Some limitations of compacts for landscape photography, nonetheless:
(1) Limited use for longer exposures
Any compact which has an 'M' mode will allow users to have at least up to 30 seconds of exposure on the long end.
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.
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 (1000 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.
this guy is freaking awesome....
http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=983838
i think you meant to say 10 stops with the ND110 instead of 1000 stops.
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.
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.