show me your 7d landscape shots

It's all about location, lighting conditions and composition.

JohnB57 wrote in post #14594330
Absolutely true, but the 400D isn't the same sensor as the 7D as you state above, nor is it a similar pixel count. Part of the argument against the 7D for landscape is the aggressive AA filter on the latter that sometimes requires a bit of post processing.

I'm in the pro-7D for everything camp.

true but as u can see from my pics and millions of other great landscape shots taken on a rebel. most if not ALL dslr's can take spectacular landscape shots

jonneymendoza wrote in post #14594377
true but as u can see from my pics and millions of other great landscape shots taken on a rebel. most if not ALL dslr's can take spectacular landscape shots

I agree 100% but the original post was, I think, specific to the 7D with its high density sensor and sharp low pass filter and not really a FF versus crop debate as such. Glass probably makes the biggest difference of all anyway.

Rob's work certainly shows the resolve that one can achieve with the 7D.

If you haven't seen it already read this link too: 5Dii -vs- 7D for landscaping?

Tsmith wrote in post #14594582
Rob's work certainly shows the resolve that one can achieve with the 7D.

If you haven't seen it already read this link too: 5Dii -vs- 7D for landscaping?

Great thread there! So glad I won't have to give up speed and reach of the crop body to do landscape stuff. I'm thinking the 7d will work great for what I shoot!

RobDickinson wrote in post #14594182
There shot with 17-55f2.8 or sigma 10-20.

What lens do you end up using more? I have to decide on a lens to pick up also. I only own a telephoto lens. My main goal is to pick up a lens for landscape, but if I would end up using the 17-55 range more, that lens would be a great standard zoom(which I'm missing in my setup)

studlymonkey wrote in post #14594685
What lens do you end up using more? I have to decide on a lens to pick up also. I only own a telephoto lens. My main goal is to pick up a lens for landscape, but if I would end up using the 17-55 range more, that lens would be a great standard zoom(which I'm missing in my setup)

Speaking only for myself, the "normal range" zoom of 17-55 on Canon's 1.6x crop wouldn't be wide enough for me when talking landscapes.

10-22 is usually a hell of a lot more fun to shoot (had the Sigma 10-22 on my Nikon D7000 and loved it, or maybe it was their 10-20? Whatever).

Since you already have a telephoto, you've got your compressed landscapes covered.

I guess it really depends on what types of landscapes you'll be shooting. If you have some large, sweeping vistas (like the examples shown), then I'd go UWA. If you're like me and live in a really crappy area for landscape photography (where using an UWA might not be the best choice), maybe the 17-55 would be more fitting.

studlymonkey wrote in post #14594685
What lens do you end up using more? I have to decide on a lens to pick up also. I only own a telephoto lens. My main goal is to pick up a lens for landscape, but if I would end up using the 17-55 range more, that lens would be a great standard zoom(which I'm missing in my setup)

well I think you could get both.
the 17-55 2.8 from Canon is almost $1000.

so,if you get a sigma 17-50 for $500 and a sigma 10-20 for $400 then you have BOTH for the price of the one canon lens.
They are both VERY capable lenses.

I tended to use the 1755 most of the time. I find really wide angle too wide most of the time and your beret off stitching a pano.

Seascaps tend to be an exception

Rob,
do you know if photoshop elements 10 has stitching ability?
I like the idea of using a 17-55 or equivalent and stitching for wide shots to cut down on distortion and softness at corners.


EDIT: It appears it does! awesome.
Thanks for the idea.

I own a 7D and must say my landscape pictures does not look nearly as good as some of the excellent examples posted here by Rob.

My opinion as a 7D owner is that many cameras can produce good landscape pictures, however to get great landscape pictures with the 7D will take a lot of skill and work. I find that the 7D does require a lot of PP to really make a picture "pop" from good to great, and also that in some cases I can't get the picture up to the level of great I would like to see (maybe I'm just too critical)

I suspect a 5DMKII or III will require a lot less PP skill and work to get great landscape pictures.

bulldog-yota wrote in post #14596379
I own a 7D and must say my landscape pictures does not look nearly as good as some of the excellent examples posted here by Rob.

My opinion as a 7D owner is that many cameras can produce good landscape pictures, however to get great landscape pictures with the 7D will take a lot of skill and work. I find that the 7D does require a lot of PP to really make a picture "pop" from good to great, and also that in some cases I can't get the picture up to the level of great I would like to see (maybe I'm just too critical)

I suspect a 5DMKII or III will require a lot less PP skill and work to get great landscape pictures.

Probably true, not a bad thing for me though, PP is all part of the fun!

^^^^^Beautiful ^^^^^