December 22, 2014, 08:14:49 PM

Author Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 71341 times)

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4069
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #210 on: May 09, 2013, 05:40:11 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.

And a 6 stop DR range sensor is good, because if the scene doesn't fit into 6 stops then the lighting is bad. So don't even bother asking for more DR you nitwits hah.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #210 on: May 09, 2013, 05:40:11 PM »

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 #211 on: May 09, 2013, 05:43:24 PM »
Quote
...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective!  :)

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

Quote
So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, there has been a rather well mannered thread about this kind of thing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12154.0

I can see both sides of this argument, only a fool couldn't, or an argumentative troll who wouldn't. Some photographers can achieve amazing results with comparatively modest equipment, eg, most of these images were shot with a 5D MkII and a 50mm f1.8 http://tamarlevine.com/. On the flip side some photographers wiill always find images they can't shoot due to equipment limitations even when they are using the best currently available, eg, http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?pageno=6&link=blog&category=7 now those images, however skilled you are, could never ever be shot with a point and shoot, an SX50, or a 4x5 field camera.

I don't disagree that a good photographer can take good photos with lesser gear. It is most certainly possible. I'm just saying a good photographer, or an excellent photographer, can usually take better photos with better gear. I'm also saying that the ability to get good photos, or any kind of photo at all, with lesser gear doesn't invalidate higher end gear. It is about more than just being more convenient. As Krob said...we get both increased convenience and better capabilities with higher end gear...so its a win/win!

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #212 on: May 09, 2013, 05:43:42 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.

Well, your going to have to prove that one. You need to go get that shot, then prove to me that the only thing that matters to a magazine editor is the simple fact that it's unique. Words aren't enough anymore. Your going so hard against the grain here, so far beyond the point where you could have cleanly exited this debate without all the bumps and bruises, that you now need hard, irrefutable PROOF, actual physical evidence (i.e. your A1400 photo reproduced in a prestigious magazine...oh, say, "Living Bird" of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology).

You can say whatever you want. Doesn't make it true. I don't think you quite understand what it is your debating...and are just debating for the sake of taking the contrarian position? I mean, I can't think of any reason your still continuing. You lost the debate a long time ago.

I'm not saying the photographer is not a critical factor in getting a good photo. On the contrary, that has been core to my point ever since the debate started. You are still, conveniently, ignoring my point. That even when the photographer is as skilled as humanly possible, if you put a better tool in their hands, they will have the capacity to make better photos. The PHOTOGRAPHER is still CRITICAL to that equation...and a skilled photographer, the human mind aspect here, would KNOW about all of the factors I listed in my previous answer. That skilled PHOTOGRAPHER would KNOW that an aesthetically appealing perspective and clean low-noise output isn't going to happen with a wider angle lens, while treading water, with a microscopic sensor, from a few feet away!

No one is going to care that YOU, the great and powerful "photographer", risked your camera, intruded upon the territory of a bird (in rather rude and unethical fashion), and got yourself soaked...in order to get a photo of a Grebe that was "unique". That doesn't matter. No one cares. You aren't going to be getting any props, and in a circle if other bird and wildlife photographers, or even in any group of naturalists, they would probably be quite miffed at your lack of respect for the bird and it's environment. You'd probably get stoned to death for encroaching upon the bird's bubble of comfort and making it fly away in the first place!

Again...you should really quit while your...well, there is no "ahead" anymore, RL. You don't know what your talking about anymore, and I think that is paramount to anyone still reading this thread. Quite before you dig the hole so deep you can't see the rim. It's the less embarrassing, and still honorable, thing to do.
Quote
bird and wildlife photographers, or even in any group of naturalists, they would probably be quite miffed at your lack of respect for the bird and it's environment
Well, there is that!  Funny I was just thinking that right before you posted it!  It is a relevant point, if not pivotal with regard to the bird side of the argument... Sigh...
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 #213 on: May 09, 2013, 05:45:19 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4069
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #214 on: May 09, 2013, 05:48:01 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.

assuming you are 20' tall AND it is not forbidden to enter the water and the grebe is blind and deaf and the other shooter is 6' tall, so yeah, fair enough
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 05:50:34 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #215 on: May 09, 2013, 05:52:02 PM »
Ask not, what you can do for your camera.  Ask, what can your camera do for you?  :D  I think some president said that!
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

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4069
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #216 on: May 09, 2013, 05:52:46 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.

And it would destroy a close shot with a 5D3+some short lens too? Even if it was some stunning dark evening crazy glow lighting and the large sensor of the 5D3 captured more light and gave it some radical low DOF pop???

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #216 on: May 09, 2013, 05:52:46 PM »

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #217 on: May 09, 2013, 05:53:47 PM »
Ask not, what you can do for your camera.  Ask, what can your camera do for you?  :D  I think some president said that!
Or perhaps it was; Ask not, what your camera can do for you.  Ask, What can you do with your camera!  Hmm..
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

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4069
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #218 on: May 09, 2013, 05:55:02 PM »
Quote
...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective!  :)

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

Quote
So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'!  Nice image!

