Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??  (Read 14546 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11401
    • Flicker photos

Any suggestions and why?  Thanks  Alan.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2011, 04:02:56 am »

Alan,

My simple view...

1) Bigger is better, that speaks for 5DII
2) All will work fine
3) D7000 has best sensor of the ones you have mentioned

I shoot both full frame and APS-C, Sony Alpha 900 (24 MP FF) and Sony Alpha 55 SLT ( 16 MP APS-C ). Before that I used Sony Alpha 700 12MP APS-C.

Normally I print A2. There is some advantage of full frame compared to APS-C but APS-C at 12 MP is perfectly good enough for A2 print size (26" on long size).

On full frame cameras it seems that Nikon has the best sensor on the D3X, but that camera is very expensive. Canon 5DII is good at high ISO but may have relatively noisy shadows.

Nikon and Sony are rumored to have new cameras coming out, and if that hapens Canon is sure not late to respond.


I have a lot images here: http://echophoto.smugmug.com/ and all are essentially viewable at actual pixels. Download may not be possible.

Best regards
Erik


Any suggestions and why?  Thanks  Alan.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 12:17:35 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13725
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2011, 05:32:46 am »

I would wait till Jan end before making any DSLR purchase.

At least the replacement of the D700 is rumored to be announced by then. It could be the last camera we'll ever need. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

John Nollendorfs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 570
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2011, 11:28:58 am »

I got the D5100 when it came out in the spring. Great little camera! I got it to update my aging Fuji S2. Now my Kodak 14nx and Fuji both sit unused! Mostly because the sensor on the D5100 stays clean! I have yet to even run the sensor cleaning cycle after 9 months.

I like it for the articulating 3" display, which is very nice! Yep, using the menu structure is sometimes a pain, but you get used to it! What blows you away is the IQ at higher ISO's. For Landscape work you wouldn't think you would have much need, but it really comes in handy.
The articulating display comes in very handy when you want to put the camera in awkward places and shoot with the live view feature. For backpacking, this camera is the lightest of the 3, if that means anything.

I'm waiting to see what Nikon does for a FF replacement of the D700. Rumored to be 36MP. Full frame would be my choice for landscapes.
Logged

Ellis Vener

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2151
    • http://www.ellisvener.com
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2011, 02:44:42 pm »

Any suggestions and why?  Thanks  Alan.
What are your plans and goals: Will you be shooting landscapes for  yourself , for stock, or for prints that you will sell? Are you planning on stitching or just single frame shots? How much raw and post raw processing are you planning on doing.

If you like  the smaller and lighter weight body size  of APS-C  format cameras (roughly 16 x 24mm) cameras in Nikonlandia the D7000 is the state of the art. Meaning you'll get years of use out of it; in Canon country it is the EOS 7D.

If you'll be more comfortable with a larger body size for a 24x36mm (AKA "full frame", but there are those among us who consider 4x5 and larger cameras to be truer to that moniker, especially for landscape work) camera, than  you are looking at the 5D Mark II. Hopefully Nikon will finally come up with a 20+ mp camera (that is smaller and less expensive than the mighty D3X)  in the 24x36mm format sooner rather than later . Both the  tsunami and ongoing related Fukashima nuclear incident which is still causing power disruptions in Japan, along with the more recent severe  flooding in Thailand may have an effect on Nikon's and Canon's plans for newer high end cameras for awhile.   
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11401
    • Flicker photos
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2011, 10:45:50 pm »

To answer some of your questions, I'm an amateur, do not plan to print more than let's say 16x24 ".  I want to go light since I have a medium format RB67 and am tired with lugging the weight.  I don't particularly like menus too much.  Would that change or narrow down any of your suggestions?

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2011, 11:31:41 pm »

To answer some of your questions, I'm an amateur, do not plan to print more than let's say 16x24 ".  I want to go light since I have a medium format RB67 and am tired with lugging the weight.  I don't particularly like menus too much.  Would that change or narrow down any of your suggestions?
Of the three you asked about the Canon 5d II is the way to go for landscapes.  Hands down.  Lens availability, DOF, detail, and the systems (AF, metering, etc) don't really matter much.   

If you want a prediction for the future I could probably muster up a crystal ball as well, but it's all a guess.

If light/small is key and you can afford it, consider the Leica M9.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Ellis Vener

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2151
    • http://www.ellisvener.com
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2011, 11:43:57 pm »

I agree with the M9 suggestion.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13725
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2011, 12:01:53 am »

Of the three you asked about the Canon 5d II is the way to go for landscapes.  Hands down.  Lens availability, DOF, detail, and the systems (AF, metering, etc) don't really matter much.   

I would argue that APS cameras, offering more DoF, are a better sokution for landscape, providing they deliver the resolution you need.

Image quality in corners is also typically superior.

Cheers,
Bernard

RobSaecker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 300
    • robsaecker.com
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2011, 12:46:27 am »

I'll just add that I found the D5000 to be not that well suited to landscape work. They've improved the monitor on the D5100, so that solves one of my main complaints, but the viewfinder is the same as the D5000, and the D7000's is much better. I'm much happier, overall, with the D7000.
Logged
Rob
photo blog - http://robsaecker.com

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2011, 03:31:51 am »

I would argue that APS cameras, offering more DoF, are a better sokution for landscape, providing they deliver the resolution you need.

Image quality in corners is also typically superior.

DoF when it comes to achieving maximum DoF ("sharpness in whole frame") is actually not a matter of sensor size, but a matter of resolution only. If both sensors have the same amount of megapixels there is no difference. The smaller sensor has smaller pixels so it is more hurt by diffraction, and the larger sensor while less hurt by diffraction it needs longer focal lengths for the same angle of view and therefore smaller aperture. Mathematically it is the same.

One example: fullframe 24mm, f/8, CoC=airy disc=11 um, hyperfocal distance = 6.55 meters. To make this the same on APS-C with 1.5 crop factor we need to reduce focal length to 24/1.5=16mm to get the same angle of view, and to get the same resolving power we need to reduce CoC/airy disc 11/1.5=7.3 um meaning that we need to reduce aperture to f/5.6 and voilą we have the same hyperfocal distance.
Logged

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2011, 03:48:54 am »

I would argue that APS cameras, offering more DoF, are a better sokution for landscape, providing they deliver the resolution you need.

Image quality in corners is also typically superior.

Cheers,
Bernard

Are you still pushing that J1..  ;D

Sensor size IS one of the four standard variables of DOF. (the larger the sensor the more shallow the DOF)  So yes, it's true a smaller sensor would give you what.. roughly 1.3 stops more DOF in the grander scheme of things all else being equal?  This would be assuming your composition vision requires a deeper DOF which it often does when shooting landscapes.  Still, the wider faster lenses available for full frame cameras not available (or commonly available) for for crop frame sensors are also a higher quality.  For instance, the 24mm F1.4's, 35mm F1.4's, 12-24mm Sigma FF, 14mm F2.8's, and the newer Zeiss lenses..  what you give up in DOF due to a smaller sensor, you more than make up for with lenses.

Then you have a wider variety of tilt/shift lenses available for FF which can be used on crop frame, but few use them this way.

And keep in mind the traditional landscape cameras, 4x6, 8x10's, MF digital, etc.. all have bigger sensors.  Because overcoming or adjusting to the DOF hit is more than made up for in other ways.   Otherwise, we'd all be shooting compact PNS cameras for our landscapes.

And then of course you have the landscapes where you desire a more shallow DOF.. it's all in the vision.

When you consider it all, the FF sensor (providing you can't afford nor desire to go MF) is the way to go.  And the Canon 5d Mark II is an excellent choice in a FF camera for landscapes because the areas it falls behind the Nikon D3x or Sony A900.. metering and AF.. don't matter much for landscapes.  I tend to use my light meter and manual focus for landscapes as a good many others do.

