September 18, 2014, 03:42:55 PM

Author Topic: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers  (Read 10223 times)

Arkarch

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
    • Karl Buiter Photography
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2012, 04:37:27 AM »
I humbly disagree.
Any serious landscape photographer will use a solid tripod and low low ISO.
Please!

Even on the tripod...

Clouds move.

Stars move.

Moments happen - a billowing of clouds over the rockies; the moment dawn breaks; the leaves in an autumn wind; the capture of a fleeting light beam in a slot canyon. 

The world does not stop to match a long time exposure just to accommodate ISO 100.

Having the exposure range to take advantage of challenging conditions is important - sometimes its all you have to capture a magical once-in-a-lifetime moment nobody else will get.

Sure, high MP has its advantages and I am sure many will get great images that way. 

But it will not do everything, even if everything you do is on a tripod

(and yes, most all my shots are Manfrotto tripod, mirror-up, wireless remote trigger)

I applaud Canon's efforts to fix noise, improve DR.  Nearly 1 Stop better on Raw over the 5DMarkII is quite good for me - over an already incredible workhorse landscape camera.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 04:43:52 AM by Arkarch »
Landscape ( http://www.buiterphotography.com )
Motorsports ( http://www.buitermotorsports.com )
5DIII, 7D, EF 300/2.8 II IS USM, ZE 21/2.8, ZE 50/2 ZE 100/2, TS-E 24/3.5, EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, EF 24-105 IS f/4, TC 1.4 III, TC 2.0 III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2012, 04:37:27 AM »

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 647
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2012, 05:42:40 AM »
My guess is that if Canon does come up with a high MP body its going to be more of a speicalist one designed specifically for landscape/studio(even higher MP, maybe 1D level build but lower ISO and FPS) than the D800 with a price to match.

They do afterall target the landscape/studio/macro markets with some very speicalist and very expensive lenses so I'd guess there feeling could be that if someone can afford say 17mm and 24mm TSE lenses they can afford a $4K body.

suburbia

  • Guest
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2012, 06:15:41 AM »
There is also the built in HDR feature, surely a huge bonus for landscape photography?

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2012, 06:51:59 AM »
Arkarch,
I do get your point and understand it. Having better grain/DR at higher ISO is always welcome. It certainly is.
However I would prefer higher resolution/mp in most landscape or product photography situation.
Please compare two photos, one with 22mp and the other with 40mp to see the difference.
Regards,

psolberg

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #19 on: March 07, 2012, 08:05:12 AM »
I don't think anybody can argue that the camera is bad for landscapes. I think the debate is centered around the fact products don't stand in isolation. For 3.5 thousand dollars, is it the best camera for landscapes? I don't think so.

Quote
There is also the built in HDR feature, surely a huge bonus for landscape photography?
this is for beginners. most HDR is done from bracketed shots blended and mapped in post.

Quote
Arkarch,
I do get your point and understand it. Having better grain/DR at higher ISO is always welcome. It certainly is.
However I would prefer higher resolution/mp in most landscape or product photography situation.
Please compare two photos, one with 22mp and the other with 40mp to see the difference.
Regards,

agree. the high ISO numbers of the 5DIII aren't very helpful for most landscape to trade for resolution. are you going to be shooting landscapes at 25K-52K ISO? unlikely unless doing night sky photography and for that, something like a 1dx would be more preferable. High ISOs also nosedive the dynamic range very quickly in addition to the undesireable noise. I'd avoid them at all costs. You won't always be able to keep ISO100 for sure, but most cameras these days perform great up to ISO800 and I just don't much value in pushing the ISO over the 5DII limits. So I don't consider big ISO values as being the top concern for lanscapes where detail and dynamic range are often more important.

IMO, best landscape body in this price range remains the D800, but the best value is by far the 5DII. Good enough ISO, 1 less megapixel and a heck of a lot cheaper than anything.



sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2012, 08:16:14 AM »
Psolberg: I agree.
If I was doing only landscapes, I would not even consider upgrading to 3 even once.
That's exactly the gripe I guess lots of people have. They find #3 good for everything, excellent for very few things. And that is the case especially now as Nikon seems to be showing us the way.. My .002$

jalbfb

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2012, 08:59:18 AM »
I think we could keep it pretty simple. The 5D II was (and still is) one of the most popular digital cameras for landscape photographers. I see more landscape photographers posting photos online taken with a 5D II than any other camera.

Given that the 5D III LOSES NOTHING, in relation to the 5D II (rather it gains something on pretty much every level, including image resolution)...there is zero reason it wouldn't also be an excellent and hugely popular camera amongst the same exact group of people who used the 5D II. Tripod or no tripod. ;-)

+1
Happy owner of the 5D Mark III, 24-105 f/4L and other L lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2012, 08:59:18 AM »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2012, 09:41:13 AM »
I humbly disagree.
Any serious landscape photographer will use a solid tripod and low low ISO.
Please!

