# Does the Camera Model really matter?



## Olivia Green (Apr 17, 2018)

Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 17, 2018)

The camera is only as good as the photographer, that said, the better the camera the easier it makes things.


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 17, 2018)

Yes get yourself decent photo software but first get to know your camera.


----------



## Olivia Green (Apr 17, 2018)

espresso2x said:


> It's possible to make good landscape with that camera/lens. Invest some time in learning to use raw development software that has comprehensive adjustment tools like distortion correction, perspective correction, rotation etc;  fringing/CA removal.  RawTherapee Blog
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Editing and Processing is something which will be done after the shot has been taken. Just wanted to know if the the Camera and kit lens are strong enough for decent landscape images, which by your answer seems they are.


----------



## Olivia Green (Apr 17, 2018)

Jeff15 said:


> Yes get yourself decent photo software but first get to know your camera.


Have spent a lot of days learning the ins and out and practicing already with the rule of thirds. Will focus more on learning the settings.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 17, 2018)

I personally have found photography to be much more enjoyable with better gear. I have found the lenses and 100% coverage viewfinder to be very beneficial to me. I have found the Fujifilm lenses to be much better than the Nikon ones and less time in front of a computer, editing. I am not saying Fuji is better but my setup is way, way better than what I was using when I was shooting an entry level D3300. If you don't want to spend a lot of time in front of a PC, then spending the money on a Fujifilm XT2 or Nikon D800 series with FX glass will serve you well and cut down on the frustration. Of course, getting the basics down on framing, composition, and the exposure triangle will elevate your photography no matter what hardware your using. So get to know your D3200 / kit and maximize it's potential. If you decide it's something you want to continue doing, then upgrade your hardware.
It's not all about the hardware but more so, the 10" behind the viewfinder. Get good with what you got, so when you get better hardware, you will find it much more enjoyable. That has been my experience. For me, if I have to spend more than 5 minutes editing an image in software, than I rushed to take the image or I wasn't skilled enough to compensate for that moment's notice. I have put many hours in over the last year and a half, getting the image right in camera. It's been a strict goal of mine to do so, so much so, that I even bought a film camera (s) to drive the process into my brain so it becomes second nature. I'm going on vacation at the end of the week and my mentor agrees, bring two lenses, a wide (23mm), and a telephoto (80mm). All I am going to work on is framing and just have fun doing it. I will also bring a film camera with a 35mm and a 16mm fish eye. I am also going to do some work on a tripod. Slow, methodical, careful shooting, both hand held and stabilized.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 17, 2018)

Echoing the comments above as to the importance of the photographer behind the camera. A skilled artist can turn out beautiful work regardless of the equipment. Look up some of the great artists using nothing but a pin hole camera. The other thing is that knowing more about the basics - exposure, composition, and lighting, will also allow you to make a more informed decision on your equipment choice.


----------



## Destin (Apr 17, 2018)

jcdeboever said:


> I am also going to do some work on a tripod. Slow, methodical, careful shooting



This is key for landscape images. Better cameras don’t really take better photos; they just let you change settings more easily and have features that make them easier to use. 

What makes a good landscape image is taking your time, using a tripod, and being very deliberate with every decision you make about taking the photo. As you gain experience this process will become second nature. 

My rule is that I refuse to shoot landscapes without a tripod. If a landscape photo isn’t worth setting up a tripod for then it isn’t worth taking at all.


----------



## Designer (Apr 17, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Just wanted to know if the the Camera and kit lens are strong enough for decent landscape images,


Decent, yes.  I will recommend that you don't try to push the envelope.  Make your important shots using a tripod, and a moderate aperture (remember to turn off the VR).  I should think somewhere between f/8 and f/16 should get very good photographs.  Develop your hand-holding technique so you can get good photographs even when you don't have your tripod along.  Invest in a lightweight travel-type tripod and try to always have it handy. A good tripod and a cable release should be your natural mode.

The remainder is your artistic vision.  Use the light to your advantage.  Think "near and far", although they don't have to be in the same frame.  Use natural frames within the frame.  Try to capture scenes that nobody has expected.


----------



## espresso2x (Apr 17, 2018)

It's not about having better kit, it's about knowing why you have better kit. 
You come to know this by having worse kit, rather than coming to be being told this by having worse kit.


----------



## Destin (Apr 17, 2018)

espresso2x said:


> It's not about having better kit, it's about knowing why you have better kit.
> You come to know this by having worse kit, rather than coming to be being told this by having worse kit.



^this. You don’t need to upgrade until you find the limits of your current kit.


