The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.
A real â€œproâ€ landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4â€ x 5â€ or 8â€ x 10â€ film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!
You could not be more wrong !
Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.
Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.
Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".
source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php
Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.
Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?
Even Ansel Adams moved to medium format in his latter years as film emultions improved and he got too old to lug around a huge pack full of large format kit. Go and have a look at the weight of a large format camera system and compare it to a DSLR, not to mention the amount of set up time required for each shot (and the expense of the film). That's not to say that the quality of large or medium format isn't better, it's a trade off of quality versus convenience (if you don't agree -why aren't you carrying around a 8" x 10" instead of mere 4" x 5"?). There are plenty of landscape photographers out there using DSLRs or digital medium format as it allows them to be more experimental and prolific in their shooting style. It's far better to get the shot on a smaller, faster format than to miss it messing around trying to set up large format kit. Large format is already on the wane as more landscape photographers move to the ever improving digital medium format systems. It's all about convenience...