Photography as we know often comes down to balancing variables to achieve our vision/composition.  We do this is so many ways it fills volumes of  books.  But for the OP's question I think we can narrow it down to a few paragraphs.
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

Steve Weldon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1479
    • Bangkok Images
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2011, 03:54:04 am »

DoF when it comes to achieving maximum DoF ("sharpness in whole frame") is actually not a matter of sensor size, but a matter of resolution only. If both sensors have the same amount of megapixels there is no difference. The smaller sensor has smaller pixels so it is more hurt by diffraction, and the larger sensor while less hurt by diffraction it needs longer focal lengths for the same angle of view and therefore smaller aperture. Mathematically it is the same.

One example: fullframe 24mm, f/8, CoC=airy disc=11 um, hyperfocal distance = 6.55 meters. To make this the same on APS-C with 1.5 crop factor we need to reduce focal length to 24/1.5=16mm to get the same angle of view, and to get the same resolving power we need to reduce CoC/airy disc 11/1.5=7.3 um meaning that we need to reduce aperture to f/5.6 and voilą we have the same hyperfocal distance.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the way you're trying to say it isn't working.  Sensor size is a mathematical variable for DOF.  And there is a lot more to DOF than megapixels.

But it is true that depending on the lens, what you gain in a smaller sensor size is sometimes negated by diffraction.  Again, variables.. and there's a lot of them.

When it's all said and done, for landscapes I'd much rather work from the position of a larger sensor for more reasons than I have time to detail at the moment.

Great discussion!
Logged
----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2011, 04:20:09 am »

I've done landscape photography with both Canon 7D (APS-C 1.6 crop) and a Canon 5Dmk2 (fullframe). These are my random thoughts:

APS-C is best if you want a lower cost and/or lower weight system, and don't think you need more *effective* resolution than 12-16 megapixels. The 7D has 18, but it does stress the lenses resolving power so at pixel peeping level it may be quite soft. A bit over-resolution is good though since images respond better to upscaling (no aliasing) and deconvolution sharpening, just don't expect that a 24 megapixel APS-C will deliver as sharp pixel-peep images as a 24 megapixel fullframe.

Then preferably use the best APS-C specific lenses. Nikon has a wider range of quality APS-C lenses than Canon, but there are also some good Sigma lenses. The advantage of APS-C specific lenses is that due to the smaller image circle they can often be made sharper than a fullframe lens - sharper meaning that smaller pixels can be resolved, the best fullframe lenses still wins in total resolution when resolving over the full frame. The advantage of using fullframe lenses on APS-C is of course very low dropoff in the corners, but then center resolution is often lower than on an APS-C lens.

I'd say overall it is more about lenses.

The Canon 24mm TS-E II can be a strong enough reason to choose canon fullframe as a landscape platform both due to its very powerful movements and that is is very sharp (for being a 24mm lens). When resolving power is as high as it is today I think tilt starts being valuable. Shift is also valuable for composition, especially at wide angle. To go wide-angle tilt-shift with APS-C you need the 17mm TS-E, which is more expensive and less sharp than the 24mm TS-E. For wider than 24mm it does seem that for APS-C you'd want dedicated APS-C lenses, fullframe ultra-wide lenses don't perform that well on APS-C. On full-frame I don't go wider than 24mm. It is a matter of taste, but I think wider than 24 gives too much perspective distortion in most cases. With full-frame you can get weather-proofed lenses, as far as I  know not any of the APS-C lenses are.

For full-frame I'd suggest using primes, 24, 35, 50, 85/90 and then the 70-200/2.8 zoom. The 70-200 is probably the best performing zoom lens there is. For Canon the 35mm is the weak spot, actually I think I prefer putting a 1.4x TC on the 24mm TS-E (or take the shot with the 24mm on the 7D). 50 - 100 mm primes can be bought both cheap and very sharp. On Canon, TS-E 90mm is very sharp, unfortunately the TS-E 45mm is not as good.

