BEST LOW END DSLR FOR LANDSCAPES

Hello,
I shoot with a pair of EOS3'S and Ilford XP2 super for B&W images. Most of my images are landscapes or seascapes at f11-f22 with most shots around f16 for large DOF. I use long telephoto zooms for my landscapes which I call intimate landscapes as opposed to the grand landscapes that many people shoot.
Given this information, which of the low end dslr cameras would you suggest for my first foray into digital photography? I have read the 5d is one of the best for landscape photography but the camera is too pricey for my first digital camera. Initially I was looking at a G series camera but have decided that I may well have to go to a dslr to accomplish what I want to do. Any suggestions are most welcome as my knowledge about digital cameras is woefully inadequate. Thank you.

Tim

Tim

I wouldn't call a 5D low end. The 1000D and 500D fit that description, but even those will probably suit your needs, as they are good camera's with good image quality. If you want something that looks and feels a little more professional, get a 50D.

rsscp1 wrote in post #8546186
I wouldn't call a 5D low end. The 1000D and 500D fit that description, but even those will probably suit your needs, as they are good camera's with good image quality. If you want something that looks and feels a little more professional, get a 50D.

40D is also great and just as good as 50D but cheaper =)
btw... 5D will be the best in this case for landscapes since wideangle lens on a FF will give you the TRUE* wideangle.

Does it have to be a Canon? If you like telephoto shots Olympus' system is freaking sweet...

If it must be a Canon, the 1000D will be perfectly capable. If it were me though, I would buy used and get a 20D/30D/40D.

for day time landscape a G11 should be sufficient. Just gaet a tripod and shoot with the 2 second delay timer. There is also no need for an aperture smaller that F8 (Maybe F11). After 100feet...the DOF is infinite. I try to stay F4-f5.8 on my xxD bodies. On FF (1Ds MkII) at F8 60ft is infinte.

You may do just fine with a G series. They have a considerable depth of field advantage and at base ISO can capture quite a lot of detail. If your prints are smaller than about 11x14 typically, you may not ever notice the difference.

If you do want an SLR, well for tripod shots of landscapes at small apertures, I am not sure there is much difference what you get. A rebel XS could do very nicely for you, or a 40D would be a nice step up from there. An EOS 3 is a pretty high end camera, so you may be dissapointed in anything less than a 40D or 50D after using your 3.

Well, you said low end, so I'd say T1i at this point. Can capture a ton of detail. Or a "pre-enjoyed" xsi or 40d? All three of those would be fantastic choices!

Thank you for your suggestions. I didn't mean the 5D was low end just that it is suggested as a good landscape camera. The thought of buying used had crossed my mind as a means of getting a little better camera for little significant increase in price. One of my 3's was bought new and the 2nd was used but in excellent shape.
My problem with digital is my knowledge is woefully lacking and consequently I am not sure which camera would be the best for my purposes. My images are not usually printed larger than 11x14 although it would be nice to have that option if I so chose. My tripod is a heavy duty one with a large pan/tilt head to accommodate my 3's and long lenses, however, I was hoping to get away with out one if I could. The film I use is a chromogenic film which means I can adjust the ISO on a shot by shot basis without worrying about problems in processing.
Many of the images I take are at f16 and a slow shutter speed. Would one of the older D1 series bought used be capable of good landscape images or would the noise from their sensors preclude these kind of images? I have read some of them were essentially made for sports or photojournalism. Any suggestions along these lines would be most appreciated as well. Thank you again for your patience and help.

Tim

Larger sensor = better. Especially since these are landscapes, where people actually might be looking at your 11x14 prints from 2 inches away... I think 1Ds' still sell for around $1000, as do the original 5D's.

If you're sure you don't wanna spend $1000 on a camera, then the others are more or less equal in terms of image quality. Canon quit watering down the entry-level sensors since the 450D/XSi, so it performs pretty much the same as the 40D, which is pretty much the same as the 50D/500D. The differences are primarily ergonomics and Jpeg processing features, and the 50D/500D gained high-res LCDs, if that matters to you.

