Reading mode: Light Dark

any pros here using D2x for architecture?

Go to last post
J

james b norman

Senior Member
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
50
Location
Salem, US
i am shopping both the canon 1DsII w/24mm TSE and the nikon D2x w/18-70mm as potential travel cameras for architectural and engineering subject matter for magazine reproduction. i have been a HABS/HAER photogrpaher for the last 20 years.

i have handled both and like both, and both cameras seem to provide the kind of image quality i am after. the nikon seems to give slightly better pictures right out of the camera, but currently have to give the nod to the canon for both ergonomics (it just fits my hands better) and for the much nicer and larger viewfinder. and the canon offers the 24mm shift lens which, while offering me shiftcapablility for architecture, comes along with increased CA and corner softness, which i do not see in my current D100 w/18-70mm (which i bought to learn digital workflow on). plus i havent really noticed doing PC in PS being much of a problem - pretty fast and easy to correct perspective.

i posted a thread on the canon forum requesting info from pros using the 1DsII with the 24mm TSE for architecture, and have gotten a very nice thorough discussion.

i would like to hear from any pros or semi-pros in this forum who currently use the D2x with any lens combo for high-resolution architecture work - how well does this system work for you? are you completely satisfied with image quality and versatility? from your experience, how would you compare this system to the canon 1DsII with the 24 TSE or any other lens combo? thanks.

--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
 
James

I do a fair amount of Architectural work with the D2x I am very pleased with the results. To give you some background on my perspective, I used view cameras for close to 20 years for this type of work and moved over to digital using a Canon 1DS for a couple of years and switched to Nikon about 6 months ago. The Canon was a nice camera but I was never really satisfied with their lenses. Most of their wide lenses arent very sharp. I bought a few Ziess Contax lenses and adapters which made a big difference and I didnt mind manual focus and stop down metering and would probably still be fairly satisfied with that combination today. As far as the Nikon is concerned in my opinion for wide angle the lenses are better. Also there are more mechanical controls on the body for example the mirror lock up is on a dial,the autofocus controls are switches on the camera you can delete faster and you can even format the camera without going through the menus. This may not be important to some but I shoot without glasses and being over 50 cant see very good upclose. Sure I have reading glasses but I hate taking them on and off. As far as image quality goes I think the Canon and Nikon are both excellent.
--
Danny Lee
 
Todd

I have 3 4x5 view cameras and several lenses gathering dust and I am very serious about my work.
--
Danny Lee
 
I have no firsthand knowledge, but I had read that Novoflex makes a T/S that fits Nikon mount. The article was pretty positive about it.
 
my Nikon 28mm PC is on ebay right now. Please take a look if you are interested.

Henry
 
Are you saying you get results that even come close to 4x5 with a D2x? Because that's just a silly statement if so. There is simply no comparison between a D2x and 4x5 film, not to mention 4x5 digital.

I LOVE my D2x, and my D70, and my F100 - but at the end of the day, when it's time to visit the client they want to see uneditied images on a light table. Maybe that's not the case with whatever you shoot, but in the high end architectural photography business that's the way it is. Then again, maybe not in other areas outside of Orange County... but with multiple Golden Nugget awards and countless MAME and SAM awards the work speaks for itself. Taking work seriously is great, but that has nothing to do with the quality difference between the two formats.

The PC control lenses out there are junk, and don't even really work with 1.5 crop sensors that well.

Once again, ANY serious architectural work is done with a 4x5 camera (digital or film it's still large format)

Which cameras do you have sitting around? All our stuff is done on 20 year old Cambo gear and it SMOKES what the D2x can produce. Not bad for a $600 setup.

As far as I know all the big names are still shooting 4x5... Eric Figge, Lance Gordon, Jeffrey Aron, Jeff Smith...

Do you have any work posted that we can see?
 
todd - i think danny and i would both easily agree that there is simply no comparison in image quality between any DSLR and a 4x5. the problem is that times are changing, and most clients are no longer interested in paying the premium for true 4x5 work. my HABS/HAER work was executed and processed to the required standards of the library of congress, and was priced accordingly. the clients were largely state and federal agencies. architects these days alll seem to thin they are also photographers (and frankly some of them are pretty darn good), but they often do not care about, or need the extreme precision that 4x5 can deliver. they need images for websites and for presentations, and both these demands can be met by top end DSLRs, if processed properly. you are perhaps lucky to still have clientel that request LF quality work, but in the smaller markets, we have to always watch our backs and be cut-throat competitive to make a decent living. yes, it has taken me a number of years to get to the point where i felt ANY digital format was worth 10 or more times the money that i have invested in my 4x5 system (also a 25-year old cambo that i dearly love like a best friend - we have fallen into rivers together and slid down cliff faces, and i know that camera will last longer than i do). but my busniess is changing, and most of the work these days is for publication, not poster-sized presentation prints or archival documentary work (which has been my bread and butter for a long time). these new top end DSLRs are quite handy formats for publication work, especially when extensive travel is required, and time restraints push you to produce a 100 or more shots in a day of multiple subjiects. thanks for your thoughts - you and danny and i sound like we have all shared some similar experiences in this field. i love shooting architecture - as a young man learning photography, i struggled a long time shooting everything from nudes to kitties searching for some purpose to the photography i loved doing. architecture finally gave a true focus to my career and to my passion for this kind of work. take care.
--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
 
I shoot for the Columbia Home and Jefferson City Home Magazines here in Missouri.

