Does the Camera Model really matter?

[ac12]

Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.

Olivia
You need to be as specific as possible what you mean by landscape shots.
The reason is everyone here comes from their own point of view, which may or may not match what you mean.

In the general term, the 18-55 should be just fine. The 18-55 = 27-83mm FX/35mm film equivalent.
The primary lens on my 2nd 35mm film camera was a 43-86, and it did just fine for my 98+% of my vacation landscape photos. There were a few time when I wanted WIDER, and switched to a 24, but it was not often. And there were even fewer times when I wanted an even WIDER lens. One specific instance was shooting Morning Glory pool at Yellowstone. Even the 24 was not wide enough at that close distance.

But if you mean distant mountain peaks, then no the 18-55 is too short.
This is what I mean by you need to be as specific as possible what YOU mean by landscape.

There have been decades of photographers who only shot with a "normal" lens, which for you is a 35mm lens. And 35mm is about in the middle of your 18-55.

As others have said, as you shoot more, you will run into the "problems" that will make you think about different equipment, or ways to get around the problems. Examples

• If the lens is not wide enough, back up. If the subject is too small, move closer. This is what we did before zoom lenses, we zoomed with our feet.
  
  • Obviously there are practical limits to this statement. You can't just take a few steps closer to a mountain, you have to drive MILES closer.
• If you want to take SLOW exposures of multiple seconds, then you need a tripod and remote shutter release.
  • Buying a tripod is not a simple decision either.
• If you are shooting in dim light, rather than buy a faster lens, raise the ISO level.
  
  • Raising the ISO level does come with a cost of less image quality, but not as much as some people say. It all depends on how picky your eye is.

 

[ac12]

My most awarded image was taken with a 10 mp d200 and a lens Rockwell rates as one of nikon's 10 worst. The shot has gotten perfect scores and a speakers award.

Gee that sounds like my 43-86 ver1 which I used for a decade before switching to the ver2 of the same lens. The 43-86 has the reputation of being Nikon's WORST zoom lens. But I loved it. And I would still be using it, if not for the 35-105 which had a wider zoom range. And the wider zoom range was the only reason it replaced the 43-86, not lack of image quality of the 43-86.

 

[Olivia Green]

But if you mean distant mountain peaks, then no the 18-55 is too short.
This is what I mean by you need to be as specific as possible what YOU mean by landscape.

This is exactly what I'm looking for. Going to Canada and Switzerland for some time
and would need some landscape shots of mountains and hilltops. Not sure if 18-55
works for it or not.

 

[LWW]

It's possible to make good landscape with that camera/lens. Invest some time in learning to use raw development software that has comprehensive adjustment tools like distortion correction, perspective correction, rotation etc; fringing/CA removal. RawTherapee Blog

Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.

Editing and Processing is something which will be done after the shot has been taken. Just wanted to know if the the Camera and kit lens are strong enough for decent landscape images, which by your answer seems they are.

Stop worrying.

You can spend quite some time learning what you have, and your lens is quite capable of shooting what you have named.

If I was wsnting to upgrade I would first go to a 55-200 NIKKOR for times when 55 isn’t enough, or trade the 18-55 in on a 18-200.

 

[dunfly]

I really hate to add to your already voluminous responses, all of which are good by the way. First, I would get a Nikkor 18-140mm lens to replace the 18-55 mm. It is a better lens and covers 90% of what I shoot. There are some great deals on refurbished lenses ($249 at B&H). Learn how to shoot panoramas and stitch images. This will cover just about everything no matter how wide it is.

PS: I don't have the Nikkor 18-200mm but I am sure it would be great also, just more expensive.

PPS: Remember, when you upgrade your body you also get a heavier camera. I have a D7200 and a D5200. The D5200 is my travel camera because of the lighter weigh and compact design. With a little more effort, it takes just as good of images.

 

[ac12]

But if you mean distant mountain peaks, then no the 18-55 is too short.
This is what I mean by you need to be as specific as possible what YOU mean by landscape.

This is exactly what I'm looking for. Going to Canada and Switzerland for some time
and would need some landscape shots of mountains and hilltops. Not sure if 18-55
works for it or not.

Since you want to reach out to distant mountain peaks, I second as dunfly suggested, the 18-140, to replace your 18-55. Which also happens to be my standard lens. Just be aware that the 18-140 is larger and heavier than your 18-55. So carrying the camera will be heavier.

