Using M system for professional landscape work

[Thomased]

At present I am using a Canon 5D2 and have few complaints with this system except for the size and weight issue. I often will need to paddle/walk/hike/ski long distances and the camera equipment has to share place with various other bits of kit, especially in winter time where I will have avalanche rescue kit, shovel, poles, ski touring kit and warm clothes and food as a minimum - not leaving much space. To cut down the size is a priority. I am also using the Fuji XE1 and X100 when I need a smaller setup, but the files are not quite on the same level as the 5D2 (although not far off) and I am not sure I can use as many on a professional basis. Landscape is my main area and images will be showed and sold at galleries. I am well aware that there are many that use the M9 for this purpose and the sensor should be very capable. Having never used the system for this (although very used to MF) I wonder how the files would match up against the 5D2 with the right lens combination.
Has anyone any direct comparison experience in landscapes with these 3 systems. My main interest is mountains and seascapes, where high DR, detail and good color cast are important to me. ISO is not so important nor is AF of course!

 

[ferider]

I have done quite a few ski tours myself, replacing your 5D2 with a Leica will be a treat.

The biggest limitation for landscape work will be the lack of a longer tele. Then again, if 90mm is long enough, you'll be amazed how small a 90/2 can be 🙂

Not sure why you don't consider the Xe1 good enough. I don't think you can expect noticably better files from the M9.

Have you considered a film leica - development speed doesn't sound like an issue for you. Film might be a plus due to temperature, depending on where/when you ski.

Roland.

 

[Thomased]

Thanks Roland. I actually already have a 90/2 which I have used on my Xe1, and it is indeed a great lens. I do not generally need any longer than that for what I do.
The Xe1 does often provide files that are good enough for gallery type work, but I feel that the sensor still has its limitations. I wonder if the M9/M-E might be a little more reliable. The new LR uptate has made the x-trans sensor vastly more useable, but there are still some slight issues. The so called “water color” effect appears to have all but disappeared, but there is a bit of purple fringing and some other detail problems that I have noticed. That being said a lot can be done in PP, but I am really searching for the last small percent in improvements.

 

[hepcat]

Hmmm.... interesting dilemma. Having come from the X-Pro1 back to the M9P recently, my opinion is that the M9 DNG files are superior to the X-Pro1 raw files. I don't have much concrete evidence to support that position, but I like them better. As far as weight, you're not going to beat your XE-1 setup. The M is going to weigh more, period. What you DO get with the M is a pick of bodies all using the same lenses... film or digital or both which can make for a very compact but versatile kit. And a film body can be prepped with dry lubricants to perform in really cold and adverse temperatures.

I find that IQ is an intensely personal experience... what I find "perfect" you may find lacking." Good luck in your choice!

 

[rpsawin]

Another option would be the new Leica M240. If need you can adapt just about any lens to it ( most likely you could still use your Canon lenses) or you can use it like any of the digital M's. the only reservation I would have, and this extends to any camera subjected to a harsh environment/ rugged use, would be if the camera and lenses would tolerate the environment and use.

 

[semilog]

The M240 will certainly be a superior solution to the M9 simply because live view allows much more precise framing, free of parallax, as well as DoF preview.

On the other hand, I think landscape gear should not be overly expensive or delicate for its intended purpose. The increase in image quality offered by an M240 over an X-E1 is likely to be incremental.

If I were doing serious landscape work and weight was in any way an issue, there are only two options that I'd seriously consider:

1. A 6x7 or 6x9 rangefinder with film (Mamiya 7 or Fuji MF).

2. Alternatively, I'd use an APS-C digital camera (X-E1, NEX-7, EM5 etc) and a nodal plate for the tripod. And then I would stitch. If you really want more resolution, any incremental improvement offered by the M240 will be obliterated by using a good lens that has minimal distortion and stitching multiple images together. To get an idea of what's possible take a look at some of this panoramic work by Michael Howell (he used a D800 and a tele, but of course this is an extreme example). For more subtle tonality, have a look at John Brownlow's stuff, done on a 5D something, stitched and shot HDR, followed by impeccable post-processing.

One other point: with judicious lens choice, the NEX-7 or X-E1 weigh half of what a digital M does, which means you can carry a much lighter tripod for equivalent stability.

It all depends on what's compatible with your approach, your backpack, and your budget.

If your technique is sufficient, you've got an NEX7 or equivalent, a nodal plate and good tripod, and you're willing to use your brain, landscape image quality simply is not limiting in 2013. The limiting factors are subject choice, composition, timing, and exposure.

