5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

Started Mar 14, 2012 | Discussions thread
MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: 5dIII a DUD for landscape photographers

I have a question, are there really THAT MANY people out making money from selling large, landscape images?

It just seems to me, everyone I know who does landscapes with no exception, dont make any large sums of money from it. But yet, everyone I know who shoots 12 y/o playing baseball, makes a ton of money..

Randplaty wrote:

Canon specifically said that they were targeting general photography which unfortunately could not be everyone and the people they chose to leave out were landscape photographers. Canon knew they couldn't please everyone and they chose landscape photographers as the ones not to please. If they had put more megapixels in it, it would have cost them FPS which would have cost them photojournalists and sports photographers. So they chose the PJ and sports people instead. Sorry.

Maybe next camera they come out with will have more megapixels but you can't blame Canon for making a market based decision.

Hondo Lane wrote:

I have owned a 5dII for 3 years and have used it extensively to photograph landscapes and flat art (for reproductions). Wonderful camera. I have a wack of printers and have found the 5dII is good - for me - to about 16x24. I need to go bigger and although stitching works well, it is often not feasible or I discover that I screwed up in field.

So as a 5dII owner I held my breath that the new 5dIII would give us landscape photographers (and studio photographers) something useful - like more DR and more pixels. Of no interest to me is high ISO performance, fps, auto focus points, etc. Ya, I know get a MF camera (too many $$).

What did the 5dIII give to the landscape / studio photographers over the 5dII - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. NADA. NADA. NADA. If you think about it, why would a landscape photographer considering Canon buying a 5dIII??? There is going to be a flood a good 5dII bodies on the market, very soon, from the fps crowd updating to the 5dIII and from landscape photographers moving to the Nikon d800 (if the camera actually performs at low ISO). Yes, megapixels is not everything, but to say that the imaging sensor is not the heart and engine of a modern digital camera I think is naive. Computers get more powerful, big ink printers get better and more affordable and Canon cameras remain stagnant.

Everyone is making excuses for Canon, but surely after 3 years a few more pixels and an increase in DR could be expected?

So now I sit and wait, like many other Canon landscape photographers, as to whether the D800 is for real. Can it approach the IQ of the Pentax 645d (yes I dare to dream!)? If the D800 actually delivers, then I definitely sell may Canon gear and go Nikon. Hell, it is just gear! And don't get me going on the lenses...

Seems to me that Canon got very complacent and got caught with their pants down. What were they doing the last 3 years??? I'm sure in a year or two they will have an answer and the game will continue, but for now they are on the sidelines.

For a modern landscape photographer a weather sealed body (you listening Canon!!) and 36MP sensor is very exciting. If you say otherwise I'd say your lying (and I have an old Pinto in the driveway that I want to sell you!). And if d800 delivers decent IQ that approaches that of the Pentax 645d, then $3000 is a good deal and Nikon will have a runaway winner.

The 5dII moved me from medium format film and has been a wonderful tool. But I want more! And after 3 years I expected more and so did a lot of others.

My 2 Cents,

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow