A great camera for limited applications

I couldn't agree more. Wide angle photography for landscapes is really hard to do well - foregrounds get grossly exaggerated and 10,000 foot mountains reduced to molehills, a ton of irrelevant distractions gets added that people don't notice at the time. Not to mention the inevitable barrel distortions, circles pulled into ellipses at the corners and with 3:2 rations uncropped portrait mode shots do some odd things to foreground subjects at the bottom of the frame.

Longer lenses for landscapes are much underused and under-rated. The merrill sensor has the ability to punch through distance haze and I quite fancy the idea of trying a longer focal length to pull in that background a bit.

I'd also add to the Merrill's list of capabilities, the kind of stuff I do a lot of: photographs of inanimate details of urban scenes in a graphic/abstract way (parts of buildings, cracked and peeling paint, weathered wood for example). Things that will wait around for you to shoot don't stress the camera but benefit from the high contrast and crisp rendition.

james wilson 2 wrote:

I for one would rate the camera as excellent for landscapes and scenery. In fact that would be one of its best applications. There is a conception out there that a good landscape lens must be wide view and that is just not the case. Much of the poor landscape shots that I see suffer from a view that is so wide that everything in the shot is insignificant. Wide views have to be very well composed to have any impact. The OP has not mentioned lens length as a problem but what else would make him downgrade it as a landscape camera?