Landscape Photography Kit Suggestion

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

<br />I have been using Nikon D200 almost 2-3 years. And sold around year before to upgrade the kit. I was thinking to go with Canon.<br>

<br />Now coming to the point. I wanted to start landscape and creative photography to start business (selling prints .. I know it's bit hard....). At the moment I do not have any body or lenses. Before launch of NIKON D800 I was thinking of buying CANON 5d Mark ll to get higher megapixel in case of bigger prints...<br>

Now As Nikon have higher Megapixels (which would help to get bigger prints if I would do some nice clicks ... ;)), what you guys suggest to go with... NIKON or CANON. (My budget is up to 5d Mark lll or Nikon D800/800E ).<br>

<br />What you think which is the best for landscapes. Also suggest me some nice lenses with body..</p>

<p>I would appreciate your suggestions and expert advise.<br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<p>Actually you would be better off IMHO with a medium format camera since you want to sell your prints. I tend to agree with Ken Rockwell on this point, that medium format prints easily beat the megapixels from most DSLRs...and they are a lot less expensive.</p>

<p>The medium format suggestion makes little or no sense for a person who appears to be a new photographer and hopes to start business selling landscape prints. (Hard to imagine many more difficult ways to go... ;-)</p>

<p>Yes, MF digital produces really fine image quality. If you can afford it. And if you can work with a more limited range of focal lengths. And so forth. However, FF DSLRs used well can produce quite fine and quite large prints. and if you were thinking of MF film, well here the DSLR can match the resolution of the MF film systems.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Probably any camera is a pretty good start.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What you think which is the best for landscapes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If your budget allows :-</p>

<p>Start with a D800 paired with the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 excellent landscape lens and takes filters unlike the 14-24mm.</p>

<p>Compared to the Nikon / Canon question there are other much more significant questions. Biggest is '<em>are you any good at taking landscape photos?</em>' If you are good at landscapes then you should be able to start selling shots from almost any half-decent camera to clients who do not necessarily want to hang the prints on walls but for use in publishing, advertising and other less critical areas. As an amateur with no exposure except Photo.net I have been asked for publishing rights for several phots. These were taken with a 6Mp Canon 300D (Rebel). The money is fairly insignificant but enought to give an idea of what sells. Anyway, put yourself and your work about and see what happens. Good luck!</p>

<p>Colin makes an excellent point.<br>

Another similar consideration...I have a 40x60 cm (~A2 page) print of a 6MP Nikon D50. From a normal viewing distance, it's fine. Similar size macro photo from a D80, 10MP - no issue even looking close. Yes, you need megapixels to print large, but you may need less than you'd think. The thing to consider (in my view) is how you expect people to look at your large print - the longer the distance from which they view, the less important those megapixels become. Instead, looking at a print up close, you need the resolution.</p>

<p>How much is your total budget? In my experience, there is not a single lens for landscape... Many people tend to advice wide-angle lenses, but I find most of my landscapes which I regard somewhat OK are more in between 35mm and 135mm (on 35mm film), yet also needing wide angle, and sometimes reaching for more tele. So, how much money in total can you spend on lenses?<br>

And for what it's worth, for landscape I would not spend extra money to get a f/2.8 lens, as most landscapes are shot at f/5.6-f/11. The f/2.8 lenses have hardly any advantage for this work, and both brands have fine f/4 lenses that are cheaper, lighter and smaller (which is useful if you have to carry your gear ;-)</p>

<p>Getting the real benefit out of all those megapixels also requires really solid support. Is your tripod up for the job?<br>

Choosing between Canon and Nikon, did you ever use a Canon? Do you like their ergonomics, and did you like how your D200 felt in your hand? Megapixels can't be the only consideration here, you have to work with this camera, so you better like using it too. Try both cameras in a store and see how they handle for you.<br>

<em>(and last note: for landscapes, I would get a D800E rather than a D800)</em></p>

