What I often find the most interesting is how landscape photography is still largely referred to as a singular subsection of photography, when in reality, there are many different types of landscape photography which can use vastly different types of gear.
That's why I often cringe a bit when I read stuff along the lines of "Landscape photography is all about..." or "Landscape photographers today always/never..." That type of thinking is a bit obtuse just for the sake of trying to prove a meaningless point or to set ones self up as the Websters God of photography definitions.
I personally shoot with a Sony a6300 and 19mm f2.8 and 60mm f2.8 lenses. The kit weighs less than 2 pounds and I can stitch shots from the 19mm lens to create ANY (!!!) UWA focal length I wish, and it even does astro work when stitched or just single shot. Same with the 60mm lens, which can be stitched for wider than 60mm shots, or allow for heavy cropping due to the insane level of sharpness out-resolving the sensor. So, two ultra light primes can effectively give me a 0mm-100mm+ effective focal range capturing ability for around 10 ounces in glass.
I also have my phone's camera which is vastly more waterproof than any bare ILC and can be wiped clean around the lens in less than 1 second. It works great for shots near waterfalls, in the rain, the snow, etc. It even does wide angle macro focus stacked shots that can be taken in tight places where it would be "impossible" to place a regular camera.
It not a bad idea to use primes, even ones longer than 20mm (full frame), for landscapes. But don't let it limit your creativity and versatility, and be tempted to crop and stitch for shorter and longer effective focal lengths.
Jun 14, 2019 at 10:38 AM
Previous versions of JohanEickmeyer's message #14882320 « Landscape photography with primarily >24mm? »
