# Why I think the 5D mkIII suits landscape photographers



## YellowJersey (Mar 7, 2012)

There's been a lot of talk about how the 5D mkIII doesn't benefit landscape photographers. I searched for an appropriate thread to post this, but none of them seemed right. So here I am starting my first thread. (be gentle) 

Personally, I think the 5D mkIII specs suit the needs of landscape photographers. Or, at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape/nature photographer. 

My reasoning is thus: I'm often shooting in the morning or evening (golden hour) in low light at an f-stop between f/8 and f/11 and quite often I'll be using various filters from polarizers to graduated ND filters. This means that in order to get decent shutter speed I generally have to crank the ISO up, but I want as clean an image as possible. So the 5D mkIII's improvement on the mkII's ISO will be a great help. 

If the 5D mkIII was a high MP camera like many people wish, then I think the low light capabilities would be reduced and my early morning/late evening shots would suffer for it. I think 22MP is high resolution enough but without getting too high so as to hurt low light ISO. 

I currently shoot a 5D classic and, quite frankly, it's 12MP sensor gives me more than enough resolution to work with, even if I'm making larger prints. The 22MP is going to be far more than I even know what to do with.

So I think what we've been given is a great balance. 

So at the very least, it suits my needs as a landscape and nature photographer. Others may differ, but spec wise it seems like the right camera for me.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

A nice little feature on the 5DIII is the electronic level on the screen (same as the 7D).

A nice to have for tripod work


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> A nice little feature on the 5DIII is the electronic level on the screen (same as the 7D).
> 
> A nice to have for tripod work



I so need that i always get the horrizon off unless i pop my little green bubble level on top


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > A nice little feature on the 5DIII is the electronic level on the screen (same as the 7D).
> ...



I was thinking of sunset/sunrise when it is difficult to see the little bubble


----------



## friedmud (Mar 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> A nice little feature on the 5DIII is the electronic level on the screen (same as the 7D).
> 
> A nice to have for tripod work



The electronic level on my 7D is one of my favorite features for lanscapes with that camera.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...


i'll just be happy not having to unpack 50 million things out of my camera bag so i can dig the little bubble out of the bottom where it migrated to and got hidden


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Wow - that is some bag


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1 Exactly


----------



## sanj (Mar 7, 2012)

I humbly disagree. 
Any serious landscape photographer will use a solid tripod and low low ISO.
Please!


----------



## moreorless (Mar 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



He does hilight that theres alot of differences within the "landscape" market, I'd guess most amatures take some landscapes but people willing to use a tripod(espeically on holiday) and deal with exact appature/focus to get the most out of 36 MP are likely in the minority.


----------



## stefsan (Mar 7, 2012)

I completely agree with the OP that the 5D III specs sound great for landscape and nature photography. This camera (with some decent glass attached to it) could certainly improve my landscape capabilities. I often shoot while hiking, mountaineering or skiing and therefore seldom carry a tripod with me. Clean higher ISO output would help me getting shots in some situations where my 7D simply does not deliver satisfying image quality. 
I also like the fact that they put in better weather sealing and the GPS device sounds like an interesting addition for me too (although a very expensive one).


----------



## jrista (Mar 7, 2012)

I think we could keep it pretty simple. The 5D II was (and still is) one of the most popular digital cameras for landscape photographers. I see more landscape photographers posting photos online taken with a 5D II than any other camera. 

Given that the 5D III *LOSES NOTHING*, in relation to the 5D II (rather it gains something on pretty much every level, _including_ image resolution)...there is zero reason it wouldn't also be an excellent and hugely popular camera amongst the same exact group of people who used the 5D II. Tripod or no tripod. ;-)


----------



## Autocall (Mar 7, 2012)

Still be people not shooting panoramics for wide landscapes?
I understand that high-end Studio photography eventually still needs medium format but why the hell wouldn't the mk III be suited for landscapes?


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 7, 2012)

I also think the 5D3 will be great for landscapes, and also lower light indoor shots without using a flash, which can often be a problem when taking shots of larger groups indoors at night.
The higher FPS also means it will be quite OK for sports, so IMHO, I think the 5D3 will be a great all-aroud camera for the more serious photographer - and that's me to a tee! 

