No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

[Chuck Alaimo]

What in the holy hell is Canon doing? To many stupid cinema cams and lenses and idiotic mirrorless bodies and lenses?

They're already way, way late to the party and they're delaying again?

We need some low read-noise sensors, some high-pixel-count sensors (cropping is a big deal for me), and some new bodies. The 5DIII is a great camera, but has high read noise. The 7D is old, has the old 18MP sensor (not bad, but not outstanding either) and the new AF systems are better.

I want a 7DII with near-zero read noise sensor and a 5DIIIn with nothing new but the low read-noise technology in the fall!

Oh, and while we're at it, VIDEO CROP MODE!!!! And expanded version with infinite steps and smooth zooming in any resolution would be really, really helpful!

Got as far as page 1 with this and yeah, I am done reading!!! Will comment to this one and maybe read the last 2 pages...ugggg

I want transporter devices and hoverboards...but you know what...not happening...what about jet packs with built in coffee makers?? not happening... Be real here... single digit series bodies have at least a 3 year life cycle...more realistically a 4 year life cycle. So, take your wants and file them away in the land of not happening! 5d4 won't be around until 2015. If they do have a non 1d series high MP body in the pipeline for 2014, it will have a new name (I guess it could be a 5ds (s for studio). My bet is that it won't be the great all around camera the 5d3 is, it will be a studio and landscape beast...but I highly doubt it will be a rockstar at higher ISO's. 5d series is built for the event/wedding shooter crowd...it's a big niche...new big MP's will be designed to fill the other niche and probably have a very Medium format feel...

as to 7d2 ---that one puzzles me...if it's gonna be a sports/wildlife body.. why wouldn't they base it on the 1dx model and the 1dx sesnor (aka like a crop sensor 5d3?). How are they gonna balance big MP with high fps and have expanded ISO performance (for sports andwildlife you will need to crank the ISO to keep a reasonable SS...big MP and new sensor tech is more for slower moving studio stuff....hmmmmmmm

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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!

agree with your $.02

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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!

I like this weed dance and will perform it right now!!!

Ok...like I said in my first reply...not reading past page 2...and I guess not going back beyond page 19 (I was going to read page 18, but I have the general idea of what was going on there....)

Does gear matter -- yes
Does the photographer behind the gear matter ---- yes
can every photographer afford every piece of gear --- no
Does it end up boiling down to making the best with what you have --- yes
Does reading and replying to this thread make better use of my time than playing call of duty ---I am really not sure...

OK...back to practicing the weed dance...which is i think the best part of this whole topic!

 

[sfunglee]

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

 

[9VIII]

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.

 

[East Wind Photography]

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

 

[jrista]

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]

"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]

"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...)

 

[9VIII]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[insanitybeard]

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?

 

[RLPhoto]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[RLPhoto]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

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]

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!