Landscape Photographers - Camera and Lenses Advice

Wissel

Wissel

Messages
1,132
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
For weeks now I've been trying to decide what camera and lenses to go for. And I'm getting nowhere. Living in Cornwall, camera shops are a little scarce so it's not easy to go and try things out. I'm probably going to wait until March before buying so I can go to the NEC show and see everything under one roof before buying anyway, but I'd really like some advice to at least narrow my choices down a little.

I shoot almost only landscape. I've had a few DSLR's and a couple of Mirrorless set-ups in the past but will be starting this collection from scratch.

I'd really like some advice from others that shoot landscape on what they would go for with a budget of around £2k.

I have no preference between DSLR or Mirrorless as both have their advantages. I've never had FF but I'd like to do more night shots so the higher ISO capabilities would certainly be useful.

Initially I'd like (at the least) a body with say 16 - 70mm in lenses (FF) so 10 - 50mm in crop. It would be great to be able to get all the way to around 200mm but I think I'm pushing what's possible as quality and clarity are important to me.

To give an idea of the type of shots I would like to be taking, see this Flickr page by Neil Almond. These are exactly the type of shots I love (although I don't claim to be as good a photographer as Neil obviously is) (yet :) ) https://www.flickr.com/photos/116302223@N04/

In the past I've liked my 7d with a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 attached (although I don't need 2.8 glass, happy to have f4+ and save some weight) and I liked my Canon M3 with 11-22 attached.

I already have good tripods, good filters and bags etc plus Adobe CC. It's just the camera and lenses I need help with.

I'd really appreciate some help here guys.

EDIT - Not to much of an issue, but the Missus is into similar photography and uses a 100d with the STM lenses. This does make buying Canon glass more justifiable as I can but it for "both" of us :) So Cano would be an advantage here but not a deal breaker.
 
Last edited:
Neil uses a Nikon D800E (according to the exif on flickr) and you could probably pick a decent used one up for around £1,200 - 16mm is very wide on FF, and for Nikon you have a few choices but the Nikon 16-35 is a good choice (it takes screw in filters). Another good (and less expensive) option is the newest 18-35mm AFS and whilst it doesn't get to 16mm it is still pretty wide. The 24-85mm VR is decent enough too and also consider the 24-120 F4 VR ... you could also get a D6xx for less money (much less) and that would leave you more for lenses.

In Canon I'd suggest the 6D as I've seen some great images from them, but I'll struggle to recommend lenses (I shoot Nikon).

As your main interest is landscapes, auto focus performance isn't really much of a consideration (I shoot most of my landscapes in manual btw) so it makes the D6xx very attractive imo - the IQ is really rather good.
 
I think mirrorless is worth considering for the in view helps such as the histogram and level and also for focus aids, the magnified view is a great aid.

You could look at a first generation Sony A7, there seem to be some good deals on them and you get a compact 24mp FF camera you can use a huge number of lenses on and of course you get the in view histogram, level and magnified view.

In view WYSIWYG is great.
 
Last edited:
Good idea Alan. I'd been looking at the A7 but the lens choice was a bit off-putting. Forgot about adapters.
I used the histogram and focus peaking constantly on my M3. This might be the best of all worlds. Full frame, huge lens choice with adapters, affordable and excellent.

I shall do some research on this.
 
Fuji X-T10 and a couple of their zooms (10-24, 18-55) would be a good lightweight kit and should deliver prints up to A3+.
 
To be honest, my opinion is that these days, for landscape at low ISO, there's not much to choose between mirrorless (Olympus, Panasonic, Sony etc.), APS-C (Canon, Nikon, Fuji etc.) and full frame (Canon, Nikon & Sony etc).

Sure in challenging lighting extra DR afforded by the full frame cameras can be useful, but can mostly be managed in camera by filtration. If you intend to print really large or crop heavily then the 16mp of the Fuji / Olympus / Panasonic bodies might be a little limiting, but I have to say, images shot by me, and hanging on my wall at home from Snowdonia at approx. 24"x18" size on both my Olympus OMD system and my Nikon D810 look pretty much indistinguishable from each other.

