December 22, 2014, 01:37:09 PM

Author Topic: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]  (Read 71310 times)

East Wind Photography

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • EWP
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #285 on: May 12, 2013, 10:15:39 PM »
I agree with you.  I would rather wait than buy something rushed to market that makes it only slightly better than a 6D with an APS-C chip.

Well... seeing the new 7DMII won't be release this year, might due to many reason yet it might upset many user especiallty those who have been used 7D for more than 3 - 4 years...

From rumors spread & analysis, yet "WE ALL"are giving a high expectation on new 7DMII. Wat will happened if the new 7DII has just add on features:

Rumors specs:
21MP APS C
ISO 100-25600 (L: 50, H1 51200, H2 102400)
10fps
■Video ‘stills burst’ mode 30/60 fps
■Full HD video with manual control
■Single CF Card Slot
■19 AF Points all Cross
On chip phase detect pixels for liveview and AF tracking
■100% Viewfinder
Viewfinder LCD Higher Resolution Than 7D
■3.2″ LCD
GPS, WiFi
■Alloy body with better weather sealing over 7D

Some logic:
1) Dual Digic 5 vs Dual Digic 4 - to crop on higher pixel performance, noise & speed + etc
2) 21Mp vs 18Mp - do you really want 21Mp with noise?
3) 10 fps vs 8fps - 8fps kinda good
4) Wifi + GPS vs Wifi + GPS Adapter - you can add on this grip accessories

We expect (wishlist):
1) Dual Digic 6?
2) 21Mp is good, provided low noise and high ISO useability
3) 63 AF as 1DX or similar?
4) Dual CF or CF +SD
5) Full size body
6) New battery

I believe when 7D are born, is really a Monster!
We expect it to be much better than current 7D, why not wait for a MONSTER to reborn? Me too a disappointed user waiting fro 7DMII.

Think another way, maybe CANON is listening therefore they really wanna build another moster which not to dissapointed sport/wildlife user...

=) cheers

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #285 on: May 12, 2013, 10:15:39 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 #286 on: May 12, 2013, 10:31:34 PM »
Some logic?
Point nr 2,   18 or 21Mp  . more Mp is always better, it could be at least 24Mp or  rather more considering the sensor development  this last years

I'd like to see a 42MP sensor, it's not a monstrous file size and you won't be affected by diffraction at F2. Not that diffraction makes a big difference, many cameras today are theoretically affected at F4, but you don't see people saying that all their F4 pictures are terrible.

I know your trying to be ironic and sarcastic, but from a purely technical and theoretical standpoint, a 42mp APS-C that is diffraction-limited at f/2 would STILL be better than a 24mp APS-C that is diffraction limited at f/5. Diffraction cannot reduce IQ below that of a sensor with lower pixel density...only approach it. Assuming I could still get 10fps out of it, I'd take the 42mp APS-C every day.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3544
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #287 on: May 12, 2013, 11:15:11 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.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

I also see that 99% of people have the whole point simply fly over their heads.

The point was a great shot from a A1400 is equal or could be better that said shot from $$$$$ combo. In the end, light, composition and subject make a photo. To claim that the only great shots could come from $$$$$ combo is quite haughty. If you got a great shot of said subject from either camera is equal in what makes a good photo terms. Its a 1000x more inconvienent to do so, but in this hypothetical brainstorm, the end products would both be valid.


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 #288 on: May 12, 2013, 11:39:03 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.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

I also see that 99% of people have the whole point simply fly over their heads.

The point was a great shot from a A1400 is equal or could be better that said shot from $$$$$ combo. In the end, light, composition and subject make a photo. To claim that the only great shots could come from $$$$$ combo is quite haughty. If you got a great shot of said subject from either camera is equal in what makes a good photo terms. Its a 1000x more inconvienent to do so, but in this hypothetical brainstorm, the end products would both be valid.

That is not a point, it's an assumption. Your trying to turn into fact, without any actual evidence, the IDEA in your head that a photo from an A1400 could equal or (laughably!) "better" said shot from a super pricey combo. In the end, composition is a composite of factors...including depth of field, background blur, perspective, etc. You cannot achieve all of that with any old gear...you need the right gear to get the most flattering or intriguing or otherwise interesting shots that also achieve nuanced artistic aspects.

You assume that the A1400 is just as good as (or "better" than ;D) $30,000 worth of equipment explicitly designed to maximize your potential in perfecting all of those nuanced artistic aspects in your work must be tested. Your still providing anecdotes. No one has missed the point...it hasn't flown over anyone's heads. It's clear from the weed comments flying around lately that the point has smacked everyone in the face just one too many times (BTW, I thought the "weed dance" comment was pretty darn good! LOL  ;D) The problem is that your argument has no basis in fact...it is an anecdote. If you want people to believe you...you need to prove your point. You need to provide some actual physical evidence that people can evaluate.