<p>Chintak, Galen Rowell once said in a self effacing way that the difference between a professional and an amateur was that the pro had taken more bad pictures. With digital there are more opportunities to succeed. The advantage for photographers these days is that they don't have to be tied to film costs. You can buy a nice digital camera for under $1000 that gets you 16 or 17 MP and the new Nikon 3200 is supposed to produce 24 MP? The 36 MP Nikon D800 has been described as a game changer by professionals and I am sure that the Canon cameras that I have no familiarity with are very close if not as good. I am still trying to get over how good my 12 MP D3S is. Ken Rockwell I am sure said at one time that medium format film, that is initially cheaper than digital, was better than digital but that was 6 or 7 years ago. We all for the most part believed that medium format film was better back then. That notion probably does not hold up as well as it used to. As was mentioned earlier it is more than just megapixels. I am sure that Canon will be leap frogging over Nikon in some way or another in the next several years but for now the Nikon D800 has the best dynamic range and color depth going for landscapes and that would probably be the best solution. I am headed that way myself and will be purchasing the D800E next month. Good hunting. Andy</p>

"However, FF DSLRs used well can produce quite fine and quite large prints. and if you were thinking of MF film, well

here the DSLR can match the resolution of the MF film systems."

 

Small format digicams may come close to matching MF film resolution, but dynamic range of (I've heard that's important

for landscape) is still in the dark ages. If one is going to start a business in landscape photography, learning how to take

photos by chimping off the back of the latest Nikon or Canon might not be the most promising start.

From what I read, the Nikon D800 has a very slight edge in resolution of the Canon 5D Mark III and (in my

opinion) a better buy.Having said that, you need very sharp lenses and the best technique to achieve the

top results of either camera. If I were choosing now I would go with the Canon simply because I have some

excellent lenses. Starting out, I would probably choose the Nikon because it is a better buy. But, spending

that much money I would thoroughly check them out in a store and choose which I like best.

 

Consider the system and availability of lenses, not just the body.

 

Ultimately whichever one you choose is an extremely capable body and probably for 99.9% of

photographers are limited by their own technique and ability, not the camera.

<p>Deardorff camera's I heard are the best of the best for landscape. At least according to Clyde Butcher. He prints up to 5ft x 9ft on fiber based paper in B/W. </p>

<p>For the record, anyone citing that blogger whose initials are KR as a source of authoritative photographic advice has lowered their own credibility to near zero by doing so.</p>

<p>Oh dear, I rather enjoy KR: my credibility has slumped.</p>

<p>Chintak, in all honesty, I'm always very dubious of any post that starts off "I'm golng to start a business, what camera should I buy." If you're an experienced landscape photographer, there are certain cameras that might make the job easier, especially to make larger prints. But the quality of the photos is determined far more by the photographer than the camera. Whether it's landscapes or weddings, if the "start a business" part of the question has to be followed by "what camera should I buy," you're not ready to start a business.</p>

<p>Robin, your credibility has only slipped <em>a little</em> as long as you enjoy him on the basis of humor. ;-)</p>

<p>Craig, pretty much my sentiments as well, especially when it comes to a "landscape photography business."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know it's bit hard</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No kidding. Don't quit you day job (I'm not being personal here). I have to agree with the others. My advice is to forget the business part until you have mastered whatever camera system you decide to get.</p>

<p>If I were to recommend a camera system for a landscape photographer hoping to make big, beautiful prints it would be the following:<br /> Nikon D800E<br /> PC-E Nikkor lenses: 24mm, 45mm, 85mm (I carry the old 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor too)<br /> AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR<br /> One could add lenses to that basic set, but this covers the bases incredibly well. You can both control plane of focus and create 72MP images by shift-stitching with the PC-E Nikkors or pan-stitching with the 70-300. It all fits in a small, lightweight photo backpack, and is in essence more powerful than a full 4x5 field camera outfit.<br /> Just trust me on this one.<br /> Best,<br /> Justin Black<br /><br /><br /><img src="webkit-fake-url://5B101893-D7F1-4E64-8F2A-B082749C5103/image.tiff" alt="" /></p>

The issue is, if you can afford a D800 but can't also afford some very expensive lenses to go with it you're not getting

much advantage from the D800. How about a D7000 or D700 and a couple good lenses? The Tokina 16-28 is great

on full frame, or in DX there are more good wide zooms than I have time to list right now.

