want to know is nikon 7100 is good for landscape photogeaphy ?
i would like to if nikon d7100 camera is good for landscape photography , i have seen photos of samples subjects ( people , birds , cars , buildings etc. ) but none of landscape photography in daylight ? with wide angle lenses , zooms or aftermarket lenses , i enlarge to print to sizes of 16x 20 , and i want to know if this 24 megapixel nikon 7100 will be good purchase for me thanks gr
24MP is more than enough for landscape photography (if that's what you're referring to). Keep in mind, though, that a 24MP will a) need some pretty good glass for you to see any difference compared to a lower-resolution sensor, and b) a higher-resolution sensor, such as the 24MP will reveal any limitations in your technique (i.e. holding, pressing the shutter button, etc.). A good tripod is a must, really.
This is more a question about lenses than about camera bodies. The 7100 will serve you well as the previous poster noted. The question is what lenses you will use. On a recent trip to Death Valley in California I found myself shooting a lot of wide angle, especially in the 16-24mm range. Some phtographers swear by a 24 mm or 28mm prime, others a 10-20mm zoom. You will also need longer lengths for other types of shots.
I suggest you look at a lot of landscape pictures on this site and others. For the ones you especially like, note what lenses the photographers are using.
I am happy with it. Three examples:
My pro friend, that gets 100% of his total income shooting landscapes for publication, uses a Nikon D7100. These are PUBLISHED landscapes - every month. It really is not the camera, but the shooter. Good luck, and be prepared for LOTS of work and many failures. It comes with the territory.
Steve Bingham wrote:
My pro friend, that gets 100% of his total income shooting landscapes for publication, uses a Nikon D7100. These are PUBLISHED landscapes - every month. It really is not the camera, but the shooter. Good luck, and be prepared for LOTS of work and many failures WITH A HUGE LEARNING CURVE. It comes with the territory.-- hide signature --
Fixed it fer ya.
If the pixels of the D7100 was carried over to FF then you would have a 58million pixel camera.
So no.. it would not be good... it would be superb
Trouble is.. to see it, you better fit some very good glass
Steve Bingham wrote:
My pro friend, that gets 100% of his total income shooting landscapes for publication, uses a Nikon D7100. These are PUBLISHED landscapes - every month. It really is not the camera, but the shooter. Good luck, and be prepared for LOTS of work and many failures. It comes with the territory.-- hide signature --
Indeed, 24mp could even be regarded as overkill for 16" x 20" prints but, within reason, the more pixels the better. It will also allow you to crop fairly heavily if you don't quite get the composition right.
The "kit" 18-140 is pretty good but, as others have noted, to get the best out of such a superb camera, better lenses in due course would be a benefit. Having said that, I've printed to 18" x 12" with excellent results.
So, to answer your question, unless you need a FF camera, the D7100 is as good as it gets. If you don't know if/why you might need FF, then basically you don't need one.
Get the D7100, learn it inside out and you won't be disappointed. Most failures will be you, not the camera. Good luck whichever way you decide.
I shoot nothing but landscapes. The majority of my work till last year was done with 12MP DX cameras. I print up to 40" x 60" for my customers using those 12MP files.
If I did not need all the pixels I can get for my huge prints I would be using the D7100 right now instead of the D800. The D7100 is a superb landscape camera. It has 24MP, so printing VERY large should be a breeze, it has great dynamic range, the color quality is rather good.
I would say that probably 90% of its owners would be hard pressed to get the most out of the camera...so there will always be room to grow with this very capable unit.
Depending on your budget, you will want to get a nice set of zooms that maximize the output of the camera.
3 zooms that would not be too heavy and have VERY good quality without breaking the bank would be as follows.
Bang For The Buck - Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 or 12-28 for your super wide. Built like a tank, doesn't break the bank. I had the 12-24 and it was my go to lens in most cases for 9 years on my D70, D2X, and D300.
Best you can get - Nikon 14-24
Mid Range Zoom:
Bang For the Buck - Nikon 16-85 AF-S VR
Best You can Get - Nikon 12-24
Bang For The Buck - Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR
Best You Can Get - Nikon 70-200 VR II
If you don't have one yet....get a good tripod. Don't skimp here.
Budget about $600 for a good set of legs and ballhead if your doing bang for the buck....
Budget about $1200 for "best you can get" quality.
Polarizer - buy a 77 mm unit and use step down rings for your smaller lenses. That way your not spending a lot of money for a good polarizer x3.
Hope this helps....
|Red umbrella by Jose Olivares|
from Black + White +1
|Scary Santa by Phillipvz|
from annual bad Santa photo challenge
|Honey, I'm Home!! by cbg1951|
from A Big Year - birds
|Lake freezes by Kaappo|
from -The Frozen Lake- ( In Full Colours Only)