Good landscape camera

[danielleetaylor]

<p>You can safely ignore every post which claims you must have FF. Current 16-18 MP APS-C sensors are capable of excellent 24" landscape prints and very good 30" landscape prints. In the Canon system you won't gain any advantage at low to mid ISO with the 21 MP 5D mkII. You will actually lose some image quality with a used 12 MP 5D. The 18 MP sensor can resolve more fine detail than the original 5D. Not a lot more, but visible in a large landscape print with foliage.</p>

<p>In the Canon system the Rebel T2i has the 18 MP sensor and only costs $620. This leaves money for a lens. Choices abound:</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - sharp enough stopped down to meet your print size requirement. Gives a very useful focal range to cover a lot of uses until you have more money for additional lenses.</li>

<li>Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 - sharp enough stopped down to meet your print size requirements. More useful focal range for landscapes (includes ultra wide angle), limited for other uses.</li>

<li>Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - one of the sharpest UWA lenses period. Will out perform the often suggested 17-40L on full frame. Fast and sharp wide open. The drawback is that it has a narrow focal range on the very wide end. It's a <strong>fantastic</strong> landscape lens, but if you like to work at more moderate wide angles it might not be the choice for you. (Personally I use it all the time for landscapes and love it.)</li>

</ul>

<p>You will, of course, want a tripod, but I'm guessing you have one or more of those already.</p>

<p>With proper technique and post processing that body and any one of those lenses will produce excellent 24-30" prints and be pretty close to your budget. Later on if you get a panoramic head and learn stitching techniques you can produce even larger prints, as large as anything you produce with MF.</p>

<p>If you can spare the money I would recommend the Canon 60D for the better features and build. But there's no IQ difference to be concerned about.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>For the D7000/D5100 your print size at 300dpi (highest quality)</em></p>

<p>300 dpi is a standard stuck in everyone's head from the early days of desktop publishing, imagesetters, and laser printers. I wish everyone would forget it because it no longer has any meaning in any field (photography or publishing). It was driven purely by the mechanics of the day.</p>

<p>The optimum ppi for a photograph can vary widely based on subject matter. But a general rule of thumb is 180 ppi (good) to 250 ppi (excellent). Quite frankly post processing technique, printer choice, and paper choice can have a greater impact on image quality in the final print than resolutions >250 ppi.</p>

[rashed_s]

Although I have the D3X and the Hasselblad CFV-39 along with six hassy cameras, I still prefer

working with larger formats for my landscape work, such as the Fuji G617 panorama or the Toyo

Field 45CF.

[graham john miles]

<p>Pick up a used sigma DP1 for a couple of hundred bucks. Stick it on a tripod, set the aperture to F5.6 and focus to infinity.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Someone write, in response to my questions about the OP's intentions:</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I could, though I think it is generally the most helpful when posters include this information as part of their question. In this case, shooting landscape could mean very many things and there is no way to answer based on the general question, other than to answer very generally.</p>

<p>And, I think I did address the very general in my response. Basically, if one's landscape photography will be made with a great deal of care, using a tripod and all the rest, using excellent lenses, post processed with skill and care, and end up being presented as large, high quality prints, then there are several possibilities, but I'd argue that full frame has advantages for such work and unless certain other unknowns become known, the best general recommendation might be a 5D2 currently.</p>

<p>Or, if the issue is merely that the subject will be landscape, but that the presentation will not benefit from full frame - e.g the shooter might work handheld, might intend to share images online as jpgs, may seldom if ever print larger than letter size, and so forth, then virtually any cropped sensor body could make an excellent choice, and it is not even certain that the most expensive lenses would offer any visible advantage.</p>

<p>It isn't so much about the subjects or the nature of the images as it is about the target output and the approach to shooting.</p>

<p>By the way, making generalizations about lenses, specifically as to focal length, is also risky business. We often read - as we do in this thread - comments along the lines of "get wide angle lenses." One certain can shoot landscape using wide and ultra wide lenses, and there has been plenty of wonderful work using them. However, many prefer longer lenses. Or a variety of lenses. And so forth. Once again, some clarity of thinking on the part of the shooter is necessary to figure out which is most appropriate for him/her.</p>