----------



## texxter (Apr 17, 2018)

Your camera and lens will do a fantastic job, especially at f/8+  - heck, I take nice landscapes during the day with my mobile phone!   I am no landscape photographer, but I know that the secrets to fantastic, out-of-this-world landscapes are: (1) location; (2) time of the day for best light; (3) time of the year for best light; (4) composition; (5) willingness to get up early, get cold or wet, hike miles or whatever to get to the perfect spot.   Compared to those factors, the camera is not much of a factor... you got a good one.  For serious landscape work a tripod is essential.  Also understanding how light builds up with long exposures, capturing motion of water,  some post-processing... you can learn a lot of this on youtube or the internet.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 17, 2018)

A car mechanic would not be a 'good one' unless he first learned how to use the tools he has to work with.  Nor does a mechanic need every tool that's available to do every job.  Knowing -what- to use, -when- to use it, and -how- to effectively use each tool are all critical factors in becoming a good mechanic.

One look at the 'giant' tool box many pros have reveals there's 'a million' tools in there!  Be assured that he or she did not instantly know what, when and how to use each tool over night!  What seems like eons ago when I and my friends started working on our cars while in high school, we only needed sets of open, closed, and socket wrenches, a variety of screw drivers, pliers, and a hammer or two, and we could fix just about anything we drove.  If we didn't have a timing light or brake wrench, one of us usually knew someone who did and was willing to teach us how to use it.

Just as the number of tools needed to be acquired and learned by mechanics has grown greatly over the past 60 years, photography has had an even bigger 'quantum leap' in that time frame.  Learning to be a mechanic, photographer, or any other skilled professional all require one to 'start at the bottom' with basic tools.  Once they are sufficiently understood enough to become 'automatic', then it's on to the next step.  And the next.  And another next. And it keeps on going.

No other aspect of photography is more important, or more fundamental than getting proper exposure of an image.  From the very beginning, aperture, shutter speed, and ISO speed, AKA, the 'exposure triangle'.  Knowing the effects of each of these settings and increasing/decreasing of each is far and away the biggest key to getting the image you want.  Knowing when and why to use a large aperture is more important than getting it framed 'just right', for example.  While use of any of the 'auto' features of a camera can be used as a learning tool, there are times the computer in the camera is incapable of getting the exposure correct, if at all.  That's when knowing what to do  becomes important...or miss the shot.

As the OP wants to do mostly landscape photography, I am led to ask, what 'kind' of landscape photography?  Taking pictures of a beautiful backyard garden is quite different than taking pictures of the Rocky Mountains that typically requires a lens with longer focal length than your 18-55 lens.  Can you get footprints in the snow on the mountain  from 5 miles away with your lens?  No way.  But racing out and buying an 800mm lens would be extremely foolish and incredibly expensive to boot!

As stated by other respondents, the key to becoming a landscape photographer is to first learn and become 'an expert' at using what you have.  Learn what it can and cannot do.  At the same time, you'll learn what you'll learn what you *need*, rather than what you *want*, or what others tell you 'you gotta have...'  Of course, buying more camera gear takes some money, sufficient budget, and perhaps skill at hiding the costs from your spouse...


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 17, 2018)

bratkinson said:


> perhaps skill at hiding the costs from your wife...



Not surprising that's the hardest part!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mrca (Apr 17, 2018)

Texxter nailed it.  If you want to make huge improvements in your photography,  changing the camera isn't the answer.  The answer is learning to photograph.  Learn light, learn what your lenses and camera controls do to an image so you can use them to maximize your image.  Learn composition.  Learn editing.  You don't get those with a credit card, you get them with work.   And it is free.  So much on line for free, Kelby and Lynda for a fee.   I guarantee that if you took $200 and subscribed to Kelby and studied the above subjects, the improvement in your shots would be astounding.  Spend $200 on some piece of gear, marginal change.    My most awarded image was taken with a 10 mp d200 and a lens Rockwell rates as one of nikon's 10 worst.  The shot has gotten perfect scores and a speakers award.


----------



## ac12 (Apr 17, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.



Olivia
You need to be as specific as possible what you mean by landscape shots.
The reason is everyone here comes from their own point of view, which may or may not match what you mean.

In the general term, the 18-55 should be just fine.  The 18-55 = 27-83mm FX/35mm film equivalent.  
The primary lens on my 2nd 35mm film camera was a 43-86, and it did just fine for my 98+% of my vacation landscape photos.  There were a few time when I wanted WIDER, and switched to a 24, but it was not often.  And there were even fewer times when I wanted an even WIDER lens.  One specific instance was shooting Morning Glory pool at Yellowstone.  Even the 24 was not wide enough at that close distance.

But if you mean distant mountain peaks, then no the 18-55 is too short.
This is what I mean by you need to be as specific as possible what YOU mean by landscape.

There have been decades of photographers who only shot with a "normal" lens, which for you is a 35mm lens.  And 35mm is about in the middle of your 18-55.

As others have said, as you shoot more, you will run into the "problems" that will make you think about different equipment, or ways to get around the problems.  Examples

If the lens is not wide enough, back up.  If the subject is too small, move closer.  This is what we did before zoom lenses, we zoomed with our feet.  

Obviously there are practical limits to this statement.  You can't just take a few steps closer to a mountain, you have to drive MILES closer.

If you want to take SLOW exposures of multiple seconds, then you need a tripod and remote shutter release.
Buying a tripod is not a simple decision either.

If you are shooting in dim light, rather than buy a faster lens, raise the ISO level.  

Raising the ISO level does come with a cost of less image quality, but not as much as some people say.  It all depends on how picky your eye is.


----------



## ac12 (Apr 17, 2018)

mrca said:


> My most awarded image was taken with a 10 mp d200 and a lens Rockwell rates as one of nikon's 10 worst.  The shot has gotten perfect scores and a speakers award.



Gee that sounds like my 43-86 ver1 which I used for a decade before switching to the ver2 of the same lens.  The 43-86 has the reputation of being Nikon's WORST zoom lens.  But I loved it.  And I would still be using it, if not for the 35-105 which had a wider zoom range.  And the wider zoom range was the only reason it replaced the 43-86, not lack of image quality of the 43-86.


----------



## Olivia Green (Apr 18, 2018)

ac12 said:


> But if you mean distant mountain peaks, then no the 18-55 is too short.
> This is what I mean by you need to be as specific as possible what YOU mean by landscape.



This is exactly what I'm looking for. Going to Canada and Switzerland for some time
and would need some landscape shots of mountains and hilltops. Not sure if 18-55
works for it or not.


----------



## LWW (Apr 18, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> espresso2x said:
> 
> 
> > It's possible to make good landscape with that camera/lens. Invest some time in learning to use raw development software that has comprehensive adjustment tools like distortion correction, perspective correction, rotation etc;  fringing/CA removal.  RawTherapee Blog
> ...



Stop worrying.

You can spend quite some time learning what you have, and your lens is quite capable of shooting what you have named.

If I was wsnting to upgrade I would first go to a 55-200 NIKKOR for times when 55 isn’t enough, or trade the 18-55 in on a 18-200.


----------



## dunfly (Apr 18, 2018)

I really hate to add to your already voluminous responses, all of which are good by the way.  First, I would get a Nikkor 18-140mm lens to replace the 18-55 mm.  It is a better lens and covers 90% of what I shoot.  There are some great deals on refurbished lenses ($249 at B&H).  Learn how to shoot panoramas and stitch images.  This will cover just about everything no matter how wide it is.

PS:  I don't have the Nikkor 18-200mm but I am sure it would be great also, just more expensive.

PPS:  Remember, when you upgrade your body you also get a heavier camera.  I have a D7200 and a D5200.  The D5200 is my travel camera because of the lighter weigh and compact design.  With a little more effort, it takes just as good of images.


----------



## ac12 (Apr 18, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > But if you mean distant mountain peaks, then no the 18-55 is too short.
> ...



Since you want to reach out to distant mountain peaks, I second as dunfly suggested, the 18-140, to replace your 18-55.  Which also happens to be my standard lens.  Just be aware that the 18-140 is larger and heavier than your 18-55.  So carrying the camera will be heavier.

Alternatively, if you want to keep and use the 18-55 as a carry around lens, get a 55-200 VR or 70-300 VR to use for the long shots.  It is important, that you get the VR version of these lenses, as it helps to steady the lens to get a sharper picture.  The 55-200 (5.7x max) and 70-300 (8.6x max) will reach further than the 18-140, because they have greater magnification.  But they are larger lenses, and when you travel, size and weight is a consideration.


----------



## lance70 (Apr 18, 2018)

That's a nice camera and will do just fine for landscape shots.....if you want better glass down the line maybe consider a 35 or 50mm lens.


----------



## Upadhyay (Apr 20, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.


There is nothing as perfect but there are definitely better cameras and glass out there and there is no end to it. Your current gears are pretty good just focus on getting the best out of it though you may invest in some filters and may be a tripod if you do not have it already.


----------



## Destin (Apr 20, 2018)

OP: See this thread:El-Cheapo Lens - Test Results

I just bought a $25 lens to use for hiking photos in leu of my $1200 professional lens of the same zoom range. 

It does just fine for landscape images. Proof that it's much more about the photographer than the lens.


----------



## Fujidave (Apr 20, 2018)

I agree with a lot of the advice given, don`t do what I use to do and just take the shot.  Think about the shot in your mind and picture how you`d like it to come out, most of all take you`r time and enjoy your photography then share it here for tips/advice.


----------



## nerwin (Apr 21, 2018)

Camera is a tool that allows you capture light.

The D3200 + 18-55 is more than capable of taking wonderful landscapes. With that being said there is nothing wrong with upgrading to something that makes you feel more comfortable that can allow you enjoy shooting more.

Also, don't get caught up on the "rules" of photography. There are no rules when it comes to photography and art. Besides....rules are meant to be broken!

Have fun and shoot for yourself which what I'm trying to do.


