This is NOT a Canon vs. Nikon thread.

[Polyphony]

I know, this is going to turn into a Nikon vs. Canon thread but I could not find this answer anywhere else.

The Canon 5d Mk II and the 1Ds Mk III are widely regarded as the best landscape bodies on the market.

Nikon's lineup of cameras are widely regarded as having the best noise handling capabilities.

Since the image quality of top of the line Canon's is not going to be THAT much different from the image quality of top of the line Nikon's (and vice versa), why not opt for the camera with better noise handling capabilities?

Ok, the 5d mk II blows the D700 out of the water in terms of resolution, but that doesn't exactly matter unless you're cropping the hell out of your photos or making gallery-sized prints.

So what's the difference? Why is the 5d mk ii regarded as one of the best landscape bodies around if the D700 will produce basically the same image while handling noise much better?

What am I missing? Am I too concerned with noise? (I hate noise. Any amount of noise pisses me off and I strive to get rid of all of it.)

Someone please explain why the 5d mk ii and the 1ds mk iii are the best landscape bodies around.

I know it's meaningless at this point but my intentions are NOT to create a Nikon vs. Canon thread. I just want to know WHY a certain standard is attached to two specific camera bodies.

 

[pbelarge]

"This is NOT a Canon vs. Nikon thread"

Have you spent any time on this forum?:mrgreen:


I would not get too crazy about what you read. Study what you may about each camera, and then buy the one that strikes your fancy. Either Nikon or Canon will be a good choice.

*Today, I just purchased a 5DMII*

 

[Polyphony]

"This is NOT a Canon vs. Nikon thread"

Have you spent any time on this forum?:mrgreen:

I figured it would get people to look . But seriously, my intentions are not to start a debate thread. I just want to make it clear.

I would not get too crazy about what you read. Study what you may about each camera, and then buy the one that strikes your fancy. Either Nikon or Canon will be a good choice.

*Today I just purchase a 5DMII*

I am not looking to buy a body. I won't be for a loooooong time. I was just curious.

By the way, congrats on the purchase. May the photons be with you.

 

[Patrice]

Nikon's equivalent to the 1ds mk iii is the 3dx - not the d700. From my understanding of the various discussions it seems high resolution is preferred for landscape and studio whereas high iso and body speed is preferred for sports and journalism.

 

[Polyphony]

Nikon's equivalent to the 1ds mk iii is the 3dx - not the d700. From my understanding of the various discussions it seems high resolution is preferred for landscape and studio whereas high iso and body speed is preferred for sports and journalism.

I used the D700 as a comparison to the 5d mk ii.

So does that mean we're assuming 12MP (or whatever the D700 is) is not enough for landscape?

Also, I see why speed is important for sports and journalism but I guess the question is why ISN'T the D700 "one of the best" for landscape? (Assuming we aren't worried about resolution)

 

[ann]

i believe the d700 and the d3x are using the same noise "math".

I have the d700 and it is shocking how it handles noise.

Took a photo in a very dark tango bar in BA at 6400iso at 1/10sec and there is no noise. couldn't believe my eyes

 

[pbelarge]

So does that mean we're assuming 12MP (or whatever the D700 is) is not enough for landscape?

Canon's 5D is 10MP, and it is a good landscape camera.

There is more to landscape photography then the MP.

 

[Polyphony]

i believe the d700 and the d3x are using the same noise "math".

I have the d700 and it is shocking how it handles noise.

Took a photo in a very dark tango bar in BA at 6400iso at 1/10sec and there is no noise. couldn't believe my eyes

If people are saying the 5d mark ii is better because it has better resolution, why doesn't Nikon up the resolution of its sensor so that IT can be the "best landscape body on the market"?

Canon's 5D is 10MP, and it is a good landscape camera.

There is more to landscape photography then the MP.

You seem to be missing my point. I never once said that MP's are important or necessary. In fact, I said the opposite!

 

[Josh220]

It's a trade-off, since Nikon makes some of the best lenses ever created. For example, there is no manufacturer, Canon or otherwise, that can come anywhere close to Nikon's 14-24.

Pick your poison. Do you want the best landscape body, or the best landscape lens?

There are trade-offs such as this between the two companies in all aspects.

Edit after seeing Derrel's post: I didn't think Canon had the best body, but I didn't want to disagree and start a Canon vs Nikon fight.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon's D3x is considered the "top landscape body on the market"...it has higher resolution than the Canons and,arguably, better lenses too...of course, among "serious" landscape shooters, 35mm-style bodies are not considered the Holy Grail...that would go to medium format digital back systems. Of course, the "serious" landscape shooters are very few in number, and are vastly outnumbered by enthusiastic, casual, and occasional landscape shooters...

As to the question you ask, "Why is the 5d mk ii regarded as one of the best landscape bodies around if the D700 will produce basically the same image while handling noise much better?"---pretty simply, megapixel superiority on the 5D-II,and a very affordable price. The 5D Mark II has higher resolving power than a 12-MP, full-frame Nikon."

As to your last questions, "Someone please explain why the 5d mk ii and the 1ds mk iii are the best landscape bodies around.I know it's meaningless at this point but my intentions are NOT to create a Nikon vs. Canon thread. I just want to know WHY a certain standard is attached to two specific camera bodies."

