How good will the 6DMKII be for landscapes Locked

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 1,035
Re: How good will the 6DMKII be for landscapes

Don Lacy wrote:

GrapeJam wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

GrapeJam wrote:

How many of these are bracketed shots?

Who knows how many would still have been bracketed with a D810 or AR7 there is a price to pay for pulling shadows in post even with these cameras.

Mate, you can pull more than 3 stops shadow with the D750 (which has slightly worse base DR than the D810) and you have to pixel peep really really hard to find a tiny trace of noise that can easily be removed by less than 5 noise reduction value, if it's even needed at all.

Please try using a high DR camera for once.

I dont have to I know a three stop pull has the noise of ISO 400 I am not talking about 3 stop pulls which you can also do with a 6D and still clean up the noise I am talking 4,5, and 6 stops. I have seen the images on DPR and I have yet to see any camera where I would want part of the image at ISO 100 and other parts at ISO 1600. I am not saying having a camera that has great low ISO DR is not useful I am saying it is not needed to make great landscape images.

Nobody was talking about pulling 5,6 stops, here's the thing: Even when you have to push only 2,3 stops, higher dynamic range camera will produce cleaner and more detailed result than cameras with lower dynamic range.

 GrapeJam's gear list:GrapeJam's gear list
Sony Alpha a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,303
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

brightcolours wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For landscapes, the 6D Mark II is about the worst possible way to spend $2000. Here are some better alternatives...

Nonsense.

If you're "married" to Canon lenses...

  • 6D + a new lens or two - since there's no need for AF, FPS, and the DR is the same (technically the 6D is better at base ISO than the 6D Mark II), why not save money on the body and buy some better glass? It lacks an articulating screen, you say? Control it with your phone for that massive $$ savings.
  • Sony A7R + a cheap adapter (adapters which offer AF aren't even necessary since you'll likely be manually focusing anyway) - SUBSTANTIALLY better DR and quite a bit more resolution. This solution would cost the same, if purchased new and could be had for quite a bit less if purchased used.
  • Sony A7 + a cheap adapter. This can be had for less than $1000. NEW! Same 24mp resolution but 2 stops better DR. Spend the rest on GREAT glass. Sony or Canon or a MF 3rd party offering (or several).

If you're not married to Canon lenses...

The Sony A7R? Laughable landscape solution. It has a terrible reputation for shutter shock, something you do NOT need as landscape photographer. Besides that, it has a clumsy interface and quite bad battery life. Not a camera that would make one happy.

You do NOT need better DR, no matter what people like you keep saying. Unless you are after a fake look.

Sony A7 is in nothing better than the 6D mk II, it is in many respects very much a worse camera. Oh yes, there is that silly "12 stops of DR on the DXO scale is not enough" mantra. Oh well. And did I mention the not so nice Sony colours of these two cameras, which mean a hassle in PP? And that crappy artifacting RAW format?

  • Nikon D810 - best DR of all DSLR (until the D850 is tested, possibly) and 2.7 stops more DR than a 6D (and a 6D is slightly higher than a 6D Mark II). I don't care what anyone says, 2.7+ stops is insanely significant. Whether someone finds it useful or not is possibly a different story. But I promise you, ALL landscape shooters can make use of 2.7+ stops at some point vs bracketing. It's simply a point which is not up for debate.
  • Pentax K-1 - possibly the very best solution for landscapes when using a FF camera. The DR is 2.5 stops higher than the 6D (which again, is higher than the 6D Mark II) and the K-1 has the ability to pixel shift, providing a RIDICULOUS amount of detail.

I don't care what people like you keep repeating, 2.7 stops more DR hidden in the depths of RAW is NOT needed for landscape photography. Unless you make those tasteless, unrealistic, worst light of the day nonsense I pulled shadows many stops images. The D810 also lacks an AA filter, to wow the easily impressed with false detail and fake sharpness. It also lacks the EF mount, and Canon lenses are better lenses often (16-35mm f4 L IS USM, 16-35mm f2.8 I USM III, 11-24mm f4 L USM to name a few).

