How much better is 5D Mark III than D750 in Landscape/Nature?

[CezarMart]

This is my first post on this forum and I am looking forward to contributing to this place from now on.
However, I want to start with a question. I have been a landscape advanced hobbyist photographer for some time now, I have been shooting with Nikon equipment and this is where my glass investment is.
I own good quality Nikon lenses, but my camera body is getting old. Plus, I am not happy with landscape performance of my D700, especially with lack of ISO 100 and poor color clarity. It's a great camera for many other purposes, but not nature.
I am seriously thinking about an upgrade. And this is the issue: I have been regretting to go Nikon route for some time, but since I already have lots of Nikon glass I have kept sticking to it. I heard from many sources that 5D Mark III is the best landscape body there is, so now I have two options:

1. Keep my D700 for occasional portraits and weddings, but purchase 5D Mark III strictly for landscape/nature, which is my primary activity.
2. Stick to Nikon in landscape by purchasing D750 instead.

Option 1 will have to come with kit lens 24-105, as I cannot afford full set of lenses right now. It will have to be a starting point. This option makes sense only if there is a significant difference between 5D and D750. The difference must be really substantial to make this option worthy. The difference must be in color and clarity, which is the result of anti-alias filter's absence in 5D.
With time I can start selling my Nikon glass and gradually build my Canon arsenal.
Option 2 will let me stick to my Nikon arsenal and makes sense for me only if two bodies are comparable in terms of color and image clarity.

Any experience with both bodies?
Thank you,
Cezar

[NashvilleMike]

With all due respect, the Nikon D810 is what you should be considering. I don't see too many people thinking the Canon 5Diii is the king of the DSLR for landscape use. I shot with a D700 for a while and made do, and the difference between it and the 800E I shoot with now is marked, obvious, and substantial; but I should note I took the time to hone both my shot discipline as well as my lens collection. There is no Canon body available now that I would consider for landscape work personally. The Canon fans may scream fanboy, so before they do I should say that if I shot more wedding/event than I do, I'd likely have a pair of Canon 1DX around my neck instead of Nikons. Different tools for different jobs.

Obviously the 50mp Canon bodies might change the equation, although I don't think the visible (in print) difference between 36mp and 50mp will be anywhere as substantial as the difference from going from 12 to 36mp, and the DR aspects of the new Canon are unknown. There is a point IMO where enough resolution is "enough resolution" dependent on each photographers expected output size.

In general if one already has a reasonable glass collection in one brand that it's not generally advisable to switch systems unless there is a real, distinct, obvious need to - not an emotional reaction, not a reason based upon buying the latest so you can be the cool kid in the forums, and this also includes making sure you've worked through your own limitations in other things as well - spending the money on training if your post processing skills are lacking, a better tripod/ballhead, etc. The reality is that most DSLRs today are very competent. As for your original question, a D750 and a Canon 5Diii would be similar except for the greater DR of the Nikon body, which IMO puts them (currently) at the top of the class for landscape work.

Note also that the Sony folks will have a valid argument for the 36mp Sony mirrorless. I don't like composing on a computer screen and personally can't stand EVF, but the Sony gear has to be taken seriously if you are considering changing systems as well.

You might want to wait and see what the new Canon 50mp monster looks like before pulling the trigger anyway.... it might (or might not) be the "one" for you

[shadowblade]

Most landscape photography (with the singular exception of starscapes where you are trying to avoid trails) is done at low ISO, with the most important sensor attributes being DR and resolution.

For this role, there is no comparison between Canon and Nikon - Nikon is way ahead on both fronts. Canon is equal for high-ISO and action applications, but fails at low ISO due to shadow noise and pattern noise.

The D700 doesn't count, since it's pre-Exmor.

If you can afford a 5D3 with 24-105, then you can also afford a D810. There's no finer landscape camera on the market at the moment.

[CezarMart]

Hmm, I forgot about D810. The reason I pre-excluded this option is that when I shoot events I deal with thousands of photos and 36MP is simply too much. But I didn't think of an option of using D810 ONLY for nature/landscape, when the number of images to keep and process is much smaller, and still using D700 for events, where 12MP is exactly what I need.
Thank you for suggesting it. Yes, the D810 body price is exactly equal to 5D3 + lens.

[BernardLanguillier]

I frankly don't see any aspect on the body side where the 5DIII is superior to the D750 and even less so for landscape work. Whoever told you so had smoked something a little too hot...

The D750 sensor is simply much superior from an image quality standpoint where it matters for landscape and so is usability thanks to the articulated screen.

The D810 is obvisouly even further ahead.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwswager]

This is my first post on this forum and I am looking forward to contributing to this place from now on.
However, I want to start with a question. I have been a landscape advanced hobbyist photographer for some time now, I have been shooting with Nikon equipment and this is where my glass investment is.
I own good quality Nikon lenses, but my camera body is getting old. Plus, I am not happy with landscape performance of my D700, especially with lack of ISO 100 and poor color clarity. It's a great camera for many other purposes, but not nature.
I am seriously thinking about an upgrade. And this is the issue: I have been regretting to go Nikon route for some time, but since I already have lots of Nikon glass I have kept sticking to it. I heard from many sources that 5D Mark III is the best landscape body there is, so now I have two options:

1. Keep my D700 for occasional portraits and weddings, but purchase 5D Mark III strictly for landscape/nature, which is my primary activity.
2. Stick to Nikon in landscape by purchasing D750 instead.

