Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers

[jalbfb]

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

 

[briansquibb]

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]

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]

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.

 

[dtaylor]

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]

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]

Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?

 

[awinphoto]

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 ???

 

[ramon123]

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.

 

[Dan Jurak]

The way I see it, you can shoot landscapes with almost any camera.

Obviously, what's best for one photographer is not the best for the next.

For all the hair splitting that goes on about which lens or body is better what is lost is the photos themselves. There are plenty of people who are experts on gear but when you look at their website or portfolio you've gotta give your head a shake.

Forget all the fact, figures and number crunching. This all comes down to personal preference. As a lifetime Canon user, thirty plus years, I think that there are better 35mm digital cameras for the cost and performance than the new Canon. Or for that matter either of the two new Canons.

Just my two cents. Now I'm off to Jasper for a cpl of days of photography after a huge dump of snow.

 

[RedEye]

I think one area this 'low' MP camera will really shine is in photos of water and other continuously varying contract images, very amazing from the samples i've viewed!

 

[Arkarch]

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,

Yep, and I get your point about high MP. Having both capabilities would be a potent combination.

As a current 7D shooter, my first goal is reach FF. And after several lengthy post-process sessions with DxO, Nik, LR, PS and my NEC wide-gamut to disassemble then reassemble low light shots to dump noise (and there is plenty in the 7D), I am really gun-shy about anything with potential noise.

So for that reason, I do hope that if Canon does come out with a high MP monster - that it has reasonable low light performance. Otherwise there are many options for high MP later. Its good to see Nikon at least dare to enter Digitial MF territory with a DSLR format even if I remain wary on this first attempt.

For now, I think the 5DMIII will serve me well in the Landscape area

 

[Arkarch]

Just my two cents. Now I'm off to Jasper for a cpl of days of photography after a huge dump of snow.

Thanks Jurak!

Have a great shoot in Jaspar.

 

[jaduffy007]

...


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

You beat me to it. High iso and IS lenses are not a substitute for a tripod.

 

[awinphoto]

...


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

You beat me to it. High iso and IS lenses are not a substitute for a tripod.

Tripods, especially for landscapes, gives you that extra second or two or three to look at the scene, evaluate it, "walk the scene" in your minds eye and find that telephone pole or broke down car or whatever that you may not have seen otherwise to make sure your shoot is as good as possible before you capture the image. It forces you to slow down and be more analytical...

 

[Kernuak]

A couple of days ago, I wrote a long article on my blog about my first impressions and the insights of a CPS rep, following a one hour presentation/demo and the short play I had with it (minus cards, except ones in a sealed card slot). It was too long to post here, as I'd originally intended, but here is the summary:

Overall Impression

During the short time I was able to see the 5D MkIII, I was very impressed with the overall feel. The ISO sensitivity and noise levels stand out as some of the main features, but also of course the AF system. This is exactly the same as the 1D X, but is slower due to only having the single processor. For wildlife, I think it is ideal. It isn’t often that the motor drive is needed, I think I can count on both hands in two and a half years, the number of times that I have needed it on the 7D and if the AF matches the specs, then that will be a huge improvement, as will the IQ from the full frame sensor. The downside is the loss of reach from the crop factor, but I can keep the 7D to cover that problem. For landscapes, it will give me what I have now and probably a bit more too, especially if the DR is improved. If I was shooting primarily landscape photography, then it probably wouldn’t be worth the upgrade, but for wildlife, it will expand on what I can achieve, with improved AF and improved ability to shoot crepuscular subjects in low light.

For those who want full frame, but either can’t afford the 1D X or don’t need the extra features the 1D X has and shoot anything other than (or as well as) landscapes, then the 5D MkIII is the obvious upgrade path, but if you need the weather proofing bullet proof AF or any of the other features of the 1D X (such as the new anti-pixel blur), then that is the only option. Many who had ordered two 1D X’s, are now considering changing their pre-orders to one of each camera.

I’m sure there are some things I missed (we elected to skip the video bits) and there are other things that will come to light as more people see the camera and reps become more used to it, but hopefully this gives some insights into my first impression.

 

[tvde]

Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?

I actually start to wonder whether there are ANY landscape photographers today using Canon given the fact that Canon doesn't have a 36 MP camera today... Just get out and shoot using this fabulous camera!

 

[rod]

Hello,

I am interested because of the video capabilities of the 5DIII. But I'm also an photographer. When I look at the landscape pictures from the Canon website, hm. I'm not so olverwelmed.

In Lightroom the green plants in picture "Corsica" (50 mm, f8, 1/440 sec) look al little bit muddy, the differentation is not so great. Dito in picture "Slovenia" and the diffreenteation in picture "Colored Leaves" lacks also, the leaves.

I use a calibrated Eizo monitor.

What do you think?

Is there another place, where I can download original files, may be RAWs?

Regards, Rod

PS: Here is the link

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/

 

[Kernuak]

Hello,

I am interested because of the video capabilities of the 5DIII. But I'm also an photographer. When I look at the landscape pictures from the Canon website, hm. I'm not so olverwelmed.

In Lightroom the green plants in picture "Corsica" (50 mm, f8, 1/440 sec) look al little bit muddy, the differentation is not so great. Dito in picture "Slovenia" and the diffreenteation in picture "Colored Leaves" lacks also, the leaves.

I use a calibrated Eizo monitor.

What do you think?

Is there another place, where I can download original files, may be RAWs?

Regards, Rod

PS: Here is the link

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/

I'm not really impressed by any of the sample files for landscapes on either the 5D MkII or D800(E) for different reasons. There are very few decent samples around at the moment. The 5D MkIII ones have apparent heavy noise reduction, the D800(E) ones are soft in the corners and at f/8, which results in the background being out of focus. I think we need to wait for some real reviews, with RAW files. There's no reason to believe it will be worse than the MkII though, particularly judging by the crude tests I saw on the back of the screen.

 

[Arkarch]

Regarding official "Sample Pictures".

The Marketing Departments of both Canon and Nikon are Fail.

There are several efforts out there, and no doubt we'll start getting nice stuff once the community has a chance.

The BS argument not to take RAW images because you can't convert them yet - and to make that argument means they were not prepared for the question. I guess too many consumer-oriented marketing hacks in the pro-line divisions.