# No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 6, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13436"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13436">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Only one more body in 2013?

</strong>From a good source, we’re told that an EOS 7D Mark II will not be released in 2013. We could get an announcement sometime in this calendar year, but availability will be next year.</p>
<p>The only DSLR still to come in 2013 from Canon is the EOS 70D. The same source does say “several lenses will be coming in 2013″.</p>
<p>2014 will be the year for high-end DSLR cameras from Canon, consider this a down year for bodies.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## garyknrd (May 6, 2013)

Heart breaking for me. I am so glad I bought a 1D mark IV. I will be babying it for sure now. Hummmmm.
Not to promising for the crop shooters. Like ME... :'(


----------



## Tanja (May 6, 2013)

oh that will make some people unhappy.....

but maybe all this points to a 180µm process in 2014...
the big MP camera and the 7D MK2 both with a new sensor design made with a new manufacturing process.

prototypes could be out... but for mass manufacturing canon needs to build new factorys or update existing ones. and that takes some time.




> The same source does say “several lenses will be coming in 2013″.



well can he be a bit more vague?
what lenses?


----------



## RGF (May 6, 2013)

Disappointed but not 100% surprised

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


----------



## kennephoto (May 6, 2013)

RGF said:


> Disappointed but not 100% surprised
> 
> Reinforces my notion to buy what has been released vs waiting for vapor ware (or rumored future products)



Or be like me and watch your savings account grow!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> Or be like me and watch your savings account grow!



Well, that's no fun - you can't take pictures with a savings account!


----------



## infared (May 6, 2013)

....on edge of seat...is the 14-24mm L zoom on that 2013 list??????? huh...huh...huh....


----------



## candyman (May 6, 2013)

I have to say that, if this rumor is true, I am just a little bit disappointed. It would be great to have a better 7D this year but I can still manage another year with my 7D. 
Looking forward to what lenses will be released this year. An update of 135 f/2? Or perhaps 50 f/1.4?


----------



## Fr3lncr (May 6, 2013)

I personally hope they wait to release it until after the D400 (or what ever it will be called) comes out so Canon can beat it on pretty much every level like the 7D did the D300s. 

I mean the 7D had been THE BEST cropped sensor camera for a long while and I really hope they make the MK II the best as well.

Now that I have a 5D MK III I don't know if I will get one as I still have my 7D as a backup, but you never know...


----------



## AprilForever (May 6, 2013)

:'(

I am guessing that getting the new 18 micron process thang is not going as well as they would like... The 7D mk II will probably be the first to be released using the new process, somewhere around 24 MP with ISO up to 102,400... probably the new 3200 ISO will be as good as the old 400 ISO...


----------



## pierlux (May 6, 2013)

Sadly, that's exactly the timing I've been expecting for the 7D2. I was hoping to be proved wrong. Nevertheless, this timing strongly supports the hypothesis that the next APS-C flagship will have a new sensor and, hopefully (but that's me, I'm sure most CR members are going to disagree), no more than 16-18 MP.


----------



## spinworkxroy (May 6, 2013)

2014 will be the year for high-end DSLR cameras from Canon, consider this a down year for bodies.

Oohh... 5Dmk4? I would like a higher no 5d..the mk3 sometimes just ain't enough


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 6, 2013)

I'm sure it's a little disappointing news to those who wants to buy a 7d replacement within the next few months. On the other hand, for those who doesn't plan to do that, it may actually be a good news, since by releasing 7d ii late Canon may use a more innovative sensor and other more advanced features.


----------



## drob (May 6, 2013)

Hopefully this doesn't mean that the 70D will be stuck with the 18mp sensor when it it released. I was thinking the 70D and the 7DMkII would share the same new sensor. Also, surprised that Canon does not have a updated DSLR out as of yet competing with the Nikon D7100.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 6, 2013)

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!


----------



## Lee Jay (May 6, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> :'(
> 
> I am guessing that getting the new 18 micron process thang is not going as well as they would like...



18 micron? You mean 0.18 micron = 180 nanometer? That's a really old process and should be no problem these days to get going.


----------



## pierlux (May 6, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> :'(
> I am guessing that getting the new 18 micron process thang is not going as well as they would like... The 7D mk II will probably be the first to be released using the new process, somewhere around 24 MP with ISO up to 102,400... probably the new 3200 ISO will be as good as the old 400 ISO...



Well, let's hope it's the 70D that's going to sport the new tech sensor first. It seems conflicting rumors overlap regarding this matter, probably because different prototypes are being tested, but I'm hoping for something really exciting, as far as sensor tech is concerned, for the camera that should become the direct competitor of the Nikon D7100.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> What in the holy hell is Canon doing?



The same thing they do every night, Pinky...try to take over the (dSLR market share) world. So far, they're doing fine, even if the burlap chafes them so.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 6, 2013)

Lee Jay said:



> They're already way, way late to the party and they're delaying again?
> 
> ...and the new AF systems are better.
> 
> 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!



Canon started the party!

The new AF systems are on cameras costing 2.5x or 4.5x as much. 

I personally don't get the video crop mode. But Canon aren't making cameras specifically for me.

On the plus side, it should maintain my 7D's value if I decide to sell in the next few months.


----------



## distant.star (May 6, 2013)

.
Great passion!!

It can be frustrating when a company as good as Canon won't put out, so to speak!



Lee Jay said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2013)

It may be good new for current 7D users. 

I suspect the 7Dii will be a very different beast at substantially higher price point. 

. or . or even  depending on your point of view


----------



## rpt (May 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> kennephoto said:
> 
> 
> > Or be like me and watch your savings account grow!
> ...


True! But you can take screenshots of your account statement and smile


----------



## Sella174 (May 6, 2013)

I'm losing interest in Canon ... but then, on the other hand, they seem to be losing interest in photographers like me.


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2013)

rpt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kennephoto said:
> ...



;D I love the humour humor on CR


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> I'm losing interest in Canon ... but then, on the other hand, they seem to be losing interest in photographers like me.




But not me


----------



## garyknrd (May 6, 2013)

rpt said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > kennephoto said:
> ...



That is hitting pretty close to home for me. I pulled 15K out of T-bills ( which was crap anyway ) two years ago and put it in an account called..... Photography. I just looked at it. It is sitting at 19,200. As a birder there is nothing I want. I was just planning on calling my broker when term is up on a two year closed fund. And cash it in. Now? I am going to roll it over. Hopefully in two more years I will have my crop camera... LOL


----------



## crasher8 (May 6, 2013)

Oooh! New lenses!….(M series and EF-S STM's! lol)


----------



## CanNotYet (May 6, 2013)

Somewhere in my mind I have the feeling Canon might not be doing the 0.18 micron process at all, but instead going directly to the next one (0.12, 0.09 or 0.065 maybe?), and that is why they have such problems in getting it to roll.

It makes sense doing something like that when you have your own factories and do not want to upgrade them too often. Going to 0.18, just to do it all over again in 2 years? I don't think so. But, leapfrogging the competition and take them by surprise, and in the same time prolonging the active time of the process platform? Yes, I think I'll vote for that.


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2013)

"We shall release no camera before it's time."

As much as I'd like a new toy to drool over, I'd rather wait and have significant improvements in the next generation. My 7D is still as good today as it was when I bought it and it will still be as good next year. 

Nikon seems in no hurry to replace the D300S, which looks like a dinosaur next to the 7D and despite what you read on this forum, Canon's current 18 mp sensor can still hold its own against the newer sensors. If they need until next year to perfect the next generation, that's just the way it is. 

I'm a little doubtful about that "2014 will be the year for high-end DSLR cameras from Canon" statement, though. It seems too early in the cycle for a 1DX or 5DIII replacement. The only gap in the line-up might be a high megapixel monster. Can't see what else they could do.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> "We shall release no camera before it's time."
> 
> As much as I'd like a new toy to drool over, I'd rather wait and have significant improvements in the next generation. My 7D is still as good today as it was when I bought it and it will still be as good next year.
> 
> ...



high end would mean the best in the FF sector.. the high megapixel one.

and the best in APS-C sector, the 7D MK2.


----------



## Nishi Drew (May 6, 2013)

Just got my GH3 today, fabulous camera! And that's coming from a 5DII, while I was hopefully waiting for a new 7D or better, a 70D (the flip screen and lighter weight, better for my video work), well looks like it ain't happening, and Panasonic just gave us the answer for amazing video, when Canon just isn't doing that...
It's no 7D for sheer speed, but weather sealed, good "new" sensor with all the DR Canon's missing out on, mFT having more DR than a 5D Mark III is just so ridiculous. But my 5DII will stay for photos, and together with the GH3 is starting to look like a dandy combo, just wish Panasonic made a half decent flash that's as good as the 430EX II.

Oh and Sigma lenses getting so much better, if Sigma makes a 24mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.8 as rumored then man, where is the future for Canon


----------



## Sella174 (May 6, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> well there is plenty of stuff from canon that is worlds better then your 30D´s......
> 
> if you wanted to update.. what are you waiting for? 50+ MP, ISO 512K, 128 AF Points?



I did not buy the 7D last year ... or the previous year ... because it did not offer me a significant improvement in terms of image quality - in short, I do not like the sensor. Now the rumour is that there'll be no new 7DII this year. Why? (Because they're probably trying to improve the video performance - which I do need, want, use or have any interest in.) Same with the 60D ...

But yes, I'll go "full-frame" when it's at +40MP ... i.e. not the current 8MP APS-C equivalent.


----------



## Canon-F1 (May 6, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:
 

> Oh and Sigma lenses getting so much better, if Sigma makes a 24mm 1.4 and 135mm 1.8 as rumored then man, *where is the future for Canon*



well i wonder how you guys survive in the real world. 8)

you can be disappointed with canon but hell.. please do a reality check from time to time.

panasonic nearly sold the camera biz last year and is still struggling. 
so the real question is.... for how long will panasonic keep making cameras?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Nikon seems in no hurry to replace the D300S, which looks like a dinosaur next to the 7D and despite what you read on this forum, Canon's current 18 mp sensor can still hold its own against the newer sensors.



Hear hear.

Nikon are still selling the D90, and that can only mean folk are still buying it!

I've got little to complain about with the 18Mp sensor. Took great photos for me in 2010 and still takes then today, in my 600D and no doubt in my M when I get it (hopefully, interested to see the difference digic 5 makes)

I've read that the Nikon 16MP has more dynamic range, less noise, I've read that the 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony is something else.

But you know what? I really don't care. I can work my camera, and I can work PS. The folk who lie awake at night dreaming of having 33% more pixels spread over an inverse square, wow!, thats like what? a 16x11 print vs a 15x10? 33% closer at full size view on your CRT?

And of course these folk who care so much about dynamic range also care about accurate filtration, nice glass lee soft grads to get even more out of that extra stop DR?

Listen, I've seen some of the work by some of the folk with the biggest technical gripes on here, and some of them even shoot with the best gear available, and yet whisper this bit, quietly, discreetly... I think I'm missing something... it's almost as if some folks care more about Nikon and DXO than they care about the act of taking a decent photograph...

I entirely accept my limitations, and that of my gear. My 7D is a much better camera than I am photographer. I'm sure the 7D2 will be better again. How much redundancy does one need? Although if it has a headphone socket I might buy it.

The 7D was and remains a class-leading camera. I'm sure the new tech will be swell, but I'm not going to sob into my pillow worrying about it.


----------



## Sella174 (May 6, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> go check you eyesight.



I did ... the 7D produced - for me, at least - good, sterile images with absolutely no character. But then again, I think Zeiss lenses produce "dead" images. So there's no accounting for taste - bad, poor or whatever.