While the 5DmkIII is fine camera, it is overpriced versus either the D810 and D750.  Considering the better performing cameras today are in your system, it just doesn't make sense to switch for the camera body.  If you were switching for lenses it might be different.  BTW, the D700 is still a pretty great camera in it's own right.  In fact, as far a sensor output goes, the D700 is still up there with the 5DmkIII, but not as good as the D810 or D750 or really even the D610.

I own the D810 and previously shot the D300 and D7100 (still own).  While there are things I would change and features I would like added, the D810 is about the best of the heap for Landscape and IMHO as a general purpose camera being sold today.

[NancyP]

Why not the new Nikon D750 (if you want dual use) or D810 (landscape specific) full frame camera? What Nikon lenses do you have?  It might be better to go with the newest Nikon cameras, which have very good sensors. I would guess that the Nikon is the most popular landscape camera here, with Sony A7x cameras also popular (similar sensor). Sensors are Canon's weak spot, they have not made major improvements in dynamic range recently. If you like Nikon, and like its ergonomics, I would stick with it.

I am a Canon user, by the way. I have nice Canon lenses, so I would prefer to stick with Canon.

[CezarMart]

Why not the new Nikon D750 (if you want dual use) or D810 (landscape specific) full frame camera? What Nikon lenses do you have?  It might be better to go with the newest Nikon cameras, which have very good sensors. I would guess that the Nikon is the most popular landscape camera here, with Sony A7x cameras also popular (similar sensor). Sensors are Canon's weak spot, they have not made major improvements in dynamic range recently. If you like Nikon, and like its ergonomics, I would stick with it.

I am a Canon user, by the way. I have nice Canon lenses, so I would prefer to stick with Canon.

28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 85 f/1.4 and 28-300 VR. I am hoping to add 16-35 f/4 soon.
For backpacking I use 28-300 to be as lightweight and universal as possible.

The discussion absolutely convinced me stay with Nikon and to get D810 for nature. Thank you!

[shadowblade]

28-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 85 f/1.4 and 28-300 VR. I am hoping to add 16-35 f/4 soon.
For backpacking I use 28-300 to be as lightweight and universal as possible.

The discussion absolutely convinced me stay with Nikon and to get D810 for nature. Thank you!

What tripod and head are you using? For landscape, these are as critical as the lenses.

Also, it wouldn't hurt to get the 14-24 when you can, too. It's so good that many Canon shooters use it, and others who have Canon lenses but who have ditched the Canon bodies put it on the A7r along with all their other Canon lenses.

[Hans Kruse]

What tripod and head are you using? For landscape, these are as critical as the lenses.

Also, it wouldn't hurt to get the 14-24 when you can, too. It's so good that many Canon shooters use it, and others who have Canon lenses but who have ditched the Canon bodies put it on the A7r along with all their other Canon lenses.

I agree about the tripod and also a good stable ballhead. I use a Really Right Stuff tripod and the BH55 ballhead with quick release.

The times when Canon shooters were using the 14-24 is gone. The Canon 16-35 f/4L IS is as good if not superior, at least from what I have seen as I have both. The new Canon 11-24 f/4L is even better. I agree on the sensor weakness of the Canon but it is easy to overcome that even for landscapes. It shoot both Canon 5D III and Nikon D810 side by side. I typically use the 5D III with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens which is better than anything for the Nikon and the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR with the D810. This is a very good lens for landscape, light and sharp and half price vs the f/2.8 70-200.

[shadowblade]

I agree about the tripod and also a good stable ballhead. I use a Really Right Stuff tripod and the BH55 ballhead with quick release.

The times when Canon shooters were using the 14-24 is gone. The Canon 16-35 f/4L IS is as good if not superior, at least from what I have seen as I have both. The new Canon 11-24 f/4L is even better. I agree on the sensor weakness of the Canon but it is easy to overcome that even for landscapes. It shoot both Canon 5D III and Nikon D810 side by side. I typically use the 5D III with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens which is better than anything for the Nikon and the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR with the D810. This is a very good lens for landscape, light and sharp and half price vs the f/2.8 70-200.

The 16-35 f/4L doesn't go to 14mm. Also, if you're shooting night landscapes and don't want star trails, the f/2.8 really helps.

Don't know about the 11-24 yet - it's only just come out.

The 5D3 only has 22MP vs the D810's 36MP. That's a huge strike against the Canon for landscape photography, not even considering the rest of the Canon's weaknesses. If you're going to print landscapes at 24x36", 40x60" or larger, you need resolution.

Completely disagree about ballheads for landscapes. Ballheads are for when you need to recompose quickly. But you can't adjust each axis independently and they can sag slightly on tightening, ruining your fine composition. With landscapes, you need precise composition, but have all the time in the world to adjust it. A good pan-tilt head is far better. I use the Arca-Swiss C1 Cube.

