Best FF Landscape camera?

[Ancient Tiger]

The new Pentax K1 II has been announced and it seems like the perfect landscape camera.

Handheld dynamic pixel shift must make this a camera to consider.

Too bad about the slightly less lens selection the Pentax mount gives you.

Kudos to Pentax though for the improvements.

[BernardLanguillier]

Most serious landscape work being done on tripod at low ISO I am not sure what the mkII adds compared to the MkI that makes it more of a landscape camera?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ancient Tiger]

I guess the pixel shift facility has now apparently improved. I'd like to see tests first obviously. Even for tripod work, pixel shift suffered badly from any mild movement in the subject matter making it less than useful except for studio work. If they have been able to control that aspect somewhat and can compensate well for mild subject movement (like leaves moving in the breeze) that would seriously improve it as a landscape camera. Time will tell.

[Two23]

The new Pentax K1 II has been announced and it seems like the perfect landscape camera.

Handheld dynamic pixel shift must make this a camera to consider.

Too bad about the slightly less lens selection the Pentax mount gives you.

When considering a camera, I look at them as a system, not just a camera body.  Lenses are the first thing I evaluate.  For heavy landscape use I would not buy a system that did not offer me at least two tilt/shift lenses.


Kent in SD

[DougDolde]

My pick was a Nikon D850 with three Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. 21mm, 28mm, 85mm

It was an upgrade from my Phase One XF/IQ180 in every regard except resolution.

Pretty amazing camera.

Some might argue Sony but I am not a Sony fan. Had an RX1 didn't like it

[shadowblade]

'Handheld' and 'landscape' barely belong in the same sentence. If I'm looking for a pure landscape camera, I don't care how it performs handheld - I would assume I'd be using it on a tripod.

At the moment, I'd say A7r3, just beating the D850 by a nose.

The main reason is pixel shift. You can shoot a set of pixel shift frames and benefit from it anywhere there isn't movement, masking out any movement artifact with a single frame from the set. The D850 can't do this.

Yes, the Nikon gets ISO 64, but, with typical, nonmoving landscape subjects, you can duplicate this by shooting two frames at ISO 100 and just averaging them, for an effective ISO of 50.

Lens-wise, it's probably also a slight nod to Sony for landscape purposes - you can put any lens on the A7r3 and use it for landscapes (no AF required), while the 100-400 is just exceptional as a landscape lens, covering almost all telephoto landscapes and being prime-sharp corner-to-corner, especially stopped down. (The 70-200 does a similar job for Nikon, but tops out at 200mm).

[Paul Roark]

'Handheld' and 'landscape' barely belong in the same sentence. ...

I would have agreed with this statement in the old film days when I was using my Rollei SL66, but with today's digital full frame cameras, while I still almost always have a small but adequate Gitzo with me, the vast majority of my landscape shots are hand held.  Even those with soft flowing water as well as tack sharp shorelines are hand held, multi-frame composites.  See, for example, the recent Iceland waterfall shots on my web page, near the end of the currently small B&W set.  True, a tripod would have saved Photoshop time, but for me, time in the field is much more restricted than time in front of the computer (unfortunately). 

To a certain extent, I see photography as a game of percentages.  Good photographers get a higher percentage of excellent shots.  However, at least with me, what I consider an excellent shot is still a small minority of all that I take.  As such, I find that if I keep moving quickly to new locations, sometimes noting that I need to return to a location at a certain time to get better lighting, I will end up with a higher total number of good shots.  This approach is resulting in a higher net success rate than the slower approach mandated by the old Rollei SL66 on a tripod.

As in life itself, time is the ultimate scarce resource.  I find that being fast with my gear and shooting hand held optimizes this limited resource.

FWIW,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Peter McLennan]

I agree with Paul.  A tripod is usually going to help IQ, but sometimes you just can't use one.  That doesn't necessarily rule out landscape shooting. 
Both these images resulted from hand held photography. D800, 24-85 lens.  Recently shown on a fifty foot wide movie screen with a Christie digital projector. 
Both the audience and I loved 'em.