The chap you referenced in the above 1st post, clearly is a talented photographer, but I would hazard a guess he could make stunning images with almost any camera on the market today. The understanding of the quality of light, composition, and just plain getting out there and doing it, are (in my opinion) worth a lot more than having the latest and greatest camera. Indeed, some of my most favourite images I've shot, were many years ago with my 6mp Nikon D100 and a "consumer lens".
 
That's exactly what's making the choice so difficult Andrew. There are so many great cameras available.
I did look at a Fuji XT1 about a year ago and remember really liking it. Definitely on the (long) short list lol.

I agree with what you say about the photographer in my first post as well.
 
What I would do (if I was starting out again), is ignore brands to start with and consider the type of photography you want to do, and what sort of field of views (lens focal lengths) you think you will need. For instance some (like me), like super wides like the Nikon 14-24, Olympus 7-14, whilst others hate that focal length, and much prefer a longer lens.

Once you have that sorted make a lit of the equipment you need and if you will buy new of second hand and then look for a system that will fit that budget (I know - easier said than done).

Like I say above, I run full frame Nikon's and mirrorless Olympus systems, but for the majority of what I do, I take the Olympus and three lenses - 7-14 F2.8, 12-40 F2.8 & 40-150 F2.8, which gives me everything from 14mm equivalent right though to 300mm eqv. all at F2.8. The whole system with an EM1, some filters, spare batteries and a travel tripod, fits in my smallest Lowepro day pack, and means I can walk for miles without it getting noticeably heavy at all.

My FF DSLR's to be honest are mostly used for telephoto work for birding etc. where their high ISO advantage really comes into it's own.
 
ST4 said:
x2. I love mine. The histogram live preview is worth it over the lesser D6x0 bodies alone
Click to expand...

X3, :agree: , the D800 units are superb bits of kit and "Excellent" for landscape photography.(y)

George.
 
Thanks for all the help guys. I think I'm leaning towards a Sony A7r (Mk1) and using Canon glass.

The A7r seems to be a lot of camera for the money (just under £1000 as a UK model). It seems it gives me all the features I liked with my M3 in a great FF camera.

Thinking along the lines of a Canon EF 17-40 f4 and and 24-70 f4 for now. I'll then add a 70-200 f4 down the line if I take this route. As these are Canon it means the Missus can use them as well on her 100d.

This seems like a very nice kit for around £2k. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
 
Wissel said:
Thanks for all the help guys. I think I'm leaning towards a Sony A7r (Mk1) and using Canon glass.

The A7r seems to be a lot of camera for the money (just under £1000 as a UK model). It seems it gives me all the features I liked with my M3 in a great FF camera.
Click to expand...
Before you take the plunge just a couple of things to make you aware of. The Sony A7r is indeed a nice camera but it falls a little short of some of the Nikons in a few areas, IMO. However, I must stress that this is really nit picking ;)

Firstly, Sony's white balance/colours aren't as pleasing, admittedly this is more noticeably with skin tones though but still worth considering. Also, I don't believe the metering on the Sony is as good. Nikon seem to be able to produce a bit of magic in this area.

If you don't need the 36MP resolution* then the Nikon D750 is well worth considering. FANTASTIC all round camera, and exceptional at landscape too. Like the other Nikons, dynamic range is so good you can retrieve so much in the shadows and highlights that it saves you from needing to bracket on a number of occasions. Also, you can pull up shadows several EV without introducing noise. The other advantage of the D750 over the other Nikons is the tilt screen, comes in very handy indeed for low level shooting.

Bottom line though, whether you go for the Nikon D800E, D810, D750 or Sony A7r they are all stunning cameras and all capable of producing absolutely stunning images.

