Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Therefore it seems that if the A7 shoots at shutter speeds over 200 hand held or otherwise it should produce sharp images,  no different to other cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I am looking at purchasing a Nikon D810 for landscape photography, can any current users of this camera recommend a suitable lens to go with the D810,  keeping in mind that it is mainly for landscape photography, i have heard that the 14 to 24 is a great lens is it? or is there a better lens?

 

Thank's to all.

 

Paul.

 

Seems a strange way to go about shooting landscapes.....

 

If you need a new lens, why not stick one of the great TSE Canon's on what you already have, assuming you have f/f.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore it seems that if the A7 shoots at shutter speeds over 200 hand held or otherwise it should produce sharp images,  no different to other cameras.

 

Probably yes. The others may be worse than you would normally expect  ;-)

Wide angle use is not affected. Tripod use is not affected.

 

I would rent one for a couple of days. Surely there's a Kameraverleih in Munich that rents these?

I just found out that some adapters can be found at video rental companies that rent out the A7s for low light use.

For me the wait is for a couple of days with clear skies. I am not sure yet to abandon my heavy Hummers Canons. I may just rent the Sony for a while.

If Canon finally gets around building one it will be twice as big, twice as heavy and three times the price. And may still be using the Sony sensor. By then Nikon and Sony will be at their 3rd generation.

Rant over. ;-)

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wim,  you are rite!  a TSE would be the more sensible way to go about quality landscape images,  i became interested in the Nikon D810 for the lack of AA filter plus 36 mp sensor,  and all the hype about what a great sharp capture it gave,  like most of us i want the best gear i can afford to stay with the QC that seems to be in demand these days, hence starting this topic.

 

I am still deciding,  however your comment in regard to the TSE lenses has got me thinking,  i know David Noton gets great shots with the 17mm TSE

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Paul,

 

I use the 17mm and 24mm MK2 shifts every day for both stock shoots and for paid property/architecture shoots and they are two of the best lenses I have ever worked with. The Zeiss 21mm is on a par - i wouldn't consider wide zooms of any flavour if you want corner to corner quality.

 

Downside on the 17mm is lack of lens hood, you need to use a plamp with a card, or similar, for occasional flare. Filters - you can use get holders which work.

 

36MP is fine for fine art work but for stock, real overkill. I can't send in much over 50MB files to a number of commercial agencies, there's no demand for massive files sizes. QC failures are not about equipment, above a certain level, they are user error. A D800 etc won't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank's Geoff,

you have made good sense, i have taken your advice very seriously, also 36MP as you said it's a overkill when supplying stock, this thought was also at the back of my mind.

 

Paul.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul: Wim answered your question to me about first curtain shutter.

 

Note to self: 

 

Must back off my 36 megapixel fetish unless I am going to make very big prints of landscapes for wall decor, or shooting macro.

 

Which I am not. 

 

A really helpful discussion. Thank you Paul, for starting the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A really helpful discussion. Thank you Paul, for starting the discussion.

 you are very welcome Bill,  it's nice to have a discussion that helps others,  i must say it has helped me.

 

Thanks to you and others for contributing to this topic.

 

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank's Geoff,

you have made good sense, i have taken your advice very seriously, also 36MP as you said it's a overkill when supplying stock, this thought was also at the back of my mind.

 

Paul.

Doesn't have to be set at 36MP remember. When you want or need 36 MP it's always there. You can go down, but you can't go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Note to self: 
 
Must back off my 36 megapixel fetish unless I am going to make very big prints of landscapes for wall decor, or shooting macro.
 
Which I am not. 
 

 

One very good reason to use 36MP with good lenses is to pack as much detail into an image as possible in order to have the option of using the image for descriptive or identification purposes at a later date (e.g. geological features both landscape scale and close-up, flower identification, building details etc). I want to shoot with the broadest usage scope possible and narrow it down later. If the detail is not there in the raw file, then there is no option to put it in at a later date. I'm pretty sure I won't have to return to any location in my lifetime now to re-photograph something just because I didn't get the detail the first time because the camera wasn't up to it (this has not always been the case). 

