July 17, 2018, 11:51:10 AM

Author Topic: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting  (Read 13818 times)

Arkarch

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
    • Karl Buiter Photography Ltd
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2012, 05:11:50 PM »
When you say low light landscape work, are you looking for high iso to replace a good tripod?  Hope not.
I would want the highest resolution and cleanest **low** iso files I could get.  D800E is the answer.

And thats just it.  If you are forced to use longer exposures, clouds will move.  And with HDR, moved clouds dont work too well in the stack.  You almost have to disassemble the image in Photoshop to save some of those elements.



Landscape ( http://www.buiterphotography.com )
Motorsports ( http://www.buitermotorsports.com )
5DS, 5Dm3, 7D, EF 300/2.8 II IS USM, ZE 21/2.8, ZE 50/2 ZE 100/2, TS-E 24/3.5, EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, EF 24-105 IS f/4, TC 1.4 III, TC 2.0 III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2012, 05:11:50 PM »

zonabc

  • Guest
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2012, 07:10:07 PM »
Thank you very much for your time and detailed responses.
Your expertise and knowledge is valuable beyond words.

I'm excited to hear what you guys think once you get your hands on the camera's.

 

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4544
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2012, 07:41:50 PM »
I don't mean to be rude but photomatix is hands down the easiest way to kill any image quality from any camera
softness and noise? it introduces it in spades. (I have used photomatix alot and I cant stand the output anymore the tone mapping is just plain horrible)

If you are a fan of HDR and want to retain all of that lovely sharp raw IQ look at this method, still shoot the bracket sets but its more a manual form of controlling the tonal ranges rather than the wholesale slaughter that comes out of the cookie cutter software
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

but as for photomatix goes if you put D800 or 5Dmk3 files through it either will be ruined so which camera and lens is sharper becomes a moot point.
APS-H Fanboy

zonabc

  • Guest
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2012, 09:40:15 PM »
I don't mean to be rude but photomatix is hands down the easiest way to kill any image quality from any camera
softness and noise? it introduces it in spades. (I have used photomatix alot and I cant stand the output anymore the tone mapping is just plain horrible)

If you are a fan of HDR and want to retain all of that lovely sharp raw IQ look at this method, still shoot the bracket sets but its more a manual form of controlling the tonal ranges rather than the wholesale slaughter that comes out of the cookie cutter software
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

but as for photomatix goes if you put D800 or 5Dmk3 files through it either will be ruined so which camera and lens is sharper becomes a moot point.

I respect and appreciate your opinion, but do not think HDR images from photomatix are "horrible" or "kill image quality". I try to get 70% of my image done there and the other 30% in Photoshop.

Here are 2 images from a borrowed Mark II

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4544
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2012, 09:53:19 PM »
hehe I gave you an applaud for not smiting me for saying that usually when I say that i get flayed.

here is one of mine done in photomatix and then more post in Photoshop too.
I dont like all my older HDR stuff these days

what I dont like about photomatix is every single shot gets "that" look especially when any foliage is involved at all and it goes nuts on the HSL of the image too which is really hard to reign in.

Its hard to explain but everything gets that dreamy softness to it which is why I say that photomatix is going to make the camera sensor sharpness irrelevent It makes a hassleblad look like it was shot with a rebel and thats the truth. I have been searching for the cleanest way to do HDR for ages and tony kuyper seems to me to have a really nice method which is more labour intensive for sure but give the image a more crafted finish.

When I first got into HDR I tried to mimik trey ratcilff now I try and get as far from that look as possible (I still think he is great and love reading what he writes about all sorts of stuff I just feel that photomatix actually limits how creative you can actually be with the HDR genre
APS-H Fanboy

zonabc

  • Guest
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2012, 10:13:49 PM »
I agree. Trey is the man when it comes to HDR. Some.. or should I say.. most of his images are brilliant. He does spend a lot of time in PS and with Nik & Topaz Products.

I posted the topic because I was basically given a 16-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS L, but I do not have a camera. Well I do, but it's a 10D:) I thought about selling those two and going with the D800 and starting off with the 14-24 and then build my glass collection.

Thanks again for your input

Cali_PH

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2012, 11:27:07 PM »
I'm glad this topic was posted; I mostly shoot landscape and have been wondering which would be better; I occasionally shoot HDR also.  It's been educational reading the comments. 

But, if you already have canon lenses, then is that enough to switch?

Also, the most important thing to consider is IQ.  I have never used a Nikon, so I can't say anything about them.  However, about 90% of my favorite landscape shots on Flickr use a 5D2.  I don't search them it, but when I check the EXIF it's almost always a 5D2.  If the 3 has even better IQ, and you already have canon lenses, and you don't care about the 2 extra brackets, and the MPs I say get the 5D3.

That sums up where I am.  A landscape hobbyist who's been waiting to upgrade to FF, and wondering if my modest investment in lenses is enough to affect my decision (perhaps low investment by some standards, haha!  One L lens, and the nice the 10-22mm, 17-55mm, which I'm guessing should have good resale value).

Despite the numerous "D800 is better for landscapes because of the higher resolution" comments (pending real life tests, of course), I keep thinking about your second comment.  I agree, most of the landscape shots I've loved have been shot with a 5D2, and the 5D3 should be even better.  While it's true that the Nikon may perhaps be even better depending on situation/technique, the 5D3 should be a huge upgrade for me too.  Plus, with my moderate skills, I'm thinking it may be a while before I'm experienced enough to create images where I could see much of a difference between the two.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2012, 11:27:07 PM »

benjaminblack

  • Guest
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2012, 01:24:03 AM »
I do not claim to know if the current Nikon lenses can handle the high resolution of the D800, but let's suppose for a moment this information is correct.

1) Reviews of the D800 will largely be unflattering, because few, if any of their lenses are currently good enough for the D800. However, if anyone could have anticipated this fact it would be the developers at Nikon. How long ago do you think they could have anticipate the problem - 2 or 3 years? Hence, any lenses they've released in the last 2-3 years theoretically should be fine. Does that make sense? This company understand its trajectory much better than we do.

2) Canon will most definitely release a 35+ MP body in the next three years. The same logic applies. IF it's true that 36MP is too much resolution for most of Canon's lenses they will be the first to acknowledge it and address the issue. Perhaps it's already been addressed in many of their MK II lenses.

So even if the D800 has excessive resolution for some of Nikon lenses, it's my opinion, that the most recent lenses will be fine. What do you think?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 01:25:34 AM by benjaminblack »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4544
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2012, 01:25:52 AM »
here is an HDR shot on a 12MP Nikon D90 with 18-200 @50mm from memory the previous one i posted was from a canon 1Dmk3 16-35 @35mm
APS-H Fanboy

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4544
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2012, 01:27:11 AM »
here is an HDR shot on a 12MP Nikon D90 with 18-200 @50mm from memory the previous one i posted was from a canon 1Dmk3 16-35 @35mm

the halo on this one makes me cry  :'( it was done when i didn't know any better so please dont smite me too hard
APS-H Fanboy

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2012, 01:41:10 AM »
I am not into hdr as a style but there are times when the lack of DR spoils the picture. So I use HDR as a tool to gain the DR and aim to make it as natural as possible to the point of understatement.
This is taken with the 5DII and 17-40

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2012, 01:41:10 AM »