No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

[jrista]

or an iPhone.... Apple claims that more pictures are taken each day with an iPhone than any other camera.....

WOW, seriously! That has got to be one of Apples' most bold-faced outright fabrications (superlies) EVER.

There must be millions of photos taken every day, hell if you count the whole world...hundreds of millions or more. No freaking way the majority of them are taken with iPhones.

as an aside, I refer to my 400mm lens as my "grizzly bear" lens...... a lens for things that I can't get too close to, or don't want to get too close to.... I am NOT going to walk up to a polar bear and stick an iPhone in it's face.... I also have problems walking on water and flying up into trees, so for me, gear does matter.

Aye. And there is just a respect element, too...its better for the animals and the environment if photographers aren't tearing things up, trashing about the water, etc. to get close to wildlife or birds they shouldn't be disturbing in the first place.

Although, if an idiot with an A1400 got his face eaten off by a bear while trying to get a macro eyeball shot of it...serves him right! At least then, he's feeding the bear.... ;D

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

Of course gear doesn't matter, in the future my butt will be able to take photos just like any camera. ^^ Heck... the government might already be doing it...

 

[anthony11]

Disappointed but not 100% surprised

Reinforces my notion to buy what has been released vs waiting for vapor ware (or rumored future products)

Too bad nothing that's been released is both affordable and better than what was purchased years ago.

 

[dlleno]

If gear did not matter then gear would not be a matter of convenience. I actually can buy the convenience bit though. Think of convenience statistically. There is one chance in 10^99999 I'm gonna get the grebe by sloshing out to it with a pinhole camera. Since I. Not going to live on enough to play that game I'll opt for better gear. So ya the 1dx and a 600 will bring those odds down nicely. Call it convenience if u want RL its really a matter of ROI

 

[jrista]

Disappointed but not 100% surprised

Reinforces my notion to buy what has been released vs waiting for vapor ware (or rumored future products)

Too bad nothing that's been released is both affordable and better than what was purchased years ago.

Are you saying the 5D III is not better than the 5D II, or pretty much ANY camera from four-five years ago?

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Disappointed but not 100% surprised

Reinforces my notion to buy what has been released vs waiting for vapor ware (or rumored future products)

Too bad nothing that's been released is both affordable and better than what was purchased years ago.

Are you saying the 5D III is not better than the 5D II, or pretty much ANY camera from four-five years ago?

The guy's a troll

 

[RLPhoto]

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

 

[privatebydesign]

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

 

[Krob78]

Lets move on. So with 7D2 coming in 14, and a 1 series high MP coming in 14, that would make for only two notable DSLR bodies next year (ok 70D would be three if it waits that long), plus the obligatory new Rebels, of course, which hatch frequently. I guess i don't see whats so spectacular about the number of 2014 DSLR Bodies, and what a great year it will be -- beyond of course the fact that we may see Canon's price interpretation of what a high MP body should command from the market, and whatever they reveal in the 7D2. is anyone anticipating more than this?

Canon has repeatedly said that the 7D2 will be "a significant upgrade" and "a game-changer". The safest bet is new sensor technology and improvements to AF, burst rate, video, and remote control. At the minimum it should be the unveiling of sensor performance that the rumoured high-megapixel camera will have.... and it is possible that they will skip over the .18 micron technology to something else... who knows?

And that's the crux of it.... "Who knows?" In the meantime we wildly speculate. We have no hard evidence to back up our speculations, but it's fun to dream.

I'll probably get one when it is released.... but I am patient enough to wait, plus my 60D works just fine.... I bet it has at least another 15000 shutter releases on it before the 7D2 comes out

Yea I'd rather widely speculate on that then about what doesn't matter to rl. I'm wondering if we will see only 2 or more than 2 bodies

[sigh] the kids are fighting again....

It seems obvious that the current technology has gone about as far as it's going to go.... No real increases in APS-C land since the original 7D, just improvements in accessories and in-camera jpegs, but very little change in the RAW files. FF is about 2 stops better, mostly due to the larger pixel sizes. Look at the T5i..... the dial goes around.... that's it for improvements over the T4i! Current technology is at it's limits!

I can see things being slow in the non-rebel segment until new tech and methods break things loose. It makes sense to hold back until they are ready.... and when they are ready I can see a quick wave of upgrading the 7D and the entirety of the FF line. (quick being a year and a half)

and when they are ready I can see a quick wave of upgrading the 7D

I see that so many 7d owners are 7d fanatics and lovers... I also see that the consensus is huge of 7d owners that the high iso performance is the biggest issue for all or most. If they address this issue by at least a 1 stop improvement and tweak the AF to a new level or standard, I see the 7D MK II's flying off the shelves, especially for current 7D owners.

Many of them have refused to jump to the 5d3, never wanted a 5d2 maybe due to price or fear of losing reach with the ff specs and the 5d2 really wasn't an upgrade for most 7D owners. And drool as they might, many, many 7D owners cannot afford the 1Dx.

Canon has an opportunity to make a huge upgrade but I believe that even if it's a reasonable upgrade that does a good job of addressing those 2 issues, it will be one of their biggest sellers ever... The other wave of 7D Mk II buyers will likely be the 60D owners that didn't jump on the 70D...

There you have my $.02!

 

[CanNotYet]

But convenience matters...and so gear matters. Or do you dispute that convenience matters?

Everyone's different.

That is also true. But it does not dispute my claim. I still say "convenience matters". For EVERYONE. NO exceptions.

A photographer can choose how conveniently they can take the pictures, depending on the situation and factors such as budget, availability, location, light and so on. But, I still claim that convenience matters to everyone. And usually, given the choice of getting the results with lots of effort, or with less effort, most will choose less effort.

Keep in mind this is to get the SAME results. Sometimes to get the same results the difference in convenience is so large that no one will choose above a certain difficulty level.

We can argue examples all day long, but there is no point. You are correct in that ANY picture taken with ANY gear, COULD also be taken with some other gear, but with a different convenience level.

Your claim is true. Gear is a convenience.

But so is mine. Convenience matters.

And so: Gear matters.

 

[bardamu]

On the gear issue, the other big issue is keeper rate. Convenience is a major reason why I'm keen to upgrade, but keeper rate is another. Not that is applies in every circumstance, but it often does.

I'd like to explore some theories on why Canon's next-gen sensor tech is proving slow to emerge. Here are four theories, not mutually exclusive.

1) I've read that Sony have been extremely aggressive in patenting new sensor tech over the last few years. Maybe Canon is or has been struggling to achieve similar or better results by methods different enough not to infringe on existing patents.
2) Milking the existing fab for profits. Already beaten to death on this forum.
3) Maybe Canon are hoping to leapfrog the competition, rather than just match them.
4) Maybe they have a rigidly set product cycle (4 years?) in mind for the 7D / XXD series going forwards. But I doubt that.

Meanwhile my poor 550D is getting pummelled, up around 80k actuations. If I do any extended trips into remote areas, where I can't afford a breakdown (I've been risking it on such trips until now), I might need to pick up a 60D or 7D which I'd then sell when reaching the next serious upgrade. But I'm really looking forward to seeing what the 7D ii brings to the table... APS-C has advantages for some of what I do.

 

[RLPhoto]

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

 

[privatebydesign]

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

 

[RLPhoto]

I find this thread quite an interesting read. My opinion can stir so much here but have yet to be proved otherwise from my original statement. It's really a true statement from the dawn of photography. I'll just say that consider how wet-plates, to dry plates, to roll film and to digital have been made to make the art form more convienent. Yet the actual art form of composition in the frame, predates photography by thousands of years.

So you do now admit there is no difference between a portrait taken with a 135mm @ f2 and a 100mm a little closer for the same framing @ f2.8? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12567.msg226691#msg226691

If equipment doesn't matter where are you going to get your 35% more compression from?

"- 35% more compression. = a unique rendering physically because of focal length.
- 1 stop advantage = a unique rendering physically because of aperture."

Or a 200 f2 and a 135 f2? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12545.msg223532#msg223532

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

 

[jrista]

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

 

[RLPhoto]

Exactly. Just how you view f/4 and f/2.8 are virtually the same. Doesn't matter.

I could shoot MF film to get a similar look but its more inconvienent for me. I'd shoot a more inconvienent system if need be and still get my photos.

If you take a comment out of context you can make anything up. A FF f4 and a crop camera f2.8 are virtually the same!

But your latest outlandish comment states, by logical extension, depth of field has no importance in photography. You claim you can shoot any image with any camera give enough time and application, how do you limit the dof with your box brownie, P&S or iPhone to get you the same "unique look" as your FF camera and your 135 f2 wide open? You can't. You are just being stubborn, obtuse and foolish.

like I said before, I'm not going to answer every single situation you present, that's for your imagination. You find the answer but I already know of a few to the one you mentioned above. I'll leave it at that.

No, you are just being stubborn, obtuse, and foolish. It's a copout to not answer. You aren't answering because you have no answer. You can't debate a point and not actually provide arguments and evidence that back up your point, however that is what you are trying to do. Private isn't asking you to answer every single situation possible...he is asking you to explain, for a single very specific situation, how your argument that "any gear works" applies. You are, once again, ignoring the point being made, sidestepping the argument with a convenient little quip that does nothing to prove your point. The stubborn evasion only makes your argument look weaker, not stronger.

How about stitching or LF or brenzer method or lining up ten brownie box cameras. Like I said, I won't answer every situation but Ill leave that to your imagination. If you lack that, well I can't help you.

 

[Sporgon]

The CR regulars seem to be in a belligerent mood on this thread.

While I'm on it, can someone explain what a Western Grebe is, and you have to choose between drowning or spending €14000 to get a picture of it ?

 

[Don Haines]

The CR regulars seem to be in a belligerent mood on this thread.

While I'm on it, can someone explain what a Western Grebe is, and you have to choose between drowning or spending €14000 to get a picture of it ?

The Western Grebe is an aquatic bird..... sort of like a duck.... and found on the western half of North America.... HEY! Now I know why it's called the WESTERN Grebe!.... Allow me to quote the book Birds of Canada....

Western Grebes are perhaps best known for thier elaborate and highly ritualized courtship displays. During the "weed dance" the male and female swim with thier torsos and heads held high, carressing each other while aquatic vegetation is held in thier bills.

There you go.... it has to be about the "weed dance".... you just gotta be smokin weed to try and follow this topic!

 

[neuroanatomist]

The CR regulars seem to be in a belligerent mood on this thread.

There you go.... it has to be about the "weed dance".... you just gotta be smokin weed to try and follow this topic!

I suppose we'd be less belligerent if we were... 8)

 

[sanj]

"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.