Pentax K-1, probably the worst solution as the only thing it shines in is specs on paper. Lens wise? Not a great choice. AF wise? Not a great choice.

Honestly, someone would have to be frighteningly naive to choose the 6D Mark II for landscape shooting over almost literally any other option. The 6D Mark II, for landscapes, is about the worst possible way you can spend your money.

Seems you have a lot to learn about metering and landscape photography.

Sure. Give me YOUR landscape image results where you dug out 14.7 stops of DR and tonemapped into an attractive image. No cheating.

You don't need to tonemap a 14 stop DR image with digital anymore than I do with my film scans.  Here is a perfect example.  Metering from shadows to highlights, there was just shy of a 14 stop range.  This photo was taken on a Canon Xti body I had to check for image range while I switched to Ilford FP4 in my Mamiya RB67.

The Canon 6D2 does not have enoigh DR  to cover the the entire scene brightness range.  In this example, I tried multiple ways of processing, and exposure...but the best I could do was to choose blown highlights and noise in shadows.  The film version on FP4 held the range just fine because with the two bath dilute solution I used, 14 to 15 stop worked fine.

Just be ause you never encounter an issue, doesn't mean many of the rest of us don"t.  So please, stop with the atiitude.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,043
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

The Davinator wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

The Davinator wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For landscapes, the 6D Mark II is about the worst possible way to spend $2000. Here are some better alternatives...

Nonsense.

If you're "married" to Canon lenses...

  • 6D + a new lens or two - since there's no need for AF, FPS, and the DR is the same (technically the 6D is better at base ISO than the 6D Mark II), why not save money on the body and buy some better glass? It lacks an articulating screen, you say? Control it with your phone for that massive $$ savings.
  • Sony A7R + a cheap adapter (adapters which offer AF aren't even necessary since you'll likely be manually focusing anyway) - SUBSTANTIALLY better DR and quite a bit more resolution. This solution would cost the same, if purchased new and could be had for quite a bit less if purchased used.
  • Sony A7 + a cheap adapter. This can be had for less than $1000. NEW! Same 24mp resolution but 2 stops better DR. Spend the rest on GREAT glass. Sony or Canon or a MF 3rd party offering (or several).

If you're not married to Canon lenses...

The Sony A7R? Laughable landscape solution. It has a terrible reputation for shutter shock, something you do NOT need as landscape photographer. Besides that, it has a clumsy interface and quite bad battery life. Not a camera that would make one happy.

You do NOT need better DR, no matter what people like you keep saying. Unless you are after a fake look.

Sony A7 is in nothing better than the 6D mk II, it is in many respects very much a worse camera. Oh yes, there is that silly "12 stops of DR on the DXO scale is not enough" mantra. Oh well. And did I mention the not so nice Sony colours of these two cameras, which mean a hassle in PP? And that crappy artifacting RAW format?

  • Nikon D810 - best DR of all DSLR (until the D850 is tested, possibly) and 2.7 stops more DR than a 6D (and a 6D is slightly higher than a 6D Mark II). I don't care what anyone says, 2.7+ stops is insanely significant. Whether someone finds it useful or not is possibly a different story. But I promise you, ALL landscape shooters can make use of 2.7+ stops at some point vs bracketing. It's simply a point which is not up for debate.
  • Pentax K-1 - possibly the very best solution for landscapes when using a FF camera. The DR is 2.5 stops higher than the 6D (which again, is higher than the 6D Mark II) and the K-1 has the ability to pixel shift, providing a RIDICULOUS amount of detail.

I don't care what people like you keep repeating, 2.7 stops more DR hidden in the depths of RAW is NOT needed for landscape photography. Unless you make those tasteless, unrealistic, worst light of the day nonsense I pulled shadows many stops images. The D810 also lacks an AA filter, to wow the easily impressed with false detail and fake sharpness. It also lacks the EF mount, and Canon lenses are better lenses often (16-35mm f4 L IS USM, 16-35mm f2.8 I USM III, 11-24mm f4 L USM to name a few).

Pentax K-1, probably the worst solution as the only thing it shines in is specs on paper. Lens wise? Not a great choice. AF wise? Not a great choice.

