If you check any of the “best cameras for landscape photography” articles, they always default to the high megapixel bodies, such as the Sony A7R series, Fuji GFX, etc.
It’s made me think a lot about why this is, and the obvious reason is printing. But is there some general rule that landscape photographers are more likely to print than portrait/street/sports photographers?
I think it’s certainly more likely that professional photographers will print because that will be a source of their income. But for the average enthusiast and hobbyist? I would have thought that printing is just as likely or unlikely in any of the photography genres.
For my own purposes, I am interested in a higher MP FF body simply because I want the extra cropping ability. With a 200mm lens, you can make it work like a 300mm or even 400mm focal length and still retain enough resolution for a good size print. And you can even use APS-C lenses to increase your reach and have a smaller, less expensive kit.
I know this behaviour is frowned upon by some people, but I honestly think it’s a great way to maximize flexibility. You can use full-frame primes and standard zooms up to about 80mm because these lenses aren’t too big, and then use APS-C telephoto zooms to increase your reach without needing a gigantic lens, all while keeping a resolution between 16MP and 45MP or whatever your body can handle. This is perfectly adequate for my needs.
Don’t worry, there’s always a constant source of fuel for my GAS. But thankfully I have an in-built regulator called indecision that prevents me from succumbing too often.
Yes, I’ve heard people talk about the A7R ii as being the best bang-for-buck high-MP camera available in terms of image quality. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know, but it would certainly tempt me if I could find a good deal on one.
I’m trying to prioritize lenses though now, and build a system around the exact lenses I want. But that could well be Sony E mount because of those nice Sigma and Tamron lenses that make it more affordable. I was looking at Canon glass yesterday and couldn’t believe how expensive it is to get the nice L glass. Canon seems to either do very cheap low-end lenses or really expensive high-end lenses. Where’s the middle ground?
Thanks for bringing that up, I sometimes wish I had the Z 7’s sensor for that reason. Glass past 300mm is just out of my budget; I had to crop ferociously with my 70-300 to get my hummingbird series.
I also crop for composition. Sometimes, you just can’t stand where you want…
Also, does it help that much? Eg unless you consider the 100 Mp medium format bodies, a 40 vs a 24 Mp sensor will give you about a 30% increase in linear resolution. Nice, but unlikely to be a decisive factor.
IMO landscape photography is the least demanding genre when it comes to equipment. You just need a decent lens (you will stop it down anyway), a tripod, maybe some filters, and you are all set. Literally any ILC camera from the last 10 years would do a good job, and will unlikely to be the limiting factor.
The rest is patience, perseverance, and time. Visiting the same location multiple times, moving around to find great compositions (sometimes it is a few meters, sometimes it is a 4-hour hike ), etc.
I wonder, have you checked any F mount alternatives? I was originally looking at something like Tamron 100-400 Di VC USD, but concluded that it’s too big, heavy and clumsy (dealing with FTZ → increased size and extra steps) for my usual shooting workflow in favor of native Tamron Z 70-300.
I haven’t gotten it yet, but that’s my most likely candidate for tele zoom
I have the Nikkor AF-P 70-300, use it with the original FTZ. That’s what I bought when I procured the Z 6, as they had no long lenses at the time. Now, for train shooting, I mount it on the old D7000 for reaching.
Actually, if I were buying now, I’d probably be awaiting to see if they iterate the Z 7. I’d also probably get the the 24-120/4 for everyday use, and the 105 macro for, well, macro. And, crop for reach.
Yep, I hear you. Same with me, and I have a 70-300mm APS-C lens, so I’m already getting 450mm at the long end in FF terms. But that’s still not enough for small birds!
And it was the Z7 ii I was looking at the other day in my local store. I think the 45MP sensor would be my sweet spot. It’s still 20MP with a 1.5 APS-C crop.