----------



## Rocguy (May 6, 2013)

I'm glad I took the plunge and went FF with the 6D instead of waiting to see if I wanted the 70D or new 7D instead. I'm having a lot of fun playing with and taking pics with my 6D instead of more waiting!


----------



## eric_ykchan (May 6, 2013)

Image that the 7D2 next year will give you the same 19-point AF with a tiny improvement :


----------



## Heavyweight67 (May 6, 2013)

Hmmm, disappointed, Yes and No...was looking forward to seeing images/specs and reviews sooner....

On the other hand my current 5Diii and 7D are doing me fine, at least now it leaves some financial breathing space to add the Fuji x100s, sooner than I thought..


----------



## garyknrd (May 6, 2013)

eric_ykchan said:


> Image that the 7D2 next year will give you the same 19-point AF with a tiny improvement :



Them there is fighting words... LOL stiring the pot are we..?
Actually I am set for the next 2 years. But was really wanting the new camera. But life aint all about me. That is for sure.


----------



## Tanja (May 6, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> I did ... the 7D produced - for me, at least - good, sterile images with absolutely no character. But then again, I think Zeiss lenses produce "dead" images. So there's no accounting for taste - bad, poor or whatever.



and i always thought it´s the photographers job to make interesting characterful images....


----------



## kimvette (May 6, 2013)

I am not disappointed. If this means that the camera is going to truly be an upgrade, and a 1D-level APS-C camera as some rumors previously indicated (one rumor indicated the camera will be full-size with integrated grip), and if it means much higher DR, finally solving the shadow problems, and a weaker or eliminated AA filter, with 5D mk III-level high ISO performance or better, it is going to be well worth the wait.

But truthfully, only a handful of people outside of Canon know what the 7D prototypes are and how they perform _so far_, and they only know how that particular prototype they have their hands on works, not the other prototypes other trusted photographers are testing. In any event, if the original 7D's release is any indicator, the Mark II is going to be a fantastic camera.


----------



## docsmith (May 6, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>2014 will be the year for high-end DSLR cameras from Canon, consider this a down year for bodies.</p>



How do you figure the last line? What bodies are due to be updated in 2014? I can see a new rebel and a new 7D. Maybe we get the "High MP" body. But it seems last year was the year of the high end DSLRs with the release of the 1DX (announced the proceeding fall), 5DIII, and 6D. I wouldn't expect those to be replaced until 2015-2017.

Anyway, this rumor just makes me happy that I went ahead and bought a 5DIII.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 6, 2013)

Ah, my $$$ are safe for yet another year....oh what's that? A 600mm F4L IS III???


----------



## Sella174 (May 6, 2013)

Tanja said:


> and i always thought it´s the photographers job to make interesting characterful images....



Yes, but the equipment helps.


----------



## lopicma (May 6, 2013)

On one hand, it's a disappointment, but on the other, it gives me more time to save up for what could possibly be my last crop sensor camera purchase. You can see I have high hopes on this one ...LOL


----------



## dswatson83 (May 6, 2013)

I guess i'll be hanging on to my 7D for a little bit longer. There are some items that I would love to see updated, but it still holds its own, even against the new Nikon D7100. Especially for sports/wildlife. 2 Card slots would be nice though. 
Nikon D7100 vs Canon 7D - Fight! - Photography Feature Challenge - Best APS-C DSLR?


----------



## eyeland (May 6, 2013)

I understand that we all have different needs, but personally, I get frustrated from the eternal incremental upgrades.
This thread again reminded me to go out and shoot instead of spending all day chasing dreams


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 6, 2013)

Reminds me of my 3D setup. Just add two wireless shutters on the same channel and you're there.



dswatson83 said:


> I guess i'll be hanging on to my 7D for a little bit longer. There are some items that I would love to see updated, but it still holds its own, even against the new Nikon D7100. Especially for sports/wildlife. 2 Card slots would be nice though.
> Nikon D7100 vs Canon 7D - Fight! - Photography Feature Challenge - Best APS-C DSLR?


----------



## pedro (May 6, 2013)

Tanja said:


> oh that will make some people unhappy.....
> 
> but maybe all this points to a 180µm process in 2014...
> the big MP camera and the 7D MK2 both with a new sensor design made with a new manufacturing process.
> ...



+1, same guess when I read it. So there is real joy in the waiting. Wonder what else will come out by 2015 and further down the road.


----------



## pedro (May 6, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Somewhere in my mind I have the feeling Canon might not be doing the 0.18 micron process at all, but instead going directly to the next one (0.12, 0.09 or 0.065 maybe?), and that is why they have such problems in getting it to roll.
> 
> It makes sense doing something like that when you have your own factories and do not want to upgrade them too often. Going to 0.18, just to do it all over again in 2 years? I don't think so. But, leapfrogging the competition and take them by surprise, and in the same time prolonging the active time of the process platform? Yes, I think I'll vote for that.


Even better. Oh, what will a 5D4 be like...na forget it. The 5D3 is still way too much camera for me 8) But as I my current FF lens line up contains about all the ones I will ever need for my type of photography it is quite attractive to save up for whatever may be up next in the 5D series. I will not early adopt it next time, cause the 5D3 is really amazing. But if let's say, ISO 3200 really turn out to be the new ISO 400 in a crop cam like the 7DII, then I do not dare to imagine what the new ISO 51200 will look like on the next 5D...can you? 8)


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 6, 2013)

No problemo, will wait till next year


----------



## Independent (May 6, 2013)

So what is the best available guidance on when the 70D will be announced? April 23d is long past. What's the best guess now?


----------



## Don Haines (May 6, 2013)

Sigh... no new 7D2 to take pictures of Fluffy with.... I was looking forward to posting ever higher resolution pictures of Fluffy on facebook.....


----------



## sanj (May 6, 2013)

I guess it is still selling well. I suspect they will not introduce replacement till the sales do not drop considerably. 
I doubt that delay is a case of improving the model. Three years is long enough for a company like Canon to design a replacement. 

I personally am not going to (most likely) ever buy a crop sensor camera again so this delay does not bother me.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

All the 7D really needed was a better sensor. Otherwise, Near-Perfect camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

Barrfly said:


> Wow, they're really milking the 18mp sensor huh ?



This rumor proves the contrary - Canon will release the 70d this year with the updated 18mp sensor (i.e. with af pixels for lv, better noise pattern, less banding) and throw everything they have at it like gps & wifi, improved af/fps (but below current 7d).

But even Canon seems to think that they cannot get away with a 7d2 w/o significant sensor improvement, and since they don't have this sensor atm (proof: 6d) they'll delay another year.


----------



## Don Haines (May 6, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Somewhere in my mind I have the feeling Canon might not be doing the 0.18 micron process at all, but instead going directly to the next one (0.12, 0.09 or 0.065 maybe?), and that is why they have such problems in getting it to roll.
> 
> It makes sense doing something like that when you have your own factories and do not want to upgrade them too often. Going to 0.18, just to do it all over again in 2 years? I don't think so. But, leapfrogging the competition and take them by surprise, and in the same time prolonging the active time of the process platform? Yes, I think I'll vote for that.



Sounds reasonable to me.... Even if the next sensor is at .18 microns, it would still make sense to be replacing the current machines with those capable of even finer resolution so the next couple of improvements will require a minimum of retooling.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 6, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> I guess i'll be hanging on to my 7D for a little bit longer. There are some items that I would love to see updated, but it still holds its own, even against the new Nikon D7100. Especially for sports/wildlife. 2 Card slots would be nice though.
> Nikon D7100 vs Canon 7D - Fight! - Photography Feature Challenge - Best APS-C DSLR?


Having used 7D for about 3 years (sold to upgrade to 5D MK III, last year) and now using the D7100 (for the past 3 days) I can say that this review is very accurate ... despite D7100 the 7D is still an awesome camera in its own right.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2013)

Hopefully it means they are holding off the big ones for a new process that won't get stomped by Exmor.




Tanja said:


> oh that will make some people unhappy.....
> 
> but maybe all this points to a 180µm process in 2014...
> the big MP camera and the 7D MK2 both with a new sensor design made with a new manufacturing process.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2013)

Barrfly said:


> Wow, they're really milking the 18mp sensor huh ?



I think they sat around too long and are now scrambling to catch up again with sensor tech and are now getting bitten a bit by their conservative game of the milk the cows.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> :'(
> 
> I am guessing that getting the new 18 micron process thang is not going as well as they would like... The 7D mk II will probably be the first to be released using the new process, somewhere around 24 MP with ISO up to 102,400... probably the new 3200 ISO will be as good as the old 400 ISO...



That is not how it works. They are way too close to max efficiency. It's low ISO DR there the new process might help many stops, not mid-tone gray SNR at high ISO (although it might perhaps, if they have some new fancy thing, extend high ISO DR, if not mid-tone SNR, but that is not so easy, we will see).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2013)

kimvette said:


> I am not disappointed. If this means that the camera is going to truly be an upgrade, and a 1D-level APS-C camera as some rumors previously indicated (one rumor indicated the camera will be full-size with integrated grip), and if it means much higher DR, finally solving the shadow problems, and a weaker or eliminated AA filter, with 5D mk III-level high ISO performance or better, it is going to be well worth the wait.



Although, if it means a 7D2 with tweaked 7D AF and an old process sensor way behind Exmor and a 3D with 40MP and 3 less stops DR than the D800 for $6000 though.... gonna really get ugly this time. 

I think that won't be the case, but you never know. Canon has been soooo conservative (and arrogant with we are the ultimate kings and a decade ahead of everyone talk) it takes time to turn around from that mindset.


----------



## MarkII (May 6, 2013)

Yes, but as these forums keep showing, "real" photographers don't need more low ISO DR nor no more of them mega-pickles 

Seriously though, none of this can be good for Canon. A so-so EOS-M launch, re-heated entry-level DSLRs, and lenses that seem to take forever to become available. I hope that there is a serious shake-up going on internally as the world outside of Canon is not standing still.

More positively, I think that it makes sense for Canon to concentrate on higher performance lenses than for new high-end bodies just now. As the D800 is showing, you can add all the pixels you want, but they aren't much use unless you have the lenses to make use of them.


----------



## Don Haines (May 6, 2013)

come on people.... haven't you figured it out yet? The 7D2 will have a mode dial that goes all the way around!


----------



## wrlphoto (May 6, 2013)

Rocguy said:


> I'm glad I took the plunge and went FF with the 6D instead of waiting to see if I wanted the 70D or new 7D instead. I'm having a lot of fun playing with and taking pics with my 6D instead of more waiting!



me too. Just ordered a 6d.should be here Wednesday


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Although, if it means a 7D2 with tweaked 7D AF and an old process sensor way behind Exmor and a 3D with 40MP and 3 less stops DR than the D800 for $6000 though.... gonna really get ugly this time.



Ugly in here, probably. Out in the real world, though, as usual Canon will sell them like hotcakes...


----------



## Efka76 (May 6, 2013)

Canon decided to milk 7D for additional year. 7D is really good camera and I am satisfied with its performance but is seems really odd to release update only after 5 years. I think that Canon's management and marketing department were sitting, scratching their bold heads and were thinking how to cripple 1Dx and 5D MarkIII, put old sensor and call it 7D MrkII 

If you put the same AF system as in 5DIII and many other features, it might affect 5DIII sales. Accodingly in my humble opinion it was decided to fully milk 5DIII and 7D and only next year release update. Also, i really do not expect from Canon some very substantial developments in that updated 7DII version as current trend shows that Nikon, Sony are announcing various new developments first. Canon is still worldwide leader however they are really sleeping and milking the same cow, which could be dead quite soon.


