Professional Landscape Cameras

What format/medium most contemporary landscape photographers are using today?

  • Total voters
    22
Hadley

Hadley

Messages
226
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys,

I've been musing today about what format/medium most contemporary landscape photographers are using today? There was a time when most serious landscape photographers would use a large format film camera, however I assume that time has now passed with huge advances in digital over that last couple of years and the image processing work that is being done.

I suppose what I'm asking is: Am I right in assuming that everything is generally digital now, and has the transition been more to medium format or 35mm sensors?

Keen to hear your thoughts and opinions.
 
Plenty of professional landscape photographers still use large format film cameras - digital is a long, long way off competing with them. Full frame digital is 1 by 1.5 inches compared to 10 by 8 inches for large format!
 
Seems to me there's a huge variety of tools used by landscape photographers. Plenty still using view cameras (large format film) for the flexibility of the movements and the stupendously awesome resolution of 10*8 film. Some using MF digital, but the cost is humungous. I'd guess most would be using full frame digital cameras, still in the bounds of affordability and just about carryable!

I'm never entirely sure why more landscape photographers (small l and p) don't use smaller sensor cameras these days, as their capabilities have improved so much in recent times, and they have a real advantage in depth of field, often an increasing challenge with larger formats.
 
I can appreciate why 10*8 film still offers the greatest resolution, and compared to medium format digital I imagine an economic incentive too.

Are those who are still using film, now scanning their negatives? I don't mean to sound enamoured with digital processing, I just feel it has so many creative advantages.
 
The Nikon D800/D810 seems to be a popular digital full frame choice, but the camera used isn't that important, there are some superb photographers that shoot with an iPhone
 
Most of the people I see out and about with tripods in the country side seem to be equipped with FF DSLRs these days.

I still see the odd MF film camera and the odd MF digital camera.
 
I say David Noton extolling the virtues of the 5DS and 5DSR the other day, but I believe he may be linked to Canon. It does seem one of the genres the camera was developed for however.
 
Last edited:
MF film is still great and not that costly if starting out - no upgrades needed, bodies and lens are very cheap, etc... however, the instant feedback on digital means FF canon / nikon are still the favourites.

However, I'm still staggered that there isn't a lower cost MF digital released yet as a Phase One system is great but extreamly costly. There was chatter about something being produced by Mamiya but to no avail it seems.

Also rumors abound about a 120mp Canon - possibly there may not be a need for MF in the future?
 
Like in most fields (pun) the simplest answer is - it depends

I can't imagine anyone fancying a 10+ mile trek with a 10x8' film camera, nor does anyone need the resolution it affords unless there's a specific output for the image (i.e. corporate assignment needing a 20ft wide print)

Even the benefits of shift/tilt can be minimised now with focus stacking in many cases

I organised a talk by Joe Cornish some years ago where he talked at length of the benefits of large format film over digital, now he runs courses using a digi Blad too

I've seen some unbelievably good results from mirrorless including some very big prints, and going back to the wandering tog idea I'd much rather carry that lol

So from a purely professional standpoint I'd go with - it depends what the image is likely to be used for and whether you're shooting on spec or commissioned

Oh and I still shoot on DX so I can't even vote on your poll :D

Dave
 
I am not a proffesional so the format I use is not relevant nor is it a choice.
 
I use a mixture of full frame digital, medium format film, and large format film. If I want to take some "serious" landscape photos then I'll use my FF DSLR, because I've used it much more and I get more consistent results from it. The times when I want to go out for fun I will often use MF or LF film, because I enjoy using the cameras and developing the film.

The reasons for me using film is purely because I enjoy it. I really like going out and taking a long time setting up to take a single 4x5 image, slowing right down and trying to perfect every aspect of the photo before I click the shutter. I like looking at the photo on the ground glass and using big chunky wheels on the side of the camera to move the lens back and forth on a rack and pinion system to focus. I like spending a couple of hours in the kitchen developing the film, and then seeing the image after I open the daylight tank to hang the film up in the bathroom. I even like getting looked at like a weirdo when people see me sat with my head under a dark cloth taking a photo on an "old fashioned camera". :D

No different from someone who drives a classic car even though it’s probably not as fast, reliable or comfy as a modern car.

I still think I get much better and more consistent images from using my DSLR, but somehow I don’t find it as fun.

Obviously nothing that I’ve said applies to a professional landscape photographer, as they’re driven by the end results and not so much the enjoyment of the process. For them I think the best tool for the job is likely a FF DSLR.
 
I appreciate some people are using medium or large format, in both film or digital terms, but from 99% of the landscape photographers I see while out plodding around the place it's 35mm digital all the way. Now the cameras have the ability to take 36, 42 or 50mpx files, why bother with the weight, cost or size of other systems.
 
Large and medium format film cameras have a tonal quality, on silver prints, that is impossible to equal.
And cameras with movements do have serious advantages in land scape work.
However full frame and even aps digital cameras give more than enough detail for even the largest prints.
And the advantage of Digital for stitched panoramas is overwhelming.

When it comes to tonal manipulation and cloning Digital has no equal. But it never has that indefinable tonal quality of a silver print.
 
Last edited:
Stu Meech said:
I appreciate some people are using medium or large format, in both film or digital terms, but from 99% of the landscape photographers I see while out plodding around the place it's 35mm digital all the way. Now the cameras have the ability to take 36, 42 or 50mpx files, why bother with the weight, cost or size of other systems.
Click to expand...

Large and medium format has always been the province of the professional and very serious amateur. Professionals take photographs as their day job, and are rarely to be seen by people with other day jobs. Even when Film was the norm, they were usually about their business at times and on days that other people were not around.
Serious professional landscape photographers have always been as rare as hens teeth. You simply do not see them. Some even still use film.
 
potteringaround said:
MF film is still great and not that costly if starting out - no upgrades needed, bodies and lens are very cheap, etc... however, the instant feedback on digital means FF canon / nikon are still the favourites.

However, I'm still staggered that there isn't a lower cost MF digital released yet as a Phase One system is great but extreamly costly. There was chatter about something being produced by Mamiya but to no avail it seems.

Also rumors abound about a 120mp Canon - possibly there may not be a need for MF in the future?
Click to expand...
Pentax do a MF Digital at a reasonable price ( for MF that is) just under £6000 with lens, not much more than top of the line Canon and Nikon pro models.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Large and medium format has always been the province of the professional and very serious amateur. Professionals take photographs as their day job, and are rarely to be seen by people with other day jobs. Even when Film was the norm, they were usually about their business at times and on days that other people were not around.
Serious professional landscape photographers have always been as rare as hens teeth. You simply do not see them. Some even still use film.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I fully appreciate that some still use film or using medium/large format, but they are the minority these days - the pro landscapers I know of, are almost exclusively using digital 35mm. Given I don't have a proper 'day job' (in terms of days and hours) and am out alot with my camera I can't remember the last time I saw a non 35mm system being used by a landscaper.
 
dizidav said:
Pentax do a MF Digital at a reasonable price ( for MF that is) just under £6000 with lens, not much more than top of the line Canon and Nikon pro models.
Click to expand...

It would be a good upgrade for many on here who are pro, semi pro and seriously keen amateurs. I've toyed with the idea but I have no business case for having one, but when the time comes for the D800 to go I will be probably sell the lenses and see what second hand medium format digital stuff is out there.
 
I've no idea what the majority are using, so I haven't submitted a random guess to the poll. Personally, I use 5x4 whenever I can, 6x7 rollfilm if I need something lighter. But definitely 5x4 if at all possible. Also, I'm photographing in black and white, not colour. I've tried a Sony a7r but I can see the difference between the results from that (36 megapixels, full frame) and 5x4 even if others can't, and the film results are better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top