For the past few years I've been grabbing some nice shots from the rebel series doing landscapes. Gone from newbie to at least respectable. Tokina 11-16 and Canon 15-85 have served me well. I think I've earned the "right" to go full frame.
But here's my problem issue:
5D2 + Tilt-shift + good live view
VS.
d800e + amazing quality DR/Resolution + 14-24mm
If it weren't for the tilt-shift and good live view features it'd be an easy decision. (I have no brand allegiance)
So this is what I gotta figure out:
1) How much am I gaining with tilt-shift lenses in terms of high-quality depth of field? As compared to d800 with 14-24?
2) How much of a struggle am I in for trying to shoot in darkness with the lousy live-view of the d800? I am a big fan of dark sky shooting, and intend to do plenty of this. (of course Nikon's sensor should kick arse here) Will I quickly find a work around?
Am I going to have to rent to figure out? Probably be 500 + to rent that gear for a respectable amount of time... that's what I don't like.
Decisions, decisions.
The main thing that keeps me coming back to canon considerations are liveview and tilt-shift... but do they provide enough value to keep me from jumping on the d800 bandwagon? (and while canon has a better overall lens lineup...for what I shoot -- mostly landscape -- nikon is fine, minus ts-e offerings)
RobDickinson wrote:
I went from a similar setup (7d, 10-20,17-55 etc) to a 5d2 and 17-40 & 24tse.
Still not convinced it was worth it tbh, its better but not a huge step up.
Yeah, I know one fellow who jumped to canon full frame for a bit and came back because he just didn't feel like it was worth it cost wise. Still producing amazing stuff with his rebel today.
Of course you'll see plenty of d800 shots and fail to why they couldn't be canon FF. All shades of gray.
RobDickinson wrote:
To tell the difference between a D800 and 5d2 shot you would need to see big side by side prints or crops.
And really good technique too.
And a really good tripod. Got a really good tripod and head?
Big meaning like 20x30 inches or larger, probably. The D800 is only 22 % larger than the 5D Mark II, in terms of linear resolution (square root of ratio of MPixels).
RobDickinson wrote:
The 'tog makes much more difference than body a/b or lens c/d.
You should be able to pick up a used 5D2 and a TS lens for a good deal less than the D800 and the 14-24. I'd start there and see if you're satisfied and if not you could sell and switch over without really losing much money if anything at all.
RobDickinson wrote:
To tell the difference between a D800 and 5d2 shot you would need to see big side by side prints or crops.
The 'tog makes much more difference than body a/b or lens c/d.
Yes, but the tog is not in question here. He / She can improve at the same rate using either system. I see two distinct advantages using the D800 system. Firstly, the resolution is an increase and will be noticeable in large prints. Landscapes beg to be printed large. Secondly the dynamic range at low ISO with the D800 for landscapes will allow better photos in many situations that arise when shooting landscapes.
Now the liveview implementation on the D800 sucks, but is still usable. If I was not invested in Canon lenses, I would seriously look at the Nikon system. In your case, I would rent a D800 for a weekend to see if you can live with the liveview. If you can, I would recommend the Nikon system for landscape.
RobDickinson wrote:
You can ofcourse work around the lower resolution by stitching and the dynamic range by blending.
How do you work round poor critical focus and iffy tiltshift lenses or the 14-25 that flares?
Oh, I don't know about that. Take a quick look at some beautiful images posted from the D800. Seems to me people sure can work around that poor critical focus and that flaring great zoom. Have you used any of these things you are putting down, or just repeating what you heard on the net. I rented D800 along with the 14-24 and found the only drawback would be the liveview which takes some getting used to. Otherwise the images that combo produces are amazing, especially when printed large.
Now working around resolution by stitching and dynamic range by blending just adds time in front of my computer when I could be out shooting more.
AmbientMike wrote:
Fwiw can adapt 14-24 to Canon. Ff seems much better at high iso. Look up scheimpflug principle for dof. Do you mean stars by dark sky photography?
Right. Night sky. Enjoy shooting any number of things at night. Really enjoy the milky way.
Read some about scheimpflug principle... just trying to get a feel for how much better those ts-e lenses really are in achieving great DOF without stopping way down outside the lenses sweet spot resolution wise. I just need to play with one or look at a bunch of full res comparison pictures.
Moving up from a Rebel XT/350D to a 5D really made a difference to my photography. Better VF, image quality, handling. And a real improvement in the pictures i take. The problem is that the big improvement was in my portraiture and use of shallow DOF. For wide angle landscapes, i think i still prefer the crop/10-22mm combo over the 5D/17-40mm. If i printed big i'm sure that would change, but i don't.
15Bit wrote:
Moving up from a Rebel XT/350D to a 5D really made a difference to my photography. Better VF, image quality, handling. And a real improvement in the pictures i take. The problem is that the big improvement was in my portraiture and use of shallow DOF. For wide angle landscapes, i think i still prefer the crop/10-22mm combo over the 5D/17-40mm. If i printed big i'm sure that would change, but i don't.
Right, bigger sensor and it's easier to get shallow DOF... not the other way around. (which is fun to have the ability to grab, just not my primary concern)
Which makes the ts-e lenses even more interesting.
As you alluded to, though... crop sensor, in good lighting, will pretty much do just as well as the full frame. At least in canon's lineup.
Of course the low light performance I'm after is one of the big advantages of a bigger sensor. . .
You are missing the point, shift is the key. With the 24 TSE you can shift and take a 7D and make those pictures huge. Using a 7D you would have speed and reach and then shift would make the pictures bigger than your 5D II. I have the five D2, 24 II, 45 and the 90. I am having the 45 and 90 rotated so they will shift and tilt on the same axis. One other point, you don't "grab" a landscape shot with a tilt shift lens, you plan it and spend a lot of time working on it.
Maybe you should consider both systems - a D800E and 14-24 for some landscape shots, and a Canon camera and lenses for everything else. There really isn't anything else in the current Nikon system I would choose over Canon, and eventually Canon will offer their own high-res camera and 14-24 lens.