But I'm not so serious. What am I actually using for landscape now? A Fuji 645 Wi. Why spend $10k on a kit that won't yield much better IQ than a kit that can be had for $500? It's not as though I burn through a ton of film when shooting landscape, or need super low-light sensitivity... and if there's a torrential rain storm or I slip on a mossy log while crossing a creek, I'm out $500, not $10k. Even a piece of 645 film (Provia, TMAX100, etc.) scanned at 4k dpi yields a 67 mpix file, probably roughly equivalent to a 36 mpix DSLR file. Remember, this is for $500 plus film and processing.


little norcal estuary by Semilog, on Flickr


russian river outflow and pacific ocean, norcal coast by Semilog, on Flickr

 

[louisb]

I agree with semilog about going MF, especially with the comparatively lightweight modern Fujifilm MF cameras. However, I would also recommend that you take a serious look at the Sigma DP2M. At base iso this camera alone will blow away anything you compare it to with the exception of a 50-60mpx MF back. You could even afford all three DPM models if you wanted the wider and more recent short telephoto version. My argument for the DP2M is that if you are doing landscape you will have plenty of light so within its constraints (it is only really good up to about iso640) you should have no problems. And another point is that if you total a DP2M or similar you will have lost no more than about $700 rather than $7,000 with a M and lenses.

You can even afford to carry a lightweight tripod with such a small camera weight.

Just my two cents

LouisB

 

[Thomased]

Fantastic replies all. Thanks very much for your inputs. Semilog - excellent points, and the nodal plate is something I am also considering.

 

[semilog]

That's a great point, louisb! You could just carry a DP2M or an RX1, a bitty little nodal plate, and a lightweight carbon fiber tripod. The camera's so small that you could carry it in an otter box and it would be totally safe from moisture, dust, and impact. Stitching 4 RX1 images would give you roughly 21mm FoV with immense resolution.

That seems like a killer solution.

 

[cosmonaut]

At present I am using a Canon 5D2 and have few complaints with this system except for the size and weight issue. I often will need to paddle/walk/hike/ski long distances and the camera equipment has to share place with various other bits of kit, especially in winter time where I will have avalanche rescue kit, shovel, poles, ski touring kit and warm clothes and food as a minimum - not leaving much space. To cut down the size is a priority. I am also using the Fuji XE1 and X100 when I need a smaller setup, but the files are not quite on the same level as the 5D2 (although not far off) and I am not sure I can use as many on a professional basis. Landscape is my main area and images will be showed and sold at galleries. I am well aware that there are many that use the M9 for this purpose and the sensor should be very capable. Having never used the system for this (although very used to MF) I wonder how the files would match up against the 5D2 with the right lens combination.
Has anyone any direct comparison experience in landscapes with these 3 systems. My main interest is mountains and seascapes, where high DR, detail and good color cast are important to me. ISO is not so important nor is AF of course!

You will no find a compact that will come close to a full frame. The a99 is a very lightweight full frame camera. It and a couple of primes would not be that heavy. Plus the dynamic range is off the map. I have the Xpro1. The image quality is very good. The only issue would be the DR and slow low light focus.
The a99 is loaded with the newest features. A sweet camera.

 

[semilog]

You will no find a compact that will come close to a full frame. The a99 is a very lightweight full frame camera. It and a couple of primes would not be that heavy. Plus the dynamic range is off the map. I have the Xpro1. The image quality is very good. The only issue would be the DR and slow low light focus.
The a99 is loaded with the newest features. A sweet camera.

The idea of big differences in DR is not very well-supported by measurements. Current top-line APS-C and FF cameras have DR characteristics that are much more similar than they are different. DP Review has a great tool that lets you compare the characteristic curves of different sensors. Here's the one for the XE1.

Compare the XE1 at DR100 to the Sony RX1, the A99, and (say) the NEX-7 without DR compensation. The differences are, at best, pretty subtle.

 

[Austerby]

If film, then what about an Xpan? Ideal for your requirements I'd have thought.

 

[tempest68]

Due to you mentioning "seascapes" I would only consider the newest M240 due to its weather sealing. Saltwater and sand can do a number on camera equipment, and I'd rather use a camera and lens with weather sealing vs any non-sealed alternative.

 

[clayne]

Even a piece of 645 film (Provia, TMAX100, etc.) scanned at 4k dpi yields a 67 mpix file, probably roughly equivalent to a 36 mpix DSLR file.

Say what? It's equivalent to what the scanner was capable of producing: which is 67MP for the area you chose to scan (and it's going to be more for 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc). Grain != pixels. Grain doesn't even exist - it's the eye picking up on a clustered visual pattern of microscopic silver/dye-clouds that are in no way similar to a square pixel. You know this.

All of your other points I think are great ones - in that 10k$ worth of kit for something that can be done for less than 1k$ and yet produce superior results doesn't really need a lot of math/thinking involved. Plus your results on slide demonstrate that MF slide film is just downright awesome for landscape photography.

 

[semilog]

Say what? It's equivalent to what the scanner was capable of producing: which is 67MP for the area you chose to scan (and it's going to be more for 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, etc). Grain != pixels. Grain doesn't even exist - it's the eye picking up on a clustered visual pattern of microscopic silver/dye-clouds that are in no way similar to a square pixel. You know this.

