Mark III or D800 for Landscape - HDR Shooting

[zonabc]

Friends,

I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.

I shoot landscapes and mostly 5-7 bracketed shooting that is merged via Photomatix (I will never use the in-camera HDR option) Video is nice, every once in a while for the kids, but it is not a feature that really concerns me.

Most of my photography is done around sunrise/sunset. Shooting in lowlight (dusk) is crucial.

I know this is a "Canon" forum, but was just looking for some honest help.

Best,
Zach

 

[RedEye]

Hey,

I think the best way that anyone here can offer you unbias assistance would be after the cameras ship. I know there are quite a few people who are purchasing both the 5D3 and D800, and I'm sure they'll be happy to offer a real sensible idea of qualty from each camera after a few days in hand.

best,
Red

 

[darrellrhodesmiller]

i really dont think you could go wrong with either one.. they are each companies flagship cameras.. with the latest technologies.. but i agree with the previous posts.. i'm really curious about the reviews in a few months. i think the canon will turn out to be a more well rounded camera.. while the nikon will be an amazing studio camera. but this is just my conjecture.

 

[zonabc]

Thanks for your time..
I will follow up in the Forum in a month or so.

 

[Houndy]

Almost certainly without doubt the D800e will be the best camera for landscapes, you won't beat it without going high end medium format.

 

[Kernuak]

Almost certainly without doubt the D800e will be the best camera for landscapes, you won't beat it without going high end medium format.

As a landscape photographer, I disagree. If you could get sufficient depth of field and if lenses were able to match the resolution of the sensor, then there may be some merit. However, while it is always difficult to tell from sample shots, what I've seen so far, suggests that current lenses will struggle. Of the few examples of landscapes, the centre is very good, with a lot of detail, but look closely at the corners. Even at 50%, the softness is obvious, which is what I usually use as a guide to "sharp enough". Now, for general printing, it's probably better to look at even less magnification to get a true representation of sharpness in print, but if you are looking to print at A1 or A0, then you will need that all over sharpness, otherwise the softer areas will show up more because of the extreme detail in the centre. Now you may argue that you are only going to print at A3 or smaller, but then why would you need 36 MP? In my view, if you need the resolution, you're better off using medium format, otherwise you could be wasting your money. Now for studio work, it will be a different matter, as the corners will largely become irrelevant and could actually help. If course the proviso will be which lens is used. I have only seen the 14-24 used in samples so far, which is very highly regarded and considered to be very sharp, but previously, people were only looking at 12 MP files (unless they had a D1x). It could well be that a number of primes will cope much better with the high resolution and only with some testing will that become evident. My suspicion is, that to get the best out of the D800/800E, you will need to use relatively expensive prime lenses.

 

[psolberg]

1) The D800 can bracket 9 frames. The canon 5DIII only 7. If you're doing HDR you may or may not need that. But you asked which is best and the answer is simply the D800, because I can where the other can't. You decide if that matters.

2) obviously resolution is a big plus. Not only is the D800 able to resolve more but you have the option of the E model to allow it to resolve extra detail that will get blurred by the 5DmkIII AA filter.

3) it's cheaper. Even the E model. You're getting 36MP and 9 stop ability and an non AA option for less. Is that a crazy good deal or what?

4) cropping. You can't always get that tree or pole out of the frame in the field. The D800 has huge cropping potential. You can crop 1/3 of your pixels and come out with a 5DMKIII file. IMO that's a big plus.

nobody should be surprised. The 800 is a landscape/studio/wedding camera. It is all about bing prints and superb detail. There was no way the canon camera, which is more of a low light high speed body, would match it in what it specializes.

As far as lenses, the debate is that 36MP is too much. Yet, that myth is debunked by the mere fact that the D800 has no higher pixel pitch than a D7000, which is a mere 16MP. Are lenses not good enough for the 7D? They are. So it is no issue, other than just fear mongering. Canon could make a 40+MP camera with a pixel pitch equal to the 7D, than lenses would be fine. It will off course mean that cheap bad lenses will show just how much worse they are than good glass. But nikon wides like the 14-24 f/2.8, 24 f/1.4, 24 TS, 16-35 f/4 IS won't even break a sweat as they easily outresolve the D7000 and at typical aperture landscapes of f/4-f/8, they are brually sharp.

Your technique will play a greater role than your glass. Camera shake and critical focus will become more important factors to consider. But if you're serious about landscapes, you should be thinking about that already.

I don't know that the extra ISO on the mkIII will offset the resolution trade off. If you're shooting your HDR at ISO 25K, then you're probably throwing several stops of dynamic range and should evaluate your lens choice. Depending on your workflow, that may or may not matter. Photomatix doesn't really use all the range in your RAW, but many people pre-process their files before going to photomatix and pull more DR than photomatix grabs before going to tone mapping. Based on my own experience in HDR sunset and sunrise, I don't think the cleaner high ISO images of the 5DIII will offset for what you're giving up. Yes HDR boosts noise, but you can deal with that in your workflow and IMO the D800 is really really good at 1600 ISO and just insane below that and having the option to downscale to 30 or 22MP is one you won't have with the 5DIII. But you be the judge as only you know what you shoot. 1 or 2 stops of light won't persuade me.

Now, I have a hard time believing the 5DIII is not suited for landscapes. If the 5DmkII was hailed as a landscaper dream, all the more the 5DIII. It just isn't the top dog in the block any more.

 

[RuneL]

Don't do HDR?

 

[Kernuak]

As far as lenses, the debate is that 36MP is too much. Yet, that myth is debunked by the mere fact that the D800 has no higher pixel pitch than a D7000, which is a mere 16MP. Are lenses not good enough for the 7D? They are. So it is no issue, other than just fear mongering. Canon could make a 40+MP camera with a pixel pitch equal to the 7D, than lenses would be fine. It will off course mean that cheap bad lenses will show just how much worse they are than good glass. But nikon wides like the 14-24 f/2.8, 24 f/1.4, 24 TS, 16-35 f/4 IS won't even break a sweat as they easily outresolve the D7000 and at typical aperture landscapes of f/4-f/8, they are brually sharp.

Two points here. In some cases, the 7D is too much. For example, the 17-40 and 24-105 both struggle in the corners, bearing in mind crop cameras use the strongest parts of the lens resolution. The second is, that full frame cameras don't have that crop advantage, so are making use of the weakest part of any lens, the corners. Even on the 5D MkII, you can see problems with the two aforementioned lenses. Even the CPS rep demonstrating the 5D MkIII on Sunday said that Canon's older lenses would struggle with 36 MP, although the lenses released in the last 4-5 years should be fine. I imagine it's a similar situation for Nikon with the D800.

Now, I have a hard time believing the 5DIII is not suited for landscapes. If the 5DmkII was hailed as a landscaper dream, all the more the 5DIII. It just isn't the top dog in the block any more.

The 5D MkIII is definitely suited for landscapes.

 

[awinphoto]

I for one rarely do HDR in post processing, although I use topaz adjust which can do a faux HDR... I'm very intrigued on how well of a job HDR is in camera and in certain situations, if it makes my pictures shine even more, sweeeet... I do not like the over processed, unworldly haloed highlight effect that you see commonly in HDR samples you see around the web, but if it makes my architecture shots look more natural with the highlights and shadows, i'm game.

 

[Dan Jurak]

For the record, I now shoot only landscapes and have been a lifelong, thirty plus years Canon user.

I am only waiting to see what the D800E is like in the real world before I make my final decision on switching systems.

One hundred percent of my landscapes are bracketed at between three and five exposures. Over ninety-percent of the images on my website are HDRs. Do I need nine brackets? Nope. I don't even need seven. I use a 1Ds Mark III which allows me to bracket as small as 1/3 stop increments or as large as two stops.

I also am shooting into a sunrise or sunset where the range of light is extreme. When the sun is at the corner of the frame, I often switch over to five brackets, leaning towards under exposure to get all the highlight detail I can.

At first I used the second version of Canon's 16-35 lens and when preparing images for stock would always notice CA and softness on the lens. The softness was not camera shake or mirror vibration. My camera is always on a tripod.

Over a year ago, I bought Nikon's 14-24 and an adapter to use it on my Canon. The results were immediately noticeable. Sharper, crisper and clearer everywhere. Not just a tiny bit of difference but a HUGE difference. I lost autofocus and I have to set the aperture manually when using this combination but it's been worth the little extra time that it takes even when shooting at -30 Celsius.

Would my 16-35 Canon lens resolve well on a forty plus megapixel body should Canon come out with one? Nope. The extra resolution will make an already less than razor sharp lens look soft.

I am trying to get a D800E loaner from Nikon Canada once they are available for review on my blog and to purchase if it looks better than Canon's offerings.

Both systems are good for the average user and they would never see the difference. For larger prints and especially for my advertising clients that want MF quality the D800E for the moment looks like the direction to go.

Just my two cents.

 

[jaduffy007]

Almost certainly without doubt the D800e will be the best camera for landscapes, you won't beat it without going high end medium format.

I agree. It's a no brainer in fact. That doesn't make the 5d3 bad by any means, but the D800E is the new DSLR resolution king. D800E for general shooting or video might not be as good as the 5d3.

 

[jaduffy007]

When you say low light landscape work, are you looking for high iso to replace a good tripod? Hope not.
I would want the highest resolution and cleanest **low** iso files I could get. D800E is the answer.

If you have a big investment in Canon L glass... imo....the 5d3 or 5d2 would be a great second choice.

Finally, some 5d3 raw conversions are showing up on dpreview forums. 5d3 shows 2/3 of a stop improvement over 5d2. Horizontal banding is gone. Vertical banding remains :'(

The 2 stop claim is for jpegs only and includes a LOT of NR = not pretty.

Friends,

I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction.

I shoot landscapes and mostly 5-7 bracketed shooting that is merged via Photomatix (I will never use the in-camera HDR option) Video is nice, every once in a while for the kids, but it is not a feature that really concerns me.

Most of my photography is done around sunrise/sunset. Shooting in lowlight (dusk) is crucial.

I know this is a "Canon" forum, but was just looking for some honest help.

Best,
Zach

 

[Arkarch]

I suppose if you shoot mostly sun-lit landscapes, then ISO 100 on a D800 is fine. Yeah there are some resolution issues with lenses perhaps, but getting the extra resolution for that wall-size print is great.

But there are many shots in the landscape world where lighting is less than idea. Storms, nightscapes, etc. And I may want to keep those clouds tight, or those stars sharp.

And I want that without noise.

 

[keithfullermusic]

I have never liked HDR shots. Granted, the are some amazing ones out there, but the vast majority I can not stand at all. But, if you really want HDR shots then the Nikon has two more bracketed shots. It is also cheaper and has much more MPs.

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.

P.S. - you can save yourself hours of computer work by just getting some filters! Not the same look as HDR, but perfect exposures and crisp images.

 

[Arkarch]

When you say low light landscape work, are you looking for high iso to replace a good tripod? Hope not.
I would want the highest resolution and cleanest **low** iso files I could get. D800E is the answer.

And thats just it. If you are forced to use longer exposures, clouds will move. And with HDR, moved clouds dont work too well in the stack. You almost have to disassemble the image in Photoshop to save some of those elements.

 

[zonabc]

Thank you very much for your time and detailed responses.
Your expertise and knowledge is valuable beyond words.

I'm excited to hear what you guys think once you get your hands on the camera's.

 

[wickidwombat]

I don't mean to be rude but photomatix is hands down the easiest way to kill any image quality from any camera
softness and noise? it introduces it in spades. (I have used photomatix alot and I cant stand the output anymore the tone mapping is just plain horrible)

If you are a fan of HDR and want to retain all of that lovely sharp raw IQ look at this method, still shoot the bracket sets but its more a manual form of controlling the tonal ranges rather than the wholesale slaughter that comes out of the cookie cutter software
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

but as for photomatix goes if you put D800 or 5Dmk3 files through it either will be ruined so which camera and lens is sharper becomes a moot point.

 

[zonabc]

I don't mean to be rude but photomatix is hands down the easiest way to kill any image quality from any camera
softness and noise? it introduces it in spades. (I have used photomatix alot and I cant stand the output anymore the tone mapping is just plain horrible)

If you are a fan of HDR and want to retain all of that lovely sharp raw IQ look at this method, still shoot the bracket sets but its more a manual form of controlling the tonal ranges rather than the wholesale slaughter that comes out of the cookie cutter software
http://goodlight.us/writing/tutorials.html

but as for photomatix goes if you put D800 or 5Dmk3 files through it either will be ruined so which camera and lens is sharper becomes a moot point.

I respect and appreciate your opinion, but do not think HDR images from photomatix are "horrible" or "kill image quality". I try to get 70% of my image done there and the other 30% in Photoshop.

Here are 2 images from a borrowed Mark II

 

[wickidwombat]

hehe I gave you an applaud for not smiting me for saying that usually when I say that i get flayed.

here is one of mine done in photomatix and then more post in Photoshop too.
I dont like all my older HDR stuff these days

what I dont like about photomatix is every single shot gets "that" look especially when any foliage is involved at all and it goes nuts on the HSL of the image too which is really hard to reign in.

Its hard to explain but everything gets that dreamy softness to it which is why I say that photomatix is going to make the camera sensor sharpness irrelevent It makes a hassleblad look like it was shot with a rebel and thats the truth. I have been searching for the cleanest way to do HDR for ages and tony kuyper seems to me to have a really nice method which is more labour intensive for sure but give the image a more crafted finish.

When I first got into HDR I tried to mimik trey ratcilff now I try and get as far from that look as possible (I still think he is great and love reading what he writes about all sorts of stuff I just feel that photomatix actually limits how creative you can actually be with the HDR genre