Which is best for landscapes?

[texshooter]

which compact camera is best for landscapes? I'm thinking about ditching the 35mm format for something compact (for landscapes only), but know nothing of compacts. I do not intend to use the compact for portraits, video, or action, so it need not compete with 35mm in those respects.  Need a nudge in the right direction.

[spidermike]

How compact do you want - it can have different meanings to different people?
A mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (such as micro 4/3)?
A bridge camera with fixed lens - these can be as big as entry-level DSLRs but lighter
Pocketable compact (OK, some need a large-ish jacket pocket).

My preference would be for the Sony RX100 MkIII or Panasonic LX100 range but this area has become highly competitive and depends partly on what zoom range you want as well.

[texshooter]

How compact do you want - it can have different meanings to different people?

Either 4/3 or APSC or FF.  Pro level.  OM-D EM5 size seems small enough. Think of it this way. If your 5D Mark IiI or D810 we're stolen, which compact would be second best to these?

[spidermike]

I have the E-M5 micro four-thirds and take that out with me most of the time. If I am out with the 7D/100-400 for wildlife the MFT with wide zoom is barely bigger than my 17-55 IS by itself.

If you want weatherproofing it would have to be the E-M1. But you will give little way on image quality and Olympus have a wonderful set of lenses to go with it (and the Panasonic MFT lenses increase the options).

Another option would be the Fuji X-T1 which is APS-C and its lenses have an extremely good reputation even if the range is limited. Although I have only handled the X-T1 in the shop it has a very 'old school SR' feel to its ergonomics and would love to give it a serious try-out but can't really justify the cost.

[petermfiore]

A truly compact CSC with a wonderfully matched zoom is the Canon G1x II. APS very light and amazing quality...I use it for landscape and very happy with it's output.

Peter

[Rand47]

Sigma DP 1-3 Merrill.

Rand

[Michael N. Meyer]

If you don't need interchangeable lenses and are OK with wide or semi-wide, something like a Ricoh GR or Fuji x100T (or Sony RX1 or Leica Q if you've got money to spend) would be worth looking at. I've traveled with an earlier versions of the Ricoh GR (before it went APS-C) and the original Fuji x100. Both performed well and can only assume that the latest iterations are better.

[texshooter]

12MP? 16MP?  Sorry, not good enough. Might as well shoot with a Holga. Looks like compact mirrorless is still in the pre-Cambrian period. I'll wait.

[scooby70]

12MP? 16MP?  Sorry, not good enough. Might as well shoot with a Holga. Looks like compact mirrorless is still in the pre-Cambrian period. I'll wait.

Is this a serious comment?

If it is a serious comment I suggest that you do whatever I do when I think I'm being limited by kit... I look at the results other people are getting with the kit... and when I do I (usually) realise that the kit isn't the limiting factor.

So, if the Holga/historic comment is serious I suggest you Google your way to some good images people have taken with the various Compact System Cameras and then either jump in or buy something you can get the results you want with.

[stever]

I'd recommend the new GX8 or wait for the Oly M1 ii.  I've compared prints from my GX7 with the 7-14 and 12-35 zooms with 5D3 and equivalent zooms and can't tell the difference on close inspection of 13x19 prints (except the GX7 may be a tad sharper at the corners).  Both cameras are better with good primes.  Appropriate subjects can always be stitched if you need to go bigger than 17x22.

the sony rx100 is remarkably good, but the lens lets it down in comparison to micro 43 with high quality lenses

[Tony Ventouris Photography]

I would recommend the E-m1 with the 12-40 and a set of filters.  I've been using one for over a year and a half now for landscape, nature, macro, and wildlife and love it.  The close focus of the lenses, fantastic bracketing, excellent customization, and just overall quality is amazing in such a small package.  I still use a big tripod with it, especially when shooting in rivers, but it's amazing that I can comfortably equal or exceed my 5dmk2.  In fact, I get images that are virtually indistinguishable from my p45 except for being half the size.  Coming to realize that such a small sensor can deliver has been mentally tough...but I'm totally sold on Olympus now.  Another option would be the e-m5mk2 and you have the high res option for occasional shots.  The 12-40 is an excellent lens and you will never feel the weight.  If you are even more pressed to reduce weigh and size... Go with the 12mm, 25mm, and 75mm primes.  One lens on the camera and two tiny lenses on a dual lens cap or just in a small waist pack makes for effortless travel.  I tried the Fujis but didn't love the Lightroom rendering/smearing.  (Though I did love their primes and xt1 and xpro1) The Sony just didn't have anything for me when it came to the lenses.  I just wasn't impressed. 

