jack30000

I'm a newcomer here, and I'm in the market for a new DSLR - haven't done any serious shooting in decades since I used a Canon FT QL 35mm SLR (though I do have some great shots taken with my Sony CyberShot RX100).

I'm wanting to do gallery quality 16x20 landscape shots and my research tells me I need at least 16MP. My budget puts me in the $2,000 range, and I'm leaning toward Canon D1 or Nikon D750,and it would seem the Nikon is worth the extra bucks. If I go up a level, I can't afford glass!

According to DXO, kit lenses won't get me where I want to be. I know actual use beats lab results, but I'm not going to try them both for a month and then decide, so I'm doing my research as best I can. DXO consistently rates sensor quality on Nikon above Canon in the same price range or MP range. Are they biased or does this seem accurate?

Or, will you tell me gallery quality 16x20 with a $2000 DSLR, forget it!!

Or, will you say don't be so fussy, either will be fine, even with kit lenses like the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM (not a cheap lens, but DXO only gives this combination 14 PMP.)

Thanks!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

DXO camera ratings are mostly about sensor quality and dynamic range. Lens numbers are about sharpness, light transmission and distortion, vignetting and CR. They are comparative numbers ONLY and in most situations you may find it difficult to see significant differences between quality lenses at a given focal length and aperture even when one is rated higher by DXOmark. Stop focusing on DXO numbers and just get camera and lens recommendations here or elsewhere for what you want to do. Also go online and see what cameras and lenses people are using for landscapes and see what their output looks like. You are way too focused on DXOMark, which while useful, is not the only measure of a camera or lens' worth. Even current Canon kit lenses like the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 STM are quite excellent and for the money are a great bargain. You indicated a Canon D1. I assume you meant 1D, but which one? There are six starting with the very first 1D. The current iteration the 1Dx Mark II is over $6000. The DXO numbers for lenses change dramatically depending on which body they are mounted on. Yes, there are better lenses than the 24-105, but it will definitely meet your needs for landscape photography, assuming it wide enough or long enough for your needs and you don't need a faster aperture. Only you can answer that. And, the Nikon D750 is a very fine full frame camera which will certainly meet your needs. Which lens were you considering for it?

Most of any success you have with your photography will be about your skill, your composition and use of light, and your subject choice. By comparison, the specific camera and lens is secondary.

kchamber4

Are any of your current lenses compatible with the new Canon DSLR you want? Are they high enough quality. If so, stick with the Canon. Else, don't just look at the Nikon, but consider the Sony and Pentax. The great thing about the Pentax is that it has shake reduction built into the camera body instead of the lenses so you can use older, high quality Pentax lenses that still provide great color and rendition, just might not be auto-focusing. The Pentax K-1 has a 36 MP sensor and is full frame. You can get the body and a nice used 50mm A-lens for just at your budget. If you don't might using the cropped sensors, the K-3 which has a 24mp sensor matches up very well against the Nikon 7200 and the K70 which is the next step down also has a 24mp sensor and is also weather resistant.

Attached is a picture I took this fall with my K-3. It is a straight jpeg with no retouching.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The reality is, either will be fine. DXO, like any other company, is in business to make money. I'm not sure how they do it but assigning numbers to characteristics and saying one piece on equipment is better than another based on their numbers apparently makes them an authority on the subject. I own both Canon and Nikon products so I'm not biased either way. DXO'S numbers don't mean squat to me and apparently that's true for a whole lot more folks. If Canon products are so inferior according to DXO then why do more Pro photographers and Amateurs use Canon products than any other manufacturer. Because it's not DXO'S ratings that matter, it's the end results.

The EF 24-105 f/4L is probably the lowest quality L series lenses Canon makes and they just recently introduced its replacement, the series II version, which is a much better lens. Regardless of DXO'S rating, it's still a Canon L series lenses which makes it a pretty good lens, even for a crappy one.

With a 2 grand budget, you will get more bang for your Bucks if you go used. There's a lot of good used, and refurbished, gear out there and it's a really good way to get a better piece of equipment for less than the cost of new. If you are looking for at least 16 megapixels, that was the standard several years ago. A Canon 70D (20.2 megapixels) with a 16-35 f/4L or 17-40 f/4L or 24-105 f/4L can be had for under 2 grand and depending on the user, will produce great 16x20 landscape prints; regardless of what DXO may say.

jack30000

Thanks for the great input! I did have a typo in my original post - I meant Canon 6D, not D1.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

The kit lens that comes with the 750 might surprise you. I've seen some really good landscapes done with it.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Of course as you know, the 70D has a cropped APS-C sensor. The OP may or may not know or differentiate between FF or crop bodies. And while the 70D is a much newer camera with lots of great features, for the OP's expressed desire to shoot landscapes, getting a Canon 6D (which he originally indicated as a 1D) would probably be a better choice.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Jack, welcome to the Hog!
Get a used Canon 5Dmkll FF and a 17-40L lens with a good tripod. In a year or two, get a used 5Ds.
Forget DXO.
Again, welcome and good luck!!!
SS

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I own a 6D and a 70D, along with others, and I agree, if the OP is going to use the camera mainly for landscapes, the 6D is the better choice, full frame, same resolution, great low light capabilities. Maybe not as versatile as a 70D but, will definitely do what OP wants and do it really well, for similar cost, again, regardless of what DXO may say.

wwjd38 Loc: Wyoming

You might look at the camera's for sale on this site, I saw an Canon EOS 5D Mark III, for sale. It is a nice DSLR camera. I use the same camera for landscape, along with a Canon 24-70mm F-2.8 L lens.

