Best DSLR for large prints - Landscapes

<p>I've seen a similar question asked but want to ask it in a slightly different way! I am interested in printing poster-sized 24x36 (or even larger 32x48) landscapes pictures. I am assuming I want a camera with great focusing ability as well as lots of pixel resolution. I have been considering the D300, the D700 and the Canon 5D Mark II. Of course I'd rather spend less (the D300), but I am assuming for large sized prints a full sensor makes more sense--or does it? While the D700's full sensor provides 12 MP, the Canon's full sensor is 21 MP so it would seem to be the more logical choice, however I'm a Nikon fan. Am I just being brand loyal and silly? I have also read comparison reviews and get the feeling that Nikon makes a better product. What do you think is the best choice between the two or even 3(the D300) for large print landscape photography--which camera is likely to provide the crispest results when enlarged? <br>

Also, if you suggest a camera preference, what lens would you suggest for such work, I know good glass makes all the difference. I'd like to be able to use a zoom somewhere in the neighborhood of 16mm to 85mm. Any hyperlinks to furthering my education is much appreciated! Thank you in advance for your knowledge and time taken to respond!</p>

<p>I'd shoot large format film for prints that large. Or you could stitch together multiple images.</p>

I would choose 5D II with 16-35 mm II lens and a good tripod. Sandy

<p>You talk about "spending less", but if you plan to print that big, not only do you need to spend on the body, but you better have plenty in your budget to buy quality lenses that will allow you to create files good enough to print that large too. A set of two, a wide to normal and tele zoom, will probably cost close to, if not as much as the body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am interested in printing poster-sized 24x36 (or even larger 32x48) landscapes pictures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For highly detailed landscape, neither Nikon nor Canon yet makes a DSLR that qualifies. Learn better technique with your current digital equipment - stitching specifically. A stitch using a $90 digicam, a tripod and some software will get you better results on some images than single shots from a $7k DSLR.</p>

<p>Film also still has an edge here. If you want to spend money, start with at least a Nikon 900 scanner and a 6x9 MF camera.</p>

<p>At 32x enlargements, neither is a good choice, you're really looking at medium format digital or better to get "crispy" prints that large. A 32x48 print is a 60mpixel image for 200 ppi on the print.</p>

<p>Medium format digital or large format film is a better way to go for really large prints. Also, don't forget to allocate a good chunk of your budget for a good tripod and head, no matter which camera or format you choose.</p>

 

You can stitch images taken by 5DII. Consider getting a panorama head for your tripod. Photoshop without panorama head

does a pretty good job but use of panorama head and photoshop together is better. Also you should use remote shutter

release or mirror lock up to avoid softness due to vibrations in the camera. I am afraid that to get real top quality image the

size you want is going to need significant investment in equipment. You can get away cheap with satisfactory image

quality. Sandy

<p>I think the new Sony A850 with Zeiss 24-70 2,8 will give you the best image quality for landscape at a somewhat reasonable price level. Since you like Nikon, an alternative is to wait for the budget version of Nikon D3X which are expecting any time soon.</p>

<p><em>I am assuming I want a camera with great focusing ability</em></p>

<p>I would not assume that. Of course, if you are at the level of assuming such things, you may well be much better off buying an inexpensive camera, practicing, and learning more. Focusing ability appears to be not too relevant. Presumably you will be using mostly wider-angle lenses, and stopping down a fair bit, which will give a lot of depth of field. So maximally-accurate focusing would not seem necessary. Also, you may well be better off focusing manually.</p>

<p><em>as well as lots of pixel resolution. I have been considering the D300, the D700</em></p>

<p>Well the D300 and D700 are at the lower-end of resolution (12 MP) for the better cameras. This is an area where Nikon is lagging, with your only top-resolution (24 MP) Nikon option being the very expensive ($8000) D3x. For $700 less than a D700, and only $200 more than a D300s, you can get a 24 MP, full-frame Sony A850 ($2000). Insofar are you'd "rather spend less", this seems like a much better alternative. Of course, the Canon 5D Mk. II ($2700) would also appear to be a much better option than either Nikon, albeit at somewhat more cost and somewhat less resolution than the Sony.</p>

<p>For prints as large as 32 x 48 or even 24x36 (inches, I take it?) of landscapes, even the 24 MP Sony (and the 24 MP Nikon D3x) might well show inferiority to a well-drum-scanned image taken with a 4x5 (inch, large format film) camera. Certainly the 4x5 can capture more fine detail. (Stitching may or may not work well, depending on the subject and other factors.) On the other hand, I suspect the 24 MP cameras (Sony, Nikon, and yes, the 21 MP Canons) will look pretty good at anything like normal viewing distances for such large prints.</p>