I'd do the same...I'll point you to Art Morris blog "Birds as Art" (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/) who's photography is all done with the Canon 1D X and EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens (w/ 1.4x and 2x TCs), or Alan Murphy's "favorites" (http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/favorites.htm), which are made with a Nikon D3x and a 600mm f/4 lens (often with teleconverters, according to his eBooks.) Both of these men, as well as many other men and women whom I could link if necessary, are the top professionals in the world in the bird photography niche, all of whom have years, even decades more experience than RL, myself, or probably the majority of members on this forum. The most ubiquitous kit among them? Nikon Dx series or Canon 1D series with a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, sometimes the EF 800mm f/5.6, frequently with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.  That is quite literally the best equipment money can buy these days, and their photography clearly demonstrates the power of a highly skilled photographer in conflation with best-in-class professional grade equipment.

Sadly, I don't have any resources to provide that show any such high quality photos made with a Canon A1400 and its ultra-wide to normal angle built-in lens....(not for lack of looking, though...)
« Last Edit: May 12, 2013, 11:40:36 PM by jrista »

9VIII

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 681
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #289 on: May 13, 2013, 01:29:32 AM »
Some logic?
Point nr 2,   18 or 21Mp  . more Mp is always better, it could be at least 24Mp or  rather more considering the sensor development  this last years

I'd like to see a 42MP sensor, it's not a monstrous file size and you won't be affected by diffraction at F2. Not that diffraction makes a big difference, many cameras today are theoretically affected at F4, but you don't see people saying that all their F4 pictures are terrible.

I know your trying to be ironic and sarcastic, but from a purely technical and theoretical standpoint, a 42mp APS-C that is diffraction-limited at f/2 would STILL be better than a 24mp APS-C that is diffraction limited at f/5. Diffraction cannot reduce IQ below that of a sensor with lower pixel density...only approach it. Assuming I could still get 10fps out of it, I'd take the 42mp APS-C every day.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, no irony was intended. I'm just trying to find reasons to take a balanced approach and not go spouting off that we should have 100+MP APS-C cameras, which I would also take in a heartbeat.
-100% RAW-

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3544
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #290 on: May 13, 2013, 09:49:49 AM »
"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.

RLP: I was reading this thread and sort of tracking along with you when you said something like 'photographer is more important than equipment' till I reached this post. I fist - palmed and shouted "HOW DUMB" so loud that the neighbor came to check if all is ok.

I also see that 99% of people have the whole point simply fly over their heads.

The point was a great shot from a A1400 is equal or could be better that said shot from $$$$$ combo. In the end, light, composition and subject make a photo. To claim that the only great shots could come from $$$$$ combo is quite haughty. If you got a great shot of said subject from either camera is equal in what makes a good photo terms. Its a 1000x more inconvienent to do so, but in this hypothetical brainstorm, the end products would both be valid.

That is not a point, it's an assumption. Your trying to turn into fact, without any actual evidence, the IDEA in your head that a photo from an A1400 could equal or (laughably!) "better" said shot from a super pricey combo. In the end, composition is a composite of factors...including depth of field, background blur, perspective, etc. You cannot achieve all of that with any old gear...you need the right gear to get the most flattering or intriguing or otherwise interesting shots that also achieve nuanced artistic aspects.

You assume that the A1400 is just as good as (or "better" than ;D) $30,000 worth of equipment explicitly designed to maximize your potential in perfecting all of those nuanced artistic aspects in your work must be tested. Your still providing anecdotes. No one has missed the point...it hasn't flown over anyone's heads. It's clear from the weed comments flying around lately that the point has smacked everyone in the face just one too many times (BTW, I thought the "weed dance" comment was pretty darn good! LOL  ;D) The problem is that your argument has no basis in fact...it is an anecdote. If you want people to believe you...you need to prove your point. You need to provide some actual physical evidence that people can evaluate.

I'd do the same...I'll point you to Art Morris blog "Birds as Art" (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/) who's photography is all done with the Canon 1D X and EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens (w/ 1.4x and 2x TCs), or Alan Murphy's "favorites" (http://www.alanmurphyphotography.com/favorites.htm), which are made with a Nikon D3x and a 600mm f/4 lens (often with teleconverters, according to his eBooks.) Both of these men, as well as many other men and women whom I could link if necessary, are the top professionals in the world in the bird photography niche, all of whom have years, even decades more experience than RL, myself, or probably the majority of members on this forum. The most ubiquitous kit among them? Nikon Dx series or Canon 1D series with a 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens, sometimes the EF 800mm f/5.6, frequently with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.  That is quite literally the best equipment money can buy these days, and their photography clearly demonstrates the power of a highly skilled photographer in conflation with best-in-class professional grade equipment.