[NancyP]

Most people are shooting at f/5.6 to f/8 for landscape. There are a heck of a lot of lenses that are pretty darn good at f/5.6 to f/8, including my lowly Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens. I find it hard to believe that Pentax doesn't have suitable high quality lenses for landscape use. What it doesn't have is OEM tilt-shift lens for K mount. You can get the Rokinon 24 mm, which I understand is "ok, not great", or you can mount a medium format lens with a K mount adapter (there are tilt shift and plain shift MF lens (several brands) to K mount camera adapters out there). Pentax K mount flange focal distance is longish (45.46 mm) for SLRs, so adapters without optical elements are impossible for Canon (44 mm) and Nikon (46.5 mm).

[tsjanik]

I think handheld pixel shift is a significant development.  I have a 645Z and a K-1 and when using PS the K-1 rivals the output of the 645Z and is a noticeable improvement over a single exposure.  Sometimes use of a tripod is just not possible for a variety of reasons and I certainly don't want pass up on shot because of that.  A recent example taken from a car with the 645Z and 80-160mm, while stopped in the middle of the road.  Pulling over and setting a tripod was not possible.   The overall scene and a crop at 1200%.  Of course it would have been better to use a tripod, but not much.

Tom

[Ancient Tiger]

Thanks guys. I was a little disappointment with the initial responses saying that any serious work is always with a tripod. I find that is the ideal scenario but many times you can't get the tripod out, set it up and then take the photo because the opportunity is lost as the lighting may have changed or something else has changed.
Tamron supplies Pentax with lenses and there are a few good lenses in their arsenal. It would have been good if Sigma made all their Art lenses compatible and obviously if Zeiss did too.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Nice to hear you like the Nikon!

Sony A7rIII crossed my mind as a recommendation. It has two advantages:

- EVF - it has magnified live view in the viewfinder - which I feel is essential for accurate focus.
- Great flexibility with third party glass - I often use it with a pair of Yashica era Zeiss zooms with a TS adapter.

If you need those features, Sony is at advantage. Other than that the Nikon is a good choice.

Best regards
Erik

My pick was a Nikon D850 with three Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. 21mm, 28mm, 85mm

It was an upgrade from my Phase One XF/IQ180 in every regard except resolution.

Pretty amazing camera.

Some might argue Sony but I am not a Sony fan. Had an RX1 didn't like it

[hogloff]

Thanks guys. I was a little disappointment with the initial responses saying that any serious work is always with a tripod. I find that is the ideal scenario but many times you can't get the tripod out, set it up and then take the photo because the opportunity is lost as the lighting may have changed or something else has changed.
Tamron supplies Pentax with lenses and there are a few good lenses in their arsenal. It would have been good if Sigma made all their Art lenses compatible and obviously if Zeiss did too.

When I'm serious about my photography, I carry my camera attached to my tripod. Personally I've never shot an outstanding landscape handheld...some nice photos, but nothing like I get shooting from a tripod.

[Paulo Bizarro]

The K1 is certainly a fine camera, but it is let down for the lack of lenses, as a system.

IMO, in terms of portability and small size, it is hard to beat the Sony Alpha 7 these days. Quality sensor matched to quality native lenses, from several sources: Sony, Sony-Zeiss, Zeiss, Voigtlander. And of course you can adapt to your hearts content.

I also use a tripod most to the times, but certainly with IS, OIS, IBIS, and whatnot, together with higher quality higher ISOs, it is possible to shoot landscapes say during the golden hours. If you are at 1 sec and 100 ISO, for example, it is feasible to go to 1/4 sec at 400 ISO, with a 20mm or 24mm lens.

[Chris Kern]

Personally I've never shot an outstanding landscape handheld

Eh?  Nikon D90, 18-200mm consumer-grade Nikkor lens, 1/1000 at f/5.6.

