7D2 for LANDSCAPE ???

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.

Looks great to me Mike.

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

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!

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

LMAO.. we had bare trees so i shot it tight. Nice shot

pknight wrote in post #17456802
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.

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.

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

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!

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

frugivore wrote in post #17456854
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.

pknight wrote in post #17456802
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.

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

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.

Scott M wrote in post #17458243
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.