[TDvN57]

Morning All,

I was really drawn to his work. I'm 70 and will probably never get a 645. Several years ago I acquired a K1 and that will probably be my last camera. In reality, it's all the camera I will really need (well unless I'm shooting in absolute pitch black night, with no moon, capturing foreground landscapes for the Milky Way, and then you can always use a bit more.....)

I've somewhat drifted away from wide angle per say - and started shooting a bit longer but in panos. I saw that his approach was very similar - but only he does it better, much better and has a much better eye and sense of composition. At least he has the common sense to shoot when there is light out - that makes a big difference. He also seeks out good light (as opposed to no light).

I find that shooting longer but wider (with stitching) frees you up from needing the immediate foreground, and lets you pull in more of the details in the mid distances (which makes your images sharper). Rather than trying to squeeze more scene into your fixed frame (the sensor), you are capturing the scene through the addition of pixels. I ran across a video of a photographer shooting a famous bridge in Paris, who shot it once with a wide angle lens to squeeze the entire length of the bridge in to the frame, then shot it again at 50mm stitched. Two completely different images - with the stitched one the better of the two.

Also, I believe that this technique complements the larger medium format sensor. The K5, K1 and the 645Z each have similar pixel sizes. The larger sensors (40 to 50mp FF and 100mp MF) with larger resolutions, has smaller/finer pixel sizes - which can result in finer details, which pushes needs higher resolution lenses (at much higher cost$). By going slightly longer in focal length, you are acquiring the finer details with increased sharpness, via the larger pixels - and can also user older vintage lenses with the older optical qualities and character that the new digital lenses (more clinical) tend to loose (by their design).

After growing up in California - I'm now out in the Arizona desert. I too think that - if only I was back in California, a beach, a harbor - boats and ships, a seascape, an inland valley opening up to the sea, or up in Seattle with some islands. I'm finding that your every day surroundings tends to really blind you to what everyone else sees. You loose the sense of what potential your local area offers. I go out at night, especially during the summer since it's so darn hot out (120 during the day).

I also use to go out and shoot night cityscapes with some architecture - but sort of drifted away from that too. I just need to get out shooting more.....

I started playing with stitched panoramas about a year ago and struggled with composition, or better said I'm still struggling with composition. This past weekend I did three panos of the same scene, in three different ways, and only one looked acceptable. If you include too much or too little detail the attraction point of the scene is diminished. If you get it right, the picture really 'speaks' to the viewer.

I found Ewan's explanations a bridge across the river that so far had held me back in moving forward with stitched panos.

So thanks again for introducing his work.

---

Last edited by TDvN57; 11-02-2020 at 05:26 PM. Reason: Thumbery corrections

[interested_observer]

I started playing with stitched panoramas about a year ago and struggled with composition, or better said I'm still struggling with composition. This past weekend I did three panos of the same scene, in three different ways, and only one looked acceptable. If you include too much or too little detail the attraction point of the scene is diminished. If you get it right, the picture really 'speaks' to the viewer.

I found Ewan's explanations a bridge across the river that so far had held me back in moving forward with stitched panos.

So thanks again for introducing his work.

I've always found Ewan's explanations very interesting and informative. Even though my compositions are probably not perfect, I have always shot in portrait orientation to give more height to the pano, and shot an additional frame at either end, so that I have as much information to use in cropping the image down in post. That seems to work really very well - the "film" is free.

[moroccanimager]

To answer the original poster's questions, what makes an ideal lens for landscape is really down to the kinds of images you want to create. The 35mm is undoubtedly a fine lens, one which I use regularly, but the150mm gets more outings as it's geared to compressing a scene which can allow more compositional control. I would also say the 150mm is a superb lens in terms of sharpness. The way I shoot means I can't easily tell which of the two lens was used in any one shot. I've selected them as a tool for the composition I have in mind. For examples of both in action there's a recent article in luminous landscape with waterfall examples, which use these two specific lenses.

[angelo9978]

my 2 cents - I love the 35 3.5 and the 6x7 55. I was lucky enough to get the 645 300 FA*, but I don't think you can go wrong. It all depends on how you see the composition and which lens enables you to capture as you envision it.

[barondla]

I've been using the Hd DFA 35mm F 3.5 wideangle for landscapes. Also really like DFA 55. It gives a more natural perspective and doesn't accent the foreground. If a wider view is required one can always shoot panoramics.

Also love the Arsat 30 fisheye. With care, the fisheye look can be camouflaged when shooting landscapes.
Thanks,
barondla

[RICHARD L.]

I just found a dirt cheap 67 M 90-180 mm f/5.6 on eBay in Japan. Being the sucker that I am for orphaned lenses, I ordered it and should receive it on Nov 16 or thereabout. I'll probably try it on snowy landscapes and compare it to the 645 FA 80-160 mm f/4.5 zoom. I'll let you see the results as soon as I can. My 12th Pentax 67 lens ...

Regards

[daveburdickphoto]

Alright, after a weekend of renting all the possible lenses, I think I've landed on these lenses. I apparently will be lugging around a prime kit.
- 35mm DFA 3.5 - I absolutely love this lens. I'll be investing in this.
- 55mm DFA 2.8 - Very nice lens, and cheap. This will be in my rotation.
- 90mm DFA 2.8 - I wasn't sure at first, but after seeing the results, it's really good. The investment is large, and I'm still considering if I should invest in this, or try out the 120 f4.
- 150mm FA 2.8 - I don't normally use telephotos for my landscapes, but this lens is really amazing.