----------



## photoflyer (Apr 21, 2018)

Now that I have good equipment I am harder on myself because I can't blame it on the camera  or lens anymore.  That said, there were some shots that were simply not possible with an f 5.6 lens on a consumer grade APS-C body.  I recall the first time I took the full frame with the f2.8 70-200 to an outdoor night sporting event; I was ecstatic with the possibilities that lay ahead.  

But, in most conditions, a good photographer can get great results with average equipment but a poor photographer will not get good results from great equipment.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 21, 2018)

Experienced shooters can often work around the limitations of modest gear; beginning and intermediate-level shooters are the people who benefit the most from higher-end equipment. Lenses are especially critical: a slow 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 lens has a slow maximum aperture,and in say, and indoor gymnastics meet situation in dimmer light, such a lens's maximum aperture range will be a major handicap, whereas having the ability to shoot with say, an 85mm f/1.8 high-speed telephoto lens at, the same gymnastics meet indoors, will be a HUGE benefit, to any level of photographer.

Cameras can vary in their capabilities, but as we have moved into the "modern era", even the beginner-priced d-slr models offer ISO performance and picture quality that matches or exceeds the "pro" camera bodies of the early to mid-2000's era.

There is a balance between the camera, and the lens, and the skill and capabilities of the shooter. Again...I think that the lens itself is most-often the determining factor in much modern-era digital shooting. Higher-end lenses make things much easier than kit-level lenses, especially when trying to make good pictures hand-held and under a lot of marginal lighting scenarios.

If you want to expand your photo-making capabilities, the BEST place to spend money is on capable, quality lenses, which can last for decades.


----------



## ac12 (Apr 21, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Experienced shooters can often work around the limitations of modest gear; beginning and intermediate-level shooters are the people who benefit the most from higher-end equipment. Lenses are especially critical: a slow 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 lens has a slow maximum aperture,and in say, and indoor gymnastics meet situation in dimmer light, such a lens's maximum aperture range will be a major handicap, whereas having the ability to shoot with say, an 85mm f/1.8 high-speed telephoto lens at, the same gymnastics meet indoors, will be a HUGE benefit, to any level of photographer.



I agree with this.
I used to shoot indoor sports with my 18-140 f/3.5-5.6 zoom.  But I had to shoot at ISO 12800 at 1/500 sec and f/5.6
I finally gave up and got a 35mm f/1.8, and I was then shooting at ISO 3200 at 1/1000 sec and f/2.
In LOW light, FAST glass wins.  Though I did miss the ability to zoom.


----------



## mrca (Apr 22, 2018)

Derrel is absolutely right about lenses.   My "you will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers" lens  was first introduced by Nikon in 1994 and had been made unchanged for 24 years.  In 5 years a digital body has lost most of it's value.    But for landscape, you don't need expensive fast and heavy glass like 2.8 or 1.4.   You will be usually shooting in f8 or above, where most lenses shine.    How do you know your current gear isn't capable of producing images you love?    After a point, expensive gear lets you work at extremes, not just give excellent images.   What makes great images is the most important part of the camera as ansel says, the 12 inches behind it.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 26, 2018)

I spent the weekend shooting with a humble EM10 III and a kit lens.
I loved the lightness. I got decent landscape shots but my winners were with my D810 (with a 24-70 and 70-200 both f/2.8).

A basic camera is great for learning and getting your concepts right. What I found the D810 did better was tracking moving objects, and a much much better dynamic range.
View attachment 156932

Caveat... I’m not into landscapes and I don’t have to patience to hike and be at anyplace further than a 15min trundle from my car.
View attachment 156933

no idea why attachments aren't working


----------



## chuasam (Apr 26, 2018)




----------



## BananaRepublic (Apr 26, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.



Most of photography is about having a good eye the rest is skill and software.


----------



## nerwin (Apr 26, 2018)

Watch out, that dinosaur is going to get ya!


----------



## chuasam (Apr 26, 2018)

nerwin said:


> Watch out, that dinosaur is going to get ya!


----------



## chuasam (Apr 26, 2018)

photoflyer said:


> Now that I have good equipment I am harder on myself because I can't blame it on the camera  or lens anymore.  That said, there were some shots that were simply not possible with an f 5.6 lens on a consumer grade APS-C body.  I recall the first time I took the full frame with the f2.8 70-200 to an outdoor night sporting event; I was ecstatic with the possibilities that lay ahead.
> 
> But, in most conditions, a good photographer can get great results with average equipment but a poor photographer will not get good results from great equipment.



I rather see interesting pictures rather than rehashed cliches. 






So I prefer to carry a basic small camera. 

Planning a trip to ChiangMai later in the year. Pondering going m43 all the way.


----------



## petrochemist (Apr 27, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.


Your existing camera & lens are not 'perfect' for landscapes, but will be quite adequate for many Landscape shoots.
There are situations where your kit wouldn't be able to take the shot - you have the wrong focal length for some shots, others where the image may not be sharp enough for the desired output...

