nikon vs canon in landscape photography

[BernardLanguillier]

"What I believe is the higher pixel density the more noise." This is true for sensors of the same generation. Newer sensors are also generally better than older ones at a per pixel level. I would put the absolute quality of the Xti above the original 1Ds for example even though the 1Ds has a larger sensor.

At that time only Canon had FF, and it was important for them to make the case that FF was superior to DX because what they really meant was "Canon is better than the other brands".

Now that just about everybody has FF, it has become possible to look at the DX vs FX discussion in a more objective way and my personnal conclusion is that if 12-15 MP is enough for the print size being targeted, then DX is a better solution than FX for landscape. My personnal focus is very large print sizes which is why I have jumped on the FX wagon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Hägar the horrible]

sounds like the G10 is the perfect camera for landscape

[BernardLanguillier]

sounds like the G10 is the perfect camera for landscape

he he he... I happen to own one too... and it is not, unfortunately... which would imply that smaller than FX is better... but that smaller than DX might not be... I am really sorry for the complexity of such a statement. I know we have been used to things more clear cut.

The following images were shot with one of these awful DX cameras... a design that is more than 4 years old...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...57594364221841/

Cheers,
Bernard

[DaveCurtis]

Seems to be a nice lens that will enable you to grow if you decide to go FX further down the road, but some reports mention that the 14-24 f2.8 at 21 mm is as good if not better.

Keep in mind that it will only be a 32 mm on FX, is that wide enough?

Cheers,
Bernard

The 14-24mm seems to be better in the extreme corners at larger apertures and also has less distortion. Obviously being a zoom, it's the more versitile lens. However the Zeiss has the superior micro contrast giving it the "3D Zeiss" look.

[kers]

Sure FF sensor can give you advantages, better details and better noise control.  I do not recommend to use DX lenses with FF sensor as for D700 the resolution will switch down to 8M.P?  To be honest, Nikon's RAW does have better default sharpness but sharpness this kind of issue you can tune it in Photoshop, no big deal.  

If you have A D300 camera than what is think is missing is a high quality wide angle lens. Because there is none.
With full frame you have the 14-24 that has a price but a lot of quality ( even on a d3x) and a real 14mm.

One of the best things of full frame is the better prisma- that alows you the use the viewfinder to focus again- like in the old days.

Pieter

[Plekto]

Another camera to look at would be the Fuji S5 Pro(and upcoming replacement of course).  It's a Nikon body but has a sensor that is geared towards your type of use - it has a huge dynamic range and less moires (IME) than a typical Bayer pattern sensor.   It's not super-high resolution, but it does produce gorgeous scenery.  It's really a lot harder to blow out the highlights on a sunny day, for instance.  For most people, that's not an issue, but for scenery, it's a nice plus.

Basically what it does is bracket and blend in-camera, which is a really neat trick.  The effect is that the pictures look nearly film smooth in terms of noise and "grain".  A typical Bayer pattern sensor is close to 60-66%(maximum theoretical) efficient compared to film in each dimension.  We've all looked at magazines, for instance, with a magnifying glass.  Same thing happens with a camera sensor.  Layers of closely spaced dots of primary colors that blend to our eyes to look like full range color.   The Fuji squeezes closer to 85% as near as I can tell, so 6MP is a lot better and cleaner looking than you would initially think.  Most magazines rate it as comparable to a typical 10MP or so camera.  That's perfect for the average non-pro user, IMO.  Prints stuff up to 11*14 or so that looks gorgeous(figuring you won't spend $2K+ on a large format printer).

I'd at least look at it, since you can get one now for under $1000.

[davewolfs]

Yada, Yada, Yada...

I would stick with either Nikon or Canon - why because they offer the largest lens selection.  As for the Zeiss primes, I wouldn't bother with them, the Nikon Zooms work extremely well either the 14-24 or 24-70.  The 17-35mm still works decently too and supports filters.  Although the Zeiss primes offer excellent image quality they really aren't versatile for anything but landscape unless you enjoy shooting manual which IMO is difficult on the D300 viewfinder (even with a Katz Eye).

What I would look at is more of a lens lineup, if you could hold onto your D300 I would and try to learn from it.  What is nice about the Canon lens lineup is that f/4 lenses are available which are not only light but also offer image quality capable of producing very good results.  Additionally, the 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses are right around the corner which combined with the 5D Mark II's live view could offer a pretty incredible setup.

In terms of resolution, there is quite a difference between the Mark II and D700 but you won't notice unless you are printing large and even then, if you are viewing your images at a distance at least as long as the diagonol of the image you will be hard pressed to notice significant details between the two.

I think we all know that Nikon has a tendency to re-use their image sensors in other bodies and before you know it the D3x technology will trickle down into a D700 like body.  Of course this is all vaporware right now but I'd say that the majority are fairly confident that the D3x sensor will eventually be offered at a much lower cost of entry.  Somethings to keep in mind too when comparing the Nikon sensors to the 5D is that the Nikon sensor produces a much cleaner file (see http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/PushingT...cks/index.html) , regardless both are capable of excellent results.

[Plekto]

You will note that Fuji *is* using a Nikon mount/body.  Hence why I mentioned it as a possible option.

[davewolfs]

You will note that Fuji *is* using a Nikon mount/body.  Hence why I mentioned it as a possible option.

Fuji is sleeping.  They really don't have anything to offer right now.

[achrisproduction]

Fuji is sleeping.  They really don't have anything to offer right now.

I do think the S6pro is coming very soon. D700 body, 24 M.P SuperCCD (Full Frame)......

[Dan Wells]

The 24-70 Nikkor is a wonderful lens - sharp from corner to corner even on the toughest test of all - the D3x. I am after a 14-24 to go with it, but have not had me, the money and the lens together in the same place yet. Long lenses on Nikon are more than a bit of a challenge (unless you have both the money and the weight carrying capacity for a 300 f2.8 or a 200-400 f4) - I just bought an inexpensive 70-300 VR (which is a pretty good lens, but no 24-70) to tide me over until the lens I want is released in the longer range. On the other hand, wide Canon lenses are kind of like long Nikons - what's available has a bunch of compromises. Another thing to consider (depending on how far out you go to do your landscapes) is that any Nikon body from the D300 up is pretty well weathersealed and ruggedly built, while you don't get into the very well built Canons until the EOS-1 series. Alpha shooters say the 900 is very well built, maybe as good as a D300 or D700 (I've never really used one myself).



                               -Dan

[bjanes]

There is no measurable difference in terms of detail between a D2x, D90, D300, D700 and D3. This is coming from someone having own a D2x and still owning a D3 and D3x.

The real question though is "does FX have any compelling advantage for your applications?". My personnal answer is mostly not but considering that you might want to switch to FX some time in the future I would only limit my DX lenses investement to a 10-24 and use FX lenses for the rest of the focal lenght (among which the Zeiss lenses I mentioned are good suspects if AF is not important for you).

Cheers,
Bernard

As long as the camera resolution in terms of pixels per picture height is the same, resolved detail should be the same provided that the lens is not the limiting factor for the the DX camera. The FX camera requires less resolution in line pairs/mm for a given resolution in line pairs/picture height, and can make use of the higher MTF that lenses can deliver at this lower resolution. For a graphic explanation, see this article on Ken Rockwell's web site. I hesitate to mention Rockwell here, since most members of this forum consider him a buffoon, but he does make a good point and is not a dummie. However, I think that his test pictures in that article are flawed. Nonetheless, the full frame camera does have a theoretical advantage.

I downloaded the resolution pictures from DPReview's tests of the Nikon D300 and D700 and used Imatest to determine the resolution in terms of line pairs/picture height at an MTF of 50%, and the results are shown below. The picture height in terms of pixels is nearly identical for these cameras, but the D700 can resolve slightly more in terms of line pairs/picture height. DPreview did use different primes for these tests: 50 mm f/1.4 for the D300 and 85 mm f/1.8 for the D700, both stopped down for optimum resolution. The pertinent entry in the table is the weighted MTF50 in the next to last line of the table.


[attachment=14141:ResultsTable.gif]

[mas55101]

I would definitely keep the d300.  For much landscape, you need a looong telephoto, and with dx you have a true advantage.  Look at the cost of a 200-400mm lens or even a good 300mm, and you'll consider the d300 a good deal combined with, say---an 80-200.

Good luck.