I use a D2X wit a 17-55, they are not too picky with Vertical Corrections, they just want good looking images of buildings and Interiors!!

I shoot both Canon and Nikon!!

I don't have a 1DsMKII because the Corners Problem.

I can do great work witht the D2X!

On the ergonimics thing, you just have to get used to it.

If you liket h Canon, stick to it, but if I had a choice in Canons, I would go with the newest version of the 1DMKIIn, or whatever they call the thing, with the Cropped factore you will not have the FF, but you will not have the Soft Corners or Vignetiing!!

I make do with what I have right now, the D2X, and I make it work for the magazine.

I have even used the 10.5mm in Interiors and Corercted with Capture.

have fun shooting.

Y
 
Have you tried your D2X on the back of your Sinar??

I have, and I was quite pleased with the results!!

Calumet sells a nice cambo dedicated to 35 DSLR's

Y
Todd Avery said:
It's not resolution or color or even distortion. It's format. 35mm
format is not ideal for MOST architectural shots.

I have used the D2x for quick shots, but large format is the way to
go.

You can find used cambo or sinar setups for much less and get much
better results.

my bosses website
http://www.lancegordonphotography.com
Click to expand...
 
You are right.

Serious Architectural guys, have to use View!!

My clients here do no require it, otherwise, I would have never sold mine, I don't have any demand for it, so I sold it!!

Y
Todd Avery said:
Are you saying you get results that even come close to 4x5 with a
D2x? Because that's just a silly statement if so. There is simply
no comparison between a D2x and 4x5 film, not to mention 4x5
digital.

I LOVE my D2x, and my D70, and my F100 - but at the end of the day,
when it's time to visit the client they want to see uneditied
images on a light table. Maybe that's not the case with whatever
you shoot, but in the high end architectural photography business
that's the way it is. Then again, maybe not in other areas outside
of Orange County... but with multiple Golden Nugget awards and
countless MAME and SAM awards the work speaks for itself. Taking
work seriously is great, but that has nothing to do with the
quality difference between the two formats.

The PC control lenses out there are junk, and don't even really
work with 1.5 crop sensors that well.

Once again, ANY serious architectural work is done with a 4x5
camera (digital or film it's still large format)

Which cameras do you have sitting around? All our stuff is done on
20 year old Cambo gear and it SMOKES what the D2x can produce. Not
bad for a $600 setup.

As far as I know all the big names are still shooting 4x5... Eric
Figge, Lance Gordon, Jeffrey Aron, Jeff Smith...

Do you have any work posted that we can see?
Click to expand...
 
I have not shot architecture except for my father in law... A friend of mine was just hired as the art director of an archictecture magazine, and she asked me if I wanted to try. It is a challenge for me. Could you tell me which lenses you use for this kind of work? Thanks in advance, Pepe
 
This is a very interesting thread for me, as a professional architectural photographer for the last sixteen years. Most of that time I have shot 4X5 ( trusty Cambo) as there was nothing close quality wise, especially the corrected lenses. I have been published on three continents, helped clients win many awards (Golden Nugget, AIA, etc), shot residential, commercial, hospitality- you name it.

During the last two years I have shot 4X5 only once, instead using a D100, now a sneered at camera. I have made enlargements up to 20 X 30 that rival medium format with this camera.

While 4X5 is still king (how could it not be?), for most purposes many clients recognize the quality leaps in the digital format and regard 4X5 as a rather expensive overkill. In the film days it was necessary perhaps, along with the medium format, to get the resolution for professional work. Unless you are making giant blowups you don't need it.

Nikon's 12-24 and 17-35 have been my staple lenses and they are both totally brilliant. The only problem is slight barrel distortion at their extreme wide end, but this can be fixed in PS, along with parallax correction- another thing 35mm film couldn't do in the pre digital age. PC correcting lenses are OK but limited.

Any of the top DLSRs are much more than adequate for 98% of the work I do and a heck of a lot more efficient in the field. In fact I have been able to get shots in adverse conditions that I couldn't have dreamed of with a big old 4X5.

Naturally I would love a digital 4X5 setup but the cost is prohibitive. Occasionally I have shot 4X5 film, scanned it and then digitally corrected or enhanced, but that is three workloads instead of one.

I am looking forward to trying the D200. For me the crop factor os a definite advantage for lack of edge softness and corner light fall off, and we move on with the times. I dropped in on my old pro lab the other day, and nearly all their pro shooters are now shooting digital and they have had to chande the structure of their business accordingly.
Hope this helps :)
 
20X30's? Seriously? I'm in line for the D200...my first foray into digital, and I was worried about 13X19's! I will probably never have a need for 20X30's but hey if you can get them from a D100 then I'm feeling even better about the D200. I presume you're working from RAW?

Thanks,
MK
 
I use primarily my Sigma 12-24 for architecture, but am not sure can I make it with D200 or S3 (because of dx), currently still using F100 + Coolscan 4000ED to get 123 degrees FOV when needed (e.g. some tight interiors or facades). So I might be forced to buy the 10-20 Sigma too for DX use and keep the 12-24 on my F100 (as it will probably be with both of my PC Nikkors too).
david70 said:
I am an architect, do not have the D2X but have found the need to
take architectural shots with my D70. I use the Nikon 35mm shift
lens, but with the cropping factor, it is useless in many
situations with digital. This site I found below is interesting
however. Not sure about the quality though.
Click to expand...
--
Osku
(architect, SAFA, UIA)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top