Honestly, someone would have to be frighteningly naive to choose the 6D Mark II for landscape shooting over almost literally any other option. The 6D Mark II, for landscapes, is about the worst possible way you can spend your money.

Seems you have a lot to learn about metering and landscape photography.

Sure. Give me YOUR landscape image results where you dug out 14.7 stops of DR and tonemapped into an attractive image. No cheating.

You don't need to tonemap a 14 stop DR image with digital anymore than I do with my film scans.

How is that, that you don't need to tonemap?

Here is a perfect example. Metering from shadows to highlights, there was just shy of a 14 stop range.

Uhmm, how did you go about measuring that is was just shy of a 14 stop range?

This photo was taken on a Canon Xti body I had to check for image range while I switched to Ilford FP4 in my Mamiya RB67.

The XTi obviously does not have great DR (which is fine). Neither does Ilford FP4. So what exactly are you confusing here?

The Canon 6D2 does not have enoigh DR to cover the the entire scene brightness range. In this example, I tried multiple ways of processing, and exposure...but the best I could do was to choose blown highlights and noise in shadows. The film version on FP4 held the range just fine because with the two bath dilute solution I used, 14 to 15 stop worked fine.

FP4 has a medium DR of 7 stops, with some latitude for exposure. You seem to be pulling stuff out of nowhere?

Just be ause you never encounter an issue, doesn't mean many of the rest of us don"t. So please, stop with the atiitude.

It would be nice if you would stop with your misinformation...

PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 4,272
Re: How good will the 6DMKII be for landscapes

I am sure any cameras could generate some wonderful photos. Camera is just one part of story while the person behind VF is another part.

Nevertheless cameras with better DR and higher resolution used by the same person at the same scenes should always generate better IQ photos. In many scenes it's just unpractical to shoot bracketed-exposed photos.

I have a few samples of before and after shadow lifting here for reference.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,043
Re: Beef

GrapeJam wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

GrapeJam wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

GrapeJam wrote:

How many of these are bracketed shots?

Who knows how many would still have been bracketed with a D810 or AR7 there is a price to pay for pulling shadows in post even with these cameras.

Mate, you can regularly pull more than 3 stops shadow with the D750 (which has slightly worse base DR than the D810) and you have to pixel peep really really hard to find a tiny trace of noise that can easily be removed by less than 5 noise reduction value, if it's even needed at all.

Please try using a high DR camera for once.

What is your beef with shadows exactly, mate?

Because I prefer photos that have more leveled, linear, natural look?

I have an example on my hand right now, I wonder if the 6D could do this so cleanly. In this scene I exposed for the sky.

Here's the original:

You could have done with less underexposure. And just lower the contrast settings to begin with.

And here's after raising the shadow to be exactly how I saw the scene:

Try bracketing this shot, actually there was a 5DIII guy right next to me when I took this, he had to carry a tripod and bracket the shots, he photo would have had ghosting, while I did it handheld and with only 1 shot, it was actually kinda sad.

The still underexposed image reminds me somehow of an image in a Nikon lens brochure from the 1970's. Bridge, same underexposed sky, but less worthwhile.

Hmm, the same sun (we live in a solar system with only one sun... ),sun a bit lower, it seems. Shot in JPEG on a Canon EOS 350D. Yeah, in 2005 I did shoot in JPEG. Yeah, just a vacation image, no art.

Also it's funny that you say that HDR Camera will produce unnatural looks, funny because every bracketed HDR photos I've seen look freakishly unnatural than the result that you could get with 1 shot HDR photo.

That is weird, it should not matter how you get the 14 stops, you would end up with the same unnatural look when you lift shadows several stops. And you get the same underexposed result that you did when you underexpose, and lift the entire image a tad and keep it underexposed, no matter which camera you use or if you bracket to get underexposed results. Perhaps you are not comparing apples to apples?

GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 1,035
Re: Beef

brightcolours wrote:

The still underexposed image reminds me somehow of an image in a Nikon lens brochure from the 1970's. Bridge, same underexposed sky, but less worthwhile.

