Good landscape camera

[AlanKlein]

<p>I'm thinking about getting a new digital camera. I want one with good landscape capability but under $1500. Any suggestions?</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Good landscape quality means full frame, lots of MP, and real good optics. The ultimate is medium format, $10k(body only) and way up. In 35mm style, the Nikon D3X is excellent, but miles over your budget. Good lenses are mostly over your budget as well. :(</p>

 

[Mattman944]

"good" is a little vague. I just looked at your portfolio, you are an experienced MF film photographer, so you should be

able to be more specific. Depending on your goals, a crop might be sufficient, or you could stitch to get more effective

pixels.

[schonphotography]

<p>Landscape photography doesn't need to be expensive. In fact in many ways, it can be one of the cheapest genres of photo.</p>

<p>Get a shorter lens, a good tripod, and do a panorama instead of trying to capture the scenery in one shot. Even with the smallest and cheapest DSLR like the D40 (6.1 MP), with a 10 picture panorama, you now have a 61MP image, the same as if you were using a $33,000 Phase One P65+ digital back.<br>

<br />Another option, albeit expensive, is if you have the equipment or know someone who does, go back to film with a medium (dare I suggest large) format camera. I wouldn't suggest this if you're looking to replace your primary camera though. With a slow 120 film (25iso), you can usually get the equivalent of a 200MP image. A medium format body and sharp lens in good condition will run you anywhere from $150 to $500 on ebay, but keep in mind the cost of film and developing.<br>

<br />A d7000 (crop sensor, 16.2 MP) is a good camera for just about anything that's now just over $1000 new. You won't be able to find anything full frame for under $2000 though, or image that's as good quality.</p>

<p>Keep in mind you're going to need really sharp glass too, usually primes are best for this. If you don't have a good short lens, consider buying an older MF one. You don't really need auto-focus for landscapes because you'll mostly be shooting at infinity, and it certainly doesn't have to be real fast if you want to capture all the detail of the image (f/ 5.6 is the widest you'll ever really need in landscape, and it usually provides the best image quality).</p>

<p>Best of luck!</p>

[schonphotography]

<p>Just took a quick look at your portfolio, and you have a lot of experience with medium format film already. I would say go that route for now, until full-frame DSLR's drop in price. With the new Nikon and Canon pro bodies coming out soon, expect a drop in things like the D3X. I'm not sure how much the price will go down, but hopefully put us within reach to afford them.</p>

[stickletodd]

<p>It it not the camera, it is the lens. You can take very good landscapes with any camera, you just need a good, quality, wide angle lens.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Thanks for your responses. The MF RB67 that I have is getting pretty heavy. I am looking for something lighter that I can shoot with mirror up. I have an Olympus E-PL1 (EVIL) but I'm not satisfied with it. Too contrasty and unintuitive to operate. Switching back and forth using their menus when I'm not shooting landscapes but "normal" subjects is a pain in the neck. I was looking at the Nikons D7000 or the D5100. The D5100 has the same sensor with advantage of a movable LCD for low shots. The reviews say you should be able to get 20x30" at the low ISO's from either. But I don't really know. Would either of these meet my requirements or one from Canon or another manufacture? Both of these are fairly light too and I have to be able to compromise against the better quality of FF especially since 20-30" would be the most I'd ever print. </p>

[schonphotography]

<p>For me, the choice between the D7000 and D5100 was really easy. The D7000 overall is a better working camera, has a faster focusing system, is weather sealed, great metering, big and bright lcd on the back (I've heard the 5100's is over saturated), dual sim cards, can accept a battery grip, etc. The list goes on for quite a bit.</p>

<p>I don't know about Canon cameras, but I would go with whatever system you already have gear for.</p>

<p>For the D7000/D5100 your print size at 300dpi (highest quality) is roughly 16" x 24" from what I've <em>read</em>, but is actually 11" x 16.5" from what I've <em>shot</em> (just checked with a print from today. I shoot in raw, 16.2 MP). At 220 dpi (high quality, no visible loss of print quality), you're looking at around 15" x 22.5", and to obtain 20" x 30", you have to print at around 165dpi, (major loss of print quality). Also keep in mind that for large landscapes, you'll most likely be doing a long, thin crop, so you're losing data there too. For large prints on a digital camera, your best bet is still probably panorama/stitching photos together, but the D7000 is an absolutely fantastic camera for just about anything you can throw at it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Having myself switched from medium format to a dslr, and photographing landscapes mainly- at least after a fashion- maybe I should pass an opinion. I can only speak for the Canon 5D/5D mkii and L lenses since thats what I have, but I assume that there'll be something in the Nikon range that will perform the same. </p>

