Posted by Scott Bycroft on October 28, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Hi there. This is my first post in a forum here, as I am a new member, although I have been a casual observer for a while.
I am about to upgrade my equipment, and I am interested to see what people think the best DSLR camera for Landscape work is? I apologise if this is an oft repeated question here.
I have been a Nikon user for the last couple of years, but would certainly consider changing if need be (in fact, I am). I do not shoot solely landscape work, but it predominates what I do. Money is a consideration, but not the determining factor.
Your thoughts greatly appreciated.
Scott
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 28, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Within the 35mm world, the highest res full frame cameras are the best of breed in the class for detail oriented landscape photography. So your list should include Sony's top Alpha cameras (850 and 900 I think), Nikon's D3 whatever the 24MP FF sensor version is, Canon's 5DII and 1DsIII. Then generally speaking full frame is better than crop frame for landscape. If you're shooting wildlife, then the extra "reach" and pixel density provided by the crop bodies will carry an advantage.
If money were no object, I think the digital medium format backs take the cake in digital capture right now, but they are probably out of financial reach for most of us. They are separate from the camera and there are options to use them with various SLR style medium format bodies and technical view cameras.
If you just want the ultimate in detail, then large format is still the way to go. There are scanning backs for large format, but film+scanner is totally valid too. 4X5 has some big advantages for landscapers, but many prominent photographers are using 8X10 too. See the large format thread below for more on this topic. I think 5X7 would be the absolute sweet spot for landscape now that quickloads and readyloads are gone, but its really hard (and expensive) to get color film in 5X7 size. I shoot 4X5.
Think seriously about what size you want your output to be before choosing any large-size sensor camera.
Posted by Mat Malone on October 28, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Nikon makes great gear, no need to switch. Buy the Nikon FF body that fits your budget. IMHO, don't spend too much time thinking about this -- it won't make you a better photographer.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Think seriously about what size you want your output to be before choosing any large-size sensor camera.
Why? Not one of the 35mm DSLRs mentioned can provide a file to an Epson printer at 12X18 at the printer's native 360 ppi resolution. You need ~28MP for that. To supply enough pixels to natively print a 16X20 on an Epson, you'd need to have at least a 41MP camera. I don't think many consider either size to be terribly large by today's standards. You can use bicubic sampling to up res, but if you can't create detail that wasn't originally there.
Posted by Bob Miller on October 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Nikon D3s (low noise), Nikon D3x (mucho pixels).
Posted by David Bostedo on October 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM
If money is no object, there's also the Pentax 645D (40MP) medium format SLR and the Leica S2 medium format SLR. Both are new systems (although the Pentax lens mount takes their old 645 lenses). The Pentax starts about about $10K for the camera, so it's not too much more than something like a Nikon D3X. The Leica is, as can be expected, significantly more expensive.
Posted by John Mumaw on October 28, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Many of the finest landscape photographers in the world (and certainly on this site) use full frame DSLRs.
Mat's advice seems good. A full frame Nikon DSLR will work well for you. Then you don't need to spend a bunch of money for new glass. However, bear in mind that the quality of the best DSLR is only as good as your best quality lenses.
Posted by Scott Bycroft on October 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Mmm, I can see things work fast around here! Thank you all for your input. Allow me to respond to some comments;
I am not looking to go into large format at this stage. Whilst I can appreciate the quality, I am staying with the DSLR format for now.
Money is not "no object" - I am looking amongst the current models on offer to determine which is the best choice for me. If is just happens to be the most expensive body, then so be it - but it has to be the best choice based on it's quality and what it offers for landscape work, not just because of it's price tag.
I am not upgrading my equipment under the illusion it will make me a better photographer - I am doing so to improve on the quality of the images I currently get from the Nikon D300. A great little camera I really enjoy using, but it has it's limitations. It suited me at the time of purchase, has been great, and it's now time to step forward.
Perhaps I should narrow the field a little. Canon 1D Mk IV, 5D Mk II, Nikon D3s, D3X are realistically the 4 I am most likely to purchase from. I know Nikon cameras well, I like them, but a move to full frame DSLR from DX means that I need new lenses as well, and with this being the case, it would be foolish not to explore the possibilities in the Canon range at this juncture.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on October 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM
A couple of odd thoughts:
If you stay with Nikon your D300 will make a fine backup camera body.