Thank you Toxic, I assume the cameras mentioned can take images in the raw format to reduce the lose experienced in JPEG or similar formats? It's important to me to get the highest quality image I can with the gear I am using. My concern is that if I don't like the digital images I haven't invested too much money in it to turn my back on it. I know I like film but the convenience of digital is really appealing to me. Especially not having to wait for the film to be processed etc. Thank you.


Tim

raven4ns wrote in post #8546088
Hello,
I shoot with a pair of EOS3'S and Ilford XP2 super for B&W images. Most of my images are landscapes or seascapes at f11-f22 with most shots around f16 for large DOF. I use long telephoto zooms for my landscapes which I call intimate landscapes as opposed to the grand landscapes that many people shoot.
Given this information, which of the low end dslr cameras would you suggest for my first foray into digital photography? I have read the 5d is one of the best for landscape photography but the camera is too pricey for my first digital camera. Initially I was looking at a G series camera but have decided that I may well have to go to a dslr to accomplish what I want to do. Any suggestions are most welcome as my knowledge about digital cameras is woefully inadequate. Thank you.

Tim

Considering you're comfortable with your existing lenses that you shoot on your EOS-3 (I have one too), and you have a set style that sounds like it is reliant on some specific focal range on your zooms, you have 2 choices.

A) get a 5D or 5DMk2 (or 1Ds for that matter) and use the same lenses at the same focal lengths to achieve the same framings.

-or-

B) get a 1.6x crop body and use them a wider focal range to offset the 1.6x crop.

But in either case, some consideration has to be taken for what lenses you are using, and bare in mind that with 1.6x you won't want to use the lenses past f/16 as diffractions sets in earlier with a 1.6x crop as opposed to film or 1.0x (Full-Frame) Digital.

Another thing that might be of use to you. If you like the look of your ilford XP2, there's a great set of filters from Alien Skin called "EXPOSURE" and the updated "EXPOSURE 2" which will color process your images to match the grain and color-width of various film stocks. I'm a big fan of Velvia 50 and 100 with my film shooting and like to use the Velvia 50 process in Exposure for this reason.

raven4ns wrote in post #8547058
Thank you Toxic, I assume the cameras mentioned can take images in the raw format to reduce the lose experienced in JPEG or similar formats? It's important to me to get the highest quality image I can with the gear I am using.

Yes, from a RAW standpoint, all of those cameras are more or less identical.

However, you might want to test out a 500D vs 50D or 450D vs 40D, just to see if you can tell the difference, and if that difference (if any) is significant in your opinion. If you do that, remember to view the images at the same size to account for the differences in megapixels.

Well, you won't lose much if you buy used, and you can rent a camera for not too much if you have a local shop.

In making the transition from Nikon film SLRs to digital photography, my first cameras were PnS cams...a simple to use Toshiba 2mpxl and the very complex 5mpxl Canon A95 that I never bothered to take off Auto....
Then I got a 3.3mpxl Canon D30 DSLR and it was soooooo easy to use...accessing the controls was as easy to use as the A95 was complicated...
I have since used the 10D, 30D and 40D as well as the Rebel XT and only after using the xxD bodies did I find accessing the XT easy....
Ergonomics is always a personal preference, but in either case (Rebel/xxD) the Canons work well for me...
....and in size as well...I never used motor drives on my Nikons so size matters to me...and the current crop of better Nikons, the Dxxx series, are too big...and complicated, again...the Dxx series of Nikons are like the Rebels, but a bit larger, and if I had gotten into Dslr photography with the Nikon D40 instead of the D30, I might be on THAT forum, rather than here...but I'm here and happy to be here...

The world is full of cameras that can create awesome images at ISO 100... if you hang good glass on them. And for landscapes you certainly don't need the superior AF systems or super-fast frame rates of the high end models.

The advantage of larger format cameras is real (larger than the 1.5x or 1.6x crop factor of entry-level DSLRs). If you can find a used 5D that you can afford, go for it. If not, get the current entry-level model that will fit your lenses.

Don't get sucked into the megapixel wars. The 12 megapixel 5D will make better pictures than a lot of cameras with more MP. The size of the sensor is more important than the number of pixels on it.