Alternatively, if you want to keep and use the 18-55 as a carry around lens, get a 55-200 VR or 70-300 VR to use for the long shots. It is important, that you get the VR version of these lenses, as it helps to steady the lens to get a sharper picture. The 55-200 (5.7x max) and 70-300 (8.6x max) will reach further than the 18-140, because they have greater magnification. But they are larger lenses, and when you travel, size and weight is a consideration.

 

[lance70]

That's a nice camera and will do just fine for landscape shots.....if you want better glass down the line maybe consider a 35 or 50mm lens.

 

[Upadhyay]

Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.

There is nothing as perfect but there are definitely better cameras and glass out there and there is no end to it. Your current gears are pretty good just focus on getting the best out of it though you may invest in some filters and may be a tripod if you do not have it already.

 

[Destin]

OP: See this thread:El-Cheapo Lens - Test Results

I just bought a $25 lens to use for hiking photos in leu of my $1200 professional lens of the same zoom range.

It does just fine for landscape images. Proof that it's much more about the photographer than the lens.

 

[Fujidave]

I agree with a lot of the advice given, don`t do what I use to do and just take the shot. Think about the shot in your mind and picture how you`d like it to come out, most of all take you`r time and enjoy your photography then share it here for tips/advice.

 

[nerwin]

Camera is a tool that allows you capture light.

The D3200 + 18-55 is more than capable of taking wonderful landscapes. With that being said there is nothing wrong with upgrading to something that makes you feel more comfortable that can allow you enjoy shooting more.

Also, don't get caught up on the "rules" of photography. There are no rules when it comes to photography and art. Besides....rules are meant to be broken!

Have fun and shoot for yourself which what I'm trying to do.

 

[photoflyer]

Now that I have good equipment I am harder on myself because I can't blame it on the camera or lens anymore. That said, there were some shots that were simply not possible with an f 5.6 lens on a consumer grade APS-C body. I recall the first time I took the full frame with the f2.8 70-200 to an outdoor night sporting event; I was ecstatic with the possibilities that lay ahead.

But, in most conditions, a good photographer can get great results with average equipment but a poor photographer will not get good results from great equipment.

 

[Derrel]

Experienced shooters can often work around the limitations of modest gear; beginning and intermediate-level shooters are the people who benefit the most from higher-end equipment. Lenses are especially critical: a slow 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 lens has a slow maximum aperture,and in say, and indoor gymnastics meet situation in dimmer light, such a lens's maximum aperture range will be a major handicap, whereas having the ability to shoot with say, an 85mm f/1.8 high-speed telephoto lens at, the same gymnastics meet indoors, will be a HUGE benefit, to any level of photographer.

Cameras can vary in their capabilities, but as we have moved into the "modern era", even the beginner-priced d-slr models offer ISO performance and picture quality that matches or exceeds the "pro" camera bodies of the early to mid-2000's era.

There is a balance between the camera, and the lens, and the skill and capabilities of the shooter. Again...I think that the lens itself is most-often the determining factor in much modern-era digital shooting. Higher-end lenses make things much easier than kit-level lenses, especially when trying to make good pictures hand-held and under a lot of marginal lighting scenarios.

If you want to expand your photo-making capabilities, the BEST place to spend money is on capable, quality lenses, which can last for decades.

 

[ac12]

Experienced shooters can often work around the limitations of modest gear; beginning and intermediate-level shooters are the people who benefit the most from higher-end equipment. Lenses are especially critical: a slow 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 lens has a slow maximum aperture,and in say, and indoor gymnastics meet situation in dimmer light, such a lens's maximum aperture range will be a major handicap, whereas having the ability to shoot with say, an 85mm f/1.8 high-speed telephoto lens at, the same gymnastics meet indoors, will be a HUGE benefit, to any level of photographer.

I agree with this.
I used to shoot indoor sports with my 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 zoom. But I had to shoot at ISO 12800 at 1/500 sec and f/5.6
I finally gave up and got a 35mm f/1.8, and I was then shooting at ISO 3200 at 1/1000 sec and f/2.
In LOW light, FAST glass wins. Though I did miss the ability to zoom.

 

[mrca]

Derrel is absolutely right about lenses. My "you will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers" lens was first introduced by Nikon in 1994 and had been made unchanged for 24 years. In 5 years a digital body has lost most of it's value. But for landscape, you don't need expensive fast and heavy glass like 2.8 or 1.4. You will be usually shooting in f8 or above, where most lenses shine. How do you know your current gear isn't capable of producing images you love? After a point, expensive gear lets you work at extremes, not just give excellent images. What makes great images is the most important part of the camera as ansel says, the 12 inches behind it.