best canon for landscape?

In short, the 5D2 is more suited to landscape/portrait than the 7D. The 7D is more suited to wildlife, sport, action than the 5D2.

However, in my opinion, the 7D makes for a better landscape camera than the 5D2 makes for a wildlife, sport, action camera
 
Last edited:
Landscape it's 5D2. But then you need good quality EF glass (probably L series) as EF-S won't fit... You'd have to be prepared to end up with 5D2, 17-40 (landscape), 24-70/24-105 (walkabout), 70-200 (telephoto). That's a shed load of money....
 
I,m not sure how relevant the body is for landscapes,given that the subject ain't going anywhere fast and you are going to be at low ISO and with the lens stopped down for maximum DOF.
If you had all the rest of the kit,tripod,filters, cable release etc then live view so you could check focus would be a nice to have.
All the above presupposes you are not printing billboards to view from 6 inches away.
 
I really don't think that a landscape pic taken with a 5D or a 7D would look any different other than to those people who seem to have bionic eyes and can spot the very slightest of differences, or so they say?!
 
There is a difference - I own both (well a 5D MKI and a 7D) and the images from the 7D just don't quite have the same magic as the ones from the 5D. Yes it's all very subjective but it's still there imo. That's not to say that you couldn't take very good landscape pictures with the 7D though.
 
kit is not something i want to get obsessed about really. Key is in the execution after all. That said, the tonal range of the 450d I'm using is not great. When going wide too, the lens distortion that needs to be managed on the partial sensor to that of a full sensor body is just a pain (with the exception of 10 - 22mm).

With this in mind I have only purchased EF lenses when adding to my kit. Tripod and other kit is sorted too. So just as I thought I had my next move sorted, the 7d chat came along. I am not into spending money when there are equally good alternatives out there.

Thanks for the thoughts.
 
Finalists in last years landscape photographer of the year were using canon xxxd's, xxd's, xd's, hosts of crop and ff nikons and other cropped, semi cropped and ff bodies.

IMO the body makes very little difference in landscape photography. Its so much more to do with composition, use of light and filters, the body almost comes last!

Sure, the pixel peepers will always prefer ff bodies but you can take superb landscape shots on the most basic dslr with a good lens.
 
odd jim said:
Finalists in last years landscape photographer of the year were using canon xxxd's, xxd's, xd's, hosts of crop and ff nikons and other cropped, semi cropped and ff bodies.

IMO the body makes very little difference in landscape photography. Its so much more to do with composition, use of light and filters, the body almost comes last!

Sure, the pixel peepers will always prefer ff bodies but you can take superb landscape shots on the most basic dslr with a good lens.
Click to expand...

:agree:

If it's sensor size that you're wondering about then remember half way between 1.6 crop and full frame come the 1D bodies with 1.3 crop.

I sometimes use my 1D Mark 2 for landscapes. You get the benefit of getting a bit more in the frame than a 1.6 crop body and with the right lens you have great outdoor weather protection. ISO noise isn't the best but with a tripod there's not really any need to take it off ISO100. Also you have the great AF to hand when you want to do something a bit more sporty. Price wise you can pick one up for a fraction of the price of the two cameras you've mentioned.
 
The only thing 5D II lacks is any kind of weathersealing. It is simply inadequate for use for seascapes at the waterline. 1-series are much better at this. Both 1Ds and 1D make great cameras. 1D3 is lovely, and if you can afford mkIV that is even better. Hopefully, 5DIII will improve in this area when the time comes to flog DsII.
 
odd jim said:
mes last!

Sure, the pixel peepers will always prefer ff bodies but you can take superb landscape shots on the most basic dslr with a good lens.
Click to expand...

It's not to do with pixel peeping, there's something about the colours and dynamic range imo.

But your point is correct.
 
manualfocus-g said:
For those saying that full frame doesn't make a difference with landscapes, I can assure you that it does. I just love the 5D for landscapes, particularly when matched to a nice Carl Zeiss Distagon. Quality is stunning.
Click to expand...

Yes but what I'm saying is full frame isn't a pre-requisite for landscapes, in the same way a 7d might be suited to sports.

You don't need full frame to make beautiful landscape shots.

The colours and dynamic range (contrast, fill light, colour brightness) can all be tweaked in raw etc.

As per my previous post, it's much more to do with the composition, use of light, exposure, the lens used and use of filters as any modern body is capable of stunning iq at low iso's.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Yes but what I'm saying is full frame isn't a pre-requisite for landscapes, in the same way a 7d might be suited to sports.

You don't need full frame to make beautiful landscape shots.

The colours and dynamic range (contrast, fill light, colour brightness) can all be tweaked in raw etc.

As per my previous post, it's much more to do with the composition, use of light, exposure, the lens used and use of filters as any modern body is capable of stunning iq at low iso's.
Click to expand...

Oh I absolutely agree that a full frame camera isn't a pre-requisite, but the quality is definately better with full frame and I'm not just talking about contrast, colour brightness etc. Images look crisp and cleaner.
 
odd jim said:
Yes but what I'm saying is full frame isn't a pre-requisite for landscapes, in the same way a 7d might be suited to sports.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone would claim it is a pre-requisite. The OPs question was which is the best.
 
Indeed, I agree, but I guess I was trying to say there is no body best suited, per se, to landscapes in the same way some are for sports (for example).

Of course the iq on the 5d (or any ff) is going to be better no matter what you are shooting, be it landscapes, macro, sports etc.
 
odd jim said:
Finalists in last years landscape photographer of the year were using canon xxxd's, xxd's, xd's, hosts of crop and ff nikons and other cropped, semi cropped and ff bodies.

IMO the body makes very little difference in landscape photography. Its so much more to do with composition, use of light and filters, the body almost comes last!

Sure, the pixel peepers will always prefer ff bodies but you can take superb landscape shots on the most basic dslr with a good lens.
Click to expand...

Good post, completely agree!
 
Me thinks I asked a question that is often asked by those thinking of taking a step up in their photography.

All very good points made (especially about water line captures - hadn't considered that!). Cost, iq and straight up functionality all come into play. Trying also to cut through the manufacturer guff (no come to mind!).

Maybe i'll wait for the 5d mk3 to buy or snap up a mk2 bargain! I do believe I can see a difference in the result have gone toe to toe with a friend with the 5d. Very similar shots but his were just slightly better in quality. Nothing to do with my technique of course!
 
There are so many variable factors though aren't there?

I once did some comparisons of my 20D with Siggy 50mm f1.4 with someone with a 5DII fitted with an f4 L zoom and to my complete surprise the 5DII owner was almost in tears because my shots looked better. I don't doubt that the 5DII is capable of better results than my 20D but obviously something made a difference for us both to prefer my shots.
 
I think skill plays the biggest part, then follow top quality lenses, filter kits, software and then better sensor - or something similar.

I had 40D and 1DsII alongside for a while. 40D being newer produced good colour and had OK noise, greatly helped by LR3. However 1DsII always had that little bit of extra beauty, call it better colour, better noise, dynamic range, resolution, etc. Don't get me wrong, I've got great shots from 40D, and obviously took some crap ones with 1Ds. Bad glass, lighting or use of filters can almost guarantee a bad shot and vice versa.
 
woof woof said:
There are so many variable factors though aren't there?

I once did some comparisons of my 20D with Siggy 50mm f1.4 with someone with a 5DII fitted with an f4 L zoom and to my complete surprise the 5DII owner was almost in tears because my shots looked better. I don't doubt that the 5DII is capable of better results than my 20D but obviously something made a difference for us both to prefer my shots.
Click to expand...

I've had people look at my shots taken with the GF1 and assume they must have been taken with a full frame DSLR. I think PP can make a big difference though - I don't like to do loads to landscape pics but it's amazing the difference a few tweaks can make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top