nikon vs canon in landscape photography

[spacevoid8]

i am choosing between nikon d700 with 24-70 and canon 5d Mark II with similar lens (i am newbie in canon optics)..what can you say about this suggestion?
what plays more important role..quantity of megapixels or low light performance? what about sharpness of nikon/canon lenses?

ps sorry for somekindo weirdo language, english is not my native one..

[Geoff Wittig]

i am choosing between nikon d700 with 24-70 and canon 5d Mark II with similar lens (i am newbie in canon optics)..what can you say about this suggestion?
what plays more important role..quantity of megapixels or low light performance? what about sharpness of nikon/canon lenses?

ps sorry for somekindo weirdo language, english is not my native one..

1) For landscape photography, low light performance is rarely relevant. You're mostly using the camera on a tripod at the lowest ISO you can get to maximize image quality. The D700 is one or two stops better in terms of noise at high ISO, but that probably doesn't matter very much for landscape.

2) The largest print size you ever plan on making is in play. You won't see much advantage of the Canon's 21 megapixels over the Nikon's 12 megapixels until you're printing bigger than somewhere around 16x24".

3) Canon and Nikon both make extremely good 24-70 mm f:2.8 zoom lenses; but the two brands diverge when you go shorter or longer in focal length. Nikon's 14-24 mm f:2.8 is really superb, while Canon's 16-35 mm f:.2.8 L II is just adequate, and really not up to the demands of the sensor. On the other hand, both of Canon's 70-200 IS L zooms, the f:4 and the f:2.8, are superb, while Nikon's equivalent 70-200 f:2.8 is a bit soft in the corners on full frame unless you stop down, and it also vignettes more. Me, I seem to naturally 'see' at 100 to 150 mm focal length, so I'm delighted with Canon's optics. I've also never really been very good at 'seeing' in wide angle focal lengths; I find myself shooting stiched panos with the 24-70 far more often than I reach for the wide zoom. But if you really like wider focal lengths, Canon will probably frustrate you and you'll be happier with Nikon.

4) It probably makes sense to look at the big picture: both Canon and Nikon make some great cameras and great lenses, though each system has different shortcomings and strengths.

[spacevoid8]

ok, i understand that high-iso is not vital for me and i don`t want to print huge photos (no need for mpixes). ohh, i forgot to mention that i already have nikon d300 with 18-200 lens (but i must sell them due to pretty jerky situation in my life). now i am thinking about my future-set...so next question, do i need full-frame for nicer landscape photos? and what lens do you recommend if i stay with Nikon?

[Philip Weber]

ok, i understand that high-iso is not vital for me and i don`t want to print huge photos (no need for mpixes). ohh, i forgot to mention that i already have nikon d300 with 18-200 lens (but i must sell them due to pretty jerky situation in my life). now i am thinking about my future-set...so next question, do i need full-frame for nicer landscape photos? and what lens do you recommend if i stay with Nikon?

I shoot with the D700 (D300 as my back up body) and have the full line of Nikkor "Pro" lenses. I think Geoff's assessment of each brands strengths and weaknesses was very accurate but if you're already using Nikon, it may be easier to stay with what you know.

Currently, I'm shooting mostly landscapes and use the 24-70mm most of the time, the 70-200mm next and then either the 14-24mm or 17-35mm after that, depending on whether or not I want to use filters.

I've taken some awesome shots with the D300 so if high ISO isn't an issue (which are made much easier with the D700) then you might want to save the money on the camera body, sell your 18-200mm and get the 24-70mm and either the 70-200mm or a wide angle of your choice.

I hope this helps.
Phil

[achrisproduction]

i am choosing between nikon d700 with 24-70 and canon 5d Mark II with similar lens (i am newbie in canon optics)..what can you say about this suggestion?
what plays more important role..quantity of megapixels or low light performance? what about sharpness of nikon/canon lenses?

ps sorry for somekindo weirdo language, english is not my native one..

I would recommend 5D Mark II for Picture Quality.  D700 will be much an all rounder as its AF System is transfered from Nikon D3x and D3.  However, if you are looking to do big prints 5D II is surely a better choice.  Between Canon has lots of big aperture primes which Nikon doesn't.  Have considered Sony A900?  It's a stunning FF DSLR too.  

Cheers,

Chris

[achrisproduction]

i am choosing between nikon d700 with 24-70 and canon 5d Mark II with similar lens (i am newbie in canon optics)..what can you say about this suggestion?
what plays more important role..quantity of megapixels or low light performance? what about sharpness of nikon/canon lenses?

ps sorry for somekindo weirdo language, english is not my native one..

By the way, 5D Mark II is a better low light performer if you downsize it's image to 12 M.P and compares it to D700.  

[BernardLanguillier]

ok, i understand that high-iso is not vital for me and i don`t want to print huge photos (no need for mpixes). ohh, i forgot to mention that i already have nikon d300 with 18-200 lens (but i must sell them due to pretty jerky situation in my life). now i am thinking about my future-set...so next question, do i need full-frame for nicer landscape photos? and what lens do you recommend if i stay with Nikon?

I would find a way to keep the D300, it is an excellent landscape camera, and the D700 will only have limited value for landscape applications.

