December 22, 2014, 03:06:22 PM

Author Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 71316 times)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3601
  • also on superhero vacation
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #165 on: May 09, 2013, 02:03:17 PM »
When one follows the logic through to it's obvious conclusion, the answer is clear.

Real photographers do not use "spray and pray" because it's a cheat... you should be able to use skill instead.

Real photographers should also turn off the AF, because it's also a cheat.

Real photographers should turn of IS, it's also a cheat.

Real photographers don't look at the exposure display.... because with skill they don't need it.

Real photographers should NEVER shoot in RAW, because if they were any good the out-of-camera JPG would be perfect every time.

Real photographers do not bracket, their first shot is always perfect.

Real photographers have phenomenally high keeper rates, because every shot is perfect.

Get the point? Real photographers ignore all the tools available to them..... makes me glad I'm a hack who doesn't know enough to turn everything off.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #165 on: May 09, 2013, 02:03:17 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3545
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #166 on: May 09, 2013, 02:05:19 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4817
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #167 on: May 09, 2013, 02:08:41 PM »
When one follows the logic through to it's obvious conclusion, the answer is clear.

Real photographers do not use "spray and pray" because it's a cheat... you should be able to use skill instead.

Real photographers should also turn off the AF, because it's also a cheat.

Real photographers should turn of IS, it's also a cheat.

Real photographers don't look at the exposure display.... because with skill they don't need it.

Real photographers should NEVER shoot in RAW, because if they were any good the out-of-camera JPG would be perfect every time.

Real photographers do not bracket, their first shot is always perfect.

Real photographers have phenomenally high keeper rates, because every shot is perfect.

Get the point? Real photographers ignore all the tools available to them..... makes me glad I'm a hack who doesn't know enough to turn everything off.

LOL +1

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #168 on: May 09, 2013, 02:27:35 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #169 on: May 09, 2013, 02:47:31 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

That being said, I think gear matters.  If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever.  The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters.  In my instance anyway!  ;)
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #170 on: May 09, 2013, 03:02:15 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.   
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3601
  • also on superhero vacation
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #171 on: May 09, 2013, 03:03:21 PM »
That being said, I think gear matters.  If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever.  The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters.  In my instance anyway!  ;)

And to try to get back on subject, I shoot with a 60D. I am thinking VERY hard about upgrading to a 7D2 when it comes out. The 7D is better, but not enough so as to tempt me to buy one. For me, the two big things that would (hopefully) help me are better AF system and higher burst rate, but there are a lot of little things I would not turn my nose up at. I'd like to have it NOW!!!!, but that's just not going to happen. Realistically, I had expected to see it in stores by Christmas.... so a few month's more won't hurt. After all, if you are into wildlife photography, patience may well be the most important skill of all.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #171 on: May 09, 2013, 03:03:21 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3545
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #172 on: May 09, 2013, 03:07:28 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:10:25 PM by RLPhoto »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #173 on: May 09, 2013, 03:10:08 PM »
That being said, I think gear matters.  If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever.  The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters.  In my instance anyway!  ;)

And to try to get back on subject, I shoot with a 60D. I am thinking VERY hard about upgrading to a 7D2 when it comes out. The 7D is better, but not enough so as to tempt me to buy one. For me, the two big things that would (hopefully) help me are better AF system and higher burst rate, but there are a lot of little things I would not turn my nose up at. I'd like to have it NOW!!!!, but that's just not going to happen. Realistically, I had expected to see it in stores by Christmas.... so a few month's more won't hurt. After all, if you are into wildlife photography, patience may well be the most important skill of all.

I think the 7D2 will certainly have an upgraded AF system, which will be great!  Burst rate on the 7D is great but I'm with you, if it was a bit more that would be great, if not, I'm okay with 8fps.  I like so many others would love to see a dramatic difference in the high ISO area though...  :)
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #174 on: May 09, 2013, 03:16:35 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it".  The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no?  So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit... 