 

<p >I really appreciate all the great feedback. It takes time to compose a response and it is very much appreciated that each of you took the time to write, thank you!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Yes, I figured that digital SLRs were not up to this task as compared to medium format digital or film, but being comfortable with an SLR, I wanted to see what my options are at this point. While I like Nikon, it does seem that for now they don’t have what I need without spending a boatload of money. On the other hand, of the Canon 5D reviews I’ve read, reviewers seem dubious of it’s older focusing system and other quality control issues—for $2500 I would think I ought to be able to expect a fairly fault-free camera, but alas, what do I know! If it isn’t already obvious, you’re communicating with someone who doesn’t have a Lexus budget—more like a Ford! But I do realize that there’s a price to pay for higher quality results.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Sony A850 does look appealing, the reviews I’ve read so far seem quite positive. (So maybe I should be thinking Honda now as a compromise, okay, enough with the car comparisons)! I hadn’t thought about a Sony before—in the world of cameras, is it a good choice in terms of reputation, product support, etc…? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It would seem a Zeiss 24-70 makes sense for the A850—it’s hard to take spending the same amount as the camera, but I realize there’s not a lot of logic in buying a high-powered camera only to put something less than excellent on it. Imaging Resource mentioned that along with the debut of the A850 Sony announced a new 28-75 f2.8 lens for around $800, but I haven’t found a real review on it yet. Therein lies my dilemma, both the camera and lens are so new, I wonder if it would be smarter to wait-and-see for a while to make sure I’m not jumping into something I might regret later. Some of the comments about noise make me pause—particularly with regard to making large prints. And if Sony is going to heat up the market with such competitive pricing on a full sensor with high MP, will it be long before everyone else follows suit. Hmmm…. </p>

<p >Thanks again for your thoughts! </p>

<p>The 5D2's focusing is not a problem except for wildlife and certain sports.<br>

The Sony has a great body and IQ almost as good as Nikon and Canon (see DxOMark's comparison of IQ), just make sure that you can get all the lenses that you'll likely ever want.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

Sharon, no way you are going to get 16-85mm from a single lens on DSLR. The most available is 24-70 or 28-75. In this range, the Zeiss (Sony) is better than the Nikon, which is better than the Canon. It is not very hard to produce excellent 24x36 prints, so you might be overthinking this. I don't understand the stitching suggestion, because you did not ask about panoramas. Nikon has a 16-85 lens, but it is small-circle (DX) so it is the equivalent of 24-128 on full-frame.

<p>Hi Bill, You've got me confused, I rechecked my post to see if I said anything about a 16-85 mm accidentally, but just see my mention of the same lenses you brought up as well. Oh well, thanks for taking the time to reply. </p>

<p>For any of the full-frame cameras, if you are bargain-hunting (Honda analogy), for landscapes, I'd get a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens, about $400. This is one of the sharpest / highest resolution zoom lenses out there. No, the build quality is not up there with Canon L, Nikon pro lenses, or Sony G, or Sony/Zeiss, but if it breaks out of warranty, get another one. Really, the only downside of this lens is its relatively high geometric distortion. But for landscapes, that should not be a big factor. So a Sony A850 and a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 in Sony mount will get you started for $2400, assuming you have a decent tripod.</p>

<p>Now the 28mm wide end on the Tamron may not be wide enough. Just like the Sony/Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 would be a good choice, well, so would the Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8; the main downside is it costs $1900.</p>

<p>Okay, well, other budget options with the Sony? Sure. I'd actually look at used Minolta primes. Over at KEH.com, I'd look closely at the well-regarded Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8, for between $205 and $275, depending on condition. Other worthy options if you go with older primes are the Minolta AF 28mm f/2 and the Minolta AF 35mm f/2, both well-regarded. Minolta also made a 20mm f/2.8 and IIRC a 16mm f/2.8, if you want ultra-wide. No doubt similar bargains exist for Canon and Nikon, I'm just not as familiar with what they are.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't understand the stitching suggestion, because you did not ask about panoramas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is to get higher resolution to the print than what the sensor is capable capturing in one shot. For example, instead of using a lens that covers a 60deg field of view, shoot overlapping sections of the same scene with a 30deg FOV lens. Same scene, same camera, but a 2x increase in linear resolution (4x increase in total number of sampling pixels.</p>

<p>For scenes that can stand effectively multiple minute long exposures, think of this as a free virtual sensor upgrade. Getting a few hundred real megapixels with a P&S to a 60in x 40in print is quite do'able.</p>

Thanks for explaining, Robert. At 4032x6048 pixels the A850 can do 24x36" prints at 168 ppi, so a bit of upsampling is needed.