<p>For a person who is <em>getting started</em> with DSLR landscape photography but does not yet quite know where this might lead nor whether or not very large, high quality prints will really be the typical output, I generally recommend getting a decent but not necessarily top-end cropped sensor body with the kit zoom at first. Investment in more expensive equipment at first can be quite unwise, since decisions about that gear must be driven by knowledge and understanding of ones personal photographic needs, based on experience.</p>

<p>By the way, there are very real advantages to full frame cameras for landscape photography... but really only if you are pushing the boundaries of print size and you are working with some real care and well-developed technique. I sometimes read - as I do in this thread - suggestions that it doesn't matter whether you shoot full frame or cropped sensor bodies. Well, yes. And, no. Again, it comes down to knowing your own working methods, goals, and intended output. If you are not going to regularly make prints at the 20" x 30" and above size, if you likely output is jpgs shared online or an occasional letter size print, if your shooting is more likely to be hand held than from the tripod, if cost is an issue, then there is little or no reason to think you "need" full frame. You probably don't. On the other hand, if you are pushing the upper boundaries of print size, have controlled all of the other variables that might limit print size, regularly do create very large prints, cannot use or are not interested in using something larger like MF digital, and can afford it, then there can be real advantages to shoot full frame for landscape and similar work.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Canon 1DS Mk II...16MP, FF. Older camera, but landscapes are generally low ISO, so newer technology and noise isn't an issue. After that, I'd suggest the 1st gen 5D if you don't want the bigger 1 series body (although after you use one you won't know how people make it without one). It's 12 MP. As for Nikon, I don't enough about the older cameras to comment. I doubt the D700 is under $1500 yet.</p>

[schonphotography]

I don't know if I would go with Canon for landscape if you're going to be picking up a new system. The 5D is a great

camera, no doubt, but if the 1DX is going to be their flagship in the future, then it appears as if their focus is more on

wildlife and sports (as it traditionally has been) than on areas that demand high resolution, like fashion and landscape.

This is just a thought to ponder, not really for debate.

[smooth_carrots]

<p>It hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but there really is something about an image from a full frame DSLR that sets it apart from the rest. I far prefer a shot from the old 12MP 5D to one out of a modern 18MP crop camera. There is just something magical and more film-like about a full frame shot. Maybe it's the shallow DoF or the cleaner overall look. Something to consider. I still think a Mk1 5D would be the OP's best bet within his budget.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Let me come back at this in a more direct way.</p>

<p>With a total $1500 budget, realistically full-frame is not really a consideration. (Yes, one could get a used 5D with one prime... but that isn't likely the best option.)</p>

<p>So, you are almost certainly getting a cropped sensor body. For typical landscape work - assuming that "typical" is what you have in mind, we can assume a few things:</p>

<ul>

<li>you don't need high frame rates</li>

<li>you don't need the most capable AF system on the planet</li>

<li>low light performance isn't likely to be a major issue</li>

</ul>

<p>If I were recommending a Canon body, I'd suggest a lower-price-range cropped sensor body in the series that used to be called "Rebel" cameras - even something like an older XTi could work, though the newer t1i, t2i, etc could be your high end.</p>

<p>If you are new to this, I'd start with the basic IS kit lens and work with it at first. This will help you stretch your budget to cover a few other things typically required for landscape - decent tripod, remote release, perhaps a CP, etc.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[greg_campbell1]

Alan, <BR><BR>

 

What aspect of your photography are you looking to improve? <br><br>

I see you have a 6x7 and have done landscapes with it. The tonalities, resolution, etc. of these Mamiya images are as good as you're going to get with anything this side of a $20K digital back or LF film camera. If these images aren't making you happy, may I gently suggest that you need to address the photographer's shortcomings! :) IMO, 90% of landscape photography happens in your head (planning, composition, anticipating and waiting for best light), well before the shutter is pressed. At that point, all the camera has to do is 'get out of the way' and record the images.

<br><br>

I'm not saying you shouldn't get a DSLR, but I wouldn't worry about megapickles, crop factors, and all the rest.