My own selection of hardware is more more extensive than yours, covering all relevant focal lengths on several different camera systems, but even so there are times when my kit would not be sufficient - and many more when my compositional skills would fail to get the best from a location. If I wanted a very large print (<A3) I'd probably find my lenses weren't sharp enough, or had too much CA etc. With normal output that's not normally an issue.

Experiment with what you have, if you often find you want a wider FOV than your 18-55 gives you could consider a 10-20 type lens, but if you prefer longer focal lengths that would be pretty useless to you. Likewise if you want to take scenes at dusk/night you might want a faster lens (perhaps a prime?) but for normal landscapes the gain from such a lens could be very minimal. If you want to take photos in more dramatic weather you'll probably want to change both your body & lens for a weather sealed model.

For the perfect system you could opt for a medium format camera with a range of lenses - only to find it too heavy to get to the places you want to photograph. Going the other way to a light weight system will give you other compromises, such as less dynamic range.


----------



## Olivia Green (Apr 27, 2018)

Thank you everyone for the answers. I'll try to use this combination for the best I can, and once I feel constrained by the lenses, will look for the ones that help me overcome the situation.


----------



## Olivia Green (Apr 27, 2018)

chuasam said:


> View attachment 156939
> View attachment 156940


Camera and specifications?


----------



## JoeW (Apr 27, 2018)

As usual I"m late to the party but let me add my response:
1.  For landscape, your combo is fine.  The next two things to add (from a landscape perspective) would be a polarizing filter (to add pop to the sky and clouds) and a rock-solid tripod (not some cheap piece of crap).

2.  The posts about the photographer mattering more than the camera are spot on.

3.  However, there are absolutely some kinds of photography that really benefit from specific equipment.  For instance, if you're shooting wildlife (especially birds) you need a lot of FPS and a great zoom (like at least 400mm and probably more like 600mm).  If you're shooting sports (especially indoors), you need really fast glass (f2.8 on a zoom lens) and a camera that doesn't give you a lot of noise when you jack the ISO to 2000 or higher.  If you're shooting architecture and interiors than a tilt-shift lens is very important, a great tripod, a camera with a lot of pixels and good dynamic range.  Quite simply:  some genres really push the envelop in particular areas (by demanding fast lens or distance or high ISO performance or a lot of frames per second).

However, for what you're shooting, you've got a lens that will allow wide-angle compositions (critical for landscapes), has some modest zoom capabilities, and should perform well enough for everything that isn't extreme light (like the blue hour--after sunset) or extreme contrast (dark shadow in a cave as you stand outside at high noon on a cloudless day).  In short, it's a solid setup for shooting landscapes and a good enough one to learn on and determine "is this good enough for me or do I need to upgrade?"  

One last thought:  sometimes an "upgrade" is a "downgrade."  Your body is relatively small and light for a DSLR.  If you "upgraded" to say...a D5 (clearly a far superior camera to what you have now), I bet you wouldn't carry it around as much (especially on hikes and walks).  All DSLRs are compromises.  For starting out, for landscapes (especially if they involve hikes and walks) you've got a solid setup.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 27, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 156939
> ...


Olympus OMD EM10 III
40-150 f/4-5.6
14-42 f/3.5-5.6 EZ

pretty much the entry level µ43 camera and lens
if you think that your camera limits you - it will


----------



## weepete (Apr 28, 2018)

Sometimes gear will limit you, in so far as you might not be able to realise some shots you visualise because your gear is not optimised for that particular style of shooting.

However, photography is very dynamic and usually there is a shot there..... sometimes you just need to change your mindset and look for the shots you can get. A lot of it is just learning what the limits of your gear are and then shooting within those limits. Thankfully creativeness is not a limitation that's built into gear. It's also a process that can be learned with a little time and effort.

For landscapes, a kit lens on a D3200 is absolutely fine, it's what you put in front of the lens that really counts.


----------



## photoflyer (Apr 28, 2018)

JoeW said:


> One last thought: sometimes an "upgrade" is a "downgrade." Your body is relatively small and light for a DSLR. If you "upgraded" to say...a D5 (clearly a far superior camera to what you have now), I bet you wouldn't carry it around as much (especially on hikes and walks). All DSLRs are compromises. For starting out, for landscapes (especially if they involve hikes and walks) you've got a solid setup.



Agreed.  I have a full frame but don't want to take it on business trips (size and value).  I just got a T7i (with miles ironically) to take along on business travel and it is a perfect compromise.   Tomorrow I leave on a trip and was trying to decide which lens to take.  I've decided to take the 18-55mm EF/S in liue of the 24-105 F/4 L glass as on an APS-C the kit lens is about the same as the later is on full frame (though not the same optical quality) and much smaller.


