Landscape Photography with a Point & Shoot
- Thread starter zaren
- Start date
There are already many testaments about compact. Never “degrade” it.
Compact sensor has improved so much that it can easily make print size of 8”x12” (no doubt about it) and up to 16”x20” (without noticeable defects) if taken in good lighting. I had a recent one push up to 20”x24” (still ok if you don’t pixel peep).
I have read a few articles some of these landscape Nat Geo photographers are actually not lugging around big gears but compact for ease of climbing, maneuvering and to travel "smart" light considering a few weeks out. It’s also handy for macro if they stumble onto one.
I always prefer to travel light and my main gear has been GH-1 and EX-1 (serve as my wide angle with f1.8) and off I go. The downside for compact (not so much for my GH-1) is it will succumb to lowlights and slower focusing. If you are prepared to work within the limits, it will cause you less wobbling legs as compare to lugging all the heavy stuff. At the end of the day, you will always remain fresh and can still enjoy a night out.
Now compact easily reached 12 mp. Even if I were to crop 50%, its still good enough to fill my 17” screen. So it serves my needs and that’s the way I go.
I’m still waiting for the day where manufacturer will invent a compact with 20mm. Dream on!
Compact sensor has improved so much that it can easily make print size of 8”x12” (no doubt about it) and up to 16”x20” (without noticeable defects) if taken in good lighting. I had a recent one push up to 20”x24” (still ok if you don’t pixel peep).
I have read a few articles some of these landscape Nat Geo photographers are actually not lugging around big gears but compact for ease of climbing, maneuvering and to travel "smart" light considering a few weeks out. It’s also handy for macro if they stumble onto one.
I always prefer to travel light and my main gear has been GH-1 and EX-1 (serve as my wide angle with f1.8) and off I go. The downside for compact (not so much for my GH-1) is it will succumb to lowlights and slower focusing. If you are prepared to work within the limits, it will cause you less wobbling legs as compare to lugging all the heavy stuff. At the end of the day, you will always remain fresh and can still enjoy a night out.
Now compact easily reached 12 mp. Even if I were to crop 50%, its still good enough to fill my 17” screen. So it serves my needs and that’s the way I go.
I’m still waiting for the day where manufacturer will invent a compact with 20mm. Dream on!
Last edited:
Some limitations of compacts for landscape photography, nonetheless:
(1) Limited use for longer exposures
(2) If you're going to carry a tripod around for low light, you might as well bring a DSLR
(3) Clumsy fitting for filters
(4) Widest also 20+ mm...
I think they might be excellent for mid-morning light and afternoon light (before sunset) when it is brighter and you can use low ISO and still get decent results; and for exposures that don't really need long exposure, i.e. mountainscapes are a good example. Beyond that, I know which tool I would want with me.
That said, Royce Howland of naturescapes used to use the G12 very extensively to produce excellent shots - you should take a look at them. Since then, if I'm not wrong, with the emergence of the micro 4/3, he has switched to a Panasonic Micro 4/3 setup. Just marginally heavier, takes a bit more space, and offers a great deal more versatility.
Any compact which has an 'M' mode will allow users to have at least up to 30 seconds of exposure on the long end.
Ok, sadly in places outside of Singapore the most magical timings during twilight can need as long as 2 minute exposure given ISO100 (ISO200 at 1 minute, or ISO400 at 30 seconds will give you hot pixels on a compact for sure) and a reasonable aperture (F/6.7, F/8). The joys of not having light pollution!
Fyi, not all compacts do up to 30 seconds, some limit this to 10-15 seconds.
