April 19, 2014, 05:36:41 PM

Author Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 48775 times)

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1251
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #180 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, 100-400mm L, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II, EF 24-105mm L, EF 17-40mm L, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM,  Canon 580EX II, Canon 430EX II, Promaster TC 1.7x

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #180 on: May 09, 2013, 03:25:42 PM »

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #181 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!!!)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12784
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #182 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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3120
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #183 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 »
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #184 on: May 09, 2013, 03:49:36 PM »
Jrista, I do appreciate that you f 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.

Your still missing the point, rather conveniently, I might add.  ;)

Sure, you can get "good" results. It WILL be more trouble to get those results with, say, a point and shoot. But that isn't the point. It's never been the point. You are debating the wrong point...your debating a point no one is trying to make.

The POINT, here, is that a BETTER CAMERA will allow a photographer to make BETTER PHOTOS! The further POINT, is, a BETTER camera in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will STILL allow them to make BETTER photos, and furthermore the same better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow them to make better photos than a LESS SKILLED photographer with the exact same camera.

Do you really, truly assert that the points I've explicitly outlined above are wrong, or invalid, or somehow illogical? And please, speak directly to those points only...I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!

(I expect an evasion here...its all the rage these days, when your losing an argument...to evade. Guess we'll see if RLPhoto can step up to the plate and debate directly against the points that have been made (or, shocker...AGREE!), or whether he'll squirrel around for the sole purpose of winning an argument...which is again...is beside the point! The argument isn't the end here...only the means to an end. :P)
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:53:18 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12784
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #185 on: May 09, 2013, 03:51:34 PM »
Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.  ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #186 on: May 09, 2013, 03:52:06 PM »
Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.  ::)

Hah! Damn you...  :P
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #186 on: May 09, 2013, 03:52:06 PM »

dlleno

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #187 on: May 09, 2013, 03:54:11 PM »
cue the discussion about dynamic range, noise and banding in the same context as allowing a skilled phototgrapher to obtain better photos.  I smell  popcorn

RLPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3120
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #188 on: May 09, 2013, 03:54:40 PM »
Jrista, I do appreciate that you f 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.

Your still missing the point, rather conveniently, I might add.  ;)

Sure, you can get "good" results. It WILL be more trouble to get those results with, say, a point and shoot. But that isn't the point. It's never been the point. You are debating the wrong point...your debating a point no one is trying to make.

The POINT, here, is that a BETTER CAMERA will allow a photographer to make BETTER PHOTOS! The further POINT, is, a BETTER camera in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will STILL allow them to make BETTER photos, and furthermore the same better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow them to make better photos than a LESS SKILLED photographer with the exact same camera.

Do you really, truly assert that the points I've explicitly outlined above are wrong, or invalid, or somehow illogical? And please, speak directly to those points only...I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!

(A expect an evasion...its all the rage these days, when your losing an argument...to evade. Guess we'll see if RLPhoto can step up to the plate and debate directly against the points that have been made, or whether he'll squirrel around for the sole purpose of winning an argument...which is again...is beside the point! The argument isn't the end here...only the means to an end. :P)

I've already answered your point and Simplified it.

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

Unfortunately, In a subjective world as photography, A better camera doesn't mean a better photo. A more convenient photo sure, but a better one? Not really.
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #189 on: May 09, 2013, 04:00:47 PM »
Jrista, I do appreciate that you f 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.

Your still missing the point, rather conveniently, I might add.  ;)

Sure, you can get "good" results. It WILL be more trouble to get those results with, say, a point and shoot. But that isn't the point. It's never been the point. You are debating the wrong point...your debating a point no one is trying to make.

The POINT, here, is that a BETTER CAMERA will allow a photographer to make BETTER PHOTOS! The further POINT, is, a BETTER camera in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will STILL allow them to make BETTER photos, and furthermore the same better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow them to make better photos than a LESS SKILLED photographer with the exact same camera.

Do you really, truly assert that the points I've explicitly outlined above are wrong, or invalid, or somehow illogical? And please, speak directly to those points only...I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!

(A expect an evasion...its all the rage these days, when your losing an argument...to evade. Guess we'll see if RLPhoto can step up to the plate and debate directly against the points that have been made, or whether he'll squirrel around for the sole purpose of winning an argument...which is again...is beside the point! The argument isn't the end here...only the means to an end. :P)

I've already answered your point and Simplified it.

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

Unfortunately, In a subjective world as photography, A better camera doesn't mean a better photo. A more convenient photo sure, but a better one? Not really.

Evasion. And convolution. As I figured.

Lets try it another way. You have a thousand boards to saw, and one hour to do it in. You have at your disposal a hand saw, or a table saw with an adjustable guider and a blade guard. Which is the better tool? Will one tool allow you to do a better job than the other? Which tool is more accurate, while concurrently being faster? Which one is safer, giving you more peace of mind that you won't lose a finger?

Oh, and, bonus question: Can anyone draw any parallels between these questions about saws and similar questions about DSLR cameras? ;P

(Oh, sorry, forgot, the quality of a tool doesn't matter...they are both just saws. You can get the same result with either, so of course the hand saw is all you need...)
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:03:24 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3120
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #190 on: May 09, 2013, 04:02:31 PM »
Jrista, I do appreciate that you f 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.

Your still missing the point, rather conveniently, I might add.  ;)

Sure, you can get "good" results. It WILL be more trouble to get those results with, say, a point and shoot. But that isn't the point. It's never been the point. You are debating the wrong point...your debating a point no one is trying to make.

The POINT, here, is that a BETTER CAMERA will allow a photographer to make BETTER PHOTOS! The further POINT, is, a BETTER camera in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will STILL allow them to make BETTER photos, and furthermore the same better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow them to make better photos than a LESS SKILLED photographer with the exact same camera.

Do you really, truly assert that the points I've explicitly outlined above are wrong, or invalid, or somehow illogical? And please, speak directly to those points only...I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!

(A expect an evasion...its all the rage these days, when your losing an argument...to evade. Guess we'll see if RLPhoto can step up to the plate and debate directly against the points that have been made, or whether he'll squirrel around for the sole purpose of winning an argument...which is again...is beside the point! The argument isn't the end here...only the means to an end. :P)

I've already answered your point and Simplified it.

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

Unfortunately, In a subjective world as photography, A better camera doesn't mean a better photo. A more convenient photo sure, but a better one? Not really.

Evasion. And convolution. As I figured.

Lets try it another way. You have a thousand boards to saw, and one hour to do it in. You have at your disposal a hand saw, or a table saw with an adjustable guider and a blade guard. Which is the better tool? Will one tool allow you to do a better job than the other? Which tool is more accurate, while concurrently being faster? Which one is safer, giving you more peace of mind that you won't lose a finger?

(Oh, sorry, forgot, the quality of a tool doesn't matter...they are both just saws. You can get the same result with either, so of course the hand saw is all you need...)

Hire some help, a bit inconvenient to do so though.
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #191 on: May 09, 2013, 04:08:48 PM »
Jrista, I do appreciate that you f 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.

Your still missing the point, rather conveniently, I might add.  ;)

Sure, you can get "good" results. It WILL be more trouble to get those results with, say, a point and shoot. But that isn't the point. It's never been the point. You are debating the wrong point...your debating a point no one is trying to make.

The POINT, here, is that a BETTER CAMERA will allow a photographer to make BETTER PHOTOS! The further POINT, is, a BETTER camera in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will STILL allow them to make BETTER photos, and furthermore the same better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow them to make better photos than a LESS SKILLED photographer with the exact same camera.

Do you really, truly assert that the points I've explicitly outlined above are wrong, or invalid, or somehow illogical? And please, speak directly to those points only...I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!

(A expect an evasion...its all the rage these days, when your losing an argument...to evade. Guess we'll see if RLPhoto can step up to the plate and debate directly against the points that have been made, or whether he'll squirrel around for the sole purpose of winning an argument...which is again...is beside the point! The argument isn't the end here...only the means to an end. :P)

I've already answered your point and Simplified it.

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

Unfortunately, In a subjective world as photography, A better camera doesn't mean a better photo. A more convenient photo sure, but a better one? Not really.

Evasion. And convolution. As I figured.

Lets try it another way. You have a thousand boards to saw, and one hour to do it in. You have at your disposal a hand saw, or a table saw with an adjustable guider and a blade guard. Which is the better tool? Will one tool allow you to do a better job than the other? Which tool is more accurate, while concurrently being faster? Which one is safer, giving you more peace of mind that you won't lose a finger?

(Oh, sorry, forgot, the quality of a tool doesn't matter...they are both just saws. You can get the same result with either, so of course the hand saw is all you need...)

Hire some help, a bit inconvenient to do so though.

Copout. Come on man, you gotta do better than that. You aren't bringing any facts to the table. Just evasions, anecdotes, the same kinds of arguments you brought to the MF vs. FF debate. Anecdotal, feely touchy, "this is what I think" isn't going to cut it. I'm asking you a DIRECT QUESTION. No simplifications are valid here. I made a very simple, very direct, very explicit set of points. Let me quote them, so you don't have to go looking for them:

The POINT, here, is that a BETTER CAMERA will allow a photographer to make BETTER PHOTOS! The further POINT, is, a BETTER camera in the hands of a SKILLED photographer will STILL allow them to make BETTER photos, and furthermore the same better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow them to make better photos than a LESS SKILLED photographer with the exact same camera.

Do you really, truly assert that the points I've explicitly outlined above are wrong, or invalid, or somehow illogical? And please, speak directly to those points only...I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!

Are you capable of directly answering my question (above, bolded), or not? Do you directly refute the points I've made, or are you just trying to contort your replies in order to be the winner of an argument for the sole purpose of winning "an" argument irregardless of the point?
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3120
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #192 on: May 09, 2013, 04:12:38 PM »
"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient.  ;D
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #192 on: May 09, 2013, 04:12:38 PM »

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1450
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #193 on: May 09, 2013, 04:16:18 PM »
To be fair I think there should be an acceptance that there should always be a compatability between the task in hand, the gear and the photographer. Would Uncle Joe take better snaps of his grand daughter's party with his 1100D or a 1Dx ? Would Gary Samples get such brilliant shots of eagles with a 1100D instead of his 1Dx ?

At Building Panoramics we've just got a 6D because buildings don't move. ( Hopefully ). A 5D Mkiii or 1Dx is just not required - for us.

But the proof that the rather sweeping statement "gear matters" is true lies in the value of photography to day. It is continually declining as 'the gear' has made exception photographs common place. That doesn't mean the talented are any less talented than those who went before them, it just means achieving visual perfection has been made much more accessible.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:18:14 PM by Sporgon »

jrista

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3241
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #194 on: May 09, 2013, 04:19:55 PM »
"I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"

That's the whole point right there but gear makes the job more convenient.  ;D

No, that's not the point. It was never anyone's point. Its been YOUR point, but you've been ignoring everyone elses' point.

I'll try one last time. Lets see whether you succeed or fail at this test.

You see a Western Grebe off the sandy shore you are standing on. You are standing right at the waters edge. The Grebe some 65 feet off shore. The water out there is 10 feet deep. You have at your disposal a supercheap $109 Canon PowerShot A1400, and a 5D III with a 600mm f/4 L lens. Which camera will take the better photo?

And I don't mean something that is more convenient. I mean, BETTER PHOTO. Sharper detail. Less noise. Thinner DOF. Brighter exposure. No blur from camera shake. BETTER FRIKKIN PHOTO!! Which camera?
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #194 on: May 09, 2013, 04:19:55 PM »