What would you personally choose for landscape photography

woof · 11-13-2010, 06:20 AM

The 28mm option is a bit limiting. I'd at least go 24mm, and would be looking to lay in a ~20mm in some form sooner or later.

Regards,

woof!

pjtn · 11-13-2010, 06:25 AM

I don't think Carl Zeiss do a 24mm for Canon??? They do a 25mm for Nikon though.

Ron Kruger · 11-13-2010, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by pjtn

That's really good information Ron. So what would it be if I changed the 35mm ƒ2.8 to the 31mm ƒ1.8?

In that case I'd vote for the K5 without hesitation. I don't think you can do better than a combination of the 15mm and 31mm. People with the 21mm and even the 12-24 might argue with that, but that's my objective opinion. Both these lenses have no superiors from any manufacturer that I know of in the DSLR range.
If you get the 15mm, don't hesitate to shoot directly into the sun: gives the neatest sunbursts while still retaining foreground detail. Neatest thing is it renders as if it has a polorizer built in. Don't waste your money on one as I did.

pjtn · 11-13-2010, 07:43 AM

It's interesting to compare the 5D MKII and Nikon D7000 at imaging resource. I downloaded the files and up-ressed the Nikon to match the Canon. I'm no expert but it did look very much the same. The Nikon was sharper, so that makes me think these might have been JPEG from the camera.

Of course my theory here is that the Nikon will be very similar to the Pentax...

Ron Kruger · 11-13-2010, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by pjtn

40"is a very large print from a non stitched file. I only print to 16x24", surely the K5 would perform tremendously in this circumstance. I really do wonder if a difference would be visible.

I'm not a fanboy, and before you changed lens choices, I suggested the Canon, because I thought you had better landscape lens choices with it. For enlargements, it's not just the megapixels. Much of it depends upon how well the lens records detail. With the 15mm and 31mm, I'm now firmly in the Pentax camp.
I do quite a few large prints. My K20D does "tremendously" at 20X30, and the K5 has a couple million more pixels. I even had an outfitter once enlarge a JPEG from my K20D to a 4-foot by 8-foot banner and surprised me with it. I was amazed at how well it held up and it looked fine from a dozen feet, although suffered close up. I can't tell any difference in 8X10 prints from my 14.6 MP and 10 MP cameras. In other words, the K5 will give you more than enough for 16X24. In fact, I think both the K5 and 5D are overkill, given equally good lenses.
Everyone argues body models (which the manufacturers love and encourage), but I've learned from decades that the glass is where it's at. The body gets you there, but it is the eye (lens) that sees.
I'm also quite confident you will be pleased with either system, but for your purposes, I think you will be happier with Pentax (15 and 31). If you were shooting products, I'd reverse that, but for landscapes, Pentax produces richer colors (past models), and as far as I can tell, the K5 retains that at low ISOs. The lenses give you the detail and contrast.

ozlizard · 11-13-2010, 05:56 PM

In the end, Peter, it comes down to how much money you are willing to spend to acheive your desired results. If the output from a K5 is as good or better than what you need, you wind up saving some serious dough. For landscape work the 645D would be the ideal camera, but who can justify $11,000 plus lenses? Same with the Sony A850, which you can get for about $1800, but then you also have to fork out for some CZ lenses at over $1000 each so you would be lucky to get out of that setup for less than $5000. The 5D MK2 can be had for about $2,200 but then you have to get some L lenses. You may already have the lenses so your situation may be different. I had my heart and mind set on getting a FF but now I am seriously considering the K5.

farhagh · 11-13-2010, 09:39 PM

None of them!

farhagh · 11-13-2010, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by farhagh

None of them!

p.s. hint: your suggested lenses.

cats_five · 11-14-2010, 12:51 AM

Most of us are not in a position to compare the two cameras you are interested in, so we cannot give a truely informed answer to your question. I can compare an E510 to a K-7 to an ME-Super but not any kind of Canon or Nikon.

Have you been to a shop and handled all the kit? If not that's the first thing to do. What suits me ergonomically may well not suit you. I got the K-7 because the ergonomics were better than my E510.

And, if you don't like the ergonomics a penny to a pound you won't take the photos you could with a camera you like.