Fullframe is future proof to at least 36 megapixels I think, while APS-C has already approached suitable maximum resolution for what current lenses can do. Fullframe has also a stronger tilt-shift offer. The fullframe system will be considerably more expensive and heavier though. There will be more problems with dropoff of resolution in corners on fullframe, but overall you can get higher resolution out of it. Even if you don't think you will use tilt/shift much, on 24mm it may be wise to use it anyway due to the larger image circle and therefore better corner performance.

Currently Canon has a stronger tilt-shift offer on 17 and 24 mm, while Nikon is better at 45 and 85/90 mm. Having a Canon system you can use Nikon lenses though with adapters :-).

The importance of having tilt-shift is much about shooting style. I've got used to it, I think it adds another dimension (and helps improving technical quality), I use it all the time and don't want to be without it. Those used to tech cameras probably could not either, but many do shoot landscapes with great success using just 24-70 and a 70-200/300 zoom. If you're the zoom kind of guy and are not too crazy about getting the sharpest possible images a D7000 with zooms, perhaps sigma 8-16, sigma 17-50 and something on the long end (perhaps a full-frame 70-200, they're really great on APS-C too, and you then can do some action shooting too) is probably the best alternative today.

« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 04:26:36 am by torger »
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2011, 04:45:38 am »

I understand what you're trying to say, but the way you're trying to say it isn't working.  Sensor size is a mathematical variable for DOF.  And there is a lot more to DOF than megapixels.

Huh? I think the mathematics of my discussion is flawless :-). It does assume ideal lenses though, but concerning maximum DoF, megapixels is indeed the key factor. There's tilt of course, but that's a separate discussion.

That small sensors give "more DoF" for maximum DoF pictures because it is small is one of the most hard-to-die myths out there. A small sensor system, especially compact cameras, cannot open up aperture that much. f/2.8 gives the same DoF on fullframe as f/2 on APS-C. With a larger sensor you generally thus has the possibility to have shorter *minimal* DoF. Since shortest DoF is longer on the smaller sensor many assume that the maximum DoF is too. Problem is that in that end there are other limiters, mainly diffraction and sensor megapixels. If you really want to make use of the resolution you have on the sensor you must limit diffraction, and if you do that you end up with the mathematics I decribed. A small sensor usually have lower resolution though, and with lower resolution you can accept more diffraction, and thus you get "more" DoF. If you don't care about sensor resolving power and only use "CoC per image height", for example 30um CoC on fullframe and then 20um CoC on APS-C you end up with the same maximum DoF.

I've written about lens considerations separately, and that's were I think fullframe has an edge if one likes high res, tilt-shift and don't mind using primes.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11303
    • Echophoto
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2011, 06:01:08 am »

Hi,

I pretty much agree with what Torger says. I have used both APS-C from 6 to 16 MP and full frame 24.5 MP. I must say that the best landscapes I actually shot with the APS-C, but that depended on having better opportunities to travel at the time I was shooting APS-C.

My experience is that APS-C is definitively good enough for landscape prints up to A2, and probably larger. For me A2 has been standard print size. Most of my shooting was done using a 12 MP Sony Alpha 700. Image files from the Alpha 900 at 24.5 MP are much sharper, but I don't think the difference was overhelming in A2 prints. In at least one test I couldn't make apart the two at all, although differences in the files were obvious.

An APS-C equipment will be smaller and more flexible. I for instance used an 11-18 zoom, a 16-80/3.5-4.5 zoom and a 70-300/4.5-5.6 lens for APS-C. With the full frame I use 12-24/4.5-5.6, 24-70/2.8 and 80-200/2.8. The APS-C system was much lighter, and a bit more flexible.

Personally I prefer the larger format, but the smaller one also works fine.  

At present, Canon 5DII and Sony Alpha 900 are both around 2500 $US (if you can find an Alpha 900), both these cameras have > 20 MP. Nikon has the D3X with 24.5 MP, but that camera is pretty expensive. That said the Nikon is probably the best of the bunch.

Here is a "table top" setup I shot with a Sony Alpha 900 (24.5 MP full frame) and a Sony Alpha 55SLT (APS-C, 16 MP):

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Demos/ApsVsFX/

Best regards
Erik


I've done landscape photography with both Canon 7D (APS-C 1.6 crop) and a Canon 5Dmk2 (fullframe). These are my random thoughts:

APS-C is best if you want a lower cost and/or lower weight system, and don't think you need more *effective* resolution than 12-16 megapixels. The 7D has 18, but it does stress the lenses resolving power so at pixel peeping level it may be quite soft. A bit over-resolution is good though since images respond better to upscaling (no aliasing) and deconvolution sharpening, just don't expect that a 24 megapixel APS-C will deliver as sharp pixel-peep images as a 24 megapixel fullframe.

Then preferably use the best APS-C specific lenses. Nikon has a wider range of quality APS-C lenses than Canon, but there are also some good Sigma lenses. The advantage of APS-C specific lenses is that due to the smaller image circle they can often be made sharper than a fullframe lens - sharper meaning that smaller pixels can be resolved, the best fullframe lenses still wins in total resolution when resolving over the full frame. The advantage of using fullframe lenses on APS-C is of course very low dropoff in the corners, but then center resolution is often lower than on an APS-C lens.

I'd say overall it is more about lenses.

The Canon 24mm TS-E II can be a strong enough reason to choose canon fullframe as a landscape platform both due to its very powerful movements and that is is very sharp (for being a 24mm lens). When resolving power is as high as it is today I think tilt starts being valuable. Shift is also valuable for composition, especially at wide angle. To go wide-angle tilt-shift with APS-C you need the 17mm TS-E, which is more expensive and less sharp than the 24mm TS-E. For wider than 24mm it does seem that for APS-C you'd want dedicated APS-C lenses, fullframe ultra-wide lenses don't perform that well on APS-C. On full-frame I don't go wider than 24mm. It is a matter of taste, but I think wider than 24 gives too much perspective distortion in most cases. With full-frame you can get weather-proofed lenses, as far as I  know not any of the APS-C lenses are.

For full-frame I'd suggest using primes, 24, 35, 50, 85/90 and then the 70-200/2.8 zoom. The 70-200 is probably the best performing zoom lens there is. For Canon the 35mm is the weak spot, actually I think I prefer putting a 1.4x TC on the 24mm TS-E (or take the shot with the 24mm on the 7D). 50 - 100 mm primes can be bought both cheap and very sharp. On Canon, TS-E 90mm is very sharp, unfortunately the TS-E 45mm is not as good.

Fullframe is future proof to at least 36 megapixels I think, while APS-C has already approached suitable maximum resolution for what current lenses can do. Fullframe has also a stronger tilt-shift offer. The fullframe system will be considerably more expensive and heavier though. There will be more problems with dropoff of resolution in corners on fullframe, but overall you can get higher resolution out of it. Even if you don't think you will use tilt/shift much, on 24mm it may be wise to use it anyway due to the larger image circle and therefore better corner performance.

Currently Canon has a stronger tilt-shift offer on 17 and 24 mm, while Nikon is better at 45 and 85/90 mm. Having a Canon system you can use Nikon lenses though with adapters :-).

The importance of having tilt-shift is much about shooting style. I've got used to it, I think it adds another dimension (and helps improving technical quality), I use it all the time and don't want to be without it. Those used to tech cameras probably could not either, but many do shoot landscapes with great success using just 24-70 and a 70-200/300 zoom. If you're the zoom kind of guy and are not too crazy about getting the sharpest possible images a D7000 with zooms, perhaps sigma 8-16, sigma 17-50 and something on the long end (perhaps a full-frame 70-200, they're really great on APS-C too, and you then can do some action shooting too) is probably the best alternative today.


« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 09:55:48 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13725
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2011, 06:07:27 am »

Are you still pushing that J1..  ;D

Yep, my main target this time is 8x10 shooters. I am positive that they will find the focussing speed of the J1 to be out of this world! :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1245
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2011, 11:18:59 am »

i shoot both 7D and 5D2 and have shot 20D, 40D, and 5D.  agree with Torger's lens recommendations and pretty much agree with Erik.  except that a camera with liveview is far superior for landscapes - the ability to focus and compose is a tremendous advantage and almost essential to effective use of TS lenses.

at low ISO with best lenses, the 7D can make A2 prints that are not obviously different from the 5D2.  at higher ISO the 5D2 prints still hold up - with room for cropping, not the APSC.  similarly, the 5D2 is much more tolerant of marginal lenses and larger apertures - A2 prints with the 5D2 and 100-400 are fine, not so with the 7D

you can print very good landscapes up to A2 from APSC (i just printed one that i had assumed was from the 5D2 until i looked at the EXIF and realized it was the 7D and 24-105 at ISO100 f8), but full frame is a better and more flexible tool

unless you switch to mirrorless, there's not much size and weight difference between full frame and high end APSC with high quality lenses
Logged

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2011, 01:07:44 pm »

Good thing to refer to print sizes. I like to print quite big, and like it when the print looks good up close. The difference between 7D at 18 megapixels and 5Dmk2 at 21 is not that large. When/if fullframe cameras bump the resolution to 30+ megapixels there will be more of a real difference. So going full-frame I think is to invest into the future, having in mind to upgrade to higher megapixel body when it becomes available.

Concerning print sizes I think one can print at any size already today with APS-C images, the print will just look soft (but not bad) when walking close. 300 - 400 ppi = impressive and sharp up close, 200 ppi = ok, less than 200 ppi = a compromise, but still ok. So if an image needs to be printed big to give the appropriate impact, I print it big, I don't let the ppi set the limit.

APS-C around 200 reasonable sharp ppis will be 16 - 24 inches wide depending to which format it is cropped. Current fullframe 19 - 29 inches, and future fullframe would be 24 - 36 inches, perhaps even more, lens resolving power limits are a bit unclear. At maximum print tech ppi, say 400, APS-C would do 8 - 12, and future fullframe 12 - 18. This means that even if you print fairly small it is likely that fullframe can give you a quality edge.

One of the toughest situations I think is a dual spread high quality photo book image. This is watched so close that 400 ppi is appriciated and the print could be 16 inches wide (requires 30 - 60 megapixels depending on cropping). Framed fine art prints can also be watched closely of course so it is nice to have high ppis there too, but a book is more inviting to inspect closely.

To summarize, if you do not need to print larger than A2, and you don't intend to do photo books format does not matter. However, if you're like me that prints a little larger (I typically do 20 - 24 inches wide) and would buy medium format if I just could afford it, then the extra boost full-frame gives you will be appriciated, however more so when bodies have reached 30+ megapixels. Nikon has the rumoured D800 coming at rumoured 36 megapixels likely within a few months or so, it is less clear what Canon will do, but if Nikon provides a high res alternative through D800 it is likely that Canon will provide a high res camera too. My guess is that within 12 - 18 months both Canon and Nikon will have 30+ megapixel fullframe cameras, and possibly other manufacturers too.

The reason I started using 5Dmk2 instead of 7D was not mainly due to resolution, but to get wider angle of view with the 24mm TS-E. If it was just the resolution I'd probably wait until higher resolution full-frame arrives.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2011, 01:15:08 pm by torger »
Logged

stever

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1245
Re: For Landscape photography: EOS-5D Mark II vs. D7000 vs D5100 vs.??
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2011, 02:59:33 pm »

indeed, many prints don't really (and probably shoudn't) be viewed close up and you can certainly print much larger.  however, l like landscapes with fine detail that attracts the viewer to spend time viewing at various distances including close.

that said, my experience (and resolution testing with Imatest) indicates that even with the best lenses (eg 100L) that resolution is not directly proportional to linear pixels between Canon APSC and full-frame cameras.  the APSC cameras are about 15% lower in resolution (or full-frame higher) than one would expect from the difference in linear pixels.  for me, the practical result is that the 7D is pushing the limit at 16x24 and the 5D2 can comfortably go larger than 19x29
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up