----------



## rockmon! (May 6, 2013)

Newcomer here... former 25 year Nikonite. Do all followers feel that this source is a legit one? I've been following the whole 7DMKII ambiguity since September of 2012. I have now been without a body since January anticipating the arrival...

Is the general belief that there will be no 7DMKII until 2014 and should I just get off the pot and get a 7D until such time?

Advice?


----------



## kimvette (May 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ugly in here, probably. Out in the real world, though, as usual Canon will sell them like hotcakes...



Yup, haters gonna hate and declare the fall of Canon, while Canon simultaneously posts press releases indicating record sales and inability to keep up with demand for months after the replacement comes out. 

If Canon were to introduce a 50 MP crop camera that goes to ISO 2,400,000 cleanly, 24 stop dynamic range, integrated intervalometer, uncompressed HDMI output, 24 fps still shooting, and a choice of CFast and SDXC storage, and AF that works down to f/11 and never, ever misses a shot and even knows telepathically what the shooter is aiming for and not focus on the closest high contrast object in full auto green box mode, and include two batteries and two 120GB storage cards, all at the price of today's 60D, AND include an L-series lens as part of the kit, haters would _still_ find something to whine about.


----------



## 2n10 (May 6, 2013)

rockmon! said:


> Newcomer here... former 25 year Nikonite. Do all followers feel that this source is a legit one? I've been following the whole 7DMKII ambiguity since September of 2012. I have now been without a body since January anticipating the arrival...
> 
> Is the general belief that there will be no 7DMKII until 2014 and should I just get off the pot and get a 7D until such time?
> 
> Advice?



Get a 7D now, maybe a refurbished one from Canon to save a little cash. Sell it when the 7D Mark II comes out.


----------



## Famateur (May 6, 2013)

> The same thing they do every night, Pinky...try to take over the (dSLR market share) world.



Laughed out loud at the Animaniacs reference. And to have a member nicknamed "Neuro" quoting a character named "the Brain"? Most excellent. 



> 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?



From what I gather, as I piece all the rumors together, this is not a case of arrogance or milking or any of the other things impatient people are reading between the lines. My guess (and I could be just as wrong as anyone else), is that mass production of the new sensor technology Canon was going to release in new bodies this year has encountered unexpected and not easily resolved difficulties. The incremental updates are a necessity to bring something to market during a time when they had intended to bring the 70D and 7DII (and perhaps an M with the new sensor). 

If your product roadmap was suddenly hit with unexpected and lengthy delays, what would you do?

[list type=decimal]
[*]Stick to the roadmap and endure the delay with nothing new to bring to market (so as not to offend those looking for a significant upgrade), or
[*]Produce some incremental updates to keep your product lineup somewhat fresh (so as to satisfy new DSLR customers who will likely be upgrading at some point when the roadmap is back on track).
[/list]

I would choose the latter, and I suspect that is what Canon is doing, too. For what it's worth...

As someone who was hoping for a 70D with new sensor tech this year, I am a bit disappointed by this rumor. If true, it would seem that the 70D will be getting the sensor of the T5i/SL1, rather than the new tech that is holding up the 7DII. Disappointed or not, I expect Canon is doing its best to get the 7DII and new tech to market as fast as possible.

In the meantime, I took a few hurried snaps of my kiddoes with my trusty G12 the other day that turned out beautifully and will be stored in the "priceless" folder on my hard drive (and backup drives!).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Although, if it means a 7D2 with tweaked 7D AF and an old process sensor way behind Exmor and a 3D with 40MP and 3 less stops DR than the D800 for $6000 though.... gonna really get ugly this time.
> ...



Don't be so sure that a 7D2 with a minor tweak to the AF and a sensor similar to the current one would sell like hotcakes. At some point it will catch up to a company. 

(And it would be nothing to cheer about, as a user, if half-baked update sold like hot cakes either. Unless you on the board and take the money and run.)

And back in say 2004-2006 when students asked what system to get it was Canon, Canon, Canon. Everyone at papers had Canon. Sidelines were Canon, Canon. If you see people out and about it was Canon. Now when you hear people getting advice it is at least as often look into Nikon and you see a lot of Nikons at games, people walking around with them, etc.

And if you look at the video forums, it's pretty clear that their DSLR stuff isn't making the splash or sales that the 5D2 did. The cinema guys tend to not have even a hint of fanboy in them much and they don't wait for anything they just move on and the talk there generally looks to me fiercer than in the stills forums actually.


----------



## CarlTN (May 6, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> ... probably the new 3200 ISO will be as good as the old 400 ISO...



I wouldn't hold my breath on that. More like ISO 800 similar to the 7D's ISO 400...if that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 6, 2013)

Famateur said:


> From what I gather, as I piece all the rumors together, this is not a case of arrogance or milking or any of the other things impatient people are reading between the lines. My guess (and I could be just as wrong as anyone else), is that mass production of the new sensor technology Canon was going to release in new bodies this year has encountered unexpected and not easily resolved difficulties. The incremental updates are a necessity to bring something to market during a time when they had intended to bring the 70D and 7DII (and perhaps an M with the new sensor).



The milking and arrogance came when they held off trying to upgrade things for so long. Of course it takes time and at this point it may not be milking or anything, it does take a lot of time to get it going.



> If your product roadmap was suddenly hit with unexpected and lengthy delays, what would you do?



Have started it going earlier.

At this point in time I'd delay though, which is what they seem to be doing, rather than dumping out whatever.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 6, 2013)

It's no fuss to me, I prolly wouldn't buy one any how. I far prefer full frame.


----------



## jrista (May 6, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> Somewhere in my mind I have the feeling Canon might not be doing the 0.18 micron process at all, but instead going directly to the next one (0.12, 0.09 or 0.065 maybe?), and that is why they have such problems in getting it to roll.
> 
> It makes sense doing something like that when you have your own factories and do not want to upgrade them too often. Going to 0.18, just to do it all over again in 2 years? I don't think so. But, leapfrogging the competition and take them by surprise, and in the same time prolonging the active time of the process platform? Yes, I think I'll vote for that.



I would rather wait and have the best Canon can possibly offer, than get something six months from now that won't hold up over the next four years. I would LOVE to see a 90nm part from Canon...I think that would put them back on the map as a technology leader, and should really offer some amazing IQ as well.

With this news, I've finalized my decision to buy a 5D III this year. If the 7D II won't be out until next year, no point in waiting for it. I intend to get both bodies eventually, and since the 5D III is here and stable, sounds like the best option!  By the end of the year, I hope to be lugging around an EF 600 f/4 L IS II and 5D III with a 2x teleconverter!


----------



## pdirestajr (May 6, 2013)

I have a feeling that the 7DIII is even better than the 7DII. I'm thinking about selling all of my gear now so it doesn't lose any more value and then just wait till 2019. It's gonna be AMAZING!


----------



## unfocused (May 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> And back in say 2004-2006 when students asked what system to get it was Canon, Canon, Canon. Everyone at papers had Canon. Sidelines were Canon, Canon. If you see people out and about it was Canon. Now when you hear people getting advice it is at least as often look into Nikon and you see a lot of Nikons at games, people walking around with them, etc.



And back in say 2004-2006 1973-78 when students asked what system to get it was Canon, Canon, Canon.  Pentax, Pentax, Pentax. Everyone at papers had Canon Nikon. Sidelines were Canon, Canon. Nikon, Nikon. If you see people out and about it was Canon Pentax. Now when you hear people getting advice it is at least as often look into Nikon Canon and you see a lot of Nikons Canons at games, people walking around with them, etc. 

Canon clawed their way to the top over about 30-40 years. They weren't always the leader they are today. They did so by running a smart business. Sales figures would indicate they still know what they are doing. Do people buy other brands? Of course they do. It's not in our best interests for any company to have a monopoly share of the market. Every time Nikon introduces a new product, I'm very happy because it means Canon must compete.


----------



## FTb-n (May 6, 2013)

I bought my 5D3 a couple months ago with a bit of fear that I'd regret it if the 7D2 became available this summer with a significant boost in high ISO IQ. It didn't take long to realize that the 5D3 can do a lot more than the 7D, except in the burst mode department. (But, the 5D3 isn't shabby at burst.)

For the past year, the 7D was my primary camera. I couldn't imagine doing without the extra reach. Now all that has changed. The high ISO and color depth of the 5D3 has relegated my 7D to backup status.

I really hope Canon does introduce a new king of the crop body cameras. But, I'll be watching for refurb and rebate price deals to replace my 7D with another 5D3 body.

Funny. For about a year, I was glued to CR for new updates on the 7D2. I'm not so glued anymore.


----------



## CarlTN (May 6, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I have a feeling that the 7DIII is even better than the 7DII. I'm thinking about selling all of my gear now so it doesn't lose any more value and then just wait till 2019. It's gonna be AMAZING!



:-D I recently finally sold my "old" XXD body, got a lot more than I thought I would. The Canon name, does mean a lot...as does one's reputation as a seller, and their attention to upkeep. 

Given the new "news" or rumor (no 7D2 until 2014), I would think current 7D's on the used market, just got a new lease on life. Maybe used prices will start to go up?

For my own needs/wants, I never want another 1.6x crop camera again. Something between 1x and 1.6x would be interesting...but only at or close to the 1 series body level. Let's face it, if that ever happens, it just might be a 1DX replacement. I had thought a 1DX "ii" would be first announced around mid or late 2015, but now I'm thinking 2016. Probably too early to speculate!


----------



## RGomezPhotos (May 6, 2013)

Yup. I mentioned this long ago. They did lots of body releases in 2012. Can't expect the same in 2013. And they want to put some new tech. in as well. 2014 will be a great year for Canon bodies!


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > ... probably the new 3200 ISO will be as good as the old 400 ISO...
> ...



Personally i hope aprilforever is right since if THAT is what comes out of a crop you know how good the FF will be  however i'm more inclined to agree with your take Carl


----------



## meli (May 7, 2013)

rockmon! said:


> Newcomer here... former 25 year Nikonite. Do all followers feel that this source is a legit one? I've been following the whole 7DMKII ambiguity since September of 2012. I have now been without a body since January anticipating the arrival...
> 
> Is the general belief that there will be no 7DMKII until 2014 and should I just get off the pot and get a 7D until such time?
> 
> Advice?



Since January? Wow you really are into photography arent you? :


----------



## SiliconVoid (May 7, 2013)

Kind of disappointing that CR has nothing better to report than yet another camera no one really needs not coming out anytime soon to sit on the shelves collecting dust because as soon as it is announced everyone is instantly waiting for the next model.

Look, there are probably two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own. Everyone else just wants to be part of a social discussion and complain about what each new model should have had, needs to have, doesn't have, etc etc.. The reality is that consumers themselves are responsible for what new models do not have because the manufacturers feel they have to instantly gratify the squeaky wheels in order to be successful. If people would simply use what they have until it stops working then the manufacturers would only release a new body in each tier maybe every three/four years. Then when they did it would actually be the latest and greatest and would hold you for the rest of its life, certainly until technology advances to the point a new model is even warranted. (Megapixels are not technology in a photographic context, sorry.)

I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..
2) Spend your money on the only piece/s of equipment that will ever improve your photography - lenses.. If you have anything left over and just have to spend it on something, take a class or attend a symposium to learn how to be a better photographer.


