I was wondering how people have done using the 5D classic for landscape photography? If you have taken some good landscapes with would you mind sharing a few? Thank you very much to anyone how posts pictures.
The 5D is a fantastic camera for landscape even now. Unless you are printing above 30" I really don't see the need for anything better. Everybody would tell you that this is a great camera for landscape and its also your cheapest way into full frame cameras.
Alex Nail wrote:
The 5D is a fantastic camera for landscape even now. Unless you are printing above 30" I really don't see the need for anything better. Everybody would tell you that this is a great camera for landscape and its also your cheapest way into full frame cameras.
Daan B wrote:
Though one downside is the lack of LiveView.
Yes although it is debatable how useful this really is in my opinion. I have a 5DmkII but I only ever use it for astrophotography and focussing my 400mm 5.6 with 1.4 attached (no AF). I know some people love live view though.
gregoryallen wrote:
Alex. Were these pictures taken with your 17-40? Very nice photos by the way!
Yes, thanks
I agree with Daan about the lack of LiveView, but this can be worked around for most
landscape shooting at f/8, f/11. Just go through a testing process and check that
either:
a) Auto focus is sufficiently accurate at infinity focus to give good sharpness
or
b) The focusing screen and/or focus confirmation light gives good results at
landscape distances.
This second option may require precise re-calibration of the focusing screen washers
(shims).
You can get great landscape results with the 5D if you work at it;
I agree the 5DII is preferable, if you can afford it.
I used the 5D for a bit more than a couple of years before moving to a 5D2 almost three years ago. So if you go to my blog and look at anything from that period you can find hundreds of 5D landscapes and other subjects.
It is a fine camera for landscape shooting and can produce quite wonderful results. If you are cost-constrained it can be a very viable alternative to the 5D2, though if you can afford it the 5D2 offers several real advantages for landscape.
1. 12MP is, indeed, plenty of resolution to produce very good size prints. (And in many cases, the upper limits on print size may not be totally due to pixel dimensions of the original.) The 5D2 does produce somewhat higher resolution and the difference most certainly can be visible in large, well-made prints. However, at sizes below about 16 x 24 few are likely to notice it.*
3. The dust reduction system on the 5D2 is actually effective. It greatly reduces the frequency with which you will have to manually clean the sensor AA filter glass. On the other hand, the 5D seems to attract dust. I learned to do a quick blower and brush cleaning of mine once per month or more.
Dan
* If you don't regularly print and print large, the advantages of a full frame camera for landscape are minimized - and are arguably not that important at all.
I've been shooting one for the last 5 years as my only camera for everything -- but mainly because it is a very good landscape camera. The majority of the images on my website were taken with this camera.
Paul
The 5D classic is currently the best value for money for a landscape photographer. I've had mine for over five years now and though a 5D II would be very desirable, I have other items for photography I'd like to get ahead of it. When the III comes out, whatever it is called, or rather six months after it comes out, I am likely to scrimp and save and push myself to get it; thereby skipping a generation and getting the maximum worth out of my 5D classic which has great image quality.
I love making landscape photos with the 5D classic. Raws respond very well to a little Expose to the Right and DPP conversion and tuning in Photoshop.
today, I would honestly take a t2i over 5d for landscape shooting, and it costs less, and you have to spend less money for lenses that are sharp to the corner on it. I am a huge fan of full frame, but the 5d, with its lack of live view, no dust shake, and 12mp has some very stiff competition now from the newer crops.
5d, 24-105, f 16, 2s, cp, 2stop gnd http://just.razzi.me/photos/150224/f3197de.jpg?1315439798
You could use just about anything for landscape photography. The real magic comes in the prints. If you want to print large anything from 10MP on up will be just fine...even a Rebel.
I agree with Kevin, especially about the underated T2i.
Beni -- Looking at your lovely wedding photos, I can see why you don't need LV. I may have misunderstood your "boohoo" comment, but if you were doing more landscape, particularly twilight and night shots, you'd know how invaluable LV can be for securing accurate focus, especially with manual focus lenses on tripod.
Gunzorro, take a look at what I do in my spare time at the moment: www.timelessjewishart.com with the exception of about 3 pics all with a 5D.
I shot landscape for years using (gasp) a Mamiya 645, I didn't even have anything but a waist level finder. I shot these (www.studio-beni.net/Landscape/) using a mixture of film (35mm/Medium format) , 5D, 1Ds and 10D. The first is dawn, my 5D and I used (2nd gasp) a viewfinder, oh and AF. The OP said nothing about needing to use alternative lenses.
Sorry but LV, though nice, is the least of tools needed by a landscape photographer. It might be useful if you're doing weird angles I admit and I could see the need with graduated filters if it wasn't for the fact that digital made them practically obsolete anyway.
Anyone saying not to use a 5D because of a lack of LV, especially for landscape photography, is IMO greatly misguided.
The 5D really shine as a landscape tool. Although I moved on to the 5D2 (like it even more), the 5D did me well. My only beef is the dim screen (couldn't read the histogram except at night).
Beni, I do shoot with some manual focus lenses (canon tse 24, nikon 14-24). but even with my 16-35II, I very often use live view to do the focusing on the parafocal distance once on tripod, or use it at 10x mag with dof preview button to check for sharpness and dof. that is in addition to the usefulness in low angle shots. I also can look at the exposure simulation, and where the clipped highlights are, and can meter off of any area in the scene, without having to recompose. I also use the overlying grid to make sure my horizon is lever. and that is esp useful when shooting panorama shots. What does 5D offer over t2i? at base ISO DR is going to be very close, may be slight edge to 5d, and thats about it.
I do consider all the utilities of live view extremely helpful, in ease, enjoyment, and success of shooting landscape. Great landscapes has been shoot for decades with less sophisticated equipment, so to say its possible to do it is not saying much.
Beni wrote:
Sorry but LV, though nice, is the least of tools needed by a landscape photographer.
Boy, among people I know shooting DSLR full frame landscape photography, that might be regarded as a minority opinion. I suppose it is literally true that live view is not "needed," but it sure as heck is extremely useful! I think I posted a link to a summary of some ways it turns out to be very powerful for landscape and similar work earlier in this thread - you and others who may not have come to see its value yet might want to take a look.*
By the way, I know folks who use MF digital to do landscape work... and they are just waiting for live view to be available on those systems. (Currently, the closest thing it to make an exposure and then inspect it by zooming in and so forth - works, but a bit clunky.)
FYI, you can get the Canon Angle Finder accessory with optical magnification for checking critical focus sans Live View (assuming your viewfinder is within tolerance for manual focus)--this also greatly facilitates low angle framing with any camera without an articulating LCD.
The OP said nothing about needing to use alternative lenses.