Maybe you live a long way from a camera shop (Oz is a big thinly populated country), but even so I personally wouldn't consider spending that sort of money on a camera I might hate once I get my hands on it.

pjtn · 11-14-2010, 01:22 AM

It's a good suggestion to go in a store and try it, but for the petrol costs it wouldn't be much cheaper to purchase it over the internet and sell it again on eBay.

I did find one person, thanks to eigelb, that does have both and I sent him a PM. He likes the files from the K5 more. It has been a help getting ideas from people on here and I appreciate that.

I'm curious Farhad, what lenses would you recommend?

Flickeroo · 11-14-2010, 05:50 AM

I am just a newbie on landscape photography, and do not own any of the two cameras.
So I can't be a proper judge of using either. Output seems equivalent for your needs, even if the sensor size is different. It's also normal that on other forums the Canon would be at an advantage; it's a tried and tested solution with a reputation of excellence, while the K-5 is new and from a manufacturer that has a smaller fan-base.

It'll take years for Pentax to earn the respect it rightfully deserves. If Pentax continues to deliver with new models as it has in the past 3-4 years, I foresee that it will eventually gain that respect.

One thing that would matter to me:
Weight and size of the kit. The Canon is significantly larger and heavier than the K-5.

Other than the obvious fact of having to bring this around as you trek across the countryside...
Some prefer the psychological aspect of having a camera that feels more significant by being larger.
It's similar to someone who might prefer an SUV over the 4-wheel drive compact Subaru.

Myself, I would see the smaller size and weight as an advantage. I suggest you find a way to hold them both in your hands and see which one feels right.

paperbag846 · 11-14-2010, 08:15 AM

My hunch:

The MKII is an older camera. People might be apt to suggest the K5 around here, but then if you were to ask them "what about 645D" they might turn around and say "yes go with the medium format" for micro-contrast.

Sensor size is rather important here, and the K-5 holds its own against the 2-year old MKII... but you should expect that camera to get an upgrade sooner rather than later!

I'm not sure what your rush is, but essentially, if you have the money and can wait, I would buy the MK III over the K-5, but if you need to buy now, the K-5 simply looks like a better deal. The lens selection for Pentax or Canon is going to allow you some fantastic limited lenses.

One thing to keep in mind - one of the major strengths of Pentax (in my mind) is a light, compact camera. You will get essentially the complete opposite with the Canon. How much will that bother you when you are lugging it around?

FullertonImages · 11-14-2010, 09:22 AM

I think the K-5 would be able to print as big of bigger. From everything I've seen, which is a fair bit, if you are dealing especially with just base ISO vs. base ISO, the K-5 is absolutely sharper and has better edge details. Which will not only make it print better to begin with, but also respond better to upsizing. It's also has better DR by far, which is much more important in a landscape camera than resolution, especially if your prints never exceed 16x24. Then there's the superior weather-sealing, superior ergonomics and significantly smaller size and weight. I've thought we've been through this before...?

And I know this is a Pentax forum, but I'm not biased. I'm a professional and the only thing I'm biased towards is the best gear for what I do, which is the Pentax system.

**mike.hiran** · 11-14-2010, 09:32 AM

another accomplished photographer that uses the canon 5d and pentax k5 has placed a review on Pentax Forums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/120794-k-5-images-impressions.html - He's a really good photographer and has been very good about answering questions. I found it quite informative...

nickthetasmaniac · 11-14-2010, 10:03 AM

I choose the K-5 + 21/f3.2 + 35/f2.8.

Accepting that I've never used either body extensively, and the only lens I've owned in the 35mm Ltd, I choose the Pentax kit because of the better dynamic range, tougher body, and portability (I hike so the last two are very important to me for a landscape kit).

Interesting, the Pentax kit is basically what I'm looking at getting (+ the 70/f2.4), but really, either the Can or Pen kit is going to spoil you silly

View Poll Results: What would you choose?
Pentax K5 with 21mm ƒf3.2 and 35mm ƒ2.8 Limited lenses	55	68.75%
Canon 5D MK II with Carl Zeiss 28mm ƒ2 and 35mm ƒ2	25	31.25%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A guide to using the 10-17mm DA for landscape photography	amcinroy	Pentax Lens Articles	11	11-17-2013 09:42 PM
Lens choices for landscape photography	insanoff	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	03-11-2010 12:54 PM
What is your definition of 'landscape photography'?	Graham67	Photographic Technique	24	10-07-2009 03:01 AM
lens for landscape photography	seymop	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	09-01-2008 07:05 AM
Landscape photography and a N.D. Filter?	roverlr3	Photographic Technique	19	07-13-2008 07:30 PM

11-13-2010, 06:20 AM	#31
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	The 28mm option is a bit limiting. I'd at least go 24mm, and would be looking to lay in a ~20mm in some form sooner or later. Regards, woof!

