7D for Landscape

Anyone who thinks the 7D is not an effective tool for landscapes hasn't seen Bobby Bong's pictures. He's posting great stuff from a 7D & 10-22.

Never heard anyone say that, but great images.

Very nice image he got there.

I shot landscapes with that exact setup for about 6 months. It's a GREAT combo, and arguably better than my current 5Dii w/17-40, except for a few small details. The first is the AA filter, the images are much softer -vs- 5Dii files and need a lot more USM/sharpening in post. I'd LOVE to see a hotrodded 7D honestly. Second, and the ultimate reason I switched back to a 5Dii is the 10-22 isn't sealed. I eventually got dust in mine which you'll see as flare in shots with the sun in them which is a major PITA when you landscape.

The final nail in the coffin for mine, was honestly the fact I LOVE a 24mm prime for family shots, and it doesn't exist for crop. I had a 24L and 5Dc with my 7D while I owned it, but I got sick of having 2 bodies and switched to the 5Dii for everything. But the 7D's body is MUCH better, ergos, AF, level, etc.

but yeah, it's slightly soft, which was annoying more than anything. If dust was my only issue, I could have just swapped out 10-22s every 6 months or so and been fine. But combine that with the 24L issue for me, and I had to switch...

here are my 7D shots: http://www.flickr.com/​search/?w=25136692@N00​&q=7D

nice photos

Some amazing shots there.

Amazing pictures, but, to be fair, they are photoshopped to high hell. Hard to say what is the result of the body/lens and what is the result of PP. I'd venture a guess that the actual pictures look almost nothing like the end results.

The end product is all that matters. Majority of clients buy the end product, and don't care what camera/lens was used, or even what kind of post-processing was done, just as long as the result is pleasing.

Yah, nothing wrong with using crop bodies for landscapes. One of my favorite things about shooting on my 40D was the amount of DOF I could get at f8 vs what I get on FF. The only reason I even switched in the first place was so I could use my Zeiss 21 in its native FOV. A crop cam + 10-22 is a VERY nice combo and as mentioned above, arguable better than a FF with 17-40 in many respects.

Of course a 7D can produce a wonderful landscape image.

5DII can do even better, potentially. There's just more fine detail in a FF, 21MP image than there is in a 1.6X crop, 18MP image.

But it also depends upon what you'll be doing with the image. You may or may not need the additional detail the 5DII offers.

If you are posting your images online where they'll be viewed with 100 ppi (at best) monitors or even shooting for magazines (170 to 240 dpi, approx. 9x12" print), 7D is plenty of camera for the job. 15MP 50D works fine, too and has a weaker AA filter that makes for a more "5DII-like" image. Heck, for Internet resolution you could get great results with a lot less camera... 6MP 10D often would be just fine!

However, if you will be making 30x50" fine art prints to frame and hang on the wall, the 5DII will likely be a better choice. Or a 40MP Hasselblad.

Very nice images!

Getting to know the 7D...

If I might make an analogy here, I've told some new cyclist-pals that the best way to learn how to fix a flat tire, which basically involves flipping bad and good inner tubes when out on the road, is to go home, pull off the front wheel, go into the kitchen, grab a cold beer, and struggle through the process until you become comfortable with the process. It's better to learn such things when you're comfortable and not pressured. Like learning on the side of the road, in freezing rain, with the sun setting, and many-many big trucks.

Taking my own advice to heart, I've taken my new camera out to the front walk and placed some objects out on it to shoot in order to drum into my fingers and brain how to navigate around the camera's controls, and better work the focusing, metering and DOF angle. I agree, the 7 is a bit disappointingly soft, or at least a bit harder to get crisp. Heck, my lil' G9 is sharper, I think. Still...I do see evidence in greatness with the 7 from time to time, so for now I'll assume the softness has probably more to do with me than the camera itself.

i've seen someone on this forum say that the 7D is "a terrible choice for landscape." I hope he's reading this post...

i love my 7D

If you want to see marvelous landscapes shot by the 7d (and even with the 20D, or 350D for that matter) visit this italian guy's WEB site!
The page is here: Juza Nature Photography

ktownhero wrote in post #12745234
Amazing pictures, but, to be fair, they are photoshopped to high hell. Hard to say what is the result of the body/lens and what is the result of PP. I'd venture a guess that the actual pictures look almost nothing like the end results.

As others are saying, it's the end result that counts. Where do you draw the line? The camera contains a computer that digitally converts light to produce an image. A pc is just a continuation of the same process.

What is the definition of the "actual pictures"?