Are you saying that the world is made up of one winner and all loosers of equal mediocrity?

How is the non selection of Sony a proof that their sensors are equally bad as Canon’s?

The reality is that today the only reason to pick Canon RF is if you need good AF performance at mid range prices. Period.

If you need better image quality you go Sony or Nikon,
If you need the best AF performance you go Sony or Nikon,
If you need the best lenses, especially pro long glass,you go Nikon,
If you need the access to the widest set of lenses you go Nikon.

Canon has positionned itself as a volume player who is just pretending to still do high end for the show.

A recent survey showed that 87% of the cats interviewed prefer to be photographed by a Z9.

My Spazzers prefers Fujifilm. He says I should get the GFX100S. He doesn't seem to say he will help pay for it, however.

Ultra wide is most often best done stitching a normal lens than using an ultra wide.

The last time I had to shoot an ultra wide grand vista was a few weeks ago. 90 mins snow shoeing in very deep snow to get to location. I shot it with the GFX100s and 120mm f4 as a pano stitch and ended with an incredibly sharp one gigapixel file.

The target print size was one meter by 50cm and I had to throw away 2/3 of the pixels to stick to the 360 dpi native res of the printer…

@Adam007, no this is not so uncommon focal length. I shot so many times at 17mm (Canon 17-40L) and wish I had wider. 16-35mm f/2.8 is fairly typical.

Also, the benefits of MF are canceled out by the slow lenses. Rishi did an interesting article about that some time ago.

Why would I pay more for a GFX if the Z9 can do better in almost every aspect? Then the question goes beyond "landscape". If they are equals on landscape, you have to find differentiators beyond landscape. Also, that wasn't my argument, but their's in the video stating something like "Sony A1 and others are overkill and more expensive". Well, I'm just saying "yeah the Sony A1 is more expensive, but not the Z9".

Give me some GF lenses that'll actually create a real advantage over FF and I'm more than willing to consider a GFX. Actually, I'd love to go for a bigger body and bigger sensor. But at the moment, it's the opposite: fast FF primes (f/1.4 or f/1.2) actually make FF surpass MF (see Rishi's article).

We can disagree on the importance of WA lenses. I mean, they are certainly popular with landscape shooters, although I personally tend to go longer.

I do not think we can reasonably disagree on the value of detail capture for landscapes. And Rishi's very controversial piece was written prior to the introduction of the GFX 100 - a camera line that (as DPR has taken pains to note) absolutely will beat any FF system in IQ. Whether that's worth it, given how good FF systems are, is an individual choice.

I happen to own Z9 and GFX100s with the best available lenses for both systems.

I absolutely love the Z9 but… I never pick it over the Fuji for landscape.

Yoms, I'm not sure what the disagreement is here. I happen to sell large prints, and MP helps. But it's not everything. The availability of faster lenses for FF systems is an irrelevant point - nobody is shooting landscapes at 1.4. The MF system will, "absolutely" be able to capture more light and detail under the vast majority of landscape shooting conditions. As it happens, my best-selling print is a 6MP crop from a FF sensor...so, my mind is divided on how much I "need" MF. It's not divided on whether MF would deliver demonstrably superior IQ over what I have.

The GFX has multi shot, producing 400MP. Is that overkill? Depends on your preferences and needs. The question here isn't "Which system should you get?", it's "which system is best, given the task and financial constraints, if any?"

I'd love to go MF because my photo interests could do well with MF.
- But I still wonder how I'll shoot those landscapes where I want that dramatic perspectives if not with an UWA?
- How will I handle interior shots where f/1.4 would be nice to have?
- Where are the fast 35mm & 135mm equivalents which are my go-to lenses?

(granted last 2 bullets are outside the scope of landscape photography which is what we're discussing here, but just saying...
And no, I personally won't invest in 2 systems)

As m43 and/or APS-C sensor shooters, we've been size shamed for a decade about our sensors that can't gather as much light as "full frame."

