Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 02 Mar 2015 (Monday) 09:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D2 for LANDSCAPE ???

 
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,838 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 3610
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idaho
Post edited over 6 years ago by umphotography.
     
Mar 02, 2015 09:01 |  #1

Well it can do it. Not ideal but it did a decent job. I was out visiting some friends and had the 100-400 on the body in case we saw any eagles on the hike. Then they decided they wanted to go to some waterfalls close by.

Oh Great, no ND filter, no tripod, but a had the 17-55 in the car. So I thought, WTH, lets crank it down and see what happens. Considering I had no tripod and no ND, and i was at F/22 at a 1/2 second and propping myself up...the camera did a great job and got excellent detail. Thank god for the IS on that 17-55


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rrblint
Listen! .... do you smell something?
Avatar
22,590 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 2104
Joined May 2012
Location: U.S.A.
     
Mar 02, 2015 10:11 |  #2

Looks great to me Mike.


Mark

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LJ3Jim
Goldmember
Avatar
1,362 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 2408
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
     
Mar 02, 2015 10:28 |  #3

Looks remarkably similar to this (also taken with a crop body):

IMAGE: http://www.lj3.com/misc/whatcomfalls_small.jpg

Image editing ok; C&C always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
Mar 02, 2015 10:52 |  #4

The myth that you need FF for landscape keeps hanging on, despite results like yours that show what a crop camera can do. If you had had a 10-22 or 10-20, it would have been even better!


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,838 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 3610
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idaho
     
Mar 02, 2015 11:23 |  #5

LJ3Jim wrote in post #17456764 (external link)
Looks remarkably similar to this (also taken with a crop body):

QUOTED IMAGE


LMAO:-).. we had bare trees so i shot it tight. Nice shot :love:


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 02, 2015 11:30 |  #6

pknight wrote in post #17456802 (external link)
The myth that you need FF for landscape keeps hanging on, despite results like yours that show what a crop camera can do. If you had had a 10-22 or 10-20, it would have been even better!

And the myth that one needs an UWA lens for landscaped persists as well! Sometimes you can't get close enough to get your frame as desired.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
THREAD ­ STARTER
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,838 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 3610
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idaho
     
Mar 02, 2015 11:34 as a reply to  @ frugivore's post |  #7

yup. I actually prefer a 25-105 and a 70-200 if i have enough room

but these were on a full frame sensor with a 70-200


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,218 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 301
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Mar 02, 2015 12:05 |  #8

7D Mark II for Landscape???..........​...
DAMN RIGHT!!!


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
4,092 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 656
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Mar 02, 2015 17:01 |  #9

Crop cameras can and do produce excellent landscape images. Is FF better - I think so but then MF, 5 x 4 and 10 x 8 are even better still. The photographer is far more important than the format!
As to lenses a friend of mine, ex pro, used a 300mm as his primary landscape lens. Another colleague is doing some excellent landscape work with his 600F4 and I like the short end of my 17-40. It's all down to what effect/view you are trying to achieve - potentially every lens you have is a landscape lens!
Though I rarely/if ever use IS your picture shows how useful IS can be when you are caught out!


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Likes: 1126
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Mar 02, 2015 23:36 |  #10

Apparently you can even shoot landscapes without a tripod, but I think someone is having me on with that one, sounds just ridiculous. :p


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
Mar 03, 2015 06:35 |  #11

frugivore wrote in post #17456854 (external link)
And the myth that one needs an UWA lens for landscaped persists as well! Sometimes you can't get close enough to get your frame as desired.

For sure. Perhaps "better" wasn't the word I was looking for. Perhaps "indistinguishable from what you would get from the same spot with a FF at 17mm" was closer to what I meant. IMO, longer lenses for landscapes are helpful for distant subjects (as the examples here show), because they compress the image, making distant objects large relative to the foreground, but UWAs work better with closer subjects. But this is just personal taste, and has nothing to do with the capability of crop cameras to take landscape photos. And finally, the widely acclaimed advantage of FF over crop for this type of photography may really exist, but I think it lives largely in the realm of pixel peeping.


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 363
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Mar 03, 2015 07:26 |  #12

pknight wrote in post #17456802 (external link)
The myth that you need FF for landscape keeps hanging on, despite results like yours that show what a crop camera can do. If you had had a 10-22 or 10-20, it would have been even better!

While I use a FF body for most of my landscapes these days, I have captured some great shots over the years using a 7D, 40D, and even (horror) a Rebel XT. I have enlarged prints from each of those bodies adorning the walls of our home.

As for UWA, personally I do not use such focal lengths often for my landscape work. It just depends on your style. I owned a EF-S 10-22mm in my crop days, and now own a EF 16-35L f/4 IS. I use my 24-105L much more than the 16-35 for landscapes today, and used a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS more than than the 10-22 in my crop days.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,087 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 147
Joined Nov 2012
     
Mar 03, 2015 07:44 |  #13

Can you guys explain why you've moved away from UWA?


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
6,843 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 1455
Joined May 2011
Location: Gainesville, Florida
     
Mar 03, 2015 07:44 |  #14

We have a very nice 13" x 19" print of a Florida gulf coast sunset I took with my little G12 (10 MP). I'm convinced I would do better landscapes with a full frame camera and the right lens based on what I've read here, but that doesn't make me right. With a good tripod, (and sometimes without as seen above) you can get good landscapes with a variety of cameras.

Jeff (Pondrader) said it best for me.... the 7D2 is an "every man/woman's camera. It's a great all around camera for people who are willing to spend a decent amount of money..... but aren't wealthy. Would I love a 1D X with landscape lenses, portrait lenses and wildlife lenses? Sure..... but that isn't going to happen.

I'm quite happy with my 7D2 for anything that I want to shoot. I'm more limited by skill than gear at this point. I am learning and having a blast doing so. The 7D2 inspires me to get out there and shoot more than any camera I've had so far. I'm tired from working 3 12 hour shifts this past 3 days... but I'll be out there today because we're having a sunny day here. ;)


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1DX2 | 1D IV | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS | 100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition | Editing Encouraged

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pknight
Goldmember
Avatar
2,693 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Likes: 128
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Flyover Country
     
Mar 03, 2015 08:01 |  #15

Scott M wrote in post #17458243 (external link)
While I use a FF body for most of my landscapes these days, I have captured some great shots over the years using a 7D, 40D, and even (horror) a Rebel XT. I have enlarged prints from each of those bodies adorning the walls of our home.

As for UWA, personally I do not use such focal lengths often for my landscape work. It just depends on your style. I owned a EF-S 10-22mm in my crop days, and now own a EF 16-35L f/4 IS. I use my 24-105L much more than the 16-35 for landscapes today, and used a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS more than than the 10-22 in my crop days.

One issue is that "landscape" means a lot of different things. The waterfall shots in this thread emphasize relatively close landscape elements, and whatever lens will frame and isolate these types of elements is appropriate. For distant subjects, that may be a relatively long lens. On the other hand, some landscapes involve capturing the broad vista of a scene, in which case an UWA is just the ticket.


Digital EOS 90D Canon: EF 50mm f/1.8 II, EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, Life-Size Converter EF Tamron: SP 17-50mm f/2.8 DiII, 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 DiII VC HLD, SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2, SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD, 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DiII VC HLD Sigma: 30mm f/1.4 DC Art Rokinon: 8mm f/3.5 AS IF UMC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,173 views & 10 likes for this thread
7D2 for LANDSCAPE ???
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Brik
682 guests, 302 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.