FYI, it's not underexposed, it was actually like that. If you think it's underexposed, you might wanna check your monitor calibration. Actually I'mma give you the benefit of doubt and raise the exposure by half a stop more:

This actually looks inaccurate but whatever. And if you still think that this is underexposed, you really should get your eyes check, actually you really should, the things that you've said regarding human eyes and dynamic range are really "Wat" materials.

Hmm, the same sun (we live in a solar system with only one sun... ),sun a bit lower, it seems. Shot in JPEG on a Canon EOS 350D. Yeah, in 2005 I did shoot in JPEG. Yeah, just a vacation image, no art.

Yeah, and as you can see, zero detail in the sky

That is weird, it should not matter how you get the 14 stops, you would end up with the same unnatural look when you lift shadows several stops. And you get the same underexposed result that you did when you underexpose, and lift the entire image a tad and keep it underexposed, no matter which camera you use or if you bracket to get underexposed results. Perhaps you are not comparing apples to apples?

Wow, this one photo actually looks unnatural to you? Maybe try coming to Vietnam for once, it's always like that.

 GrapeJam's gear list:GrapeJam's gear list
Sony Alpha a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 4,272
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

brightcolours wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For landscapes, the 6D Mark II is about the worst possible way to spend $2000. Here are some better alternatives...

Nonsense.

If you're "married" to Canon lenses...

  • 6D + a new lens or two - since there's no need for AF, FPS, and the DR is the same (technically the 6D is better at base ISO than the 6D Mark II), why not save money on the body and buy some better glass? It lacks an articulating screen, you say? Control it with your phone for that massive $$ savings.
  • Sony A7R + a cheap adapter (adapters which offer AF aren't even necessary since you'll likely be manually focusing anyway) - SUBSTANTIALLY better DR and quite a bit more resolution. This solution would cost the same, if purchased new and could be had for quite a bit less if purchased used.
  • Sony A7 + a cheap adapter. This can be had for less than $1000. NEW! Same 24mp resolution but 2 stops better DR. Spend the rest on GREAT glass. Sony or Canon or a MF 3rd party offering (or several).

If you're not married to Canon lenses...

The Sony A7R? Laughable landscape solution. It has a terrible reputation for shutter shock, something you do NOT need as landscape photographer. Besides that, it has a clumsy interface and quite bad battery life. Not a camera that would make one happy.

I have used it a few years. After some 13K+ photos I didn't encounter that shutter shock as it mainly affects tele lenses but no for UWA/WA lenses that I used in landscape. I have tons of photos in my album that you can check.

You do NOT need better DR, no matter what people like you keep saying. Unless you are after a fake look.

I read 'YOU' don't need, get it, but many others do wanted it.

Sony A7 is in nothing better than the 6D mk II, it is in many respects very much a worse camera. Oh yes, there is that silly "12 stops of DR on the DXO scale is not enough" mantra. Oh well. And did I mention the not so nice Sony colours of these two cameras, which mean a hassle in PP? And that crappy artifacting RAW format?

Nothing better? DR and resolution are certainly better that are objectively tested. There are tons of those photos in Flickr or elsewhere for fairly judge.

  • Nikon D810 - best DR of all DSLR (until the D850 is tested, possibly) and 2.7 stops more DR than a 6D (and a 6D is slightly higher than a 6D Mark II). I don't care what anyone says, 2.7+ stops is insanely significant. Whether someone finds it useful or not is possibly a different story. But I promise you, ALL landscape shooters can make use of 2.7+ stops at some point vs bracketing. It's simply a point which is not up for debate.
  • Pentax K-1 - possibly the very best solution for landscapes when using a FF camera. The DR is 2.5 stops higher than the 6D (which again, is higher than the 6D Mark II) and the K-1 has the ability to pixel shift, providing a RIDICULOUS amount of detail.

I don't care what people like you keep repeating, 2.7 stops more DR hidden in the depths of RAW is NOT needed for landscape photography. Unless you make those tasteless, unrealistic, worst light of the day nonsense I pulled shadows many stops images. The D810 also lacks an AA filter, to wow the easily impressed with false detail and fake sharpness. It also lacks the EF mount, and Canon lenses are better lenses often (16-35mm f4 L IS USM, 16-35mm f2.8 I USM III, 11-24mm f4 L USM to name a few).