I find it very entertaining that now folks are arguing against the 70 percent larger surface area of the GFX100S versus full frame, because it's possible to buy f1.4 FF lenses. None of those f1.4 full framers are as sharp at f1.4 as the Fujifilm GF 80mm f1.7 is at 1.7. If you really really need that bokeh, you can get an Irix 45mm f1.4 for $599.

Meanwhile, there are a variety of f0.95 options available for my Fuji X mount cameras, and a first party 50mm f1. So if I really want to enjoy that hair's breadth DoF slice, then I can do it too, just like full frame.

@yoms

"1) When Fuji has equivalents of the 16-35mm f/2.8 and ultra wide zoom such as 11-24mm or 12-24mm, then it'll compete in the landscape category against other FF cameras imho."

Why is f2.8 equiv necessary for landscape photography?

Multishot techniques only offer actual value in an extremely stable environment.

The slight movement caused by wind alone is typically ruining the whole thing.

It’s basically unusable for landscape work.

Sony could also make the button a whole lot more accessible. Besides, at -15 or so at a ski race, gloves off isn't an option. Frost bite and cold, stiff hands develops very quickly when standing outside. i suppose the best option is a different camera.

It turns out that there's no one perfect camera for anyone.. doesn't matter how fast it will focus, if you can't operate it in your shooting environment.

You know what? I recently picked up a EPL1 for pennies and it's my first experience with M4/3. Compared to my D600, Z6ii, and Z7 it has one HUGE advantage for landscapes. This thing is seriously small, like small enough that you almost don't notice it when hiking/biking with it.

Often, my favorite landscape photos are the ones that required spending hours hiking or biking to get to and there's just something so beneficial about weight reduction when you're thinking about hiking up a mountain. Not to mention you have a lot of other non-camera specific gear to carry as well.

Recommending a camera that lacks IBIS is also poor judgment.

Also, for folks who didn't pay attention to the video, Chris stated that he was focusing primarily on MILC.

@fz750 - According to Photons to Photos, the Panasonic G9 (recommended in the DPRTV video) has greater dynamic range than the D5600 and is a match for the D7500.

@fz750 idk about the d3500, but my d3000 is MASSIVELY bigger than my EPL1.

Why would you recommend the Canon’s for landscape work?

They feature old tech sensors (in particular the 5Ds is terrible), their poor ruggedness in wet conditions is very well documented,…

Heh. If one hikes to take landscapes I'd much rather take my E-PL1 than some 5DS R, as @thisisbenji noted. Especially since software does such a good job of stitching the12MP shots together into one nice bigger one. With maybe the 20mm Panny 1.7. Then back into my cargo shorts pocket.

@TheRealYeats: "Recommending a camera that lacks IBIS is also poor judgment."

Somehow the "necessity" to have IBIS for landscape escapes me..

@fz750 - Don't believe I mentioned anything about "necessity" for IBIS, did I?

There are numerous scenarios that can be defined as "landscape photography", and they don't all involve using base ISO and a tripod - and there, the G9's superb IBIS is surely a boon. And in the scenarios where you *are* shooting at ISO 100 and on a tripod, well, then you can use the G9's high-resolution mode and come away with an 80MP file and improved dynamic range and lower noise. The Nikon DSLRs offer neither of these features.

My main point, though, is that folks disparage the m4/3 cameras based solely on sensor size, without taking into account other features that may prove beneficial. And that, IMO, is "poor judgment".

The title was "The best camera for landscape photography." Not "Best camera for taking a quick point and shoot pic of a landscape to throw on Instagram."

I have spent 40 years learning how the pros create amazing landscape images. I progressed from fine grain 35mm films, to 6x6 and 4x5. I made the long arduous and utterly expensive progression from 6MP APS-C to 50MP FF digital. Not to mention the myriad of lens upgrades. The results I can achieve today are very rewarding and I respect the path I had to take to get here.

M4/3 is an awesome way to enter the realm of digital photography. I just don't want those starting out in photography, and with a keen interest in landscape photography, specifically, to be told that the latest and greatest M4/3 is the only budget minded way of learning the ins and outs of landscape photography.

For participants here to disparage older equipment just because it does not have the latest bells and whistles is short minded, and unfortunately, typical.

