Hi Everyone.

So I would say that my main interest is landscape photography and have been using mid range Nikon s for a few years now.
I keep hearing little rumors here and there however that Canon are better for Landscape and nature photography?

I know this is a silly question really as it all depends on the glass your using, but I cant help but question it...

I recently acquired a Nikon D90 and have been using the Sigma 10-20 and a few other lenses and I must say, a lot of my results have been noisy and not really the quality I would hope for. The obvious camera from Canon which seems to have an advantage on Landscape is the 5D and 5D mark II, with their full frame sensors.

Do you think for someone photographing almost only landscape it would be a more worthy investment to spend $700 more from the D90 and get the older more clumsy Canon 5D. Even Ken Rockwell says that Canon are better for Landscape shots and that the 5D in particular puts out among the best quality landscape and nature shots...

Would love to hear some feedback from you Canon and especially Canon 5D and 5D mark II owners.

I by all means do not intend to start a silly Nikon V Canon war, just simply wondered if anyone had any thoughts or experience with this issue.

Look forward to your views
Stefan

"Nikon or Canon for Landscape photography?"

r: If you find a good landscape, thas is a minor problem. Full frame is best and the principal point of chose. For me nothing best for landscape than medium format or large format and a fujichrome film, like provia or velvia. If you buy a new 21 mpixels sensor like 5D MKII, don´t forget the fact you only can obtain excelent quality if you spend same money in best quality lenses, if not you obtain same quality as your mid range Nikon.

Truth is that equipment is not all that important, the skill of the photographer and the "magic" of the moment is far more important. I have a D90 and shooting at 200 ISO it seems very clean. I almost never shoot landscape at any other ISO. If you need more exposure for landscape then put the camera on a tripod and use a cable release. And yes, glass is FAR more important than the body, especially if you're already using a "modern" body.

Full frame for me, is much more important if your are primarily into printing large prints. If you primarily display your images on the internet then the resolution is not nearly as important. Ask yourself, who will ever see all those pixels. If the answer is only you and then only in photoshop, then what's the point?

If you already have some good nikon glass, then consider a couple of options:
1. Nikon D700 or D3 or in a few months the newer full frames that they WILL be introducing soon. (Wink Wink!!)
2. Nikon F100 and Nikon Coolscan 5000, WAY less money than full frame and effective resolution of 23 megapixels. And yes Velvia is sweeeeeeeeeetttttttt.

Either way I recommend renting/borrowing before buying. Not sure how it is in Cornwall, but I drive right by a Samys with a greatly stocked rental dept. on my way to work. If I'm interested in a lens or body, I rent one for a weekend and try it out. Also have some friends with lot's of nikon gear.

As Clyde hinted, the answer depends on what problem you are trying to fix. You shouldn't have noise problems with a D90 if exposure is correct and you're using a low ISO. If your problem is you can't make prints as large as you like, then you need a larger sensor with more megapixels. If your overall image quality is so-so, you need better glass and perhaps better technique. I use and love the 5D but strongly doubt that I would do any worse (or better) with a Nikon. Good luck!

I'm about two blocks from Samy's right now, visiting my daughter in Los Angeles. I'll be flying home tomorrow. Let's have a cup of coffee next time I'm in town.

I can't see that it makes a difference Stefan, if you shoot at low ISO and your 10-20mm is a good copy then there should be no reason not to have crisp and clean images as long as your images are not too underexposed. Are you confusing the image you see on your monitor as a noise issue, often mine can look pretty crap on my monitor @ 100% but turn out fab prints at A3+ with no grain or noise issues at all.

JP

For SURE, let me know when you're comin!!

I'm still shooting with a D300 which has the same sensor as D90. I'm printing my shots up to 1,7m long on an Epson 7900. I have absolutely no problems with noise or resolution. I think many are underexposing their shots and thereby get noise. I've seen so many setting the exposure compensation to lower than normal because they are afraid of burning out highlights. Better bracket your shots then..
Still looking forward to the next Nikons.. Will buy one of the FX's soon. It's just that I have to add a loads of money on an underwater housing.

Stefan, I spent a few weeks photographing beaches this summer and at aperture priority which I shoot most often, the image is fairly underexposed, and that's when the noise kicks in. You can of course correct the exposure, but I learnt that it is always best to overexpose slightly by 1/3 of a stop if the conditions allow, the noise is then non-existant. I spent a while using a very old digital camera and the noise on that was phenomenal, so going from that to a D90, noise seems non-existant anyway. :)


This may seem like a peculiar question Clyde, but why not shoot at ISO 100? :)

On a slight tangent from alex's question, the lowest D90 ISO is 200, but there is an option to set it lower. It doesn't call it ISO 100 and I don't think this is an 'actual' lower setting, but some software thing that impersonates a lower setting somehow. I haven't tried it yet though, so don't know if it is any good. . .
Jon

On the camera it says LO1, and it comes out as ISO100 in the EXIF data. There seems to be a very, very slight difference in terms of noise between that and ISO 200, but shutter speed wise it is 2 times faster at 200. But if you use a tripod which I'm sure you do Clyde, why not at 100?

Basically the L0.3 L0.7 L1.0 settings are just exposure compensations setting of .3 .7 & 1.0

I shoot raw almost all the time and there is at least that much play in the raw file, some say up to 3.0. So I've not seen the point.