 

Of course, in addition to very good lenses,  36MP requires a very decent computer with plenty of RAM to handle the large files. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There's one point that's being missed, the OP has perfectly good camera(s). Spending money on new equipment that's hardly needed is a recipe for a smiling bank manager and a frustrated/poorer photographer. If you sell enough images a month to quickly recoup the outlay then fine, otherwise it's gear aquisition syndrome which is fun.....but business wise, quite futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one point that's being missed, the OP has perfectly good camera(s). Spending money on new equipment that's hardly needed is a recipe for a smiling bank manager and a frustrated/poorer photographer. If you sell enough images a month to quickly recoup the outlay then fine, otherwise it's gear aquisition syndrome which is fun.....but business wise, quite futile.

 

I totally agree in Paul's case. Your advice is sound.

 

I was just pointing out really that there are other reasons for 36MP cameras besides gear acquisition syndrome (should that be GAS), pixel peeping and general fetish  :mellow:. I was really aiming the comment at Bill who does, from a quick look at his images, from his love of Zeiss lenses and from previous conversations, shoot the sort of landscapes that may benefit from 36MP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the original OP was on the Nikon 14-24. It's always handy to talk to someone who actually owns and uses one with a 36 MP Nikon in tow, rather than quite a bit of speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Got the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and after a bit of testing.

it is optically really good.  At 50 ISO on a D800 at f5.6

Thanks for the update Chuck, happy to know that your Tokina is not a lemon,  i am still deciding,  have been looking at the Sony A7R, good for various lenses,  from what i have read it would seem that Zeiss is the best lens for the Sony.

 

What worries me about the A7R so many used ones on Ebay, makes me think that it may not be so great.

 

I will take another look at the D810 and Tokina 16-28.

 

Thanks again for your update.

 

Paul.

 

 

Paul, I think the reason there are so many A7R's on Ebay is that way to many pixel peeping hobbyist bought the camera as a walk around camera or "the family camera" and found it requires a large bit of skill to handle a small camera with a 36MP sensor.  Basically, that camera needs to be on a tripod.  But, it is very well suited for landscape imaging.  That camera is quickly becoming a very popular camera with professional landscape photographers because it is small, easy to transport, provides extraordinary imagery and, at a reasonable price.  Zeiss lenses are indeed the best choice for that camera, from what I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I think the reason there are so many A7R's on Ebay is that way to many pixel peeping hobbyist bought the camera as a walk around camera or "the family camera" and found it requires a large bit of skill to handle a small camera with a 36MP sensor. Basically, that camera needs to be on a tripod. But, it is very well suited for landscape imaging. That camera is quickly becoming a very popular camera with professional landscape photographers because it is small, easy to transport, provides extraordinary imagery and, at a reasonable price. Zeiss lenses are indeed the best choice for that camera, from what I've read.

Rick, You may be rite!, with what i have also read in very recent times it would seem that the Sony A7's are not the everyday hand held walk around camera's, and only good for the serious landscaper with a serious stable tripod.

 

I think if i were to own one of these cameras i would use it like a film panorama and set it up very carefully.

 

It is tempting to buy one,  unfortunately the used prices are not much better than the new.

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the age of cameras that are rated at 14, 17, 20, 24, and 36 megapixels maybe we should apply a megapixel rating to our lenses as well. We would then dial down the shooting megapixels on our 36 megapixel cameras to match the megapixel rating of our lenses.

 

For instance I would rate a 24-105 f4L canon lens at 14 megapixels, and the very best Zeiss prime lens at 36 megapixels.

 

This way there are no "bad" lenses. Just lenses designed for different conditions.

 

If you are shooting on a tripod at 36 megapixels use a 36 megapixel lens. If you are walking around, use a 14 megapixel zoom, and set your camera at a 14 megapixel resolution. A 14 megapixel, image stabilized, autofocus, zoom for shooting a parade handheld. A 36 megapixel, no autofocus, no stabilization, prime lens for landscapes on a tripod.

 

Rating lenses by megapixel is a better way to choose lenses for the task at hand, if you only have a 36 megapixel camera body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the age of cameras that are rated at 14, 17, 20, 24, and 36 megapixels maybe we should apply a megapixel rating to our lenses as well. We would then dial down the shooting megapixels on our 36 megapixel cameras to match the megapixel rating of our lenses.
 
For instance I would rate a 24-105 f4L canon lens at 14 megapixels, and the very best Zeiss prime lens at 36 megapixels.
 
This way there are no "bad" lenses. Just lenses designed for different conditions.
 
