I thought it might be of interest to a few here, who are just beginning landscape photography. If you can think of anything I've missed or you have a different view then I'd be interested in hearing from you! Either on my blog or here!
I aim to do one on wildlife photography next as it's a totally different genre.
Best regards,
Paul
Posted by Basil Greber on September 5, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Hey
Nice intro. However, I don't quite agree with your line of thought leading you to the "full frame is better" conclusion. You seem to base your argument on high-ISO abilities. This is of course very true, but other than for shooting the milky way without any movement of the stars, I hardly ever use high ISO for landscape photography. So, your assessment should be based on low ISO performance.
I'd also wonder which lenses you have in mind regarding the "designed for film = less CA & better performance" statement. I'd dare say that some of the best ultrawides have been designed for digital sensors. Furthermore, while the 14-24/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is an outstanding piece of glass and certainly supports the notion that FX lenses offer better performance, a quick glance at the Canon offerings (16-35/2.8 L, 17-40/4 L) reveals that FX lenses may benefit from the lower pixel density of an FX sensor (at the same MP count), but that this comes at the cost of corner performance.
Now, I'm not saying that an FX sensor isn't the most desireable choice for landscape shooting. It evidently is, not the least due to the higher resolution that can be achieved at a given pixel density compared to a cropped sensor. But I'd encourage you to give a slightly more balanced evaluation of the issue.
regards
Posted by Paul Inglis on September 6, 2009 at 6:21 AM
Hi Basil,
Thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback and the very valid point about shooting low ISO I had omitted from the article! Just goes to show that I shouldn't write and publish an article in one day!
Nice intro. However, I don't quite agree with your line of thought leading you to the "full frame is better" conclusion. You seem to base your argument on high-ISO abilities. This is of course very true, but other than for shooting the milky way without any movement of the stars, I hardly ever use high ISO for landscape photography. So, your assessment should be based on low ISO performance.
I will re-write the part about the ISO performance and ensure that I include that most landscape photography is done at low ISO and explain briefly the benefits of. Thanks for the heads up about this very important issue.
Now, I'm not saying that an FX sensor isn't the most desirable choice for landscape shooting. It evidently is, not the least due to the higher resolution that can be achieved at a given pixel density compared to a cropped sensor. But I'd encourage you to give a slightly more balanced evaluation of the issue.
I thought I had just used the FX format as an example but made it clear the it was full frame that was more important that which brand or model is best. I will have a look at that again.
I'd also wonder which lenses you have in mind regarding the "designed for film = less CA & better performance" statement. I'd dare say that some of the best ultrawides have been designed for digital sensors. Furthermore, while the 14-24/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is an outstanding piece of glass and certainly supports the notion that FX lenses offer better performance, a quick glance at the Canon offerings (16-35/2.8 L, 17-40/4 L) reveals that FX lenses may benefit from the lower pixel density of an FX sensor (at the same MP count), but that this comes at the cost of corner performance.
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens was designed with the FX in mind and is certain in an undisputed class of its own. Unfortunately the present line up of actual FX lenses is quite small at present and the older film lenses are being dug back out of the closet in order to fill some gaps at this moment in time.
Present true FX Lenses
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens
So I started performing some test on my range of lenses, plus I begged and borrowed others from friends for the test. The better lenses that where original designed for film, that I found performed best on FX and show less CA are as follows;
Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D Aspherical
This lens is totally sharp at every aperture, even at f/1.4 in the corners. The aspheric element gives it freedom from the coma (lateral spherical aberration). Limited barrel distortion. It has almost no ghosts or flare. Barely any light falloff at f/1.4. An unusual Bokeh. Very little CA.
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S IF-ED Zoom-Nikkor
This lens is sharp at all apertures, has great ghost resistance. Bokeh is fairly good. Colour Rendition is great. Distortion if you're looking for it, there is barrel distortion at the 17mm end and just a little pincushion distortion at the 35mm end. Falloff is not a problem. You won't see it except a little at f/2.8 and 17mm, which is gone by f/5.6. It's completely gone at f/4 from 20-35mm. Freedom from flare and ghosting is excellent. There are no Lateral Colour Fringes. Very tiny amount of CA, not noticeable in real world shooting situations.
