So I was wondering, if higher pixel density is useful for landscape photos, would the 7D be a more useful tool for the job than say the 5Ds or 6D. As I understand it (which may not be very well...) the shallower DOF with FF is no advantage and neither is high ISO capabilities if shooting with good ambient light (which most landscape shots tend to have I think).
I ask because i want to take more landscape shots. I currently own a 40D and am thinking of getting a 10-22mm. However, i will prob upgrade from the 40D in the new year (once we know what's happening with the 7D line) and may move to full frame (which would make the 10-22 redundant).
My first post btw - thanks all
think like this, a smaller sensor requires more of the lenses, about 1.5 (nikon aps) better resolution and contrast, so it is always better with a larger sensor if everything is equal when it comes to the actual sensor design and resolution.
example 20mp and 24x36 surface and 20 mp at a APS surface.
Is it landscape, details the larger sensor is always better and you must compensate the reach with longer lenses
+1 With my 6D most of my lenses visibly resolve much more detail, despite only having 2 more MP than the 60D. With very high quality optics, like the 100mm f/2.8L, it's harder to see the difference in detail/sharpness.
However, there are three advantages that even the best optics won't give you on crop, and that is DR
, tonal range
, and color depth
. Since the surface area is larger on a FF, it takes more light per pixel (or down-sampled pixel on a D800), and thus can read smaller changes in colour and brightness, and pick up smaller details in darker parts of the frame (giving more DR in post).
You'll almost always be shooting at ISO 100, and you may need to stop down more to get enough DOF, but since you can just expose for longer, a FF will collect more light per (resolution adjusted) pixel. So you will have better DR, tonal range, and color depth than on a crop sensor camera. There seems to be a war going on about whether a person can actually notice that, and I won't get into that, but there are at least technical reasons
that FF is much better than crop for landscape photography. Note some crop sensors can, due to better design, do just as well as some lesser quality FF sensor on these metrics. So sensor design clearly has an impact, but sensor design aside, the FF will do better between two sensors of the same design. Also it's fair to say Nikon (via Sony) has the edge at the moment in sensor design, but I own a 6D, not a d600, so sensors aren't everything.