Buying a Camera

[Lumaka]

I'm trying to decide if I should buy Canon T2i, T3i or 60D. I think that the 60D is better than the others but; it comes with only one lens 18 - 135, is that a good enough lens for landscapes(sunsets)? or do you think that the other 2 are as good as the 60D? :-\

 

[AaronCR]

All 3 have the same sensor and processor. 18mm should be about the same on either lens.
Buy the T3i or 60D if you want to control an off camera flash someday.

 

[Admin US West]

I'm trying to decide if I should buy Canon T2i, T3i or 60D. I think that the 60D is better than the others but; it comes with only one lens 18 - 135, is that a good enough lens for landscapes(sunsets)? or do you think that the other 2 are as good as the 60D? :-\

You get what you pay for. The 18-135 is a low cost superzoom and it appeals to someone who wants a walk-around lens and is pleased by the better quality and speed over his point and shoot. And, if you can work around the weaknesses, it will capture excellent images.

However, if you are a person who obsesses over quality, it might be dissappointing. The cost to upgrade a lens is very steep, for more $$, you might get a wider aperture, better construction, faster AF, and sharper edges / corners. Only you can decide if spending $$$$ for a "L" lens is worth it. One thing is that its not going to make your images any better composed, which is 90% of their value. If you have fantastic views and composures, they will be technically sharper and clearer when printed at huge sizes.

However, if you are a craftsman who just loves to work with fine tools and can afford them, the "L" lenses are wonderful to work with.

 

[Lumaka]

Thank you for your help...which lenses would you recommend and what do you think about extended warranty?

 

[AaronCR]

I'd start with the kit lens and a tripod.
The 10-22mm is great for wide angles. The 28mm f1.8 is great for seeing colors at night.
The 14mm f2.8 for $2,200 might be the ultimate landscape lens.

 

[foto]

I bought the 60D recently and am a little dissapointed in the weight. The T3i is a lot easier. Consider it if you are planning to walk around with your camera.

 

[Admin US West]

Thank you for your help...which lenses would you recommend and what do you think about extended warranty?

First lay out a good groundwork to be able to advance your capabilities.

The 18-135 is a excellent starter lens. You can always sell your kit lens later without losing any money, since you get a big discount when its bundled with the camera. It has its limitations, but so do all lenses. Learn them, and how to work around them.

Buy yourself a good piece of software (Adobe Lightroom), and a book to learn to use it. You will get better quality images by learning to use RAW and to properly develop the images than spending money on a lens that might not be the one for you. Lightroom is wonderful, but you will not easily discover all the wonderful features without some training.

Once again, learn to take and develop images using RAW rather then jpeg. Take lots of photos of the things you like. Get a fast SD card, and a fast card reader.

You might also consider a external flash that can be controlled remotely by your 60D.

Then, if you want something different, look at the focal lengths and apertures by using the Lightroom metadata filter. You will be able to see just how many of your images are taken at each focal length, aperture, shutter speed, etc. This may help you to decide on the next step that would be best for YOU. .

Do not go out and spend hundreds of dollars on a lens that might not fit your type of shooting. People will tell you what they would do, but that is of no help to you. Learn and the next step will become clear to you.

 

[match14]

I would go for either the T3i or 60D.

 

[sharagim1]

buy canon l lens 17-40. great lens

 

[Act444]

I had a T2i and upgraded to the 60D for the faster speed, better focusing and (slightly) more features.

Using the same lens with both, they basically take the same images. I assume the T3i is the same. It just depends on the feature set you want. If you don't need bells and whistles, you can save a few hundred dollars, get the T2i and then use the money saved to get a better lens. If budget is not an issue, though- can't go wrong with the 60D. Among the three cameras you mentioned, you're paying for features, really- not image quality. That will come down to which lens you put on the camera.

As for which lens- that's really subjective. I have a handful of lenses but they serve different needs for me. The EF-S 10-22 is a common lens used among landscape photographers- perhaps that plus the stock lens will be good enough, but hard for me to say because only you know what your needs are.