Also in both the Nikon 105mm f2 D AF DC Lens and Nikon 135mm f2 D AF DC Lens, Chromatic aberrations are very well controlled no matter what type of camera is being used.
Maybe I'll write an article of my finds with all the lenses I've tested!
Once again, thanks for the feedback Basil!
Best regards,
Paul
Posted by Paul Inglis on September 6, 2009 at 9:30 AM
I have made a few small amendments under the heading 'The Full-Frame Advantage'. I have also added an extra paragraph about selecting a body with the ability to shoot RAW.
The following is 'tongue-in-cheek"...Essential kit for a landscape photographer...
A 4x5 field camera, a 180 to 210mm lens, a good tripod, a spot meter, a few film holders, a dark cloth, a loupe for ground glass viewing, a supply of film, and lots of patience.
-P
Posted by Mark Stahlke on September 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Preston, I'm shocked!
I think 110mm and 300mm lenses are also essential.
For a three lens kit, one could do a lot worse than 110mm, 180mm, and 300mm. Throw in a 75mm to round it out...
OK, Mark, you got me, sort of. I read 'essential' to be the minimum necessary to take a shot.
I agree that a 110 (I have 90) and a 300 (I have a Nikkor M) are in the 'essential' list, too. If I had the bellows extension, I'd add 450 or 500T! I have a little 135 Fujinon that is really sweet, and tack sharp.
These digital guys don't know what thet're missing, do they?
-Preston
Posted by Paul Inglis on September 7, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Hi Preston,
For a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment you did make a valid point about 'lots of patience'. Thanks!
If I am shooting just for me and I want to take time out then my preferred set-up is;
Ebony 45SU Large Format Camera
58mm/F5.6 Schneider Super Angulon XL
90mm/F5.6 Schneider Super Angulon XL
150mm/F5.6 Schneider Apo Symmar 'L' Lens
Can't see a load of people rushing out and buying that anymore!
"Can't see a load of people rushing out and buying that anymore! "
LF is seeing something of a resurgence. Prices on LF gear have remained fairly steady, and some older cameras and lenses (especially the Nikkors) are becoming increasingly hard to find.
btw: I'd love to have a 90/f 5.6! My Nikkor (at f8) is pretty dim when I stop it down to check DOF.
-P
Posted by Mark Stahlke on September 7, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Um....when you "stop it down to check DOF" a 90/5.6 will be just as dim as a 90/8. But you already knew that.
Cheers.
Posted by Darren Huski on September 8, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Paul-
Read your article. Glad you took on the topic. Here is a little feedback. Please take with a grain of salt.
Seeing how you wanted to write it from the beginner standpoint, I think you go too deep into too many areas. I also think you probably cost a beginner too much money with how you settled on full frame and some of the other equipment.
Talking DSLR's is fine as that is where the bulk of the market is at. As Preston points out, a view camera is still the creme de la creme of the landscape world, but lets go digital for the masses. I think it would read better by talking of the virtures of DSLRs in general vs the full frame argument. There are traits that make them good tools regardless of megapixel count or sensor size. Talking those traits up would be better for that beginner who cannot, or maybe should not spend the big money it takes to go full frame. "Entry level" DSLR's pack alot of punch and models like the D300, K-7, and 50D give most pro level features that a landscape photographer needs.
Lens section is better, but talking in terms of how wide and how long gives someone a better take on whats popular with the landscape set.
A light meter? Really? If you are going digital, why get one? The metering in DSLRs is so good a light meter seems like wasted money. For a view camera they are a necessity, but seems out of place for a beginner.
The tripod section was spot on about stability but oddly after highlighting the virtues of a full frame you go for a metal tripod. Landscape photography usually means hiking and a carbon fiber tripod is (IMHO) a much better way to spend funds than full frame or a light meter.
