35mm body for landscape work

For landscape work depth of field scales are far handier and more iseful than auto-focus. Pick an brand of manual focus camera that has a good reputation reliability and offers the lenses and other accessories that you will need.

I got the greatest sharpness from the old Olympus OM-1 OM-2 genre of Zuiko lenses, honestly. I had an Olympus OM-2 I used for work as a Real Estate Appraiser. Had it for years. You can't imagine how many times I knocked that camera while measuring buildings, tripping and falling over sprinkler heads, etc. I know a lot of people are mentioning Nikons but I also think thats the expected "professional's" opinion. The Zuiko lenses were top notch and won many awards in their day. Sharper than Canon's FD's and Nikons. And the OM-2 I had looked like it was almost mint when the day finally came to replace it. Even after all the bumps along the way. And you can get a whole OM-2 kit with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and some zooms for less than a "mint" Nikon F1.

Another great camera which nobody's mentioned is the late 70's to mid 80's Konicas with the Hexanon lenses. Those lenses also very top notch. Very sharp. I had one with 3 or 4 lenses when all my buddies had their Nikon and Canon F models. They would snicker at me.. "what's that? Konica? that's a cheap camera, right?" while ribbing me. So... so it is a wee bit less expensive than the Nikon and Canon F's but the lenses are better IMO having shot them. They are about the same weight and they are also very durable. You can get a whole Konica kit for real cheep on eBay and pay to have it CLA'd and re-light sealed at Garry's Camera for $50-75 plus shipping. Not bad.

Anscojohn said:

I think a 35mm is unsuitable for landscape work.

Click to expand...

Assuming that you are not just playing devil's advocate with this statement, consider for a moment that your idea of "landscape work" and others' ideas may be different, as may be your criteria of judgment for photographs, your budget, and your level of technical comfort. To me, it depends on what is desired from the landscape work by the individual. 35mm is just fine for most of what most people will do with landscapes. It is not my favorite for "big, beautiful, classic" landscapes either, but that is a far cry from "unsuitable". I think it gives landscape shooters a lot of benefits that the larger formats do not. Everything is a compromise in some way. Others will compromise differently than you do.

Canon F1n or F1N with a grid screen and include a waist level finder or Speedfinder if you can. Also I would try to include a 50mm macro plus extension tube and if at all possible, a bellows. Of course you can use other glass/bellows with an adapter.

Most anytime I've tried landscapes, I've found a myriad of interesting stuff that calls for the additional close-up gear.

Cheers

2F/2F said:

Assuming that you are not just playing devil's advocate with this statement, consider for a moment that your idea of "landscape work" and others' ideas may be different, as may be your criteria of judgment for photographs, your budget, and your level of technical comfort. To me, it depends on what is desired from the landscape work by the individual. 35mm is just fine for most of what most people will do with landscapes. It is not my favorite for "big, beautiful, classic" landscapes either, but that is a far cry from "unsuitable". I think it gives landscape shooters a lot of benefits that the larger formats do not. Everything is a compromise in some way. Others will compromise differently than you do.

Click to expand...

I agree completely and was just about to type the same. People need to let other people be their own photographer. :rolleyes:

With the tremendous bargains in medium and large format gear these days, 35mm wouldn't be my recommendation for landscape.

The Nikon F5 is a great body, but it's a brick. This I know because I have two of them. My Pentax 645N body weighs the same as an F5 yet produces a negative 2-1/2X larger. Very rugged, reliable, weather-resistant body with sophisticated spot and matrix metering. The exquisitely sharp manual focus SMC-A 35mm f/3.5 lens costs less used than an equivalent-coverage lens in the smaller format (~21mm).

praktica said:

Can anybody recommend a 35mm body for landscape work. It will have to absorb the scrapes and weather but not be too heavy.

Click to expand...

Remember, the less irresistible your object is, the more unmovable the object is strikes is.
For durability, removing mass and weight can easily become a losing proposition.

praktica said:

Can anybody recommend a 35mm body for landscape work. It will have to absorb the scrapes and weather but not be too heavy.

Click to expand...

