[normhead]

I shoot events and stage photography and rarely use F8 or higher even for landscape photos.

Most of my landscapes are shot at ƒ5.6, that's where most of my lenses are at their sharpest and On APS-c it usually has enough DoF to cover a wide angle shot, but ya, to keep DoF the same that would be ƒ8 on an FF, and a higher ISO, or longer shutter speed.

That's great theory, I'd really like to see a few sample shots....D750 say ƒ4 1/60 1600 ISO and K-3 ƒ2.8 1/60 800 ISO just to see how that low light advantage plays out. My guess is, unless you start shooting the FF wide open, you're not going to see much difference.

Shooting wide open, then the FF will have an advantage.

[Rondec]

I shoot events and stage photography and rarely use F8 or higher even for landscape photos.

I shoot f8 most of the time when shooting landscape photos. I have been burned too many times when I thought I was stopped down enough and turned out that because I was focused on a foreground element the background was not really in focus. But the fact remains that the D750 isn't really designed to be a killer landscape camera. I'm sure it does fine, but if you need more resolution than a D7200 or K3 offer, than probably better going with a D810.

[Winder]

I shoot f8 most of the time when shooting landscape photos. I have been burned too many times when I thought I was stopped down enough and turned out that because I was focused on a foreground element the background was not really in focus. But the fact remains that the D750 isn't really designed to be a killer landscape camera. I'm sure it does fine, but if you need more resolution than a D7200 or K3 offer, than probably better going with a D810.

Its kind of ironic that when the 25MP Nikon D3x and Sony A900 came out they were considered killer landscape cameras. People wrote article about how they compared to medium format film for landscape work. What would keep the D750 from being a great landscape camera?

[FantasticMrFox]

Nothing but I think a K3 would be better due to weather sealing, slightly smaller and lighter, and no AA filter.

The D750 has weather sealing.

[Rondec]

Its kind of ironic that when the 25MP Nikon D3x and Sony A900 came out they were considered killer landscape cameras. People wrote article about how they compared to medium format film for landscape work. What would keep the D750 from being a great landscape camera?

Nothing.

When the D3x came out, the maximum megapixel available on APS-C was, what? 10 megapixels? So, there was no close comparison with APS-C and full frame sensor. On the other hand, the D600, D750 and K3/D7200 all have similar pixel counts.

The question in my mind is more how much difference you would see in landscape situations with 24 megapixel full frame versus 24 megapixel APS-C. Probably not a lot, assuming you will mostly shoot stopped down on a tripod with low iso. If that is what you are doing, then the additional cost of the D750 is pretty much wasted and to see benefit over a K3 or D7200, you would need to go with a D800 or D810.

The reason why you pay more for a D750 is for better high iso performance, better frame rates, better auto focus capabilities. Those are all great things, but they are kind of wasted on most landscapes.

[rawr]

The D750 has weather sealing.

D610/D750 grade weather sealing probably does the job OK, no doubt, but it is not confidence inducing.

Compare, for example, the very thin gasketing around the SD card door on a D750/D610 vs the rubberised 'cap' on the card door that presses firmly down over the SD cards of a K-3/K-5. In a D610/D750, just a speck of dirt on the very thin and shallow door seal gasket would probably be enough to compromise the seal.

[Christine Tham]

I shoot f8 most of the time when shooting landscape photos. I have been burned too many times when I thought I was stopped down enough and turned out that because I was focused on a foreground element the background was not really in focus.

Try focusing at the hyperfocal distance
Hyperfocal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is easy to achieve on manual focus. Anyone who shoots landscapes a LOT should probably not use AF at all.

At hyperfocal distance, you have the widest possible DOF - usually this is enough at f5.6 where most lenses are at their sharpest (as normhead points out) and diffraction is not really noticeable, even on a high density sensor. IMHO this is a win compared to the extra DOF you get at f8.

[Rondec]

Try focusing at the hyperfocal distance
Hyperfocal distance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is easy to achieve on manual focus. Anyone who shoots landscapes a LOT should probably not use AF at all.

At hyperfocal distance, you have the widest possible DOF - usually this is enough at f5.6 where most lenses are at their sharpest (as normhead points out) and diffraction is not really noticeable, even on a high density sensor. IMHO this is a win compared to the extra DOF you get at f8.

Diffraction is over rated as a cause of poor photos. I wouldn't stop down to f22, but shooting at f8 or even f10 is not a big deal and better to do that than to have inadequate depth of field.