If you are shooting on a tripod at 36 megapixels use a 36 megapixel lens. If you are walking around, use a 14 megapixel zoom, and set your camera at a 14 megapixel resolution. A 14 megapixel, image stabilized, autofocus, zoom for shooting a parade handheld. A 36 megapixel, no autofocus, no stabilization, prime lens for landscapes on a tripod.
 
Rating lenses by megapixel is a better way to choose lenses for the task at hand, if you only have a 36 megapixel camera body.

 

 

That's exactly what DXO does (under sharpness)

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In the age of cameras that are rated at 14, 17, 20, 24, and 36 megapixels maybe we should apply a megapixel rating to our lenses as well.

 

Good one Bill,  now you have me and many others trying to find a chart that rates lenses and there megapixel capabilities.

 

For instance i shoot with a Canon 1Ds III, and 7D, now how do i go about finding out the best megapixel lenses for these 2 cameras.

 

I fear another sleepless night.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Note: have just seen on Ebay A7R with battery pack and Sony Zeiss 55mm lens for 2000 euros,  tempting! )

 

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In the age of cameras that are rated at 14, 17, 20, 24, and 36 megapixels maybe we should apply a megapixel rating to our lenses as well.

 

Good one Bill,  now you have me and many others trying to find a chart that rates lenses and there megapixel capabilities.

 

For instance i shoot with a Canon 1Ds III, and 7D, now how do i go about finding out the best megapixel lenses for these 2 cameras.

 

I fear another sleepless night.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Note: have just seen on Ebay A7R with battery pack and Sony Zeiss 55mm lens for 2000 euros,  tempting! )

 

Paul.

 

 

In that DXO list there are a lot of filters one can set.

 

wim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that DXO list there are a lot of filters one can set

 

Thanks for that Wim, very interesting.

 

 

Paul.

Edited by Paul Mayall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how this thread has swung wildly and continues to do so, my advice to Paul (for what it's worth) would be to think very carefully about why he wants a new camera and what he really wants to use it for. Why the jump from a 14-24 Nikkor to a 55mm Zeiss. I would suggest that 55mm is a little too long on 36MP for landscape work (on Nikon at least because of the reduced depth of field. Do you really need 36MP? Why? I think if you don't know why you need 36MP, then you probably don't need it.

 

Here are a few Nikon suggestions based on the latest turn of this thread. How about a 2nd hand D800 or D800E which can be purchased with a brand new 50mm Nikkor (all  of the 50 Nikkors are excellent) from WEX (very reliable company in Norwich, UK, who examine their used stock very carefully before selling rather than a chance purchase from an unknown seller) with a guarantee for the £ equivalent of 2000€. Or what about the very highly rated D750 brand new ( a mere 24MP of course) with a brand new 50mm Nikkor which would cost a bit more but not that much. Both full frame and possessing the fabulous Nikon dynamic range which is probably the main reason to change from Canon.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this thread certainly has been swinging wildly.

 

 

"Both full frame and possessing the fabulous Nikon dynamic range which is probably the main reason to change from Canon"  yes this is the main reason for considering the change and generally sharper lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely consider the D750 then. The slower and significantly less expensive Nikkor prime lenses would be perfect on that I expect. I dived in with the D800 as it was the only upgrade available from the 12MP D700 at the time. If there had been a 24MP option, I would probably have gone for that. However, I am now very happy with 36MP because I want all that detail for the sort of stuff I do but it requires relearning and experimentation to get it right. Some of that can be a bit restrictive as well because of the reduced depth of field (one way around that is to downsize the image). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to my original response to a Wide Zoom in F mount.

 

I've now been using the TOKINA 16-28 f2.8 for over a month

and on several big assignments and I love this lens 90%

 

I do not often use it at 2.8 nor at 16mm, at 18 to 28 and at

f4 to 11 it is exceptional on a D800.  The only thing that I do

not LOVE about the 16-28 is the large front element.  It is heavy

and I find myself overally protective of it.  My favorite wide zoom

in my hands and working with three bodies was the NIKKOR 20-35

f2.8.  I also used a TAMRON 20-40 f2.6-3.5 for years and on full frame

film bodies it was great, but the last copy I had did not cut it on a D800.

 

I have not tested the TOKINA 26-28 f2.8 against the NIKKOR 14-24 f2.8

but I don't know how a wide zoom could be much better than the TOKINA

16-28 f2.8 and at a cost of less than $600 new. I don't think any other glass

in this range will come close?

 

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.