Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting

[zonabc]

I agree. Trey is the man when it comes to HDR. Some.. or should I say.. most of his images are brilliant. He does spend a lot of time in PS and with Nik & Topaz Products.

I posted the topic because I was basically given a 16-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS L, but I do not have a camera. Well I do, but it's a 10D I thought about selling those two and going with the D800 and starting off with the 14-24 and then build my glass collection.

Thanks again for your input

 

[Cali_PH]

I'm glad this topic was posted; I mostly shoot landscape and have been wondering which would be better; I occasionally shoot HDR also. It's been educational reading the comments.

But, if you already have canon lenses, then is that enough to switch?

Also, the most important thing to consider is IQ. I have never used a Nikon, so I can't say anything about them. However, about 90% of my favorite landscape shots on Flickr use a 5D2. I don't search them it, but when I check the EXIF it's almost always a 5D2. If the 3 has even better IQ, and you already have canon lenses, and you don't care about the 2 extra brackets, and the MPs I say get the 5D3.

That sums up where I am. A landscape hobbyist who's been waiting to upgrade to FF, and wondering if my modest investment in lenses is enough to affect my decision (perhaps low investment by some standards, haha! One L lens, and the nice the 10-22mm, 17-55mm, which I'm guessing should have good resale value).

Despite the numerous "D800 is better for landscapes because of the higher resolution" comments (pending real life tests, of course), I keep thinking about your second comment. I agree, most of the landscape shots I've loved have been shot with a 5D2, and the 5D3 should be even better. While it's true that the Nikon may perhaps be even better depending on situation/technique, the 5D3 should be a huge upgrade for me too. Plus, with my moderate skills, I'm thinking it may be a while before I'm experienced enough to create images where I could see much of a difference between the two.

 

[benjaminblack]

I do not claim to know if the current Nikon lenses can handle the high resolution of the D800, but let's suppose for a moment this information is correct.

1) Reviews of the D800 will largely be unflattering, because few, if any of their lenses are currently good enough for the D800. However, if anyone could have anticipated this fact it would be the developers at Nikon. How long ago do you think they could have anticipate the problem - 2 or 3 years? Hence, any lenses they've released in the last 2-3 years theoretically should be fine. Does that make sense? This company understand its trajectory much better than we do.

2) Canon will most definitely release a 35+ MP body in the next three years. The same logic applies. IF it's true that 36MP is too much resolution for most of Canon's lenses they will be the first to acknowledge it and address the issue. Perhaps it's already been addressed in many of their MK II lenses.

So even if the D800 has excessive resolution for some of Nikon lenses, it's my opinion, that the most recent lenses will be fine. What do you think?

 

[wickidwombat]

here is an HDR shot on a 12MP Nikon D90 with 18-200 @50mm from memory the previous one i posted was from a canon 1Dmk3 16-35 @35mm

 

[wickidwombat]

here is an HDR shot on a 12MP Nikon D90 with 18-200 @50mm from memory the previous one i posted was from a canon 1Dmk3 16-35 @35mm

the halo on this one makes me cry :'( it was done when i didn't know any better so please dont smite me too hard

 

[briansquibb]

I am not into hdr as a style but there are times when the lack of DR spoils the picture. So I use HDR as a tool to gain the DR and aim to make it as natural as possible to the point of understatement.
This is taken with the 5DII and 17-40