Greetings all,

I want to get into taking majestic shots of nature and monuments/buildings etc., which I can blow up to at least 16 x 20 posters. I would a camera capable of taking shots worthy of a commercially marketed calendar, etc.

my budget is up to $2000

let's go shopping, what do you experts recommend?

Hi and welcome. I'm not sure of your background, but I'd say the camera itself is a long ways down the list of what is needed to make a great picture. That said, you may want to look at the D80, a good solid tripod and at least one really high quality lens (instead of something like the do-it-all 18-200). Nikon's 17-55 f2.8 is excellent and you should be able to buy all three of these for the number you mention - in $USD, anyway.

Sounds to me you should be looking at large format photography.

You can create great images with pretty much any current digital SLR. But the camera only captures the image. It's the photographer's vision, understanding of exposure, and willingness and ability to be at the right place at the right time that really matters. A great photographer will take wonderful photos with a $300 point-and-shoot camera. A poor photographer will take mediocre photos with a $5000 camera.

If you've got $2000, I recommend buying a an entry-level DSLR like the D40X or the just announced D60, and a couple of good lenses. Then start shooting all the time and analyzing the hell out of your photos. Practice makes perfect and the more you shoot the more you'll learn. Don't expect to buy a camera and immediately make masterpieces, though. If it was that easy, there would be no professional photographers.

Greetings all,

I want to get into taking majestic shots of nature and monuments/buildings etc., which I can blow up to at least 16 x 20 posters. I would a camera capable of taking shots worthy of a commercially marketed calendar, etc.

my budget is up to $2000

let's go shopping, what do you experts recommend?

I have the impression that calendar shooters are still using film, either medium format (6x7) or large format, typically with Velvia. Can anyone confirm that?

I have the impression that calendar shooters are still using film, either medium format (6x7) or large format, typically with Velvia. Can anyone confirm that?

Now that you mention that, a few months ago I looked up the website of a company that puts out calendars of subjects I shoot. I remember them mentioning larger film formats, but I don't know if that means that high quality digital files are not acceptable.

This would be an important question to answer before spending a lot of money on the wrong equipment if you're looking to do that kind of work - or if that was mentioned only for comparison, not sure by the original post.

Not sure if you are familiar with Arizona Highways but, they used to be sticklers and wouldn't allow any digital files and I think for film they only allowed MF or larger. I checked it after reading this thread and they now accept 35mm and digital photos. If you want to do this seriously though, and with a $2000 budget to start, I would go pick up a 4x5. Here's a good starter set-up:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=121

I would add to that a couple more film backs and a good, solid tripod. Plus you'll want a good light meter. I would try and develop my own film if possible but, if not make sure you have a lab that will do LF film.

Now is this the only way to go? No, far from it. If I were to try and make a serious go of it professionally, this is the route I would be eyeing though.

Thanks guys, you have given me food for thought,

I don't plan to actually put out a calendar, I just wanted (if possible with my budget) to have calendar-quality shots and to make stunning posters to frame and give to friends

as a point of reference, I am currently using a Kodak P880, I have attached a few shots I took, without a tripod

Nice shots matis :thumbsup: I'm guessing you are looking for something a tad more portable than a large format camera then?...LOL This will come down to whether you prefer digital or film but, one route I would consider is an older Nikon SLR such as the FM2 or FA, a good tripod, a cable release, and a bunch of slide film. Some excellent examples with this can be seen in walterick's gallery:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&page=8&ppuser=169780

Thanks for the compliment

I do prefer Digital

BTW, can I get away with one of those mini tripods? I will be travelling and don't want to schlep a big one

I think Photo Johns advice on getting an entry level DLSR and a couple nice lenses is a pretty solid place to start.

I shoot with Canons original DRebel and I have self publish a calendar with photos I have taken with it for the last 3 years. I have also sold 20x30 prints from images taken with this camera.

The D40x, or D60 would give you great quality images.

The mini tripod really depends on what you're putting on it. I think they would be fine for a P&S, but I'm not sure I would want to rely on one for a DSLR with a heavy lens. A good carbon fiber tripod would save you a lot of weight and give you a sturdy platform to hold your camera.

I really like the Wailing Wall photo. That's a winner.

What kind of tripod you can get away with depends on what kind of compromises you're willing to make. Photography is always a game of compromises. A mini tripod will allow you to stabilize your camera, but you will be limited by the low angles it offers. I have a relatively compact Gitzo carbon fiber tripod that's reasonably compact and light. It fits in a suitcase and I use it for traveling. It wasn't cheap, though.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the encouragement,

we are getting closer to finding the right one for me.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the encouragement,

we are getting closer to finding the right one for me.

Lenses are the most important. I believe that any DSLR with 8 megapixels or more of resolution is capable of the image quality you're looking for. The rest is all your creativity and technical skill. Lenses will give you more flexibility and ensure you're getting the most out of the sensor in whatever camera you end up buying. And personally, I would recommend digital. Film has some advantages. But for most people, I believe they are far outweighed by the instant feedback and unlimited shooting ability of digital SLRs. Most people will take better pictures with a DSLR.