[hogloff]

The K1 is certainly a fine camera, but it is let down for the lack of lenses, as a system.

IMO, in terms of portability and small size, it is hard to beat the Sony Alpha 7 these days. Quality sensor matched to quality native lenses, from several sources: Sony, Sony-Zeiss, Zeiss, Voigtlander. And of course you can adapt to your hearts content.

I also use a tripod most to the times, but certainly with IS, OIS, IBIS, and whatnot, together with higher quality higher ISOs, it is possible to shoot landscapes say during the golden hours. If you are at 1 sec and 100 ISO, for example, it is feasible to go to 1/4 sec at 400 ISO, with a 20mm or 24mm lens.

With the high resolution sensors out there I find it extremely hard to get tack sharp images at shutter speeds longer than 1/100 second. Try a test of handholding an image and using same setup on a tripod and compare the two images. You’ll be surprised at how blurry the handheld image is in comparison.

[hogloff]

Eh?  Nikon D90, 18-200mm consumer-grade Nikkor lens, 1/1000 at f/5.6.

Ummm, ok. Personally I would not hang that on my walls, but tastes differ, I understand.

I still stand by using a tripod for say 95% of my landscape images as it allows me to find tune an exact composition and then I can wait for the right light while composition does not change. I carry a light compact camera on my pack for quick grabs, but they are for memory shots, not something I would print large.

[Paulo Bizarro]

With the high resolution sensors out there I find it extremely hard to get tack sharp images at shutter speeds longer than 1/100 second. Try a test of handholding an image and using same setup on a tripod and compare the two images. You’ll be surprised at how blurry the handheld image is in comparison.

I fully agree with tripod use. But of course the result depends on the ability to hand hold. Today I can quickly grab the camera when the light shows up momentarily, and get the shot quickly. Higher ISO and IBIS on my Sony A7II can save the day:) Granted, I am only at 24mp.

[patjoja]

I would have agreed with this statement in the old film days when I was using my Rollei SL66, but with today's digital full frame cameras, while I still almost always have a small but adequate Gitzo with me, the vast majority of my landscape shots are hand held.  Even those with soft flowing water as well as tack sharp shorelines are hand held, multi-frame composites.  See, for example, the recent Iceland waterfall shots on my web page, near the end of the currently small B&W set.  True, a tripod would have saved Photoshop time, but for me, time in the field is much more restricted than time in front of the computer (unfortunately). 

To a certain extent, I see photography as a game of percentages.  Good photographers get a higher percentage of excellent shots.  However, at least with me, what I consider an excellent shot is still a small minority of all that I take.  As such, I find that if I keep moving quickly to new locations, sometimes noting that I need to return to a location at a certain time to get better lighting, I will end up with a higher total number of good shots.  This approach is resulting in a higher net success rate than the slower approach mandated by the old Rollei SL66 on a tripod.

As in life itself, time is the ultimate scarce resource.  I find that being fast with my gear and shooting hand held optimizes this limited resource.

FWIW,

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I think I agree too, Paul.  Obviously there are times when a tripod is absolutely necessary.  However, what I find myself doing when hand holding a shot is similar to what a hunter will do when shooting a rifle, take a deep breath and hold it.  Also, since digital is 'free', I am not adverse to taking multiple shots to give myself a better chance of getting the most 'still' shot.  Of course, how you hold the camera and brace yourself is important too.

Patrick

[NancyP]

Re: hand-holding. I do hand-held 1:2 to 1:1 macro (chasing feeding insects in brighter light, no flash used) using burst mode. Very often one of the photos in the 1 to 2 second burst (~10 images) will be spot on at 100%. Burst mode shooting also works for tripod-mounted macro with breeze-stirred flowers, and for hand-held landscapes at 1/60 to 1/30 second. Tripods are 1. for low light situations 2. a means of slowing down and thinking about composition.

BTW, Chris Kern, I like your waterfall landscape with bird. The bird (GBH) makes the photo.