Hyperfocal distance is dependent on focal length and aperture. At 16mm and f5.6 your hyperfocal distance is 2.2 meters. That's way too far away, in my opinion, for many landscapes. At f8 it moves to 1.5 meters and f11 to 1 meter. As to using auto focus or not, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most often I am on a tripod and use live view to manual focus, but it isn't a big deal to use auto focus either.

This was shot at f10:



As was this photo:



In both cases, the foreground is about a meter away from my camera. I have tried shooting at wider apertures, but the resulting photos just aren't as good and I don't see significant loss from diffraction that makes me want to shoot wider open, unless I need to because of poor light and inadequate shutter speed issues.

[Christine Tham]

Diffraction is over rated as a cause of poor photos. I wouldn't stop down to f22, but shooting at f8 or even f10 is not a big deal and better to do that than to have inadequate depth of field.

Hyperfocal distance is dependent on focal length and aperture. At 16mm and f5.6 your hyperfocal distance is 2.2 meters. That's way too far away, in my opinion, for many landscapes. At f8 it moves to 1.5 meters and f11 to 1 meter. As to using auto focus or not, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most often I am on a tripod and use live view to manual focus, but it isn't a big deal to use auto focus either.

Nice pictures by the way.

Regardless of what aperture you shoot at, or whether you personally believe diffraction is "overrated" or not, in both pictures, shooting at hyperfocal would have resulted in the maximum possible DOF (for a given focal length and aperture).

By the way, hyperfocal distance is not an absolute. It depends on your personal tolerances for the circle of confusion, which of course will depend on various things including pixel pitch, frame size (of the sensor as well as the final image).

The point I think normhead made (which I was trying to support) was that lens sharpness is a factor that you should also consider. Everything is a trade off. There is no point being dogmatic about f8 vs f5.6 vs f11 - it comes down to the composition, the equipment you have and ultimately your own eyes.

For example, I am the opposite of you - I often shoot landscapes with deliberate shallow DOF - I don't want everything to be sharp. I also dislike the "starburst" effect you get at small apertures (for example - your first photo - far less objectionable in the second one). Starbursts are nice - sometimes - but I also like not to have them - sometimes.

[aleonx3]

Most of my landscapes are shot at ƒ5.6, that's where most of my lenses are at their sharpest and On APS-c it usually has enough DoF to cover a wide angle shot, but ya, to keep DoF the same that would be ƒ8 on an FF, and a higher ISO, or longer shutter speed.

That's great theory, I'd really like to see a few sample shots....D750 say ƒ4 1/60 1600 ISO and K-3 ƒ2.8 1/60 800 ISO just to see how that low light advantage plays out. My guess is, unless you start shooting the FF wide open, you're not going to see much difference.

Shooting wide open, then the FF will have an advantage.

I have no doubt that the D750 is a fine camera and will produce great images perhaps even better than k-3 and less high ISO noise. However, after handling the D750 from a close friend and trying it on shooting experience, I become even more appreciative of the k-3 ergonomics with regard to the button and dial placements on the camera which allow my right thumb and index finger to move/change settings with so much ease (eg. reset EV to default, set auto ISO and change ISO, AF button to lock-in focus etc.) while keeping my eyes on the viewfinder. It will be interesting to see if the new Pentax FF will continue to carry the same k-3/k-5/k-7 ergonomic genes.

Currently the APS-C format works for me quite well for stage/event photography, if any, I am more interested in FF for clean images with comparable ISO on APS-C.

[normhead]

Currently the APS-C format works for me quite well for stage/event photography, if any, I am more interested in FF for clean images with comparable ISO on APS-C.

The full package is clean images with less DoF, for the same ISO for APS-c. But it's not like you are getting the same image. Agreed sometimes that doesn't matter, but sometimes it does.

[aleonx3]

Diffraction is over rated as a cause of poor photos. I wouldn't stop down to f22, but shooting at f8 or even f10 is not a big deal and better to do that than to have inadequate depth of field.

Hyperfocal distance is dependent on focal length and aperture. At 16mm and f5.6 your hyperfocal distance is 2.2 meters. That's way too far away, in my opinion, for many landscapes. At f8 it moves to 1.5 meters and f11 to 1 meter. As to using auto focus or not, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most often I am on a tripod and use live view to manual focus, but it isn't a big deal to use auto focus either.

This was shot at f10:



As was this photo:



In both cases, the foreground is about a meter away from my camera. I have tried shooting at wider apertures, but the resulting photos just aren't as good and I don't see significant loss from diffraction that makes me want to shoot wider open, unless I need to because of poor light and inadequate shutter speed issues.