Most any major system will do; All of them had great bodies and lenses and many duds as well. Watch for the features you need. You may want to consider the weather where you live and if you will be shooting in inclement conditions. A weather proof body might be a thought. Another thing to consider is that most CLA's (cleaning, lubrication and adjustments (think light seals as a normal repair)) for older cameras will cost around a $130 U.S.. Also be minded that certain odd cameras may not have readily available parts for repair, nor people with the experience to do a good job. I speak with experience on the latter. Look at the prices in the lens range your after and compare performance reviews. If your looking to shoot the best glass you'll going to pay just about in any system since everyone knows the good stuff. I would have to say for value/performance/reliability/repairs the Canon FD system by a squeak over the others.

Wayne, could you be speaking of the cultish Pentax LX in your post? Here is a camera that was perhaps once worthy of the devotional status it still enjoys, but that now is something of a crapshoot to buy used for the near-certain problems that have developed over the ensuing years (even sitting in a dark closet, the seals and mirror stops go bad). Any number of parts are no longer available new for it. Even back in it's heyday, parts were proprietary to Pentax, and pretty much by extension so was service and tech specs. (Same will be true for more recent and complex cameras. Nikon F5s aren't something your neighborhood repairman will want to touch, this too from the personal experience of such rejection).

Someone just starting from scratch might have sort through several examples LX bodies to find a good one that's either been serviced and done right or doesn't need any. I went through 4 used ones myself to find a good replacement for my original Pentax LX purchased new back in '86 that survived much abuse for more than a decade without any service whatsoever. Any 20+ year old camera body so well-loved, however, can be expected to have "major issues".

Not just every manufacturer made ultra-small rugged and/or weather-sealed bodies that were intended to be system cameras. Nikon, Minolta, and Canon never did, strangely enough; Pentax, Olympus and Contax did, as mentioned. Most of the truly tiny ones have no sealing (Pentax MX & MEs, OM1s readily come to mind) and their circuits may not survive even one sudden downpour.

But you can't look at camera bodies in a vacuum, one needs to consider the real-world availability of lenses in the focal lengths needed. Canon and Nikon lenses are common enough as to be readily available, even the acclaimed and legendary ones. Now, it seems what everyone always mentions first about the Pentax line is that there's a ton of K-mount glass available. Yes, there is-- magnitudes greater quantities than Contax Zeiss or Oly Zuiko lenses-- but the K-mount was generic to several brands (Chinon, Sears Tower) and much of what is found are aftermarket consumer zooms of mediocre quality. The Pentax A* lenses, SMC-A 100mm and 200mm macros and and the legendary Pentax wide primes (18mm f/3.5 K-mount, 24mm aspheric) are themselves now all cult lenses, originally made in extremely low quantities, rare as narwhal beaks with auction prices to match. Good news is that while these get all the buzz, the garden-variety Pentax SMC-M and SMC-A manual focus prime lenses in the range from 24mm to the normal 50mm are almost without exception stellar performers. These will be the lengths most often used in landscape in 35mm format, so there is no liability to choosing Pentax here.

35mm is not the best for landscape work but if the camera has to be a 35mm then it's the Nikon F5. I found that the F5 is very good when you work slowly and with tripod. Viewfinder options is a plus for landscape work. Many people hate the wheels for camera controls but they work great if you are not in a hurry.

xpan?

praktica said:

Can anybody recommend a 35mm body for landscape work. It will have to absorb the scrapes and weather but not be too heavy.

Click to expand...

The Cosina/Voigtlander Bessa-T with the CV 21mm Color Skopar is what I use for 35mm landscapes.

I have two Bessa T bodies (one for Black and White, one for color). Long rangefinder base, Leica M lens mount, rugged body, inexpensive.

I personally don't find 35mm well suited to landscape work, but I wouldn't preach that as holy writ. To each his/her own. I'm certain that with an approach suited to the strengths of the format a vision can be realized. But I would ask, why 35mm if you are serious about landscape work? For my money, the ability to modify perspective and focal plane, and the negative that can be made with a view camera far outweigh any advantage of a smaller format with a fixed perspective for landscape work. I'd like to know if it is weight, budget, technical trepidation, preference for the familiar, or something else. I'm not poo-pooing, I'm genuinely interested why you personally feel that 35mm is the correct the choice for your goals?

In regard to the original question, I like older Canon stuff with the FD mount. Very solid, with the fantastic SC and especially the SCC lenses for a song, if you shop carefully. For me that would be the big advantage, great lenses for cheap, but again, for me it doesn't outweigh the disadvantage of OOF foregrounds and a fixed perspective that would force my compositions to serve the cameras ability, instead of mine.