Pentax K-1, probably the worst solution as the only thing it shines in is specs on paper. Lens wise? Not a great choice. AF wise? Not a great choice.

Honestly, someone would have to be frighteningly naive to choose the 6D Mark II for landscape shooting over almost literally any other option. The 6D Mark II, for landscapes, is about the worst possible way you can spend your money.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
OP Don Lacy Senior Member • Posts: 1,347
Re: Beef

GrapeJam wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

GrapeJam wrote:

Don Lacy wrote:

GrapeJam wrote:

How many of these are bracketed shots?

Who knows how many would still have been bracketed with a D810 or AR7 there is a price to pay for pulling shadows in post even with these cameras.

Mate, you can regularly pull more than 3 stops shadow with the D750 (which has slightly worse base DR than the D810) and you have to pixel peep really really hard to find a tiny trace of noise that can easily be removed by less than 5 noise reduction value, if it's even needed at all.

Please try using a high DR camera for once.

What is your beef with shadows exactly, mate?

Because I prefer photos that have more leveled, linear, natural look?

I have an example on my hand right now, I wonder if the 6D could have done this so cleanly. In this scene I exposed for the sky.

Here's the original:

And here's after raising the shadow to be exactly how I saw the scene:

Try bracketing this shot, actually there was a 5DIII guy right next to me when I took this, he had to carry a tripod and bracket the shots, his photo would have had ghosting, while I did it handheld and with only 1 shot, it was actually kinda sad.

Also it's funny that you say that HDR Camera will produce unnatural looks, funny because every bracketed HDR photos I've seen look freakishly unnatural than the result that you could get with 1 shot HDR photo.

First off I hand blend my images so no ghosting and no HDR look and second a Canon 6D would have been able to handle that image. I was going to blend this image but since I saw your post I processed it from a single image.

Straight Raw file no adjustments

Processed with the horrible DR of the Canon 6D

Do you have any images where you had to do a larger shadow adjustment since like I said anything greater then 3 stops should be bracketed with any camera if image IQ is your main goal. Anything more then this and the 6D would start to fall apart and I would have to use a bracketed sequence but so what as long as I get the image in the end.

 Don Lacy's gear list:Don Lacy's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM +8 more
GrapeJam
GrapeJam Senior Member • Posts: 1,035
Re: Beef

Don Lacy wrote:

First off I hand blend my images so no ghosting and no HDR look and second a Canon 6D would have been able to handle that image. I was going to blend this image but since I saw your post I processed it from a single image.

Straight Raw file no adjustments

Processed with the horrible DR of the Canon 6D

Do you have any images where you had to do a larger shadow adjustment since like I said anything greater then 3 stops should be bracketed with any camera if image IQ is your main goal. Anything more then this and the 6D would start to fall apart and I would have to use a bracketed sequence but so what as long as I get the image in the end.

Sorry, this is nowhere near as drastic as the adjustments that I've made in my photos, and even then, the raised part even when downsampled is still not as detailed and clean as mine. Also the adjustments that I've to my photo took me less than 5 minutes to do, essentially just a few slider pushes.

Oh BTW, I was totally unprepared for this shot as I was going from work and didn't have my tripod with me, yet I still got the image.

 GrapeJam's gear list:GrapeJam's gear list
Sony Alpha a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony FE 85mm F1.8
al booth Junior Member • Posts: 42
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

Thank god someone know some about taking photos, and not all this DR nonsense.

i agree lifting shadows creates awful looking pics.👍

 al booth's gear list:al booth's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M5 Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM +5 more
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 15,043
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

PWPhotography wrote:

brightcolours wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For landscapes, the 6D Mark II is about the worst possible way to spend $2000. Here are some better alternatives...

Nonsense.

If you're "married" to Canon lenses...