11-13-2010, 06:25 AM	#32
pjtn Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 48 Original Poster	I don't think Carl Zeiss do a 24mm for Canon??? They do a 25mm for Nikon though.

11-13-2010, 07:07 AM	#33
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	Originally posted by pjtn That's really good information Ron. So what would it be if I changed the 35mm ƒ2.8 to the 31mm ƒ1.8? In that case I'd vote for the K5 without hesitation. I don't think you can do better than a combination of the 15mm and 31mm. People with the 21mm and even the 12-24 might argue with that, but that's my objective opinion. Both these lenses have no superiors from any manufacturer that I know of in the DSLR range. If you get the 15mm, don't hesitate to shoot directly into the sun: gives the neatest sunbursts while still retaining foreground detail. Neatest thing is it renders as if it has a polorizer built in. Don't waste your money on one as I did.

11-13-2010, 07:43 AM	#34
pjtn Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 48 Original Poster	It's interesting to compare the 5D MKII and Nikon D7000 at imaging resource. I downloaded the files and up-ressed the Nikon to match the Canon. I'm no expert but it did look very much the same. The Nikon was sharper, so that makes me think these might have been JPEG from the camera. Of course my theory here is that the Nikon will be very similar to the Pentax...

11-13-2010, 07:43 AM	#35
Ron Kruger Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 534	Originally posted by pjtn 40"is a very large print from a non stitched file. I only print to 16x24", surely the K5 would perform tremendously in this circumstance. I really do wonder if a difference would be visible. I'm not a fanboy, and before you changed lens choices, I suggested the Canon, because I thought you had better landscape lens choices with it. For enlargements, it's not just the megapixels. Much of it depends upon how well the lens records detail. With the 15mm and 31mm, I'm now firmly in the Pentax camp. I do quite a few large prints. My K20D does "tremendously" at 20X30, and the K5 has a couple million more pixels. I even had an outfitter once enlarge a JPEG from my K20D to a 4-foot by 8-foot banner and surprised me with it. I was amazed at how well it held up and it looked fine from a dozen feet, although suffered close up. I can't tell any difference in 8X10 prints from my 14.6 MP and 10 MP cameras. In other words, the K5 will give you more than enough for 16X24. In fact, I think both the K5 and 5D are overkill, given equally good lenses. Everyone argues body models (which the manufacturers love and encourage), but I've learned from decades that the glass is where it's at. The body gets you there, but it is the eye (lens) that sees. I'm also quite confident you will be pleased with either system, but for your purposes, I think you will be happier with Pentax (15 and 31). If you were shooting products, I'd reverse that, but for landscapes, Pentax produces richer colors (past models), and as far as I can tell, the K5 retains that at low ISOs. The lenses give you the detail and contrast.

11-13-2010, 05:56 PM	#36
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	In the end, Peter, it comes down to how much money you are willing to spend to acheive your desired results. If the output from a K5 is as good or better than what you need, you wind up saving some serious dough. For landscape work the 645D would be the ideal camera, but who can justify $11,000 plus lenses? Same with the Sony A850, which you can get for about $1800, but then you also have to fork out for some CZ lenses at over $1000 each so you would be lucky to get out of that setup for less than $5000. The 5D MK2 can be had for about $2,200 but then you have to get some L lenses. You may already have the lenses so your situation may be different. I had my heart and mind set on getting a FF but now I am seriously considering the K5.

11-13-2010, 09:39 PM	#37
farhagh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Ohio Photos: Albums Posts: 339	None of them!

11-13-2010, 09:40 PM	#38
farhagh Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Ohio Photos: Albums Posts: 339	Originally posted by farhagh None of them! p.s. hint: your suggested lenses.