<p>The good news is that you can get your 20" x 30" from a "basic" full frame camera. I've done this and the prints look very nice indeed. The best way to use this is in Live View mode - which enables you to explore focus at up to 10x magnification right across the frame- much better than a tiny viewfinder and Autofocus IMO. Mirror is automatically up when used this way. </p>

<p>The bad news is that the sort of camera I'm describing is beyond your budget- probably way beyond if you need a collection of lenses, polarisers and so on. Frankly there isn't really much of a way round this- you're used to using a fine camera that will permit you to produce quality images. You're not likely to be happy with a very basic dslr system. </p>

<p>The other bad news is that you'll need to be sure to get the very best you can from a dslr system. Which means working on a tripod for every shot that you think might just have a future as a print. </p>

[Two23]

<p>Before buying a DSLR, I mostly shot with a Bronica 645 and also a 4x5 field camera. I've found I get the same quality with a D300 as I did with the Bronica. There are advantages to a DX camera such as D300 or D7000 with landscapes over FX. First, you get about one more stop of DoF. It works out to about 3 more stops of DoF over what you're shooting now. This is huge because it means you can work with faster shutter speeds, and that often results in sharper shots. For you I suggest the D7000. It has a lot more resolution than a D700, is newer technology, and is a very capable camera. It will meet your lighter criteria and then some. With the money you save over a D700 I'd highly suggest you look into buying a 24mm PCE lens. As a large format shooter I think the tilt/shift of the 24mm PCE is more important than the very small difference you get from FX. BTW, I am still shooting 4x5 weekly. I bought a Chamonix 45N; it weighs about the same as a Nikon D300. Slower work flow than your RB, but three times the resolution and I get all those movements.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[smooth_carrots]

<p>Canon EOS 5D Mk1. Full frame, top drawer image quality and well within your budget.</p>

[drpath]

<p>I used to have an RB67. Then I got a 5D. Then I traded my RB67 gear to get a 17-40mm f4 L. As many thousands of images on Photo.net and all across the web will demonstrate, this combination is something of a new classic in landscape. As Carrots remarks, it the camera also has the rather significant advantage of fitting within your budget. </p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I printed 17x24 from my 12.3MP D300 camera and still have enough pixels to print 20x30. I once done a panorama 12x60 (7 images) 12000 pixel long and still had enough juice to push it more. I once even considered printing a 90 inch long panorama, but I would not be able to hang it anywhere. So my point is 12 MP D300 will give you lots of juice to work with,</p>

[lee_derrickson]

<p>Refurb Canon 5D Mk II runs $2000 direct from Canon. Refurb Nikon D700 runs $2160 direct from Nikon. Both of those full-frame options don't include lenses. <strong>Smooth Carrots</strong> idea will get you full frame capability at a much lower cost. Even though it's older technology, it is still quite capable, and you can get a used (likely well used) one in your price range.</p>

[bkpix]

<p>Another possibility is the Pentax K-5. Same sensor (and image quality) as the Nikon D7000 in a tougher, better-sealed package. Either of those crops cameras can turn out fine 20x30 prints.<br>

As others have pointed out, landscape is less demanding in a lot of ways on bodies, perhaps more so on lenses.<br>

It will also require you to be at the top of your game in postprocessing skills. You don't say where you are on that particular learning curve, but it's well worth investing time and money in learning how to get the absolute best image out of a digital file.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I have a 5D and a 5D markii. The former is not like an older version of the latter in some important respects. In particular it is much more difficult to keep the sensor clean, does not have Live View, has a much worse screen, and has a far worse low light/noise performance. Also the OP wants to print 30" x 20". I'm not saying that thats impossible with a 5D but it is much more marginal than using a camera with more than 12MP. In reality it will increase the proportion of your shots that you can't go to 30" x 20" with unless you flex your quality standards. </p>

[peter_e]

<p>Canon 5D Mk1 is your best option given your budget. You can stitch images for higher res images.<br>