I would keep the 18-200, but add to it a few other lenses depending on what your priorities are.

- wide: Nikkor 10-24
- prime: Zeiss 35 f2 or 50 f2
- long lens: Zeiss 100 f2
 
Regards,
Bernard

[spacevoid8]

I would find a way to keep the D300, it is an excellent landscape camera, and the D700 will only have limited value for landscape applications.

I would keep the 18-200, but add to it a few other lenses depending on what your priorities are.

- wide: Nikkor 10-24
- prime: Zeiss 35 f2 or 50 f2
- long lens: Zeiss 100 f2
 
Regards,
Bernard

thanks for recommendations! i look through zeiss site..and can you tell me..can full frame sensor give me advantages in landscape photography (remembering that i don`t need huge prints)? as i understand, full-rame gives wider view - and that is good for landscape. and if i switch to full frame.. dx-lenses become obsolete in terms of quality? (i`ve heard that dx-lenses not so good performers on FX)

how about ken rockwell and his opinion that canon can give better sharpness for landscape photography?

ps sorry again for BAD english and not so good readable text:)
 

[achrisproduction]

thanks for recommendations! i look through zeiss site..and can you tell me..can full frame sensor give me advantages in landscape photography (remembering that i don`t need huge prints)? as i understand, full-rame gives wider view - and that is good for landscape. and if i switch to full frame.. dx-lenses become obsolete in terms of quality? (i`ve heard that dx-lenses not so good performers on FX)

how about ken rockwell and his opinion that canon can give better sharpness for landscape photography?

ps sorry again for BAD english and not so good readable text:)

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.  

[BernardLanguillier]

Sure FF sensor can give you advantages, better details

Hum... don't think so.

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.

Regarding the lenses, using a DX lens on a FX body can be done 2 ways:
- in DX mode -> only the center part of the sensor is used and pixel count is reduced by a factor of 2.25,
- in full mode -> some of the DX zoom lenses are unable to cover the FX sensor at some focal lenght, but the 10-24 appears to be able to cover FX between 15 and 24 mm for instance. This is still not really recommended in terms of sharpness obviously.

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).

and better noise control.

As far as noise control/DR goes, well yes FX does have some advantage all other things being equal. The question is "is DX good enough?". The D90 has shown that Nikon is able to extract amazing DR from a FX sensor, in fact more than Canon could with their excellent 5D (said to be more than enough by most users 2 years ago). Things will only get better and DX still has excellent potential...

Cheers,
Bernard

[achrisproduction]

Hum... don't think so.

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.

Regarding the lenses, using a DX lens on a FX body can be done 2 ways:
- in DX mode -> only the center part of the sensor is used and pixel count is reduced by a factor of 2.25,
- in full mode -> some of the DX zoom lenses are unable to cover the FX sensor at some focal lenght, but the 10-24 appears to be able to cover FX between 15 and 24 mm for instance. This is still not really recommended in terms of sharpness obviously.

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).



As far as noise control/DR goes, well yes FX does have some advantage all other things being equal. The question is "is DX good enough?". The D90 has shown that Nikon is able to extract amazing DR from a FX sensor, in fact more than Canon could with their excellent 5D (said to be more than enough by most users 2 years ago). Things will only get better and DX still has excellent potential...

Cheers,
Bernard

Of course, there will not be a big different when the images were resized or viewed on screen but when you make big prints surely everyone can see the FF sensor gave more details.  When I down sized the images taken with my  LEAF AFi-II 10 to 1600x there won't be different compares to a image taken with a 1Ds III.

[achrisproduction]

Hum... don't think so.

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.

Regarding the lenses, using a DX lens on a FX body can be done 2 ways:
- in DX mode -> only the center part of the sensor is used and pixel count is reduced by a factor of 2.25,
- in full mode -> some of the DX zoom lenses are unable to cover the FX sensor at some focal lenght, but the 10-24 appears to be able to cover FX between 15 and 24 mm for instance. This is still not really recommended in terms of sharpness obviously.

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).



As far as noise control/DR goes, well yes FX does have some advantage all other things being equal. The question is "is DX good enough?". The D90 has shown that Nikon is able to extract amazing DR from a FX sensor, in fact more than Canon could with their excellent 5D (said to be more than enough by most users 2 years ago). Things will only get better and DX still has excellent potential...

Cheers,
Bernard

I do not agree.  50D is using a brand new gapless 12 M.P APS-C Sensor and its noise control is worse than 40D.  What I believe is the higher pixel density the more noise.  Also, surely there's pixel limit on APS-C sensor because when using some non L lenses images appeared very soft, I think it's due to some lenses are too old they cannot take the super high pixel density.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In my humble view the noise aspect of small pixels is over exagerated in most discussions. If you increase the number of photons captured four times noise will be cut in half. Minor changes in pixel density should not matter. Ging from 10 to to 15 MPixels is a small change.

With higher pixel count there will be less need for low pass (AA) filtering so image quality main gain.