Last edited:
Last edited:
landscape photography involves different factors dependent on style
P&S Advantages
- Ease of use, easy handling, able to easily pull out to take shots with minimal delay
- Lightweight, thus able to gain access to locations otherwise deemed difficult with a full set of gear & the ability to take shots from angles difficult with dSLRs e.g one-handed shots
- Flexibility, ability to take shots from different angles and perspective partly due to its ease of handling and lighter weight
P&S Disadvantages
- Poor resolution
- Limited dynamic range (PS could fix this with multiple exposure blending)
- Limited range of photography options (lack of filter variety)
- Limited focal length
- High Chroma noise
- Limited photography controls (most P&S are unable to do Bulb)
i've always been a proponent of the advantages of high resolutions for landscape photography, for the sake of preserving fine details and nuances otherwise lost, it adds greatly to bringing out the "atmosphere" of the location.
i predominantly use dSLR (Nikon D7000) for landscapes and carries a P&S (Nikon P7000) for shots difficult to obtain with my D7000, and i tend to utilize a variety of filters to obtain the "feel" i'd like to shot to possess, my most used filters are Circular Polariser, ND8 (3 Stops), ND110 (10 Stops), Green Filter (B&W), Red Filter (B&W), Tobacco Filter & ND4 Soft Edge Graduated Filter.
P&S tend to require or demand heavy post-processing for the shots to be considered excellent whereas a dSLR system typically does not have a dire need for heavy post-processing if well taken and with the use of filters
Conclusion: Both have their advantages but i'd prefer a dSLR system over a P&S if the option exists, but i wouldn't sacrifice opportunity over resolution thus i'll gladly use a P&S if carrying a dSLR system is impractical.
P&S Advantages
- Ease of use, easy handling, able to easily pull out to take shots with minimal delay
- Lightweight, thus able to gain access to locations otherwise deemed difficult with a full set of gear & the ability to take shots from angles difficult with dSLRs e.g one-handed shots
- Flexibility, ability to take shots from different angles and perspective partly due to its ease of handling and lighter weight
P&S Disadvantages
- Poor resolution
- Limited dynamic range (PS could fix this with multiple exposure blending)
- Limited range of photography options (lack of filter variety)
- Limited focal length
- High Chroma noise
- Limited photography controls (most P&S are unable to do Bulb)
i've always been a proponent of the advantages of high resolutions for landscape photography, for the sake of preserving fine details and nuances otherwise lost, it adds greatly to bringing out the "atmosphere" of the location.
i predominantly use dSLR (Nikon D7000) for landscapes and carries a P&S (Nikon P7000) for shots difficult to obtain with my D7000, and i tend to utilize a variety of filters to obtain the "feel" i'd like to shot to possess, my most used filters are Circular Polariser, ND8 (3 Stops), ND110 (10 Stops), Green Filter (B&W), Red Filter (B&W), Tobacco Filter & ND4 Soft Edge Graduated Filter.
P&S tend to require or demand heavy post-processing for the shots to be considered excellent whereas a dSLR system typically does not have a dire need for heavy post-processing if well taken and with the use of filters
Conclusion: Both have their advantages but i'd prefer a dSLR system over a P&S if the option exists, but i wouldn't sacrifice opportunity over resolution thus i'll gladly use a P&S if carrying a dSLR system is impractical.
Last edited:
His shots are so heavily post-processed it no longer shows the camera's capabilities, much less its limitations.
at 0.4mpx (the photos in his gallery only shows a maximum size of 0.4mpx) its difficult to notice the short-comings of the shots and with it, the difficulty to resolve details of the scene as well.
not to say he is a bad photographer, his shots are indeed excellent, but i do not think that his photos serves as evidence on how P&S can easily take shots in-distinguishable from a dSLR and substitute a dSLR's capabilities for landscape photography, in fact his shots tells us how important post-processing is to landscape photography and how one should not denounce the use of post-processing.
i think you meant to say 10 stops with the ND110 instead of 1000 stops.
oops! you're right! 1000x ND110 10 stops ^^
That's heavily processed? Oh dear, I think you better not step into some of the Landscape galleries here and see the Radioactive HDRs.
when it comes to high resolutions in landscape photography, i have not seen more hi-res and detailed photographic prints than those of Ansel Adams. simply stunning.
in digital photography, most people tend to get caught up in the megapixel race and FF vs APS-C vs m43 vs compact as to which format gives you the sharpest and most detailed photo. my advice to them is..... just jump straight into 10x8 LF and don't look back.
Zaren, other than the sensor, lens also plays a part, if the test lens was a low quality lens, then it's hard to say, especially if low ISO was used. Besides, it's not a fair comparison, since it seems like both cameras have different resolutions (camera 1 has higher resolution).
Similar threads