[david_henderson]

<p>As is very often the case on Photo.net, there is a dissonance between what the OP wants and the money he can spend or wants to spend to achieve it. Just because a budget has been set does not mean that a series of objectives can always be achieved within it. Budgets aren't always appropriate to what is wanted. Some form of compromise is often necessary. That compromise can take the form of dropping standards - for example accepting that 30" x 20" prints are either unlikely or less frequent. But a compromise can also be achieved in terms of timescale- maybe hauling the Mamiya around for another year to accumulate more funding? </p>

<p>For me, I'd rather wait a while and get later what I know will be a certain and comfortable way of achieving what I want rather than accept quality compromise or risk. That means that for me, for this application I'd always prefer a full frame camera because x million big pixels is better than x million smaller pixels for this application- surely there can't be a real debate on that score. However despite arguments (which I largely agree with ) that large landscape prints can be produced from files at well under 300ppi, I still don't accept that the <strong><em>best</em></strong> way to use a digital camera to make 30" x 20" prints is to start with a 12MP camera of whatever pixel size unless you're able to control viewing distance ( and there's another possible compromise). </p>

<p>All we're doing here is to speculate on what compromise and risk Mr Klein might feel tempted to take.</p>

 

[steve_t.1]

<p>To Charles Wood- the K5 does not have a back lit sensor, nor does the D7000 (both cameras have the same Sony sensor, but it's not back lit). For more info, see this thread where even I was caught up in this false hype- http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00YRqJ</p>

<p>That said, I do own a K-5 (and K20D and K100D Super before it), and I'll wholeheartedly suggest the K-5 for landscape use, one of my most common subjects. Built like a small tank, weather sealed, and outstanding overall quality and performance. Pair it with a Pentax prime, such as the outstanding DA 15mm or DA 21mm (I use both) and you've got a landscape combo that is very tough to beat in any format, assuming wide angle is your view of choice for landscape. The Pentax primes are some of the best lenses out there. This body/lens combo will be just outside the OP's $1500 benchmark, but if he can stretch a bit, he'd be in fine shape.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Wow. Thanks everyone for some really helpful suggestions and detailed ideas. Let me clarify a little. I'm thinking of going to DSLR because the RB67 and my Gitzo tripod is getting kind of heavy. As I enter retirement, going lighter is starting to sound pretty good. I tried an EVIL (Olympus E-PL1) but just don't like the contrasty DR and operation is too unintuitive. The menu's while I understand them and can change them are just a pain every time you want to change the type of shooting. </p>

<p>The 20x30" I mentioned for prints is overdoing it and set some of the conversation off in the wrong direction. I apologize for that. I'm not a pro, am doing this for my own pleasure and for family and friends, so smaller prints would be fine. I use to do 16x20" prints with the medium format so that equivalent would be acceptable with the DSLR. I'm not interested in sports, so high continuous shooting and a million focus points isn't important, nor is high ISO capability. I'm intrigued by the articulating LCD of the D5100 for low shots especially since the IQ is suppose to be the same as the D7000. Any thoughts on that? I hope this pulls back your suggestions and clarifies with I'm looking for. I'm flexible on the price so getting a good camera with lenses up to $2500 would be OK too.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I see people are still trying to dissuade Alan Klein regarding crop even though he has made his budget and intentions clear, and even though nobody can post one comparison which shows the "magic" of FF. I'm curious: which crop comes from which in this <a href="http://www.taylor-design.com/photos/2/test.jpg">DPReview test</a>? The magic seems to be hiding.</p>

<p>Alan Klein - I'm less familiar with Nikon so I can't help with lenses there, other than to say the excellent Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is available on both. I believe you are correct that the D5100 and D7000 sport the same sensor, in which case you should be fine. Take it from someone who has actually tested crop and FF in landscape situations making prints on his own Epson 3880, as well as wider Epson pro printers at a local lab: this is an excellent sensor that will get you to 30" regardless of the nay-saying by FF fans. It can certainly handle 16x20.</p>

<p>Honestly, if your 6x7 prints are produced from V600 scans, I think you will actually find the DSLR prints will be better. Your 6x7 film can certainly out perform digital sensors in this size/price range, but you would have to use higher end scanners (i.e. Nikon or drum). (At least that's my impression from the view times I've used MF on Epson flatbeds. Admittedly I could have been dealing with bad units, but the loss in sharpness and detail was pretty high.)</p>

<p>With a budget of $2,500 in the Canon system I would probably say to go for the 60D (articulating screen; great feature set), the Tokina 11-16, and the Canon 15-85, which leaves you under budget. Alternatively, if you don't think you will need to go as wide, you could do something like the Canon 15-85 and the Canon 70-200 f/4L, which again leaves you with some money to play with. I would probably put the remainder in either case towards a Sigma 30 f/1.4 for natural light hand held work, i.e. street, indoors, etc. Nikon doesn't have a good answer for the Canon 70-200 f/4L, which is sharp as a tack, offers pro build and constant f/4 aperture. I think the 15-85 is also a fairly unique combination of focal range, IQ, and features, though obviously Nikon has multiple zooms to choose from.</p>

<p>Though I'm partial to Canon's lens selections, you can't go wrong either way.</p>

<p>As to DR and contrast: the newer 16 MP sensor in the Nikon has a bit more DR than the 18 MP Canon sensor, but I don't think you'll notice it for the most part. It is NOT 14 stops as DxO claims, but just over 11, and the Canon just over 10. Contrast is completely under your control when shooting RAW. Adobe Camera RAW is especially adept at letting you refine and control this, taming highlights and opening up shadows. Honestly, when using ACR sometimes the challenge is to not over do it thereby producing an unnatural looking image. Tricks like double developing a RAW file and proper noise filtering can yield an extra stop from both cameras.</p>

<p>Articulating LCD's can certainly be useful when your camera is near the ground, though just having LiveView itself, articulating or not, is a huge gain over crimping your neck to use the VF. LiveView also helps with focusing and DoF when shooting with plenty of time mounted on a tripod.</p>

<p>Good luck with your choice.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>With the current state of the art of stitching software great panoramas and super dense images can be made with just about any camera. Probably the most important piece of gear for landscape photography is a solid base to shoot your images from. This can range from a sandbag to a expensive tripod. </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Alan, as recommended by many, the Nikon D7000 appears to fit your light-weight and budget requirement. Couple that with the Nikon 17-55mm zoom or 24-70mm (though not too light), you will be in landscape heaven.</p>

<p>See Thom Hogan's reviews:<br /> <a href="http://bythom.com/nikond7000review.htm">Nikon D7000 Camera</a><br /> <a href="http://bythom.com/1755lens.htm">Nikon 17-55 Lens</a></p>

<p>Good luck! :)</p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>

<p>Alan, as recommended by many, the Nikon D7000 appears to fit your light-weight and budget requirement. Couple that with the Nikon 17-55mm zoom or 24-70mm (though not too light), you will be in landscape heaven.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 may be a better choice for many landscape photographers shooting DX, unless one really needs f/2.8. The 17-55 is reputedly optimized for relatively close shooting and wider apertures while the 16-85 reportedly does better at greater distances and at the smaller apertures more likely to be used in landscape work. The 17-55 also is particularly suspectible to flare according to Bjorn Rorslett. The 24-70 is equivalent to 36-105mm when used on DX. Most landscape photographers would want something considerably wider than that.</p>

<p>Any of these lenses, in combination with the D7000, would be outside the price range specified by the OP, especially the 17-55 and 24-70.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Bill, I believe the OP indicated that the $1,500 limit is for the camera only. I did think about the 16-85 lens. It's nice but IMO not as nice as the other two.</p>

[User_2000406]

<p>Sigh... I looked through all the pages before posting and still somehow missed Alan's statement that his real price limit is $2500. Mary, that would barely exclude the 17-55 but Alan can decide how flexible his limit is. </p>

[matthew_cromer2]

<p>Sony Alpha 65 (24MP, stabilized with all lenses, no mirror slap, electronic first curtain shutter, $900).</p>

[schonphotography]

<blockquote>

<p>Sony Alpha 65 (24MP, stabilized with all lenses, no mirror slap, electronic first curtain shutter, $900).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why didn't anyone think of this before? I know I'm a bit biased against Sony just because of lack of history, but how can we be recommending Nikon's and Pentax's if they all use Sony sensors anyway? You can't really beat the 24mp here. Anyone know if it's full frame or crop?</p>