If you truly don't care about Nikon or Canon and you're planning to buy new lenses, then choose the lenses you want to use and buy the appropriate camera body.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 28, 2010 at 10:58 PM
If you truly don't care about Nikon or Canon and you're planning to buy new lenses, then choose the lenses you want to use and buy the appropriate camera body.
That doesn't quite work since lenses will cover different angles of view on different bodies. So if you're really into wide angle, a full frame would be a better choice. If you need higher MP/better ISO, full frame is also a better choice. If you want smaller bodies/more reach, crop sensors are better. I'd agree, I guess, that picking a lens family is a good idea.
Posted by Miles Morgan on October 29, 2010 at 1:23 AM
FWIW, I have the 5D2, and love it.... But if I was to do it again, I'd go with the D3s. I'm personally finding the noise performance to be more important than the MP.
Posted by Scott Bycroft on October 29, 2010 at 2:46 AM
"then choose the lenses you want to use and buy the appropriate camera body"
Well, that presents somewhat of a problem, because I am obviously familiar with Nikon gear - I know the range of lenses they have; the good models, the not so good, but becaue I haven't shot with Canon, I can't say what their lenses are like. It would be comfortable to stay Nikon for that exact reason, but, I am sure Canon have excellent lenses in their range also.
Miles, thanks for that. So are you saying you find the 5DII produces noisy images not very far up the ISO range? Would you mind elaborating a little on that for me please? This is the kind of feedback I am after.
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 29, 2010 at 3:30 AM
Hey Scott
I'm curious what you find to be the limitations of the D300 for what you do? For most of my landscape, I don't need to shoot over the base ISO of 200, so I don't see noise as an issue ... I've thought about getting a D700, or even D3s, but only for certain applications .. aerials, northern lights, wildlife, etc. I'm not sure what advantage a FF body would give me for 99% of the stuff I shoot. And, it would mean a bunch of new lenses. Hence my own dilemma.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Scott Bycroft on October 29, 2010 at 6:09 AM
Hey Carl,
I like my D300, I think it is a great little camera, but the answer is simply that I am after better image quality, resolution and detail, and some of the additional features it doesn't have. The D300 has the 2007 CMOS sensor 23.6x15.8mm @12.3 megapix. The improvements in technology mean that there are obvious steps forward in this respect (as well as many others). The D3X has the full frame sensor 36x24mm @24megapix, the 5DmkII has the same size sensor @ 21megapix, the D3s the same size @12megapix, the 1D MkIV 30x18.6mm @16megapix. Medium format is obviously better again, and the large format some folk have mentioned, better again.
Posted by Jay Patel on October 29, 2010 at 6:40 AM
It is the one you carry with you. I have images from from my 10D that sell just as well as Canon 5D MKII. Having said that I would agree with the statement below:
If you truly don't care about Nikon or Canon and you're planning to buy new lenses, then choose the lenses you want to use and buy the appropriate camera body.
Good luck.
-Jay
Posted by Miles Morgan on October 30, 2010 at 1:38 AM
Hi Scott,
My finding is that the 5D2 is good to iso 800, and gets noisy above. At 1600 it's useable when it's nice and cold out, but above that I don't even really bother. Shooting side by side with a friend who has a D3s, I was maxed out at 1600 and he was almost noise free at iso 6400.
I am also finding that the 5D2 has a tendency to get pretty noisy in the shadow areas even at iso 100, where I live 95% of the time. I haven't gotten to do a direct compare to a D3s in those higher contrast conditions, but I'm pretty sure that the Nikon performance would be superior.
The 5D2 is a great camera, and I'm quite happy with it, but it's not on par with the Nikon top end gear. Of course, it isn't priced like the Nikon top end gear either... For the money, it's exceptional. With the new Nikon 16-35 f4 that's out, I'd definitely have gone the D3s route if I was buying now and could scrape together the cash.
I don't check this site much so if you want to take a look at a couple of raw file examples of the noise at different Iso settings on the 5D2, feel free to email me at milesmorganphoto@me.com
Good luck with your purchase!
Posted by David Bostedo on October 30, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Shooting side by side with a friend who has a D3s, I was maxed out at 1600 and he was almost noise free at iso 6400.
That sounds about right from what I've heard of the 2 cameras (2 stop noise advantage for the D3s).
However, I'll throw out the usual caveat that comparing noise at 100% views is NOT a good way to compare noise between cameras (unless you plan on always printing/viewing at 100%).
The 5DMkII has 21 MP; The D3s has 12.1 MP. When both are viewed at 100%, the 5DMkII is at a big disadvantage because the image has been increased much much more than the D3s. A better way is to re-size both to something like 8MP, and then compare at that same size. That way you're allowing the megapixel advantage to be included and looking at the same sized image. You'll probably find the D3s to still be slightly better, but not so dramatically.
Of course, if you're actually planning to upsize the 5DMkII in order to make prints, then you will see the noise a bit more. You'll also see a lot more detail than you'd get with the D3s since it would have to be upsized much more.
So the 5DMkII pixels are smaller and inherently noisier, but there's a lot more of them. Depending on your output, this may or may not matter. After all, there's a reason that Nikon made the D3x and didn't just stick with the very noiseless 12MP cameras.
Posted by Scott Bycroft on October 30, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Miles, thanks for the post - interesting observations. Your observation about noise performance and temperature becomes quite interesting to me because I live in Australia - and a hot part of it at that, so the noise performance of the 5D2 is a consideration here.
This inquiry has been, in part, an exercise to see if I could be swayed away from the 2 flagship Nikons. The 5D obviously has it's merits, but I find it interesting that there is almost no feedback on the Canon 1D IV.
Nobody uses it for landscape?
Posted by Buck Ward on October 30, 2010 at 7:29 PM
Scott-
I use Canon 1D mk III for landscapes. It was designed as a sports/wildlife body. My only complaint is the 1.3 Crop factor instead of full frame. The mk IV has the same crop factor. I have zero complaints about noise, but I seldom shoot at high ISO.
Posted by Basil Greber on October 31, 2010 at 4:55 AM
I wonder why you're even considering the 1D MkIV with 1.3 crop factor. Maybe I'm mistaken - but IMO, that crop factor makes it somewhat ill suited for wide angle photography. You either have the APS-C wide angles that don't cover the APS-H frame, or then you have the full frame wide angles that are not all that wide on 1.3 x crop...
If you're looking at the Nikon D3s, why not also consider the D700? Noise performance isn't quite as good, but the resolution and build quality are the same, the camera body is both lighter and far cheaper. This leaves you with some headroom for upgrading lenses... the 14-24 f/2.8 for example.
For a landscape camera on the Nikon side, I would be choosing between the D700 and the D3x. The only factors keeping me away from a D3x are the price and added weight. D3s is a fantastic imaging machine, but the cost and added weight make it a less desirable camera for my purposes.
I recently switched from Canon; they have some great equipment, but their wides don't compare favorably with the Nikon wides.
Posted by Glenn Starr on November 1, 2010 at 9:09 AM
Scott,
Since you seem to be focusing (no pun intended) on the technical aspects of the best DSLR, one aspect that has not been mentioned is Dynamic Range. If you go to the Website "DxoMark.com you will see a comparison of the various camera sensors. Top dog "today", gosh I don't want to start a Nikon vs. Canon debate is the D3x. Many shout the praises of this 24MP sensor as providing the highest dynamic range as well as the cleanest files from any sensor. I say today since it is always likely that Canon will match or exceed in the future. It is just the nature of these two competitors. Since you are already a Nikon shooter you may want to consider that route. Also, SLRGear.com provides pretty good technical stats on the various lenses. The Nikon 14-24 (yes, I know that it doesn't take filters, but Lee Filters as developed a system that allows such) as also the 16-35 (which does take filters the conventional way (which I own and would never sell!) are two primo landscape super sides. Add the 24-70 2.8 and you have probably two of the best lenses on the market. Again, do not want to start a debate but if you are a techie, which I am, the data speaks for itself.
The downside to all of this is that you will pay a premium to stay the Nikon route. Canon simply provides excellent bodies and lenses for generally less than Nikon.
Hope this helps.
Posted by Scott Bycroft on November 2, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Folks, I really appreciate all who have contributed to this discussion. It is interesting to see how many different factors people have to consider when choosing what is best for them in camera equipment. It is not an easy decision, and I guess that's partly why those who can afford it get themselves several set ups to work with.
I will let you know what I decide to do.
Scott
Posted by Paul DeCesare on November 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM
WOW! Post a great landscape image and 5 people reply... post a gear question and the forum lightsup light Broadway on 12/31. Shame on us!
Scott, your answer is this: the lens is the most important factor. I'm a Canon guy, but telling you to buy that is nuts, you've already invested in Nikon which is great. Get a full frame body if you don't have one, and get that amazing Nikon 14-24mm zoom, and get out there and shoot. That a suggestion, not the suggestion, lol!
