Affordable Digital for Landscapes (Long)

[Lin Evans]

Unfortunately the only truly equivalent 20D level solution is the 20D or a similar dSLR but this doesn't mean you couldn't buy a decent fixed lens digicam which equals the 20D in image quality but under a much more stringent parameter of shooting conditions.

Something like the Olympus 8 megapixel models would equal the resolution of the 20D and provide great landscape potential. But remember we are essentially talking about a low ISO solution. When lighting gets "iffy" then you will be limited to using a tripod and longer exposures to get equivalen results which you would get with the 20D by simply going to ISO 400, etc. You also loose the versatility of OOF backdrops because with the relatively tiny sensor and true short focal lengths everything wants to be in focus. On the plus side for macros you gain an appreciable advantage. Multiply whatever aperture you use with the fixed lens digicam and you have the approximate 35mm equivalency. For example your F4 shots will have the DOF of your 20D at F16. Shots at F8 will have F32 DOF. This makes shooting macros, especially for tiny subjects, much easier. You can hand hold and get macro results with the Olympus which would take a tripod, ring flash and such with the 20D and perhaps still not as satisfactory.

There are trade-offs either way you go.

Best regards,

Lin

[duranash]

Julius, thanks for your insight on using the 20D for Landscape work.  Out of curiosity, what 20D shortcomings are you correcting by buying the 1Ds Mark II?

[duranash]

Lets see, I think I need to emphasize AFFORDABLE      Then again - everything is relative.  All I know is that I'm retired so discretionary $ are not as easy to come by --- AND my lovely wife near fainted when I mentioned the price of a 20D.

[MatthewCromer]

If you want large landscape prints with very low noise and not a lot of resolution, a Rebel XT or 20D will be sufficient.

If you want high res pictures that are affordable, go for a used 6x7 or LF system (645 will be ok but not ideal).  I bought a LF system with 3 lenses for around $1500, and the detail for landscapes is almost immeasurably better than any comparably priced digital system.  A good flatbed scanner for 4x5 will run you $300 more.

[didger]

Before getting a Kodak camera, I would look into the issue of noise.  I'm not talking about shadow noise, but the weird colored noise you get with specular highlights.  This is occasionally a big nuisance with a 1ds and I understand that it's much worse with Kodak cameras.  If you shoot things with water, ice, or snow, you're apt to see this if you're shooting more or less into the sun.  It can be somewhat controlled by NOT shooting to the right of the histogram (or bracketing and blending) for certain subject matter and it can sometimes be fixed with tedious Photoshop diddling, but I certainly would not get any camera that is known to be particularly prone to this type of noise.

Maybe 1ds will get down to affordable levels for you once 1ds2's become a little easier to find and D2X is really happening.  I'm keeping my 1ds kit, but also buying D2X.  I suspect a lot of people will bail on 1ds and buy D2X, however.  I can't imagine a better camera bargain than a 1ds if they get down to around $3000 or less.

The trouble with 20D is that sooner or later you'll be wishing for more pixels.  That's always true, of course, but with a 1ds and good lenses and careful technique you can print up to 24x36 with very decent sharpness.  For landscape shooting (if weight is not a big issue) 1ds is still an excellent camera, even if 1ds2 has some advantages (esp. less noise at higher ISO).  I'm only getting a D2X because of the weight issue.

[sparty]

I purchased a digital p&s (Canon G3) a couple of years ago.  Last fall I purchased the 20D.  Still have the G3.  Even though I love to do landscapes, I found I use the both cameras to shoot kids, friends, family and travel pictures about 80% of the time, the G3 for travel (small and light), the 20D for kids (no shutter lag) and landscapes. When I do landscapes, I stitch if I need the extra pixels or the wide angles, otherwise I find 8 mega pixels adequate (I haven’t printed larger than 11 x 17) .  It depends on how often you plan to print big.  

Sounds like you need to find an affordable compromise with your wife.  I’d suggest the Digital Rebel XT (8MP) or the Digital Rebel(6MP), with either of the kit lenses.  The XT is light weight, no shutter lag (compared to a P&S), is compatible with your existing lenses and your wife may find the size and Full Auto operation less intimidating.

[JimCopeland]

Duranash, If you are currently happy with shooting 35mm and making 13x19 prints on an epson printer you can be assured that you can buy a 20D start shooting and never look back. With good digital technique along with the photo skills you have you should be able to make better prints than ever before. If you are the type of person that is not happy unless you think you have the very best that money can buy than you won't be happy because in the back of you mind you will always lust for that 1Dsm2. Is the 1dsm2 better than a 20D? Sure it is but it should be for another $6500. Is it $6500 better? For some people it is for some it isn't. If you are comfortable with the price of a 20D and want to have a lot of fun shooting and making 13x19 and larger prints get a 20D and go shoot pictures. You should be able to get better quality than ever before.

[MatthewCromer]

I think you'll be pretty disappointed with 6-8MP digital compared to your MF and (especially) 4x5 scans.