----------



## rpt (May 7, 2013)

FTb-n said:


> I bought my 5D3 a couple months ago with a bit of fear that I'd regret it if the 7D2 became available this summer with a significant boost in high ISO IQ. It didn't take long to realize that the 5D3 can do a lot more than the 7D, except in the burst mode department. (But, the 5D3 isn't shabby at burst.)
> 
> For the past year, the 7D was my primary camera. I couldn't imagine doing without the extra reach. Now all that has changed. The high ISO and color depth of the 5D3 has relegated my 7D to backup status.
> 
> ...


Wow! I have the same exact story except that it happened a year earlier. Now I am just curious to know what the 7D2 will be like. I would like it to be my second body. But I will wait another three years (or so) for that. No hurry. I'll wait for the prices to drop. See I am already dreaming about 2016-2017...


----------



## yogi (May 7, 2013)

The most important factor is how well will it do in shadows and bbq grills, expecially topless grills. Will the dr be acceptable? ;D :


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 7, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> Kind of disappointing that CR has nothing better to report than yet another camera no one really needs not coming out anytime soon to sit on the shelves collecting dust because as soon as it is announced everyone is instantly waiting for the next model.
> 
> Look, there are probably two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own. Everyone else just wants to be part of a social discussion and complain about what each new model should have had, needs to have, doesn't have, etc etc.. The reality is that consumers themselves are responsible for what new models do not have because the manufacturers feel they have to instantly gratify the squeaky wheels in order to be successful. If people would simply use what they have until it stops working then the manufacturers would only release a new body in each tier maybe every three/four years. Then when they did it would actually be the latest and greatest and would hold you for the rest of its life, certainly until technology advances to the point a new model is even warranted. (Megapixels are not technology in a photographic context, sorry.)
> 
> ...



OH MY GOSH! THANK YOU SO MUCH! I'M ALREADY A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER BECAUSE OF YOU!!


----------



## Don Haines (May 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> SiliconVoid said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of disappointing that CR has nothing better to report than yet another camera no one really needs not coming out anytime soon to sit on the shelves collecting dust because as soon as it is announced everyone is instantly waiting for the next model.
> ...



I'm really laughing as I write this ON AN IPOD!!!! It really hurts to be told that I am nowhere near as capable as the camera in my hand when that camera is ON AN IPOD..... and not even the latest generation!


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 7, 2013)

We must have patience with the newbies!!! In one sense he is right. If you are starting out, you need to focus on skills. For those of us that have been at this for 30 plus years, we focus a LOT of attention on tools in these forums and less on skills. It's the tools that we rely on to earn our living. As one tool wears out we look for a new tool to take it's place that hopefully can improve on areas the old tool was lacking. Newbies wont understand that until they have been at this for as long as we have.

We stretch every technical capability we can out of current tech and then stretch it even more with hours of post processing to get rid of or work around the deficiencies in the current tech. We know/hope that the next model will improve our livelihood, reduce the hours spent at the computer, and allow us to push the envelope once again.

Newbies are not there yet. They dont understand concepts of expose to the right, expose to the left, unsharp masking, and digital dynamic range. We hope that with the next model all of these will be included so we dont have to waste our time dealing with it.

Newbies? They are ones that we have to deal with as we were all once in their shoes. 

...Now where's that dang 7D Mark II !!!



bdunbar79 said:


> SiliconVoid said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of disappointing that CR has nothing better to report than yet another camera no one really needs not coming out anytime soon to sit on the shelves collecting dust because as soon as it is announced everyone is instantly waiting for the next model.
> ...


----------



## Aglet (May 7, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> OH MY GOSH! THANK YOU SO MUCH! I'M ALREADY A BETTER PHOTOGRAPHER BECAUSE OF YOU!!


convinced you to AFMA that new lens then?


----------



## Aglet (May 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> All the 7D really needed was a better sensor. Otherwise, Near-Perfect camera.



and what about the 7D's sensor are YOU thinking should be improved?..


----------



## CarlTN (May 7, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> 1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..



Thanks for the wisdom, but frankly that's a bit harsh don't you think? No need to talk down to people. I think most of us are trying to be better photographers. Maybe not all of us...

I'm very happy with my new 6D; I have not one complaint with it. It has, I think about 3500 shutter actuations in the last 5 weeks, since I bought it (most of these were done in "one shot" mode). And I'm not exactly a person who is easy to please, or has not written critically of cameras, lenses, photographs, or photographers for that matter.

It might be the strongest link in my photo arsenal. I might be the weakest, but without me, it just sits there.

*Btw, does anyone have an opinion on the ridiculous apple tv ad campaign, where they state emphatically "more pictures are shot every day with an iPhone, than with any other camera"...?* Talk about a claim that is difficult to back up...especially since it can't possibly be true.

For example, there are far more smartphones from other makers in the world, than there are iPhones...Apple has what, 12% worldwide market share? It's something like that...probably less.

And...the last time I saw a press conference, every photo journalist in the room is holding down 10 or 12 fps bursts for 30 minutes at a time...I much prefer the sound of those shutters to the sound of the idiotic liar at the mic! How many photo journalists are there, and how many thousand pictures do they take a day?


----------



## Aglet (May 7, 2013)

Tanja said:


> and i always thought it´s the photographers job to make interesting characterful images....


certainly
and lens choices matter, many old ones are less clinically accurate in their image rendition, more interesting results can be obtained. Check out the M42 mount lens fans and the fun they're having.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> *Btw, does anyone have an opinion on the ridiculous apple tv ad campaign, where they state emphatically "more pictures are shot every day with an iPhone, than with any other camera"...?* Talk about a claim that is difficult to back up...especially since it can't possibly be true.



meh it probably is true they do need to add in the disclaimer 
"please note 99% of these photos are hidiously noisey washed out selfies of people with little to no photographic skill that will propogate though the facebookosphere for eternity"


----------



## M.ST (May 7, 2013)

The 7D Mark II hit the market in march 2014 if Canon don´t change the timeline. Prototypes are out for testing. This year you see only a 70D. Canon don´t put the 70D on the market in april 2013 because the camera can´t reach the D7100. 

Expect the higher megapixel camera around august 2014 (+/- 2 month). But if Nikon put the D4X this year on the market Canon gets a little bit in stress. 

Lens production is a funny thing. It´s no problem to manufacture a few prototypes, but it is a little bit tricky to do the mass production.

A EF 12-24 2.8 L and a EF 14-24 2.8 L is out for testing. The EF 100-400 IS L replacement is out for testing too. But there are many problems.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> I would rather wait and have the best Canon can possibly offer, than get something six months from now that won't hold up over the next four years. I would LOVE to see a 90nm part from Canon...I think that would put them back on the map as a technology leader, and should really offer some amazing IQ as well.



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 7, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
> 1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..



Absurd. I mean sure there is tons for everyone to learn and you can make amazing pics of a certain sort with all sorts of equipment and there is always more you can learn to get out of it but, come on all the same.

Go to a rookie on the sidelines shooting some soccer with a rebel and a 70-300 IS non-L and then swap that out for a 1DX and a 300 2.8 and believe me his take will be better. Give his rebel rig to the pro and his take will go down.

Let someone shoot a high DR natural world scene where neither multiple shots nor special filters will work. Let them shoot with a 7stops DR camera and then a 16 stop DR camera.

A camera with a nicer UI can sure be more fun to use.

A beginner with a DSLR and instant feedback will probably progress a lot faster than with a film camera.




> 2) Spend your money on the only piece/s of equipment that will ever improve your photography - lenses.. If you have anything left over and just have to spend it on something, take a class or attend a symposium to learn how to be a better photographer.



because AF, fps, etc. etc. never matter ever. EVER!

:

I get your point to an extent but you are taking it from something profound to the absurd.


----------



## meli (May 7, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> ...
> Look, there are probably two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own.
> ...
> 1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..
> 2) Spend your money on the only piece/s of equipment that will ever improve your photography - lenses.. If you have anything left over and just have to spend it on something, take a class or attend a symposium to learn how to be a better photographer.



From time to time i bump into this pearl of wisdom.
Since this is CR and not Instagram's "#look what i ate today!" lets see some examples of how difficult it really is to exceeded the capabilities of the 7d in question:


Do you still get random OOFs when tracking even though you played with the settings and your technique is adequate?
Have you ever hit buffer limit?
Ever disappointed by WB under artificial lighting?
You tried to lift shadows only to find the surprise underneath?
You get sky noise even though you're shooting below 400?
You dont get useful 1600s+?
Did you ever tried autoiso only to find its a slopy implementation?
Weak AF under low light?
Meter goes bananas in challenging situations?

Have you ever bumped into any of the situations above? Well congrats you are one of the "_two (maybe three) people on the planet who have actually exceeded the capabilities of the equipment they already own_" according to SiliconVoiD :


----------



## sanj (May 7, 2013)

meli said:


> SiliconVoid said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Meli so totally agree with you. Elementary!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 7, 2013)

the 7D's great. the 7d2 will no doubt be better. I could be better too. And so could lots of the photographs I see from 1DX's. And I'm pretty sure it's not camera error.

*replace 7D with 7D2 next year, and 7D2 with with 7D3 in 2016. If you are reading this in 2019 then for 1DX read 1DXI.

Ibid & ad infinitum.


----------



## bseitz234 (May 7, 2013)

meli said:


> From time to time i bump into this pearl of wisdom.
> Since this is CR and not Instagram's "#look what i ate today!" lets see some examples of how difficult it really is to exceeded the capabilities of the 7d in question:
> 
> 
> ...



Yesss I knew I was something special : and despite the random OOF shots, I love the beautifully sharp in-focus shot I got when the AF decided to wake up, and I am learning to rely less on the meter and pick my own exposures, and by nailing exposures don't have to lift shadows. I would wholeheartedly reccomend the 7d to anyone who wants more out of a camera, but doesn't have the money to go FF: hell, they're available on the refurb store for $1019. Anyway, the light's nice this morning, I'm going outside now.


----------



## jrista (May 7, 2013)

meli said:


> SiliconVoid said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1 Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## viggen61 (May 7, 2013)

I'll be somewhat disappointed if the 7DII isn't available in 2013, but if a 100-400 II is available in 2013, it makes the decision easier on which to buy when!

Although, I did find a use case this weekend for a second body with a shorter lens. Actually, it wasn't so much the focal length as the minimum focus distance. Had a couple of tree frogs right alongside the trail. I wanted to get closer, but couldn't!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 7, 2013)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > All the 7D really needed was a better sensor. Otherwise, Near-Perfect camera.
> ...



ISO performance and 20MP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2013)

viggen61 said:


> Although, I did find a use case this weekend for a second body with a shorter lens. Actually, it wasn't so much the focal length as the minimum focus distance. Had a couple of tree frogs right alongside the trail. I wanted to get closer, but couldn't!



Extension tubes are good for that - I don't use them for macro, but I do use a 25mm tube to shorten the MFD of tele lenses.


----------



## Dantana (May 7, 2013)

I can only speak for myself on this, but I have a mixed reaction to this bit of "news."

On the one hand, it would have been nice to see the 7DII live and in action. I am hoping to upgrade in the not too distant future and I am curious about this camera. I am leaning to full frame though, 6D or 5DIII. I'm interested to see if some great leap forward would keep me in crop.

On the other hand, it will be nice to see what Canon comes up with given the extra development time, once the 7DII actually comes out. Maybe it will be a big step forward.

