Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,557   Posts: 1,573,275   Online: 1011
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    403
    Unfortunately it is the things that are unsaid that make recommendations hard. When somebody says "landscape photography" I immediately think that absolute sharpness is gong to be a requirement. This means cameras on tripods using mirror lockup. You are probably more interested in wide angle lenses than super-telephoto. AF and IS are likely to be useless to you (on a tripod). It may or may not mean a shift or tilt/shift lens. I could be wrong about any of these assumptions.

    I would look for a camera with removable finders. If you are shooting from below eye-level a magnifiying finder will make life a lot easier than squinting through one of the accessory 90 degree adapters that attach to the back of the prism. In the medium format world the simple folding waist level finder is the default, not the eye-level prism, because these cameras are intended to be used on tripods.

    Looking at the more modern cameras your choices boil down to the Pentax LX, Canon (new) F1 and Nikon F3/F4/F5. Functionally there probably isn't much difference between them as they are all Pro-grade cameras, however the LX will be the smallest and lightest of the bunch by a long way (an F5 is over double the weight of an LX). Each system has plenty of high class lenses. The only caveat is that if you want tilt/shift capabilities then Pentax only had one lens, a 28mm shift (no tilt) and it is uncommon and expensive.

  2. #22
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Why are you shooting landscapes in 35mm?

    Pentax K1000 if you choose so. biggest advantage is cheap lenses for k mount

  3. #23
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,659
    Images
    15
    EOS 1N
    ...without power drive booster E1; curvy, light and fast. No problem with bumps, scraps, dents and bruises or freezing/hot environments.
    Whatever you get, for landscape, seek out a 100% viewfinder display camera and team up with an ultra-wide angle perspective control lens to really exploit the landscape in the smaller 35mm format. BTW, it is the quality of the lenses that makes the image, not the camera, which is only a light-tight box holding a few "helpful tricks"!


  4. #24
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Vic., Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,659
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by paul ewins View Post
    The only caveat is that if you want tilt/shift capabilities then Pentax only had one lens, a 28mm shift (no tilt) and it is uncommon and expensive.
    Dunno about context, but I'll mention it. I have never seen a Pentax PC lens (only Nikons); Canon has three: 24 f3.5L (landscape/architectural), 45mm (studio work) and 90mm (excellent for macro). Nearly 12 years ago I paid $3,400 for the 24 f3.5L; it is now about $1600 new or second hand. All have tilt, shift and optionally reversible planes. The 24 is my default landscape lens.


  5. #25
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,443
    Images
    20
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    For landscape work depth of field scales are far handier and more iseful than auto-focus. Pick an brand of manual focus camera that has a good reputation reliability and offers the lenses and other accessories that you will need.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  7. #27
    Perry Way's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    825
    Blog Entries
    13
    Images
    118
    I got the greatest sharpness from the old Olympus OM-1 OM-2 genre of Zuiko lenses, honestly. I had an Olympus OM-2 I used for work as a Real Estate Appraiser. Had it for years. You can't imagine how many times I knocked that camera while measuring buildings, tripping and falling over sprinkler heads, etc. I know a lot of people are mentioning Nikons but I also think thats the expected "professional's" opinion. The Zuiko lenses were top notch and won many awards in their day. Sharper than Canon's FD's and Nikons. And the OM-2 I had looked like it was almost mint when the day finally came to replace it. Even after all the bumps along the way. And you can get a whole OM-2 kit with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and some zooms for less than a "mint" Nikon F1.

    Another great camera which nobody's mentioned is the late 70's to mid 80's Konicas with the Hexanon lenses. Those lenses also very top notch. Very sharp. I had one with 3 or 4 lenses when all my buddies had their Nikon and Canon F models. They would snicker at me.. "what's that? Konica? that's a cheap camera, right?" while ribbing me. So... so it is a wee bit less expensive than the Nikon and Canon F's but the lenses are better IMO having shot them. They are about the same weight and they are also very durable. You can get a whole Konica kit for real cheep on eBay and pay to have it CLA'd and re-light sealed at Garry's Camera for $50-75 plus shipping. Not bad.
    I love the wilderness and I love my trail cameras, all Fuji's! :) GA645, GW690 III, and the X100 which I think is the best trail camera ever invented (to date).

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Anscojohn View Post
    I think a 35mm is unsuitable for landscape work.
    Assuming that you are not just playing devil's advocate with this statement, consider for a moment that your idea of "landscape work" and others' ideas may be different, as may be your criteria of judgment for photographs, your budget, and your level of technical comfort. To me, it depends on what is desired from the landscape work by the individual. 35mm is just fine for most of what most people will do with landscapes. It is not my favorite for "big, beautiful, classic" landscapes either, but that is a far cry from "unsuitable". I think it gives landscape shooters a lot of benefits that the larger formats do not. Everything is a compromise in some way. Others will compromise differently than you do.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 10-19-2008 at 10:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #29
    eli griggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    NC
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    358
    Canon F1n or F1N with a grid screen and include a waist level finder or Speedfinder if you can. Also I would try to include a 50mm macro plus extension tube and if at all possible, a bellows. Of course you can use other glass/bellows with an adapter.

    Most anytime I've tried landscapes, I've found a myriad of interesting stuff that calls for the additional close-up gear.

    Cheers

  10. #30
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Assuming that you are not just playing devil's advocate with this statement, consider for a moment that your idea of "landscape work" and others' ideas may be different, as may be your criteria of judgment for photographs, your budget, and your level of technical comfort. To me, it depends on what is desired from the landscape work by the individual. 35mm is just fine for most of what most people will do with landscapes. It is not my favorite for "big, beautiful, classic" landscapes either, but that is a far cry from "unsuitable". I think it gives landscape shooters a lot of benefits that the larger formats do not. Everything is a compromise in some way. Others will compromise differently than you do.
    I agree completely and was just about to type the same. People need to let other people be their own photographer. :rolleyes:
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin