HDR Equipment opinions

Heres my quandry. I have a 20D and 1Dmk2. I picked up the 1D because I could then shoot 5 bracket HDR images, however I am finding that the 17-40 lens isn't really that terrific, even after having sent it in for calibration.
I am mainly going to use the equipment for land and seascapes. The 20D will do 3 exposure brackets, but sometime there not enough.
Now I was thinking of getting the Canon T2i. From what I have read the image quality is very good. Yes it only does 3.4 FPS with RAW(all I shoot now). But it also can use the Magic Lantern software which from what i have read, can do up to 9 exposure brackets.
I would also like to keep the image sizes down, which is what is great about the cameras I have now, all around 8Mp.
The 40D would have been my first choice , however sadly no Magic lantern software option.
I usually like to shoot without a tripod, but I am trying to use the one I have more.
So let me know what you think and what you might use for landscape HDR work.

If your problem is with the 17-40, wouldn't getting a new lens be the more logical route?

You don't need a bracket function to shoot HDR.
You can get it with a tripod and a shutter remote.
Take an image at -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 or however you like it.

What kind of landscapes are you shooting that would require more than three exposures? Another option is to use a GND filter or filters to compress the tonal range of the sky and the landscape.

It is difficult to tell what "isn't really that terrific" means in terms of your lens' characteristics or performance. What was calibrated? You may want to consider manual focus and not stopping down to some crazy small aperture (i.e., not smaller than f/11 or so) to avoid diffraction. Hyperfocal distance would help here with a reasonable aperture like f/5.6.

As far as HDR goes, you can shoot raw or jpeg. If you shoot JPEG, just be aware of your white balance settings, but really you can correct white balance in 32bit post.

Sounds like you want to get a new camera- go for it!

One thing that the more recent cameras offer that can really help with your images is Live View - if you use a loupe and Live View, you can focus manually, with much greater accuracy than AF for landscape. You will obviously benefit from this by using a tripod, which will also help with HDR merging and alignment. A more recent camera will also likely be supported by Magic Lantern, if you still want to go that route. Some of the T-i cameras will even shoot HDR video with Magic Lantern. This requires some more advanced post processing, but it is a pretty nifty solution to video dynamic range.

As far as bracketing goes, there are a number of portable remote controllers that will do the job. Some run on your smartphone device with a special cable, so are dedicated units. You obviously want to check compatibility with your camera when you investigate these solutions.

Have fun!

kirk

With the 16-35 I stop down to 16-22 to achieve the depth of field needed. Nice and sharp. The 17-40 is just as sharp so should work just as well (according to reviews at the Digital Picture). In fact I returned my 16-35 and am sitting here waiting for FEDEX to deliver my 17-40. I have been shooting with a 1D Mark IV (also replaced with 5D3 for landscapes) so can't comment on your sensor but, it just may be a leaning curve.

I actually did a comparison shot of my 18-55 kit lens against the 17-40, and was really surprised, not really much difference at all, it was shot at F8 and F11, with no difference to me at all. Yes it was 2 different cameras. the 18-55 was on a 20D and the 17-40 was on a 1DMk2.
I just was not impressed. I also have the 10-22 and that is razor sharp, which is why I was so disappointed with the 17-40.
Which is why I sent in the 17-40 to Canon for focusing and sharpness. I think I may just get that T2i, especailly as you say because of the live view.I know that little 1.8in screen on my 20D seems to shrink a little more each year.

If you want to do HDR the best way you have to start and use your tripod more. There are times when this is not possible and I have done multiple exposures hand holding and then used the align features in the HDR software. These align features in Photoshop and Photomatix have gotten very good and as long as you keep it really close they will do a very good job.

As far as the equipment goes I would look for a new lens. The 1DMKII is capable of doing a great job as long as you put optics on it that are sharp. Some lenses simply don't produce great results at wide open apertures, your 17-40 could fall into this category. Have you considered looking for a used L series lens that would fit your needs that traditionally has good reviews.

I have been looking at the 24-105, but was unsure If it would be wide enough or not.

The 17-40 is a great lens, but Canon focus systems are pretty awful. The 5D3 is finally ok, I'd wait for when that focus system trickles down to the cheap line before upgrading your camera.

At F8 most lenses are ok. Use a tripod, camera in manual, make whatever exposures you like, bracketing isn't required.

I'm sorry but I didn't find that 17-40 that great a lens at all. The 70-200 F4, 100 2.8 Macro yes, but not the 17-40. Lets not beat around the bush, the 17-40 is OK, but its not L status by any means.
When did it come out anyways?

Have you been to see the images shot with the lens? The people shooting with it are having great success.
It is possible that with your new camera, you are not up to speed shooting with it and that may be your issue, not the lens. That camera will require more good work from you with the lens than your 40D does.

Actually its a 1DMk2 and a 20D. The 20D I have had for about 6 years now I think. The shots were from before and after a trip to canon with the same mediocre results.
I guess with the results I had with the 17-40 a different lens may be in order.

Just because your 17-40 isn't very good that doesn't mean all 17-40s are no good. Also consider that Canon cameras have a poor reputation for AF ability, so the lens might be great but the camera might be driving it poorly.

Bsmooth wrote in post #14508696
I'm sorry but I didn't find that 17-40 that great a lens at all. The 70-200 F4, 100 2.8 Macro yes, but not the 17-40. Lets not beat around the bush, the 17-40 is OK, but its not L status by any means.
When did it come out anyways?

I agree. The 17-40 was just ok, not great. But I didn't have it on a full frame either. I get much better results on my 60D with the 17-55.

I quit using WA glass years ago...nothing ever ended up being straight in the frame. I got better results with longer glass and photomerge.