Canon camera for Landscape

Nigel Jennings

Nigel Jennings

Messages
33
Name
Nigel Jennings
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi
I am looking for the best Canon for Landscape photography, I have looked at the 5d mk iv and the 5d rs
Can any body give me any suggestions please
 
•


For landscapes, the higher resolution the
better for details recording… that is if you
aim for prints.

For web, this argument is irrelevant.
 
Nigel Jennings said:
Hi
I am looking for the best Canon for Landscape photography, I have looked at the 5d mk iv and the 5d rs
Can any body give me any suggestions please
Click to expand...

If your only looking at Canon I'd say the 5DSR, 50mp would be great for landscapes and its also cheaper than the 5DIV
 
If you are looking for a good camera on a lower budget then the 6D and 1DS3 (used) are great - but the 5DSR is the best in the Canon range, especially for large prints.

Also, as a friend is currently proving, the 5DSR is very good for wildlife too!
 
I have read the 5dSR is good for wildlife as well, which would be a added bonus.
I keep reading about the AA filter, I had never heard of it, but it does seem to course issue's or am I reading it wrong, sorry I don't fully understand why it is put in.
 
Nigel Jennings said:
I have read the 5dSR is good for wildlife as well, which would be a added bonus.
I keep reading about the AA filter, I had never heard of it, but it does seem to course issue's or am I reading it wrong, sorry I don't fully understand why it is put in.
Click to expand...

It's not an issue, the whole thing is blown way out of proportion. AA filter doesn't make your photo look like there is vaseline smeared all over it despite what some internet chatter say about AA filter.

However, AA filter does affect image quality, it is like putting on a REALLY REALLY good quality UV filter on your lens. The simple fact is that putting anything in front of the sensor that light has to pass through will affect the light passing through it, there is no such a thing as 100% transparent, it might be 99.999999% transparent but you are still losing something.

The AA filter is that, so without the AA filter, you do get a sharper image than with AA filter and with landscapes you are not really going to run into problems of pattern you get in the man made world so in a way the 5DSR is a perfect landscape camera.
 
5DIV has an AA filter but is plenty sharp enough.

LC7byoz.jpg


Click for 100%

UanwRR5.png
 
The AA filter actually would be useful for that photo, not the face, but the scarf as the repeated pattern would cause a moire effect, this is caused by the layout of the red green and blue layout on the sensor. This is also why Fuji developed the Trans-X sensor with their specific layout of the red green and blue nodes in the sensor.
 
Don't forget that with the Canon 5DS / 5DSR you will need a fast computer to work the files, depending on what software you're using perhaps require adobe CC or equivalent, a much bigger hard drive, faster and bigger memory cards, and to get the best out of the camera, the newer lens being released.... I'm sure I have missed something out here :thinking: . That's my take on it anyway.
 
Why Canon? (Just curious). Are you intending to shoot HDR, use filters, special lenses. Even the new APS-C crop sensors from Canon would be suitable for non commercial work and much cheaper. The two Canon bodies you mentioned would require high quality lenses to get the best out of them.
 
Mintchocs said:
Why Canon? (Just curious). Are you intending to shoot HDR, use filters, special lenses. Even the new APS-C crop sensors from Canon would be suitable for non commercial work and much cheaper. The two Canon bodies you mentioned would require high quality lenses to get the best out of them.
Click to expand...

I think you have to start with the end result and work back as that will dictate what gear you need.

For example if you're going to produce 2m wide gallery quality prints which will be viewed closely you're going to need high resolution kit but if like me prints are becoming a rarity and when they happen only go to A3 to be viewed normally (by everyone but me... of course I look closely!) then maybe just about anything will do, I have A3 prints from my 8mp Canon 20D. The problem is being realistic about your needs.
 
Thank you so much for the replies, I want to stay with Canon as I have a good collection of L lenses, but my cameras are APS-H crop which I use for wildlife, I did a lot of landscape in the film days, but everything I have read says you need a full frame camera.
I am in the process of getting filters, just need to make my mind up which make to go for ( Lee, Hitech)
 
the question is which camera and lens (which impacts upon filters too sometimes)
6D is a good starting point, depending on your budget then the high spec 5D versions are great
 
Yes, think carefully about what you want from the camera. We all managed to do landscapes before the 5ds/5dsr was introduced! You will find that anything from the 6d upwards will produce better results than anything you could have got with film (large format excepted.....)
 
Why canon? are you invested in the system? I'd look at Nikon D810, pentax K1 or Sony A7R(II) for landscapes
 
all easily adaptable onto Sony A7R/II. I use mostly canon lenses on A7RII, the AF is rather good. Not that you need it for landscapes.
 