*(36MP is really not necessary for most people unless you plan on cropping heavily or printing HUGE, but even then I'd argue it's not necessary as the bigger the print, the further the viewing distance ;) Also, bear in mind a 4K screen is only 8.3MP so you're 'wasting' 28MP ;))

Finally, the shots on the guy's flickr album you posted are simply stunning and I wish I could produce images like that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think a good understanding/eye for photoshop/editing is needed too for images like this in order to subtly bring out the best of already great shots.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this will help you but I've just seen that Park cameras are giving 10% off all Canon 'L' lenses and on some models there is cash back as well. The 16-35 f4L IS is now £538 with discount and cash back!
 
snerkler said:
...
Finally, the shots on the guy's flickr album you posted are simply stunning and I wish I could produce images like that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think a good understanding of photoshop is needed too for images like this.
Click to expand...
Those images are not 'shopped excessively - most if not all are a result of good camera craft, skill and practice. :) I suspect most have only had basic adjustments made. We could always ask him as Neil is a member on here @NeilA1975 ;)
 
PaulButler said:
Those images are not 'shopped excessively - most if not all are a result of good camera craft, skill and practice. :) I suspect most have only had basic adjustments made. We could always ask him as Neil is a member on here @NeilA1975 ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't mean they were done excessively and that the images were a long way off where they were. However, some people have a great eye on just what to accent to turn a stunning image into a super stunning image. Have edited my post accordingly ;)
 
snerkler said:
Before you take the plunge just a couple of things to make you aware of. The Sony A7r is indeed a nice camera but it falls a little short of some of the Nikons in a few areas, IMO. However, I must stress that this is really nit picking ;)

Firstly, Sony's white balance/colours aren't as pleasing, admittedly this is more noticeably with skin tones though but still worth considering. Also, I don't believe the metering on the Sony is as good. Nikon seem to be able to produce a bit of magic in this area.

If you don't need the 36MP resolution* then the Nikon D750 is well worth considering. FANTASTIC all round camera, and exceptional at landscape too. Like the other Nikons, dynamic range is so good you can retrieve so much in the shadows and highlights that it saves you from needing to bracket on a number of occasions. Also, you can pull up shadows several EV without introducing noise. The other advantage of the D750 over the other Nikons is the tilt screen, comes in very handy indeed for low level shooting.

Bottom line though, whether you go for the Nikon D800E, D810, D750 or Sony A7r they are all stunning cameras and all capable of producing absolutely stunning images.

*(36MP is really not necessary for most people unless you plan on cropping heavily or printing HUGE, but even then I'd argue it's not necessary as the bigger the print, the further the viewing distance ;) Also, bear in mind a 4K screen is only 8.3MP so you're 'wasting' 28MP ;))

Finally, the shots on the guy's flickr album you posted are simply stunning and I wish I could produce images like that. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I think a good understanding of photoshop is needed too for images like this.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that snerkler,

I will check out the D750 (and the other Nikons) but if possible I'd prefer to use Canon glass as the Missus uses it and I can justify buying it easier.

Interested in what you say about 36MP. Can you think of a disadvantage to have this high resolution? I mean I know the pixels will be smaller but this doesn't seem to be an issue with the A7r (does it?). Of course there's the issue of file size but I have quite powerful PC's with a lot of storage so this wouldn't be an issue for me personally. I'm still on the steep slope of improving my photography and often see a better photo within a photo once it's on my screens. I'd quite like to have the option of cropping and still having a lot of resolution. Or am I missing something?

I agree, the guy I linked to is obviously not only a very good photographer but also very good at editing. The thing is I can do the later quite well as I was a magazine editor for years. At the moment though I'm trying to improve actually taking the photo's before relying on my Photoshop knowledge if that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Wissel said:
Thanks for that snerkler,

I will check out the D750 (and the other Nikons) but if possible I'd prefer to use Canon glass as the Missus uses it and I can justify buying it easier.

Interested in what you say about 36MP. Can you think of a disadvantage to have this high resolution? I mean I know the pixels will be smaller but this doesn't seem to be an issue with the A7r (does it?). Of course there's the issue of file size but I have quite powerful PC's with a lot of storage so this wouldn't be an issue for me personally. I'm still on the steep slope of improving my photography and often see a better photo within a photo once it's on my screens. I'd quite like to have the option of cropping and still having a lot of resolution. Or am I missing something?