Now the first question, are you planning to hike into your destination? If that answer is yes, then I recommend either the Nikon FM series or the single digit Olympus OM series (OM-1 and OM-2n). I did a hike last weekend and as much as I love my Nikon gear, I was super happy to be packing my Olympus OM kit.

For landscape, you really want lightweight, sturdy and reliable body plus great lenses, particularly wide angles. I'd actually recommend a rangefinder, and if you can be happy with manual light measurment, go directly to a Leica M2 - they come cheap these days - make sure it is fully functional and has had a good cla recently. There are some fantastic lenses out there for an M mount rangefinder today - for a landscape starter I would suggest the Zeiss C Biogon 21/4.5 ZM, Biogon 25/2.8 or C Biogon 35/2.8 and Planar 50/2. Price performance wise, these are the best of what you can find in the market and beat any SLR lens in the same fl. If you want to stick to SLR's. there are 2 good routes: Nikon FM3A with Zeiss ZF lenses, or a Leica (Leicaflex SL or Leica 6.2 for example) with Leica lenses - you can find these for a fraction of their cost in the market these days.

Like Jason I don't particularly like 35mm for landscape work but have used Pentax's for over 30 years Spotmatic's and MX's for most of my 35mm landscape work. My other preference is a Leica M3.

Ian

I would go for the Canon F1. One of the earlier models with mirror lock up.

takef586 said:

Leica 6.2 for example) with Leica lenses - you can find these for a fraction of their cost in the market these days.

Click to expand...

This is a serious response, please contact me as to where this may be found.

You know I would really like to see Praktica step up to the plate here and take a part in this discussion if possible. There are alot of good points brought up and a few questions that need to be answered in order for the rest of us to help this person. If internet access is difficult for you please make a response when you can so the rest of us aren't out blowing bubbles in the wind; Not like we don't like to talk camera systems anyways.

Outside that a couple of notes. The Pentax lenses can be dam good, and since the mount was carried thru to the digital cameras there's still a following for the older lenses. A KEH.com search shows just how much the lenses are valued. At those prices, and knowing and researching the bodies, I personally passed and didn't invest in the system anymore then my 2 lenses and a body, but I do love my cheap 50mm F2 M's look. There's some good sites you can Google to find out everything you want to know about them and there's quite a few loyalist who love them.

Secondly, as a 35mm landscape shooter myself for fun, my rangefinder use is not oriented to landscapes. I may shoot it as a traveler but when it comes to object oriented landscapes I personally prefer a SLR with DOF preview, especially when throwing in some macro stuff along the way. Here's where a response to this thread helps to pinpoint your needs.

What lenses do you have now? Start there. Or if you don't have many lenses now, then most any of the German and Japanese old time makes will have several high quality "landscape" lenses for you to use. One can find pro-grade Canons and Nikons and other makes used for a song, and in good condition.

How about one of the very rare Leica M3.14159 snakeskin models?

Clearly the Gold Hassie Supreme would be preferred by any real landscape photographer to the snakeskin Leica But in either case, a smoking jacket is compulsory.

Has anyone thought that the OP may prefer to do landscapes with their time, but does shoot other subject matter as well. I too agree that a 35 mm is not the most useful for landscapes but a 4x5 isn't all that practical for a candid shot of the kids or a day at the races. From my perspective a MF or LF is the cats meow for landscapes but out of my budget. Plus the versatility of a 35 mm system can add to its value. Just my 2 cents.

marsbars said:

Has anyone thought that the OP may prefer to do landscapes with their time, but does shoot other subject matter as well. I too agree that a 35 mm is not the most useful for landscapes but a 4x5 isn't all that practical for a candid shot of the kids or a day at the races. From my perspective a MF or LF is the cats meow for landscapes but out of my budget. Plus the versatility of a 35 mm system can add to its value. Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand...

You could be right, or maybe not. Many of us have asked legitimate questions for clarification, however the OP remains mute.

keithwms said:

Clearly the Gold Hassie Supreme would be preferred by any real landscape photographer to the snakeskin Leica But in either case, a smoking jacket is compulsory.

Click to expand...

Plus pipe & brandy snifter.
For those who might find smoking the pipe objectionable, use a bubble solution.