Best landscape photo equipment?
Gary Gaugler
On 14 Aug 97 18:49:41 GMT, hayr...@csc.fi (Maunu Häyrynen) wrote:
>I was wondering what kind of cameras and other kit people prefer for
>landscape photography? Does an old manual metalbox, type Leica or FM2,
>beat the high-end automatic SLR:s? What sort of lenses are absolutely
>needed? What about ruggedness, withstandingof humidity and frost, etc?
>And is tripod a must, or could one do w/ a monopod+hiking stick combination?
>
>I shoot landscapes partly as a hobby, partly for teaching &
>publishing purposes. Good value is definitively a factor, besides
>quality and durability (covers also maintenance costs!). Weight may
>also become an issue, at least on the longer trips.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Maunu Hayrynen
I use 6x6cm and 4x5 but it sounds to me like a Nikon F2 would be ideal for what
you are doing. It is compact, lightweight, has many low cost accessory lenses,
and is very rugged. You can also find F3 bodies at good prices. If you are not
intending to make large prints, the 35mm format is great. Otherwise, larger
than 8x10 or sometimes 11x14 and the prints show the limitations of the small
format media.
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards. You can too at
e-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com (foils bulk e-mailers)
Note: all prodigy.com domains are filtered out by mail reader
Steven T Koontz
hayr...@csc.fi (Maunu Häyrynen) wrote:
>I was wondering what kind of cameras and other kit people prefer for
>landscape photography? Does an old manual metalbox, type Leica or FM2,
>beat the high-end automatic SLR:s? What sort of lenses are absolutely
>needed? What about ruggedness, withstandingof humidity and frost, etc?
>And is tripod a must, or could one do w/ a monopod+hiking stick combination?
>
>I shoot landscapes partly as a hobby, partly for teaching &
>publishing purposes. Good value is definitively a factor, besides
>quality and durability (covers also maintenance costs!). Weight may
>also become an issue, at least on the longer trips.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Maunu Hayrynen
In my experience:
Tripod is a must for sharp pics. if using 35mm slow film is
also a must so tripod is even more important.
no need for automation. landscapes arn't going to run away so
you have plenty of time to meter, focus ect. also manual camera's seem
to be more durable than plastic auto everything ones and most will
shoot if battery dies ect. I carry cheap selinium batteryless meter in
case I have this problem way out some where.also its cheaper to
replace manual camera if you drop off cliff ect.....
I would think about Med Format also. I get much better
results with old TLR than any 35mm stuff I have used for this
application. they aren't much heavier and get alot better
enlargability which is important to me for landscape work.the light
ones(rollei/minoltacord) have fixed lenses so this may be a problem
for you but I have found that normal lens is right for 95% of my
shooting outdoors.also you can use 400 speed film with MF with good
results which might help eliminate need for tripod and monopod be
enough. I still take tripod for use on water shots ect. good luck...
>
>
JArnold975
I use my Bronica (medium format) for landscape shots, For film I prefer
Ilford Delta Pro 400 (black and White) so I can use my R25 filter to
differentiate clouds from sky. I use a tripod some times,
but also handhold with the speedgrip. For medium format (older SLR or a
TLR) a light meter will
be needed. If you are using a red filter shoot 400 film like 100, it you
are using the K2 (yellow)
shoot it like 200 film.
Jim Arnold
Dallas, TX
jarno...@aol.com
Bill D. Casselberry
Maunu asks :
>I was wondering what kind of cameras and other kit people prefer for
>landscape photography? Does an old manual metalbox, type Leica or FM2,
>beat the high-end automatic SLR:s? What sort of lenses are absolutely
>needed? What about ruggedness, withstandingof humidity and frost, etc?
>And is tripod a must, or could one do w/ a monopod+hiking stick combination?
I agree w/ Gary's reply, and being somewhat $-impaired, I
would suggest from my experience :
since wind movement is basicly your only enemy in static
scenes like landscapes & it appears you know how to figure
exposures w/o whiz-bang auto features (or atleast, would
be willing to read a book or two to learn more details) ;
the key factor is a body w/ accurate iris/shutter & a good
firm correctly aligned film plane. Add a used lens or two
of high quality & a sturdy support (a ball head can be
threaded onto any 3/8 threaded stub & many support devices
can be assembled for next to nothing from hardware store
items & discarded metal casting patrs, etc ; just get
stability w/ the stub exposed & screw on the ball head).
The Nikon items Gary mentions are, no doubt, fine ; but if
you really want some bang for the buck, keep an eye out for
a spot-metered M42 screw mount body from earlier days &
a couple of used Pentax Takumar lenses & some extension
tube sections for macro work. For a start, lens-wise, say
a wide angle (35mm -- 20mm range), something in the 85mm -
-135mm range & a longer one if you can find it. Don't worry
too much about lens speed, as most of your landscapes will
be stopped down for DOF & things like that.
You will end up doing much more of the "thought process"
in your photography using these older systems, but you may
also enjoy it more, as I do with my pile of M42 gear. And !
with good technique & better quality used equipment, no-one
will really be able to tell the difference, for all practical
purposes. I have 3 Pentax bodies & a Mamiya w 7 Takumars
from 24mm -- 200mm , plus lots of tubing, TC's etc ; and all
for, perhaps, $1000 or so
good luck w/ it
Bill
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
bcas...@orednet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Fugitive from the Law of Averages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--