July 31, 2014, 01:06:58 PM

Author Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 60756 times)

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #195 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #195 on: May 09, 2013, 04:22:39 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3749
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #196 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 »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | 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: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #197 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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #198 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. 

zim

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #199 on: May 09, 2013, 04:41:09 PM »
The Grebe f***s of cos it won’t be seen dead being photographed with anything less than a 14DR that shall not be named so neither of you get the pic, but thankfully being a cleaver Grebe it phones the coastguard to alert them to the guy wading in 10ft of water….. would sir like a life jacket.
I love this site so many egos, pass me another roll of panf and some colouring pens.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13617
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #200 on: May 09, 2013, 04:44:33 PM »
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.

Ok, you win.

The awards for obstinacy and foolishness, I mean.  Your photo, in the extremely unlikely event you got it, would suck in comparison.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #201 on: May 09, 2013, 04:46:59 PM »
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.

Ok, you win.

The awards for obstinacy and foolishness, I mean.  Your photo, in the extremely unlikely event you got it, would suck in comparison.

Nah, I'm pretty good but I don't get paid enough to camo myself and wade 10ft waters.  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #201 on: May 09, 2013, 04:46:59 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3749
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #202 on: May 09, 2013, 04:49:12 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.

It seems clear you haven't ever used the 600L, nor tried to photograph a Grebe from shore, nor even used camo to get close to birds or wildlife. I do that every day...trust me, camo doesn't get you nearly as far as you might think, and it only works when you've sat still long enough to blend into the environment as something other than a human. Birds notice you, even in camo, and they are always wary of you. Camo doesn't make you invisible...it just makes you unidentifiable (which at first is a turnoff to birds!)

First, the entire point of the scenario I created was to make it impossible for you to get the shot by getting close. You CAN'T get that close to a Grebe....especially if your some giant, bumbling buffoon thrashing through the water right towards them. There is plain and simply no option of wading close to the bird...not close enough that you could get a shot with the A1400...camo or no camo (and if you are treading water, camo aint going to be worth a dime!)

Second, your perspective may be unique, but it won't be better than what you can get with the 600mm. The perspective with the P&S will be rather wide, relative to a 600mm on FF....the background will be rather intrusive, as it will contain detail...blurry detail, but shape and form nonetheless. It's a shot, sure...and maybe it's unique...but it won't be top notch quality. With the 600, I can compress the background, a LOT, completely blur it out. I can zero in on just the bird, isolate it, maximize my resolution with a wide aperture. I can fill the frame with the bird WITHOUT having to get close, and on top of that, with the resolving power of the 600mm and the higher pixel count of the 5D III, I'll have more detail, and sharper detail, than the A1400 could EVER aspire to (hey, that's your argument! Bigger sensors with more pixels can never be beat by a smaller sensor with fewer pixels right? Don't refute your own MF vs. FF argument now! :P)

So I'm sorry...but, ASSUMING we both got a photo, the A1400's wouldn't be even remotely close to the quality, both technical and artistic, of the shot from the 5D III and 600mm lens. Oh, and yeah...its still a hell of a lot more convenient to shoot from the shore than get soaking wet and potentially lose my gear by wading out 60 feet from shore into 10-foot water just to get "something" with one of the cheapest cameras on the market.

Even if we DO assume the A1400 was capable of the same IQ as the 5D III+600/4...well, the latter is STILL a better tool...even if it only offered JUST the added convenience. BTW, thank you for showing your ignorance in the last couple of posts. You really, just kind of handed the argument to me on a silver platter. ;)

Well, my work is done for the day. RL, have fun wading around after birds you'll never get close to! I hope it's a hot day...at least then the watersport will have SOME value.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:53:08 PM by jrista »
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | 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: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1281
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #203 on: May 09, 2013, 04:55:42 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.
Wading up close to a Western Grebe??  Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient... ::)
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

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #204 on: May 09, 2013, 04:56:36 PM »
That's an opinion Jrista, and I believe that getting closer to your subject always make a stronger photo. Is it more inconvenient? Sure. Impossible? I doubt it. Extremely Difficult? Sure. Why drop by a volcano when you can just shoot it from the air?

Unique Perspectives is what separates the good from the greats. Lets say You did get that shot with the A1400, and It's never been done before. Let's say shot is average, Every wildlife photographer and magazine will ask how on earth you got it? See where I'm going with this?