"The title was "The best camera for landscape photography." Not "Best camera for taking a quick point and shoot pic of a landscape to throw on Instagram.""

And what exactly is the difference? You might enjoy lugging around a huge ancient film camera for your landscapes and that's fine. However, that doesn't mean your results are any better or worse than someone who chooses a smaller system for other reasons.

Personally, like I mentioned above, when I shoot landscapes it always involves hiking or biking to the location. That means I need a small camera system so that I also have room to lug my other gear around with me as well.

I'd also make the argument as someone who owns both a EPL1 and Z7, that high-resolution FF bodies are more trouble than they're worth unless you're printing very very large or doing extensive cropping.

The differences are:
- serious landscape typically means tripod based photography for several obvious reasons
- this means that the weight gap btwn a Z7 and m43 body becomes negligible

Believe me, just like John I have been shooting landscape work for 20 years with everything going from compact digital to Betterlight scanning backs on Ebony, 8x10 and recently IQ4-150 on Arca stitched…

I shot from the beaches of Thailand to the Everest Base camp, from summer in the Alps to Deep winter in Japan in literally meters of snow.

It’s possible to shoot landscape handheld. You may even get great results in some mid day situations but overall you’ll end up shooting on a tripod and the Z7II is an incredibly good sweet spot.

And btw I shoot more and more with RRS’s incredible travel tripod.

Agree how do you define a real photographer? Someone who knows his f-stops? Or the ability to compose photographs that represent art form or a study of light and shade? Photography has never been the same after rows of CAMPBELLS SOUP or retro photos of MM. Anyway todays cameras also video cameras and therefore take time to figure out. Maybe too many YouTube camera reviewers waffling on about their favourite camera often missing the point. People all have different priorities and budgets.

So Chelsea - what is wrong with this overview of landscape cameras? Anything in particular a real photographer has to add? I assume you are a real photographer?

The only comment I have is that, in particular for landscape photography, a DSLR is what I want. But, that is my personal preference.

Well, since I'm not a "real" photographer, I find their reviews relevant.

Who is a real landscape photographer? How about someone how generates income from the landscape images that they create? Or someone who exhibits their landscape photos in museums or galleries? Or someone who has won a prestigious landscape photography competition? Chris Niccolls readily admits that he is not a real photographer. I believe his wording is that he just plays one on video. I don't know a single landscape photographer who would recommend a micro 4/3 sensor for their main camera. Most landscape photographers want as much resolution as they can get, so most work with large format film, or the biggest sensor that they can afford. And multi-shot high resolution mode for landscapes doesn't work, not because mountains take centuries to move, but because leaves on trees do move from shot to shot. But hey, people will buy a Panasonic DC-G9 for their landscape photography, and that fulfills DPReview's main objective: sell cameras...

Thanks for your explanation Chelsea. I mainly agree. At least if you area fine art landscape photographer.

But, the audience for their information is not fine art landscape photographers. They already know what gear they want, and probably have.

The audience is all DPReview readers. And some do have and love their m43 cameras. And you can take landscapes with such a thing. I think that Chris knows very well and also describes in the video that more pixels and larger sensors is to recommend for absolutely best result.

But most DPReview readers cannot afford a 100 MP Fuji.

Yes, most people cannot afford a Fuji GFX 100S. But a lot more people can spend $1.7K for a Pentax 645Z ($1.5K) with an amazing lenses like the 645 45-85mm f/4.5 zoom ($200) and have IQ that is almost as good as the GFX. But I guess that doesn't bring any money to Amazon.

You can take a landscape photo with any camera, including the tinniest and crappiest sensor but that doesn't mean that I am going to recommend the original iPhone for landscape photography, let alone make a video recommending cameras that just don't make any sense.

You say that fine art landscape photographers already know what they want and they have it, but you know what, even the most accomplished photographer started somewhere and the vast majority of the "advice" peddled online has nothing to do with actually providing helpful advice, but its all about generating clicks and revenue for the "experts" who make these videos.

