Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: what kind of landsape gear?  (Read 5135 times)
jasonrandolph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 554


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2010, 10:55:50 AM »
ReplyReply

IMHO, you should really base your choice on what lenses you want.  You should always try and get the highest optical quality lenses, as this will have more impact on your images than the camera body you choose.  Canon, Nikon, and now Sony, all make great camera bodies, although Canon doesn't weather seal the 5DMkII (which was a deal breaker for me since I'm always near the sea).  But once you determine which lenses you want and make that investment, choosing a body to attach is easier.  The truth is that any current DSLR body is capable of taking great pictures, and your investment in lenses will probably cost more than the body you choose.  

Regardless of which option you choose, good luck and happy shooting!
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2010, 11:05:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Macro lenses are often simple double Gauss designs offering really decent performance at any distance. They also offer very good correction in general and flat field (small focal plane curvature). That said, I had four macro lenses and at least three of those couldn't really match my 80-200/2.8 APO at 100 mm at the central area of focus.

I suspect that macro lenses will be very decent for landscape shooting.

Keep in mind that most decent lenses may be sharper than the photographer...

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Hening Bettermann
stever, Would you take makro lenses for landscape?? Can you point to any comparative test with infinity lenses  of the same focal lenght?

Hening.
Logged

BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3012


« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2010, 11:07:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: zetra
Do you think that the higher Low ISO of D700 is a weakness, compare to Canon 5 D II? Otherwise according  to DXO Nikon has higher Dynamics then Canon 5d but start from ISO 200?

That depends on how you interpret the data for these specific models. If you compensate for sensor size, by using the 'Print' Dynamic range, there's only a 1.3rd stop advantage to the Nikon at minimum ISO, and the 5D2 has a higher 'Print' SNR 18%. The 5D2 has much higher resolution as well, which is very useful for nature photography. Given a choice between those two, I'd choose the 5D2.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2010, 01:04:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Stever and Erik, thank you for this info on makros.

Good light to all! - Hening.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2010, 01:57:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just wanted to fill in a bit more on macros...

I'd assume that 100 mm Macro lenses are more like general purpose lenses capable of close focusing than special purpose macro lenses. On the other hand you would expect a macro lens to be acceptable for reproduction so it is quite probable distortion and focal plane curvature would be minimized.

I normal shooting there is a single point of focus, and that point is very seldom in the extreme corners. Normal lenses may therefor be better in the position of optimum focus than macro lenses.

A couple of months ago I shot some blue prints of a reactor tank in A0 size (or so) using my Minolta 100/2.8 Macro lens. The result was quite impressive, very sharp to the extreme corners. There was very little radial chromatic aberration but that was easily eliminated in Lightroom.

The Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro that "Stever" talks about is on of the best "Macro" lenses ever built.

Finally, a small comment on built in image stabilization. It actually works and it works with all lenses. There may be advantages with image stabilization in lenses, but lens based image stabilization essentially mean that some optical groups move around the optical axis. It's very much possiblethat if IS fails we would end up with a lot of unsharp images. On the other hand, the moving sensor design on the Sony Alphas is probably quite delicate. I would probably avoid wet-cleaning my Alpha sensors!


Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Hening Bettermann
Stever and Erik, thank you for this info on makros.

Good light to all! - Hening.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 02:03:40 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2010, 01:15:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks again, Erik!
Logged

Steve_Townsend
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2010, 02:24:14 PM »
ReplyReply

My two penny worth!!!

The Canon 24-105L is good but in my opinion the 24-70L lens is much better.

I bought the 100mm Zeiss and then discovered the Lloyd Chambers review (referred to above) and then bought the Zeiss 35/2 50/2 which are all fantastic. I also stitch with these and combined with HDR, the D3s and a pano head it looks good to me.

Steve
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6918


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2010, 03:17:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you print large the 20+ MPixel cameras my be of advantage. My view is that you can print A2-s from 12 MPixels images, 24 MPixels would be good enough for A1, I have made some comparison between A2 size print from my A900 and my A700 (FF 24.6 MP and APS-C 12.5 MP), sometimes you can see the difference sometimes you can't. That said, I mostly use my Alpha 900.

You must of course keep good shooting discipline to take advantage of 24.5 MPixels,mirror lock up is a must. On the Alpha 900 the 2 second self timer locks the mirror, waits for 2 seconds and fires the shutter, that is what I use mostly.

For hand held shooting images stabilization is most helpful.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: BartvanderWolf
That depends on how you interpret the data for these specific models. If you compensate for sensor size, by using the 'Print' Dynamic range, there's only a 1.3rd stop advantage to the Nikon at minimum ISO, and the 5D2 has a higher 'Print' SNR 18%. The 5D2 has much higher resolution as well, which is very useful for nature photography. Given a choice between those two, I'd choose the 5D2.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged

alain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2010, 05:14:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

If you print large the 20+ MPixel cameras my be of advantage. My view is that you can print A2-s from 12 MPixels images, 24 MPixels would be good enough for A1, I have made some comparison between A2 size print from my A900 and my A700 (FF 24.6 MP and APS-C 12.5 MP), sometimes you can see the difference sometimes you can't. That said, I mostly use my Alpha 900.

You must of course keep good shooting discipline to take advantage of 24.5 MPixels,mirror lock up is a must. On the Alpha 900 the 2 second self timer locks the mirror, waits for 2 seconds and fires the shutter, that is what I use mostly.

For hand held shooting images stabilization is most helpful.

Best regards
Erik
Erik

You say you're using the A900 much more than the A700.  Is this ergonomics (viewfinder for example) or is it image quality related?  

Alain
Logged
MatthewCromer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2010, 06:28:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I've found since going to a Sony dSLR with extremely effective stabilization that I use the tripod less and less.  I can get perfectly sharp images handheld most of the time, and I truly enjoy not being slowed down by a tripod.  I even do handheld stitching, which is really not particularly difficult with a bit of practice.  And with my new Alpha 550 I can easily shoot at ISO 800 and not have to worry about noise.

The tripod is now mostly relegated to times when I simply can't get a decent shutter speed otherwise.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad