landscape photography with m240

[billo101]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Typ 240 and 21SEM is great combo for landascape photografy.

 

b

[Echo63]

Im not a "landscape photographer" as such, but i have recently done a few landscape type pictures with my M240

 

Work issued me a pair of 1DX, and f2.8 lenses covering 14mm to 200mm (with access to lenses up to 600mm)

I dont carry it far at all, its too heavy.

 

By comparison my M240 and 50 summarit is incredibly easy to carry, even with my big heavy slik tripod, i can walk a few kilometres, recently i have been grabbing the camera, tripod and wandering off into the bush to see where a track goes, or following a stream, wandering down the beach at sunset, just to see if i can find a picture, i have started a "personal project" of trying to find nice landscape photos, within an hours drive of the CBD.

 

I intend to get a lighter tripod, a set of ND/Polariser/NDgrad filters and a decent pack to carry it soon, and then a 28 and 90mm next year

 

The advantage of the SLR is - more accurate framing, zoom lenses, and a whole bunch of automation, lens selections from 14mm-1200mm+ (but good luck carrying them all)

Its heavy though.

The Ms advantage is light weight, compact size, needs a smaller tripod,

Cons are - difficult to use filters (unless using live view) limited selection of lenses (16mm-135mm from leica - voigtlander do a 12 and 15mm)

Edited August 13, 2014 by Echo63

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

I would dispute the idea that a smaller lighter camera needs a smaller lighter tripod. A heavy camera on a small tripod tensions the tripod and settles it into the ground. A small camera on a light tripod can't do that, the tripod and camera float on a grass surface, they move in the wind, they vibrate. So a tiny lightweight tripod is a nice idea in theory, but there is no substitute for a tripod a weight heavier than you think will be necessary and the place to put the weight is in the legs even if you compensate with a relatively light, but well made, head.

 

 

Steve

[Echo63]

I would dispute the idea that a smaller lighter camera needs a smaller lighter tripod. A heavy camera on a small tripod tensions the tripod and settles it into the ground. A small camera on a light tripod can't do that, the tripod and camera float on a grass surface, they move in the wind, they vibrate. So a tiny lightweight tripod is a nice idea in theory, but there is no substitute for a tripod a weight heavier than you think will be necessary and the place to put the weight is in the legs even if you compensate with a relatively light, but well made, head.

 

 

Steve

I do agree to a point, but you no longer need a massively heavy tripod (like my aluminium slik, which is 3.2 kg, and marginal for an pro SLR/70-200 in the 1/10th - 2sec range without proper technique) something in the 1-1.5kg range would work just as well, and be much kinder on the body carrying it any distance.

 

hanging your camera bag from the centre column helps stability too, and its weight you are already carrying. 2kg of Camera bag is going to help more than an extra kg of tripod, and can be stuff you find useful too (spare lenses, water etc that you are already carrying)

 

i have found a camera that is too heavy for the tripod, causes it to resonate much longer too, as there isn't enough stiffness to damp it effectively (which is why i still take my SLIK everywhere, and ignore the work issued 1.8kg Manfrotto 190, the Slik tubes are much bigger diameter and stiffer)

 

(attached is a pic of my Slik Pro700DX legs, Manfrotto ballhead and M240)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 14, 2014 by Echo63

[MarkP]

[quote name=Echo63;2757880

hanging your camera bag from the centre column helps stability too' date=' and its weight you are already carrying.[/quote]

 

+1

[250swb]

If your aluminium tripod resonates it's time to change to carbon.

 

Steve

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an old Gitzo 1548 for absolute stability fitted with an RRS 55 head - solid as can be but far too heavy! The M9 works well on it as you might imagine but in reality its overkill left over from days of heavy dSLRs which I now avoid.

 

For practical use I have a Gitzo 1228 with an Arca FC-60 which is carriable and sufficiently stable for many situations.

 

Tripods are a balance between desired weight and usable weight IMO - more weight will increase stability but reduces carriability.....

 

But back to the OP. Most high end cameras will produce 'good' landscapes technically these days, if you use them properly. A Leica rangefinder has attributes which can be useful to the landscape photographer BUT is not to everyone's taste, really. If you are asking the question then you need to try both somehow if you can. I use my M9 as a landscape camera and have some images from it which I like - technically they are fine too - but I think that its because I like using it which helps my photography......

[skinnfell]

It could be a great choice, or a terrible choice, depending on your style of photography,and how dependent you are on automatic functions. Not necessarily because of the subject matter.

 

For landscapes I would generally say that M is a good choice. Leica has all the wide angle focal lengths covered, and all of them are really, really good. The way I think of landscapes involves a good bit of trekking, so having a small and light gear will let you carry a much smaller tripod which in turn will make your back and shoulders thank you every day.

 

"City" can mean many things. For reportage-style street photography; snapshots of life and times in the city, then I will argue there is nothing better than an M. For more architecture-related photography, it *could* be fantastic, again because of the supreme lenses. But you will probably have to rely heavily on live view and post processing. And there is no tilt-shift lens. (Yet!).

 

Portraiture, get yourself a Apo-Summicron 90mm 2.0 ASPH and rest assured there is no better lens in the world. Or do "natural environment" shoots with a 50 or 35.

 

Basically. Can you work with an all manual rangefinder? That is the question.

[Echo63]

If your aluminium tripod resonates it's time to change to carbon.

 

Steve

 

Its on the list of things to buy, along with NDs, Polariser, ND Grads, and an Fstop Loka pack to carry it all in.

 

I am actually going to end up with two tripods, a small travel tripod, and "overkill" a big RRS that will properly support anything up to a 800mm

[erl]

I don't (yet) have a an M240 but I still take reasonable (?) lansscapes. My very first image as a photographer(?) was a landscape. it was a reflection of Mt Oberon at Wilson's Promontory in Tidal River at a bend. My sister was standing ankle deep in the dead calm waters. I was entranced by the beauty of the overall image.

 

I was 13years old.

The camera was a Box Brownie.

The local pharmacist made a mess of the film developing.

The resulting print was terrible, but the image survived.

My career was born.

I resolved to trust no one again with my images.

My best landscape only needed a Box Brownie!

 

I still want an M240, and an MM.

[honcho]

I have used many types of cameras over many years for my landscape work. Unless you are using a specific camera and format for a specific end result, then most cameras are going to be a compromise in some way. None will be perfect as a do-it-all choice and this applies to Leicas as much as any other.

 

The M240 has the benefit of live view and is the first rangefinder camera that can employ graduated nd and nd filters reasonably easily without multiple test images to get the graduation placement correct, so it is arguably the first rangefinder camera that is better suited to general landscape photography than any other film or digital rangefinder, assuming that the camera operator is a photographer and works to a regime that is based on creating the image in-camera, as I do myself, and not by blending exposures, elements of the image and/or points of focus in post processing.

 

There is nothing wrong in taking the 'graphic designer' route by building and finishing the image in post processing either. It is simply a matter of choice based on personal skills, aspirations and preference. Like everything else, it just needs to be done well.

 

Any camera is just a camera until it is used skillfully to create a worthwhile image or to acquire the base material for one. You don't need to look any further than the member galleries on this forum to see why.

[jmahto]

This is my solution to monopod while hiking. Just strap a light table tripod to my trusty hiking stick.

 

Picture shows 80-200 vario-elmar with NEX6. I have been to 1/15 sec (@200mm) consistently with this setup. With M9 and wide angles you can go down to much slower speeds.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[atournas]

After some courses i will invest in equipment for landscape-, city- and portrait-photography.

Is top DSLR for landscape to be preferred over M240?

Please advise.

Philip

 

My comments come after a long page of wiser ones, so I'll focus on landscape and being laconic. A landscape shot must allow the eye to wander and that calls for large prints and medium format. Technically, 24MB are enough, but that alone isn't enough.

 

Paul

[honcho]

........ A landscape shot must allow the eye to wander and that calls for large prints and medium format. Technically, 24MB are enough, but that alone isn't enough.

 

Paul

 

I couldn't disagree with you more.

[250swb]

My comments come after a long page of wiser ones, so I'll focus on landscape and being laconic. A landscape shot must allow the eye to wander and that calls for large prints and medium format. Technically, 24MB are enough, but that alone isn't enough.

 

Paul

 

The current trend for large prints, you know the 'how large can I print?' type of thing, is largely led by the simple ability of keen amateurs to own an A3+ printer or cheaply farm out anything bigger.

 

It wasn't always so, amateurs were often constrained by what they could afford because labs charged a vast amount of money for large colour print. And the same went for B&W, not many people had the facilities to do large prints and outsourcing them came at a price. So you'd think that after all this time printing large was indeed the natural thing to do, something photographers have needed for so many years.

 

And yet, this theory overlooks the simple fact that all those photographers who did have the money and facilities to print very large pictures in their darkrooms,.... didn't. A 16x20" was a common Ansel Adams print size, and along with his contemporaries and later photographers it would be an exception to find very large prints. Today Peter Kenna, one of the highest priced landscape photographers at the moment, only prints to 8x8" or thereabouts. This is because the skill of the landscape photographer has traditionally been less to do with re-creating the landscape, printing it mural sized on a wall so you feel you are there, than in revealing something about the landscape. And smaller pictures do two things, they allow the eye to scan the image from a normal viewing distance, and then draw the viewer in to cement the intimate communication between the photographer and viewer.

 

Another Adams, Robert, and his tract house series around Denver shown very large (say in a slide show) become about the mountains and the vast landscape, the eye passes over the new building plots and goes straight to the majesty of The Rockies, almost like 'darn it, if only the photographer could have got closer and cut out those foundations'. But seen at a human scale, a 16x16" print allows the eye to see the balance of the image, it allows people to think 'this photograph isn't just about the mountains is it?'. The inspection of the image becomes more intense despite the constituent detail being smaller.

 

So you'll guess by now I don't buy into this large print fashion at all, it is an illusion because it allows many photographers to feel their image is awe inspiring not because of it's content but because of it's size. Printing large has become a decorative format for the vast majority of amateurs, few have an intellectual basis for what they are doing, other than filling a space on the wall, and encouraging it simply fuels the race for ever more pixels and a misguided idea of what image quality really means.

 

Steve

Edited August 15, 2014 by 250swb

[jaapv]

[.....]other than filling a space on the wal[.....]

 

I wish I had space on my wall:rolleyes:

 

Nevertheless, I aree with you post.

[erl]

Steve, I understand and accept what you believe about 'large' prints, but I don't subscribe to it unequivocally. The first print I ever saw on a large scale was an Ansell Adams print. It was of some boulders apparently rolled from a mountain down to the tripod. It was a huge print, as well as a great image. It was precisely then that I said, 'if that is what photography can do, I'm in!

 

I have always enjoyed making big prints, the largest I have made and processed myself was approx 15' on the long edge. It was a seascape and IMO demanded that scale to convey what I felt when looking at the scene.

 

16"x20" was always a common size for many of my images (darkroom days). These days, A2 is a common norm for me. I considered exhibition images smaller than that to be a compromise. As for how other photographers use or think about size I am not influenced. Anything to hang on a wall must, IMO, be of sufficient size to allow viewing from a comfortable distance, as distinct from 'normal' distance (I don't know what that is really). Maybe 'normal' could be a distance influenced by the limitations of a room's size, which of course is sensible.

Edited August 16, 2014 by erl

[01af]

Is top DSLR for landscape to be preferred over M (Typ 240)?

Yes, definitely—provided you prefer working with a DSLR over working with a rangefinder camera. Otherwise, not.

[Likaleica]

Today Peter Kenna, one of the highest priced landscape photographers at the moment, only prints to 8x8" or thereabouts.

 

I think you meant Michael Kenna. His work is extraordinary. I just met him recently. Nice chap. I believe he's from near your neck of the woods.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

... A 16x20" was a common Ansel Adams print size...

 

….Today Peter Kenna, one of the highest priced landscape photographers at the moment, only prints to 8x8" or thereabouts

 

True regarding Ansel. He made about a dozen 30x40 inch "Moonrise" prints (called "mural size" at the time), typically for corporate clients like Polaroid.

 

I assume you mean Michael Kenna. He prints in editions, with lower edition numbers not very expensive (by modern standards). He prints in such high volume that only certain images, now out of print, command prices around $10k in the secondary market*, compared to several hundred thousand dollars for many large Ansel prints (not surprisingly, auction buyers these days like the big Ansel prints….not that many years ago they could have been bought for about a tenth of the price).

 

I agree, though, with the essence of your post.

 

[*I have one for sale now.]

 

Jeff

 

I see Tim beat me to the Kenna comment.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Jeff S