High Sierra Topix

SSSDave wrote:

or buy a PhaseOne IQ250.

Only $34,000, which is why the RRS Multi Pano gear works pretty well, but does have it's limitations, like moving clouds or
water for example.
Like Dave writes, you really need to ask yourself what is your end goal, and then whether the extra weight is justified.

SSSDave wrote:

If high resolution to make large prints really matters then neither a D800 or A6000 or a 5DS are hardly going to be enough to
impress landscape pros making large prints

Personally, could not care less what other pros thinks of my work, they are not the ones who will be purchasing, if my client base is
satisfied with the quality of art work, at the sizes offered, that is what matters to me, not the folks who pixel peep.

Jornellas,

PM sent, do not want to take this thread off track.

Maverick,

Received - thanks for input!

jornellas wrote:...In regards to IQ on DLSR's and Mirrorless I am not concerned with MP and am certainly no expert but I can definitely tell the difference in ISO performance, dynamic range, and color definition.. I think what I was really hitting on was is the difference worth the weight savings, and to Fishmonger's point I would likely still be using my 16-35 rather than a kit lens that would be provided..

ISO performance really isn't an issue with landscapes. Those using large ISO numbers are usually photographers handholding their gear or those taking sports action or nature like birds in flight. Since you put your camera on a tripod that is obviously not an issue so your ISO of an A6000 versus D800 is not an issue.

Neither is dynamic range or color definition like I mentioned because at the top mirrorless and dslr are about the same because in fact they get the same software and sensors. So there isn't any difference. It sound more like you SUSPECT there may be a difference and that is why you are asking. If you post on dpreview that your D800 "can definitely tell the difference" of better quality than an A6000 or other top mirrorless cameras like the new Nikons I am certain you'd be thoroughly beat up just like others have. That is why there are endless threads on boards like dpreview of former dslr users moving to mirrorless because there is no difference. Please help yourself and just go read some of those threads. A lot of nauseating technical yakking. About all the difference amounts to is the usual modest number of pro features that have little to do with image quality but rather selection of lenses, accessories, and software.

Well Dave I certainly feel like a moron now and certainly wouldn't want to get beat up on a forum or anything. Thanks for kicking some knowledge.....

My normal landscape setup is a D810 with the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 f/4 with a RRS TVC-24 and BH-55 ballhead. If I'm camping I may sub out the 14-24 for the 16-35 and the BH-55 for the BH-40. But when I do the JMT this summer I'm leaving all that at home, it's just way too heavy for me to schlepp around for 2-3 weeks. I'll be taking the A6000 (or a7000 depending on reviews) and the Sony 10-18 f/4 E (15-27 35mm equivalent) and maybe a midrange lens, but probably not.

I found this comparison of the image quality for landscape use between the A6000 and A7 II interesting. Also, these two posts by photographers Colby Brown and Gavin Hardcastle extol the virtues of the a6000 for landscape use.

There was a recent discussion on a gear forum why people were ditching their brand new Sony A7 mirrorless cameras and were going back to full frame Nikon DSRLs like the D810. If you want to save time reading the rest of this post, the biggest thing affecting you in the mountains will be the very limited battery life of mirrorless cameras. But there is far more that matters if you were to go out and buy one over the other for all your photographic needs.

Some of the points listed below do not apply in the mountains, but for me all this matters, as I also shoot things like motorsports and certainly can't afford a top of the line mirrorless body just to save a pound or two from my pack in the mountains. I own the Nex-6 mostly for video, as it does that pretty darn well for a $300 ebay purchase. I have taken 5 still photos with it over the last year, I think, only to test the lens adapter.

Take your pick of reasons why you may want to bring a D800 over a crop sensor A6000 or better mirrorless (most of the reasons below are comparing to a $1500 A7 II that needs a $300 adapter for my lenses):

• - The image quality of the most recent Nikon bodies is superior to more or less anything out there, and that's just a fact (D800/e/810). Sony RAW files are lossy, which pixel peepers who need the max IQ will care about more than somebody who never prints or crops.
  
  - The lenses available for Nikon DSLR cameras cover any need, as you can use any F-mount lens made over the last 60 years. Using adapters on mirrorless bodies is a pain and you lose much of the functionality of modern lenses (VR, AF, sometimes even metering).
  
  - The weight advantage for mirrorless mostly applies with smaller sensors - full frame mirrorless is barely smaller and lighter even at the body level
  
  - Batteries in mirrorless cameras have an absurdly short runtime - HUGE deal for me doing 3-4 week trips with few resupplies
  
  - EVF viewfinders like the one in the A7 are useless in moderate light (forget poor light). D800 and especially D810 have some of the best viewfinders ever designed
  
  - Mirrorless cameras have limitations when used for action photography, handling and viewfinder, focus tracking and prediction. They just don't work with moving subjects (wildlife maybe, but otherwise not relevant in the mountains)
  
  - Good luck autofocusing on anything that isn't completely stationary using a mirrorless. These cameras do not have the processors and brains to track subjects in motion. They are an evolution of cameras designed to take family pictures with face recognition, not race cars or birds in flight.
  
  - flash photography - HUGE difference if you do any studio work. Mirrorless is pretty brain dead when it comes to using a remote speedlight with TTL and other more advanced artificial light systems. Nikon's flash system is so good, I switched from Canon to Nikon back in the film days already, and that when I was actually shooting professionally and had a large investment in Canon.

Today, I only shoot for fun, but flash is a big deal when not pointing your camera at a big mountain. I agree that in the Sierra, I only use the built-in flash to fill in the occasional portrait.

Also to be noted is how quickly those high end Sony full frame bodies are depreciating (down to about $800 on ebay, which is flooded with these things). Sony life cycles are short, so they will keep dropping in value. I may pick one up once they go down to $500 if I can figure out how to keep it charged for a week between resupplies without carrying a pound or two of batteries.

Sirbc, let me know how it goes! I think in all honesty I will stick to my D800 for this trip but would love to hear how everything works out. If I picked up the 6000 now I would not be able to afford the 10-18 so I would need to get an adapter for my 16-35.

Fishmonger - Totally agree with the post I was just thinking of picking up the 6000 for backpacking alone.. I have way too much Nikon glass to ever make a switch... 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, TC 30E III, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and one of my all time faves the 135 DC.... Also love my flash, not phenomenal at using it but love playing with it. I did some side work weddings/portraits (although rarelyanymore) and shoot a lot of bird/wildlife..


Think I may use the cash saved and pick up that Gitzo I've been eying..

I think you photographers struggle with the same problems that plague backcountry technical climbers. Climbing gear is as heavy or more so than camera gear. You have to really evaluate what is "necessary". On the other hand, if you take everything needed for every eventuality, you are so weighted down that you will likely not even reach your objective! In climbing it comes down to managing risk. Most climbers forego creature comfort for more climbing gear. I learned to be a pretty light-weight backpacker because I first was a climber. In the Sierra, the first thing I would question is the need for a tent. Then how much food do you really need? Then look at how much water you carry. I carry 1 liter only, get a bit thirsty, and in a pinch, have no problem drinking directly from water sources. All those little ounces add up. You need to consider your camping gear as part of your whole "photography system". This way there really is justification in spending some $$$ on the newest lightweight backpack gear.

Luckily when it comes to power in the back country there are quite a few options for USB chargers so you can make use of solar charging.