Yes, yes I do. What I'm getting at is something closer to the old Pop Photo Subjective Quality factor. System-level MTF has different limits in different systems, and sensor density and size are not always related to system-level MTF in obvious ways.

In the case of most digital cameras the limiting factor is often interaction of WA lenses with the corners of the sensor. Digital sensors just don't like lenses with nodal points even remotely close to the film plane, and even eccentric microlenses are only a partial solution. Leica certainly doesn't report MTFs for their full systems -- only for the lenses on an MTF testing rig (or theoretical values)!

In the case of film cameras, system resolution is often limited by film flatness, and scanning to >3000 dpi can improve tonality and decrease apparent grain (an aliasing effect) but even so may not actually increase resolution of subject details beyond what one would get with a good 24-36 mpix digital sensor.

A benefit of the Fuji and Mamiya medium format RFs is that nodal point is not a big deal as it is with digital, so Biogon-like nearly symmetrical lens designs work really really well. Compared to the retrofocal WA lenses that work best on digital sensors, these lenses tend to be very compact and often have lower distortion.

 

[teleparallel]

Unless you use really big lenses on de 5d, i don't think you will cut down all that much. Also, you can bring a zoom lens, that depending on your set up might help to reduce. The M's Would be great for wides, but that's it, and with fixed focal lengths, so you and up carrying many lenses . I'd first take a look ate lens options.

DSLR's also has the advantage to use tilt-shift lenses, that are really good for landscape. There's an article on dpreview about using them for landscapes, http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9496515776/the-dslr-field-camera , take a look. Soon Samyang will ship it's version. Considering the amount you'd spend in Leica system, it's a small investment.

Another option for small and potent system. Pentax K5-IIs. Sealed system, size of entry level dslr, with nice compact lens selection(pancakes) from 15 to 70 mm(or 22 to 105mm equivalent) plus bigger lens options. It's still a dslr, and you can adapt the tilt-shift from samyang and nikon if you like it(nikon F to pentax K).

M system is awesome, but it's not for everything.

 

[semilog]

I'd take a NEX-7 or XE-1 over a K5II for landscape work any day of the week. Much smaller and lighter, essentially identical sensor performance, much broader range of options for lenses (including t/s and K mount -- I use a Pentax 50/1.4 on my X-E1), B&W previsualization, etc. No weather sealing on the mirrorless bodies but, then, most lenses -- including almost all the best Pentax glass) aren't weather sealed anyway.

 

[semilog]

Unless you use really big lenses on de 5d, i don't think you will cut down all that much.

You're kidding, right? Have you put an NEX-7 or X-E1 next to a 5D? And it's not just the camera that's lighter. With a small camera like the NEX or RX1 you can also use a much lighter tripod and head.

 

[redisburning]

the new M seems like a superior tripod camera than the M9.

as far as medium format film goes, here I will unfortunately have to say that my personal experiences did not find it an ideal compromise. for me, a field camera just makes a lot more sense given that it's barely any heavier than most mf cameras, I want to shoot larger than 35mm on a tripod anyway, and I will get movements. the only downside is that color sheet film appears to be legitimately endangered.

still, it sounds like you are committed to a digital workflow so why not get the Leica? I mean if landscape is truly all you ever do then anything else will work but if you're going to own Leica lenses IMO you ought to own a camera they focus on the way the were intended. digital or otherwise. of course this is the RFF, and I am personally hugely biased; the first time I picked up a rangefinder I was instantly smitten and have never and will never recover Im sure.

 

[teleparallel]

I'd take a NEX-7 or XE-1 over a K5II for landscape work any day of the week. Much smaller and lighter, essentially identical sensor performance, much broader range of options for lenses (including t/s and K mount -- I use a Pentax 50/1.4 on my X-E1), B&W previsualization, etc. No weather sealing on the mirrorless bodies but, then, most lenses -- including almost all the best Pentax glass) aren't weather sealed anyway.

True,

Yet, adapted lenses don't work as well as on the native system, some are harder to set apertures, have small manual focus rings and paths. Tilt-shifts are the exception because they're manual focus anyway, and you usually use it at open apertures, around f 5.6. The K5 is pretty small. It fits well on shoulder bags, with all pentax pancakes, and nobody makes sealing like pentax does. With lenses it's no larger than the M system. Not all their lenses are sealed it's true, but the limiteds are pretty solid. And if needed, you get sealed ones, and go out in the rain, so that still an advantage. As for B&W preview, it's there, on liveview. Optical viewfinder is a bonus, for it's extended usability, no lags, excessive contrast, etc.

On native lenses, aside leica M and Ai Nikkors(on full frame), pentax has the best prime selection that works as they should, and APS-C optimized.

So I would not throw out of the table.