Agreed overall but:
- their advise is fundamentally biased as it only includes new equipment still available for sales
- I would argue based on many interactions with successful pro photographers that the more commercially successful you are the less focus/knowledge about equipment

Savings wise, instead of CFexpress cards with Z7, use XQD cards. That's what it originally had, until firmware was updated. Will work with both fine.

Yeah, a used Nikon Z7 II, or Sony A7R III, is certainly the best actual *value* if you are not only well below that "money is no object" threshold, but also well below that $3K threshold.

NOTE: I'd rather have the Z7 II than the original Z7, not so much because of the AF or the dual card slots, since I'm a landscape photographer, but mainly for the easy access to direct USB-PD power, because I do a lot of time-lapse work where my camera is often "not to be touched" for 1-4 hours or more. For the more "casual" landscape photographer, who still wants that amazing sensor and the extremely rugged pro body, an original Nikon Z7 is certainly the absolute best value around, especially when paired with the incredibly affordable & portable 14-30mm f/4.

I guess I'm just blissfully ignorant in using both M4/3 & Sony FF bodies alike for landscapes... Sometimes with both at the same times, largely because a small M4/3 body *and* something like the 35-100 is still lighter than nearly all FF tele zooms (by themselves), tho I did recently pick up the Tamron 50-400.

I think it'd be hard to go wrong with any of the big 3 FF manufacturers for this purpose tbh, for me it'd come down to the lenses much more than the bodies. Nikon has some attractive small options in the Z lineup (14-30, 24-120) that would take anyone pretty far, Sony's got a dizzying amount of options if you're willing to go 3rd party.

A nikon d810 are still $1700, the d800e is even more expensive
The panasonic g9 is $1000.

Where exactly does this fraction come in?

Under most conditions, m43 shots are virtually indistinguishable from the cameras you mention. If you are stacking shots or taking multiple exposures, there will be no perceivable difference in even more conditions... Most of this advantage is theoretical.

I agree with this video in recommending the g9 for the best landscape camera under $1000...

So now we're comparing used cameras and lenses to new ones?

There's nothing particularly expensive about micro four thirds lenses. Sorry.

" Landscape without (in-camera/instant/WYSIWYG) Panorama is no good.... "

Meh, it's useful to get a preview of what things might look like IMO, and it's fun for a quick share, but doing it in post can almost always yield better results and/or give you more flexibility with regards to cropping etc.

In camera panos would be at the bottom of my priority list, regardless of whether I'm doing then handled or on a tripod with a nodal slide & rotator (in which case you really should leave it for post IMO).

Multi-shot for landscape is of very limited value in my experience.

The only real advantages of multi-shot is A) having total foolproof swings, and B) being able to add HDR.
Though at the same time those are rather failures by camera manufacturers, not inherent in-camera restrictions/limitations.
(added note: Casio ZR- & TR-series are lovely foolproof, with decade old tech....)

Now that I think about it, a continuous swing is way more easy than acting as a human stepping-motor....8-))
(tripods devide your output by another factor 10 (doing panorama in post-edit already did, so the final output, on a trip where time is not under your control, goes down to 1% of all possibilities/occasions/opportunities)

Bottomline: if a measly FZ80/82/83 can have this, so should anything at 10-20x the cost....
And/or: Panasonic M4/3 has it, FF does not....in-excusable anomaly.

(and on such fast/compact trips, a dedicated 360 degree 'immersive' camera contraption is not the most elegant solution either, luggage/stowing-wise (only in very cramped spaces (airplane/train/bus/taxi....:)) it would increase output, quantity & quality....;))

That's possible, OTOH cheap/small UWA and tele options for M4/3 will wipe the floor with most phones (where the second/tertiary modules aren't anywhere near as good as the one behind the main 24mm lens) and will still be more versatile than even an iPhone... So I say, por qué no los dos? (why not both)

I kinda hate that the main module on phones is now usually ~24mm tbh, works for landscapes I suppose but if I was gonna pick a pair of wide ILC lenses for that it'd probably be 20+35 or 20 + short tele.

A friend of mine is an outstanding photographer and creates artwork with his camera. His photos are displayed everywhere from hospitals to performing art centers. He still uses a pair of well used D800's and three lenses and tells me he has all he needs.