Thanks, Rondec, as usual, very nice photos; thanks for sharing...

I think we all agree and aware of diffraction (which potentially could degrade the picture quality), and with most lenses, the optimal aperture setting falls in around f8 give and take a couple stops. The hyperfocal distance becomes shorter with wide-angle lenses (and focal length). I generally find that with my 12-24 lenses which has a max aperture at f4, I generally shoot at around f4-f8 and seldom go above f8. That applies to my street photography as well as outdoor country side landscape photos. Another thing that I learned is that I don't really want to get everything in sharp focus (for example, distant mountain or house), as to me, a little soft works fine for me as I get the feel that it is far away - perhaps it is just my personal preference to give me a sense of reality (which so far, is my photo-shooting philosophy as in 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' although sometimes it is harder to do than talk).

With my DA 20-40 I recently acquired, I generally leave it between f3.2-f4.5 for street photography.

---------- Post added 05-19-2015 at 09:23 AM ----------

The full package is clean images with less DoF, for the same ISO for APS-c. But it's not like you are getting the same image. Agreed sometimes that doesn't matter, but sometimes it does.

I think that will be the next level of photography I want to get into.. single portrait with shallow DOF in an outdoor setting with lighting reflector etc.

[normhead]

I think we all agree and aware of diffraction (which potentially could degrade the picture quality), and with most lenses, the optimal aperture setting falls in around f8 give and take a couple stops.

Well no, it's actually at about ƒ5.6. On every lens tested on Photozone there is measurable drop off by ƒ8.

Another thing that I learned is that I don't really want to get everything in sharp focus

And another thing I've learned is , if you shoot it sharp, and you don't like it, you can blur it, but if you don't shoot everything in sharp focus, there's not a thing you can do.

I think that will be the next level of photography I want to get into.. single portrait with shallow DOF in an outdoor setting with lighting reflector etc.

In that case, my suggestion would be, get a DA*55 ƒ1.4 and a FA 77 ƒ1.8 (and maybe a FA 135 ƒ2.8) and see what you can do. When the Pentax FF comes out, you can make good use of the lenses on the FF if you need shallower DoF than APS-c can provide. But I wouldn't assume that switching to FF alone will get you what you want. You also have to invest in fast glass. I tend to shoot in two stop increments when experimenting with DoF. I personally wouldn't buy a camera system for 1 stop difference, because I haven't noticed that one stop often makes that much difference. If your background is too busy at ƒ5.6 on APS-c, try ƒ2.8. ƒ4 probably isn't going to cut it. Yet that is the difference between FF and APS-c. It may make a difference sometimes, but my experience would suggest, not very often.

[aleonx3]

Well no, it's actually at about ƒ5.6. On every lens tested on Photozone there is measurable drop off by ƒ8.



And another thing I've learned is , if you shoot it sharp, and you don't like it, you can blur it, but if you don't shoot everything in sharp focus, there's not a thing you can do.



In that case, my suggestion would be, get a DA*55 ƒ1.4 and a FA 77 ƒ1.8 (and maybe a FA 135 ƒ2.8) and see what you can do. When the Pentax FF comes out, you can make good use of the lenses on the FF if you need shallower DoF than APS-c can provide. But I wouldn't assume that switching to FF alone will get you what you want. You also have to invest in fast glass. I tend to shoot in two stop increments when experimenting with DoF. I personally wouldn't buy a camera system for 1 stop difference, because I haven't noticed that one stop often makes that much difference. If your background is too busy at ƒ5.6 on APS-c, try ƒ2.8. ƒ4 probably isn't going to cut it. Yet that is the difference between FF and APS-c. It may make a difference sometimes, but my experience would suggest, not very often.

Thanks, Norm, always good to know those....
Also, I have been watching closely on what the D750 can do compare to my k-3 (plus nice lens like my FA limited, DA* and DA limited)... so far, at least not yet.

[normhead]

Thanks, Norm, always good to know those....
Also, I have been watching closely on what the D750 can do compare to my k-3 (plus nice lens like my FA limited, DA* and DA limited)... so far, at least not yet.

I can't see how a D750 would be a bad choice for some people. It has a lot to offer. To me the attractive features are better AF, 11 Fps, the possibility of shallower DoF when needed. Of those features only the possibility of shallower DoF is likely to be on the Pentax FF, although the Pentax FF is likely to be more resolution. The thing for me about the D750 is it excels in areas the Pentax FF probably won't. It's a companion system to Pentax gear, not really a competitor, and therefore a smart purchase for a specific type of shooter. Folks just have to figure out, if they fall into that category.