----------



## mrca (Apr 29, 2018)

Photoflyer.  Perfect example of "different horses for different courses."   When someone says a piece of gear is perfect, they mean perfect for what subject matter they shoot, their style and vision.  Different needs for packing using a carry on vs.  hauling a truck load of gear.  Hence the reason I drive a truck.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 29, 2018)

The Camera and lens combinations is only no good when it holds you back from the majority of your shots,simple put you have out grown your camera and it just cant keep up with your demands. There limitations on all Camera gear you learn to work with them until it holds you back from the type of photography style you prefer to shoot but at the same time,there is no denying higher end gear has huge advantages like pro level glass quality,speed and handling of the camera its self menu diving vs direct access to settings etc. I have not out growing any of my gear to date but found enough annoyances from say a Nikon D3300 to move into the 7000 series of Nikon and mainly for speed and handling and nothing IQ related.


----------



## beagle100 (Apr 30, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Thank you everyone for the answers. I'll try to use this combination for the best I can, and once I feel constrained by the lenses, will look for the ones that help me overcome the situation.




OK,  overcome the limitations
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## chuasam (May 1, 2018)

There is no such thing as perfect.
I once used an RX1R II for a month (courtesy of Sony).
LOoooooved the size, loved the image quality (better than my D810 in a compact camera).
Didn't like the handling. Loved the lens. 
then it came to the price...yeah..I had to give it back.


----------



## Gary A. (May 1, 2018)

Yes. 

But the skill level can/will determine how much a difference there may/will be.  At a minimum, a superior camera will increase the ease of capturing the exceptional image as well as increase the consistency (keeper percentage).  (Ease of capture helps consistency and keeper rate.)


----------



## mrca (May 1, 2018)

For a fraction of the cost, mastering the craft will give far better results than just purchasing gear.  If someone wants  to increase the number of keepers, master the craft and don't spray and pray.   If the shooter knows why he is taking the shot, what is his vision, understands composition, posing and camera controls and lighting and the number of exceptional images will skyrocket.  Mindlessly lifting the camera to the eye and shooting in auto with a zoom lens from where happening to be standing will rarely yield a perfect image.   A perfect image takes coordinating  a lot and blind luck isn't very reliable.   I  am now shooting the best camera I have ever owned.  It has little effect on me getting an exceptional image.  The 12 inches behind the camera/lens do that.  Get a camera that takes sharper images will only give someone taking crap photos sharper crap.   The camera and lens people( "art lens" my ass, it won't make art, the photographer does) try to make folks think a piece of gear will transform someones work.  It won't.  Skill will and it costs much less but takes some work.  No question a camera or lens with specific abilities opens doors to shots otherwise not attainable,  but a poorly lit, poorly composed, poorly posed, poor expression shot with a fuzzy idea  will not be transformed by any camera.  Most photographers I see don't push the limits of their gear.   The first thing I do when I get a new piece of gear is to find the limits.   I don't want to slam up against it during an important shoot and shooting at the extremes often gives shots that everyone doesn't take.   I like taking shots no one has taken before.  It is possible and easy to do even with mid grade gear.  My most awarded photo was taken with a 10 mp d200 that didn't have useable iso over 400, and per Ken Rockwell, one of nikons all time 10 worst lenses.   The image made a long time pro in that field, literally, football field, nearly fall out of his chair.


----------



## texxter (May 1, 2018)

mrca said:


> Most photographers I see don't push the limits of their gear.   The first thing I do when I get a new piece of gear is to find the limits.   I don't want to slam up against it during an important shoot and shooting at the extremes often gives shots that everyone doesn't take.



Can you elaborate on what you mean by pushing the limits of a new piece of gear?    I can see learning to use a new camera well, or making sure one understands the behavior of a new lens... is that what you mean by pushing the limits? Or do you mean something altogether different?