<p>You're right, Andy. It helps to be honest with oneself about one's actual needs, since the number of photographers out there who truly need massive resolution is relatively small. The D800/D800E is designed for pros whose clients need or appreciate high resolution, or for amateurs who want to make large fine prints. For folks printing at more typical sizes (say, 16x20 or smaller), a D700 or D7000 will work wonderfully well. A couple years ago, I had two landscape images from my D700 printed at 32"x48" (339% enlargement @ 300ppi) for an exhibit at the U.S. Capitol. The results were noticeably better than 32"x48" prints I've had made from drum scans of 35mm Velvia, and from a normal viewing distance of a few feet, the quality was really good.<br>

If the same print had come from a D800, you'd be able to get right up to the print to appreciate the fine detail because the degree of enlargement would be 196% rather than 339% (or you could make a seven-foot-long print at 339% enlargement). If the image were a 72MP D800 shift-stitch, you could make a 7x10 foot print at 339% enlargement, or a 24"x36" print at 300ppi without enlarging the file at all.</p>

<p>The D7000, by the way, is a superb little camera that I highly recommend to enthusiast photographers in need of a single affordable body that does just about everything well.</p>

<p>I've sold a few landscape prints (and digital images) but I haven't quit my day job yet.<br /> I think any modern camera body would get your foot in the door. If you start doing a lot of business then you can look into bigger/better setups.<br /> I shoot Pentax because I used to shoot Pentax film gear and had some lenses left over from that era that I wanted to use to save some money. So since they don't have a FF option I'm shooting with an APS-C sized sensor which has been adequate for me. Dynamic range of the newer cameras is better than the FF cameras of just a couple of years ago and the cost is much lower. For landscapes I don't usually use a shallow DOF so that FF advantage really isn't one for that reason.<br /> Also consider how you get to your shooting site and how much you want to carry. Another reason I like Pentax is the relative size and weight isn't too much to carry the camera and a few lenses a long way on foot, by bike, or on skis which is what I need to do to get the shots I want. That's another important factor as is the quality, size, and weight of the lenses. This is another reason I like Pentax. They have some very nice small primes that suit my needs very well and produce images I and my clients like.<br /> All the big players make some high quality gear. I think what you need to do is decide what traits are most important to you and then see which systems have those qualities.<br /> One day I hope I'm successful enough to warrant getting a MF digital system but for now I'm pretty happy with what I've got.</p>

<p>You decide first which lenses you need, than on the camera that goes with them. The TS-E 17 mm tilt shift may be a reason to go with Canon.</p>

Hey Guys,

 

Thanks millions for your kind respond. It was really great value to me

And helped lot to me.

 

Hope will get desired camera.

 

Thx again

 

Cheers:)

<p>If you go with Canon, go all the way and get the 5D MkIII instead of the MkII. The handling of moire is much improved and the AF system is light years better. High-ISO performance is only slightly improved.</p>

<p>Why not go with the Nikon D800? I shoot Canon, but changing systems seldom makes sense. The D800 gets rave reviews and you've already got some investment in Nikon lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If you go with Canon, go all the way and get the 5D MkIII instead of the MkII. The handling of moire is much improved and the AF system is light years better. High-ISO performance is only slightly improved."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 5D3 is an improved camera compared to the 5D2, but for typical landscape photography specifically the differences are not worth the extra cost.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Get a full X-Pan kit. Nothing else comes close. A major investment!</p>