Only full frame can do detailed, high dynamic range landscape photography

Discussion in 'Nature' started by Reflector, Oct 9, 2017.

  1. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    Postage stamps prepare to get wiped out. Olympus will go bankrupt, Panasonic will stop making stills cameras and they will surrender to the might of the full frame sensor. The Nikon D850 Landscape Lord is here to crush all the inferior smaller sensors with its superior dynamic range and resolution posse of the D810 Landscape Master II and D800 Landscape Master I with their superior megapixel counts. The mirrorless D860 will eradicate Sony and any remains all while making Canon submissive to Nikon. They are all so superior they must be used on a tripod else the shutter will cause blur due to their massive megapixel superiority. Only the finest of lenses will do on then, for the gold ring is a mark of excellence that is paired with the megapixels to produce the results.

    Glacier Point Really Small.jpg
    Wait a minute. This panorama is actually formed from 5 HR shots that had to be downrezzed from 80mp to 20mp just so I wouldn't run out of memory in the process of stitching them together... Funny, I wonder what happens when you're actually in a situation where you can use a tripod and there's very little subject motion combined with a short FL.

    Glacier Point Waterfall.jpg
    From a Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 on a Speedbooster. Supposedly two things that shouldn't be done with cameras, since I'm using "alt-brand" lenses on an "unsanctioned accessory."

    In all seriousness: The E-M1II can do everything I asked of it and it does it better than my expectations. I've been told I have fairly high expectations for what I'm asking for, especially when it comes to asking for that much from "such a small sensor." Half of small format seems to work out fine it seems, especially when the competency of the user is added to the equation.
    • Like Like x 9
    • Agree Agree x 6
    • Wow Wow x 1
  2. Taurahe

    Taurahe Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 24, 2015
    If photographers spent more time honing technique and learning how to utilize their gear to max potential, gear would be significantly less important. Your pictures are proof of this concept.... After 5 years working camera retail I have heard it all, and everyone wants to knock the micro format when compared to ff... But they failed to realize that their lack of skills is what holds them back. Fabulous images!!!
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 5
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  3. gnarlydog australia

    gnarlydog australia Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 23, 2015
    Brisbane, Australia
    Damiano Visocnik
    measurebators will argue with you until they are blue in the face to then not be able to produce of single sharp image of their cat on their 50MP FF sensors
    all to be displayed... wait for it... on Instagram to then be viewed on a 5" mobile screen in bright light with reflections on the glass :clapping:
    ah, the irony of it all :confused:
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
    • Funny Funny x 6
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Taurahe

    Taurahe Mu-43 Regular

    Nov 24, 2015
    Allow me to add to it..... These measure stirs also criticize others work on image quality, high Iso / noise, etc etc... And forcefully explain how they would do it.... Never realizing that frequently, sharpness high Iso / noise are tools, and not requirements. Their own images, while possibly technically perfect, lack creativity and feeling, and often are a spot on copy of someone else's image they saw somewhere.... Add in that they may have flawless noise free images, but I have seen many perfect images with zero regards to creative composition technique, advantageous use of perceived lack of sharpness etc.... I don't own pro glass... Can't afford. So I try to use what I have and maximize what I can control.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    You forgot the maximum dimensional size: 500px*

    *...If you're lucky and it isn't 320 pixels on the largest dimension...

    Likewise: D850 "great at ISO 12800"
    Images on display? Not crops. 2 megapixels big. My ISO 25600 images look great if they were that small too.
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    Blurry photos of their 0.5-5 year old children and/or pets that are backlit by a window and laptop running towards them that have the shadows pulled up by +7EV. Shot in JPEG. Downsized to 1000px on a luxurious day. With sensor orientated in landscape and not portrait. No fill flash...

    "You can't do that with a postage stamp! Only full frame can do that kind of shadow lifting after you expose to the left to preserve highlights!"
  7. gnarlydog australia

    gnarlydog australia Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Feb 23, 2015
    Brisbane, Australia
    Damiano Visocnik
    yeah, about the "postage stamp" size.
    Last time I looked at stamps none were as small as 4/3" , but several are 36x24mm (you know: FF) .... just saying :rolleyes:
    Measurebators need to get out an actual ruler :doh:
  8. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 16, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 31, 2013
    Now now, we can't have this kind of postage stamp propaganda coming from such unmasculine, inferior sensor users. How can any of you even dare to hold such a tiny, emasculating camera and call yourselves true purist photographers? The DxO marks are total and utter truth in demonstrating the inferiority against the D850's superior scores. Your equivalent total light is a fraction of a full frame, just like those inferior medium frame cameras and their f/2.8 lenses can't even measure to the supremacy of equivalence of a f/1.8 lens on full frame. After all, whatever is on the Nikon hype train is truly the best of cameras. In the future there will only be one format: Full frame. Besides, the RED is oversized, heavy and cumbersome...