  • 6D + a new lens or two - since there's no need for AF, FPS, and the DR is the same (technically the 6D is better at base ISO than the 6D Mark II), why not save money on the body and buy some better glass? It lacks an articulating screen, you say? Control it with your phone for that massive $$ savings.
  • Sony A7R + a cheap adapter (adapters which offer AF aren't even necessary since you'll likely be manually focusing anyway) - SUBSTANTIALLY better DR and quite a bit more resolution. This solution would cost the same, if purchased new and could be had for quite a bit less if purchased used.
  • Sony A7 + a cheap adapter. This can be had for less than $1000. NEW! Same 24mp resolution but 2 stops better DR. Spend the rest on GREAT glass. Sony or Canon or a MF 3rd party offering (or several).

If you're not married to Canon lenses...

The Sony A7R? Laughable landscape solution. It has a terrible reputation for shutter shock, something you do NOT need as landscape photographer. Besides that, it has a clumsy interface and quite bad battery life. Not a camera that would make one happy.

I have used it a few years. After some 13K+ photos I didn't encounter that shutter shock as it mainly affects tele lenses but no for UWA/WA lenses that I used in landscape. I have tons of photos in my album that you can check.

No, shutter shock on an A7R affects every lens, as it is not, like with the Nikon 800/810, related to VR. It is just the shutter vibrating the whole camera. Especially on a tripod.

You do NOT need better DR, no matter what people like you keep saying. Unless you are after a fake look.

I read 'YOU' don't need, get it, but many others do wanted it.

Yes, many follow the nonsense gospel of "landscape photography = lifting shadows 14 stops" and "14 stops of DR looks natural or even nice".

Sony A7 is in nothing better than the 6D mk II, it is in many respects very much a worse camera. Oh yes, there is that silly "12 stops of DR on the DXO scale is not enough" mantra. Oh well. And did I mention the not so nice Sony colours of these two cameras, which mean a hassle in PP? And that crappy artifacting RAW format?

Nothing better? DR and resolution are certainly better

The resolution of an A7 better than of a 6D mk II? You must confuse the fake detail and false sharpness introduced by lack of antialiasing with "better resolution".

that are objectively tested.

Where are these fault free, objective resolution tests?

There are tons of those photos in Flickr or elsewhere for fairly judge.

  • Nikon D810 - best DR of all DSLR (until the D850 is tested, possibly) and 2.7 stops more DR than a 6D (and a 6D is slightly higher than a 6D Mark II). I don't care what anyone says, 2.7+ stops is insanely significant. Whether someone finds it useful or not is possibly a different story. But I promise you, ALL landscape shooters can make use of 2.7+ stops at some point vs bracketing. It's simply a point which is not up for debate.
  • Pentax K-1 - possibly the very best solution for landscapes when using a FF camera. The DR is 2.5 stops higher than the 6D (which again, is higher than the 6D Mark II) and the K-1 has the ability to pixel shift, providing a RIDICULOUS amount of detail.

I don't care what people like you keep repeating, 2.7 stops more DR hidden in the depths of RAW is NOT needed for landscape photography. Unless you make those tasteless, unrealistic, worst light of the day nonsense I pulled shadows many stops images. The D810 also lacks an AA filter, to wow the easily impressed with false detail and fake sharpness. It also lacks the EF mount, and Canon lenses are better lenses often (16-35mm f4 L IS USM, 16-35mm f2.8 I USM III, 11-24mm f4 L USM to name a few).

Pentax K-1, probably the worst solution as the only thing it shines in is specs on paper. Lens wise? Not a great choice. AF wise? Not a great choice.

Honestly, someone would have to be frighteningly naive to choose the 6D Mark II for landscape shooting over almost literally any other option. The 6D Mark II, for landscapes, is about the worst possible way you can spend your money.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,303
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

al booth wrote:

Thank god someone know some about taking photos, and not all this DR nonsense.

i agree lifting shadows creates awful looking pics.👍

Shadows aren't being lifted...midtones are.  Time to earn about metering

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 20,303
Re: This is actually a laughable post from you

Nothing to do with lifting shadows.  Appears you really dont understand the metering and exposure.  Get back to use when you do...because the sahdows never move...they remain shadows.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Canon EOS 10D Nikon D2X +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads