- This topic is empty.
Nikon D700 or Canon 5D MKII for Landscape Photography?
-
Hi All,
Its time to go full frame, currently using a Nikon D300s with mostly DX lenses. 99% of my photography is landscapes and I see that the majority of landscape photographers are using Canon.
From your experience and knowledge, of the above camera’s which is more suited to Landscapes and why? The more I read the more I am stuck on a decision…..any feedback on using both camera’s for landscapes specifically would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
LukeThe Canon 5D is a 21 megapixel and your Nikon D700 is 12 megapixel. The extra pixels will help when you’re printing very large landscape images. It will also capture more data in landscapes.
The Canon is also weather sealed which will help in wet and nasty weather.
I can’t say for sure, but I prefer the tones that come from the Canon over Nikon (in general).
Simply would like to get more in shot and for low light noise issues….I would like to invest in better glass in the form of full frame lenses as well. Another requirement is I am exhibiting and currently I am having issues enlarging past 80cm wide, the loss of sharpness and noise is becoming restrictive. I know that the sharpness is mainly down to the lens in use but noise is a big killer.
I was in exactly your situation (D300 + mainly DX lenses) and I too wanted to go full frame for all the reasons you stated.
For me, the 21 megapixels in the 5DII was the deciding factor. 18 months later I’m so glad I did as I find lately that with my 16-35 at the 16 end I’m cropping more than I ever did on a current project on abandoned farmhouses. With 21 megapixels I have such leeway to crop yet maintain sharpness. When a 24 megapixel Nikon that’s not a D3 comes out I might reconsider my position, but only then,
Dave
I know its not what you asked, but if I were so committed to landscape, I would consider a medium or large format film camera. Once you get away from small nature 35mm film, the quality achievable with medium format or large format film truly is amazing, reflected in the fact some landscape publications out there will not accept anything less than 5x4inch large format film images.
Just an alternative opinion to the above :)
Thank you all for your comments……
My thoughts……21MP sounds good, but as you see in comparisons between these two fine cameras the quality difference in the shots is minimal (please correct me if I am wrong). With the more MP, low light conditions become non-favourable and noise creeps in. This is my main concerns with the D5 MkII. I could be wrong and the difference could be absolute minimal. With Nikon, there must be a very strong argument why they haven’t gone for more MP….can anyone enlighten me on this?
Damien, cheers for the info but I couldn’t go back to Film, just don’t have the time or patience to wait for the images and will have to end up scanning all onto the mac…..I’m used to the luxury of digital :-)
I’m very happy with my 5DMkII. Loads of detail in that 21MP full-frame sensor. The only think I miss with full-frame is the ‘reach’ you get with the crop sensors, but I do mostly landscape, so not that big a deal. As for noise, I don’t find it a problem, ISO1600 very usable indeed. I’ve seen some very in-depth noise comparisons between Nikon and Canon, and to be honest, I can’t see the difference.
Dave.Thanks Dave, just look at look at your work….amazing stuff and the quality of the images looks sharp from what I can tell on the website. More confused than ever but slightly tipping towards the 5D MkII……
I’m with Damien (again). Large print landscape and LF is a match made in heaven. Seriously. (Also, 6×17 MF, CAN be as good). I don’t find digital a “luxury”. Is as much a pain in the ss as anything else somewhere down the line….you’re just shifting your pain :)
For what it’s worth have a glance at a Contax 645 here’s a link to a website about medium fromat Digital . I agree with Damien that Medium format and landscape(s) are synonymous. If you have 5 minutes then read the link and check out the contax 645 on ebay or your preferred camera merchant?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/mfd-field.shtml
…the only problem you have with a 645 system (the smallest MF after all) is that decent digital MF backs still cost more than aforementioned DSLRs, and (even pure resolution wise) a 5d MkII or a D3 sort of have it over the plain film 645 back. Also, the link you posted is from 2003, aeons ago in the digital word.
Comparing Nikon D700 and Canon D5Mk2 I would go for Canon even if I am a Nikon man. The reason is: 21Mp is better in cropping on software and as far as I know this C works better in low light condition. 21Mp doesn’t effect noise level, it depends on ISO quality.
However, paying €2000 for a new gear + at least €2000 for a quality FF lens = it is a lot of money. Maybe staying with D300s and buying better lenses would help you to save extra.
To answer to your Q, I would go for Canon.
I’d say, and no doubt I’ll be dragged out and flogged in the morning for this… :)
It matters not a jot!! There is so little to choose between two really good FF cameras that its far more important to spend you hard earned on lenses….
If you’re mostly shooting landscapes then noise wont be an issue because you’ll be using a tripod…. wont you??
You don’t say what your budget is, but if it’s limited I’d go canon, that way you can go and buy a 5d mk1 and spend a bucket of cash on some lovely L primes (24, 35, 135??)
IMHO you’ll see more quality improvements in print from lenses than a big jump in MP
just my 2c
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
