Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 76

Thread: Camera for Landscape?

  1. #41
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    3,443

    Default

    It might have been said, but I'll say...

    Image quality at base iso 100, you won't see the small difference (at least I didn't see it, you may have better eyes than me) between the older models and newer models (e.g. 500d to 70d)

    Product shoot, you will be thinking light, strobes, reflectors, lamps all sorts of other lighting equipment rather than the gear itself. For many shoots I've seen, they will be using iso100. Lens will depends on the size of the product you shoot.

    Video, the af improvement in the 70d will not likely be useful if you are really shooting a production video where most people will be using manual focusing and those rail stuffs. If you are using auto focusing for the video, your video will likely hunt quite abit at irregular speed. E.g. tracking focus, subject moves, the af will hunt forward/backward very swiftly, but it's not smooth and consistent.

    So if you are going to shoot some videos, I'll say the most important thing is to be able to control the settings of the video (aperture, shutter, iso, fps, file output type) where entry body is usually lacking. (If none of the video stuffs is impt, I think the phone can do pretty well...)
    Last edited by SkyStrike; 14th September 2014 at 11:29 AM.
    Too many great equipments but too little quality photos. [My Flickr] | [My Blog]

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by Berkins View Post
    If you're not doing too much videos, get the X-E1 kit (about 1.1k) and a used zeiss touit 12mm f2 from B&S for its brillant performance. It will set you back about 1.9k. The X-E1 might still have the 50-230 promo so you'll get a decent zoom to cover you until 300mm.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Hi there thank you for your kind advice but I think I'm going to go with a Nikon D7100 and a Tokina 11-16 from BnS haha! Maybe a 50mm 1.8d or 1.8g too.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by bllimus View Post
    Hi, i don't means that, i just curious why must be 70D or D7100? if you are little forgiving, other canon DLSR set-up can do the job as well

    1) 100D + EF-S 10-18 IS STM
    2) 650D/700D + EF-S 10-18 IS STM

    save the spare cash for emergency use. Anyway, decision is yours. :-)
    The rebel sensor I suppose is not as good as what is provided on the new 70D and D7100. Yes difference might be minor but like what I said there's a chance I won't be upgrading at all. So yes I'd prefer to go for what I can afford now haha. Thank you anyway

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by SkyStrike View Post
    It might have been said, but I'll say...

    Image quality at base iso 100, you won't see the small difference (at least I didn't see it, you may have better eyes than me) between the older models and newer models (e.g. 500d to 70d)

    Product shoot, you will be thinking light, strobes, reflectors, lamps all sorts of other lighting equipment rather than the gear itself. For many shoots I've seen, they will be using iso100. Lens will depends on the size of the product you shoot.

    Video, the af improvement in the 70d will not likely be useful if you are really shooting a production video where most people will be using manual focusing and those rail stuffs. If you are using auto focusing for the video, your video will likely hunt quite abit at irregular speed. E.g. tracking focus, subject moves, the af will hunt forward/backward very swiftly, but it's not smooth and consistent.

    So if you are going to shoot some videos, I'll say the most important thing is to be able to control the settings of the video (aperture, shutter, iso, fps, file output type) where entry body is usually lacking. (If none of the video stuffs is impt, I think the phone can do pretty well...)
    Hi there I think I'm going with the D7100 after much consideration.

    The 70D really provides smooth video quality though, there is not much hunting at all. Probably because of the Phase Detection.
    And I didn't believe it at first too but that's what I see in many reviews using the STM lens which the 10-18mm lens come with.
    And I won't be going production stuff, just some video for projects.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zacktan View Post

    Hi there thank you for your kind advice but I think I'm going to go with a Nikon D7100 and a Tokina 11-16 from BnS haha! Maybe a 50mm 1.8d or 1.8g too.
    Good choice.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by zacktan View Post
    Yes I think that's what I'm going for and why did you decide on that?
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...n-d7100.html#b
    Both cameras will give you similar results and image quality in landscape/cityscape/street stills photography,
    but the Canon should give a slight edge in videos due to its faster AF in live view and responsive, touch-sensitive, articulating LCD screen.

    Frankly, you can't go wrong with either camera, what is more important that you pick the one that feels right for you.

    cheers!
    Last edited by zaren; 14th September 2014 at 12:42 PM.
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by zaren View Post
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowl...n-d7100.html#b
    Both cameras will give you similar results and image quality in landscape/cityscape/street stills photography,
    but the Canon should give a slight edge in videos due to its faster AF in live view and responsive, touch-sensitive, articulating LCD screen.