22mp is more than enough.
Many years ago, I had a D60 (which I still have actually and I'm thinking of getting it changed into an infra-red camera) and it's paltry few mp still gave reasonable shots, at low ISO's, and my new 60D is good, but the high ISO is not so good, so for me, the 5D3 seems perfect.
I do have a grip fo rmy 60D, but I often don't want to lug it around with me, so 1Dx wouldn't suit me, so the 5D3 seems to be the perfect halfway house.
I'm also dieing to try my new Sigma 150mm macro with OS on the 5D3!
The results should be spectacular.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 7, 2012)

sanj said:


> I humbly disagree.
> Any serious landscape photographer will use a solid tripod and low low ISO.
> Please!



Even on the tripod...

Clouds move.

Stars move.

Moments happen - a billowing of clouds over the rockies; the moment dawn breaks; the leaves in an autumn wind; the capture of a fleeting light beam in a slot canyon. 

The world does not stop to match a long time exposure just to accommodate ISO 100.

Having the exposure range to take advantage of challenging conditions is important - sometimes its all you have to capture a magical once-in-a-lifetime moment nobody else will get.

Sure, high MP has its advantages and I am sure many will get great images that way. 

But it will not do everything, even if everything you do is on a tripod 

(and yes, most all my shots are Manfrotto tripod, mirror-up, wireless remote trigger)

I applaud Canon's efforts to fix noise, improve DR. Nearly 1 Stop better on Raw over the 5DMarkII is quite good for me - over an already incredible workhorse landscape camera.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 7, 2012)

My guess is that if Canon does come up with a high MP body its going to be more of a speicalist one designed specifically for landscape/studio(even higher MP, maybe 1D level build but lower ISO and FPS) than the D800 with a price to match.

They do afterall target the landscape/studio/macro markets with some very speicalist and very expensive lenses so I'd guess there feeling could be that if someone can afford say 17mm and 24mm TSE lenses they can afford a $4K body.


----------



## suburbia (Mar 7, 2012)

There is also the built in HDR feature, surely a huge bonus for landscape photography?


----------



## sanj (Mar 7, 2012)

Arkarch,
I do get your point and understand it. Having better grain/DR at higher ISO is always welcome. It certainly is.
However I would prefer higher resolution/mp in most landscape or product photography situation.
Please compare two photos, one with 22mp and the other with 40mp to see the difference. 
Regards,


----------



## psolberg (Mar 7, 2012)

I don't think anybody can argue that the camera is bad for landscapes. I think the debate is centered around the fact products don't stand in isolation. For 3.5 thousand dollars, is it the best camera for landscapes? I don't think so.



> There is also the built in HDR feature, surely a huge bonus for landscape photography?


this is for beginners. most HDR is done from bracketed shots blended and mapped in post.



> Arkarch,
> I do get your point and understand it. Having better grain/DR at higher ISO is always welcome. It certainly is.
> However I would prefer higher resolution/mp in most landscape or product photography situation.
> Please compare two photos, one with 22mp and the other with 40mp to see the difference.
> Regards,



agree. the high ISO numbers of the 5DIII aren't very helpful for most landscape to trade for resolution. are you going to be shooting landscapes at 25K-52K ISO? unlikely unless doing night sky photography and for that, something like a 1dx would be more preferable. High ISOs also nosedive the dynamic range very quickly in addition to the undesireable noise. I'd avoid them at all costs. You won't always be able to keep ISO100 for sure, but most cameras these days perform great up to ISO800 and I just don't much value in pushing the ISO over the 5DII limits. So I don't consider big ISO values as being the top concern for lanscapes where detail and dynamic range are often more important.

IMO, best landscape body in this price range remains the D800, but the best value is by far the 5DII. Good enough ISO, 1 less megapixel and a heck of a lot cheaper than anything.


----------



## sanj (Mar 7, 2012)

Psolberg: I agree.
If I was doing only landscapes, I would not even consider upgrading to 3 even once. 
That's exactly the gripe I guess lots of people have. They find #3 good for everything, excellent for very few things. And that is the case especially now as Nikon seems to be showing us the way.. My .002$


----------



## jalbfb (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> I think we could keep it pretty simple. The 5D II was (and still is) one of the most popular digital cameras for landscape photographers. I see more landscape photographers posting photos online taken with a 5D II than any other camera.
> 
> Given that the 5D III *LOSES NOTHING*, in relation to the 5D II (rather it gains something on pretty much every level, _including_ image resolution)...there is zero reason it wouldn't also be an excellent and hugely popular camera amongst the same exact group of people who used the 5D II. Tripod or no tripod. ;-)



+1


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Arkarch said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I believe the target is to keep the iso as low as possible, being on a tripod can do nothing but help.