For me, the timing of my upgrade has much less to do with when Canon puts out a new body, and much more to do with when I can afford to upgrade. I have a feeling I'd be quite happy with a 7D, 6D, or 5DIII right now. I just can't spend the money right now (especially on full frame since I'd also be looking for a new zoom).

Until, I have the funds saved up, I'll be toting around my XSi and trying to get the most out of it that I can.


----------



## johnhenry (May 7, 2013)

I dont think the 7D MII has enough new game to bring it up to the point where it is a serious upgrade.

I went from a 40D with 10M pixel to a 7D with 18.1M. But it only really translates to a gain of around 30% more resolution in each direction. The high frame rate really sold me on it.

For the next crop sensor camera to really get me, it would have to be a serious increase in pixel count, to say over 28M while keeping a high frame rate


----------



## xps (May 7, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Canon clawed their way to the top over about 30-40 years. They weren't always the leader they are today. They did so by running a smart business. Sales figures would indicate they still know what they are doing. Do people buy other brands? Of course they do. It's not in our best interests for any company to have a monopoly share of the market. E*very time Nikon introduces a new product, I'm very happy because it means Canon must compete.*



+1

And when Nikon introduces the D400, maybe Canon will compete with an marvellous 7D2. (Die Hoffnung stirbt zuletzt....)


----------



## Krob78 (May 7, 2013)

Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM


> I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
> 1) It does not matter who you are or who you think you are, you are not even a fraction as capable as the camera you already hold in your hand..



Strange but unless my camera is being held in my hands, it's totally incapable.. it's worthless... It is at least as incapable without my hands and my eye as I am without it... Except of course I could pick up a paint brush or a pencil or a crayon and make a rendition of what I'm looking at, my camera can't do anything at all without me... Or without my HOP... It can't even wake itself up in the morning...

So indeed, it doesn't really matter who I am or who I think I am, my camera isn't even a fraction of as capable as I am unless it's in my hands and pressed closely to my Human Optical Processor ready to do my bidding at my beck and call... with the criteria I determine is needed or required... 

Sounds an awful lot like those people that say to many of us quite often, "That's a great picture, you must have a good camera" I respond yes, I do indeed, however I took good pictures before I had a good camera as well! It's useless without me behind it. It just sits there motionless waiting for me to tell it what to do... Without my constant looking and adjusting and pressing of buttons, it just sits there like a lazy dog in my bag... 

It has it all indeed, it's not however capable of doing anything other than collecting dust without me... 

All the best!


----------



## xps (May 7, 2013)

viggen61 said:


> I'll be somewhat disappointed if the 7DII isn't available in 2013, but if a 100-400 II is available in 2013, it makes the decision easier on which to buy when!
> 
> Although, I did find a use case this weekend for a second body with a shorter lens. Actually, it wasn't so much the focal length as the minimum focus distance. Had a couple of tree frogs right alongside the trail. I wanted to get closer, but couldn't!



Would be good for me too. The lens price will be a little bit lower, when I will buy the 7D2.


----------



## ewg963 (May 7, 2013)

infared said:


> ....on edge of seat...is the 14-24mm L zoom on that 2013 list??????? huh...huh...huh....


The 14-24mm L?? Now that's a piece of glass I'm salivating for!!!


----------



## 9VIII (May 8, 2013)

In a sense I'm glad that the 7D2 isn't coming out until next year. This way I'll get a good full summer of shooting with my six month old rebel. Once the 7D2 does come out it'll actually feel like an upgrade instead of just seeming like the Rebel was a mistake.


Sorry to beat the dead horse again, but there definitely are situations where equipment is absolutely necessary over talent.

If you want to get pictures of crystal structures in metal, the Nifty Fifty just won't cut it. No matter how talented you are, you'll need an electron scanning microscope. I know that's an extreme example, but it also applies to Macro in general. You cannot begin until you have the right equipment.
Telephoto is similar, some subjects just do not let you get close. Now, maybe there's a little more room for talent (sneakiness) to make up for focal length, but the principle is the same. Better lenses, better cameras, better pictures.
Wildlife and Macro are two situations where you will take every bit of detail your camera can possibly spit out. You'll wring it and squeeze it for all it's worth.
For most stuff I'm sure that what we have now is amazing, but if someone says that improving IQ makes their pictures better, if that aspect of a picture is something they enjoy, can you actually disagree with that? Basically you have to come to the point of invalidating someone's personal opinion in order to say that an improvement in equipment doesn't make better pictures.


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM
> 
> 
> > I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
> ...



+1


----------



## expatinasia (May 8, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM
> 
> 
> > I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
> ...



Well said, Krob78.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 8, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Quote from: SiliconVoid on May 06, 2013, 09:00:28 PM
> 
> 
> > I will offer two pieces of wisdom to the 'photographers' out there in the form of advice and a bit of reality:
> ...



Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.


----------



## meli (May 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
> I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.



Its one thing to know how to use a tool, its another what you do with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...



Give the cheap violin to the beginner and the output won't get worse. Give the Stradivarius to the master and the sounds will get significantly more beautiful. 

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that while skill is the most important factor, the tools _do_ matter.


----------



## Don Haines (May 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
> I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.



Birds in flight.

Yes, there is a lot of skill and practice involved. Patience is very highly needed. It may also involve sitting in a blind and the use of food to attract your subject.... but the camera/lens matters too. A faster focusing lens means a greater probability that a fast moving object is in focus. Same thing for a higher quality AF system. Higher burst rates increase the probability of capturing that special instant that changes it from a good picture to a great picture. A good camera does not guarantee a good picture in challenging conditions, but it does increase the probability.

And by the way, give a Stradivarius to a beginner and as they learn the sounds will get better and better. Perhaps they will be inspired by a great tool to go further than they would have without it. Perhaps if they were stuck with a poor tool they would give up in disgust and frustration.


----------



## noisejammer (May 8, 2013)

Of course tools matter... but there's also a level at which they stop being the limiting factor for the people who buy them...

History lesson - Olympus produced four significant SLR's between 1970 and the end of production in 2002. Sure, a couple of cosmetic upgrades appeared and new firmware was developed to expand the compatibility with newer components, but there were essentially four pro-models over 32 years. 

Now we expect a camera to be obsolete after two years? Who came up with that idea? (I'm guessing it was Canon...)

Could it be that we've been trained to expect a newer-better-gooder camera every year or so? To my mind, all this stopped with the 7D which achieved a pass mark in every box. From personal experience, it isn't perfect but it was a huge jump over my 40D. Transitioning to a 1D4 was something of a let-down.

Before complaining about another year with the same toy, it could be worthwhile considering "What do I need in a camera that the 7D doesn't offer?" If it turns out that you want 1DX performance at an APS-C price... Well sorry mate, you're SOL ... maybe you can come back in a decade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> History lesson - Olympus produced four significant SLR's between 1970 and the end of production in 2002. Sure, a couple of cosmetic upgrades appeared and new firmware was developed to expand the compatibility with newer components, but there were essentially four pro-models over 32 years.



Well, yeah - but when a brand new 'sensor' was developed by Fuji or Kodak with higher ISO or better color fidelity, you didn't need to buy a new camera, you just popped in a new roll. :


----------



## Silverman (May 8, 2013)

I used to shoot a lot wildlife with the 7D and the 500 IS and since last year also with the 600 IS II - mainly EU / Germany. I used the 1.4x almost always to get more reach. I never was really impressed especially of the high ISO performance of the 7D... 
Since I saw the first rumors about the 7D II I was looking forward to the release of this new body - and was hoping for improved performance. Meanwhile I saved to buy it directly after release but now I have to admit that I just bought a 5D III and I am delighted! 
I use it with the 1.4x on the 100-400 and with the 1.4x and 2x (with the new firmware) on the 600 IS II - all setups make me very happy  I do not miss the "more" in fps since I have a much higher keeper rate right now. 
By 2014 the price of the 5D III may have come down more - making the 7D II obsolete for myself.
Personally I am much more interested in the 100-400 II release date now...


----------



## crasher8 (May 8, 2013)

Time to start the 7D2 piggy bank fund.


----------



## Silverman (May 8, 2013)

This is a difficult question and I think it depends on the copy of the lens and the converter version. Also good lens / body AF adjustment is important.

Personally I think the "new" 500 IS II and 600 IS II are a only "little" better IQ wise (sharper / contrast) to the "old" 500 IS and 600 IS. AF performance is not so much a difference and IS is of course improved. If you are happy with the old lens I do not know if the upgrade from the old IS to the IS II makes sense...

When adding a 1.4x TK III, the new IS II lenses are superior to the older IS lenses with added 1.4 TK. Also AF works faster.
Adding a 2x TK III to the new IS II lenses and tracking subjects only is possilbe with the 5D III and 1DX. For expample I can still track birds in flight easly with the 600 IS II and TK 2x III - even with not optimal light and a good keeper rate. 
When you cannot get close enought to the subject - then I think the IS II lenses with the 2x IIIer Converters make sense. I personally find the IQ of the 600 IS II with the 2x III Converter far better than the 7D with the 500 IS and 1.4 III Converter. It is hard to believe but I actually think of selling my 7D now - but maybe hold it just for the CPS Membership 

A friend of mine uses the 500 IS with 1.4x II Converter and also switched from 7D to 5D III. Since that day his 7D is only beeing used as a backup. Now he also starts to use the 2x III Converter with the 5D III after the firmware update and is very happy.

Lets face the reality: 
7D is an outstanding camera but IQ struggles with higher ISO. 
500 IS lens is one of the best wildlife lenses available. You still get very good image quality with 1.4x and decent with 2x. 
5D III is also an outstanding camera and if you do not live from wildlife photography there is no need for "more". 
The new 500 and 600 IS II lenses are maybe the "best" available wildlife lenses available. Adding 1.4x almost shows no difference than without and adding 2x the image quality is still superb.
The 7D II is not beeing released soon and who knows which features it will provide. I personally would actually go ALWAYS with the 5D III which gives you also everything you need beside wildlife.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
> ...



I get so sick and tired of this "it's all the photographer and not any of the equipment" garbage too. There's a reason that every SI shooter on NFL sidelines have a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L II IS lens. Because it matters.

There's also a reason I can do a heck of a lot more clean 8x10 printing NOW versus IN THE PAST for indoor sports. It's because of my 1Dx and only because of my 1Dx. The prints I'm doing now I just didn't do in the past because sensor was limiting with noise/IQ loss.

Is there something in my skill and technique that I was doing wrong before I bought my new camera that prevented me from doing so? Sure, sports photography has been going on for a long time, it's just now with better equipment, it's better.


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...




Remember in the days before AF a sports shot of fast action, isolated with tiny depth of field was a rare and valuable picture. I can well remember one of a footballer heading a ball, picked out in razor sharp focus with the rest of the field a subtle blur. It was in all the papers and became an iconic shot.

Now those pictures are common place - in fact, _expected_, and that difference of course is due to the equipment.


----------



## pedro (May 8, 2013)

Well, 0.18 nm or less from a sensor tech POV and the now rumored Digic VI would make a good pair in 2014. Sounds promising to everything FF as well...


----------



## noisejammer (May 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, yeah - but when a brand new 'sensor' was developed by Fuji or Kodak with higher ISO or better color fidelity, you didn't need to buy a new camera, you just popped in a new roll. :


Haha... but seriously - is that really fair? Who has compared the image quality of a 7D with (say) 200ASA film. What about 1600ASA? What about 6400ASA? When I could afford it, I used hypered TP for astrophotography (iirc 2415). I WISH it could have looked look like a 7D at 200ISO.

Then there's this widespread belief that Sony is making better sensors. It may be true but it's then difficult to explain why most DSLR astrophotographers use Canon cameras. 