----------



## mrca (May 1, 2018)

Texxter, when I get a new piece of gear, I want to know how much I can get out of it, at what point does the ability or quality fail.  For example, I shoot all modifiers against a wall to "see" what the light pattern looks like.  I used that knowledge to create a chiuroscuro effect on a hill in the back ground knowing a grid has a substantial less bright outer ring of light with a hotter spot in the center.   I only had power on the r side of the background hill so had to place the main and my bg light there but wanted that darker than the other side of the subject .  Feathered the gridded light so only that darker ring hit the hill on the side the light was on,  hid the hot spot behind subjects head and let the brighter light go past on the far side of the subjects head that was the subject shadow side of the main light.   Didn't learn that from anyone, knowing the limit of my gear let me create it.  I'd say  that is pushing limit of my gear.  Another example has the shot containing pushing the limits in several ways.  Boomed a camera at the end of a 12 foot boom, facing down with a fisheye lens, subjects underneath looking up to it.  I was tethered behind a black  scrim firing the camera and reviewing shots while I bounced a studio strobe off the ceiling from behind the scrim with me to light the subjects.   Ever see that done before?  I'd say that is pushing the limits and doing things folks rarely  and probably never will do.  I had to test the key to the shot, being able to keep the boom out of site of the 180 degree fisheye and it be secure enough to trust it with $4,000 in camera and lens hanging 8 feet up in the air.  I also don't usually fire the camera from my lap top so had to make sure that worked reliably before bringing in the subjects.  I have 5 einsteins and when I built a shot had one light left and needed 2.  Made one light do the work of two with the help of some cinefoil and appropriate height and angle again in a way I have never seen done before.  With my new camera, I immediately calibrate it to my light meter to know EXACTLY where my clipping points are and that enables me to move the highlights just inside clipping to get the best possible blacks at the other end of the histogram.  I can work right at the limit of the sensor.   I also test to find the highest iso I find acceptable without post and what will give an acceptable image with post processing noise.  I know how far I can take my iso when in difficult situations.   My greatest revelation came with my 8 stop vari nd filter.  On the d700 above 5 stops or so, the camera couldn't grab focus so had to shoot to get the appropriate  nd setting, lower it to get and set focus, then re dial it in.  It had to be on tripod as I had minimal dof to work with.  Testing the d 850, it focuses the full 8 stops nd when I can barely see through the view finder.   Now I don't have to limit my self to being on  tripod  at  4-5 stops nd.  Plus the 850 native iso is 64 not 200 saving me 2 stops nd over what I am used to.   I have tested my lights with both the original vagabond that I can get 6 pops per second and the mini that will give me about 2 then run out of steam.  I haven't tried it at 9 for the 850 with battery pack  or 10 fps for the d500 so still have some trial to do.  Have done trials on stopping motion with the 13500 flash duration that drops to about 1/2500 when power is increased and works for the motion I want to stop.  I know how high I can take power before the duration drops below that level.  Einsteins have a readout on the lcd that tells the flash duration as you shoot but I need to know if I have enough power at that level to accomplish what I want to get at the distances. aperture and diffusion in use.   In all the above instances, when the need arises, I have no hesitation to take my gear to it's tested and known limits.   I don't want to take photos everyone else takes, I want to make images no one has seen. and shooting at the limit helps.  You are absolutely right too when it comes to lenses.  How many folks take the time to shoot shallow dof at usual subj distances and then varying distances subject to bg?  If not, they are probably just guessing on what the oof bg will look like.   I'm not pulling it out of thin air hoping I like the look, I am choosing it.   It's mastering the tools and the craft that results in more great images consistently.  When I show up for a shoot, I am expected to hit a home run and I am completely confident I will.  I like the quote "the harder I work, the luckier I get."   I really enjoy having a challenging situation and pull it off with an image that makes it look easy.  For me, that is the beauty of location work.  It drives you out of the box.


----------



## keen.observer (Jul 3, 2018)

This camera-lens combo will give good landscape images...depending on your use for them. Will you make 3x5 inch prints for the family snapshot album? Will you make 8x10 inch prints for your portfolio? Will you make wall sized prints to advertise your future photo business? For less than 8x10 inch prints, the kit zoom lens will be fine. For 8x10 inch prints, or larger, you'd be better off with a Prime (non zoom) lens...something like a 20mm, or a 24mm, or 28mm.


----------



## daveren (Jul 10, 2018)

I have a D3300 and think it is great.  I also have a Nikon D90 which is great if you don't mind carrying the weight.  Anyway .... I would use the D3200 and get yourself a good polarizer filter and maybe look at Adobe Lightroom to do some post-processing tweeking and I think you will find you can get some amazing results.  The only "complaint" about the D3300 is that I think it leans towards the blue - this may be because of the lack of Infared filter.   I take it everywhere and use the stock collapsible lens.  Hey ..... if you don't have a "good" camera with you ... you won't get the shot.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 10, 2018)

Gary A. said:


> Yes.
> 
> But the skill level can/will determine how much a difference there may/will be.  At a minimum, a superior camera will increase the ease of capturing the exceptional image as well as increase the consistency (keeper percentage).  (Ease of capture helps consistency and keeper rate.)



I've owned cameras that were atrociously poor (Argus C3) in terms of ergonomics and functionality, and cameras that were basic on controls and had average ergonomics (Nikon FM, for example), and famous classic cameras (Nikon F Photomic FTN and F2A and F2A-SB) and Nikon F3, Nikon FE-2, and many (12 different models) of digital SLR cameras from awful (Fuji S1 Pro), to good, Fuji S2 Pro, Canon 20D,the Canon 5D, to extremely good in the Nikon D2x,to the very finest camera of its era, the Nikon D3x...and am currently on a pair of Nikons the D610 and the D800...I can tell you that a camera with a small, crappy viewfinder like the Nikon D70 is a poor rig compared to the D3x or the D800...the high-end, $3,499 to $7995 cameras truly are _better shooters_ than the low-cost models.

A superior camera is simply easier to shoot with.It shoots quickly. it has great controls. It has all the features you will ever need. As Gary mentions, a superior camera, after one familiarizes himself with it, leads to easy shooting, and lots of well-captured images, on a consistent basis. Once you own a top-level camera for a while, you realize that almost invariably, any mistakes or errors are your very own fault, and you lose the ability to blame the equipment.

Does the camera model really matter? At times, YES; for example, the low-end Nikons do not allow FP Synch or full remote flash capabilities, so, an entire class of flash photography is not within the scope of the $488-$699 models; the cameras actually LACK advanced features. The same thing exists with some other features, like buffer depth, or speed of sequential shooting, or low-light autofocus capability, and so on. At times (and not a "lot" of times), yes, the camera model can be an issue. However, as I see it, for the majority of uses, many models of cameras will provide adequate performance. However, there have been a number of cameras I have owned that were not all that good at focusing in tricky situations, or with consumer-type lenses with slow maximum aperture values.

The MOST-important difference I will say is to look at the viewfinder' size, brightness, and clarity, and how well it interacts with your eyeglasses. Same with rear-LCD viewing and/or flippy screens. To me, the superior viewfinder camera is the one I WANT to use....this is where the low-level d-slr cameras have small, "squinty" viewfinders, which for me, hinder my shooting. The better the viewfinder, the easier the camera is to shoot, in my 40-plus years' worth of experience.


----------



## Destin (Jul 11, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...



^what he said.

I can make the same images with an entry level camera that I do with my D810, but it’s takes a lot more time and deliberate pre planning to do it.

The D810 is just an extension of my hand and my mind. Nearly a perfect tool for creating the photographs I enjoy. I rarely have to think about how to do something with it, and very rarely is it the cameras fault when an image doesn’t work out like I planned.


----------



## Ran Van (Jul 11, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Not getting into professional photography but still feel something for it. Got a Nikon D3200 with basic 18-55 kit lens. Just wanted to know if its perfect for Landscape shots or if I need to upgrade the lenses. As I said, not into professional photography but just one of the hobbies. Being a traveler a great portfolio of photos is a plus.



If you decide it's something you want to continue doing, then upgrade your hardware.
It's not all about the hardware but more so, the 10" behind the viewfinder. Get good with what you got, so when you get better hardware, you will find it much more enjoyable.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 11, 2018)

Destin said:


> The D810 is just an extension of my hand and my mind. Nearly a perfect tool for creating the photographs I enjoy. I rarely have to think about how to do something with it, and very rarely is it the cameras fault when an image doesn’t work out like I planned.


that's what I thought...till I got a D850


----------



## BananaRepublic (Jul 12, 2018)

As the old saying goes "its a poor workman who blames his tools" on the other hand "you cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear"


----------



## lorenzossauro (Jul 12, 2018)

I also have a Nikon D3200 and i think that only serves for portraits (with 18/55mm too)


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 12, 2018)

Derrel said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.
> ...


100% agree on the 100% viewfinder. Makes a huge difference for me. When I borrowed the  Fujifilm XT1, I wanted to see if it was viable to change systems. The view finder blew me away. Then those out of camera jpegs were impressive. So I ordered the XT2 and never looked back. The viewfinder is so important to me, I only shoot with 100% ones. Film,  F, F2, and F3.


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 13, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Thank you everyone for the answers. I'll try to use this combination for the best I can, and once I feel constrained by the lenses, will look for the ones that help me overcome the situation.



OK .... carry on
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Aug 12, 2018)

Just like a professional musician, the instruments limitations are only noticed as the player improves. When you have outgrown the abilities of your camera, you will know it.

Good luck


----------



## AlanKlein (Aug 14, 2018)

Your camera is fine for landscapes.  If you want to improve your shots, get a good tripod.  You have to use deeper depth of field (DOF) most times.  That requires you stop down your aperture and setting your ISO at the camera's native setting.  That will require slowing down your shutter and requiring a tripod to avoid shake and blurry photos especially if you enlarge them.


----------



## AlanKlein (Aug 14, 2018)

You camera has an APS sensor which is fine.  Here's some landscapes I took with a much smaller 1" sensor on a Sony P&S camera.  Don't get caught up with the equipment.  Most cameras today are very capable.   Work on your vision, framing, lighting, and content.
Southwest USA 2018 - Digital


----------



## greybeard (Aug 27, 2018)

A D3200 with 18-55 is capable of capturing terrific images of everything from landscapes to portraits.   I personally really enjoy buying and playing with new equipment but, I could do just fine with a D3200 and an 18-55.


----------



## Olivia Green (Aug 29, 2018)

Thank you everyone.
Bought Sigma 10-20mm. Thank you again for your inputs.


----------



## greybeard (Sep 2, 2018)

Olivia Green said:


> Thank you everyone.
> Bought Sigma 10-20mm. Thank you again for your inputs.


enjoy


----------