    Frankly, you can't go wrong with either camera, what is more important that you pick the one that feels right for you.

    cheers!
    But to me it's definitely IQ > Video quality that's why i'm having so much doubts. If the 70D really have not any big difference i'll just get it for it's articulating screen.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by zacktan View Post
    But to me it's definitely IQ > Video quality that's why i'm having so much doubts. If the 70D really have not any big difference i'll just get it for it's articulating screen.
    You can do an image comparison between different cameras at websites like DPReview or Imaging Resource.
    The comparison below is from DPReview, at ISO 25600 .
    you can buy better gear but you can't buy a better eye

  9. #49

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Funny, I used the D3100 w/kit lens for a few months last year and found it great. How large were you printing? I hope you weren't just pixel peeping and judging.

    Whatever setup you end up with, you will probably find you made the perfect decision, because they would ALL work fine. Sure, each has its advantages and drawbacks, but after you settle down and buy one, you find ways to work around its limitations, and exploit its strengths. If you don't, and instead choose to WHINE about the limitations, that's YOUR limitation

    You mentioned landscape and cityscape photography -- do you plan to do a lot of walking / trekking with your gear? Cause if you do, you'd better start thinking about the weight of your setup and how best to carry it around. Holding on to a heavy camera and lens for 10 minutes is very different from lugging it (plus weight of bag, tripod etc) around for hours on end.

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    553

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Francis View Post
    Funny, I used the D3100 w/kit lens for a few months last year and found it great. How large were you printing? I hope you weren't just pixel peeping and judging.

    Whatever setup you end up with, you will probably find you made the perfect decision, because they would ALL work fine. Sure, each has its advantages and drawbacks, but after you settle down and buy one, you find ways to work around its limitations, and exploit its strengths. If you don't, and instead choose to WHINE about the limitations, that's YOUR limitation

    You mentioned landscape and cityscape photography -- do you plan to do a lot of walking / trekking with your gear? Cause if you do, you'd better start thinking about the weight of your setup and how best to carry it around. Holding on to a heavy camera and lens for 10 minutes is very different from lugging it (plus weight of bag, tripod etc) around for hours on end.
    I use my D5100 with kit lens and pixel peep, sharp leh

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Francis View Post
    Funny, I used the D3100 w/kit lens for a few months last year and found it great. How large were you printing? I hope you weren't just pixel peeping and judging.

    Whatever setup you end up with, you will probably find you made the perfect decision, because they would ALL work fine. Sure, each has its advantages and drawbacks, but after you settle down and buy one, you find ways to work around its limitations, and exploit its strengths. If you don't, and instead choose to WHINE about the limitations, that's YOUR limitation

    You mentioned landscape and cityscape photography -- do you plan to do a lot of walking / trekking with your gear? Cause if you do, you'd better start thinking about the weight of your setup and how best to carry it around. Holding on to a heavy camera and lens for 10 minutes is very different from lugging it (plus weight of bag, tripod etc) around for hours on end.
    Trust me, I only printed A3 size for my school Photography Module. Even the lecturer could tell the noise and checked what settings I used. It was ISO 800 and it's barely usable anymore. And I said in one of my replies that it was second hand and already had some parts broken and fixed by the owner, without informing me.

    And no, I don't whine about the limitations. I then used my friend's 600D and tried to get my way around it and indeed got much better results as compared to the D3100. I do know what I'm doing.

    The reason for this thread is just for me to know which camera's specifications for Image Quality is better and clearly it seems like everyone is saying they're both not too far off or the Nikon is better just by a little bit.

    Yes I do, and I did before with the 600D and some lens that I rented and I have a bag to solve the problem.
    That's why If i decide to go with the 70D, I'd go with either 10-22 or 10-18 cause it's both quite light weight.

    Thanks for your suggestions anyway

  12. #52

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    you can download the raw files for both 70D and D7100 off the internet.

    http://froknowsphoto.com/nikon-d7100-review/
    http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4...eview-and-test

    though the photos are taken under different conditions, characteristics of the sensors do not change.

    you can play around and see how the files react to user inputs and how far you can push them.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Another thing to consider is that Canons tend to have lower dynamic range. There tends to be a lot of noise once you need to raise shadows, even at base ISO. See here for more info on that. Hence Canons are a lot less forgiving if you screw up your exposure and underexpose.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Nowadays, most cameras are all good for low ISO shots and even for ISO 1600-3200.
    As for DR, its a valid point, but very often for landscapes, bracketing and exposure blend is done which offsets the DR advantage.
    Beyond landscapes (say travel photos) without the chance to bracket, the DR advantage of some cameras may come into play.