Posted by Scott Bycroft on January 22, 2011 at 8:18 AM
This has been a very well attended thread, and I sincerely thank everyone for their time and input.
I did a lot of research, weighed up so many different factors, and in the end bought a lightly used Nikon D3x which suddenly became available at an excellent price. It's an amazing camera, and I am extremely happy with it.
Thanks again for all your thoughts.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on January 24, 2011 at 9:26 AM
Looking forward to your images from the D3x! You said you have all DX lenses, so would need to upgrade. For the time being, the only lens you really need for landscapes is the 16-35 VR f4. Slowly replace your DX lenses as your budget allows. If you can find a nice used one, the 17-35 is an excellent FF performer as well.
Posted by Jerry Greer on January 28, 2011 at 8:04 AM
Scott,
If you want the control of a view camera for landscape save your $$$$ and purchase the PS lenses. Nikon released the new 24mm and 45mm a couple years ago giving a full set when added to the 85mm. You will need to send them in to Nikon and have them modified so that you can have rise and fall on the same axis as the tilt. They come with a factory setting of shift (left/right movement) with tilt. Canon has the best setup of perspective control lenses with the 17mm and 24mm (no modification needed they have the new TS rotation). The 45mm and 90mm are very good lenses but will need to be modified to have rise/fall and tilt, the mods on Canon can be done by the photog and is very easy to do. Good luck with your new setup.
Posted by Darren Huski on February 5, 2011 at 6:46 PM
While there is some great advice here, I think I can give you the best answer yet. The best camera in the world for photographing the landscape is........
the one you already own, have paid for, and is in the field with you.
People can debate brands, formats, etc, but when you get down to it anything in the DSLR world will be bested in a few months by something else. It is far too easy to fall into the "I have to upgrade" trap. I guess that is just technology.
Don't get me wrong I fall for it too. I have a Canon 50D but have given thought to getting a full frame camera like a 5D2.
Thing is if you spend several kilo-bucks on a camera you might have to work more to pay for it. Use what you have and you can spend your cash out being in the field-which is really what a landscape photographer needs to do.
Everything is also relative. Mel is right that you will get much more detail out of a 4x5 chrome than any digital capture- but the trade off is chromes cost $5/sheet in Quickloads+processing (plus its heavy and slow and you do not see your results for days or weeks, then you have to scan). Digital offers "free film", instant results, easy of working files, RAW flexibility etc. It is why it has become the modern standard for most photographers.
Not trying to start a flame war, but its often easy for us to spend someone elses money......
I'd say stick with what you have until does not meet your needs-then upgrade.
Discussion
28 repliesI am about to upgrade my equipment, and I am interested to see what people think the best DSLR camera for Landscape work is? I apologise if this is an oft repeated question here.
I have been a Nikon user for the last couple of years, but would certainly consider changing if need be (in fact, I am). I do not shoot solely landscape work, but it predominates what I do. Money is a consideration, but not the determining factor.
Your thoughts greatly appreciated.
Scott
If money were no object, I think the digital medium format backs take the cake in digital capture right now, but they are probably out of financial reach for most of us. They are separate from the camera and there are options to use them with various SLR style medium format bodies and technical view cameras.
If you just want the ultimate in detail, then large format is still the way to go. There are scanning backs for large format, but film+scanner is totally valid too. 4X5 has some big advantages for landscapers, but many prominent photographers are using 8X10 too. See the large format thread below for more on this topic. I think 5X7 would be the absolute sweet spot for landscape now that quickloads and readyloads are gone, but its really hard (and expensive) to get color film in 5X7 size. I shoot 4X5.
Why? Not one of the 35mm DSLRs mentioned can provide a file to an Epson printer at 12X18 at the printer's native 360 ppi resolution. You need ~28MP for that. To supply enough pixels to natively print a 16X20 on an Epson, you'd need to have at least a 41MP camera. I don't think many consider either size to be terribly large by today's standards. You can use bicubic sampling to up res, but if you can't create detail that wasn't originally there.
Mat's advice seems good. A full frame Nikon DSLR will work well for you. Then you don't need to spend a bunch of money for new glass. However, bear in mind that the quality of the best DSLR is only as good as your best quality lenses.
I am not looking to go into large format at this stage. Whilst I can appreciate the quality, I am staying with the DSLR format for now.
Money is not "no object" - I am looking amongst the current models on offer to determine which is the best choice for me. If is just happens to be the most expensive body, then so be it - but it has to be the best choice based on it's quality and what it offers for landscape work, not just because of it's price tag.
I am not upgrading my equipment under the illusion it will make me a better photographer - I am doing so to improve on the quality of the images I currently get from the Nikon D300. A great little camera I really enjoy using, but it has it's limitations. It suited me at the time of purchase, has been great, and it's now time to step forward.
Perhaps I should narrow the field a little. Canon 1D Mk IV, 5D Mk II, Nikon D3s, D3X are realistically the 4 I am most likely to purchase from. I know Nikon cameras well, I like them, but a move to full frame DSLR from DX means that I need new lenses as well, and with this being the case, it would be foolish not to explore the possibilities in the Canon range at this juncture.
If you stay with Nikon your D300 will make a fine backup camera body.
If you truly don't care about Nikon or Canon and you're planning to buy new lenses, then choose the lenses you want to use and buy the appropriate camera body.
That doesn't quite work since lenses will cover different angles of view on different bodies. So if you're really into wide angle, a full frame would be a better choice. If you need higher MP/better ISO, full frame is also a better choice. If you want smaller bodies/more reach, crop sensors are better. I'd agree, I guess, that picking a lens family is a good idea.
Well, that presents somewhat of a problem, because I am obviously familiar with Nikon gear - I know the range of lenses they have; the good models, the not so good, but becaue I haven't shot with Canon, I can't say what their lenses are like. It would be comfortable to stay Nikon for that exact reason, but, I am sure Canon have excellent lenses in their range also.
Miles, thanks for that. So are you saying you find the 5DII produces noisy images not very far up the ISO range? Would you mind elaborating a little on that for me please? This is the kind of feedback I am after.
I'm curious what you find to be the limitations of the D300 for what you do? For most of my landscape, I don't need to shoot over the base ISO of 200, so I don't see noise as an issue ... I've thought about getting a D700, or even D3s, but only for certain applications .. aerials, northern lights, wildlife, etc. I'm not sure what advantage a FF body would give me for 99% of the stuff I shoot. And, it would mean a bunch of new lenses. Hence my own dilemma.
Cheers
Carl
I like my D300, I think it is a great little camera, but the answer is simply that I am after better image quality, resolution and detail, and some of the additional features it doesn't have. The D300 has the 2007 CMOS sensor 23.6x15.8mm @12.3 megapix. The improvements in technology mean that there are obvious steps forward in this respect (as well as many others). The D3X has the full frame sensor 36x24mm @24megapix, the 5DmkII has the same size sensor @ 21megapix, the D3s the same size @12megapix, the 1D MkIV 30x18.6mm @16megapix. Medium format is obviously better again, and the large format some folk have mentioned, better again.
Good luck.
-Jay
My finding is that the 5D2 is good to iso 800, and gets noisy above. At 1600 it's useable when it's nice and cold out, but above that I don't even really bother. Shooting side by side with a friend who has a D3s, I was maxed out at 1600 and he was almost noise free at iso 6400.
I am also finding that the 5D2 has a tendency to get pretty noisy in the shadow areas even at iso 100, where I live 95% of the time. I haven't gotten to do a direct compare to a D3s in those higher contrast conditions, but I'm pretty sure that the Nikon performance would be superior.
The 5D2 is a great camera, and I'm quite happy with it, but it's not on par with the Nikon top end gear. Of course, it isn't priced like the Nikon top end gear either... For the money, it's exceptional. With the new Nikon 16-35 f4 that's out, I'd definitely have gone the D3s route if I was buying now and could scrape together the cash.
I don't check this site much so if you want to take a look at a couple of raw file examples of the noise at different Iso settings on the 5D2, feel free to email me at milesmorganphoto@me.com
Good luck with your purchase!
That sounds about right from what I've heard of the 2 cameras (2 stop noise advantage for the D3s).
However, I'll throw out the usual caveat that comparing noise at 100% views is NOT a good way to compare noise between cameras (unless you plan on always printing/viewing at 100%).
The 5DMkII has 21 MP; The D3s has 12.1 MP. When both are viewed at 100%, the 5DMkII is at a big disadvantage because the image has been increased much much more than the D3s. A better way is to re-size both to something like 8MP, and then compare at that same size. That way you're allowing the megapixel advantage to be included and looking at the same sized image. You'll probably find the D3s to still be slightly better, but not so dramatically.
Of course, if you're actually planning to upsize the 5DMkII in order to make prints, then you will see the noise a bit more. You'll also see a lot more detail than you'd get with the D3s since it would have to be upsized much more.
