No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

[Krob78]

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"...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Ask not, what you can do for your camera. Ask, what can your camera do for you? 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]

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!

 

[neuroanatomist]

...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

 

[Don Haines]

...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....

 

[jrista]

...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.

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

Sure, the crop factor is actually a real benefit for distant subjects. It wouldn't matter if you were using a 5D III or 7D, the 2.25x subject enlargement factor would be the same.

 

[jrista]

...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

I'm not sure I agree.

Going off of your own link, in my scenario the Grebe is the blue bottle in the distance, not the pink bottle in the foreground. That blue bottle DEFINITELY changes in each frame, as does its relationship with its surroundings. The apparent distance between the pink bottle and the blue bottle is the kind of change I am talking about.

If we change the two bottles to a Grebe (blue) and water (pink)...the longer focal length changes depth of field compression (exactly the same as getting closer to the bird...effectively it IS a change in distance), which has an effect on the water as it relates to the Grebe, while also enlarging the Grebe relative to the frame. From a fixed point on shore, going from a shorter to a longer focal length DOES have an apparent impact on the perspective of a DISTANT subject. There is no foreground subject that can remain static (the pink bottle) relative to a distant subject...other than the environment surrounding it.

 

[privatebydesign]

jrista,

You have to get your head around this, I can't take your other very technical answers seriously all the time I know you don't "get" perspective.

Here are two images shot from the same place with different focal lengths, the perspective, the relationship between the different elements in the frame, the tree the woman and the jumps, is identical.

First pair cropped to same framing, second pair full images from both. Obviously the images are very different, but the perspective is the same.

The blue bottle changes because they moved the camera, not because of the focal length. Look at the cropped bottle series, lower left.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not sure I agree.

Going off of your own link, in my scenario the Grebe is the blue bottle in the distance, not the pink bottle in the foreground. That blue bottle DEFINITELY changes in each frame, as does its relationship with its surroundings. The apparent distance between the pink bottle and the blue bottle is the kind of change I am talking about.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Please read the linked post again, in its entirety. The blue and pink water bottles are not my example, they're wikipedia's, and they are confusing because while the focal lengths are prominently labeled, distances aren't stated - and the distance is a covariant.

Scroll down to the beer bottles - those are my examples. Look just at the left column - those images have decreasing focal lengths but the same distance, and thus the perspective is identical. The 100mm shot could be 600mm for the grebe, and the 50mm shot analogous to a 300mm lens - if you're the same distance from the grebe, the perspective will be the same, whether the foreground is a loon or open water. To change the perspective as you see in the right column of beer bottle images, you'd need to be wading out into that 10' deep water. Bring your A1400 if you want, or your 600mm lens - in either case, it'll be the changing distance that's altering the perspective of the shot, not the camera/lens you're holding while treading water.

 

[jrista]

I'm not sure I agree.

Going off of your own link, in my scenario the Grebe is the blue bottle in the distance, not the pink bottle in the foreground. That blue bottle DEFINITELY changes in each frame, as does its relationship with its surroundings. The apparent distance between the pink bottle and the blue bottle is the kind of change I am talking about.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Please read the linked post again, in its entirety. The blue and pink water bottles are not my example, they're wikipedia's, and they are confusing because while the focal lengths are prominently labeled, distances aren't stated - and the distance is a covariant.

Scroll down to the beer bottles - those are my examples. Look just at the left column - those images have decreasing focal lengths but the same distance, and thus the perspective is identical. The 100mm shot could be 600mm for the grebe, and the 50mm shot analogous to a 300mm lens - if you're the same distance from the grebe, the perspective will be the same, whether the foreground is a loon or open water. To change the perspective as you see in the right column of beer bottle images, you'd need to be wading out into that 10' deep water. Bring your A1400 if you want, or your 600mm lens - in either case, it'll be the changing distance that's altering the perspective of the shot, not the camera/lens you're holding while treading water.

Ok, yeah, I agree with that. That also wouldn't really be what I was referring to, but that is my fault. If I use the 100-400mm lens as an example....if I change the focal length from 100 to 400, the background, and the relationship between whatever I'm focused on and the background, does change...when the exact same aperture is used for both focal lengths. Perhaps that is not "perspective"...maybe the correct terminology is simply "background compression." Whatever the correct term is...the relationship between the focused subject and its background does change. I'll see if I can get some examples, including crops.



This is the difference that I'm talking about. Maybe this can only be called "Depth Compression" or "Background Compression"...but to me, the relationship between the subject (the brick...or a Grebe...) and its background CHANGED...that is perspective, no? I guess one could say that only if the relative positions of elements change, do you have a change in perspective. I would be willing to agree with that, however I have a number of friends who are wedding photographers who use the term "perspective" to refer to both changes in relationship...both change in relative positions of near/far elements, as well as the change in blur and apparent depth between a subject and it's background. I'm willing to accept that the latter definition is not accepted. I can just call it background compression from now on.

Same aperture, f/6.3, used at both 100mm and 400mm. Camera was set up at a fixed point, subject distance did NOT change. The 100mm shot was scaled and cropped in Photoshop to match the 400mm shot. The relationship of the brick to its background changes considerably between the two (sorry, the lens is not parfocal, so the focal plane shifted forward by a couple millimeters in the 400mm shot):

 

[jrista]

jrista,

You have to get your head around this, I can't take your other very technical answers seriously all the time I know you don't "get" perspective.