Let common sense prevail rather than stick rigidly to some arbitary rule


----------



## XanuFoto (Mar 7, 2012)

> IMO, best landscape body in this price range remains the D800, but the best value is by far the 5DII. *Good enough ISO, 1 less megapixel and a heck of a lot cheaper than anything.*



Bang on. Talented photographers have been producing spectacular Landscapes with the 5D MKII. For arround 2000 its still the best bang for the buck. The D800 will be a better option but at the end of the day talented photographers with a MKII or a D800 will still product better images that 95% people craving for the 36 MP.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> A nice little feature on the 5DIII is the electronic level on the screen (same as the 7D).
> 
> A nice to have for tripod work



I never realized how much i needed that until i had it with my 7D... it almost makes or breaks the shot if it's not level in some cases... I also stitch pano's and having it perfectly level on dual axis's makes stitch more seamless and I get to maximize the file size rather than losing a chunk after stitching and cropping with an unlevel camera.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 7, 2012)

jrista said:


> Given that the 5D III *LOSES NOTHING*, in relation to the 5D II (rather it gains something on pretty much every level, _including_ image resolution)...there is zero reason it wouldn't also be an excellent and hugely popular camera amongst the same exact group of people who used the 5D II. Tripod or no tripod. ;-)



There is one very big reason: it has a 36 MP competitor that costs $500 less. If you never print larger than 13x19 or maybe 16x24 then it won't matter. If you do...and many landscape and studio photographers do...then the 5D mkIII is 2nd class. I'm sorry, but a 36" landscape print will show very obvious differences between the two.

Canon needs a high MP FF body unless they want to lose that segment completely to Nikon.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 7, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> There's been a lot of talk about how the 5D mkIII doesn't benefit landscape photographers. I searched for an appropriate thread to post this, but none of them seemed right. So here I am starting my first thread. (be gentle)
> My reasoning is thus: I'm often shooting in the morning or evening (golden hour) in low light at an f-stop between f/8 and f/11 and quite often I'll be using various filters from polarizers to graduated ND filters. This means that in order to get decent shutter speed I generally have to crank the ISO up, but I want as clean an image as possible. So the 5D mkIII's improvement on the mkII's ISO will be a great help.



With the 7D I have no problem going to ISO 800 for a 24" print. I wouldn't make landscape prints that large from higher ISOs. But at most the 5D2 buys 1 more stop.

Will the 5D3 make an acceptable 24" landscape print at 3200? I'll wait to see the studio test samples from various test sites. But even if it can, this buys minutes under twilight conditions at best. After the sun sets shutter speeds rapidly drop with the light levels. ISO 800 or ISO 3200, your shutter times while stopped down with filters will still be in the motion blurring seconds range.

Perhaps the larger question is: will the 5D3 or the D800 make better large prints at 1600 and 3200? Everyone assumes pixel size drives noise yet that has not been the case for a decade. Technology plus total senor size drives total image noise. We have yet to see if the 5D3 has any real advantage over the D800 over their common ISO range. Even if it does at first glance, if your print size is, say, 24" from a 3200 file the D800 has pixels to spare in resizing and NR, so the end result would probably still be a wash.

Personally I would rather be able to reliably print larger without stitching. The D800 is starting to get into MFDB range. If Canon would just enlarge the 7D sensor to FF (45 MP) and stick it in a 5D body I would be thrilled.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Mar 7, 2012)

Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 7, 2012)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?



Sure there was, they just told their clients to stand way back when viewing haha ???


----------



## ramon123 (Mar 7, 2012)

The reviews have shown that Canon have gone for more of an "all round" camera that could be suited for multiple type jobs etc. photojournalism, sports, wedding, portrait etc.

This being true, I'd say that they steered away from the 5D Mark II which was more for landscape and portrait photography / optimal in these 2 areas.


----------



## Dan Jurak (Mar 7, 2012)

The way I see it, you can shoot landscapes with almost any camera. 

Obviously, what's best for one photographer is not the best for the next. 

For all the hair splitting that goes on about which lens or body is better what is lost is the photos themselves. There are plenty of people who are experts on gear but when you look at their website or portfolio you've gotta give your head a shake.

