Landscape photography- D800 or 5D MKIII?

AJSJones wrote in post #14524490
Your images look great - at web size and even reasonable print sizes, more MP may not add much. The point about the extra resolution of the 36 MP is not particularly about quality but about print size at a specified quality. More MP would allow you to make bigger prints of the same images - for many landscapers that's an importnat advantage.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14524632
I print up to 8 feet wide and often my smallest prints are 20x30inch. I print way larger than "many landscapers"

Edit: F- it.

Why do any of us even care what anyone else uses? I should have exited this thread about landscapes when it was explicit that apparently sensors matter more than lenses or filters. In the end, just do whatever makes you happy, I guess.

Your snappy (if that's what "F- it!" means?) response sounds like you may have taken offense at what I had said about the advantage some other photographers see with more MP? I made zero linkage between sensor/technical quality and image quality, let alone which "matters more" - and the only comment about your work was positive. So your comment makes absolutely no sense to me

Given a choice between two 20x30" prints of the same image of a detailed landscape - one printed from a high MP camera and the other *identical* image (same lens, same filters, same time etc.....) printed from 1/4 of the MP (that consequently looks soft, especially up close), it's clear what "many landscapers" , indeed many viewers would prefer (with absolutely no issue related to the other aspects of the image itself). Of course, a highly detailed 20x30 print from a high MP sensor of a boring subject when compared to a great image taken with fewer MP is a completely different comparison. Conversely, I recall seeing a (~) 30"x45" print of one of Galen Rowell's greatest 35mm images in Bishop - looked great until about 3 feet away, closer than that not so much - same image different distances

Sirrith wrote in post #14524144
Yes, but we're discussing bodies, not lenses. Lenses are more personal; for me nikon's 14-24 is far more attractive than canon's TS-E's.

Can't discuss bodies without lenses as well. You need both to take a photo.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14524354
The reason I am saying lenses are not relevant for this discussion is because you can put stunning zeiss 21 on both cameras.

You can, but you can only put the stunning 24 and 17 tse's on one of those cameras. Many landscape photographers like these lenses for the unique perspectives they can achieve. They are what is stopping me from moving to Nikon.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14524397
I am using Canon today and never wanted to have this lens. What does it change? Last I checked Canon did not have 14-24.

No, but I can use the 14-24 on my Canon camera.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #14524455
What's your point about the 14-24? If it is a lens that you really want or need, then it should weigh heavily in your decision. In other words: lenses matter and should be part of the discussion.

Bingo. It keeps getting brought up so it must be important. Cameras without lenses are pretty boring.

Hogloff wrote in post #14526237
You can, but you can only put the stunning 24 and 17 tse's on one of those cameras. Many landscape photographers like these lenses for the unique perspectives they can achieve. They are what is stopping me from moving to Nikon.

But why insist to talk lenses when I am trying to learn about these 2 cameras?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14527242
But why insist to talk lenses when I am trying to learn about these 2 cameras?

What he is saying is that the Nikon body although probably superior, doesn't offer the lenses to make it a complete system. The Canon system is probably superior as a unit. You have decide whether you want a superior body without what he considers the necessary lenses or superior lenses with a lesser body, that in his mind makes for a superior landscape system. Which one put together is best for you?

The Nikon body offers superior S/N ratio, Dynamic Range, and Resolution. Nikon also has the best flash system, although this has little bearing on most landscapes. The Canon body botches the shadows with noise and patterns, offers less resolution and therefore less detail, shows about the same dynamic range as it's predecessor(no improvement), and shows significant moire patterns. The Canon also offers a superior AF system, Speed, and Superior Lenses.

So IMO the Nikon offers a superior Landscape body, but that isn't the end of the story.

I am thinking that the Nikon D800E with a Zeiss 21mm will just be a match in heaven for Landscape photography.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14524035
Fellow photographers,
This is a question to those who are fully and solely into the landscape photography...what is the best camera that is considered a breakthrough in landscapes? Will it be a 5D MIII or D800?
I was thinking about upgrading to MKIII, but the more I think and read, I realize that I will see zero diffrence in IQ over 5D MKII. It is superb that there is the new AF, but based on your experience, is there anything in 5D MKIII, which impacts ladscapes?

D800 looks like a perfect camera for landscape and it has a very big advantage over MKIII in DR and details.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Which way did you go?

Looking at your gear at the moment, I would probably go for the Nikon package of the Nikon D800e with the 12-24 and use it purely for landscapes. If you intend keeping your Canon 5D mk11, then use this camera for your general photography as per your lenses already owned.

In my situation I had a Canon 5D original and decided to hold buying the MK11 by purchasing a stop gap 7D with its excellent focussing this stopped me purchasing the Mk11 (focussing). Now I have the Canon Mk 111 for landscapes, but I could have very easily have gone for the Nikon D800e with the wide angle lens. The amount of canon gear I had was only the real reason for staying with Canon.

There is not a large amount of difference between the Nikon D800 and the Canon 5D mk11. But you might see some justified difference between the Nikon D800e and your current Canon 5D mk11.

If I still shot landscapes I would buy a D800 and 14-24 in a heartbeat. At ISO 100-400 the DR is beyond brilliant. The shadow details you can claw back are amazing.... try that on a Canon, any Canon and you got major noise issues.

I think these videos are great at explaining the practical difference between the cameras in the field.


http://www.youtube.com …To7UxbJX8&featu​re=related

http://www.youtube.com …M&feature=chann​el&list=UL

http://www.youtube.com …k&feature=chann​el&list=UL

Thanks for videos Did I get it right, they say D800 wins?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14528925
Thanks for videos Did I get it right, they say D800 wins?

I think it's 2 to 1 canon

no it was a draw 1 to canon and 1 to the d800 and a draw for the last one

light_pilgrim wrote in post #14528925
Thanks for videos Did I get it right, they say D800 wins?

- The 1st video: Nikon won, but the review was done by 2 Nikon guys.
- 2nd video: Canon won, reviewers: 1 Nikon guy, 1 Canon guy.
- 3rd video: Canon won by a little, reviewers: 1 Canon, 2 Nikon guys.

Now, the OP seemed to wish that D800 won all 3, maybe it is a sign that he really wants to change to Nikon.
From what I see the OP's Canon gear list, not that long, and his lust for Nikon gear, I think he should buy the D800.