Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers

[YellowJersey]

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)

Personally, I think the 5D mkIII specs suit the needs of landscape photographers. Or, at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape/nature photographer.

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.

If the 5D mkIII was a high MP camera like many people wish, then I think the low light capabilities would be reduced and my early morning/late evening shots would suffer for it. I think 22MP is high resolution enough but without getting too high so as to hurt low light ISO.

I currently shoot a 5D classic and, quite frankly, it's 12MP sensor gives me more than enough resolution to work with, even if I'm making larger prints. The 22MP is going to be far more than I even know what to do with.

So I think what we've been given is a great balance.

So at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape and nature photographer. Others may differ, but spec wise it seems like the right camera for me.

 

[briansquibb]

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

 

[wickidwombat]

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 so need that i always get the horrizon off unless i pop my little green bubble level on top

 

[briansquibb]

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 so need that i always get the horrizon off unless i pop my little green bubble level on top

I was thinking of sunset/sunrise when it is difficult to see the little bubble

 

[friedmud]

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

The electronic level on my 7D is one of my favorite features for lanscapes with that camera.

 

[wickidwombat]

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 so need that i always get the horrizon off unless i pop my little green bubble level on top

I was thinking of sunset/sunrise when it is difficult to see the little bubble

i'll just be happy not having to unpack 50 million things out of my camera bag so i can dig the little bubble out of the bottom where it migrated to and got hidden

 

[briansquibb]

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 so need that i always get the horrizon off unless i pop my little green bubble level on top

I was thinking of sunset/sunrise when it is difficult to see the little bubble

i'll just be happy not having to unpack 50 million things out of my camera bag so i can dig the little bubble out of the bottom where it migrated to and got hidden

Wow - that is some bag

 

[briansquibb]

...
Personally, I think the 5D mkIII specs suit the needs of landscape photographers. Or, at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape/nature photographer.

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.

Here's a tip: get a tripod and shoot at ISO 100 more often.

+1 Exactly

 

[sanj]

I humbly disagree.
Any serious landscape photographer will use a solid tripod and low low ISO.
Please!

 

[moreorless]

...
Personally, I think the 5D mkIII specs suit the needs of landscape photographers. Or, at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape/nature photographer.

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.

Here's a tip: get a tripod and shoot at ISO 100 more often.

He does hilight that theres alot of differences within the "landscape" market, I'd guess most amatures take some landscapes but people willing to use a tripod(espeically on holiday) and deal with exact appature/focus to get the most out of 36 MP are likely in the minority.

 

[stefsan]

I completely agree with the OP that the 5D III specs sound great for landscape and nature photography. This camera (with some decent glass attached to it) could certainly improve my landscape capabilities. I often shoot while hiking, mountaineering or skiing and therefore seldom carry a tripod with me. Clean higher ISO output would help me getting shots in some situations where my 7D simply does not deliver satisfying image quality.
I also like the fact that they put in better weather sealing and the GPS device sounds like an interesting addition for me too (although a very expensive one).

 

[jrista]

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. ;-)

 

[Autocall]

Still be people not shooting panoramics for wide landscapes?
I understand that high-end Studio photography eventually still needs medium format but why the hell wouldn't the mk III be suited for landscapes?

 

[Bennymiata]

I also think the 5D3 will be great for landscapes, and also lower light indoor shots without using a flash, which can often be a problem when taking shots of larger groups indoors at night.
The higher FPS also means it will be quite OK for sports, so IMHO, I think the 5D3 will be a great all-aroud camera for the more serious photographer - and that's me to a tee!

22mp is more than enough.
Many years ago, I had a D60 (which I still have actually and I'm thinking of getting it changed into an infra-red camera) and it's paltry few mp still gave reasonable shots, at low ISO's, and my new 60D is good, but the high ISO is not so good, so for me, the 5D3 seems perfect.
I do have a grip fo rmy 60D, but I often don't want to lug it around with me, so 1Dx wouldn't suit me, so the 5D3 seems to be the perfect halfway house.
I'm also dieing to try my new Sigma 150mm macro with OS on the 5D3!
The results should be spectacular.

 

[Arkarch]

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.

 

[moreorless]

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]

There is also the built in HDR feature, surely a huge bonus for landscape photography?

 

[sanj]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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$