Even on the tripod...
Clouds move.
Stars move.
Moments happen - a billowing of clouds over the rockies; the moment dawn breaks; the leaves in an autumn wind; the capture of a fleeting light beam in a slot canyon. 
The world does not stop to match a long time exposure just to accommodate ISO 100.
I could not agree more.  I have a lot of nicely framed landscape shots that are flawed because trees/bushes have moved during a long shutter period while my camera was mounted on my tripod and my ISO was set to 100.

I believe the target is to keep the iso as low as possible, being on a tripod can do nothing but help.

Let common sense prevail rather than stick rigidly to some arbitary rule

XanuFoto

  • Guest
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2012, 10:25:58 AM »
Quote

IMO, best landscape body in this price range remains the D800, but the best value is by far the 5DII. Good enough ISO, 1 less megapixel and a heck of a lot cheaper than anything.

Bang on. Talented photographers have been producing spectacular Landscapes with the 5D MKII. For arround 2000 its still the best bang for the buck. The D800 will be a better option but at the end of the day talented photographers with a MKII or a D800 will still product better images that 95% people craving for the 36 MP.

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1991
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2012, 10:29:44 AM »
A nice little feature on the 5DIII is the electronic level on the  screen (same as the 7D).

A nice to have for tripod work

I never realized how much i needed that until i had it with my 7D... it almost makes or breaks the shot if it's not level in some cases... I also stitch pano's and having it perfectly level on dual axis's makes stitch more seamless and I get to maximize the file size rather than losing a chunk after stitching and cropping with an unlevel camera.
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

dtaylor

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2012, 10:38:10 AM »
Given that the 5D III LOSES NOTHING, in relation to the 5D II (rather it gains something on pretty much every level, including image resolution)...there is zero reason it wouldn't also be an excellent and hugely popular camera amongst the same exact group of people who used the 5D II. Tripod or no tripod. ;-)

There is one very big reason: it has a 36 MP competitor that costs $500 less. If you never print larger than 13x19 or maybe 16x24 then it won't matter. If you do...and many landscape and studio photographers do...then the 5D mkIII is 2nd class. I'm sorry, but a 36" landscape print will show very obvious differences between the two.

Canon needs a high MP FF body unless they want to lose that segment completely to Nikon.

dtaylor

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2012, 10:52:57 AM »
There's been a lot of talk about how the 5D mkIII doesn't benefit landscape photographers. I searched for an appropriate thread to post this, but none of them seemed right. So here I am starting my first thread. (be gentle)
My reasoning is thus: I'm often shooting in the morning or evening (golden hour) in low light at an f-stop between f/8 and f/11 and quite often I'll be using various filters from polarizers to graduated ND filters. This means that in order to get decent shutter speed I generally have to crank the ISO up, but I want as clean an image as possible. So the 5D mkIII's improvement on the mkII's ISO will be a great help.

With the 7D I have no problem going to ISO 800 for a 24" print. I wouldn't make landscape prints that large from higher ISOs. But at most the 5D2 buys 1 more stop.

Will the 5D3 make an acceptable 24" landscape print at 3200? I'll wait to see the studio test samples from various test sites. But even if it can, this buys minutes under twilight conditions at best. After the sun sets shutter speeds rapidly drop with the light levels. ISO 800 or ISO 3200, your shutter times while stopped down with filters will still be in the motion blurring seconds range.

Perhaps the larger question is: will the 5D3 or the D800 make better large prints at 1600 and 3200? Everyone assumes pixel size drives noise yet that has not been the case for a decade. Technology plus total senor size drives total image noise. We have yet to see if the 5D3 has any real advantage over the D800 over their common ISO range. Even if it does at first glance, if your print size is, say, 24" from a 3200 file the D800 has pixels to spare in resizing and NR, so the end result would probably still be a wash.

Personally I would rather be able to reliably print larger without stitching. The D800 is starting to get into MFDB range. If Canon would just enlarge the 7D sensor to FF (45 MP) and stick it in a 5D body I would be thrilled.

Mark D5 TEAM II

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1195
  • Proud N0ink 0wnz0r / crApple iFruitcake H4t3r
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2012, 10:53:18 AM »
Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?
Nikon NSF16 5-Leaf Dual-Blade Industrial Fan ¦ Nikon NTMFI-H1 Dry Heavy Flat Iron ¦ Nikon Tough Mama NTMRC1-2S Rice Cooker “Limited Edition” ¦ Nikon Tough Mama NTMJK18-S Stainless Electric Kettle Plate Type ¦ Nikon NHT 2-in-1 Curling Iron & Straightener in One ¦ Nikon N4004s Decision Master System™

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2012, 10:53:18 AM »

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1991
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2012, 10:59:31 AM »
Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?

Sure there was, they just told their clients to stand way back when viewing haha   ???
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

ramon123

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
    • View Profile
Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2012, 11:15:30 AM »
The reviews have shown that Canon have gone for more of an "all round" camera that could be suited for multiple type jobs etc. photojournalism, sports, wedding, portrait etc.

This being true, I'd say that they steered away from the 5D Mark II which was more for landscape and portrait photography / optimal in these 2 areas.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers
« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2012, 11:15:30 AM »