Can 40D take good landscapes?

I've been taking landscapes with 20D for a two years now and it's fine...
17-40 works just fine for me...
Upgrading this year to a 40D for a better VF and screen...

BTW I make 30x20" landscape prints, so no worries about 350D res.

Here is one straight from the 40d with no processing, seems it does lanscapes fine.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

As long as you use sa tripod you can make prints as large as 20x30 even larger if resized right with a XT.

i have yet to find a camera that can take good bad or even great photos. i have however found good photographers that use their cameras to capture great images.

No, you cannot take good landscapes with a 40D, it wasn't made for that. It's strictly made for sports. You have to have a press-pass with a magnet strip for verification to unlock the full 6.5 fps. It will also only do birding photos with a 600 f4 IS lens attached. The camera knows when it's going to possibly shoot a landscape and will simply just shut down. Canon is that smart now, making you buy all sorts of different cameras. If you want good landscapes, only with an older film camera can you do this, or an H3D 39 can cope with the effects of landscapes on digital.

Cmon, what kind of questions are these? You can take good pictures with any camera. The camera is just the device made to record your art. God created the light, you just plan to capture it's beauty. The camera simply records it. THATS ALL. Don't let it think for you. Too many people think that better gear will make you a better photographer. Be the photographer.

Now get out and shoot more!

Oh ya, since when do you need a WA lens to shoot landscapes?

I just tried to take some shots now with my 40D and it froze. it came up on the screen, "You are trying to shoot a landscape photograph, this feature is not available"

Oh well I guess canon will have better luck next time then.

I get the feeling I asked a dumb question. Sorry about that.

Again, thanks for the helpful responses and images.

I need a camera that can take good landscapes,a pan that can make good pasta and a paintbrush that can paint good portraits.

neil_r wrote in post #3887153
I need a ... paintbrush that can paint good portraits.

If you go to Michaels (or any craft store) you can find all sorts of brushes. There are some with nicely colored handles (red, yellow, green, etc.) and are made of plastic. You can get a 10 pack of these for a dollar or two.

You can also pick up a single round brush (or flat, or angled, etc) made of high quality materials for $45.

It's not often I would give a Kindergardner a single $45 brush to take to school with him.

It's not also often I'd give a famous artist a 10 cent brush either.

Will the expensive brush work for the Kinbdergardner? Sure.

Will the brush worth pennies work for the famous and successful artist? Sure.

I guess I should have gone into more detail about who I am, where I am in my photography stage of life, and what it is exactly I hope to accomplish with my camera. But I wanted to spare everyone all those tedious details.

:p I understand the error of my question. Thanks for all the amusing responses.

Karen

Good response Fearless. Some times when the post count goes over 5,000, the thin air makes some of us a bit grouchy. The question you asked was just fine. Heck. I picked up a 40D to take to Africa this month as a back-up and one of my first thoughts was "I wonder if it will do landscapes as well as my 5D?"
The guys, as you know are right in saying it's the shooter, but a specific tool for a specific job is in most cases more efficient.

Well as any FF shooter would tell, you should just crawl back to your hole and die just for thinking about the 40D for landscapes lol.
Truth is it's more of a matter of lens rather then body. A 40D+10-22 is a lot cheaper then a 5D+16-35 (for a few extra degrees compared to the 17-40) and since you will use both at f/8-f/11 the 40D will have a DoF advantage for landscapes too.
Add the price difference to the the minimal resolution difference and the fact that comparing the 40D to the 5D is almost like comparing the 1D2 to the 5D in terms of features and general versatility and the decision is rather simple. Buy yourself some extra glass for the money too.
First of all it's the user,then the light, then the glass and only after that comes the camera in terms of importance.

Just a landscape taken with a 300D and my 10-22. Easily good enough for 18x12" print by any normal standards except of course for the pixel peeper inspecting it with a magnifying glass. Heavily compressed 100% crop from an upsampled print-ready version at 4500x3000 using Genuine Fractals, sharpening and some fine noise. Thats from an "ancient". Keep in mind the normal viewing distance for a 18x12 print and the fact that it's a 13.5MP interpolation from an old technology 6MP entry level camera using good glass. The 40D can do 18x12" or more easily. 10vs12.7mp...That would be missing the big picture, but some can't help that I'd go with the 40D hands down for the difference in price and features.

Robkat, that's a beautiful landscape shot!! Nicely done.

If you are looking for a wide field of view
the wideangle lens is not always the way to go.
Stitching two or three shots together
is often more the look you are imagining.

why wouldnt it be able to? just buy a wide angle lens...