- 28-45 4.5 - This lens is great, sharp, versatile... but I didn't love it. I actually preferred the 35mm over this zoom, so I'll be sticking to the 35mm for my wide angle compositions.
- 45-85 4.5 - I found this lens for dirt cheap so purchased it. It's a really good lens. I didn't find it as sharp as the primes in this range, but it's close, so I'll keep it.
- 80-160 4.5 - Another lens this is really good and versatile, but compared to the 90 and 150 primes, just doesn't hold up. I don't think I'll invest in this one.

Lastly, I didn't try out the 25mm DFA f4, but am very intrigued. I'm going to rent it and try it out. If I love it, I'll invest in it (if I can find one) to finish my prime kit.

[moroccanimager]

You can't go wrong with that choice. Working with prime lenses can also be very satisfying.

[RICHARD L.]

Nothing much you can't do with this kit. I know you say you never use telephotos but you can get a very good and dirt-cheap FA 300 mm f/5.6 just for exceptional situations.

Regards


Telephotos permit some detail extraction in hard to approach situations like here.

[moroccanimager]

Yup, I have the 300mm which I've used a few times, particularly for dunes. Decent enough quality with a bit post work, even at f22. I picked one up from Japan for 100USD. The main issue is stability in slight winds. I've had to up the ISO to keep above 1/60 even with a tripod to avoid noticeable shake. Having said that, it's a mounted via the camera and not the lens which would no doubt help.

[TDvN57]

Yup, I have the 300mm which I've used a few times, particularly for dunes. Decent enough quality with a bit post work, even at f22. I picked one up from Japan for 100USD. The main issue is stability in slight winds. I've had to up the ISO to keep above 1/60 even with a tripod to avoid noticeable shake. Having said that, it's a mounted via the camera and not the lens which would no doubt help.

Many moons ago I did some tests to see which setup gives me more stability with the 300mm lens on a tripod.

From memory, I found that mounting the lens on the tripod gave more balance but much less vibration attenuation.

However, mounting the camera on the tripod introduced a tension which was just enough to dampen the vibrations from the shutter. Unfortunately this will not help with the heavier lenses like the 600mm, but the 300mm is still in the 'light' category.

Further stabilization was achieved with a bean bag on the lens. The location of the bean bag I found to be lens specific, because the bean bag adds mass that absorbs the vibrations from the camera traveling through the lens. I know this is an old trick used effectively by many.

For on the field use I mounted the camera on a gimbal and mono pod and cranked up the shutter speed, that works really well, especially wildlife. I found the same with the 300mm, 400mm (camera on tripod mount) and the 600mm lenses (lens mounted).

Earlier this year my second gimbal gave up the ghost and I went back to a fluid video head on a medium tripod. Seems to work much easier and as practical as the gimbal. The video head also uses a much bigger mounting plate, which helps dampening the vibrations from the camera. I also found vibrations to be much less if I don't use a ballhead, especially the ones with a thin leg ( not sure what the thingy is called that connects the base with the ball).

In tests I confirmed my intuition that hanging a weight from the tripod, does not do much to dampen vibrations, it may help to keep the rig being blown away in strong winds, but does very little to dampen shutter vibrations.

I suppose to solve shutter vibrations, it helps to start as close to the source as possible.

Sorry if I'm slightly of topic here...

[moroccanimager]

Further stabilization was achieved with a bean bag on the lens. The location of the bean bag I found to be lens specific, because the bean bag adds mass that absorbs the vibrations from the camera traveling through the lens. I know this is an old trick used effectively by many.

I've not come across that. A great tip, many thanks!

[barondla]

Many moons ago I did some tests to see which setup gives me more stability with the 300mm lens on a tripod.

From memory, I found that mounting the lens on the tripod gave more balance but much less vibration attenuation.

However, mounting the camera on the tripod introduced a tension which was just enough to dampen the vibrations from the shutter. Unfortunately this will not help with the heavier lenses like the 600mm, but the 300mm is still in the 'light' category.

Further stabilization was achieved with a bean bag on the lens. The location of the bean bag I found to be lens specific, because the bean bag adds mass that absorbs the vibrations from the camera traveling through the lens. I know this is an old trick used effectively by many.

For on the field use I mounted the camera on a gimbal and mono pod and cranked up the shutter speed, that works really well, especially wildlife. I found the same with the 300mm, 400mm (camera on tripod mount) and the 600mm lenses (lens mounted).

Earlier this year my second gimbal gave up the ghost and I went back to a fluid video head on a medium tripod. Seems to work much easier and as practical as the gimbal. The video head also uses a much bigger mounting plate, which helps dampening the vibrations from the camera. I also found vibrations to be much less if I don't use a ballhead, especially the ones with a thin leg ( not sure what the thingy is called that connects the base with the ball).

In tests I confirmed my intuition that hanging a weight from the tripod, does not do much to dampen vibrations, it may help to keep the rig being blown away in strong winds, but does very little to dampen shutter vibrations.

I suppose to solve shutter vibrations, it helps to start as close to the source as possible.

Sorry if I'm slightly of topic here...

Great info. Love your scientific approach to tripods and support. Have you seen this website The Center Column – Independent Tripod Testing They scientifically test tripods and heads for stability. Well worth a glance.

Did you hang the weight from the tripod and allow it to "swing in the breeze" or was the weight resting on the ground? I'm researching gimbal heads. They look robust, what went wrong with 2 of yours?

Sorry for the thread derailment.

Thanks,
barondla

[ProfessorBuzz]

ProfessorBuzz which version of the 35mm 3.5 do you own?

I have a really good SMC PENTAX-FA 645 1:3.5 35mm AL(IF). I understand there is an HD coated version now, which is probably even better.

Sorry for the late reply!

[Pål Jensen]

Don't forget the 75/2.8. Small, lightweight and dirt cheap

Midnight sun. Pentax 645N 75/2.8 Velvia 50