M4/3 has *always* been very weak at this? Then the APS-C sensors of a few generations ago were just as weak? I don't see how the 1-stop difference is make or break tbh, if it is you might just need to bracket... Would be more about the lenses for me rather than hair splitting between sensors.

Actually M4/3 can use high-res mode for landscapes. In this mode DR is higher.
HDR or bracketing can also be used to increase DR.

I think the point of this comment was, the fact that virtually all images captured these days are only ever viewed on Instagram or similarly low-res social media sites and mobile phone apps. So, you really don't need more than a few megapixels; after that it's all about processing. Some of my 2002 3-megapixel JPGs, and 2004 6-megapixel raw files, still look gorgeous on Instagram. I once made a 16x20 print with a 4-megapixel image and, because I had merely captured good sharpness, the image hung in a gallery and I got asked by older landscape photographers if I used large format film to capture the shot.

Proof that, unless you're really making mural-sized wall art, or you just bought an 8K TV, ...it's all about technique, not the camera itself.

@ Astro, and the lens...

@ZZT231
According to DXO my Olympus E-M1 II dating back to 2016 has 12.7 stops of DR. I seldom have to recover more than 0.5 to 1 stop. If I shoot a backlit scene with the sun in it I just bracket - it is a PRO body where you have dedicated and customizable buttons for anything one can think of, and yes, - it has a button for HDR and bracketing. M43 system has smaller lenses and twice the DOF for the same angle of view plus insane stabilization - this allows me to forgo a tripod altogether or take an 800g Serui and hike or paddle to the places where “landscapes” can be found and shoot in all weather conditions as my kit with three pro-level zooms, covering 16 to 420 mm, is weather-proof. And yes a telephoto zoom is essential for landscape photography.

@ZZT231

You are wrong.
In high-res mode you are capturing a single raw image with 50...80Mp.

how about we stopped calling shadow recovery DR? they're different things, even if they related.

I don't get the issue here. For years Canon cameras have had issues with DR and I believe people still used them for landscape. Put a 6D or 5DSR in the studio scene and they'll both look ugly like a m43 camera.

"But there are plenty of things you can't HDR or pixel shift because of moving things in the scene."

Well, landscape is probably where you shot the least moving things. And if you are using HDR it means there is too much light, so you can probably shoot faster than 1/500s. If there isn't enough light, it means the DR in the scene should be manageable for the camera.

I kind of agree about the sensor in the E-M1, it was better at some things. But it's not correct to say that things haven't evolved. For instance there's less noise with the 20mp in the E-M1 II compared to the one in the Pen-F. And reviews see slight improvements in more recent cameras.

@Toni Genes
With pixel-shift you do get a single raw file, which is indeed great, however, it is not usable, for shooting anything with waves etc. At least, older implementations would fail in such scenarios. I don’t think you can get a raw HDR file, you either get a JPEG or a series of bracketed exposures that you will need to stack in post.

*** I meant since 2018. Oops :)

I won it. Its excellent. So are the other contenders on the market..
🤷‍♂️

I was trying to pass on my own perspective having researched the options featured in the video, and used both of these cameras. My bad, should have known some numpty would start with the "my camera is the one true one" idiocy. Pffft

"Landscape requires at least an ultra wide zoom for composition" - such assured ignorance. Maybe study the history of the genre (as I have) before posting such nonsense.

"OP who reads like they came here only to bash one brand and advertise another" - Read it again, and try to concentrate.

Rich's comment didn't read that way at all to me, it read like a practical observation of the way someone might use a camera for multiple purposes. /shrug

" Landscape requires at least an ultra wide zoom for composition reasons and a long zoom for compressed detail views. " -DrewRick

That's just as subjective as anything you're railing against tbh. I actually like having those options myself and if I'm mainly gonna shoot landscapes I'd grab my 17-28 + 50-400, but a great deal of amazing landscape shots are taken within a more normal range, so it hardly "requires" the more extreme FLs.

The ability to take one good photo with one focal length does not make it a versatile setup for general landscape photography. If you come upon a scene with an ugly object in the frame, you want to zoom in to compose it away or you are forced to crop, reducing your dearly paid-for high resolution.

