Landscape Photogs--Are you Full Frame or Crop?

Throwing this one out to the landscape photographers out there. I am currently using the 50D. When I got it in 2008, I was primarily still shooting 4x5 film and after having given up on 35mm film wanted to try out this digital thing as my backup camera(I know, I was late to the party).

Well as film prices and processing kept going up and with some decent digital capture I now mainly use the 50D and save the 4x5 for big trips out west to National Parks.

50D has been a decent camera but I know many landscape photographers have been won over by the 5D2 or other full frame models.

As I watch the news and rumors and see D800 and now a potential 5D3 as releases this spring wondering if it is time to go full frame myself. My typical shot is going to be a wide angle scene on a tripod at ISO 100, MLU, manual focus with live view, cable release,etc. So when I see video, 91 AF points, and 9 fps, I am not all that interested. However the idea of getting better resolution does intrigue me.

At least for me the 50D has been ok but it seems to have been generally panned (apart from folks on this forum) on the web. Wondering what kind of improvement I can see?

Since my main lens is the Sigma 10-20, I know I'll have to look at a new wide zoom. I am covered on the longer end with my 70-200.

As I ponder the possible large investment in new FF gear I am wondering how many of you landscape folks are still using crop sensor cameras? And if you are are you thinking of going FF with the new releases?

And if rumors are right the 5D2 drops to $2000, how many would be tempted by that?

Anyway, thanks for any thoughts and comments.

Im a newb, but I use crop. A t3i to be specific.

I do like shooting landscapes, but I don't only shoot landscapes.
I'm on crop at the moment, but eyeing the 5DIII rumours. TBH, the specs are perfect for me; ~22MP, good AF.
The 5D2 has already popped up several times at ~$2000, and I am not at all tempted to go for it precisely because of the AF. When I upgrade, I expect much better AF performance than my current camera, and the 5DII does not deliver, so I will not be buying it. The 5DIII though, if it lives up to its rumoured specs, I will be sorely tempted by, and will probably get as long as the price drops below $3500.

Quick comment, here. It was when I saw the quality of images from the 5D2 with good glass that I sold my 4x5 ! I like stitching with shift lenses, or pano gear if the TS lenses don't meet the need (or are in the car!) if I want to make a big print of an image that I would have used the 4x5 for. No matter what the pixel quality, the crop images are enlarged 1.6x more than FF for a given print size. That can hurt sometimes.(My printer only goes to 24" wide, so my 4x5s were 24x30 and 5D2 stitches get pretty damn close!)

AJSJones wrote in post #13984498
Quick comment, here. It was when I saw the quality of images from the 5D2 with good glass that I sold my 4x5 ! I like stitching with shift lenses, or pano gear if the TS lenses don't meet the need (or are in the car!) if I want to make a big print of an image that I would have used the 4x5 for. No matter what the pixel quality, the crop images are enlarged 1.6x more than FF for a given print size. That can hurt sometimes.(My printer only goes to 24" wide, so my 4x5s were 24x30 and 5D2 stitches get pretty damn close!)

I have seen many folks talk of stitching but with the 50D stitching is much more miss than hit. For some reason they never work right for me. I have done some great stitching with my point and shoot and with a Rebel XTi but even in M mode with WB, focus, and exposure all locked down, no polarizer, typically use a mid range like 35-50mm, overlapping 25-33% or so I always get bad skies that were obviously stitched.

I would hope the 5D series models are better

Sirrith wrote in post #13984493
I do like shooting landscapes, but I don't only shoot landscapes.
I'm on crop at the moment, but eyeing the 5DIII rumours. TBH, the specs are perfect for me; ~22MP, good AF.
The 5D2 has already popped up several times at ~$2000, and I am not at all tempted to go for it precisely because of the AF. When I upgrade, I expect much better AF performance than my current camera, and the 5DII does not deliver, so I will not be buying it. The 5DIII though, if it lives up to its rumoured specs, I will be sorely tempted by, and will probably get as long as the price drops below $3500.

I am hoping that Nikon's $3000 price point has Canon bring 5D3 in under that.

If 5D2 goes under $2000 I am almost tempted there except that even for $2000 I want newer technology than 2008, if that makes sense.

I think you will find the 5D the closest you will come with a digital to emulating the film experience. Obviously the form factor is different from the 4x5, but when I went from the 40D to the 5D I felt like I had made the right decision, sort of like coming back home.

thehikerphotographer wrote in post #13984612
I have seen many folks talk of stitching but with the 50D stitching is much more miss than hit. For some reason they never work right for me. I have done some great stitching with my point and shoot and with a Rebel XTi but even in M mode with WB, focus, and exposure all locked down, no polarizer, typically use a mid range like 35-50mm, overlapping 25-33% or so I always get bad skies that were obviously stitched.

I would hope the 5D series models are better

I don't think it's different cameras that stitch better or worse, it's the software! What have you used for shooting and processing - some software deals very well even with handheld pano sets. A good pano rig doesn't have to be too complex, unless you're going for gigapixels

I like FF, because landscapes means wide for me. And not only because of convinience of 17-40 on 5D, but because 70-200 is wide on FF also for landscapes.
With 17-40 and 70-200 I'm able to cover most of my needs with 5D, while on my 500D they are too tide.

well the cost of entry on a full frame and a crop camera are not the same, so the number of people shooting each also won't be the same.

So the question I itself, I don't think is going to lead to a meaningful answer.

I will throw my answer into the thread however. I like to shot landscapes, and I shoot a Full Frame.

I went from a t1i to a 5D and then 5D2. The one thing I love about FF over the crop I had is definitely the headroom in RAW for processing. I go back through my old library in Lightroom and I am shocked at how little usable dynamic range there was on my crop compared to what I'm used to working with now. Just my 0.02.

shooting full frme will take better advantage of some wide angle glass.

Full frame for me, specifically 5D MkII.

I moved from a 50D to a 5D2 and have not looked back. I was going to keep the 50D as a backup and for birds, but after it just sat in the cupboard unused I sold it. If landscape is your primary you will love a full frame. You can get good deals on the 5D2 paired with the 24-105, which is a good general purpose lens on a full frame. I have a 17-40 which I brought for wide angle landscape shots, but actually use my 24-105 and 70-200 more.

thehikerphotographer wrote in post #13984432
And if rumors are right the 5D2 drops to $2000, how many would be tempted by that?

I'm crop for landscapes - I wouldn't be tempted until full frame model gets to $1,000