December 27, 2014, 03:44:29 PM

Author Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 72069 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4825
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #180 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 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #180 on: May 09, 2013, 03:49:36 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15262
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #181 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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4825
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #182 on: May 09, 2013, 03:52:06 PM »
Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.  ::)

Hah! Damn you...  :P

dlleno

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 605
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #183 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

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3556
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #184 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.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4825
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #185 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 »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3556
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #186 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #186 on: May 09, 2013, 04:02:31 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4825
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #187 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?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3556
  • 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, 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

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2082
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #189 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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4825
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #190 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?

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3556
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #191 on: May 09, 2013, 04:22:39 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?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4825
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #192 on: May 09, 2013, 04:31:44 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?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

That assumes you can get close enough to the bird. The Grebe won't stick around...when you start sloshing around in the water, it'll be gone before you can even point the camera. So sure...you could get yourself soaking, soggy wet...risk damaging your camera (or losing it alltogether if you drop it).

In the mean time, the moment you started walking towards the water, I started getting six shots a second. On top of that, thanks to your watery antics, I got some awesome in-flight shots as well, focus NAILED in each and every one of them, until the bird was out of view. All thanks to the high end 61pt AF system of the 5D III and the fast, highly accurate focus of the 600mm f/4 L II.

Sorry bub...I win. So does the better tool. Together, we make a better team.  :P ::)
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:33:34 PM by jrista »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #192 on: May 09, 2013, 04:31:44 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3556
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #193 on: May 09, 2013, 04:36:34 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?

Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

That assumes you can get close enough to the bird. The Grebe won't stick around...when you start sloshing around in the water, it'll be gone before you can even point the camera. So sure...you could get yourself soaking, soggy wet...risk damaging your camera (or losing it alltogether if you drop it).

In the mean time, the moment you started walking towards the water, I started getting six shots a second. On top of that, thanks to your watery antics, I got some awesome in-flight shots as well, focus NAILED in each and every one of them, until the bird was out of view, thanks to the high end 61pt AF system of the 5D III and the fast focus of the 600mm f/4 L II.

Sorry bub...I win. So does the better tool. Together, we make a better team.  :P ::)

If I do get the photo, I'd be better and more unique than yours. How many photos do you see of them close up? Not many, but It would make a better photo.

So assuming we both get the photo, the A1400 would produce a better photo.

Is it inconvenient to wade water, possibly damage equipment and risk life for the shot? Sure, but many many photographers do just that. Some even camo themselves to get close.

The 600L is convenient but does it make better photos? not really. A photographers drive? Always.

dlleno

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 605
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #194 on: May 09, 2013, 04:39:47 PM »
...Let's do one better, I'll get a better shot from the A1400 wading water getting the shot closer than you will with that 600L you have.

yea thats it.  while you're at it, you can really show him up and shosh up to the bird with a pinhole camera.  you know -- where the shutter is you taking the cap on and off. make the bird pose for you, while you're at it, feed it and take the time to train it to pose just how you want;  and  yes, if you do get the photo it will be amazing, to be sure. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #194 on: May 09, 2013, 04:39:47 PM »