Here are two images shot from the same place with different focal lengths, the perspective, the relationship between the different elements in the frame, the tree the woman and the jumps, is identical.

First pair cropped to same framing, second pair full images from both. Obviously the images are very different, but the perspective is the same.

The blue bottle changes because they moved the camera, not because of the focal length. Look at the cropped bottle series, lower left.

Take a look at my last answer. I understand what your saying, but I guess I've used the word "prespective" in a broader context...more just as a means to describe relationships, rather than solely relative positions. I'm fine if you don't accept the alternative definition, and I'll happily change my terminology.

 

[privatebydesign]

This is the difference that I'm talking about. Maybe this can only be called "Depth Compression" or "Background Compression"...but to me, the relationship between the subject (the brick...or a Grebe...) and its background CHANGED...that is perspective, no? I guess one could say that only if the relative positions of elements change, do you have a change in perspective. I would be willing to agree with that, however I have a number of friends who are wedding photographers who use the term "perspective" to refer to both changes in relationship...both change in relative positions of near/far elements, as well as the change in blur and apparent depth between a subject and it's background. I'm willing to accept that the latter definition is not accepted. I can just call it background compression from now on.

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

Exactly. As for having a lot of friends who also misuse the terminology in the same way that you (jrista) do, well...I know a lot of people who write 'a lot' as one word, but that doesn't make 'alot' correct, either.

 

[jrista]

This is the difference that I'm talking about. Maybe this can only be called "Depth Compression" or "Background Compression"...but to me, the relationship between the subject (the brick...or a Grebe...) and its background CHANGED...that is perspective, no? I guess one could say that only if the relative positions of elements change, do you have a change in perspective. I would be willing to agree with that, however I have a number of friends who are wedding photographers who use the term "perspective" to refer to both changes in relationship...both change in relative positions of near/far elements, as well as the change in blur and apparent depth between a subject and it's background. I'm willing to accept that the latter definition is not accepted. I can just call it background compression from now on.

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

That is just blur, not compression, not background compression, not a change in perspective. With a longer lens from the same place with the same aperture the background will blur more, simple as that.

Your friends terminology is also incorrect, perspective is only about the relative sizes of the objects within the frame, and that is only determined by the distance from those objects. The background is more blurred in my 200mm shot, but the fences and tree are the same size in relation to the woman. If you look at the branch going across the right hand edge of your images, the 400mm shot is much more blurred, but the branch is the same size and angle in the 100mm shot. The same elements are contained within both frames, the fov and angle of view are the same.

Exactly. As for having a lot of friends who also misuse the terminology in the same way that you (jrista) do, well...I know a lot of people who write 'a lot' as one word, but that doesn't make 'alot' correct, either.

Alright then...just blur. I actually picked up the bad use from them, as I got tired of making the same debate...guess I just absorbed the expanded/alternate definition into my vernacular (although that was years ago...maybe its time to find some new friends! )

 

[privatebydesign]

...maybe its time to find some new friends! )

You have!

 

[jrista]

...maybe its time to find some new friends! )

You have!

HAHA! Well, ty! Good to be friends, my friend!

 

[CanNotYet]

Jrista, back off a sec. I got this one.

Let us try some elemental semantic logic instead. (this was long ago, so bear with me if I make technical mistakes)

Gear is a convenience. Ok, I accept this as true. in semantic logic this would be "X is Y", or "X=Y", where X is "Gear" and Y is "a Convenience".

But then I postulate my own assumption: "A Convenience is something that matters". This I say, as if you have the possibility to get the exact same shot (regardless of gear/skill/posistion etc.), it matters if you can do it easy, or if you can do it with great difficulty. There might be reasons to each, but it matters.

In semantic logic, this would be "Y=Z", where Y is still "a Convenience", and Z is "something that matters".

If these two are true, then you can replace Y in "Y=Z" with X, as "X=Y", and "X=Z".

Ergo, Gear is something that matters.

Back off-topic, or rather to other parts of off-topic:

On Canada calling Football Soccer and America being North and Central America too: I knew there was a reason it is called "American football" everywhere else, and not "USA football".

On the British coming up with this: Yeah, the British are notorious for meddling in sports, they have written the rules for sports they do not even practice, like "bandy", which is really weird. (I guess they DID practice it earlier?)

And on the testosterone sports: I have played Soccer/Football, Rugby, American Football, and Ice hockey regularly when I grew up. Should I be ashamed now?

 

[insanitybeard]

RL, in it's simplest form your kit must be sufficient to perform for the application for which you intend for it. To that end, as an example, how would you ever get a single usable shot of a bird or aircraft in flight using a pinhole camera? Your new profile picture shows you using something that looks like a 200 F2, so to some degree, you must think your gear matters, unless it's to look professional, and I mean no offence by that.

 

[RLPhoto]

RL, in it's simplest form your kit must be sufficient to perform for the application for which you intend for it. To that end, as an example, how would you ever get a single usable shot of a bird or aircraft in flight using a pinhole camera? Your new profile picture shows you using something that looks like a 200 F2, so to some degree, you must think your gear matters, unless it's to look professional, and I mean no offence by that.

I'm not going to give ways to get every shot with minimal gear. That's for your imagination. Now, Its not usual to fly with someone else and get shots from the cockpit. It's been done plenty of times and looks great.

As for the avatar, it says what needs to be said without having said it. YMMV.

 

[privatebydesign]

As for the avatar, it says what needs to be said without having said it. YMMV.

It says, very clearly, you are a conflicted troll who can't live by your own perverse opinions.