I hope they do make another version of the Z7 because I like it when brands make a stills-oriented camera and not just another generic hybrid. Although I’m unlikely to buy it because of the price. I’m shopping in the older camera segment.
Yep, it’s a good option, although I’d argue 600mm is just barely enough for small birds. I think if I were to take birding more seriously, I’d aim for at least 800mm equivalent.
But M43 definitely has the advantage for size vs reach. Not much room for cropping though.
I think sharpness is prized more in landscape (generally speaking) than in other genres, especially portrait and street, where sharpness doesn’t really seem to be important at all. Also details, which is guess is part of sharpness.
I think I’d miss reach with 300mm (in fact, I have a 70-300 on another DX camera), which is why I’m gunning for the Tamron 150-500 on my Z50II. VC is a must (as the camera doesn’t have it), and I think the extra reach is much needed.
Resolution and sharpness are two different things though. Sharpness is as often micro-contrast as resolution and if you don’t have the micro-contrast, more pixels won’t help.
I was poking around some Nikon forums and reading what users think about a possible Z7 III. It seems many users think that it’s a dead line, and that the Z8 essentially replaced the Z7. Furthermore, these users don’t think there’s room between the Z6 and Z8 for another camera without cannibalizing sales of the other lines. Ultimately, they ask who a Z7 III would be for.
It surprised me to see those comments because I feel I’m exactly the kind of user who would want the Z7 line. If I were in the market to buy right now, the Z5 would be everything I need, except I would prefer a 45MP sensor for the extra detail and cropping ability.
The Z6 prioritizes speed at the expense of resolution and DR, and the Z8 is a massive beast, not to mention the increased price, which instantly rules it out for many hobbyists like me.
So, I certainly see merit in Nikon having a Z7 or Z5R/Z6R, whichever. At the moment, Sony seems to have the more robust offering for this use case with its A7R and A7CR lines, even the A7 at 33MP.
If a Z7III is released it would almost certainly have the Expeed 7 processor and therefore autofocus capabilities similar to the Z8 and Z6III. I could see that definitely cannibilizing Z8 sales.
Right now the Z7II is an extremely attractive price and an excellent landscape camera that can also work well with wildlife - just not BIF. If you really have the hots for a 45 MP full frame camera you could do a lot worse.
Not DR, original Z 6 has still-class-leading DR. Z 6II apparently has the same sensor. Z 6III sacrificed some DR, IIRC for the stacked sensor. Take a look at Bill Claff’s PDR tool; it beats most of the rest of the line.
One thing I don’t understand, how is DR calculated? For example, in the Z line, the same cameras in DX mode have around one stop less DR compared to the full sensor output. Is this equal to taking a photo using the full sensor and cropping the DX part? Why would using half, or so, of the sensor result in less DR?
As I understand DR is the range of data that can be gathered on any individual pixel, between clipping and the noise floor, is this right?
Yes, definitely, but I’m not shopping at the moment. I’m just discussing the Z line and future models. If I were buying now, the Z7II would be very enticing.
An Expeed 7 Z7III might cannibalize some Z8 sales, but the Z8 would still be more of a pro, all-rounder model. The Z7 doesn’t need to be a stacked sensor, and could be a lot more compact. The A7R line sits alongside the A1 and A9 lines. So, are you also thinking the Z7II won’t be replaced?
Sorry for not being clear, I was referring to the Z6 line in its current state (Z6III) and future models. It now prioritizes speed and has taken a DR hit. It’s about 3/4 stop lower than its predecessors and competing models. I’m not saying that its DR is bad, and future models will probably have improved DR, but it seems to be positioning itself as the hybrid model to compete with the Sony A7 series, not the A7R.
This is all just discussion. I’m not looking for shopping advice and certainly not criticizing Nikon. Just idle chit chat. Cheers!
Don’t worry, there’s always a constant source of fuel for my GAS. But thankfully I have an in-built regulator called indecision that prevents me from succumbing too often.
), etc.