 

[awinphoto]

Body wise they have similar sensors and processors, however only you would be able to answer if you need the speed, extra ergonomics and top LCD and if you want the size... The 60D (and on up) are heavier than the rebels but it's not bad. I dont mind but I admittedly always shot with the xxD series and on up so I never had the digital rebel to weigh in comparison. If you can deal with the weaker ergonomics and slower speed and overall preformance, you could get a better bang for your money to get the T3I with an L lens, maybe the 17-40 or 24-105 Ls to start or settle for the 17-55 IS for an in-between lens... Then in the future, if you want, upgrade to the 60D or 70D or 7D MII when you have more experience with the camera and lenses under your belt. Thats my 2 cents. Good luck!

 

[DJL329]

I'm trying to decide if I should buy Canon T2i, T3i or 60D. I think that the 60D is better than the others but; it comes with only one lens 18 - 135, is that a good enough lens for landscapes(sunsets)? or do you think that the other 2 are as good as the 60D? :-\

As someone else also said, the 28mm f/1.8 is excellent for landscapes/sunsets (I use it for them all the time). Here's an example:

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photo-contests/2nd-annual-the-great-outdoors/gallery/562701-end-of-winter.html

Also, read up on how to take good pictures (composition, framing, exposure, etc.), because good photography happens with a camera, not a computer. Your time is better spent taking pictures, than fiddling with .raw files. You can get brilliant colors with .jpg files by changing the "Picture Style" settings from their defaults and setting the white balance correctly before you start shooting.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[pinnaclephotography]

As the T3i/T2i/60D all have the same sensor, and will provide the same visual result, you need to decide if the additional features are worth the additional cost. In the case of landscape photography, I think the T3i would be the best choice as the variable angle screen would be quite advantageous for tripod work or anything involving inconvenient angles. The price jump to the 60D gives you a bit more FPS (not important for landscape work) and a significantly better viewfinder. Ergonomics also come into play, but that is a personal thing based on your hand size/shape. You need to decide what criteria are most important to you and make your decision based on that.

If you are looking for a decent lanscape lens, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (the original, non-image stabilized version) is a great option to start with. Otherwise the wide angle options by Tokina (11-16mm, 12-24mm) are generally superior to Canon's APS-C offerings.

Another option you could consider is to ignore APS-C sized sensors and get a lightly used Canon 5D (the original) for about a grand. Despite its technical obsolescence, the image output of original 5D still crushes any crop sensor out there for landscape work. The lack of sensor cleaning and live view are the most significant drawbacks. But if you really want to get into landscape photography, the 5D classic is the most economical route to get the best output.

Here are a couple example shots from my 5D (all with the 17-40L)

Lower Lewis Falls by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


Crashing Cape Kiwanda [explore 9/22/10] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


The Mountain by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

-Matt Peterson
http://www.pinnaclephotography.net/

 

[pinnaclephotography]

Thanks documentaryman. All three are single exposure, while using a circular polarizer and graduated neutral density filters. The first shot is basically straight out of camera, minus a few dust and water spots that I removed. I don't do HDR.

 

[ions]

I love your stuff pinnacle but "crushes" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

 

[pinnaclephotography]

I love your stuff pinnacle but "crushes" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

"Despite its technical obsolescence, the image output of original 5D still crushes any crop sensor out there for landscape work. The lack of sensor cleaning and live view are the most significant drawbacks. But if you really want to get into landscape photography, the 5D classic is the most economical route to get the best output."

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just detailing why I claimed what I did. I stand by what I said for the following reasons.

1) The 5D has cleaner images at every ISO setting compared to any APS-C camera. This has additional benefits for long exposures or when doing landscape work under windy conditions. The ability to shoot clean, motion blur free landscapes (if needed) with ISO-800-1000 is very handy in a pinch. We have all been there when the light is perfect but the trees and foliage won't stay still (assuming you want them to be still). Full frame sensors in general are roughly 1.5-2 stops cleaner throughout their ISO range.

2) Sharper output. The original 5D has a rather weak anti-aliasing filter which results in significantly sharper images at a per-pixel level.

3) ISO-50 allows for longer exposures under the same lighting conditions (particularly useful for waterfalls). This also lets you use the f/8-f/11 range, allowing one to avoid the diffraction riddled f/16 and smaller apertures.