You can say "I'm a <insert fixed focal length here> landscape photographer" but that deprives you of as many opportunities as saying "I'm a natural light portrait photographer" when lighting conditions make it so that you benefit from using reflectors or adding light. Yes, with a lot of added effort you can work around your shortcomings but you could do better.

Impulses, thanks.

DrewRick, Just to clarify, when transitioning to a new system it’s common practise to start with a couple of lenses and slowly build from there. I’ll likely add lenses with time, but those additions won’t include any UWA’s or long tele’s; and they’ll be high-quality primes.

As to landscape photography (“professional” or otherwise….), maybe have a look at Salgado’s State of Amazon, or Magnum landscapes (Abbas, Burri, Davidson etc.), or “New Topographics” (Robert Adams, Baltz, etc.). Not many ultra-wideangles, long teles or zooms there. Plenty of photographic references are available via the world’s great museums; maybe more interesting than those available on DPR.

Oh, and after wading through the latest dollop of Erez’s landscape wisdom on these pages, perhaps take a look at Olaf Otto Becker’s “Under the Nordic Light”, just as a sort of Icelandic palate-cleanser ;)

Cheers

@panther fan
There are sufficiently many Pentax or Pentax-compatible landscape lenses available.

Repeating the "lenses are a problem" mantra does not make it true.

Yes, certain specialty lenses may not be available or hard to find, but almost nobody owns these due to their price and niche applicability. This is a purely theoretical concern that is of no practical import.

Regarding the "outperform" claim, I don't think there are suitable comparisons available and furthermore only very few need absolute high-end performance and are willing and able to pay the price for it.

@Class A
Let's go for the classic landscape wide angle. Pentax only has the 15-30mm F2.8, which is heavy, old, and very expensive for a rebranded Tamron lens

So you lack 12-14mm from the start. And then have cheaper mirrorless lenses that perform better and are wider. Which make up any savings you may have in the body (which honestly is tiny if existent at all as landscape bodies by Nikon/Sony have flooded the market)

Why waste money on an obsolete system.
Use cases for cameras have changed, technology has improved up to the point that the DSLR no longer has any of the advantages it had in the past. You may argue that nothing beats an optical viewfinder. That's fine to me. But its also more a personal taste these days than a true advantage.

I can not imagine myself ever wanting to go back to using a DSLR. I do not see any use case for them any longer.

@Class A

> No Pentax K-1 II?

Pentax is for... well, Pentaxians.

There's nothing wrong with sticking to Pentax, or DSLRs in general. Or classic rangefinders -- if you're going for a particular *experience*. If that experience outweighs everything else (convenience, choice of lenses, etc.) for you.

For everyone else... I'd have to agree with others who spoke against Pentax, above.

@name that camera
"no longer has any of the advantages"

Batterytime. *Unlimited* Batterytime until you shoot. Just to name one... Which is very important if you go out for landscape photography.

Please spare us a new thread with false claims and whatabouts , we know you don't like dslrs... But I use both systems and really would like to buy a new dslr with a new sensor. Can you live with that? Other opinions? Greetings.

@rawdinal

Thanks for bringing up one of the advantages of OVFs. There are of course more. However, I'm tired of going into a back and forth with mirrorless fans. There's no point.

No Pentax k1ii FF but ther is a micro four thirds camera on the list !!!

Class A: I guess DSLRs got their honorable mention righy in the first category and I would say they are more great.
That said, as mentioned above the generation of lenses for the mirrorelsss lenses are outlandishly sharp..
sorry but no competition there - not even arguably.
The question That remains is wether that makes a difference for what you do. It did for me. I miss my DSLR all the same for being less of a computer and more of a tool. At least that’s what I’d call it - menus be damned..

Pentax KF would also be a solid pick for sub-$1000 with a kit lens. Decent Weather Resist and Pixel Shift is a decent feature set.

panther fan 12-14mm is hardly a crucial focal length range for landscape work which is often shot without wide or ultra wide focal lengths altogether.
In any case, the 15-30mm and the superb, new D FA 21mm are more than enough UWA glass for landscape work with a FF body.
Have you shot with a Pentax DLSR recently... APS-C, Full Frame (so called), digital medium format? Even the medium format 645D has suitable UWA glass, for those who want/need it.

Though those cameras indeed have good sensors. No doubt.

But sorry to say. The technology has aged. The DSLR is a thing of the past that served us all well. However improvements in technology and the use cases in which you can use your camera these days have made the DSLR obsolete.

Except when the brand is called Pentax, you will most likely never see any new DSLR appear to market. Also I would never recommend new users to buy into a DSLR to for them to find out they have to start all over again with their next camera buy, because mirrorless uses new lens mounts.

Use your DSLR up to the moment it doesn't work for you any longer, but in the end everybody will make the move to mirrorless.

IMHO advising new users to buy into DSLR is a really bad advise wasting those peoples money and long term investment.

Yes, e.g. the D750 is an amazing camera. However, especially when it comes to ultrawides, a mirrorless mount will get you better IQ lenses that are still smaller than the mirrored counterparts. Plus, the entire system will be smaller and lighter, so I can understand why the FF-camera choices are very mirrorless-biased.

That said, if you have one of those DSLRs and it works for you, there's no reason to upgrade.

I will take my Z7II with me for a landscape shoot 100% of the time over my D850. It really isn't even a close decision. There is the weight issue for the camera and every lens. The size of all of those. The 850 viewfinder is better for moving things but I will take the viewfinders for the Z7II for landscape 100% of the time. I am a huge D850 fan but it is impossible for me to consider it vs. the Z7II for landscape.

"But sorry to say. The technology has aged. The DSLR is a thing of the past that served us all well. However improvements in technology and the use cases in which you can use your camera these days have made the DSLR obsolete."

Lol. I'm sorry the level of exaggeration is astounding. Tell that to all of DSLR shooters out there in the past, future, and present that are making awesome images with their DSLR's. Your comment sounds like you work for a camera company pushing mirrorless.

Correct. It sounds like back then, "no one will ever use rangefinder again". Yet, they are Back and Leica or fuji have high sales rates....

To each his own Foskito. Just goes to show you how powerful G.A.S. is, or getting overwhelmed by a new purchase or idea. He'll regret it. By saying that, he's completely alienated himself from a very large group of photographers that use Canon glass that have been making awesome images for decades. Let him say what he wants! Doesn't change anything :)

Every brand has its strengths. So does every product. He made some good points on the new Canon direction. They haven't been making the same level quality of build, and their designs have been less consistent in terms of placement of controls. Still people like them and are buying them. Personally I'm not sold on either system because there's no optical view. I'm sure they are great cameras for many and it makes me happy they are happy, but they haven't sold me yet.

Fos- That's correct, it has. And I think many of his viewers are also Canon users, so that's what I meant by what I said about alienating himself. He commented on the video that he uses Nikon gear for his professional work, but Canon for his hobby. That surprised me considering most of his content is all about Canon. It's his channel he can do whatever he likes but I presume that won't sit well :). Get your popcorn ready.

Canon had a leading lens line until around 2014.

Then things started to turn in Nikon’s favor in DSLR glass.

Since mirrorless Canon has been asleep at the wheel. The only uniquely desirable lens in RF mount is their 85mm f1.2… and Nikon and Sony will have better options available in a few weeks.

For legacy Canon shooters it may make sense to remain in the system but that’s about it.

I wonder how many people that trash talk Canon actually use their products. Same arguments and generalizations over and over again, while others manage to make money using their system on a daily basis.

My RF 35mm f1.8 (that I use everyday for close up work) is sharp wide open, focus at 15cm, has a very competent IS, it is compact, cost $450 and It delivers excellent images, so what is it not like? Oh I know, "it is noisy" and "not weather sealed". Glad I work indoors and my models are jewelry, so they don't complain about the noise.

The Nikkor Z 35mm (which costs twice the Canon) focus only at 30cm, so just for that reason the Canon is the better option fo me, and I repeat, for ME, I an not assuming is the best for everybody.

It’s indeed a wise philosophy in life to like what you get when you don’t get what you like.

It’s possible to find a niche usage for any piece of equipment within which it is the better option. The assessment of a line up isn’t done that way though. It’s done assessing overall performance in a wide set of scenarios.

"If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with."

One of the best lines in any song that I can recall, ever.

Most people in these forums are “anti-DSLR”, we know that, suddenly the Canon 5DsR or the Nikon D850 are not enough for their needs. Anyway, the Z7ii is perfectly capable too in the 1000-3000 range which was not even considered.

Well, it's - to some extend - meant to be a bit of a buying guide, so I can understand why they don't recommend any of the higher-end DSLRs in today's world.
You can get very similair performance with mirrorless cameras in this category, while getting a slightly smaller, lighter and more flexible camera.

The claim that most people are anti DSLR in this forum is actually hilarious because I remember vividly only a couple of years ago before Canon and Nikon had mirrorless cameras of their own, the noise of "DSLRs are better at XYZ" was absolutely deafening in this very forum, drowning out everyone who said "I like live exposure preview".

Of course that changed dramatically once Canon and Nikon let everyone know in no uncertain terms that they consider DSLR dead. So it's not true that this forum hates DSLR, it's more that this forum reflects whatever the biggest marketing budget is saying.

DrewRick YOU NAILED it.

"... it's more that this forum reflects whatever the biggest marketing budget is saying."

It's so ridiculous its nearly unbelievable here sometimes.

He hits nothing and nobody. I would still prefer dslrs for the given reasons. I just cannot buy them anymore with recent sensors. The real competition world be to compare a dslr and a mirrorless with the same sensors... But what you guys are doing is comparing old dslrs with new mirrorless. That's at least unfair. But if it works for you...

"I just cannot buy them anymore with recent sensors."

You'd be surprised how good the sensors are in the DSLRs still in production and especially what you could do with them. Don't limit yourself like that. Just because newer sensors have a slight edge on paper doesn't mean previous sensors are obsolete. I know that most paid pros on sidelines and events etc. are still using DSLR's and killing it with great images.

Remember that its the person behind the camera that is infinitely more important than the camera itself.

3Percent...

Spec sheet lovers will claim images taken with DSLRs are awful because newer mirrorless has a 1/3-stop more DR and a noise advantage at ISO 5,000,000 based on DXO lab charts.

Meanwhile, thousands of people are creating great images with their obsolete gear.

Pretty much, which is why I commented earlier on someone else's comment that said the same ol song and dance about how "obsolete" DSLR's are. I said that his comment sounded like someone working for a camera company trying to get more mirrorless sales. And I would not be surprised if that happened at all. Not that his comment was, I have no proof, but that kind of ignorance just reeks of sales propaganda.

3Percent, I wonder if you are familiar with Martin Castein's channel, he is a British photographer who takes great pictures with "obsolete cameras" like the 5D Classic, 6D etc. Highly rec: https://youtu.be/ZsJhjMeojcM

The best T/S is the Nikon 19mm T/S.

Besides the Canon T/S lenses can be adapted on all mirrorless cameras and are no reason to choose one brand over another.

@photography-lover

Interestingly the best landscape camera to use on the Canon tilt-shift lenses is everything except a Canon camera.

The R5 lacks DR and applies noise reduction in the RAW file. So you get a better file with either Nikon or Sony. With Sony, you also get a resolution bump to 60MP. And with either Panasonic, Leica or Sony, you get pixel shift in various flavours from 4-8-16 shots

Yes, absolutely.

Worse… before RF my opinion was that Canon should concentrate on lenses. With the current RF lenses I don’t a single example of Canon lens I’d rather have over it’s Sony or Nikon equivalent. So I am not too sure what value they still deliver to the photographers’s community.

I haven’t tried all the implementation of pixel shift but the one of the GFX100s I own is pretty much useless even in the studio. I never bothered using it for landscape. Panoramic stitching is a much better way to reach higher resolutions.

Any of these T/S lenses can be adapted to any brand of mirrorless.

"The R5 lacks DR and applies noise reduction in the RAW file."

Every new thread the same phrase from the panther fan.