So not bad, but in the end I wish you had less focus on high end gear or maybe had a gear list for price points. A D300, Sigma 10-20, Nikon 70-200 with a CF tripod and Kirk BH-3, a B+W Cir Pol is a powerful kit at a fraction of the cost of a 1D or D3.
Besides if you really want the best you will get an Arca-Swiss camera.
Posted by Eric Fredine on September 12, 2009 at 7:49 PM
No, no if you want the best, the Ebony 45SU is hard to beat ;-) -- I use mine with lenses from 58mm to 300mm without having to swap bellows or any other fussing around.
But seriously, no argument that a full-frame DLSR's with f4 lenses, strong tripod and head are a great choice - probably the best 'all around' choice.
That being said, for long multi-day trips in to the back country I compromise and go with a Canon Rebel. The camera body itself is much lighter, the lenses are smaller and lighter (the 10-22 is a mere 345g) and you can get away with a much lighter tripod and head.
My full size CF Gitzo + Arca Swiss B1 is a rock and will easily hold any DSLR or LF configuration. But it weighs about 6.5 lbs. For back-country stuff I bought a 2 series Gitzo (still full height) and a RRS BH-25 - about 3 lbs. So all in, my 'ultra-light' set-up is 6.5 lbs (I also carry an EFS 17-85).
To be sure the resolution of the images suffers compared to a 5D MkII (and REALLY suffers compared to 4X5) but I can go further, faster and enjoy the back country experience more.
Cheers,
Eric
Posted by Jeff Pritchard on September 19, 2009 at 12:33 AM
As long as we are being tongue in cheek here, I would say the most important piece of gear is...
...a good alarm clock so you don't miss the early light. :)
(that makes a bigger difference than the format or the lens)
Come to think of it, success or failure usually has more to do with my choices of personal gear than camera gear. If you're not comfortable and prepared, the photography really suffers. And yeah, coffee tops my list too, Preston!
Posted by Paul Inglis on October 3, 2009 at 10:05 AM
btw: I'd love to have a 90/f 5.6! My Nikkor (at f8) is pretty dim when I stop it down to check DOF
Oh, you crack me up Preston!
Thanks everyone for taking the time to read the article and for all the feedback / comments!
Posted by Jerry Greer on October 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Dudes,
I wouldn't trade my digital landscape setup for LF again for anything! Yeah, big film is sweet if you want to do huge prints but if you're doing books and calendars like myself you just don't need it. I'll take the dynamic range and silky smooth image file of today's FF sensor over transparency film any day.
EOS 5D (I chose to get the new TS-E's first before upgrading to the MK2)
TS-E 17mm (I'll have in Nov)
TS-E 24mm MKII (Lens test coming soon, this lens is the best 24mm made today)
TS-E 45mm
TS-E 90mm
EF1.4xL Extender (works perfectly with all TS-E's including the new 24)
Given your experience with landscape photography, what would you consider the 'essential' kit that a person new to the field might want to purchase? Not everyone new to landscape photography can afford (or necessarily need) the equipment in your list.
I don't want this thread to degrade to a Large Format vs. Digital argument, but I know that I could produce a book and/or calendar from my 4x5 work should I choose to do so. If I was in a business similar to yours, I might well choose a different set of tools than I use currently. I also recall that you were a 'die hard' LF user several years ago and you made the switch to digital because it fit better with your business model. In short, then, it simply does not matter which tool(s) one uses, as long as they obtain the results they desire.
Discussion
17 repliesI thought it might be of interest to a few here, who are just beginning landscape photography. If you can think of anything I've missed or you have a different view then I'd be interested in hearing from you! Either on my blog or here!
I aim to do one on wildlife photography next as it's a totally different genre.
Best regards,
Paul
Nice intro. However, I don't quite agree with your line of thought leading you to the "full frame is better" conclusion. You seem to base your argument on high-ISO abilities. This is of course very true, but other than for shooting the milky way without any movement of the stars, I hardly ever use high ISO for landscape photography. So, your assessment should be based on low ISO performance.