[CezarMart]

Completely disagree about ballheads for landscapes. Ballheads are for when you need to recompose quickly. But you can't adjust each axis independently and they can sag slightly on tightening, ruining your fine composition. With landscapes, you need precise composition, but have all the time in the world to adjust it. A good pan-tilt head is far better. I use the Arca-Swiss C1 Cube.

I have several heads and I must admit those sophisticated pan-tilt heads drive me crazy. I always get confused which of the three aspects I am adjusting and for me the ballhead is the best solution. Simple and quick.
And I must disagree about having all the time in the world in landscape . I lost many great scenes because I wasn't fast enough.

As to the lenses it all depends if I shoot from the car or from a hiking trail. I can have all heavy arsenal in the car, but when backpacking being lightweight is critical. At 50+ yrs you need to preserve your energy as much as you can . One universal 28-300 VR is my best friend. And light Manfrotto tripod easily attachable to the backpack.

[dwswager]

Completely disagree about ballheads for landscapes. Ballheads are for when you need to recompose quickly. But you can't adjust each axis independently and they can sag slightly on tightening, ruining your fine composition. With landscapes, you need precise composition, but have all the time in the world to adjust it. A good pan-tilt head is far better. I use the Arca-Swiss C1 Cube.

Every type of head has it's benefits and drawbacks.  The C1 Cube is a dream come true in that each axis can be adjusted independently and with precision.  But it is somewhat SLOW and heavy and EXPENSIVE.  Every ball head (any head in which camera movements are done holding the camera) is going to a some sag, but are quick to work with.  The pan and tilt generally kinda mix between those 2 extremes.  It really depends on how you shoot and what your own personal preferences are.  I tend to look at heads like camera bags; the perfect head just doesn't exist.

My point to the OP was since he already is Nikon, it probably doesn't make sense to switch.  If he was Canon looking to switch, then there are a lot of factors to consider.  One must stake time into account as well.  For a professional, switch or even owning both is a an easier and quicker decision to make.  A short while back, Canon was the sensor king and Nikon had better lenses in some key areas.  Now Nikon (Sony) sensors outperform while Canon is improving lenses in the areas where Nikon used to hold sway.  It will all flop again...and again...and again. 

[E.J. Peiker]

"How much better is 5D Mark III than D750 in Landscape/Nature?"

It isn't, not on any measure of sensor performance.  The D750 is superior in every regard relating to sensors.

Where Canon, is superior is on their high end zooms where there 16-35/4L and 24-70/2.8L are superior to Nikon's equivalent.  But in most cases the superiority decreases as you stop down.  In landscape photography, in most situations you aren't shooting at the largest aperture the lens can muster so the lens differences are minimized to a large extent.  And for even better performance than those zooms can muster, there are third party primes like the Sigma Art lenses or the Zeiss lenses.

[Borgefjell]

I agree, the Sony-sensors used in the Nikon-cameras are having much better dynamic range than the Canon-sensors. Where Canon shines is T/S-lenses, if somebodies landscapes-work relies on them the Canon-solution might be better (or an adapter + Sony a7r... )

[Chairman Bill]

I bought an ex-demo D800. Not as good as the 810, but substantially cheaper. Like you, I have a D700, which I'm keeping as a back up & for those things where the file size is right. It would leave you cash for any new lenses or upgrades.

As far as tripod heads go, I use the Arca-Swiss P0 - http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/arca-swiss-monoball-ball-and-socket-p0-with-quickset-fliplock-device.html



It's light(ish), easily manoeuvrable & locks really tightly. If you're planning on stitching & want to place the camera vertically on the head, the Arca-Swiss L-bracket is worth looking at. Better than the RRS camera-body specific versions, because it's adaptable & will fit any of your camera bodies - http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/camera-supports/plates-l-brackets/arca-swiss-l-bracket-quickset-classic.html

[dwswager]

As far as tripod heads go, I use the Arca-Swiss P0 - http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/arca-swiss-monoball-ball-and-socket-p0-with-quickset-fliplock-device.html

It's light(ish), easily manoeuvrable & locks really tightly. If you're planning on stitching & want to place the camera vertically on the head, the Arca-Swiss L-bracket is worth looking at. Better than the RRS camera-body specific versions, because it's adaptable & will fit any of your camera bodies - http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/camera-supports/plates-l-brackets/arca-swiss-l-bracket-quickset-classic.html

I will 2nd the P0 even though I don't own it.  I've used one a few times.  Never made sense to me that the panning base is below the camera movement on a ballhead.  I never use the panning base on my B1 and now have an RRS panning clamp so it operates more like a P0.  I don't like that Arca changed the geometries for their stuff so I always stick with the original Arca Swiss plate/clamp design that was made universal by RRS.

As to the plates, there are benefits and draw backs to custom versus generic plates.  While the RRS plate is expensive, it does allow operation of basically everthing on the camera.  There is a $79 Sunwayfoto alternative as well.  I find Sunwayfoto stuff about 85% as good for about 50% the price of RRS stuff.