I think the real issue is that Sony & Nikon have decent in-camera noise reduction. If you think about it, Canon cameras produce obvious pattern noise. There's a pattern present which means the noise is not entirely random. Getting rid of pattern noise is easy - measure it during manufacture, correct for sensor temperature, subtract it from the image and you're done.

My take is then that Canon needs get it's sensor production sorted out, not it's sensor technology.


----------



## 9VIII (May 8, 2013)

Hmm... All this talk of film equating to camera sensors makes me wish we had exchangeable camera backs (in which case you could get away with using the same body for long periods of time again).

Regardless of whether that ever happens, we're in a technology bubble right now. Things are advancing at an incredible pace at the moment but it can't last forever. There will come a day when you will buy a camera expecting it to be top of the line for a long time.
Someday your camera (and maybe even computer) will have the same pricing structure as standard kitchen appliances. Bigger vs. smaller, more features vs. less, better build vs. cheaper materials. All performing the same within their class, year after year.

In the meantime, I have full confidence that ten years from now the 1DX will be worth a tenth of it's current retail value.


----------



## Sporgon (May 8, 2013)

^
I wouldn't be so confident with that last paragraph. Eight years on, here in the UK, the 1Ds mkii is still selling for 20% of it's original headline RRP, and about 30% of what it quickly gravitated to after the initial launch. 

As you suggest, if technological advancements do slow, a ten year old 1Dx may be worth an even higher percentage of it's original purchase cost.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 8, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Once again, and I mean ONCE AGAIN, you completely missed the point. Who cares if it's Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, who cares? You missed the bus.


----------



## CanNotYet (May 8, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> The sport world is bigger than the U.S. and american football, its called soccer


Ahem. Nowhere else than in the U.S. it is called soccer. The name of the game is "football". Pretty logical, as you play it with your feet...


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Totally agree, bdunbar. The problem is, people assume mutual exclusivity in those statements.

Its a simple logical fact:

_"Give a skilled artisan a better tool, and they will produce better art."_

That is *NOT *_mutually exclusive_ with:

_"Give a skilled artisan any tool, and they will produce good art."_

BOTH of the above statements are true. Stating the second does not invalidate the first, nor does stating the first invalidate the second. They are non-exclusive, potentially simultaneous states that can exist concurrently. 

Another way to put it:

_"Give an unskilled artisan a better tool, and they will not produce art as good as a skilled artisan with the same tool. A better tool in the hands of a better artist will always result in better art over any other combination."_

A skilled artist can create _good_ art with any tool. Simple fact of the matter is, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will allow that skilled photographer to make _*better*_ art! The tool matters just as much as the photographer, and vice versa. There would be no photography without BOTH.


----------



## jrista (May 8, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I believe that is his (ankorwatt's/mikael's) permanent state: "Missing the point." Best not to try and convince him, your effectively trying to defy the universal laws of physics in the attempt.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 9, 2013)

jrista,

There is definitely a lot of truth in what you say.


----------



## dlleno (May 9, 2013)

The extra testosterone found in rugby players gives them 2 extra stops of dynamic range compared to American football players who, by virtue of greater protection, display more noise and banding. This of course can only be detected from the sidelines with nikon equipment


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



What's the difference between American football players running around looking confused with helmets on, and you sitting at your computer confused with a helmet on?


----------



## Don Haines (May 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Here in Canada, we also call it Soccer.... so it's not just the U.S. that has the name wrong.... and I dare you to go tell the members of my NEICE'S rugby team that the game is for real men....

And the sport world is much larger than contact sports. Might I suggest you take up canoeing? A quiet lake, waterfowl and magnificent scenery..... sunsets and sunrises, an osprey or an eagle picking a fish off of the surface of the water, moose browsing in a marsh.... If there was ever a sport ideal for photographers, canoeing has to be it.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Man, do you EVER just STOP? Seriously..."RUGBY...are for real men"?!?!?

I honestly can't think of a more pitiful, pointless, and useless statement (especially on these forums!) Men who think along those lines are the type of men who have to prove they are men, as a result of being insecure about it in one way or another, rather than simply being comfortable with the fact that they ARE men. Football, Rugby, Soccer...doesn't matter what the game is...all just a bunch of insecure, testosterone-driven men without any willpower trying to prove to the world through macho, brain-damaging insanity that they aren't the pathetic, insecure men they really, actually are. (Well, either that, or a combination of raging insecurity and an unsatiable greed for fame and money...either way...same ultimate outcome.) 

Pathetic...honestly...new low even for you... Sometimes you just need to admit defeat man, and move on.


----------



## yogi (May 9, 2013)

I didnt mean to put sports down. Mainly anchorwhat? But i could say a few things about how the state of sports has become. Didnt a teenager recently kill an umpire with a single punch? Adults need to act like adults, whether they are coaches, umpires, parents of athletes or spectators, and set an example for younger people.Of course this could be said about adults in general, not just sports. Should have said people of the USA, not Americans. America, after all,encompasses North,South, & Central America. And Jrista, I believe the macho attitude is common in many men, not just in the sports world, though maybe more obvious in athletes & fans, and like you, believe it can sometimes be a sign of immaturity. Didnt mean to rant, or did I? I blame Awott for instigating this rant and detracting from the subject of photography. But it is all fun to me,not to be taken too seriously


----------



## yogi (May 9, 2013)

And furthermore! Very funny Don Haines, bdunbar79,dlleno,jrista,CanNotYet. I love the humor & comments on this forum. Cant stay away


----------



## bereninga (May 9, 2013)

Dammit, I came to this thread to read what people thought about this rumor and all I see is arguing about soccer and football and manliness. I must've forgot that I'm on the CR forums, where threads always go off-topic for a few pages.

I guess 7D owners can be happy about this rumor of no 7DII this year.


----------



## dlleno (May 9, 2013)

bereninga said:


> Dammit, I came to this thread to read what people thought about this rumor and all I see is arguing about soccer and football and manliness. I must've forgot that I'm on the CR forums, where threads always go off-topic for a few pages.
> 
> I guess 7D owners can be happy about this rumor of no 7DII this year.



There is a common denominator among threads here that run amok...


----------



## yogi (May 9, 2013)

You left out rugby!bereninga 


dlleno said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > Dammit, I came to this thread to read what people thought about this rumor and all I see is arguing about soccer and football and manliness. I must've forgot that I'm on the CR forums, where threads always go off-topic for a few pages.
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > CanNotYet said:
> ...



And believe it or not it wasn't the U.S. that came up with the term it was.... Britain! They came up with the term "soccer" and now spend every waking minute blaming it on the U.S. :'(.


----------



## Sporgon (May 9, 2013)

^ ^

As we do with everything else !


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Give a cheap violin to a violin master and they will still make beautiful sounds with it. Give a Stradivarious to a begginer and the reverse will happen. It's not the camera but the photographer's skill and talent...
> I see so many invested photographers these days with all the pro kit and not a clue how to use it.



No it's:

Give a cheap violin to a Anne Sophie Mutter and she will still sound good.... but definitely not as fabulous and something will be missing a bit for sure.

If you were to steal a top violin player's instrument they would probably literally cry and then go all Taken on you: "I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my Strad go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will...."

And there is a reason they would be like that.

Give a Strad or Guarn to a beginner and he might still not be terribly good but unless he is really, really poor or like in the first few weeks his tone may be a little better and if he is a skilled beginner he will sound noticeably better although he's not going to be able to sudden do anything a master can. I've personally tried crummy and excellent and I definitely sounded better with the top instrument, that said of course I didn't transform into Perlman.

For cameras give a sports pro a rebel and 70-300 IS and his take will instantly go considerable down.
Give a beginner a 1DX+ 300 2.8 and his take will instantly go up a good deal.
But the pro will still have the better overall take (unless he is a really crummy one and the beginner has mad talent).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> ^ ^
> 
> As we do with everything else !



haha


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 9, 2013)

A photojournalist is looking for a visual narrative in every photo. That takes time, thought, observation, timing, skill and a bit of luck. 
Landscapers are looking for the best light, this takes time, thought, observation, timing...and getting one's ass out of bed at inhumane times of the day / night. 
Wildlife photographers are looking for perfect specimines doing interesting things with clear backgrounds. This takes time, thought, observation, timing and patience. 
Sports....do I have to go on? 
Natutrally there's a host of piccy grabbers who just pray and spray, picking out the successfull chance shots in post production....but that's not skill. Yes 12fps is helpful, but a lot of sports photographers I know still use 5 fps becuase they are good and judging the timing and don't want to fill their cards with time consuming throw aways. 

My last wedding, I shot 1127 photographs. An all day shoot of 14 hours. Final edit...down to 537 photos. That's slightly under 50% keepers. A collegue of mine who is a pro football photographer has simular hit rates. A pro landscaper friend of mine has a keeper rate of well over 75%. This pray and spray behaviour supports my previous statement.


----------



## Don Haines (May 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A photojournalist is looking for a visual narrative in every photo. That takes time, thought, observation, timing, skill and a bit of luck.
> Landscapers are looking for the best light, this takes time, thought, observation, timing...and getting one's ass out of bed at inhumane times of the day / night.
> Wildlife photographers are looking for perfect specimines doing interesting things with clear backgrounds. This takes time, thought, observation, timing and patience.
> Sports....do I have to go on?
> ...


I'm still learning and my keeper rate is much lower than that. I wouldn't show even 5 percent of my shots. My reaction time is not fast enough to pick up the ideal wing position of small birds in flight so I have to rely on the camera burst mode. I like the idea of 10 (or more) fps in burst mode and lots of other bird photographers trying to keep up with those damn hummingbird wings seem to rely on the evil "spray and pray". Please tell me, how do I improve my reaction time by a factor of ten or more?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A photojournalist is looking for a visual narrative in every photo. That takes time, thought, observation, timing, skill and a bit of luck.
> Landscapers are looking for the best light, this takes time, thought, observation, timing...and getting one's ass out of bed at inhumane times of the day / night.
> Wildlife photographers are looking for perfect specimines doing interesting things with clear backgrounds. This takes time, thought, observation, timing and patience.
> Sports....do I have to go on?
> ...



You're right. However, gear still matters.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > A photojournalist is looking for a visual narrative in every photo. That takes time, thought, observation, timing, skill and a bit of luck.
> ...



Not really.

http://petapixel.com/2012/08/07/large-format-sports-photographer-seen-at-olympic-gymnastics/


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > A photojournalist is looking for a visual narrative in every photo. That takes time, thought, observation, timing, skill and a bit of luck.
> ...


I shot this with my 7D at 8 fps. My girlfriend shot the same image with her Rebel XSi at around 3.5 fps. I did shoot it in a small burst, as did she.

Her images did not have this capture. She had one with the ball about 10' away from the glove and one with the player coming back down with the glove closed and facing away and the ball almost hitting the grass, yes he missed it... 8 fps made the difference. For some reason his parents liked this image better...

That being said, I'd have even more difficulty believing that someone can sit there and just take one shot and get this image. Can it happen, certainly. Will it happen for you? Unlikely... Most sports photographers and wildlife shooters are certainly using burst modes. It's not only that I want a bird in flight with his wings in the down position, I want them in the spread eagle position, the up position or perhaps that last second "all stop" mode when the bird sees a fish in the water at 100' up in the air and gets into that crazy, almost still mode as he looks down at his quarry. 

Unless you can see what the bird sees or read his mind, you don't get that shot often times on purpose, unless you're just following the subject waiting for that move... and then you miss lots of other great images just waiting for that one. 