Sadly, I don't have any resources to provide that show any such high quality photos made with a Canon A1400 and its ultra-wide to normal angle built-in lens....(not for lack of looking, though...)

A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used. Slapped in the face? Lol, I doesn't sway my opinion on this subject on bit.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #291 on: May 13, 2013, 10:01:41 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #291 on: May 13, 2013, 10:01:41 AM »

insanitybeard

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #292 on: May 13, 2013, 10:02:16 AM »
A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

I absolutely agree with this statement, as I'm sure most would. The problem comes when you seem to suggest that with skill, creativity or by sheer will you can use any camera to 'get the shot', whatever that may be. But there are so many instances where this is just not the case- high resolution macro work, deep space long exposures such as the Hubble space telescope, fast moving small targets. You could make some sort of shot, but would it be any good?
7D / EF-S 10-22 / 17-40L / 70-200 f4L IS / EF-S 60 macro

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3544
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #293 on: May 13, 2013, 10:04:10 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #294 on: May 13, 2013, 10:14:18 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3544
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #295 on: May 13, 2013, 10:20:21 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

More like look, a close up wide shot of the western gebes courtship and here's another of them tele compressed.

Which one is better? Neither, they're both good. That's were I disagree, one shot was easier to get and the other was extremely difficult but the end product is the same.

RGF

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1324
  • How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #296 on: May 13, 2013, 10:33:00 AM »
A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

I absolutely agree with this statement, as I'm sure most would. The problem comes when you seem to suggest that with skill, creativity or by sheer will you can use any camera to 'get the shot', whatever that may be. But there are so many instances where this is just not the case- high resolution macro work, deep space long exposures such as the Hubble space telescope, fast moving small targets. You could make some sort of shot, but would it be any good?

+1000   Equipment only enables. The photographer creates. 

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 #297 on: May 13, 2013, 11:07:27 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

More like look, a close up wide shot of the western gebes courtship and here's another of them tele compressed.

Which one is better? Neither, they're both good. That's were I disagree, one shot was easier to get and the other was extremely difficult but the end product is the same.

The end product is not the same. Simple FACT of the matter is...you could NEVER get that close to a courting Grebe couple in the first place! You would scare them off LONG before you ever got close enough to photograph them as more than two black and white specks with the A1400. That all assumes you aren't arrested first for encroaching upon the habitat of a protected bird.

Your hypothesis only works in a dream world where there are no environmental and wildlife protection laws, and in which birds are completely unafraid of idiotic human activity. You CAN NOT get that close to a Grebe, especially a courting couple. There are matters of respect that must be addressed. If I saw a photographer like you out in the wild at some protected migrating bird stopover, sloshing through the water so get a snapshot of a couple grebes, I'd happily nark on him and get his ass arrested for being a disrespectful jackass.

You can wish and hope all you want, but it's still absurd to think you can literally "get the shot", hell "get any shot" with a $100 P&S wide angle camera, in any situation. You can't.

At this point, it's obvious your just trolling. Your making absurd arguments just for the sake of making absurd arguments. That's fine...it only really hurts you. I think it's clear no one here believes a word you are spouting anymore, so I'm quite happily done with the conversation.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #297 on: May 13, 2013, 11:07:27 AM »

Hobby Shooter

  • Guest
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #298 on: May 13, 2013, 11:26:56 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

More like look, a close up wide shot of the western gebes courtship and here's another of them tele compressed.

Which one is better? Neither, they're both good. That's were I disagree, one shot was easier to get and the other was extremely difficult but the end product is the same.
Ramon, you're one of the good guys here, always contributing. But the last week or so it feels like you've chewed of the sour end of something. I normally like your comments, the knowledge and insight you share. Please come back.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #299 on: May 13, 2013, 11:55:46 AM »
A great shot is a great shot. Weither its from an a1400 or a 1Dx. It's more convienent to get the shot with a 1Dx but If you got it with a a1400, both would be great shots. That's the principle and has nothing to do with equipment.

A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.

Basic failure of logic.  A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does not follow that every great photo can be taken with any camera.

No one is contesting the former, the latter assumption is where you're incorrect.

But just because the great photo would be different from the a1400 than the 1Dx makes it no less great.

IE: great wide angle shot of a landscape is no less great than a tele-compressed photo landscape, which could also be just as good.
Oh, sure. Look...here's this great photo of the Western Greebe's courtship ritual taken with the A1400.  The birds are those two tiny, dark specks there.  What a great photo.  ::)

The photographer chooses the shot. For some shots, 'any camera' just won't do.

It's obvious you're practicing reductio ad absurdum - and you're doing a great job of sounding absurd in the process.  Feel free to keep on baiting, I've fed you enough troll food in this thread.

hahahaha. Well said!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]
« Reply #299 on: May 13, 2013, 11:55:46 AM »