Just to throw a spanner in the works, there has been a rather well mannered thread about this kind of thing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12154.0

I can see both sides of this argument, only a fool couldn't, or an argumentative troll who wouldn't. Some photographers can achieve amazing results with comparatively modest equipment, eg, most of these images were shot with a 5D MkII and a 50mm f1.8 http://tamarlevine.com/. On the flip side some photographers wiill always find images they can't shoot due to equipment limitations even when they are using the best currently available, eg, http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?pageno=6&link=blog&category=7 now those images, however skilled you are, could never ever be shot with a point and shoot, an SX50, or a 4x5 field camera.

I don't disagree that a good photographer can take good photos with lesser gear. It is most certainly possible. I'm just saying a good photographer, or an excellent photographer, can usually take better photos with better gear. I'm also saying that the ability to get good photos, or any kind of photo at all, with lesser gear doesn't invalidate higher end gear. It is about more than just being more convenient. As Krob said...we get both increased convenience and better capabilities with higher end gear...so its a win/win!

i still think you'd do better sticking to your 7D and jus tusing the longer lens on that unless you had something long enough to frame ideally with the FF and for a grebe way out there, that sounds unlikely

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 #219 on: May 09, 2013, 05:55:42 PM »
I recall seeing a Nat Geo Special about how photographers could never get close enough to hyenas during a kill to video it nicely. I can't find the video (It was shown on cable) but one of them got off the truck and with time, eventually got close enough to video it. Now they said it was impossible, And I'm not a wildlife photographer.

Even so, That nat geo guy wagered that the better shots are closer. It was true, because of its extreme difficulty. They could have shot it at a distance but It didn't look as good.

It's the same that even though someone having an amazing 1Dx with a 600L, If you got close enough with that A1400 and got a great shot, It would better than those 600L shots. No doubt in my mind.

So yes, an Great A1400 shot from a unique perspective can best a 600L shot from every other perspective everyone's been shooting at conveniently.

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #220 on: May 09, 2013, 05:56:00 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.

And it would destroy a close shot with a 5D3+some short lens too? Even if it was some stunning dark evening crazy glow lighting and the large sensor of the 5D3 captured more light and gave it some radical low DOF pop???
Although, the gear they used to take Neuro's head shot, wouldn't be convenient to get the image of the Grebe... But it would matter... It would matter because if you tried it, you'd not get the image... but it's great technology and very expensive "gear"...
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

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4069
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #221 on: May 09, 2013, 05:56:14 PM »
Ask not, what you can do for your camera.  Ask, what can your camera do for you?  :D  I think some president said that!
Or perhaps it was; Ask not, what your camera can do for you.  Ask, What can you do with your camera!  Hmm..

A 1DX IN EVERY POT!!!!!!!!

Krob78

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1329
  • When in Doubt, Press the Shutter...
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #222 on: May 09, 2013, 05:59:10 PM »
I recall seeing a Nat Geo Special about how photographers could never get close enough to hyenas during a kill to video it nicely. I can't find the video (It was shown on cable) but one of them got off the truck and with time, eventually got close enough to video it. Now they said it was impossible, And I'm not a wildlife photographer.

Even so, That nat geo guy wagered that the better shots are closer. It was true, because of its extreme difficulty. They could have shot it at a distance but It didn't look as good.

It's the same that even though someone having an amazing 1Dx with a 600L, If you got close enough with that A1400 and got a great shot, It would better than those 600L shots. No doubt in my mind.

So yes, an Great A1400 shot from a unique perspective can best a 600L shot from every other perspective everyone's been shooting at conveniently.
Just to be clear Ramon, I have no problem with your work, Regardless of your gear, I like it!
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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #222 on: May 09, 2013, 05:59:10 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #223 on: May 09, 2013, 06:17:40 PM »
Quote
...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective

Well if it had been from the exact same spot, it would have had the exact same perspective!  :)

The longer lens changes perspective. Remember, bird size and depth compression change by a factor of (Longer/Shorter)^2 when you change lenses. If you go from a 400mm lens to a 600mm lens, the bird gets 2.25x larger in the frame, and the background compresses by the same factor. Anything that "stretches out behind the bird" would stretch in a different way...and on top of that, it would be softer, more aesthetically appealing.

So no, same location, different perspective, with two telephoto lenses of different focal lengths.

Sorry, but no.  The ONLY thing that determines the perspective is the distance to the subject. Not focal length, not aperture, not sensor size/FoV. Distance from image plane to subject. Period.

EDIT: dug up a previous post showing the difference between changing focal length vs. changing distance:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11592.msg208320#msg208320
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:23:19 PM by neuroanatomist »
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: 3602
  • also on superhero vacation
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #224 on: May 09, 2013, 06:24:00 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.

You are all wrong.... I'd get the best picture and it would appear on TV and in the newspapers..... with the following story:

Lakeside tragedy - A wildlife photography excursion turned tragic today. Under circumstances that police will only describe as "baffling" three photographers were found bludgeoned to death with tripods and a large camera lens. A fourth photographer was pulled from the lake with what appears to be a trained Grebe sitting on the body....
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #224 on: May 09, 2013, 06:24:00 PM »