No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

[jrista]

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. )

 

[Loswr]

Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience. :

 

[jrista]

Arguments don't matter, they're only an inconvenience. :

Hah! Damn you...

 

[dlleno]

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]

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. )

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]

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. )

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...)

 

[RLPhoto]

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. )

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.

 

[jrista]

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. )

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]

"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]

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.

 

[jrista]

"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]

"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]

"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. :

 

[RLPhoto]

"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. :

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]

...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]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[RLPhoto]

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

 

[jrista]

"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. :

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! )

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.

 

[Krob78]

"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... :