I'd also wonder which lenses you have in mind regarding the "designed for film = less CA & better performance" statement. I'd dare say that some of the best ultrawides have been designed for digital sensors. Furthermore, while the 14-24/2.8 AF-S Nikkor is an outstanding piece of glass and certainly supports the notion that FX lenses offer better performance, a quick glance at the Canon offerings (16-35/2.8 L, 17-40/4 L) reveals that FX lenses may benefit from the lower pixel density of an FX sensor (at the same MP count), but that this comes at the cost of corner performance.
Now, I'm not saying that an FX sensor isn't the most desireable choice for landscape shooting. It evidently is, not the least due to the higher resolution that can be achieved at a given pixel density compared to a cropped sensor. But I'd encourage you to give a slightly more balanced evaluation of the issue.
regards
Thanks for taking the time to give me some feedback and the very valid point about shooting low ISO I had omitted from the article! Just goes to show that I shouldn't write and publish an article in one day!
I will re-write the part about the ISO performance and ensure that I include that most landscape photography is done at low ISO and explain briefly the benefits of. Thanks for the heads up about this very important issue.
I thought I had just used the FX format as an example but made it clear the it was full frame that was more important that which brand or model is best. I will have a look at that again.
The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens was designed with the FX in mind and is certain in an undisputed class of its own. Unfortunately the present line up of actual FX lenses is quite small at present and the older film lenses are being dug back out of the closet in order to fill some gaps at this moment in time.
Present true FX Lenses
Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens
Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens
So I started performing some test on my range of lenses, plus I begged and borrowed others from friends for the test. The better lenses that where original designed for film, that I found performed best on FX and show less CA are as follows;
Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/1.4D Aspherical
This lens is totally sharp at every aperture, even at f/1.4 in the corners. The aspheric element gives it freedom from the coma (lateral spherical aberration). Limited barrel distortion. It has almost no ghosts or flare. Barely any light falloff at f/1.4. An unusual Bokeh. Very little CA.
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S IF-ED Zoom-Nikkor
This lens is sharp at all apertures, has great ghost resistance. Bokeh is fairly good. Colour Rendition is great. Distortion if you're looking for it, there is barrel distortion at the 17mm end and just a little pincushion distortion at the 35mm end. Falloff is not a problem. You won't see it except a little at f/2.8 and 17mm, which is gone by f/5.6. It's completely gone at f/4 from 20-35mm. Freedom from flare and ghosting is excellent. There are no Lateral Colour Fringes. Very tiny amount of CA, not noticeable in real world shooting situations.
Also in both the Nikon 105mm f2 D AF DC Lens and Nikon 135mm f2 D AF DC Lens, Chromatic aberrations are very well controlled no matter what type of camera is being used.
Maybe I'll write an article of my finds with all the lenses I've tested!
Once again, thanks for the feedback Basil!
Best regards,
Paul
Happy shooting,
Paul
A 4x5 field camera, a 180 to 210mm lens, a good tripod, a spot meter, a few film holders, a dark cloth, a loupe for ground glass viewing, a supply of film, and lots of patience.
-P
I think 110mm and 300mm lenses are also essential.
For a three lens kit, one could do a lot worse than 110mm, 180mm, and 300mm. Throw in a 75mm to round it out...
Cheers.
I agree that a 110 (I have 90) and a 300 (I have a Nikkor M) are in the 'essential' list, too. If I had the bellows extension, I'd add 450 or 500T! I have a little 135 Fujinon that is really sweet, and tack sharp.
These digital guys don't know what thet're missing, do they?
-Preston
For a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment you did make a valid point about 'lots of patience'. Thanks!
If I am shooting just for me and I want to take time out then my preferred set-up is;
Ebony 45SU Large Format Camera
58mm/F5.6 Schneider Super Angulon XL
90mm/F5.6 Schneider Super Angulon XL
150mm/F5.6 Schneider Apo Symmar 'L' Lens
Can't see a load of people rushing out and buying that anymore!
Happy shooting,
Paul
LF is seeing something of a resurgence. Prices on LF gear have remained fairly steady, and some older cameras and lenses (especially the Nikkors) are becoming increasingly hard to find.
btw: I'd love to have a 90/f 5.6! My Nikkor (at f8) is pretty dim when I stop it down to check DOF.