***Well, again, you've somehow missed the Nikon D3x, which has THE widest dynamic range of ANY of the 35mm style d-slr bodies, AND the highest resolution capabilities as well, and again, the Nikkor 14-24mm AF-S G lens is so,so good that it is often used by CANON landscape shooters who want a landscape-wide zoom that can actually make use of the resolution the 1Ds and 5D-II cameras have...Canon''s own 15-35-L II lens is simply not good enough to leverage those two High-MP count sensors...

Your original question seems to be made with you being unaware that Nikon already has "the best landscape body on the market"...but it costs a princely sum of money,and it demands very good lenses in order to "leverage" that sensor.

And, if omitting the D3x was not enough, for people who want high-res and a superior viewfinder, just for landsacapes, the Sony A900 and A850 bodies make a lot of sense, as long as they are not system-committed, or are willing to buy a body and 2 or 3 good lenses.

Overall, price is a huge factor for the enthusiastic and the casual and occasional landscape shooters...those people are NOT buying the Nikon 14-24 nor are they buying the Zeiss ZE or ZF lenses for their high-MP bodies...they are using regular Canon lenses,and doing okay. The higher-end, serious, "hardcore" landscape shooters are pretty aware that lens quality and MTF performance of the lens is a huge,huge factor/equalizer...

Overlooking the Sony A900 and A850 cameras is a mistake for landscape shooting, I think; both SOny bodies have higher resolution than the two Canons, AND Sony has a few very good lenses available in the higher-end Zeiss series of Sony-mount lenses. The Sony A900 and A850 bodies offer the highest resolution in the 35mm style class, on par with the Nikon D3x, but they both have poorer noise handling than the Nikon D3x body.

The 5D II's weakest area is its weak AF module and poor light metering,compared to other more-advanced bodies. It's a very strong sensor in a very low-end body. BUT it's small,light,and affordable! And high-MP.

 

[Polyphony]

Thanks for the detailed response. You're right in that I really didn't/don't know about the D3x. I made the thread based solely on what I've been seeing recently.

 

[Taylor510ce]

Next time you read any magazine that lists photography information, like any photography magazine that runs stories on professional wildlife photographers, or even Arizona Highways magazine ( thats a very big magazine in terms of photography) it is quite clear that the choice among professionals is the 5D markii. Its gotta be the most used camera on the market from what I have seen. Now that doesn't mean its the BEST camera, but for some reason, its widely used. Also, in terms of noise, the 5D handles noise exceptionally. Maybe the lab numbers aren't as high as other cameras, but at a certain point, in typical applications, those lab numbers become pointless. Also, there are plenty of companies that make lenses as good as Nikon. Leica, Zeiss etc. With that said, this ISN'T a Canon vs Nikon thread, because there are VERY capable cameras made by both companies. You have trades offs like others said, that make them work BETTER in certain applications but that doesn't mean they aren't great cameras. I mean like I said, some people shoot safari shots with a 5D, not a 1Ds. I mean you would think faster frame rate would work better on animals, but yet they use the 5D. They in turn get a higher resolution and in the daylight, you can get the fastest shooting speeds out of the 5D. So why pay over twice the price for a 1Ds?

You gotta remember one big caveat.....Professionals ( unlike fanboys ) are practical. They need to earn a living. They are not out to blow more money than they need. Think of your dayjob. Lets say you are a carpenter. Other than comfort factor, are you going to spend more money on a pair of work boots or work pants than you have to?? Are you going to get the ones that are 100% waterproof if you work in a desert?

 

[Neil S.]

I am a big Canon fan as many of you know. I love their lenses, and have a personal attachment to their cameras.

I can honestly say that the Nikon D3x is a better camera than anything Canon currently makes. This is especially true for landscapes.

This can't really be debated imo. It has more megapixels, beter metering, lower noise at high Iso, etc.

This thread looks a lot like a Canon vs. Nikon thread, for not being a Canon vs. Nikon thread...

 

[Taylor510ce]

I am a big Canon fan as many of you know. I love their lenses, and have a personal attachment to their cameras.

I can honestly say that the Nikon D3x is a better camera than anything Canon currently makes. This is especially true for landscapes.

This can't really be debated imo. It has more megapixels, beter metering, lower noise at high Iso, etc.

This thread looks a lot like a Canon vs. Nikon thread, for not being a Canon vs. Nikon thread...

But that doesn't mean that is the most widely used. Its nearly 3 times the cost of a 5D that is more than capable of taking professional grade photos ( besides speed, if you need to shoot low light sports ) so there is a point where better becomes irrelivant. The point I am trying to make ( regardless of brand ) is that cameras become popular due to how much they are used and touted by professionals. Plain and simple, thats how the consumer guages a cameras worth. So to answer the OPs question, I think the caveat missing is the price vs quality vs practical needs of a professional argument. There is always going to be something faster or higher res, or whatever, but what do YOUUUUU need to do the job the cheapest and most efficient way possible. I think THAT answers the question as to why people tout those cameras as being great cameras. I think they are the cheapest price point that really encompasses most of what a professional needs.

 

[pbelarge]

It has more megapixels, beter metering, lower noise at high Iso, etc.

This thread looks a lot like a Canon vs. Nikon thread, for not being a Canon vs. Nikon thread...

If it smells like a duck, looks like a duck, and waddles like a duck....it must be a goose.