If one is starting from scratch and want to shoot landscape and want to keep to 35mm, as opposed to medium format then I would still pick Canon.


5DSR – biggest pixel count.


Yes, the 810 and A7R2 has great pixel count but for pure number the 5DSR has more, and more pixels=greater detail. It has 8mp more than the a7R2 and 14mp over the 810, that is 16% and 32% increase in resolution and detail.


No AA Filter


All of them have no AA filter so this is level in all respect.


Lens options


Canon arguably have better and more lenses. You can discount Sony as their WA, and especially ultra wide is just non-existent. If the argument is “you can use an adaptor”, then you need to give a great reason to pick the body, why choose a Sony and then choose Canon glass? Canon has your 8-15 Fisheye, 11-24, 14mmL, 17mm TSE, 24mm TSE, 24mmL, 16-35/4.0 with IS, 16-35/2.8L. There are just lots of choices for landscapes.


The only area where the Sony or Nikon would be preferable is if you think the difference in dynamic range is worth it, I am assuming here that the Sony and Nikon has better DR but I am not 100% sure on that. But this area is something that can be overcome with filters, whereas you can’t overcome the pixel count or lens choices by sticking something in front of the lens.
 
nandbytes said:
all easily adaptable onto Sony A7R/II. I use mostly canon lenses on A7RII, the AF is rather good. Not that you need it for landscapes.
Click to expand...

AF is not better than Native on canon bodies is it?

The question is why Sony, not why Canon.
 
Raymond Lin said:
AF is not better than Native on canon bodies is it?

The question is why Sony, not why Canon.
Click to expand...

Depends on the lens. Sigma EF lenses with new sigma MC11 adapter provides AF that does rival it. As a general statement no it not as good as native canon AF.

Sony/Nikon/Pentax because the Sony sensor is better in terms of dynamic range (very useful for landscapes) and ISO performance. Also the IBIS is quite useful sometimes. For landscape AF isn't a big deal.

I love canon lenses but i would rather shoot a Sony APS-C sensor than canon FF for landscapes!!
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
You can discount Sony as their WA, and especially ultra wide is just non-existent.
Click to expand...

Sony also do have many native options... Sony FE 16-35mm, Voigtlander 10mm (widest rectilinear lens available),12mm and 15mm, loawa 12mm, Samyang 14mm/2.8 AF, Tokina Firin 20mm f/2, Zeiss loxia 21mm/2.8, zeiss batis 18mm f/2.8, zeiss batis 25mm f/2

plus there many many legacy glass you can adapt. TS-E lenses are manual anyway so you can adapt them too without loss in any functionality. Plus you get stabilization with all adapted glass which is useful sometimes even with UWA lenses.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
The only area where the Sony or Nikon would be preferable is if you think the difference in dynamic range is worth it, I am assuming here that the Sony and Nikon has better DR but I am not 100% sure on that. But this area is something that can be overcome with filters, whereas you can’t overcome the pixel count or lens choices by sticking something in front of the lens.
Click to expand...

According to DxoMark, the 5D SR has a dynamic range of 12.4

The A7RII has 13.9
The D810 has 14.8

Filters can help, to some extent, but if the horizon is not a perfect straight line will always be a compromise option.

DxOMark also gives the colour depth of the 3 cameras

5D SR 24.6
A7RII 26
D810 25.7

You're sacrificing a fair bit in these 2 categories for extra pixel count which will rarely be visible.
 
It makes me smile a bit when people start playing something akin to 'Top Trumps' with camera specification figures. Has anyone ever read a camera group test review and found it tells a slightly different story to the one told by comparing some of the spec figures alone?
 
The fact that OP is heavily invested in Canon glass means most of the reasons of getting Sony for their glass is redundant.


So, why Sony?


Why buy a body just to spend more money on an adaptor? What is the attraction of using these adaptors?


So….why Sony?


It’s not the lower mega pixels.


It’s not the lack of AA filter.


It’s not the glass.


What is it?

The question is easy

How much you value the DR, sharpness, and faff using adaptors.
Do you want to get more batteries,
Do you need the sharpness.
Do you want to use adaptors.
Do you need the DR.

For me if is a simple answer, if I am heavily invested in Canon Lenses, then I would be used to Canon bodies. I would stick with what I know.
 
Sticking with what's familiar isn't always the best option. I post/read on forums just so I can find out new things and think outside the box. I think OP posted on this forum probably to get some different point of views than to stick with what he already knows.

I have no problem with adapters but some people do. That's simply personal choice.

My message to OP - Step outside camera brands and figure out which is best tool for your use case.
Does AF matter? Do you think dynamic range, colour depth, tonality are important for landscape?
I would even go as far as suggesting swapping brands to nikon/pentax/sony if you don't like adapting.
If you can't swap overnight you can do it in stages using a cheap adapter in the meantime. There was a A7R going for £725. You can get a A7R+16-35 for under £1500 (less than both canon DSLRs you mentioned).

If you still wish to stick with canon I'd go for 5D4. Good luck :)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Sticking with what's familiar isn't always the best option. I post/read on forums just so I can find out new things and think outside the box. I think OP posted on this forum probably to get some different point of views than to stick with what he already knows.

I have no problem with adapters but some people do. That's simply personal choice.

My message to OP - Step outside camera brands and figure out which is best tool for your use case.
Does AF matter? Do you think dynamic range, colour depth, tonality are important for landscape?
I would even go as far as suggesting swapping brands to nikon/pentax/sony if you don't like adapting.
If you can't swap overnight you can do it in stages using a cheap adapter in the meantime. There was a A7R going for £725. You can get a A7R+16-35 for under £1500 (less than both canon DSLRs you mentioned).

If you still wish to stick with canon I'd go for 5D4. Good luck :)
Click to expand...

Why are you keep pushing the Sony? A7R? How is that going to be better than the 5DSR or 5DIV?

Why would a person heavily invested in Canon lenses go buy a Sony body to use an adaptor on his class when he doesn't have to?

What advantage for landscape shooting does the Sony A7R or A7RII have over the 5DSR that warrant this purchase?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Why are you keep pushing the Sony? A7R? How is that going to be better than the 5DSR or 5DIV?

Why would a person heavily invested in Canon lenses go buy a Sony body to use an adaptor on his class when he doesn't have to?

What advantage for landscape shooting does the Sony A7R or A7RII have over the 5DSR that warrant this purchase?
Click to expand...

I am not pushing Sony, I am pushing for a brand that uses Sony sensor - nikon/pentax/sony.
I used A7R as an example for a rather cheap body and something he can adapt lenses to if he doesn't have the money to swap brands. A7R/D810/K1 IMO are better for landscapes than anything canon has at the moment.

I have already answered your other questions - for lot better dynamic range, tonality, colour depth compared to any canon sensor which are all IMHO very useful for landscapes.
I even suggested changing brands to for OP's use case, that's what I'd do. I personally don't care for brands, I'll use whatever I like using for a certain use case.

As I said before I rather shoot on a Sony APS-C sensor than canon FF sensor for landscapes for better dynamic range and colour depth.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
I am not pushing Sony, I am pushing for a brand that uses Sony sensor - nikon/pentax/sony.
I used A7R as an example for a rather cheap body and something he can adapt lenses to if he doesn't have the money to swap brands.

I have already answered your other questions - for lot better dynamic range, tonality, colour depth compared to any canon sensor which are all IMHO very useful for landscapes.
I even suggested changing brands to for OP's use case, that's what I'd do. I personally don't care for brands, I'll use whatever I like using for a certain use case.
Click to expand...

But since he has a lot of Canon lenses, the only brand he can realistically use other than Canon is Sony.

And if you are using Sony, you would be losing all the other things I mentioned such as the extra sharpness that comes with higher pixel, the native mount, the lack of need to get more batteries, a familiar UI. There are pros and cons in both camps.

The fact remains that he is heavily invested in Canon lenses so the logical choice and seeing the 5DSR actually exists, is get a 5DSR.
 
Raymond Lin said:
But since he has a lot of Canon lenses, the only brand he can realistically use other than Canon is Sony.

And if you are using Sony, you would be losing all the other things I mentioned such as the extra sharpness that comes with higher pixel, the native mount, the lack of need to get more batteries, a familiar UI. There are pros and cons in both camps.

The fact remains that he is heavily invested in Canon lenses so the logical choice and seeing the 5DSR actually exists, is get a 5DSR.
Click to expand...

Not really extra sharpness you mean extra resolution.

I said above if OP were to stick with canon he should go with 5D4 (because it has better dynamic range). I value dynamic range more than pixel count. As Faldrax mentioned above the extra resolution is barely going to be noticed (if at all).

I am not saying my proposed solution is perfect (far from it). Both solutions have a compromise, up to OP to choose which he will pick. I was simply stating an alternative :)
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Not really extra sharpness you mean extra resolution.

I said above if OP were to stick with canon he should go with 5D4 (because it has better dynamic range). I value dynamic range more than pixel count. As Faldrax mentioned above the extra resolution is barely going to be noticed (if at all).

I am not saying my proposed solution is perfect (far from it). Both solutions have a compromise, up to OP to choose which he will pick. I was simply stating an alternative :)
Click to expand...

Both sharpness and resolution, no AA filter, 20more mega pixels. That's 40% more pixels, which able to resolve those extra details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top