-P
Cheers.
Read your article. Glad you took on the topic. Here is a little feedback. Please take with a grain of salt.
Seeing how you wanted to write it from the beginner standpoint, I think you go too deep into too many areas. I also think you probably cost a beginner too much money with how you settled on full frame and some of the other equipment.
Talking DSLR's is fine as that is where the bulk of the market is at. As Preston points out, a view camera is still the creme de la creme of the landscape world, but lets go digital for the masses. I think it would read better by talking of the virtures of DSLRs in general vs the full frame argument. There are traits that make them good tools regardless of megapixel count or sensor size. Talking those traits up would be better for that beginner who cannot, or maybe should not spend the big money it takes to go full frame. "Entry level" DSLR's pack alot of punch and models like the D300, K-7, and 50D give most pro level features that a landscape photographer needs.
Lens section is better, but talking in terms of how wide and how long gives someone a better take on whats popular with the landscape set.
A light meter? Really? If you are going digital, why get one? The metering in DSLRs is so good a light meter seems like wasted money. For a view camera they are a necessity, but seems out of place for a beginner.
The tripod section was spot on about stability but oddly after highlighting the virtues of a full frame you go for a metal tripod. Landscape photography usually means hiking and a carbon fiber tripod is (IMHO) a much better way to spend funds than full frame or a light meter.
So not bad, but in the end I wish you had less focus on high end gear or maybe had a gear list for price points. A D300, Sigma 10-20, Nikon 70-200 with a CF tripod and Kirk BH-3, a B+W Cir Pol is a powerful kit at a fraction of the cost of a 1D or D3.
Besides if you really want the best you will get an Arca-Swiss camera.
But seriously, no argument that a full-frame DLSR's with f4 lenses, strong tripod and head are a great choice - probably the best 'all around' choice.
That being said, for long multi-day trips in to the back country I compromise and go with a Canon Rebel. The camera body itself is much lighter, the lenses are smaller and lighter (the 10-22 is a mere 345g) and you can get away with a much lighter tripod and head.
My full size CF Gitzo + Arca Swiss B1 is a rock and will easily hold any DSLR or LF configuration. But it weighs about 6.5 lbs. For back-country stuff I bought a 2 series Gitzo (still full height) and a RRS BH-25 - about 3 lbs. So all in, my 'ultra-light' set-up is 6.5 lbs (I also carry an EFS 17-85).
To be sure the resolution of the images suffers compared to a 5D MkII (and REALLY suffers compared to 4X5) but I can go further, faster and enjoy the back country experience more.
Cheers,
Eric
...a good alarm clock so you don't miss the early light. :)
(that makes a bigger difference than the format or the lens)
jp
-P
Thanks everyone for taking the time to read the article and for all the feedback / comments!
I wouldn't trade my digital landscape setup for LF again for anything! Yeah, big film is sweet if you want to do huge prints but if you're doing books and calendars like myself you just don't need it. I'll take the dynamic range and silky smooth image file of today's FF sensor over transparency film any day.
EOS 5D (I chose to get the new TS-E's first before upgrading to the MK2)
TS-E 17mm (I'll have in Nov)
TS-E 24mm MKII (Lens test coming soon, this lens is the best 24mm made today)
TS-E 45mm
TS-E 90mm
EF1.4xL Extender (works perfectly with all TS-E's including the new 24)
Given your experience with landscape photography, what would you consider the 'essential' kit that a person new to the field might want to purchase? Not everyone new to landscape photography can afford (or necessarily need) the equipment in your list.
I don't want this thread to degrade to a Large Format vs. Digital argument, but I know that I could produce a book and/or calendar from my 4x5 work should I choose to do so. If I was in a business similar to yours, I might well choose a different set of tools than I use currently. I also recall that you were a 'die hard' LF user several years ago and you made the switch to digital because it fit better with your business model. In short, then, it simply does not matter which tool(s) one uses, as long as they obtain the results they desire.
Kind Regards,
-P