4) Better ultra wide angle options than APS-C. While APS-C is undeniably useful for wildlife, sports, and other telephoto applications, the platform suffers at the wide end. I know some people will disagree here, and people's satisfaction with lens output varies significantly...but when making 20x30 prints, it becomes obvious rather quickly when a lens is falling short of ideal performance.

All the 10-22/24mm zooms are less than stellar (the Canon is probably the best at 10mm), and while many fisheye lenses are suitably wide, they are a poor substitute for a true wide angle. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and perhaps the 12-24mm f/4 are probably the best APS-C options available. Once one moves to more moderate focal lengths the situation becomes much better. The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and Tamron 17-50 (original, non-stabilized version) work well.

Full frame however is a rather different story. While the more obvious 17-40L and 16-35L are still rather disappointing, on full frame the suitable options list is much larger than APS-C. The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is truly excellent in resolution and price (less so for distortion), the Zeiss 2.8/21, 2/28, and 2/35 (it is perhaps a bit too soon to tell on the 1.4/35) all are great for landscape work (with the 2.8/21 maintaining somewhat legendary status), the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 performs well (the downside is the domed front element, preventing practical filter use), and lastly the tilt and shift 17 and 24mm options from Canon are both excellent.

Lastly, and this is my opinion, I will mention that most primes seem to be more satisfactory at their true focal length than with crop. I'm sure others will disagree about this.

5) The larger sensor size helps convey a greater sense of depth than smaller, APS-C offerings. The larger the sensor/film size, usually the more 3 dimensional a shot will feel. Comparatively, APS-C and smaller sensors have very flat looking output (to my eye at least). Lenses also play a significant factor here (the Zeiss 2/35 comes to mind).

So those are my reasons for regarding full frame as superior for landscape applications. I consider the 5D (classic) to be the best bargain in the camera word right now...It does have disadvantages, which considering it's age in the digital world is hardly surprising. If one can get by without sensor cleaning, live view, and a spiffy new LCD screen, the 5D classic is certainly worth considering.

 

[ions]

None of that is news to me and I only disagree with a few things there, and not even completely. Minor points not worth quibbling over. The real problem is they don't add up to "crushes" for the vast majority of people. Most of the time when people whine and cry about the superiority of FF they don't back it up with great images. You would be a rare exception. Could your stuff have been done with a crop? Maybe. It'd be a tough go though and some filters would help. Other problem is, and the bigger issue for me at least, is the 7D for example, is a better camera in every way other than the sensor than the 5D II and that's the 5D II. There are also a bunch of perks related to APSC that I'm not gonna list here cause it's a lame debate. Although the sensor is a massively important part of the camera, particularly for landscape, it is not the complete camera. Would I like a 5dII? Sure, great camera, but the 7Ds versatility is greater and undeniable.

My point in pointing out that "crushes" is a vast overstatement was not really directed at you, in fact it was for other readers of this thread who come across it in the hopes that they don't fall for the weak and easy FF fanaticism that is far too rampant on the boards. Look on flickr and you'll see people with older Rebels, 30Ds or whatever else still pulling off kickbutt stuff. What makes a good landscape camera? An owner that points it at great landscapes. Yes yes, by that reasoning every tourist would be a great photographer but you gotta admit without pretty places there are no pretty photos. A new Rebel, 60D whatever is quite capable of beautiful landscapes and many other things that a used warrantlyless piece of equipment is not quite as capable of that new users may appreciate.

 

[Canihaspicture]

Just a personal opinion here, but I recently had to decide between a 5D mark II and a 7D... I researched the heck out of it and waited months for a 5d mark III that never came. I chose the 5D mark II and after the very first day with it said I'm never using a crop sensor DSLR again! It's just that good. Plus, when I do get a 5d Mark III in the future, I will have a FF backup camera.

 

[pinnaclephotography]

None of that is news to me and I only disagree with a few things there, and not even completely. Minor points not worth quibbling over. The real problem is they don't add up to "crushes" for the vast majority of people. Most of the time when people whine and cry about the superiority of FF they don't back it up with great images. You would be a rare exception. Could your stuff have been done with a crop? Maybe. It'd be a tough go though and some filters would help. Other problem is, and the bigger issue for me at least, is the 7D for example, is a better camera in every way other than the sensor than the 5D II and that's the 5D II. There are also a bunch of perks related to APSC that I'm not gonna list here cause it's a lame debate. Although the sensor is a massively important part of the camera, particularly for landscape, it is not the complete camera. Would I like a 5dII? Sure, great camera, but the 7Ds versatility is greater and undeniable.