If you got that one unique photo, No-one would think twice about which photo is better.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:58:38 PM by RLPhoto »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1281
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #205 on: May 09, 2013, 04:57:31 PM »
Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience.  ::)
+1 Ha!  Good one!
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

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3749
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #206 on: May 09, 2013, 05:01:26 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.
Wading up close to a Western Grebe??  Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient... ::)


LOL...I got a chuckle out of that one for sure. :D

Just to prove I'm not spouting smoke and mirrors out of my rear end, as I photograph birds almost every day. Here is a "Western Grebe with a Fish" shot...at least 60+ feet off shore (maybe this one was about 90-100 feet, actually), taken with a 400mm lens and the 7D:



If I had a 5D III, 600mm lens (and probably a 2x TC, given how far off shore this grebe was)...I could have gotten a FAR better shot...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective, sharper detail, and better exposure (and thus lower ISO, less noise) than would ever be possible with the 7D and 100-400mm lens. I can't wait to get better photographic tools in my hands...I'm a fairly skilled photographer, but there is no alternative to having the best money can buy in combination with that skill.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | 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: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1281
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #207 on: May 09, 2013, 05:04:43 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.
Wading up close to a Western Grebe??  Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient... ::)


LOL...I got a chuckle out of that one for sure. :D

Just to prove I'm not spouting smoke and mirrors out of my rear end, as I photograph birds almost every day. Here is a "Western Grebe with a Fish" shot...at least 60+ feet off shore (maybe this one was about 90-100 feet, actually), taken with a 400mm lens and the 7D:



If I had a 5D III, 600mm lens (and probably a 2x TC, given how far off shore this grebe was)...I could have gotten a FAR better shot...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective, sharper detail, and better exposure (and thus lower ISO, less noise) than would ever be possible with the 7D and 100-400mm lens. I can't wait to get better photographic tools in my hands...I'm a fairly skilled photographer, but there is no alternative to having the best money can buy in combination with that skill.
I thought you'd like that Jon!  So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!  ;D
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 #207 on: May 09, 2013, 05:04:43 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3749
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #208 on: May 09, 2013, 05:12:55 PM »
That's an opinion Jrista, and I believe that getting closer to your subject always make a stronger photo. Is it more inconvenient? Sure. Impossible? I doubt it. Extremely Difficult? Sure. Why drop by a volcano when you can just shoot it from the air?

Unique Perspectives is what separates the good from the greats. Lets say You did get that shot with the A1400, and It's never been done before. Let's say shot is average, Every wildlife photographer and magazine will ask how on earth you got it? See where I'm going with this?

If you got that one unique photo, No-one would think twice about which photo is better.

Magazines don't really go for unique as the primary factor in the photos they select for print. I read a lot of magazines with wildlife and bird photography in them. A magazine editor is interested the artistic quality and aesthetic appeal first, and probably photographer reputation second. I can show you a hundred photos of Grebes, Loons, Herons, Owls, you name it. They all look fairly similar...in one way or another. Some have a unique ASPECT or two to them, but none of them are totally and entirely unique in any particular way.

The point about them is the quality and aesthetic of the shot. Does it just make you go "WOW!!" the moment you see it? Does it draw you in? Are the technical aspects correct...is the bird lit well? Is it isolated? Is your perspective appealing? Are the surroundings "clean", rather than cluttered? Is the photo engaging...is the bird looking out of the frame (unappealing), or right at the viewer (VERY appealing)? Is the birds body angled properly to the frame? Is the bird doing something interesting? What kind of emotion is there in the scene? These factors aren't unique...but they are critically important.

Those are the kinds of questions a magazine editor is going to ask you, or use if they are evaluating your photo for inclusion in an issue. They could care less about whether its totally, never-done-before unique. They care about each and every quality aspect of the photo, technical and artistic. And there ARE specific expectations for many of those aspects...perspective, depth of field, sharpness, bird pose (body and head angle), viewer engagement. They aren't arbitrary.

Trust me...some half-assed, wobbly photo taken by someone treading water with an A1400 while trying to photograph a fleeing Grebe wouldn't ever make the cut unless the magazine was all about that kind of thing... '"Unique" shots, damn the quality, give us the craziest thing you've ever done!'

You should really quit while your ahead. No, people won't think twice about which photo is better...no one will even look at the one taken with the point and shoot. Trust me...I've had enough critiques of my work in the last couple of years (of my own choice, I asked for them! :)) to know, from first hand experience, what makes a good bird photo, and what people won't even give a second glance.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | 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: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3293
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #209 on: May 09, 2013, 05:19:10 PM »
Let's get back to the fundamental principle here.

A great shot from a A1400 from a never attempted perspective very close to an animal very difficult to do so, would destroy anything ever done by any super-tele + $$$$$ 1D combo. That's the principle. It's Irrelevant how its done, but that's what makes a better picture. The photographer.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #209 on: May 09, 2013, 05:19:10 PM »