When I am shooting jpeg only I am one of those that set the exposure compensation to -0.3 because the Nikon's seem to be prone to blowing out the highlights. But as I say, Raw almost all the time.

Lars, Your right on as under exposure is not handled well with digital. I have to tell you that I am just now getting to shoot my D700 and it is getting me back in the mood to shoot.. Active D set on normal and do a 3 shot bracket if things look iffy. The correct exposure has so far been the one that the camera selected. In my hands it feels like a film camera and that makes me smile. You will be blown away with the FX if you ever shot film (35mm) I do think Nikon has more in the working as they come up with something often. will

Well, in a sense, all digital sensitivity settings do this. As far as I can gather, the 'Lo' and 'Hi' settings are named differently because they're outside of the recommended range; below ISO 200 the sensor begins to clip highlights because it can't take the overexposure, and similarly with shadows in the 'Hi' range. The 'Hi' range exists for extremely low light, obviously, and the 'Lo' range as a (poor) substitute for ND filters.

Thanks for the replies all. I have achieved images without noise of course and I am sure that a lot of the time exposure is the problem of my noise. I nearly always try to keep the ISO at the 200 my Nikon allows.

I was interested as I read some reports about full frame cameras like the 5D collecting less noise and achieving a much better image quality in landscapes etc.
Of course the lens will make a big difference and has to be a lens that is made for full frame cameras.
I am by no means very technical in camera matters as I prefer to take pictures than study whats behind my camera, although it is interesting. I guess my question was more related to someone who had maybe had stepped up to a full frame DSLR and had noticed a great difference. Especially in the Canon models I mentioned. Obviously the Nikon D700 uses a full frame and therefore must be better for Landscape photography too, but I keep hearing reports of the particular 5D models being the best for it.

I bet in old 5D models, i tested meny times the 5D MKII and found allways a lot of noise in dark and shadow areas (low light)

But if you consider buy a Canon, is bether wait to september or october, someone tell me Canon will put outside a new FF camera less expensive than 5D MKII and with 15 mpixels improved sensor and a new image processor, but is only one more of somuch rumours about canon :)

Also lot's of rumors about new FF Nikons this fall too.

Rui, that is where under exposure rears its ugly head (low light and shadows) I think that the Canon being better than Nikon for landscape comes from Ken Rockwell and he has some good advice and some not so good. My thoughts are that in the realm of screen displayed images that no one could tell the difference between and will go even further and say that on 16X20 prints you could not tell the difference. One thing about the Nikon / Canon debate is that at any one time one is upstaging the other. They both come up with newer models often. To me the ergonomics of the Nikon really excel not to mention that the upscale models handle almost all previously made lens. With Nikon you can still use the old and very fine PB4 bellows (tilt/shift movements) for macro or use one of the old bellows lens. I cannot think of a Canon that can do that (let me know if I am wrong) will

Will, for that reasons i have buyed Canon in 80´s, then invested a lot in FD lenses for A1, and after that a lot of investment in lenses for EOS system, then cames the digital and use old EOS lenses and again, a investment in new L for EOS. Now is far for me to think in Nikon, so, i never read nothing or else read opinions about nikon is best or no, because is out of question to change from Canon. If it´s best or not, most important to me is lenses.

But for those who thinking to start a system from zero, i´m not the very best person to talk about nikon or canon or whatever :)

From Nikon i only have a old F801 with 50mm lense, and only can say it´s very good stuff, also can say my old EOS5 and EOS1 also very good, there are all boxes to put film and lenses, now with digital is diferent, the sensor is a very important question.

But, days after days i´m far and far from 35mm. Maybe next investment is a Leif Sensor for my two girls :) Once you go to medium format, day after day you consider 35mm just a "toy" :) I know digital in medium format is very expensive, but for a price of a new digital SLR you can have a used medium format film system and ever in film is the best off for landscape, for those who have time and do not stay sad for waiting the development of film and do not have a LCD to see imediat results.

By the way, with all this stuff and quality i never get one of my landscapes published in 1X, my landscape "style" do not fit here eh eh eh ;)

For what i've read in various forums, especially Dpreview where there must be one thread like this every 2 days, 99% of the time it's the photographer's lack of skills and not the equipment involved. I don't know how good you are at exposure buy I know for a fact that a D90+the cheap sigma 10-20 can deliver extremely high-quality professional images. I've seen plenty of those around, starting here.

My advice is, forget the equipment for a while and work on your skills and push them further with whatt you have.

Canon or Nikon, Nikon or Canon...who cares, they both produce the top of the top quality images in the right hands. I personally find Nikon a lot more comfortable but it's just a matter of taste not of better quality.

for what it's worth, there's plenty of Sony, Olympus and Pentax professional images around too....

Saying that this or that camera is better for this or that type of photography sounds very silly. They all excel at everything.

i think switiching to Canon won't do a significant difference, probably not as much as to work and study harder on composition, exposure, technique, etc...

(that's what I've been applying to myself when i stopped worrying about equipment and I'm seeing the results)

hope this helps

You are correct, as larger is better when it comes to image size. I love 4X5 and Velvia film for landscape and hope to shoot some more of it soon. The med format and 4X5 look great on the light table. I don't think I will ever be able to get a digital back for the 4X5 but I can dream ;-) will

what a question ^^

YOU make the photo, not the camera!

And watch out for brilliant lenses ... no third party.

br arkadius

ha ha ha ;]]]