I now carry the e-m1, 12-40, and 40-150+tc in a small 16L backpack with a pouch of Gnd filters and polarizers, and a tripod.  So liberating compared to carrying the equivalent 35mm gear.  I also love doing ground level shots with the articulating screen.

[nma]

12MP? 16MP?  Sorry, not good enough. Might as well shoot with a Holga. Looks like compact mirrorless is still in the pre-Cambrian period. I'll wait.

I hope you are not serious. Let me tell you I came from the Canon 5Dii, with a bag full of huge L-lenses. I left because I could no longer carry ALL that stuff, due to physical infirmities.  After seeing the photos that Michael Reichmann made with the Olympus E-M1, I decided to give it a try. Bought E-M1 and Oly 12-40 PRO ZOOM and Panasonic/Leica 35-100 for an initial kit. I fancy myself a Landscape and nature photographer and I found the E-M1 smoked the 5Dii. I may not be good but I am serious about technique. My images are sharper than anything I ever got with the Canon, probably because there are several focusing aids that Canon cannot even dream of. The lenses are every bit as good, or better, than the L's. Prints up to 17x22 exceed what I could do with the Canon and there is no reason to think that it can't go to 24x30 with good results. Is that not big enough for you? How often do you print something bigger? Clearly, there is some size at which FF will clearly excel, but is that a practical consideration for you?

 

[Telecaster]

If you're a pixel junkie get a Sony A7rii, some adapters (simple tubes, no Metabones AF nonsense needed for landscapes) and have at it. I've had mine for a couple days now…it's a helluva nice camera. Otherwise I'd recommend an Olympus E-M1 or E-M5ii. If you're making 20x30" prints or larger it won't measure up to the Sony. But if not…enjoy the best of the Olympus/Panasonic lens lineup and, again, have at it.

-Dave-

[xocet]

If you want compact and light maybe a Sigma DP1, 2 and / or 3 is worth a look. The fixed lenses are optically excellent, and the image quality, at least in its narrow band of excellence, something special. They can be found at good prices now, especially since the release of the Quattro series.

But, you'd need to see if you could live with their limitations, such as limited battery life, slow write times, slow raw processing software, etc.

If you want something a bit wider (21mm-e), there's a DPQ-0 on its way (this has a different sensor type to that found in the Merrills).

In spite of, or maybe because of its quirkiness, I really enjoy my DP2M.

[Tony Ventouris Photography]

The whole print potential thing is such a weird excuse people give.  I have a 150" x 24" panorama, and a 48" x 30" print hanging in my home that I made with a Fuji x100.  12mp?  Both look amazing.  When we were shooting with 12mp cameras or 35mm film what did we do for big prints?  Careful shooting and careful prep.  We have good tools for enlarging images cleanly now.  Try alien skin blow up or other similar programs.  Or pay someone that knows how to enlarge and print to do the job for you if you really need to make a 16mp image 60" for a print that's being nose distance inspected.  Print on canvas and step back to 4 or 5 feet and even 12mp will make a gorgeous print that's huge.  Remember, it's the subject and image that people admire, not the minute last .001 percent of edge resolving and micro contrast. 

I have never met anyone, ever, that has come and asked me about what camera to buy because they are shooting a specific project and 60 inch prints are the number one factor.  What camera to buy?  If you have such a developed vision about what you do, the right tool will reveal itself easily.  I think most of us just get caught up in the potential and what ifs.  Try a camera out and use the one that you love in your hands.  Everything out there will print amazing images...even large.  Ultimately, the small extra detail revealed in a large print by an 8x10 camera, or a stitched 80mp back is alluring....but it should never be what defines our work.  Having that quality in our pockets seems to be e everyone's goal lately.  It's amazing how much we can do at the moment.

[texshooter]

Update: After several hours of googling and soul searching, I've decided (unless somebody soon sways me otherwise) to buy

1.  Olympus OMD EM1 II (Coming soon. Sony has a new FT 20MP sensor, so it shouldn't be long now for a Mark II OMD EM1)
2.  Olympus ED 40-150mm F2.8  lens
3.  Olympus MC14 1.4x teleconverter
4.  Olympus ED 300mm F4 (coming soon)

I considered the Panasonic 100-300mm F4-5.6 instead of the 1.4 teleconverter, but this product review convinced me not to:
https://tysonrobichaudphotography.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/micro-43-super-tele-battle-lumix-100-300-vs-oly-40-1501-4xtc/

So why my interest in the four thirds format all of a sudden?  Well, my new Canon 100-400mm II F4.5-5.6 arrived in the mail today (lots of love on the web for this one). I bought it primarily as a traveling/hiking landscape lens, but after unboxing it I can already tell it's going to be a heavy brick to haul. The Olympus FT telephoto package is half the size and weight. If it works out, I will buy a set of wide angle lenses as well.

[Tony Ventouris Photography]

The 40-150 is about the size of a canon 70-200 f4.  Especially when the lens foot is off, it's very hand hold able and compact.  There are some amazing deals on e-m10 or e-m5 bodies out there.  You could snag one of those and the 40-150 and have a pretty fun setup while waiting for the e-m1 mk2.  They might wait for photokina. 

It's crazy being able to walk around with a "300mm" lens with a 2.8 light gathering f stop that fits in a large coat pocket.  Olympus hit a home run with that lens.  I could never handhold a 300mm dslr lens.  I run the Olympus handheld all day long.

[Michael N. Meyer]

12MP? 16MP?  Sorry, not good enough. Might as well shoot with a Holga. Looks like compact mirrorless is still in the pre-Cambrian period. I'll wait.

How large are you printing that you need more resolution? I made very nice 20"x30" prints from the files out of my x100 (12mp) and they held up fine when exhibited beside the prints from a 24mp FF sensor.

[DanLehman]

Update: After several hours of googling and soul searching, I've decided (unless somebody soon sways me otherwise) to buy

1.  Olympus OMD EM1 II (Coming soon. Sony has a new FT 20MP sensor, so it shouldn't be long now for a Mark II OMD EM1)
2.  Olympus ED 40-150mm F2.8  lens
3.  Olympus MC14 1.4x teleconverter
4.  Olympus ED 300mm F4 (coming soon)
...

In several hours of Googling,
why did you dismiss the seemingly Built-For-Landscapes
(your stated interest) Oly E-M5 II ??  --which, in reply to
your (overly, IMO & others') dismissive "only 16mpx", can
claim FORTY (4-0) mpx, topping those mere 36mpx guns
of yestermonth!   (But I've not seen you make a direct reply
to the challenges re "only 12 / 16 mpx" vis-a-vis actual output,
voiced here by many users.)

Moreover, I don't know where your Googling took you,
but in less time I found on www.43rumors.com a recent post
in which
  --nevermind what Sony might have just done (or Pany
     just released in their GX8)--
the stated resolution for the E-M1's upgrade is, to use your terms,
("only") 16mpx --re-using same (Pany) sensor, I presume,
as was the same Sony-made 16mpx one re-used in E-M5 II.
(And which is one that Lula's BCooter continues to see as giving
best colors, of maybe nearly ALL of his cameras (which includes
1DX & S2?) --but certainly vs. E-M1 & 1DX & his testing of the
earlier Sony A7 body.  But maybe that's a fashion photog's and
not a landscaper's preference --I've not seen ANYonElse concur
in this particular distinction!?)

And with perhaps some rush of the Gotta-Get-The-Latest... group
from their still sparkling E-M5 II's to -M1 II, you might even get
some bonus in (barely) used pricing!
Ming Thein, who had some issues w/Olympus both of technical
and *political* sort, gives a full review of mkII version now
--cf. http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/05/21/review-olympus-e-m5-mark-ii/


Btw, I do NOT see mentioned in the E-M1 rumor anything about
the sensor-shifting 40mpx option; that, I'd think, would concern
you much.


--dl*
====

[texshooter]

All righty then.   I'm going to research more about the differences between the E-M1, E-M1 II (rumored), E-M5 II, GH4, and GX8.  It's all a bit confusing.  I hear so much praise for the E-M1, I'm anxious to see what the E-M1 II (or E-M10 II, whichever it's going to be named) has in store.