JPL

According to your plans and budget you should be looking at Nikon D600 or D610 rather than D750. There is a big price difference that leaves you with lot of money for good lens and almost no quality difference. If anything the D600 and D610 are better for landscape photography than D750.

I do not know about the Canon option, would think the 5Dm2 and 5Dm3 would be the best options there.

But your best option might be Sony A7. You will get lot for your money there and can adopt almost any lens from any brand. That opens up the possibility to invest in other acessories like tripod, bag, more lenses, wireless triggers, memory cards, post processing software etc, without blowing your budget.

My advice to you is to go to flickr.com and look for landscape photos taken with those cameras and compare to help you make up your mind. All those manufacturers make good cameras and when you are on a budget there is no need to spend more than needed. All those cameras are more then good enough for your gallery quality landscape shots and a lot more.

A quick look at KEH.com shows those cameras that would serve you well.

Nikon D700 from $648
Canon 5Dm2 from $919
Nikon D600 from $959
Nikon D610 from $1169
Canon 6D from $1299
Nikon D750 from $1299
Sony A7 from $879

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Look further. You don't want a 16 MP sensor for 16x20 landscapes. A 24 MP sensor will do it, but you really would like to have 36 MP.

And while DXO is very hard to interpret, it is telling you something important.

Take a look at used Nikon D800 cameras. Between $1000 and $1500. These are so much better than anything you've mentioned that it is hard to describe!

The lens is more of a problem. Perhaps what you'd really like is a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8, but unless you shop very carefully that will go past your stated budget limit. A Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 may not be top of the line, but it's close enough and easily keeps you within budget constraints.

jack30000

With a 24 MP sensor and a PERFECT lens, you should be close to 24 perceived megapixels (PMP) - DXO's terminology. A good lens loses very little in the way of resolution; a bad lens loses more. I was thinking about 16 PMP as the limit for 16x20 prints. I downloaded a chart that says 16.6 MP gives you 249 DPI at 16x20. The chart uses 200 as the cut off for "superb" results. The Canon 6D gets you there with the right lenses (according to DXO).

I'll have to take look at Nikon D800 and D610 as well as some APS cameras with 24MP like the Canon 80D. I know FF beats APS, but isn't that more about noise rather than res with the same MP - smaller pixels packed closely together? Not an issue at low ISO?

Might APS with better glass would be a better investment than FF with lower quality glass? I was thinking Canon 80D or Nikon 5300 plus Sigma 18-35 and Tamron 70-200.

Why is the 610 better for landscape than the 750?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Look at this a little differently...

If you print on a Canon printer is uses 300 PPI. (An Epson uses 360 PPI, but we'll use the Canon number because it is smaller.) With a Nikon D800 or D810 camera producing an image with roughly 4912 (it will vary by a dozen or so depending on the RAW converter used) pixels on the short side, the largest image you can print at 300 PPI without using software to generate pixels that did not exist, is a 16 inch high print. (If you are willing to accept the lesser quality with generated pixels, a 200 PPI image resampled to 300 PPI for printing could be 24 inches high.) The target should be 300 PPI. But if cropping is necessary, 200 PPI can indeed work.

A Nikon D750 (or D610) has roughly 4016 pixels on the short side. That is about 13" and 20" for 300 PPI and 200 PPI, aproximately. The most obvious problem is that it leaves no room for cropping. If you tend to frame precisely in the camera and never crop in post processing it won't be a problem, otherwise it is. But clearly a D750 or D610 cannot produce a 16x20 print at 300 PPI, so resampling is absolutely required (on a Canon printer, and much more so on an Epson printer).

There is another significant characteristic that is important. Dynamic range at ISO 100 is significant for landscape photographers, and perhaps at higher ISO's is not nearly as significant as it is for other types of photography. The best place to get values for Dynamic Range is from Bill Claff's site at

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Note that there is little difference between the various Nikon models. Canon however isn't even close. The 5D Mark 4 is a full fstop below the Nikon D800, D750 and D610. The other Canon models are farther down. A Canon 5D Mark 3 gets only 8.9 fstops compared to the Nikon D800 at 11.0. That is significant.

The significance of all these numbers is actually pretty simple: you want a Nikon D800 camera.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

From my experience, the FF cameras are better for landscape as in most instances they have better dynamic range, and, remember, you will be enlarging the pixels less when making big prints. I've used mostly Nikon's for landscape because in my experience they have better dynamic range than equivalent Canon's so I'm able to retain more detail in the sky while keeping the shadows open. HDR shooting overcomes this if you are so inclined. I have made beautiful 24 x 36 prints using a D600 with Nikon 24-85mm VR lens, a combo that can probably be bought for around $1000. The D600, D610 and D750 should all render similar results. I'm currently using a D610 and D810 for landscapes. The nice thing with the 36mp D810 is the ability to crop a bunch and still make big prints, you will get similar great results from a D800E too, but the price is more than the 24mp bodies.