Best regards
Erik

i am choosing between nikon d700 with 24-70 and canon 5d Mark II with similar lens (i am newbie in canon optics)..what can you say about this suggestion?
what plays more important role..quantity of megapixels or low light performance? what about sharpness of nikon/canon lenses?

ps sorry for somekindo weirdo language, english is not my native one..

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

These are very good points worth a lot of consideration. Nothing to add!

One more issue, you need to be really careful to fully utilize FF and 20+ MPixels. If you dont't use tripod don't read any further. If you always use tripod, Mirror Lock Up and selftimer/cable release you may also consider the Sony Alpha-900.

Best regards
Erik

1) For landscape photography, low light performance is rarely relevant. You're mostly using the camera on a tripod at the lowest ISO you can get to maximize image quality. The D700 is one or two stops better in terms of noise at high ISO, but that probably doesn't matter very much for landscape.

2) The largest print size you ever plan on making is in play. You won't see much advantage of the Canon's 21 megapixels over the Nikon's 12 megapixels until you're printing bigger than somewhere around 16x24".

3) Canon and Nikon both make extremely good 24-70 mm f:2.8 zoom lenses; but the two brands diverge when you go shorter or longer in focal length. Nikon's 14-24 mm f:2.8 is really superb, while Canon's 16-35 mm f:.2.8 L II is just adequate, and really not up to the demands of the sensor. On the other hand, both of Canon's 70-200 IS L zooms, the f:4 and the f:2.8, are superb, while Nikon's equivalent 70-200 f:2.8 is a bit soft in the corners on full frame unless you stop down, and it also vignettes more. Me, I seem to naturally 'see' at 100 to 150 mm focal length, so I'm delighted with Canon's optics. I've also never really been very good at 'seeing' in wide angle focal lengths; I find myself shooting stiched panos with the 24-70 far more often than I reach for the wide zoom. But if you really like wider focal lengths, Canon will probably frustrate you and you'll be happier with Nikon.

4) It probably makes sense to look at the big picture: both Canon and Nikon make some great cameras and great lenses, though each system has different shortcomings and strengths.

[douglasf13]

I'm sure that APS-C will be fine for you at the moment.  Flip through some photo magazines, and you'll consistently see beautiful landscape shots featured that are shot on older APS-C cams.   Put an APS-C camera in Bernard's hands, and he'll still be shooting incredible landscapes.  

  If you do decide to go fullframe with landscapes, I'd agree with a couple of posters above that the Sony A900 will be your best bet...unless you can afford the D3x, and then its a toss-up between the two, depending on your preferences.

[spacevoid8]

I'm sure that APS-C will be fine for you at the moment.  Flip through some photo magazines, and you'll consistently see beautiful landscape shots featured that are shot on older APS-C cams.   Put an APS-C camera in Bernard's hands, and he'll still be shooting incredible landscapes.  

  If you do decide to go fullframe with landscapes, I'd agree with a couple of posters above that the Sony A900 will be your best bet...unless you can afford the D3x, and then its a toss-up between the two, depending on your preferences.

hmm.. you convinced me to stay with nikon d300 + nikkor 18-200mm, plus i have belorussian lens peleng 8mm:)
but i want to buy superior prime-lens especially for landscape job, i am looking forward to Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21..
what do you think about it?

[BernardLanguillier]

Of course, there will not be a big different when the images were resized or viewed on screen but when you make big prints surely everyone can see the FF sensor gave more details.  When I down sized the images taken with my  LEAF AFi-II 10 to 1600x there won't be different compares to a image taken with a 1Ds III.

No, this is simply not correct. FX does not have any intrinsic advantage over DX regarding detail.

Regards,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

hmm.. you convinced me to stay with nikon d300 + nikkor 18-200mm, plus i have belorussian lens peleng 8mm:)
but i want to buy superior prime-lens especially for landscape job, i am looking forward to Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21..
what do you think about it?

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

[BernardLanguillier]

I do not agree.  50D is using a brand new gapless 12 M.P APS-C Sensor and its noise control is worse than 40D.  What I believe is the higher pixel density the more noise.  Also, surely there's pixel limit on APS-C sensor because when using some non L lenses images appeared very soft, I think it's due to some lenses are too old they cannot take the super high pixel density.

The 50D is said to have better image quality at low ISO than the 40D isn't it? That is what matters for landscape applications.

I agree that some older lenses do not have the resolving power to handle DX, but recent lenses clearly do, whether they are DX specific or FX like the 14-24 f2.8 for instance.

Cheers,
Bernard

[flash]

I do not agree.  50D is using a brand new gapless 12 M.P APS-C Sensor and its noise control is worse than 40D.  What I believe is the higher pixel density the more noise.  Also, surely there's pixel limit on APS-C sensor because when using some non L lenses images appeared very soft, I think it's due to some lenses are too old they cannot take the super high pixel density.

Actually, I believe that while at the pixel level the 40D has less noise at the same print size the 50D is superior in handling noise.

"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.

And it's not due to age. Non-L lenses will mostly resolve at alower rate than their more expensive siblings and have done so for decades. If the cheap lenses are perfect there's no market for those little red rings, is there? I'd be far more concerned that some of the L lenses are not up to resolving even close to the sensor of a 5D1 (I give you the 16-35L as an example).

Gordon