I think it's ridiculous to think anyone shooting sports or wildlife photography should put their camera in single shot mode. That's what the technology is there for, use it... why wouldn't you? To suggest that it makes you any less of a photographer or that it's somehow evil or wrong is just plain ignorant. Unless of course you just can't get those shots with a nice burst rate any better than you can with one shot at a time... Then I guess you can say anything about it you want, pushes the attention away from one's self and to one's crappy gear... 

Reminds me of the statement that someone put in one of these forums that we are not a fraction as capable as our cameras. How ridiculous. My camera can't snap one photo without me... It's totally incapable without me telling it what to do.. or turning it on... otherwise it just sits wherever I leave it, doing nothing... 12 fps would be great!


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


+1


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



What a naive thought. You don't think David uses his 4x5 to achieve a very specific look? His gear 100% matters. That he is going for a different image than the others in the press pit with their specific equipment needs seems to have passed you by.

A P&S wouldn't work for him either


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 9, 2013)

On to your second invalid point, who cares HOW I got the shot? Secondly, today I am getting far more shots than I did with previous models. I'm printing way more 8x10's and printing way cleaner files. Why is this so hard to understand?

I have not met a client who cares HOW I got the shot. They care that I got the shot. Do I spray and pray sometimes? Heck yes I do, because I get more great shots and sell more photos and make more money. I haven't heard a client go "well your shot is better but you used the spray and pray method and your competitor used 5 fps and used care and patience so we're buying his shot even though it's not quite as good." I agree with you that you should be skilled in composition and timing, however.

Being a smart photographer is also one who uses equipment that he/she knows how to use to help him/her get the highest quality shots that they can and even the MOST shots that they can. I bought a 1Dx because I knew it would give me cleaner files and a lot more of them. Yes I agree I need to know how to use the gear, and have the skill to use the gear, but all else equal (composition, creativity, etc.) it is nothing but the gear that is increasing my quality at this point. Maybe that will change, but that is the only thing in the last year.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

I love being devil's advocate. ;D

The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience. That's how I feel about equipment. 

@PBD, If all I had was my P&S, Your darn right I'm going to use it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I love being devil's advocate. ;D
> 
> The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience. That's how I feel about equipment.



Fine, but a proper devil's advocate should present a cogent argument...otherwise, you're merely being contrary and argumentative.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I love being devil's advocate. ;D
> ...



Nailed it once again.............


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I love being devil's advocate. ;D
> ...



Sure, Let's imagine that at said Olympics, your allowed to be anywhere at anytime but the catch is that your only had a 50mm and a 5Dc. Nothing more or less...

Who would get the better shots? The photographer standing in the convienent photo pit with $$$$$ in gear or the photog allowed anywhere at anytime? I'd put my money on the latter.


----------



## dlleno (May 9, 2013)

hard to believe the implications here that becuse someone sprays they are also "just praying", as if a high fps was a crutch that real togs dont' need.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

dlleno said:


> hard to believe the implications here that becuse someone sprays they are also "just praying", as if a high fps was a crutch that real togs dont' need.


+1 Agreed!


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> On to your second invalid point, who cares HOW I got the shot? Secondly, today I am getting far more shots than I did with previous models. I'm printing way more 8x10's and printing way cleaner files. Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> I have not met a client who cares HOW I got the shot. They care that I got the shot. Do I spray and pray sometimes? Heck yes I do, because I get more great shots and sell more photos and make more money. I haven't heard a client go "well your shot is better but you used the spray and pray method and your competitor used 5 fps and used care and patience so we're buying his shot even though it's not quite as good." I agree with you that you should be skilled in composition and timing, however.
> 
> Being a smart photographer is also one who uses equipment that he/she knows how to use to help him/her get the highest quality shots that they can and even the MOST shots that they can. I bought a 1Dx because I knew it would give me cleaner files and a lot more of them. Yes I agree I need to know how to use the gear, and have the skill to use the gear, but all else equal (composition, creativity, etc.) it is nothing but the gear that is increasing my quality at this point. Maybe that will change, but that is the only thing in the last year.


Indeed...


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


Could very well depend on their skill level...


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm assuming that photog's allowed into the olympics have good skill sets.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


One would assume, however the one wasn't allowed anywhere at anytime... for who knows why. I agree with you though!


----------



## Don Haines (May 9, 2013)

When one follows the logic through to it's obvious conclusion, the answer is clear.

Real photographers do not use "spray and pray" because it's a cheat... you should be able to use skill instead.

Real photographers should also turn off the AF, because it's also a cheat.

Real photographers should turn of IS, it's also a cheat.

Real photographers don't look at the exposure display.... because with skill they don't need it.

Real photographers should NEVER shoot in RAW, because if they were any good the out-of-camera JPG would be perfect every time.

Real photographers do not bracket, their first shot is always perfect.

Real photographers have phenomenally high keeper rates, because every shot is perfect.

Get the point? Real photographers ignore all the tools available to them..... makes me glad I'm a hack who doesn't know enough to turn everything off.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> When one follows the logic through to it's obvious conclusion, the answer is clear.
> 
> Real photographers do not use "spray and pray" because it's a cheat... you should be able to use skill instead.
> 
> ...



LOL +1


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.



Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.
> ...


What about an insinuation that drools with repetition? Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?

That being said, I think gear matters. If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever. The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters. In my instance anyway!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Touché. 

Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one). Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5? Because...gear matters.


----------



## Don Haines (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> That being said, I think gear matters. If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever. The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters. In my instance anyway!



And to try to get back on subject, I shoot with a 60D. I am thinking VERY hard about upgrading to a 7D2 when it comes out. The 7D is better, but not enough so as to tempt me to buy one. For me, the two big things that would (hopefully) help me are better AF system and higher burst rate, but there are a lot of little things I would not turn my nose up at. I'd like to have it NOW!!!!, but that's just not going to happen. Realistically, I had expected to see it in stores by Christmas.... so a few month's more won't hurt. After all, if you are into wildlife photography, patience may well be the most important skill of all.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It would be more *convenient* to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more *convenient.*

Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just be more In-convenient to do so.

Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, I think gear matters. If not, I'd be shooting with my Xsi or my 7D as much as ever. The fact is however I don't, the XSi is long sold and my 7D sits in solitude not seeing much action these days as the acquisition of my 5D Mk III has moved into a place of more relevance, not as a matter of convenience, as a matter of the gear made a notable difference, hence, the gear matters. In my instance anyway!
> ...



I think the 7D2 will certainly have an upgraded AF system, which will be great! Burst rate on the 7D is great but I'm with you, if it was a bit more that would be great, if not, I'm okay with 8fps. I like so many others would love to see a dramatic difference in the high ISO area though...


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...


Agreed, it is a matter of convenience and we can all say, "give me a camera and I'll get something out of it". The difference is that getting something out of it and getting something great out of it may be two different things, no? So I agree that gear is a matter of convenience, yet I also would be inclined to say "gear matters" for a myriad of other reasons as well, such as quality of your images, which isn't so much of a convenience as it is a benefit... 

So for me, "gear matters" and it is a "matter" of convenience as well...  You are both correct!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ah ha! Let's say we have a brownie box cam, virtually no controls, with enough fore-thought could you take the presidential portrait with it? I would bet yes, and would wager that it would even be pretty cool.

I started with pretty lousy equipment but when I look back, Some of my favorite shots are with that lousy equipment. Was it frustrating at times? Yes, but I made the photos I needed. Did I have to go out of my way more so than now? Absolutely.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


Indeed, yet it doesn't negate the fact that gear matters... Cave drawings are quite artistic as well, yet the same drawing may look better when rendered with colored pencil than chisels... Although it certainly wouldn't survive the ages!


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Krob78 said:
> ...



Sorry, but its more than just convenient. At f/2, your maximum blur circle size is much larger than at f/3.5. That allows you to get a thinner depth of field and creamier out of focus background. You can, quite literally, do things with a 135 f/2 that you cannot do with a 135 f/3.5. 

It is only "more convenient" from the standpoint of allowing more light in...but then again, it is still not "just" convenient. With an f/2 lens, you GET MORE LIGHT...which means your SNR is higher, which means you have less noise. And no, increasing ISO is not the same...there is a reason why exposure value (EV) is officially adjusted only by aperture or shutter speed, and not ISO. By increasing ISO, you are COMPENSATING for LESS LIGHT (lower EV), not getting a higher EV. 

A lens with a wider aperture may be convenient, but it is not JUST convenient...it is more than convenient...it is BETTER. It offers the user more flexibility, more creative freedom, MORE.

The argument is not about "getting *something* out of a camera". Your missing the point. Anyone can get "something" out of "any" camera. A more skilled photographer can get something "better" out of "any" camera. The point that is being made is that with better tools comes more flexibility, greater capability, and improved quality. Put a better camera in the hands of the most skilled photographer on earth...and they will STILL make better photos than if they had a worse camera. 

You can't just dismiss the value of a good tool, a better tool, a proper tool. _*You, my friend, are effectively saying that the only tool a person needs is a hammer!*_ WRONG!! You know how fundamentally invalid that argument is (or at least...I hope you do!!!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

If better gear makes photography more convenient, then gear matters. To say gear doesn't matter, it's a convenience, is an oxymoron. Unless convenience doesn't matter...in that case, why aren't you using emulsion-coated glass and a plate of flash powder?

But you can call it convenient if you want. Your posting history clearly indicates that gear matters _to you_.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

Jrista, I do appreciate that you 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.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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. )


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

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


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Hah! Damn you...


----------



## dlleno (May 9, 2013)

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 (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Jrista, I do appreciate that you f time in your posts with alot of technical stuff.
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Hire some help, a bit inconvenient to do so though.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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:



jrista said:


> 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 (May 9, 2013)

"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 (May 9, 2013)

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 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> "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 (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > "I am uninterested in the notion that a good photographer can make good photos with any gear. That's NOT THE POINT!!"
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ...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 (May 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Nah, I'm pretty good but I don't get paid enough to camo myself and wade 10ft waters. ;D


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


Wading up close to a Western Grebe?? Ya, that's not going to happen... no matter how inconvenient... :


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

That's an opinion Jrista, and I believe that getting closer to your subject always make a stronger photo. Is it more inconvenient? Sure. Impossible? I doubt it. Extremely Difficult? Sure. Why drop by a volcano when you can just shoot it from the air?

Unique Perspectives is what separates the good from the greats. Lets say You did get that shot with the A1400, and It's never been done before. Let's say shot is average, Every wildlife photographer and magazine will ask how on earth you got it? See where I'm going with this? 

If you got that one unique photo, No-one would think twice about which photo is better.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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


+1 Ha! Good one!


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



LOL...I got a chuckle out of that one for sure.  

Just to prove I'm not spouting smoke and mirrors out of my rear end, as I photograph birds almost every day. Here is a "Western Grebe with a Fish" shot...at least 60+ feet off shore (maybe this one was about 90-100 feet, actually), taken with a 400mm lens and the 7D:





If I had a 5D III, 600mm lens (and probably a 2x TC, given how far off shore this grebe was)...I could have gotten a FAR better shot...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective, sharper detail, and better exposure (and thus lower ISO, less noise) than would ever be possible with the 7D and 100-400mm lens. I can't wait to get better photographic tools in my hands...I'm a fairly skilled photographer, but there is no alternative to having the best money can buy in combination with that skill.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


I thought you'd like that Jon! So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'! Nice image! ;D


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> That's an opinion Jrista, and I believe that getting closer to your subject always make a stronger photo. Is it more inconvenient? Sure. Impossible? I doubt it. Extremely Difficult? Sure. Why drop by a volcano when you can just shoot it from the air?
> 
> Unique Perspectives is what separates the good from the greats. Lets say You did get that shot with the A1400, and It's never been done before. Let's say shot is average, Every wildlife photographer and magazine will ask how on earth you got it? See where I'm going with this?
> 
> If you got that one unique photo, No-one would think twice about which photo is better.



