Look into the Contax645. for 1K

You can get a film mamiya 640 for $800

http://www.mamiya.com/

You don't have to spend 20K to shoot large format. You can get a film body from Mamiya for 2K and a digital body for 6-7K

Nice! Well, I don't see myself making 100K for photography, but anything is possible. I do want better quality with my enlargements though.

I was merely Kidding :) ... As a photographer who does large prints(and needs a MF camera) the hasselblad is visibly superior than a Dx format camera, and as a street photographer the leica is unnoticeable and often can foil as a Point n shoot but, If you want to go out and just take great pictures (like the ones you have)a Nikon is perfect. There are real photographers that have used a $2.00 disposable film camera to get a good shot, and others are making money off their D40's so it says your camera doesn't make you a serious photographer, although it helps.

On a sidenote I have always told people If you want clarity, get a Leica. If you want speed, get a Canon. If you want durability, get an Olympus. If you want image quality, get a Sony. But if you want it all in one package and more... Get a Nikon!

Well, if you made $100,000 from your photography its not unthinkable to have such a camera.

I thought perhaps you were, but I just talked to a photographer last week who feels this way. It's hard to see myself ever paying 20k+ for a camera.

I was being sarcastic. ;-)

I am looking to get in to large format for serious stuff since I shoot mostly landscapes. Does this make me less fake, or does it still have to be a Leica or Hasselblad? I used to shoot 35mm when I was a kid, gave it up to pursue an art career and have gotten back into photography with digital. Now I'm really seeing the limits and am dissatisfied. Not that I don't love my gear though. My D300 still makes me very happy. I always thought it was just snooty-esque who were Hasselblad or nothing.

Agreed with PB PM

So I'm told.

If you were a real photographer you'd shoot with a Leica or Hasselblad.

If you were a real photographer you would. ;-)

Oh, and I don't shoot ND filters hand held. I guess I could with the 18-200VR, but obviously never would with the 10-stop.

I'm not too much of a technical photographer when it comes to using math for my ND which may not be to my benefit. I've always been more of a "feel" artist.

heartyfisher said:
"and esp with a ND filter, I've had to crank up the ISO (hand held) to compensate."
Doesnt makes sens to me... Isnt the whole idea of ND filter is that the lowest ISO is not low enough? so if you need to crank up the ISO just remove the ND filter and keep the ISO low..

yeah I confuse myself with that as well. . .I use the ND for the "silk" effect with water/clouds, and in certain instances, have been in pretty low light. . .hence cranking the ISO. . .still confusing. . .

Thanks jonnyapple and shivaswrath. I don't ever use long ex NR, but I do have Noiseware Professional, which I think does a pretty good job if I absolutely need noise suppression. For the most part I try to stay away from high ISO if possible and find I don't need the noise filter too much. It's nice to have though.

"and esp with a ND filter, I've had to crank up the ISO (hand held) to compensate."
Doesnt makes sens to me... Isnt the whole idea of ND filter is that the lowest ISO is not low enough? so if you need to crank up the ISO just remove the ND filter and keep the ISO low..

shouldn't be noise, and clearly the crop shows that, but sometimes my D200 will get noisey with long exposures, and esp with a ND filter, I've had to crank up the ISO (hand held) to compensate. . .really, I need to stop being lazy about carting my rinky dink manfrotto around, it's not even 1 lb and only 12 inches collapsed. . .

Regardless, NICE SHOT!!!

You don't expect more shot noise (what you'd usually call digital image noise in normal exposures) because that's caused by having too few photons per photosite to get a good average, and that's not happening in long exposures. But you get more Johnson noise (from heating the sensor) and if the photosites of hot pixels fill up, then simple dark current subtraction (where it takes an image with no light hitting the sensor and then subtracts that image from the first one) will take a pixel in the highlights and make it dark. I think they do something more complicated than that in long exposure NR now, though.

The bottom line is that with digital long exposures aren't really simple to noise correct. That 100% crop looks great, Tyler. You can get images with long exposures that you can't really get otherwise so the noise is just something to be aware of.

Should there even be noise at ISO 100...?

16mm (Tokina 11-16mm)
f14
ISO100
2 minute exposure
B+W 10-stop ND

The noise isn't too bad, but it depends on how much is OK for you. Here's a 100% crop (No noise suppression):

awesome pics - what lens/settings? I'm always nervous about using the ND filter I have for fear of excessive noise in the picture. . .

Thanks! I feel I'm still getting to know them as well.

astrophotographer said:
Very nice photos. And I know those rocks. I've tried and failed many times to take a good picture of them. I consider them very challenging.

Me too LOL