« on: October 29, 2014, 09:25:18 PM »
Dont know for bigger stores, but my local one in Oz said they were getting 6 cameras on first round, out of 20 ordered.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
The wildcard is, of course, how many people see the 7D2 as a specialist's tool and how many see it as a roundly robust camera for general photography?
Enthusiasts see the 7D2 as being a camera for the reach-obsessed and budget constrained. And there are sports/wildlife/birding folks out there that will be able to do 95% as much with a 7D2 + 400 prime as those with a 1DX + 600 prime for a ton less money.
But, let's face it, those folks have to be only, what, five percent of the eventual people that will end up buying a 7D2? Sure, we talk about them. Sure, the value proposition is through the roof for those folks. But how many really are there?
So, yes, Gizmodo readers and Best Buy walk-in dudes/dudettes will buy one because it's new, it's powerful, and it's built to last. They aren't hung up on SLR footprint, size, weight, etc. They also aren't hung up on needing a FF sensor. But man, will it nail the shot of their kid at a school concert, sporting event, family trip, etc.
Apparently, now, theories and math and known facts are all useless and pointless...only the experience of a "handful of pros matters, and what a pro says goes. "
They're not pointless but this kind of stuff boils down to whether theory and facts show whether a measurable difference exists and then the next question after that is whether any difference found actually matters, ie is meaningful.
The test of 'do the people demanding this actually seem to be ending up with better pictures when they have it' is trying to find a way to address the meaningful aspect. It isnt perfect, but nor is focussing on measurement alone.
Sure, but that's why I included "evidence" in my list. There has been some evidence provided for this debate, some of it very good, on a number of occasions.
A) world-renowned photographers and masters of their craft with numerous years experience between them, all shooting Canon (despite any flaws or limitations) in extremely diverse conditions with diverse lighting and subject matter, and producing high quality work with their reputations at stake.
That is an example of both an "argument from authority" and "bandwagoning" both of which are logical fallacies.
Simply observing that a large number of succcessful photographers use a specific brand does not indicate that the specific brand is better or worse than any other brand -- unless a relationship of causation between camera brands and succcess as a photographer can be established.
Which will be difficult to establish since we like to proclaim that it is the photographer not the equipment that makes the good picture.
There are many reasons why one would consider a specific camera brand to be better. The fact that a bunch of famous successful people use a particular brand should not be one of them.
And you have hit the nail on the head.... You can take any current DSLR...Nikon, Sony, Canon, whatever.... And take wonderful pictures... The differences are minimal to the average user.
This gets brought up in these discussions regularly, but it's not really saying anything at all, is it?
Every camera technological debate thread can end with "all cameras take nice pictures".
But a site such as this operates within a tech-context, and tech thrives on incremental improvement. So saying "the difference is minimal" over an over in every thread along with other platitudes dilutes the discussion.