Oh, as far as tripods go, for say a D60 or D80 with a standard lens (any wide zoom, or a 70-200 f/2.8 or smaller) Manfrotto makes a nice series of "mag fiber" carbon fiber tripods (such as the 055MF3) for pretty reasonable prices. I would suggest that and a decent tripod head. You should skip the quick release system as I don't think you should settle for less than Arca-Swiss style QR plates and clamps, which are expensive. Manfrotto's 468MG Hydrostatic ballhead is pretty small and extremely solid, and doesn't utterly destroy the bank.

I haven't kept up with all the camera models available, but I mentioned the D80 and really I guess I meant that should be the top end if your budget is $2k. Spend the money on the lenses which really will make a difference with big prints. Differences between an inexpensive lens and a top of the line lens won't be too apparent if you're shooting handheld, possibly even with a fast shutter speed. A tripod is worth it's weight in gold. Two things about tripods - I (and many others, apparently) have spent a lot of money trying to save money on buying a less expensive tripod. Buy a good one and be done with it. The other thing is that they don't go obselete like cameras and computers, so it's likely you'll have a good one for 10 years. I got my Gitzo carbon fiber tripod used about five years ago and haven't looked at or thought about another tripod since.

I'm a stickler for spot meters, and a lot of Nikon cameras have them. I just looked and the D40, D40X, D60 and D80 all include spot meters. Learning how to use it will almost guarantee perfect exposures - a lot more than any advanced automatic metering system. This time of year, I see a lot of underexposed snow shots for example... With DSLR's, my advice has pretty much always been that newer is better unless there's a specific reason against this. For this reason, I guess I'd go with the newly announced D60 if you can wait until it comes out.

so, to summarize we are looking at one of the following bodies

preferably a D60 or a D80

Now if I were just to buy one wide angle lens, what do you experts say?

Tokina 12-24?

any other suggestions?

I've been really happy with my Sigma 10-20, but don't have any prints that big from it. As you're probably aware, a 16x20 print will show a lot more problems than an 8x10 so I really can't comment but haven't seen anything that would lead me to belive that I'd have any problems with big prints. The Nikon 12-24 is supposed to be the best Nikon-mount lens of this type but it's also by far the most expensive.

When I bought my 10-20, all of the third-party lenses were pretty close in price. I decided that even if the Sigma wasn't optically the best of the lot, I'd still rather have it because it's so much wider (10 vs 12 is actually a very big difference in some cases).

I love my Tokina 12-24mm! A great lens. Sharp and well built. I often wonder what I'm missing with the extra 2mm the Sigma lens has though.

Thanks Fellas, this has been quite an education for me.

It looks like the D80 is going to get the nod, with either the TOkina, or if I splurge maybe even the Nikon 12-24mm

I am going to revisit this prior to going overseas and I'll make my decision then and will hope to post some of my shots!

Hi matis, here's a good comparison test of the various Nikon wide-angle zooms. Worth a read before you buy:

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

Thanks, I actually saw a lot of his stuff, he does good work.

what scared me is what he writes:

"I'd buy the Canon 10 - 22 mm lens in an instant if I had a Canon digital camera. The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including the Nikon."

I shuttered (no pun intended) to think that now I have to look into Canons!

But I think I will stick with Nikon and probably get the Nikon lens.

In the end, for my needs the Nikon set up will allow me to grow for years

Personally, for the needs of the majority of people, I feel that if you can point out the differences between the 2 in your work, then you have bigger issues to worry about like how to get off your arse and shoot more...LOL

Interesting also how KR swears by the D40

he does admit that he doesn't know if it would be sufficient for bigger blow ups,

but interesting nonetheless

The D40 is 6.1MP. My D70 is 6.1MP. My buddy took one of my pictures and blew it up to 24X36" and he says that it looks great! I haven't seen it myself (I will have an opportunity tomorrow) so I cannot say for sure if it will look good enough for me. I'll report back here tomorrow after I return from his house.

You can create great images with pretty much any current digital SLR. But the camera only captures the image. It's the photographer's vision, understanding of exposure, and willingness and ability to be at the right place at the right time that really matters. A great photographer will take wonderful photos with a $300 point-and-shoot camera. A poor photographer will take mediocre photos with a $5000 camera.



This photo was made with a sub $300 Sony DSC-H1 back in '06. I loved that little camerra until someone along the baggage handling lines at one of the airlines decided they liked it more (no more cameras in checked baggage!) I chose the D80 as my entry into the DSLR group and have yet to make it up to do any waterfalls - and it's been raining good lately - but i just bout a new house - plenty of pics of it - LOL51170

Here's a picture I took with a Sony DSC-W5 while on vacation up in Canada. I just didn't want to lug a big DSLR around while I was on vacation. The DSLR may have given slightly better results but the results were good enough for me.

Sorry, forgot to attach the picture. That camera is a 5MP pocket P&S.

Oh, yeah, I saw the blow-up of the picture I mentioned earlier. It looks great! Seen at about 8 inches I could not see any pixelation. There was some digital noise that looks like grain from film but it certainly looked better than I originally thought possible with 6MP. At a typical viewing distance of 3 feet or more you won't see it. I'm absolutely convinced that 6MP is more than sufficient for 99.9% of my needs.

Thanks Guys, you joined us a little late in the discussion, but your input is appreciated, I want to do bigger size prints and posters, so I would probably need the extra Mega Pixels,