[netuser]

Hi all

What is the best gear for night images and / or long exposures and also landscape since purpose is LARGE printing?

option a)

CANON EOS 5D Mark II
CANON 17-40 mm F/4 L USM
CANON EF 24-105 mm f/4L IS USM

option b)

Pentax k5 (and maybe get some other prime lens ... DA 15/21/40/70 ... or not)

option c)

Get the new sigma lens sigma 8-16mm
(I have k7 + DA 10-17, DA12-24/4, 28-75/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ...)

Thanks in advance

(I'm not sure it's the right place to ask... )

[Ash]

There's no budget given here.
In that regard, the best gear isn't listed: dMF - which includes the 645D.

Back to reality (in case you were not just asking a hypothetical question), if it were a choice between all the above, you'd be hard-pressed finding fault with the 5DMkII. There is that latitude in resolution to make large format printing more amendable. Nevertheless, the K-5 is no slouch for IQ that is appropriate for decently large format printing (not sure about billboards, but I can't see why not...).

Your 12-24 should do quite well in wide landscapes - I'm not sure what the 8-16 will add for you - all depends on what you intend to shoot. Hope this helps.

[RioRico]

That depends on 1) how large a print, 2) how close it's seen, and 3) how much you want to spend. For huge (2x3m+) photorealistic prints that stand close inspection, go MF. The cheap way: a 6x9cm folder and a negative scanner. The not-so-cheap way: a 645 or 6x7 or 6x7 interchangeable-lens SLR or TLR, and that scanner. The costly-bargain-digital way: a Pentax 645D and its 55mm kit lens. Any of these will blow away any FF camera.

That's for photorealism. For posterizations, it doesn't matter. I've taken 912x1216 pixel shots with a 1.1mpx P&S and blown them up to 75x100cm. Those prints look like posters, they *are* posters; and they're not meant to be pixel-peeped, but viewed from several meters away.

So the other questions are: How are your large prints to be viewed, to be consumed? Angles and distances of presentation make a difference. And how much is large-print photorealism worth to you? And turn-around time -- is fast digital-to-print capability valuable? If budget is more important than time, then a folder+scanner (well under US$500) are for you. If speed is important, then a 645D and a commercial printer for US$15K may be your tools.

[netuser]

option A is the most expensive and the top of the buget for me (meaning, I will not go any further money wise)

(645D is out of the equation.)

I'm asking because it's not the first time one image of mine is prefered by other similar image obtain by canon 5DII but on the end, they buy the other image . Buyer told me they always go for the "bigger files". It's the third time this happens and on all the three images destination was for "outdoor/billboard"

[dlacouture]

Well, for all these landscapes/nightscapes/cityscapes images, you can also go the route of assembling...

Get Hugin, snap 4-6 pics, and you'll be rubbing all those FF noses in the dirt... Double the shots by underexposing, and you can even throw in a little HDR... It's so easy to use it really makes you think twice about upgrading.

Say you envision a photo that needs a 18mm... Make a "panoramic" of your 18mm photo with a 35mm (or a 200, but this would be an awful lot of pics!), and assemble them.

I'm currently experimenting with the Brenizer method. This guy simply used panoramic methods with portrait, so as to simulate a medium format with an APS-C sensor. With 6-10 pics taken handheld, you end up with a virtual sensor of about 7x5cm, which is simply HUGE in digital! Not even talking about the resolution here, as you can easily reach 30-40MP with full-size base jpgs.

And as the lens used keeps its properties on this virtual sensor, this brings you equivalent lenses unheard of as of today : just imagine a 50mm f/1.4 on the 645D...

Take this boring shot (taken for test purposes):


Well, it was assembled from 9 pics from my K5+FA50/1.4, and the final image was something over 40MP, with a virtual sensor the size of the 645D. But the lens is still a 50mm f/1.4, which is simply unavailable in 645 format. The equivalent APS-C lens would be something around a 21mm f/0.7...

EDIT: for some applications, you could also go the route of Super Resolution... It takes a bunch of identical photos and combines them mathematically in order to extract the sub-pixel details. It can works wonders.

[netuser]

....
EDIT: for some applications, you could also go the route of Super Resolution... It takes a bunch of identical photos and combines them mathematically in order to extract the sub-pixel details. It can works wonders.

Thanks

But there are some landscapes/nightscapes/cityscapes images where some elements are moving or with action... so stitching is not always possible... (lots of wind in the islands ).

About Super Resolution... what is that? Any tutorial you care to indicate?

Thanks for your time

[dlacouture]

Thanks

But there are some landscapes/nightscapes/cityscapes images where some elements are moving or with action... so stitching is not always possible... (lots of wind in the islands ).

Well, the last version of Hugin has a great Masking feature, where you indicate which part of which pic you want to see (or exclude) in the final image... So you can use this to handle moving objects such as cars or people.

About Super Resolution... what is that? Any tutorial you care to indicate?

Thanks for your time

Well, this is just stacking aligned enlargements of similar pics. It works for static subjects only, as the smallest difference between two pics will lead to ghosting.

Say you want a 18mm view of a deserted street:
- You snap a quick 4 successive pics (all showing the exact same 18mm view).
- you run them through your favorite pic aligner, and enlarge them to the target size.
- you average them.

This will reveal sub-pixel details, fine details that are smaller than one pixel in the original images : as the original images are all slightly unaligned, these sub-pixel details will be either on one pixel, or the adjacent, or half on both. Once enlarged, its exact location will be revealed through the averaging.

It also brings the added bonus of removing noise. Some scientific papers floating around will tell you how many pics you need for the desired enlargement, but from some quick tests, 5 pics can lead to a very satisfying 2x magnification (so the MP will be x4).

---

Last edited by dlacouture; 01-23-2011 at 05:58 PM.

[cwood]

I own 4 Canon "L" primes (35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8) and 2 "L" zooms (24-105/4 and 70-200/2.8) and the 24-105 is not surprisingly the worst lens. But what is surprising is just how bad it is for sharpness, vignette and barrel distortion. I pretty much only use that lens for beach weddings where I usually have it at F8 with flash.

If you decide to go Canon take a serious look at their non-L primes (28mm/1.8, 50mm/1.4, 85mm/1.8) which are all pretty affordable and very nearly equal in quality to the L glass... and WAY better than the 24-105 zoom.

The 17-40 is pretty decent though for a Wide zoom

[netuser]

I own 4 Canon "L" primes (35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8) and 2 "L" zooms (24-105/4 and 70-200/2.8) and the 24-105 is not surprisingly the worst lens. But what is surprising is just how bad it is for sharpness, vignette and barrel distortion. I pretty much only use that lens for beach weddings where I usually have it at F8 with flash.

If you decide to go Canon take a serious look at their non-L primes (28mm/1.8, 50mm/1.4, 85mm/1.8) which are all pretty affordable and very nearly equal in quality to the L glass... and WAY better than the 24-105 zoom.

The 17-40 is pretty decent though for a Wide zoom

Thanks

Fast question about the 70-200/2.8, with or without IS? (why?)

[cwood]

Thanks

Fast question about the 70-200/2.8, with or without IS? (why?)

I had the non-IS to begin with because I was using it strictly for sports (fast shutter). I began bringing it to a few weddings so I traded up. As far as I can tell there is absolutely no difference in image quality or focus speed but no I can hand-hold shots at 1/100 if I need to.

I have not tried the mkII (lens not the camera) so I can't comment on that

[Gashog]

My brother in law carries a company 5d MkII around. I like it. Kinda plasticky compared to my S5 Pro. He is a pixel counter and is talking about ditching his Nikon stuff for the higher resolution Canon.
He used to do fine (like 4' triptychs!) with his old S2 Pro so I don't know...I think he just has a resolution hardon.

I've seen pretty impressive wilderness landscapes shot with a D7000. APS-C doesn't mean you can't blow them up.

The only thing I don't care for with the Canon system is compatibility.

My 2c.

[Mountain Vision]

None, the 645D blew away canons top of the line full framer, YET APS-C cameras compete quite well with "full frame".

Basically, its a marginal upgrade from APS to FF, but a significant to MF.

Besides if you are really printing beyond the bounds of a 16MP camera I would think you would want to go for the full 40MP or more.

[netuser]

The other point was good iso ... FF is better then crop sensor for that , also night images!

[Gashog]

What the heck are you shootin' at!?

[Mountain Vision]

The other point was good iso ... FF is better then crop sensor for that , also night images!

Hmm, not really.

For instance. If I'm shooting a hockey game with an APS dslr at 1/500th and f2.8 at 1600. Well sure, I can shoot with a full frame camera at 3200 and get similar noise (because in the end its really just 1 stop difference).

However, to get the same DOF from the Full frame camera I need to go to F/4 and to get 1/500th at f4, I NEED TO GO TO ISO 3200!

So you didn't gain a stop, you were forced to use that stop to make up for the lost DOF.

So it seems to me, unless you are looking to reduce DOF while shooting in low light, there is almost no advantage to FF.

(other than canon and nikon shooters have it and Pentax has no immediate plans to offer it...if you have that much of an inferiority complex, buy a 645D and print a billboard and drop it in your FF canikon toting friends/coworkers yard!)