So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...   :o  You are both correct!
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3545
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #175 on: May 09, 2013, 03:22:31 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it".  The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no?  So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit... 

So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...   :o  You are both correct!

Ah ha! Let's say we have a brownie box cam, virtually no controls, with enough fore-thought could you take the presidential portrait with it? I would bet yes, and would wager that it would even be pretty cool.

I started with pretty lousy equipment but when I look back, Some of my favorite shots are with that lousy equipment. Was it frustrating at times? Yes, but I made the photos I needed. Did I have to go out of my way more so than now? Absolutely.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:24:05 PM by RLPhoto »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #176 on: May 09, 2013, 03:25:42 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it".  The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no?  So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit... 

So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...   :o  You are both correct!

Ah ha! Let's say we have a brownie box cam, virtually no controls, with enough fore-thought could you take the presidential portrait with it? I would bet yes, and would wager that it would even be pretty cool.

I started with pretty lousy equipment but when I look back, Some of my favorite shots are with that lousy equipment.
Indeed, yet it doesn't negate the fact that gear matters... Cave drawings are quite artistic as well, yet the same drawing may look better when rendered with colored pencil than chisels... Although it certainly wouldn't survive the ages! 
Ken

5D Mark III, 100-400L, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-105L, 16-35L IS, 17-40L, 85mm 1.8, Samy 14mm 2.8,  600 EX-RT, 580EX II, 430EX II, 1.4X III, 2.0X III

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4817
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #177 on: May 09, 2013, 03:29:12 PM »
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.

Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
What about an insinuation that drools with repetition?  Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

Touché.

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one).  Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5?  Because...gear matters.

It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just  be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.

Sorry, but its more than just convenient. At f/2, your maximum blur circle size is much larger than at f/3.5. That allows you to get a thinner depth of field and creamier out of focus background. You can, quite literally, do things with a 135 f/2 that you cannot do with a 135 f/3.5.

It is only "more convenient" from the standpoint of allowing more light in...but then again, it is still not "just" convenient. With an f/2 lens, you GET MORE LIGHT...which means your SNR is higher, which means you have less noise. And no, increasing ISO is not the same...there is a reason why exposure value (EV) is officially adjusted only by aperture or shutter speed, and not ISO. By increasing ISO, you are COMPENSATING for LESS LIGHT (lower EV), not getting a higher EV.

A lens with a wider aperture may be convenient, but it is not JUST convenient...it is more than convenient...it is BETTER. It offers the user more flexibility, more creative freedom, MORE.

The argument is not about "getting *something* out of a camera". Your missing the point. Anyone can get "something" out of "any" camera. A more skilled photographer can get something "better" out of "any" camera. The point that is being made is that with better tools comes more flexibility, greater capability, and improved quality. Put a better camera in the hands of the most skilled photographer on earth...and they will STILL make better photos than if they had a worse camera.

You can't just dismiss the value of a good tool, a better tool, a proper tool. You, my friend, are effectively saying that the only tool a person needs is a hammer! WRONG!! You know how fundamentally invalid that argument is (or at least...I hope you do!!!)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #177 on: May 09, 2013, 03:29:12 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #178 on: May 09, 2013, 03:36:40 PM »
If better gear makes photography more convenient, then gear matters.  To say gear doesn't matter, it's a convenience, is an oxymoron.   Unless convenience doesn't matter...in that case, why aren't you using emulsion-coated glass and a plate of flash powder?

But you can call it convenient if you want.  Your posting history clearly indicates that gear matters to you.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3545
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #179 on: May 09, 2013, 03:38:04 PM »
Jrista, I do appreciate that you time in your posts with alot of technical stuff.

I disagree, A hammer is one tool, and a saw is another. What matters is the craftsman behind them ;)

Eh, If I didn't have the equipment that I have now I would simply use what I can get. Probably get good results anyway, alittle more trouble though.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:44:55 PM by RLPhoto »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #179 on: May 09, 2013, 03:38:04 PM »