I agree, the guy I linked to is obviously not only a very good photographer but also very good at editing. The thing is I can do the later quite well as I was a magazine editor for years At the moment though I'm trying to improve actually taking the photo's before relying on my Photoshop knowledge if that makes sense.
Click to expand...
No negatives having more MP really, except they can allegedly show up the flaws of lenses more, and they can exacerbate camera shake which obviously isn't an issue on the tripod. However, this is more in theory as many people have not found an issue. And of course the file size which you mentioned. Even with powerful machines it can slow workflow down a touch. Makes sense to you to maybe get the A7R and adapter for canon glass then if you're going to share lenses.

Neil (the gent you linked) is clearly an exceptional photographer and has an excellent eye for composition and light, which are really the key things in landscape photography. I wish I could pick his brain ;) Obviously, if you then have a great understanding of post processing then this is just the icing on the cake.

Just for a bit of fun, this shows the difference between the Sony A7r and Nikons in low light high ISO. I'm not sure if this would also represent how they behave in low light long exposure low ISO?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ima...=1&x=0.1312927631284066&y=-0.9790009973890715
 
Last edited:
If any of the above are an issue why not stick to the 24mp A7 which is probably going to be cheaper and has the option of using an electronic first curtain shutter which I believe reduces the possibility of shake.

I don't want to get into the whole DSLR v CSC thing too much as they both have plus and minus points but having gotten used to CSC's and the advantages they offer for me I'd hate to go back to a DSLR.
 
woof woof said:
If any of the above are an issue why not stick to the 24mp A7 which is probably going to be cheaper and has the option of using an electronic first curtain shutter which I believe reduces the possibility of shake.

I don't want to get into the whole DSLR v CSC thing too much as they both have plus and minus points but having gotten used to CSC's and the advantages they offer for me I'd hate to go back to a DSLR.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough I've spent the last couple of hours watching reviews on both. I think out of the two the r would suit me better but I'm not sure yet.

Regarding the DSLR v CSC thing, I had this conversation earlier on the phone with my father-in-law (a much better photographer than me) and I was saying how I don't really see why I seem to get on much better with mirrorless. Straight away he said "well you spent years editing looking at a screen - not a viewfinder". Funny how others sometimes see the obvious lol.
 
Wissel said:
Funnily enough I've spent the last couple of hours watching reviews on both. I think out of the two the r would suit me better but I'm not sure yet.

Regarding the DSLR v CSC thing, I had this conversation earlier on the phone with my father-in-law (a much better photographer than me) and I was saying how I don't really see why I seem to get on much better with mirrorless. Straight away he said "well you spent years editing looking at a screen - not a viewfinder". Funny how others sometimes see the obvious lol.
Click to expand...
It purely is preference. I have both and prefer the optical viewfinder to look through, but also see the advantage of seeing the final image before you take the pic as in the EVF. I used to have my EVF set with all the gadgets on such as live histogram and focus peaking, but now have these off as I found them a distraction.
 
Wissel said:
Thanks for all the help guys. I think I'm leaning towards a Sony A7r (Mk1) and using Canon glass.

The A7r seems to be a lot of camera for the money (just under £1000 as a UK model). It seems it gives me all the features I liked with my M3 in a great FF camera.

Thinking along the lines of a Canon EF 17-40 f4 and and 24-70 f4 for now. I'll then add a 70-200 f4 down the line if I take this route. As these are Canon it means the Missus can use them as well on her 100d.

This seems like a very nice kit for around £2k. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
I think the A7R could be a good call but your glass choice is letting it down. The 16-35 F4 is generally regarded as being a lot better than the 17-40. The 24-70 is indifferent, a 24-105 would be cheaper & more versatile with similar IQ.
 
Wayne Els said:
I think the A7R could be a good call but your glass choice is letting it down. The 16-35 F4 is generally regarded as being a lot better than the 17-40. The 24-70 is indifferent, a 24-105 would be cheaper & more versatile with similar IQ.
Click to expand...

There's always the FE 28-70mm f3.5-5.6. I have one and although I don't use it (I like primes) testing it convinced me that it's a good general purpose lens, and they seem to crop up at very reasonable prices.

If used to its strengths and stopped down a bit I wonder if it'd be good enough to cover the 28-70mm focal length?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top