Landscape photography on a budget

[tmet]

So I am in search of a cheap but effective DSLR set up. I use to do quite a bit of photography ranging from weddings, to travel, music, etc. But with school expesnes I was forced to sell my gear. At the time I had been shooting a Nikon D3s with a 70-200 2.8 and a 24-70.

With that being said I was trying to figure out which camera body and glass combination would do well for just doing landscape/travel (I do a lot of backpacking).

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated!

PS. I still have a solid tripod
PPS. not sure if my style of photography would help at all but my Flickr is Flickr.com/tylermetroff

 

[PaulWog]

"On a budget".

OP lists no budget.

Commence question: Budget?

 

[Dave Colangelo]

+1 for "whats your budget?"

Well if you had a Nikon and liked it I would say go Nikon again. The D3300 (my main camera) is really solid. I like it paired with the 35mm 1.8 lens but the kit lens is great as well. There is lots of great vintage manual nikon glass you can pair with it to. Its small and light all things considered and would not be terrible for backpacking.

If weight/size is a factor I would look at the mirrorless stuff. I don't have one so I cant really comment but there is lots of decent stuff out there. My buddy has the Sony a6000 and really likes it, thats all I can really say on mirrorless.

Your work is really good and it looks like you now what you are doing so I assume you have an idea of what you are looking for.

Regards
Dave

 

[nerwin]

+2 for "Whats your budget?"

So for landscapes I would recommend a camera without a Optical Low Pass Filter or Anti-Aliasing filter (whatever you wanna call it) It will definitely produce sharper image. The Nikon D5300 does not have a AA filter so that would be a great camera for shooting landscapes. But honestly, any camera these days will take a "good" landscape shot.

But no one can give you a definite answer until you tell us what your budget is.

 

[jcdeboever]

D3300 with a 35mm 1.8G and a B+W CPL filter.
Amazon.com : B+W 52mm HTC Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating : Camera & Photo

 

[nerwin]

D3300 with a 35mm 1.8G and a B+W CPL filter.
Amazon.com : B+W 52mm HTC Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating : Camera & Photo

I use to have the 77mm version of that filter..good stuff. But I did not like the effect, not every shot can be 90 degrees to the sun or whatever. I ended up returning it getting my $140 back haha. But now that I'm getting into shooting cars I might get one again.

 

[Ken McLoud]

if the budget is "as cheap as possible" then I'd say:
-used entry level DSLR (i.e.cannon rebel)
-nifty fifty
-yongnuo speed light

an extremely wide rage of photos can be accomplished with that setup, sharp well lit images are very do-able, and the whole setup could probably be had for under $500

 

[snowbear118 49]

Used Nikon, possibly one of the compact bodies if you want to save on weight.
I have a limited number of lenses but 24mm works for me with landscapes, though I tend to make multiple-image panoramas with the 50mm (I have a D40).

 

[weepete]

To the op - TBH your best bet is probably to go for a DSLR in your budget and the kit lens. Unfortunately no one seems to do a good basic landscape package cheaply. Normally I'd reccomend a Nikon for the better dynamic range at low ISOs and the recovery in the raw files is exellent. Canon on the other hand have a good cheap landscape lens: the 10-18mm STM but the entry level bodies don't give as much flexibility with DR and noise.

With regards to focal length I wouldn't choose what amounts to a telephoto lens as a first choice landscape lens. Sure there are occasions when you would want to stray outside the "traditional" wide angle landscape focal length but many photograpers shoot in that range for a reason. On a cropped sensor 22mm will give an equivalent field of view as a 35mm film camera, 35mm on a cropped sensor is more like a 50mm and a 50mm is more like an 70mm! Personally I find even a 24mm too restrictive.

So probably your best bet is an entry level DSLR and the kit 18-55mm lens for a budget option. Unfortunately in photograhic terms quality and price are often opposite sides of the spectum.

 

[PaulWog]

On a budget I would look to the D5200, newest 18-105 or 18-140 kit lens, and an ultrawide lens. That with appropriate filters would do decent landscapes on a budget.

On a 'budget', I would look to the D610, the Tokina 16-28 (or Nikon's 16-35 VR), a 24-85 kit bundled with the D610 (or Sigma's 24-105 f4), and appropriate filters.

 

[4073709 2]

For landscape and macro my phone (Galaxy Note 3) does very nicely....

Did you spot the edit to the pic of Loch Ness?

 

[chuasam]

On a budget, I would do Olympus EM5 MkII with the 14-150 lens.
Light, great images and weather sealed.

 

[JoeW28]

Okay, I've got a bunch of thoughts....

1. There are lots of bodies that will do fine with landscape photos. Unlike your D3s which is superb for sports or photojournalism, with landscapes you can afford to take your time, meter, shoot multiple versions, use a tripod and a long exposure to compensate for a body that doesn't do ISO64000. So frankly, you could go with almost any body (including a D90) and with the right accessories, get good results. Here are some details to consider.

2. You said you've got a good tripod. For good landscape photography you really want a great tripod. Maybe that is what you've got. You need something you don't mind hiking with for 8 miles. Something that is rock solid (even with a stiff wind). Something that will be stable on uneven ground. If your tripod does these things, you're in great shape. If it could hold a D3s and keep it stable, it's probably a good tripod.

3. You will need some filters. A GND for shooting long sunsets/sunrises and a set of (or an adjustable) NDF for when you need a long exposure in bright light (like shooting a waterfall or a beach setting).

4. You need the right lens. Frankly, I think the Nikkor 35mm f1.8DX is a good landscape lens. Wide angle enough for you to shoot buildings in the city or landscape that is close by (while still fitting it all in), very small and lightweight, sturdy and amazingly inexpensive (I think I got mine new for $180).

5. Some kind of wireless trigger or release is invaluable for long exposures.

6. Last thought--you said you like to hike. I'd look seriously at the Nikon D3XXX series and the D5XXX series. First, they're Nikon (and you're used to Nikon). Second, they're good budget cameras. Third (and critical for a hiker), they don't have an autofocus motor in the body (they rely on the lens having an autofocus motor). This means the bodies are smaller and much lighter than, say, a D7000 and especially when compared to a D3s. You may not have minded the size and weight of the D3s. But if you're going to hike a lot, you want a camera that is easy to get to (or even something you could tuck in to a fleece pocket so it's more accessible if an unexpected shot appears).