So the 5DMkII pixels are smaller and inherently noisier, but there's a lot more of them. Depending on your output, this may or may not matter. After all, there's a reason that Nikon made the D3x and didn't just stick with the very noiseless 12MP cameras.
This inquiry has been, in part, an exercise to see if I could be swayed away from the 2 flagship Nikons. The 5D obviously has it's merits, but I find it interesting that there is almost no feedback on the Canon 1D IV.
Nobody uses it for landscape?
I use Canon 1D mk III for landscapes. It was designed as a sports/wildlife body. My only complaint is the 1.3 Crop factor instead of full frame. The mk IV has the same crop factor. I have zero complaints about noise, but I seldom shoot at high ISO.
For a landscape camera on the Nikon side, I would be choosing between the D700 and the D3x. The only factors keeping me away from a D3x are the price and added weight. D3s is a fantastic imaging machine, but the cost and added weight make it a less desirable camera for my purposes.
I recently switched from Canon; they have some great equipment, but their wides don't compare favorably with the Nikon wides.
Since you seem to be focusing (no pun intended) on the technical aspects of the best DSLR, one aspect that has not been mentioned is Dynamic Range. If you go to the Website "DxoMark.com you will see a comparison of the various camera sensors. Top dog "today", gosh I don't want to start a Nikon vs. Canon debate is the D3x. Many shout the praises of this 24MP sensor as providing the highest dynamic range as well as the cleanest files from any sensor. I say today since it is always likely that Canon will match or exceed in the future. It is just the nature of these two competitors. Since you are already a Nikon shooter you may want to consider that route. Also, SLRGear.com provides pretty good technical stats on the various lenses. The Nikon 14-24 (yes, I know that it doesn't take filters, but Lee Filters as developed a system that allows such) as also the 16-35 (which does take filters the conventional way (which I own and would never sell!) are two primo landscape super sides. Add the 24-70 2.8 and you have probably two of the best lenses on the market. Again, do not want to start a debate but if you are a techie, which I am, the data speaks for itself.
The downside to all of this is that you will pay a premium to stay the Nikon route. Canon simply provides excellent bodies and lenses for generally less than Nikon.
Hope this helps.
I will let you know what I decide to do.
Scott
Scott, your answer is this: the lens is the most important factor. I'm a Canon guy, but telling you to buy that is nuts, you've already invested in Nikon which is great. Get a full frame body if you don't have one, and get that amazing Nikon 14-24mm zoom, and get out there and shoot. That a suggestion, not the suggestion, lol!
I did a lot of research, weighed up so many different factors, and in the end bought a lightly used Nikon D3x which suddenly became available at an excellent price. It's an amazing camera, and I am extremely happy with it.
Thanks again for all your thoughts.
If you want the control of a view camera for landscape save your $$$$ and purchase the PS lenses. Nikon released the new 24mm and 45mm a couple years ago giving a full set when added to the 85mm. You will need to send them in to Nikon and have them modified so that you can have rise and fall on the same axis as the tilt. They come with a factory setting of shift (left/right movement) with tilt. Canon has the best setup of perspective control lenses with the 17mm and 24mm (no modification needed they have the new TS rotation). The 45mm and 90mm are very good lenses but will need to be modified to have rise/fall and tilt, the mods on Canon can be done by the photog and is very easy to do. Good luck with your new setup.
the one you already own, have paid for, and is in the field with you.
People can debate brands, formats, etc, but when you get down to it anything in the DSLR world will be bested in a few months by something else. It is far too easy to fall into the "I have to upgrade" trap. I guess that is just technology.
Don't get me wrong I fall for it too. I have a Canon 50D but have given thought to getting a full frame camera like a 5D2.
Thing is if you spend several kilo-bucks on a camera you might have to work more to pay for it. Use what you have and you can spend your cash out being in the field-which is really what a landscape photographer needs to do.
Everything is also relative. Mel is right that you will get much more detail out of a 4x5 chrome than any digital capture- but the trade off is chromes cost $5/sheet in Quickloads+processing (plus its heavy and slow and you do not see your results for days or weeks, then you have to scan). Digital offers "free film", instant results, easy of working files, RAW flexibility etc. It is why it has become the modern standard for most photographers.
Not trying to start a flame war, but its often easy for us to spend someone elses money......
I'd say stick with what you have until does not meet your needs-then upgrade.
Good luck!!