Nikon or canon for landscape?

[rhonda_hall]

<p>Alright so I'm a beginner who's really into photographing landscapes. I want a dslr that will take clear defined pictures in places that are highly detailed like forests, ect. I'd rather it be a nikon or canon. I need to know which brand and model would suit me best. I would like to spend less than a 1000$ with the lens included. I will probably upgrade the lens at a later time, but I want it to come with one that will suffice until I do so. Any advice?</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Either one will do the job just fine. <br>

Go the camera store and try them both out and see which one feels better in your hands. Which one has menus that you can understand and work with? which one has the controls where you think they should be? </p>

<p>Just like any car with 4 wheels and an engine (and a few other parts) will get you from point A to point B - it comes down to personal choice and feel. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[dan_south]

Clear, defined photos are the result of technique as much as camera quality and design. Regardless of what camera

you buy, you'll need to develop your technique.

 

Something like Canon's Rebel T2i might be a good place to start. Nikon's D7000 is also very nice but may be just a

bit over your budget.

 

You'll also need a memory card 8 GB or larger, a computer with a good screen that can run your choice of post

processing software, and eventually a solid tripod and head combination (not the flimsy tripod that most small camera

and electronics stores carry).

[newmanuk]

hi Rhonda. welcome to photonet.there are many forum threads to read and think about. Do you want new or second hand? canon or nikon plus david or dans comment vali d. a canon suggestion from me s?hand. canon 20d and the efs 18.55 lens. will start you on your photography vision . please feel free to come back and ask questions. we will try to do our best. regards miken

[rhonda_hall]

<p>I've looked around a lot and decided to expand my budget a bit. I'm thinking about a Nikon D90, but the Canon Rebel T2i looks good too. The D90 costs more and doesn't come with a lens. Any idea on a good landscape lens for the D90? Not too expensive. And if I went with the Rebel is there a lens that would better suit landscape?</p>

<p>For the tripod I plan on purchasing a Manfrotto 190 series with a 496RC2 ball head. I will also get a circular polarizer. Do you think that will do?</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>If you're going to print detailed landscapes larger than 13x19 then you're going to want one of the newer, higher resolution sensors. In the Canon system that would be their 18 MP sensor which is used in the T2i, the 60D, and the 7D. In Nikon the 16 MP sensor in the new D7000 would be comparable.</p>

<p>The Canon T2i with 18-55 IS kit lens is within your budget. That particular kit lens (make sure it's the IS version) is surprisingly sharp across the frame. Avoid the 18-135 kit lens as it has terrible performance. For that matter any of the zooms which are faster, better built, and/or have longer zoom range and maintain IQ will break your starting budget.</p>

<p>You should be able to produce sharp, detailed, 16x24 landscape prints with a T2i and an 18-55 IS stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I want a dslr that will take <strong>clear defined pictures</strong> in places that are <strong>highly detailed</strong> like forests, ect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I concur with what DLT wrote about the T2i + EF-S18 to 55F/3.5-5.6 IS.<br>

However I suggest using the lens between F/7 and F/11 as IMO it is little ambitious using the lens at F/5.6 across the entire FL compass, to get the most out of it.<br>

Also that lens, for landscapes is better used without a filter - unless the filter is for a particular purpose, such as an ND filter or Graduated ND filter, for example.<br>

If you want consistent quality Landscape Enlargements, then set aside some money for a good quality tripod and head, and use “Mirror Up Technique” to execute the shutter, you might also consider a remote release, but using Mirror Up and a solid tripod can suffice with gentle squeezing the shutter.<br>

Do not underestimate the value of a QUALITY tripod for landscape work – as “unclear and not defined” Landscape Pictures are often because of camera movement, rather than lens or camera quality.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[bj_larsson]

<p>Rhonda: I would suggest that _all_ the current DSLR from either company can make stunning prints up to 12" x 18" and probably even larger. The biggest factor is in fact the photographers ability and skill (which includes getting the most out of the equipment, having proper support, i.e. tripod. shooting with a cable or timed release etc. etc. ).</p>

<p>How large are you looking to print? </p>

<p>My advice would be to try and get the systems into your hands to see how they feel. Which ergonomics, menus and layouts you prefer. </p>

<p>Best of luck.</p>

<p>Bjorn</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>However I suggest using the lens between F/7 and F/11 as IMO it is little ambitious using the lens at F/5.6 across the entire FL compass, to get the most out of it.</em></p>

<p>Good point. At the wide end f/5.6 (1.5 stops down from wide open) should work fine. But at the tele end f/5.6 is wide open. Stopping down at least a little bit will help sharpen it up. Past f/11 diffraction starts to become an issue, but f/11 is still good.</p>

<p><em>Do not underestimate the value of a QUALITY tripod for landscape work – as “unclear and not defined” Landscape Pictures are often because of camera movement, rather than lens or camera quality.</em></p>

<p>I concur, but that doesn't necessarily mean "spend a fortune." Adorama's FlashPoint F-1128 carbon fiber tripod plus F-1 ball head (about $180) has proven quite steady for me for body/lens combos that weight a lot more than a Rebel plus kit lens, yet it's very compact and light weight and a joy to use when hiking. Ritz Camera's $90 Quantaray QSX-9502 tripod is big and heavy by comparison, but it's also a rock. It has held equipment steady for me for hours of star trails in light wind.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a lens that would better suit landscape?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The kit lens that comes with the camera should be fine. Successful prints are more about your taste and skill than the glass that the light passes through on the way to the sensor. That said, if you have a chance to buy a lens with image stabilization technology (IS for Canon or VR for Nikon), I would recommend it doing so.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you're going to print detailed landscapes larger than 13x19 then you're going to want one of the newer, higher resolution sensors. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? I've seen amazing 13x19 inch prints from 6 MP cameras and effective (if not super-detailed) 40-inch prints from 12 MP. 18 MP isn't a requirement, but rather a nice option that gives extra resolution for cropping and enlargement IF AND ONLY IF effective technique was employed by the photographer.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>DLT, I am actually quite an advocate for the poor bloody kit lens. I usually write use it between F/7 and F/10 heaven knows why I wrote F/11 this time?! And yes, my advice was accommodating the fact that is is a Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lens.<br />Also I have found the lens is actually a little better wide open at the wide (18mm @ F/3.5) than when used at 55mm @ F/5.6. This applies to both versions, but the IS version is sharper all around through the Fl range.</p>

<p>I didn’t mean for the OP to spend a fortune on a tripod – but juts to buy a quality one. There are many bargains second hand and quality is usually easy to test even for a novice.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>The kit lens that comes with the camera should be fine. Successful prints are more about your taste and skill than the glass that the light passes through on the way to the sensor.</em></p>

<p>Have to disagree. Lenses are a critical component for sharp, detailed prints. That said the 18-55 IS happens to be a very good performer despite the low cost.</p>

<p><em>Really? </em></p>

<p>Yes. Wide angle landscapes with lots of fine detail are probably the most challenging subject matter in terms of resolution, and I've seen 6 MP struggle with that specific subject matter even at 8x10. (Distant foliage is rendered as mush. There's nothing you can do to fix that and it is apparent even in smaller prints.) Yet with different subjects...portraits, macro, cityscapes...I've printed 6 MP images to 20" and they've came out OK. You'll notice a difference comparing them to a higher resolution image, but standing on their own they're decent. But when it comes to challenging landscapes, they're not so good.</p>

<p>For landscapes 10-12 MP will make an excellent 13x19 and even a good 16x24. But moving up to the newer 16/18 MP sensors will yield a noticeable improvement for a wide angle, fine detail landscape, and will get you to 30" if needed. I can see the improvement clearly in my own 24" and 30" prints. In the 24-30" size range you can actually see further improvement still with some scenes when comparing to a 3 frame stitch or, say, a MF digital back. That said I'm very happy with prints in this size range from my 7D and will present them for critical review.</p>

<p>If Rhonda is only rarely going to print landscapes larger than about 13x19 then lots of current cameras will meet her needs. If she regularly wants to go larger then it's well worth it for her to spend a little extra for the T2i.</p>

<p>Naturally learning proper technique will be critical to extracting everything the sensor can deliver.</p>

[dan_south]

You can disagree all you want DLT. There's nothing more common than a bad photo taken with good equipment. Bad

light. Poor compositional choices. Focus in the wrong place. Uninteresting subject. Distractions in the frame. Poorly

exposed. Noisy. No super duper mega lens will cure any of these ills. A very good lens can add some extra

sharpness and contrast to a photo if used properly, but what it adds is far less important than tasteful choices and

good technique.

 

Who said anything about wide angle? Landscape does not equal wide angle. The bulk of Galen Rowell's most

famous images were taken with telephoto lenses. Besides, wide angle performance is a function of the quality of the

lens, not the sensor. Soft edges are soft at 6 MP or 60 MP.

 

Given that I already recommended the T2i to the OP, I'm not sure why you're trying to convince us that it's a better

option than something that I didn't recommend. My only concern is that I don't know if it has mirror lockup. If it lacks

MLU it won't be the best choice for careful tripod-based work. Nikon's D7000 has MLU.

 

As discussed above, proper technique is critical regardless of sensor size or camera brand.

[scott_ferris]

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml</a></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>The finer the detail you want to show on an enlarged print the higher the resolution you'll need.</p>

<p>I struggle capturing enough distant foliage detail shooting wide angle landscapes with my 6MP Pentax K100D and have it look real even on an 8x10. It's fine for capturing scenes within 200 yards but not good if trying to capture the majesty of Yosemite for a 16x24.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Nikon D7000 over the D90 -- yes it is a little more money but not much and <br>

I think its worth it.</p>

<p>Clear detailed landscape pix are dependent on five things:<br>

1) where you are standing<br>

2) the light -- which be dependent on the time of day<br>

3) using a good lens<br>

4) Using a good tripod and a cable release,<br>

5) Really thinking about why you are making the photo in the first place and that involves paying attention what is include in the photo as well as what you should leave out to make your intent clearer, and having an intention that goes beyond "what a pretty scenic."</p>

<p>After that it is down to</p>

<p>6) your skills as a craftsperson when processing the photo.<br>

7) the camera.</p>

 

[dan_south]

8) Where the plane of focus is located.

 

9) Effective depth of field balanced against diffraction effects.

 

10) Shutter speed adequate to freeze motion in the frame. (e.g. Moving leaves, grass, water, animals)

 

Etc.

[dan_south]

<p>Scott F. - Thanks for the thought-provoking link.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Yes, Scott, thanks. That was a very illuminating Christmas Eve read.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hi Scott. I agree, Not dismissing top line gear at all: but as well as supporting the kit lens, I am an advocate for the P&S also :: <a href="../photo/11248157&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11248157&size=lg</a> <br />The point is to understand the limitations of the gear - or another way of looking at it is understanding how much one can get out of a camera and lens - this look pretty nice and is certainly crisp as a 14 x 10 print.<br />Taken with a Canon P5 IS<br /><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12144090-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="500" /><br /><strong>Canon P5 IS - F/6.3 @ 1/125s @ ISO80: FL = 6mm</strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

[nicolaiecostel]

<p>hi, as a begginer landcape photographer, i think that there are four main things that really make a difference in landscape photography:<br />- light. being there bright and early or at dusk really helps. don't buy the most expensive camera and lens and show up at noon.<br />- scenery. save the money difference from a semi-pro and just get yourself an enthusiast body plus a wide angle lens/telephoto and go to some place really nice. buying that new nikon wide-angle and shooting the lawn from the window just isn't going to work.<br />- proccesing. with a capital p. this can make or break a landscape. learn to improve and manufacture tonal values in the picture, learn to color correct, blend exposures.<br />- tripod and filters. the heaviest and most expensive tripod you can buy, and the most expensive filters (polariser and gradual density or ND).<br />as you can see, none of the above really have anything to do with a certain brand/model of digital camera. you can even shoot 35 mm negative film if you know what you're doing.<br />best of luck.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>William W, the grass in your P&S shot looks a little over-saturated. Is that how it came out of the camera in a JPEG? Perhaps some settings were not optimized.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>I would like to spend less than a 1000$ with the lens included</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20416349.html</p>

<p>The Nikon D80 is the least expensive Nikon DSLR that uses a brighter pentaprism viewfinder (as apposed to a pentamirror viewfinder). The D80 also uses nearly the same sensor and processing engine as the Nikon D200. The D80 gets a bad rap due to its tendency to overexpose -- a situation that most likely occurs in high contrast scenes, while using matrix metering. There are workarounds to the metering issue.</p>

<p>Using the D80 for landscapes, on a tripod, will typically allow plenty of time to get a good exposure, and check the exposure with the histogram. All of the landscapes I have shot with my D80 have been at base ISO 100, using a tripod, shooting RAW. It's fairly well known that the CCD sensor of the D200 and D80 produces a very clean file at ISO 100-200, printing easily at 12x18 or 13x19. For a telephoto, I have added the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. This is an example of adding a lens to your collection, then upgrading your camera body as your skills improve.</p>

<p>You could consider a D90, but a new one with a zoom lens will overshoot your budget. You don't need the high ISO capabilities of the D90 when shooting landscapes on a tripod.</p>

<p>As nicolaie costel points out, graduated neutral density filters and a polarizer may be added to your list in addition to the tripod and ball head.</p>

<p>I don't know Canon's lineup, but if you like their layout and ergonomics, perhaps a Canon shooter can help you. You may also wish to check KEH Camera brokers.<br /> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3663047"><br /></a></p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p> "the grass in your P&S shot looks a little over-saturated. Is that how it came out of the camera in a JPEG?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Dan,<br>

No, it is not SOOC. The "over"saturation was done in PP. I made three versions. This one is the most saturated (Yellow and Green).This version is also the most sharpened. Also I believe this one was slightly over exposed, and I am not sure I held all of the whites in the clouds, but I would be happy to sacrifice that for the shadow detail (shooting only “one exposure” technique). </p>

<p>For reference / comparison, there are other ("more natural" PP) from our P5 IS cameras here:<br>

at ISO200: <a href="../photo/11248154&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11248154&size=lg</a><br>

at ISO800: <a href="../photo/11248155&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11248155&size=lg</a><br>

This image has “slightly” pushed saturation (Red) in PP: <a href="../photo/9206262&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9206262&size=lg</a> (you'll also notice the fringing issue this camera's lens has which has not been corrected in this image) - there is a better example of the fringing (Blue CA) here: <a href="../photo/9206291&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9206291&size=lg</a> </p>

<p>The point of posting the original image was to show that a P&S is suitable for Landscape Work and the effect of this particular image was for the final print, this does “look good” (subjective) in the final print - and yes, I agree with you, it is is very "in your face", but that effect was purpose.<br>

Best for 2011,</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p> </p>