11-14-2010, 12:51 AM	#39
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	Most of us are not in a position to compare the two cameras you are interested in, so we cannot give a truely informed answer to your question. I can compare an E510 to a K-7 to an ME-Super but not any kind of Canon or Nikon. Have you been to a shop and handled all the kit? If not that's the first thing to do. What suits me ergonomically may well not suit you. I got the K-7 because the ergonomics were better than my E510. And, if you don't like the ergonomics a penny to a pound you won't take the photos you could with a camera you like. Maybe you live a long way from a camera shop (Oz is a big thinly populated country), but even so I personally wouldn't consider spending that sort of money on a camera I might hate once I get my hands on it.

11-14-2010, 01:22 AM	#40
pjtn Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 48 Original Poster	It's a good suggestion to go in a store and try it, but for the petrol costs it wouldn't be much cheaper to purchase it over the internet and sell it again on eBay. I did find one person, thanks to eigelb, that does have both and I sent him a PM. He likes the files from the K5 more. It has been a help getting ideas from people on here and I appreciate that. I'm curious Farhad, what lenses would you recommend?

11-14-2010, 05:50 AM	#41
Flickeroo 1,000,000th Poster! Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Montreal, QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 172	I am just a newbie on landscape photography, and do not own any of the two cameras. So I can't be a proper judge of using either. Output seems equivalent for your needs, even if the sensor size is different. It's also normal that on other forums the Canon would be at an advantage; it's a tried and tested solution with a reputation of excellence, while the K-5 is new and from a manufacturer that has a smaller fan-base. It'll take years for Pentax to earn the respect it rightfully deserves. If Pentax continues to deliver with new models as it has in the past 3-4 years, I foresee that it will eventually gain that respect. One thing that would matter to me: Weight and size of the kit. The Canon is significantly larger and heavier than the K-5. Other than the obvious fact of having to bring this around as you trek across the countryside... Some prefer the psychological aspect of having a camera that feels more significant by being larger. It's similar to someone who might prefer an SUV over the 4-wheel drive compact Subaru. Myself, I would see the smaller size and weight as an advantage. I suggest you find a way to hold them both in your hands and see which one feels right.

11-14-2010, 08:15 AM	#42
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	My hunch: The MKII is an older camera. People might be apt to suggest the K5 around here, but then if you were to ask them "what about 645D" they might turn around and say "yes go with the medium format" for micro-contrast. Sensor size is rather important here, and the K-5 holds its own against the 2-year old MKII... but you should expect that camera to get an upgrade sooner rather than later! I'm not sure what your rush is, but essentially, if you have the money and can wait, I would buy the MK III over the K-5, but if you need to buy now, the K-5 simply looks like a better deal. The lens selection for Pentax or Canon is going to allow you some fantastic limited lenses. One thing to keep in mind - one of the major strengths of Pentax (in my mind) is a light, compact camera. You will get essentially the complete opposite with the Canon. How much will that bother you when you are lugging it around?

11-14-2010, 09:22 AM	#43
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	I think the K-5 would be able to print as big of bigger. From everything I've seen, which is a fair bit, if you are dealing especially with just base ISO vs. base ISO, the K-5 is absolutely sharper and has better edge details. Which will not only make it print better to begin with, but also respond better to upsizing. It's also has better DR by far, which is much more important in a landscape camera than resolution, especially if your prints never exceed 16x24. Then there's the superior weather-sealing, superior ergonomics and significantly smaller size and weight. I've thought we've been through this before...? And I know this is a Pentax forum, but I'm not biased. I'm a professional and the only thing I'm biased towards is the best gear for what I do, which is the Pentax system.

11-14-2010, 09:32 AM	#44
mike.hiran Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: portland Photos: Albums Posts: 1,491	another accomplished photographer that uses the canon 5d and pentax k5 has placed a review on Pentax Forums: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/120794-k-5-images-impressions.html - He's a really good photographer and has been very good about answering questions. I found it quite informative...

11-14-2010, 10:03 AM	#45
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	I choose the K-5 + 21/f3.2 + 35/f2.8. Accepting that I've never used either body extensively, and the only lens I've owned in the 35mm Ltd, I choose the Pentax kit because of the better dynamic range, tougher body, and portability (I hike so the last two are very important to me for a landscape kit). Interesting, the Pentax kit is basically what I'm looking at getting (+ the 70/f2.4), but really, either the Can or Pen kit is going to spoil you silly