This is one of those A/B Questions: A) Nikon D700, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 or B) Leica M-9, 21/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.4, 90/2 and Zeiss 15/2.8. Assuming someone else was paying for it and it was to use, not sell, which would you choose for landscapes as a stand-alone system? I would not "upgrade" the Nikon D700 to D3X level because of the increased size and weight.
Full Frame for Landscapes
(45 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Thom Hogan wrote a good article entitled "Camera Envy Redux" on October 12th to this point you might want to check-out. My choice would be the D700 for it is one of the most versatile cameras on the market.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Would you climb higher, hike longer, stay out later, and get out earlier if you could cut your gear weight by more than half?
If so go Leica.
Considering what many pay to shave an ounce off a backpacking stove system I think many would kill to save that much weight and bulk while still maintaining _at least_ the landscape performance of a D700.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Since you bring up size and weight I'm assuming your looking for support in buying an M9 right? If size and weight are your main concerns and money isn't then yes get the M9. However I wouldn't call it a good landscape camera. I can't say I know anyone who uses their Leica in that manner, but that's not to say it hasn't been done. I think the biggest difference is in using the framelines correctly and judging your depth of field. Also with a DSLR you can take advantage of filters.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The Leica M9 doesn't do TTL metering?
Even if it doesn't - just dial in the compensation for your filter factor. Plenty of Leica rangefinder lenses have filter threads.Posted 3 years ago # -
What you see through the viewfinder and what the camera sees through the lens are different. So you can't see what effect a filter has on your subject through the viewfinder like you can with a DSLR.
Like with a polarizer or an ND filter, you have to "guess" .Posted 3 years ago # -
The Leica way seems to be a lot more expensive, no? I'd go D700. Good flexibility, and I've always pined for a D700 anyway.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually for true landscape work you need to go Large format.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I know this is Nikonrumors etc, but if someone else is paying the bill and if those two were my only options and if only landscape is my goal then it will have to be Leica for its wide angle performance.
Posted 3 years ago # -
If money is no object and you can wait to buy some of the new lenses that are being hinted about in the next year, go with the D700. All the reasons stated by NikoDoby are so true. You need to see how filters are impacting your composition. Especially polarizers, graduated neutal density filters, etc for landscapes. You can only do that with a DSLR.
If you're really just looking for lenses for landscapes, I would drop the 14-24mm and even consider dropping the 24-70mm lens and get some primes like 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 that are supposedly out on the horizon. They would be much lighter than the zooms and in real world practice, you don't really loose any shooting opportunities with just these focal lengths. Even the current 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8 and 35mm 2.0 are good alternatives. There are very few "landscape" shots that will require go as wide as 14mm. To be honest, I rarely use anything wider than a 24mm for landscapes as anything wider limits your composition due to distortion. With super wide angles, you are almost forced to center your horizon to avoid or minimize unnatural curves and distortion around the edges of your photo. Not the best composition.
I would also consider the 24mm and/or 45mm PC-E lenses to help you control your depth of field between the foreground and background and to correct any linear distortion. I use both often for cityscapes and landscapes. I would invest in the the 24mm PC-E over the 14-24mm zoom for landscapes.
I love my 28mm f1.4. You can find it on ebay and it is rather pricey (ridiculous to be more accurate.) but if money is no object...It is my all time favorite landscape lens. Wide enough for most of my landscape needs and with minimal or no distortion. Landscapes look more natural than the 24mm.
Posted 3 years ago # -
How about a Tachihara 4x5? That should get you nice and detailed images :-)))
Photo taken from: http://www.samreevesphoto.comPosted 3 years ago # -
What's the widest angle lens you can use on one of those?
Posted 3 years ago # -
The M9 has a screen, I don't see what the issue is judging polarizing effect. Ditto grads of any sort.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, doesn't the lenses for Leica have a screw for filters? I'm pretty sure you can mount filters on them.
Posted 3 years ago # -
None of you have ever used rangefinder have you? Your just assuming right?
Like I said what you see is different then what you take a picture of. Yes you can mount a solid red, IR filters etc. to a leica but for landscapes polarizers and ND filters are not as easy to use as they are on a DSLR.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Easier - sure.
Lot different than your original statement that you needed a DSLR for filters.
(Attacking opponent's perceived experience instead of the merit's of their argument is a point deduction in debate)Posted 3 years ago # -
I never said filters don't work on a rangefinder! I've owned rangefinders and lots of other cameras so I'm not sure why you so easily dismiss my knowledge. I'm getting really tired of you always attacking what I say soap! Not sure what you have against me. Grow up already
Whatever you write next I will not respond too.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nice ex posto facto edit. Real mature.
I may attack what you say - but I do not resort to attacking your person, as you do whenever your opinions are challenged.
I have nothing against you, I merely defend my opinions, something I assume you are unused to as there is a continual habit of you reacting to such defense by attacking me, not my PoV. I introduce evidence and you attempt to change the subject. I demonstrate facts and you tell me to drop it. I stay on-topic in a thread and show by example how improbable the claimed CF card error would need be and you throw a tantrum. And you dare accuse ME of having the problem? Lord have mercy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
alphanikonrex - there is no limit to the wideness of the lens you can use on large format camera, just as long it has enough coverage and wide lenses usually does. The only limitation with field cameras like Tachihara is smallest lens to film plate distance but FX has about 3.8 crop factor compared to it so 85 lens on 4 by 5 would have the same angle as 22 on FX. I do not know about Tachihara but on other models you could replace bellows and front lens mount with a bag and recessed mount to reduce the distance and be able to mount very short lenses.
As for rangefinders and filters, it is true that you can not see the effect of the filter on a rangefinder and that is especially an issue with polarizer and grad filters, but on the other hand I don’t use polarizer on a wide lens but grads were a real pain to use. I suppose live–view on a digital rangefinder would help.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You can even get a large format with a Nikon lens mount.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What I meant is what's the widest available lens that works on one of those? And can a Nikkor lens actually cover the entire film?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Do you mean with a 4x5 in general or with that particular camera?
I think ricktoyota posted some very good suggestions.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nikon used to make large format lenses until recently, but it is not just covering the film but covering it with maximum possible camera shift and it is camera specific.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hi, Do you have to have a full frame camera? I guess you have to because of the nature of the beast which is Landscape photography. The reason I'm asking is because like Nikodoby said a rangefinder is a very different kind of camera. Maybe try out the older and therefore cheaper M8. What you see through the lens is not exactly what you get. Not to mention with a leica its all manual focus, which is fine until something move after you have set up for what you thought was going to be the perfect long exposure shot. For example, a cloud moves slightly. Try manually focusing and metering in bad or low light its not fun. However, if money is no object then the M9 is desireable because it weighs almost half the D700 I believe 19 ounces to the D700 32? I have used the M8 for landscapes and believe me its not as enjoyable as street usage or even straight forward portrait shooting.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Let me make myself clear: Can you get a wider non-fisheye angle of view on FX or on 4x5?
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
