But it just seems to make sense to me.
And if I put the 14-24mm on the Nikon D300 (1.5 crop) right now I am not sure I would be missing that much at the wide end. My 12-24mm Tokina on the Canon (1.6 crop) is equivalent ~ 19mm FF. 14mm on the D300 = ~ 21mm FF. So I would be only losing ~ 2mm at the wide end. And of course if I eventually go FF Nikon that would become 'much' wider. Hmmm... Decisions, decisions....
I dont know how they would get to 30MP without unduly limiting photographers options.
For more MP....after about 24MP...I would have to start looking at MF digital to go that far.
Actually Phase One just introduced a camera (a rebadged Mamiya 645) with a phase one back on it. Kits are starting under or around $10,000 I will be looking REALLY hard at the P25 kit when it comes out. If you want more MP....start saving your pennies...
Roman
Roman
Roman
I guess I am considering both since either seem to be current limitiations based on the size of the FF sensor. All I am saying really is based on 'current' mathematical models these things appear to be fixed limits. But with newer inovative sensor technology those elements could become variable. The only real static element is the size of the sensor itself.
For example in the past these same factors came into question when cropped sensors reached 6mp. It was hypothesized that this was as far they could go without noticable noise and diffraction taking over. But new sensor technology allowed for higher resolution with lower noise on the same sized chip. And now we have 12-14mp cropped sensors with the same apparent diffraction limits as on the old 6mp cameras.
So while the current FF resolution may be maxed out at 24mp I have no doubt that the top three will attempt to push that envelope further. Whether they suceed or not is really the question for me.
How do you find the noise & diffraction on the D300 BTW? Just curious as I am considering that body.
Roman
Great guess! Yes it is Hidden Falls on the western side of Jenny Lake in June. Here is actually my favorite comp of the falls. I like how the wide angle landscape orientation captures the flow of the water more:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/231436652_qEmTU-L.jpg
This was taken from the trail and there was 'a lot' of mist coming off the falls at this time of the year. I think it would have looked nice from the water's edge as well. I am just not sure I could keep the lens dry enough to pull off a shot down there.
That brings up another interesting point regarding water and mist especially along the coast and waterfalls in the PNW. It seems that lenses just take more abuse under those conditions. And so one of the problems with a lens like the new Nikon 14-24mm is its bulbous snout and the inability to place a filter on it.
It seems that one would want to have at minimum a UV filter to protect one's investment when standing at the water's edge or in the water.
For this particular shot I used an 8 stop B+W ND filter to allow for a longer exposure is the brighter mid day light. I actually call that filter my waterfall filter.