My point in pointing out that "crushes" is a vast overstatement was not really directed at you, in fact it was for other readers of this thread who come across it in the hopes that they don't fall for the weak and easy FF fanaticism that is far too rampant on the boards. Look on flickr and you'll see people with older Rebels, 30Ds or whatever else still pulling off kickbutt stuff. What makes a good landscape camera? An owner that points it at great landscapes. Yes yes, by that reasoning every tourist would be a great photographer but you gotta admit without pretty places there are no pretty photos. A new Rebel, 60D whatever is quite capable of beautiful landscapes and many other things that a used warrantlyless piece of equipment is not quite as capable of that new users may appreciate.

ions, you raised some good points and your right, the bottleneck imposed by either the photographer or the camera is one where the blame is usually cast upon the camera, not the one wielding it. Many people seem to think that getting a better camera will automatically make them a better photographer. In reality, a camera with a better sensor will be more capable, but only if one uses it properly. Thanks by the way for the complement.

I guess the heart of the issue is really what people consider important in a landscape camera (since this is the landscape zone of the forum) as opposed to more typical blend of photography genres. I wholeheartedly recommend the 5D for landscape (and natural light portrait) work... but if someone wanted a camera to document their kid's soccer game (or anything that requires fast operation) there is no way I'd recommend it...it all depends on what the task at hand is.

For most landscape work most of the undeniably nice things about the 7D really are not needed, so while it is a great camera for general use and better still for fast moving subjects...for landscape it is no better than a rebel with the same sensor, aside from ergonomics/viewfinder issues. The 7D is a generalist; it does all things quite well, but is not exceptional at anything in particular. The 5D on the other hand is a specialist. It is exceptional at a couple things (when sensor related image quality is paramount) and nearly impossible at times for others.

So for landscape work, one really doesn't need fast autofocus (I manual focus most of the time...my wide angle lenses are manual focus only); metering is important, but basically all DSLRs do a good job at that so it is somewhat moot. Weather sealing is important for landscape but under averse conditions, most people just stick their camera in a clear plastic bag to keep the rain/snow out. I think the biggest advantage of recent cameras relative to landscape work has got to be live-view with superior LCD screens, which makes tripod shooting much, much easier when shooting at weird angles. But #1 for landscape is the output from the sensor, which the 5D has in spades. It may be lacking for almost everything else, but it does have the capability for very high image quality (for the price), which was the main point I was driving at earlier.

From my personal experience using APS-C cameras (XTi/400D and 40D) I know that aspects of both cameras were holding me back...the most pronounced were static and flat output and not being able to get visually acceptable (personal preference I know) images beyond ISO-400 for the XTi and ISO-800 for the 40D. Comparatively, output from my 5D takes post processing much better than either the XTi or 40D did.

But since this thread was about what camera people should buy, here are my recommendations, in ascending value order, for landscape work.
45D/Rebel XSi (good sensor, inexpensive)
600D/Rebel T3i (good sensor, great pivoting screen for tripod use)
60D (same reasons as above, but better ergonomics/viewfinder)
5D (excellent sensor and image quality potential, cheap entry to full frame, AF and operation speed are sub-par)
Anything more expensive (aside from the 5D mkII) is probably a mis-allocation of money unless you already are bumping into a IQ bottleneck and are in a position where your lenses are better than your sensor can resolve. If a person has money to burn, they might as well get a 7D/5D mkII, but I think it is better to save some money on the camera and either put it towards better lenses or travel to suitably awesome landscape locations.

 

[ions]

Agreed, ultimately it is about what camera works best for a particular person. The large majority of amateurs are buying cameras for all their shooting, the idea of more than 1 body is a luxury they're not going to indulge in. Getting the camera that can handle all one's needs really should be the goal of someone just getting into photography. Especially if they have to ask the question "what camera should I get?"

I gotta disagree with you on some points though. Particularly "mis-allocation" . The 7D makes itself a good landscape camera simply for the weather sealing. A MASSIVELY important issue in landscape photography. Mine has been in pouring rain and blizzards. It has better sealing than the 5D does I believe... not positive on that. It's also far more customizable than the 5D or the Rebels, XXD series cameras etc. Plus it has a much more rugged build that can be relied upon than the Rebels/XXD series cameras which is also important when shooting landscape. Yeah, I take care of my gear but it's nice to know my gear can take care of itself.

I disagree with you about the need for AF in Landscape. The 7D, and the Rebels, XXD do not come with good focus screens for manual. If you're as blind as I am and have difficulty jamming your glasses wearing face into the viewfinder, especially when trying to get real low to the ground, having an autofocus you can trust is priceless. On my recent trip to Yellowstone the AF on my 24-70 went wonky and I had to shoot manual. Because of the above situation I have a couple of shots that are softer than they should be. In the bright sun they looked ok from the back screen, which, on the 7D is quite superior to the 5Ds(just sayin), but when I got them home, a little off. And when you want an AF system you can trust the 7D is really really hard to beat once you're learned it. Although, I do concede it's not crucial that it's fantastic for landscape.

The other thing the crop sensors get dinged with all the time is "it's not wide enough!!! waaaa!" Sometimes the waaaa really is there. That depends on how you shoot doesn't it? I tend to shoot on the longer side. The extra reach I get on the crop with my 70-200 has proven useful many times. I recently bought a 24-70 in the face of "it's not good on a crop" type BS. "It's not gonna be wide enough for you!!" The kicker? The difference in view between the 24-70 on my camera and full frame is one 12" step back. One. Not kidding. I tested and measured. Fine, if I were in a cramped room and had a wall at my back it would be an issue. For me that's not a problem because if I were in that situation I'd be looking for the door so I could get outside and shoot something good. But that's me, I understand the need for shooting indoors sometimes, but this is the landscape area right? On my recent trip to Yellowstone and Banff I pulled my Tokina 11-16 out of the bag only a handful of times because the 24-70 was wide enough for what I wanted. The times that it wasn't wide enough were times that it also wouldn't have been wide enough on a FF camera either. An UWA was what was needed.

I can't disagree with you that the 5D/II has a superior sensor and can output a better picture. My issue is that you're talking about the very pointy end of needs that not everyone, very few, will properly take advantage of. I can't count all the times I've heard people whine about needing full frame and the fact is they suck. Now, them aside some of your points while valid aren't particularly important and provide only the most modest of advantages. Advantages so modest that better glass should be considered before thinking that these advantages are particularly worthwhile. You notice them, I notice them but really only a small percentage of people notice them. The Nikon guys do very well not having ISO 50 for example. I'm quite happy with ISO 100. That's just one thing, I'm not going to go through them all because it's pointless to and it's been done so many times before.

While I'm reluctant to post my images alongside yours as quite clearly you are talented (and how much of the quality of your images do you really want to put down to the camera?). Because you are quite good, I've looked through your flickr, fantastic stuff it makes you frustrating to argue this point with. And, actually, this is the crux of it. Most people who debate these points aren't as capable as you. Not everyone is gonna pick up a 5D and get the stuff you have. There's just no way. Most are gonna whine about their perceived limitations of crop and then HDR the poo out of everything they shoot in the face of good taste and to the detriment of my retina. I can confidently say that cause I've seen it now, sadly, literally hundreds of times. I post the following only to suggest that someone with a year and a half of experience in digital and hopefully a kernel of talent somewhere can get some decent results out of a crop sensor.

All were taken with the 7D and are single exposures, no filters (man I'd love me a Lee setup), and processed in Lightroom, which I'm getting better with but still learning. I still feel there's more I can be getting out of this camera/sensor before I start worrying about lower ISO, better dynamic range, etc.

Some of these are double posts from the Landscapes thread, sorry about that.


The Grand Teton Mountains from Colter Bay, Wyoming, USA by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr


Sunset North of Thermopolis Wyoming, USA by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr


Flooding in Macoun, Southern Saskatchewan, Canada by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr


Moraine Lake, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada (Explored!) by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr


Autumn at Rattlesnake Point, Milton, Ontario by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr


Ultra Wide Angle Lake Erie Sunset at Nanticoke Ontario by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr


Albion Falls, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr