bulldog-yota wrote in post #14596379
I suspect a 5DMKII or III will require a lot less PP skill and work to get great landscape pictures.
I suspect a 5DMKII or III will require a lot less PP skill and work to get great landscape pictures.
5D2 requires perhaps a touch less pp work, but I am not seeing a huge amount of difference in base ISO files either straight from raw or during post. Remember that most people shooting with a 5d2 will be more motivated and have a higher skill set than perhaps the average 7d shooter. The average quality (of landscapes) will be higher.
h14nha wrote in post #14596547
Jeremy. Step that 18-55mm down and you will be suprised what it can do. When my 10-20 went off to Sigma all I had was my old kit lens so I used it. It will suprise you.
I have an ultra wide and I don't use it much these days. You'll find you need something large in the foreground to fill the space that a UWA leaves.
Jeremy. Step that 18-55mm down and you will be suprised what it can do. When my 10-20 went off to Sigma all I had was my old kit lens so I used it. It will suprise you.
I have an ultra wide and I don't use it much these days. You'll find you need something large in the foreground to fill the space that a UWA leaves.
+1. You dont need an UWA lens for landscapes, UWA lenses are often either abused or over used and inappropriate for a lot of landscapes. If you have movement (seascape etc) or some foreground interest (sand, benhc, log, rocks etc) or interesting sky then you can get away with 10mm, otherwise 18mm is plenty.
h14nha wrote in post #14596636
^^^^^Beautiful ^^^^^
^^^^^Beautiful ^^^^^
+1 its a fantastic shot!