Forget all the fact, figures and number crunching. This all comes down to personal preference. As a lifetime Canon user, thirty plus years, I think that there are better 35mm digital cameras for the cost and performance than the new Canon. Or for that matter either of the two new Canons.

Just my two cents. Now I'm off to Jasper for a cpl of days of photography after a huge dump of snow.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 7, 2012)

I think one area this 'low' MP camera will really shine is in photos of water and other continuously varying contract images, very amazing from the samples i've viewed!


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 7, 2012)

sanj said:


> Arkarch,
> I do get your point and understand it. Having better grain/DR at higher ISO is always welcome. It certainly is.
> However I would prefer higher resolution/mp in most landscape or product photography situation.
> Please compare two photos, one with 22mp and the other with 40mp to see the difference.
> Regards,



Yep, and I get your point about high MP. Having both capabilities would be a potent combination. 

As a current 7D shooter, my first goal is reach FF. And after several lengthy post-process sessions with DxO, Nik, LR, PS and my NEC wide-gamut to disassemble then reassemble low light shots to dump noise (and there is plenty in the 7D), I am really gun-shy about anything with potential noise.

So for that reason, I do hope that if Canon does come out with a high MP monster - that it has reasonable low light performance. Otherwise there are many options for high MP later. Its good to see Nikon at least dare to enter Digitial MF territory with a DSLR format even if I remain wary on this first attempt.

For now, I think the 5DMIII will serve me well in the Landscape area


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 7, 2012)

Dan Jurak said:


> Just my two cents. Now I'm off to Jasper for a cpl of days of photography after a huge dump of snow.



Thanks Jurak!

Have a great shoot in Jaspar.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Mar 7, 2012)

dilbert said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 7, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > YellowJersey said:
> ...



Tripods, especially for landscapes, gives you that extra second or two or three to look at the scene, evaluate it, "walk the scene" in your minds eye and find that telephone pole or broke down car or whatever that you may not have seen otherwise to make sure your shoot is as good as possible before you capture the image. It forces you to slow down and be more analytical...


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 7, 2012)

A couple of days ago, I wrote a long article on my blog about my first impressions and the insights of a CPS rep, following a one hour presentation/demo and the short play I had with it (minus cards, except ones in a sealed card slot). It was too long to post here, as I'd originally intended, but here is the summary:



> *Overall Impression*
> 
> During the short time I was able to see the 5D MkIII, I was very impressed with the overall feel. The ISO sensitivity and noise levels stand out as some of the main features, but also of course the AF system. This is exactly the same as the 1D X, but is slower due to only having the single processor. For wildlife, I think it is ideal. It isn’t often that the motor drive is needed, I think I can count on both hands in two and a half years, the number of times that I have needed it on the 7D and if the AF matches the specs, then that will be a huge improvement, as will the IQ from the full frame sensor. The downside is the loss of reach from the crop factor, but I can keep the 7D to cover that problem. For landscapes, it will give me what I have now and probably a bit more too, especially if the DR is improved. If I was shooting primarily landscape photography, then it probably wouldn’t be worth the upgrade, but for wildlife, it will expand on what I can achieve, with improved AF and improved ability to shoot crepuscular subjects in low light.
> 
> ...


----------



## tvde (Mar 7, 2012)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Were there even any Nikon landscape photographers before when 12MP was considered the "magic number"?



I actually start to wonder whether there are ANY landscape photographers today using Canon given the fact that Canon doesn't have a 36 MP camera today...  Just get out and shoot using this fabulous camera!


----------



## rod (Mar 7, 2012)

Hello,

I am interested because of the video capabilities of the 5DIII. But I'm also an photographer. When I look at the landscape pictures from the Canon website, hm. I'm not so olverwelmed. 

In Lightroom the green plants in picture "Corsica" (50 mm, f8, 1/440 sec) look al little bit muddy, the differentation is not so great. Dito in picture "Slovenia" and the diffreenteation in picture "Colored Leaves" lacks also, the leaves. 

I use a calibrated Eizo monitor. 

What do you think? 

Is there another place, where I can download original files, may be RAWs?

Regards, Rod 

PS: Here is the link

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/


----------



## Kernuak (Mar 7, 2012)

rod said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am interested because of the video capabilities of the 5DIII. But I'm also an photographer. When I look at the landscape pictures from the Canon website, hm. I'm not so olverwelmed.
> 
> ...


I'm not really impressed by any of the sample files for landscapes on either the 5D MkII or D800(E) for different reasons. There are very few decent samples around at the moment. The 5D MkIII ones have apparent heavy noise reduction, the D800(E) ones are soft in the corners and at f/8, which results in the background being out of focus. I think we need to wait for some real reviews, with RAW files. There's no reason to believe it will be worse than the MkII though, particularly judging by the crude tests I saw on the back of the screen.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 7, 2012)

Regarding official "Sample Pictures".

The Marketing Departments of both Canon and Nikon are Fail.

There are several efforts out there, and no doubt we'll start getting nice stuff once the community has a chance.

The BS argument not to take RAW images because you can't convert them yet - and to make that argument means they were not prepared for the question. I guess too many consumer-oriented marketing hacks in the pro-line divisions.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 7, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > YellowJersey said:
> ...


----------



## te4o (Mar 7, 2012)

One question, friends:
Is there any advantage of using ISO>100 for tripod work in landscapes: i.e. do you get more DR or colors? I mean, the logic says NO but I was wondering - from the initial reports (?) the 5D3 has same/similar noise as 5D2 at 100 ISO, no horizontal banding and less vertical. So, if 80% of what I do is tripod based, I'd see no big improvements on the 5D3 for that?


----------



## willhuff.net (Mar 7, 2012)

I think the weather sealing and dynamic range increase (if there is any) would make this a much better landscape camera than the 5DII.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 7, 2012)

te4o said:


> One question, friends:
> Is there any advantage of using ISO>100 for tripod work in landscapes: i.e. do you get more DR or colors? I mean, the logic says NO but I was wondering - from the initial reports (?) the 5D3 has same/similar noise as 5D2 at 100 ISO, no horizontal banding and less vertical. So, if 80% of what I do is tripod based, I'd see no big improvements on the 5D3 for that?



Has the 5D3 got better IQ at iso 100 than the 5D2?


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 8, 2012)

OP here, just want to add a few things and respond a bit. 

First, I almost always use a tripod and I'm well aware that an ISO of 100 is the ideal and I strive to keep the ISO as low as possible. However, there will always be some circumstances that don't allow for ideal settings. Sometimes even with a tripod you just can't get the shot at ISO 100, particularly when you're stopped down to f/8 and using filters, which is where having the option to boost ISO becomes a big help and may make all the difference. 

Second, of course the 5D3 is not the _perfect_ landscape camera. There's really no such thing. It won't suit _every_ landscape photographer's needs. The 5D3 will suit the needs of some and the D800 will suit the needs of others.

So I think it's a mistake to over-simplify the 5D3/D800 debate to merely "which one is better?" I wouldn't argue that one is inherently better than the other (at least not yet anyway), but that they're arguably equally as good but optimized for different conditions. The D800 seems optimized for more traditional, by-the-book landscape shooters shooting in ideal conditions, and if that's what you want then I'd completely agree that the D800 would be the better camera for you personally. The 5D3 seems optimized for shooters who want more versatility and shoot a bit more in less than ideal conditions. Being an avid hiker and cross-continental cyclist, I appreciate the versatility, so it seems to suit my needs better. Just because the 5D3 doesn't suit _your_ landscape needs doesn't mean that it doesn't suit _any_ landscape needs. 

Besides, just because the 5D3 wasn't the high MP monster some were hoping for doesn't mean that such a monster isn't a possibility. I think it's very likely that Canon will put out a high MP camera.


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 8, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> First, I almost always use a tripod and I'm well aware that an ISO of 100 is the ideal and I strive to keep the ISO as low as possible. However, there will always be some circumstances that don't allow for ideal settings. Sometimes even with a tripod you just can't get the shot at ISO 100, particularly when you're stopped down to f/8 and using filters, which is where having the option to boost ISO becomes a big help and may make all the difference.
> 
> Second, of course the 5D3 is not the _perfect_ landscape camera. There's really no such thing. It won't suit _every_ landscape photographer's needs. The 5D3 will suit the needs of some and the D800 will suit the needs of others.



Well said,

And adding my earlier comments about elements of scene moving. And that many landscape guys work "golden hour" sunsets and sunrises or even very dark conditions. Landscape Photography, like other forms, is a very diverse field and no one tool is going to fit all the situations or preferences.


----------