    I love how there's that "criticism" of medium format being "big, heavy and cumbersome" when small format is compared to as the same thing against APS-C and our "half frame" sensors. I have seen the irony of those posts and the massive cognitive dissonance that's required for those kinds of posts to exist.

    Only a full frame sensor could capture the dynamic 3D pop nanocontrast of this scene with its massive dynamic range and the >24 megapixels. Truly Micro Four Thirds is inferior for not cramming 36 or even 45 megapixels into a sensor:
    It isn't 100%.jpg
    Taken on a Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 on a Speedbooster on the E-M1II. For the curious since I can't exactly put 80 or 50mp HR files on
    This shot was from two HR shots, one exposed for the foreground and one exposed for the sky and background. Both images are aligned and then I masked in the non blown details in from the sky/background shot. For the equivalence types out there that are counting: That's four (4) "full frames" worth of light in this shot. So there goes that "noise" argument, especially when the foreground shot was ETTRed anyways.

    If you have a E-M5II or PEN-F you should be able to make shots like these and even better. Tripod? A cheap flimsy one with wobbly legs. I used a remote release for the sake of taking shots quickly, but you can use the delay function and set it to 8 seconds.
    • Like Like x 5
  10. Bytesmiths

    Bytesmiths Mu-43 Top Veteran

    That's right! Only scanning backs for 10x12cm (4"x5") or larger cameras should ever be considered for serious landscape work!

    (I will gladly stack my 560 MEGAPIXEL drum scans of 4"x5" film against anything Canikon can do in the "puny" 35mm format!)
    • Funny Funny x 3
  11. Clint

    Clint Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Apr 22, 2013
    San Diego area, CA
    Ahhh, now we get to the #real full frame.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. wrangler5

    wrangler5 Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2017
    Anybody remember "the look" of pushed Tri-X? "Serious" film photographers would work to achieve that "look." But today, pixel peepers would get a bad case of the vapors if they studied a digital file that looked like that.

    So who's "right?" Personally, I'd take an image that just looks great, regardless of how many leaves you can count on a tree a mile away if you blow the file up enough. If you want to blow a file up to a mural size image, look at it from mural-viewing distances - like, across the room, or the street. If it looks great at those distances but you can't count leaves with your nose on the image, so what?
    • Like Like x 1
  13. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Well, I don't know... Nearly all the images made by nearly all photographers will be forgotten within a week of them being made. The lucky few images that make it past that point will almost certainly be forgotten in the lifetime of the photographer who took them. The truth is that photography is really about the journey and the experience - no one should care about the equipment that other people use. If it makes them happy and they like the images they produce, then all is cool...
    • Agree Agree x 10
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Bytesmiths

    Bytesmiths Mu-43 Top Veteran

    I just dug one up. Using Fuji Velvia ASA 50, oil-mounted and scanned with an Optronics ColorGetter Falcon at 5,400 samples per inch, which is possibly over-sampling for Velvia and the Schneider-Kreutznacht 90mm lens I was using, as evidenced by the pixel-peeping below.

    00ADAJJJ Smith Rock south.1.jpg

    This had no post-processing, as evidenced by the air pockets in the oil mount and the edge marks where I taped it to the drum. (I always clean those up if I do any post at all.)

    The red rectangle at 100% looks like this:

    Screenshot  2017-10-14 at 21.15.30.png

    This is not particularly impressive from a sharpness point-of-view, but hey: look at that dynamic range and lack of grain!

    This was necessarily down-sampled to fit over the Internet. The original is 23,913 x 20,227 pixels, or a bit over 461 megapixels.

    Assuming Moore's Law holds true, so-called "full frame" might catch up in about six years. :)
    • Wow Wow x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  15. SojiOkita

    SojiOkita Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2014
    I totally agree with that...
    And all of this "24x36 guys criticizing m43 guys" / "m43 guys criticizing 24x36 guys" stuff is very condescending.
  16. Mountain

    Mountain Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 2, 2013
    Smith Rock?
  17. Bytesmiths

    Bytesmiths Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Good eye!

    Yes, Smith Rock State Park, in central Oregon. Spectacular place.