    Take a look at the Pentax K50 and K3 as well.
    Well built and well featured for the money.
    Its hard to fully show off some stuff on these cameras since it involves how well the usage and functions 'flows' during photo taking (esp landscapes)
    Here is an example
    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showt...=1#post8376995
    Smallish lenses, especially prime lenses is its other unique offering (portability and encumbrance which is often hard to show on test charts and the like).


    I don't think there is a wrong choice between the cameras you listed.
    In fact, I think you already listed their pros/cons from your POV and needs well.
    Last edited by pinholecam; 14th September 2014 at 11:24 PM.

  15. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    Another thing to consider is that Canons tend to have lower dynamic range. There tends to be a lot of noise once you need to raise shadows, even at base ISO. See here for more info on that. Hence Canons are a lot less forgiving if you screw up your exposure and underexpose.
    However is that a big problem for landscapes? Since we'll be blending a lot... I guess I can fix that problem or at least reduce it after getting used to the camera.

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by pinholecam View Post
    Nowadays, most cameras are all good for low ISO shots and even for ISO 1600-3200.
    As for DR, its a valid point, but very often for landscapes, bracketing and exposure blend is done which offsets the DR advantage.
    Beyond landscapes (say travel photos) without the chance to bracket, the DR advantage of some cameras may come into play.


    Take a look at the Pentax K50 and K3 as well.
    Well built and well featured for the money.
    Its hard to fully show off some stuff on these cameras since it involves how well the usage and functions 'flows' during photo taking (esp landscapes)
    Here is an example
    http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showt...=1#post8376995
    Smallish lenses, especially prime lenses is its other unique offering (portability and encumbrance which is often hard to show on test charts and the like).


    I don't think there is a wrong choice between the cameras you listed.
    In fact, I think you already listed their pros/cons from your POV and needs well.
    Yes true but still I'm in a dilemma.

    Really want the 70D for it's cheaper lens and articulating screen and the
    D7100 for it's image quality.

  17. #57

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by zacktan View Post
    However is that a big problem for landscapes? Since we'll be blending a lot... I guess I can fix that problem or at least reduce it after getting used to the camera.
    Some people don't like blending too much mah, so I just raised the point to get it out there. If you're ok with blending then it isn't a problem. I shoot my landscapes with dual ISO most of the time just to get cleaner shadows, but it might not be appropriate for other types of photography like street or events.

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    36

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by brapodam View Post
    Some people don't like blending too much mah, so I just raised the point to get it out there. If you're ok with blending then it isn't a problem. I shoot my landscapes with dual ISO most of the time just to get cleaner shadows, but it might not be appropriate for other types of photography like street or events.
    Hmmm so you recommend the D7100? Heard that the focusing on D7100 is slow though, true?

  19. #59

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    Quote Originally Posted by zacktan View Post
    Yes true but still I'm in a dilemma.

    Really want the 70D for it's cheaper lens and articulating screen and the
    D7100 for it's image quality.
    I couldn't help to think that you think too much Be it 70D or D7100, both are really good cameras. Granted, Nikon's APSC sensor wins here, but can you see the difference? Let's have a small test here.. Without clicking the picture (or the flickr links), can you guess which come from Nikon D7100 and which come from Canon 70D?

    _DSC3651.jpg by jochen.bogomiehl, on Flickr

    Auxerre By Night by Zwitterion80, on Flickr

    Milky way over olive fields by luigig75, on Flickr

    * Disclaimer: pictures are not mine, credit to original photographers. Mods, kindly let me know if I need to remove them.

    As for articulating screen.. well it's nice to have, but we've seen great landscape photographers doing OK without one, so..

    Would like to suggest to check the lenses as well (especially for landscape). Probably you like this distortion-free lens that's only available on brand X, or probably you're accustomed to brand Y's menu layout or ergonomics.. Or probably one day you want to move to FF / medium format.. Things like that.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Camera for Landscape?

    I never used D7100 before but I'm quite sure that the focusing is not slow.

    Btw AF speed depends on lenses as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by zacktan View Post
    Hmmm so you recommend the D7100? Heard that the focusing on D7100 is slow though, true?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •