Landscape Light on the Cliffs: different cameras, same spot

I find myself constantly drawn back to a certain spot in the shale-cliff coves along the beaches of Lake Erie where I live. On the morning in my "Morning on the Lake" thread, I took a picture with my K20D that I particularly like. More recently, I took a shot of the same spot with my 40D that I also like quite a bit. Both feature unusual lighting, but it's interesting to see how the different cameras handle the image, and the difference between 18mm and 85mm, etc. In the end, I think I like the Pentax image a bit more, as far as the composition, lighting, and overall "look." I intend to make prints of both, however.

First is the Pentax, second is the Canon.





Thoughts?

[Ash]

They're both fine.
At this resolution, and with using different focal lengths and settings I can't comment on which is more pleasing.
Different perspectives, but both captured well.

[er1kksen]

I can upload full-rez versions if you'd like but you can find a slightly larger size in my flickr. Both are pretty sharp, though. I'm looking forward to printing them large, as some images simply have a different "feel" at larger sizes.

Glad you like them.

[JMR]

What is the link to your site?

I agree with Ash, this is not a good comparison. The light in both, though similar, is different enough that one can't make a judgement. And that does not even include the criteria of different focal lengths. But I do like the images.

JMR

[er1kksen]

I didn't mean it as a comparison, really. The images have a lot of differences and aren't really directly comparable. I just really like both images and thought they were interesting together. I'm glad you like them too.

My flickr is linked to in my sig, if that's what you mean.

[Frank Fletcher]

Aesthetically (not technically) I like the first one best. Of course I could be biased as I'm a climber.

Do people climb here? It's beautiful!

[er1kksen]

Unfortunately, it's not fantastic rock for climbing. The rock wall you see in the first picture is only about 12 feet tall, so a lot of the imperfections you see are far to small to provide any sort of grip. It's generally very smooth, too, and doesn't friction well. Where there are imperfections, the rock seperates into its very thin layers (it's shale) and crumbles easily, breaking off at sharp, jagged angles. There are spots you can climb up, but it's a very different sort of climbing than "real" rock climbing, depending more on finding a safe place to put your foot or hand, less strenuous (generally) and more limited-feeling. Aside from myself and a friend, I've never seen anyone actually climbing up the rocks, since there are gentler paths up to the top.

My area isn't really known for its fantastic climbing opportunities. Almost everything is crumbly. About 20 miles south you start finding some good rock.

[Frank Fletcher]

Ah well - that's too bad! The first photo makes the wall look huge and great for climbing!