Landscape does not necessarily mean big prints. Most landscape photographers like wide angle shots, and FF still gives you the best lens options.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>If shooting landscape at lower ISO, the Pentax K-7 is a screaming bargain now and you'll still have a bunch of money left for lenses. I would expect that you'd want to consider which lenses you'd use with this camera--if you like the idea of excellent well-built, compact prime lenses of modest max aperture, Pentax has a bunch of these. You might want to check out some of the user manuals (or in person) for cameras like K-7 or K-5 (mostly similar), Nikon D5100, D7000, etc. to see how the ergonomics/controls work for you since this is a partcular complaint of yours on the Olympus. </p>

<p>As far as excessively contrasty images, that sounds more like a solvable problem--whether it means tweaking some in-camera settings for JPEGS or shooting RAW (recommended) and adjusting image parameters to your taste.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>If you choose the Nikon route, I echo the suggestion of the D7000. It has newer technology, nearly the same low light ability, and more pixels than my own D700 which is near the end of its product cycle.</p>

<p>However, if you want a D7000, or D5100 for that matter, strike now, while you still can. The plant which makes all of Nikon's crop sensor cameras, in Ayutthaya, Thailand, is and has been under over two meters of water for over a week. Nikon still does not have access to the plant, does not even know when they will be allowed back in. It is problematic at best when crop sensor cameras will re-enter the product stream or where they will be built.</p>

<p>http://www.nikon.com/news/2011/1021_01_e.htm</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I don't think you'll be happy with any dslr within your $1500 budget, unless you can find a Canon 5D MkII used for that price. Operation is near enough to your MF film that you can make a fairly easy transition. You need to "expose right" (to the right of the histogram) to maximize dynamic range and then adjust brightness in RAW conversion.</p>

<p>DxO Optics Pro correct for lens and camera errors in RAW conversion for most Canons and Nikons. Their Film Pack 3.0 does excellent film emulations, which you might find particularly interesting.</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I recently bought a Canon 5D Mk I and have been very happy with it. I am a landscape shooter at heart, and I love having this body and the 17-40 lens. A great combo with the width and range needed for landscape work. I got mine on ebay for just over a grand. It came in near mint condition, and has worked beautifully for landscapes and portrait work. I got the 17-40 on Craig's List for $600. That puts me in for less than a 5D MK II body, with a decent lens. I know the processor and other features are not as current as the MK II, but The value was hard to pass up given the image quality of this combination.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>What are you going to do with the photographs? Are you going to shoot from a tripod and then carefully prepare images in post for very large prints - e.g. 20" x 30" or larger? If so, full frame has significant advantages.</p>

<p>At the other extreme, are you going to end up with jpg images that you post online or share via email and perhaps occasionally print at letter size? If so, most any decent cropped sensor camera with an OK lens will work fine.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Look at his images Dan.</p>

[charles_wood]

<p><em>Get a shorter lens, a good tripod, and do a panorama instead of trying to capture the scenery in one shot. Even with the smallest and cheapest DSLR like the D40 (6.1 MP), with a 10 picture panorama, you now have a 61MP image, the same as if you were using a $33,000 Phase One P65+ digital back.</em></p>

<p>Well, not quite. You might have a similar file size but you likely won't have full 16 bit processing, or the tonality or dynamic range of the Phase one P65+<em>.</em> I have stitched scenes many times with smaller pixel DSLRs and the concept often does work and sometimes it doesn't. And the resultant quality will depend on the quality of the sensor and internal camera and post processing. At this particular point in time, the sensor with the most dynamic range of ANY digital camera, regardless of cost, is the 16 meg backlit sensor manufactured by SONY and used in certain SONY, NIKON and PENTAX models. In the Pentax K-5 implementation it has 14 EV of dynamic range, a DXOMark rating of 82 (right there with the most expensive DSLRs and digital medium format boies) and less shadow noise than a Canon 5D2.<em> </em><br>

<br />One of the aforementioned brands with that particular sensor would get my vote for an under $1500 body for landscape work.<em><br /></em></p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>

<p>For you I suggest the D7000. It has a lot more resolution than a D700</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of *linear* resolution which is what matters for enlarging, the D7000 has only 16% more resolution on the long axis of the sensor (4928 pixels vs. 4256 pixels) than the D700. Total pixel counts go up as the square of linear pixel counts, so a sensor with twice the pixels will have only about 1.4 times the resolution.</p>