<p>I agree with Robert if you're on the "Ford" budget. I used a Canon Xsi (although I lust for a 5DII or Sony) to shoot 23 telephotos I stitched with Autopanopro to produce this shot:<br>

<a href="http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1332/mtbakermorningbigpano.jpg">http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1332/mtbakermorningbigpano.jpg</a></p>

<p>BYW, here are the stats on the full res. of the shot above: 953 MB, 15000 x 8200 pixels</p>

<p>Yep, this is a stitched landscape of <a href="http://gigapan.org/gigapans/8567/">Royce Hall at UCLA</a> from about a year ago. It was taken with an 8MP Canon A720 compact digicam, but the final image came in at about 500MP. </p>

<p>For perspective, a 40x30 print at 300dpi only requires about 100MP. There's lots of real resolution available to crop down for "small" prints like this.</p>

<p>It's worthwhile to mention a couple of additional things. First, the obvious seams and projection distortion are artifacts of the Gigapan stitching software - the program isn't intended for generating prints. Most any other stitching package will do a better job in this respect.</p>

<p>Second, timing, planning, and luck are components of this kind of photography just as any other. It is possible to catch moving figures in ways that makes sense even when the source images are a mosaic of small sub-frames - decisive moment(s) in a sense.</p>

It is only fair to add, however, that my friends have hundreds of stitch-ready image sequences, some just as great as Jim's Mt. Baker image, but not enough time to assemble them.

<p><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/photostitch.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/photostitch.htm</a><br>

This may be worth trying beore spending more $$$ and you may already have the program.</p>

<p>Sharon, I'll second Sandy's suggestion that the 5D Mark II is the body for you, but I advise you to get the set of wide EF L primes (14/2.8 II, 24/1.4 II, and 35/1.4), rather than the 16-35/2.8 II, if image quality is your paramount concern.</p>

<p>For landscapes, the fact that the 5D Mark II has a relatively unadvanced AF system is completely irrelevant, given that your subjects are static, that you have the time to focus and recompose, that wide angle lenses have inherently large depths of field, and that you'll usually be focusing at infinity anyway.</p>

<p>Stop!<br>

Decide if you MUST have single-shot prints. If so, and at the enlargements you want, you'd be very wise to consider MF or LF film.<br>

Otherwise, you'd be silly to avoid one of the greatest pluses of digital, the ease of taking and stitching multiple shots. Once you go that route, one of the most important features will be the tripod head! (Any decent crop or full-frame DSLR, and a multitude of lenses will do the trick.)<br>

I'd strongly suggest getting a lens without significant barrel or pincushion distortion, in a normal focal length (such as 50mm on full-frame).</p>

<p>Right. A true macro prime would be about optimal.</p>

<p>As to all the recommendations of taking a pile of shots and stitching, just remember that it only works if the subject is static. And by that I don't simply mean that the mountain isn't moving, I also mean that the light isn't changing much, and that the foliage isn't blowing, etc. You think Ansel Adams would have captued "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" (<a href="http://www.anseladams.com/content/ansel_info/ansel_ancedotes.html">http://www.anseladams.com/content/ansel_info/ansel_ancedotes.html</a>) if he had been shooting a bunch of shots and stitching?! No way! Over and above the problem of having the sheer time to compose-shoot-recompose-shoot-recompose-shoot etc., which is not trivial, the light was changing far too fast to make stitching look decent. With significant changes in light, getting the panels of the stitched frame to match is a real problem.</p>

<p>And of course, stitching the shots means you have to completely correct the geometric distortion of the lens for each shot. Often that's do-able, but not always (some lenses have significant amounts of funky distortions).</p>

<p>So hey, I'll admit I'm a contrarian. And I'll admit that sometimes stitching works fine. But if you want really big landscape prints on a budget, but not a super-tight one, then I think you're better off planning to have reasonble ability to capture the image with a single shutter opening. Whether that's with a Sony A850, a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, and a used Minolta 24mm f/2.8 (total kit cost, $2700), or a 4x5 view camera with (say) 90mm, 135mm, and 210mm lenses (a decent kit could be had <em>used</em> for $1200, maybe less, but figure significant money for film, processing, and professional scans), I think those are better lines to think along.</p>