Magazines don't really go for _unique _as the _primary _factor in the photos they select for print. I read a lot of magazines with wildlife and bird photography in them. A magazine editor is interested the artistic quality and aesthetic appeal first, and probably photographer reputation second. I can show you a hundred photos of Grebes, Loons, Herons, Owls, you name it. They all look fairly similar...in one way or another. Some have a unique ASPECT or two to them, but none of them are totally and entirely unique in any particular way. 

The point about them is the quality and aesthetic of the shot. Does it just make you go "WOW!!" the moment you see it? Does it draw you in? Are the technical aspects correct...is the bird lit well? Is it isolated? Is your perspective appealing? Are the surroundings "clean", rather than cluttered? Is the photo engaging...is the bird looking out of the frame (unappealing), or right at the viewer (VERY appealing)? Is the birds body angled properly to the frame? Is the bird doing something interesting? What kind of emotion is there in the scene? These factors aren't unique...but they are critically important.

Those are the kinds of questions a magazine editor is going to ask you, or use if they are evaluating your photo for inclusion in an issue. They could care less about whether its totally, never-done-before unique. They care about each and every quality aspect of the photo, technical and artistic. And there ARE specific expectations for many of those aspects...perspective, depth of field, sharpness, bird pose (body and head angle), viewer engagement. They aren't arbitrary.

Trust me...some half-assed, wobbly photo taken by someone treading water with an A1400 while trying to photograph a fleeing Grebe wouldn't ever make the cut unless the magazine was all about that kind of thing... '"Unique" shots, damn the quality, give us the craziest thing you've ever done!'

You should really quit while your ahead. No, people won't think twice about which photo is better...no one will even look at the one taken with the point and shoot. Trust me...I've had enough critiques of my work in the last couple of years (of my own choice, I asked for them! ) to know, from first hand experience, what makes a good bird photo, and what people won't even give a second glance.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2013)

> ...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! 




> 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.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > ...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like your spanner! And I agree! As I mentioned earlier, both sides win! It is more convenient and gear matters! Good for us!


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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.



Well, your going to have to prove that one. You need to go get that shot, then prove to me that the only thing that matters to a magazine editor is the simple fact that it's unique. Words aren't enough anymore. Your going so hard against the grain here, so far beyond the point where you could have cleanly exited this debate without all the bumps and bruises, that you now need hard, irrefutable PROOF, _actual physical evidence_ (i.e. your A1400 photo reproduced in a prestigious magazine...oh, say, *"Living Bird" of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology*). 

You can say whatever you want. Doesn't make it true. I don't think you quite understand what it is your debating...and are just debating for the sake of taking the contrarian position? I mean, I can't think of any reason your still continuing. You lost the debate a long time ago.

I'm not saying the photographer is not a critical factor in getting a good photo. On the contrary, that has been core to my point ever since the debate started. You are still, _conveniently_, _ignoring _my point. That even when the photographer is as skilled as humanly possible, if you put a better tool in their hands, they will have the capacity to make better photos. The PHOTOGRAPHER is still CRITICAL to that equation...and a skilled photographer, the human mind aspect here, would KNOW about all of the factors I listed in my previous answer. That skilled PHOTOGRAPHER would KNOW that an aesthetically appealing perspective and clean low-noise output isn't going to happen with a wider angle lens, while treading water, with a microscopic sensor, from a few feet away!

No one is going to care that YOU, the great and powerful "photographer", risked your camera, intruded upon the territory of a bird (in rather rude and unethical fashion), and got yourself soaked...in order to get a photo of a Grebe that was "unique". That doesn't matter. No one cares. You aren't going to be getting any props, and in a circle if other bird and wildlife photographers, or even in any group of naturalists, they would probably be quite miffed at your lack of respect for the bird and it's environment. You'd probably get stoned to death for encroaching upon the bird's bubble of comfort and making it fly away in the first place!

Again...you should really quit while your...well, there is no "ahead" anymore, RL. You don't know what your talking about anymore, and I think that is paramount to anyone still reading this thread. Quite before you dig the hole so deep you can't see the rim. It's the less embarrassing, and still honorable, thing to do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I wouldn't since he'd drown in the pool, bump into a gymnast and cause an international controversy, trip a sprinter and get tossed out, block a soccer pass and get pummeled by fans, etc. in each case the photog returns not only not with the best shots but with zero shots.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> When one follows the logic through to it's obvious conclusion, the answer is clear.
> 
> Real photographers do not use "spray and pray" because it's a cheat... you should be able to use skill instead.
> 
> ...



And a 6 stop DR range sensor is good, because if the scene doesn't fit into 6 stops then the lighting is bad. So don't even bother asking for more DR you nitwits hah.


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > ...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.



privatebydesign said:


> > So now let's see the one taken with a Canon PowerShot A1400 at 90'-100'! Nice image!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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!


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get back to the fundamental principle here.
> ...





> bird and wildlife photographers, or even in any group of naturalists, they would probably be quite miffed at your lack of respect for the bird and it's environment


 Well, there is that! Funny I was just thinking that right before you posted it! It is a relevant point, if not pivotal with regard to the bird side of the argument... Sigh...


----------



## jrista (May 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> block a soccer pass and get pummeled by fans,



+1 Oy! Such a scary statement, because its so true!  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/12/fenerbahce-soccer-fans-riot-league-championship_n_1512067.html


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



assuming you are 20' tall AND it is not forbidden to enter the water and the grebe is blind and deaf and the other shooter is 6' tall, so yeah, fair enough


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Ask not, what you can do for your camera. Ask, what can your camera do for you?  I think some president said that!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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???


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> 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..


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > > ...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective
> ...



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


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

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.


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get back to the fundamental principle here.
> ...


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 (May 9, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Krob78 said:
> 
> 
> > Ask not, what you can do for your camera. Ask, what can your camera do for you?  I think some president said that!
> ...



A 1DX IN EVERY POT!!!!!!!!


----------



## Krob78 (May 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear Ramon, I have no problem with your work, Regardless of your gear, I like it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > > ...from the exact same spot on shore. No question in my mind that I could have gotten a better perspective
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

dlleno said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...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.
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (May 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2013)

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 (May 10, 2013)

jrista said:


> 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 (May 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I agree.
> ...



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 (May 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 10, 2013)

> 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 (May 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> 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 (May 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 10, 2013)

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



You have!


----------



## jrista (May 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > ...maybe its time to find some new friends! )
> 
> 
> 
> You have!



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


----------



## CanNotYet (May 10, 2013)

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 (May 10, 2013)

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 (May 10, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> 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 (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


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



Your opinion. My opinion of you would hold you in a much lower light but I'd rather not type that.


----------



## 9VIII (May 10, 2013)

If going to extreme measures to put yourself in the best place to get the composition you want is a photographic skill, then isn't choosing the gear most likely to get you the cleanest image and best composition also a photographic skill?

I think there's some overlap here.


----------



## dlleno (May 10, 2013)

This argument is now a pointless exercise. To me, RL you must care something about gear or you wouldn't be on a gear rumor site talking about gear and displaying your own gear list in your sig just -- only to argue that gear is not important. A minimalist approach to photography is one thing, and you make a good case for it, but imho you've taken this to the absurd level where its just not even entertaining anymore.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

dlleno said:


> This argument is now a pointless exercise. To me, RL you must care something about gear or you wouldn't be on a gear rumor site talking about gear and displaying your own gear list in your sig just -- only to argue that gear is not important. A minimalist approach to photography is one thing, and you make a good case for it, but imho you've taken this to the absurd level where its just not even entertaining anymore.



Gear doesn't matter, it just a matter of convenience. I stand by that statement, but many other's don't. I'm not offended if you agree or don't agree, but it's what I work by.


----------



## dlleno (May 10, 2013)

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?


----------



## Don Haines (May 10, 2013)

dlleno said:


> 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


----------



## CanNotYet (May 10, 2013)

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


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


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



Everyone's different.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 10, 2013)

I guess I just don't understand what you mean by the phrase "doesn't matter." In what way? Do you even know what you mean?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I guess I just don't understand what you mean by the phrase "doesn't matter." In what way? Do you even know what you mean?



Sure. The photos is what matters.


----------



## dlleno (May 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2013)

dlleno said:


> 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?



Apparently, any photo can be taken by any camera at all, a pinhole camera is a good as a 1D X. So, who cares about a 7DII or high MP body - it's just gear...so it doesn't matter. :


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



Right on. I've seen superb pin-hole photos and lousy 1Dx frames.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



And obviously, any photo taken with one could be taken with the other, right? Because gear doesn't matter.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm sure if you put your mind to it, you can accomplish anything.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



Again, assuming only sensor tech matters. The 1D X and 5D III are phenomenal cameras for the market niches they are intended to fill. They have EXCELLENT IQ, even without two extra stops of DR, but sensor isn't necessarily the most important technology factor. There are gobs of other technological improvements in those cameras as well, not to mention they are all full frame.

So, the 7D II comes along with new sensor tech...its APS-C! It isn't going to be encroaching on 1D X nor 5D III territory any time soon...its a different class of tool for a different market...even IF it has better DR, same 61pt AF system, 10fps frame rate, deep frame buffer, rugged body build, dual CF cards, and comes strait out the gate with all the other improvements added to the 1D X and 5D III with firmware updates: f/8 AF, blinking red AF points in darker conditions, etc. 

The big MP camera is, once again, a different beast. I fully expect it to be KILLER on the IQ front, including at least two more stops of DR. If it isn't, it's a dud on arrival, as there is no question the market will compare it to the D800 and Sony Exmor. It'll be a BIG MP camera, though...so it won't be taking on either the 1D X nor 5D III. It'll have a low frame rate. It'll probably top out at ISO 26500, although I wouldn't be surprised if it topped out at ISO 12800 (with great quality). I suspect it won't have a deep frame buffer. As a likely studio camera, it could very well come with an integrated grip, and be 1-series, although I wouldn't really be surprised if its a new 3-series camera. It will serve an entirely different market than the 1D X and 5D III, most likely at a price point somewhere between the two.

So, the 1D X and 5D III have their place, for at least another three years. I see no reason for anyone to be worried about their purchase, or even planned purchases, unless they are a bird & wildlife photographer, landscape photographer, or studio photographer (in which case, waiting for the 7D II or Big MP only seems logical.)


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2013)

dlleno said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



[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)


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> Again, assuming only sensor tech matters. The 1D X and 5D III are phenomenal cameras for the market niches they are intended to fill. They have EXCELLENT IQ, even without two extra stops of DR, but sensor isn't necessarily the most important technology factor. There are gobs of other technological improvements in those cameras as well, not to mention they are all full frame.
> 
> So, the 7D II comes along with new sensor tech...its APS-C! It isn't going to be encroaching on 1D X nor 5D III territory any time soon...its a different class of tool for a different market...even IF it has better DR, same 61pt AF system, 10fps frame rate, deep frame buffer, rugged body build, dual CF cards, and comes strait out the gate with all the other improvements added to the 1D X and 5D III with firmware updates: f/8 AF, blinking red AF points in darker conditions, etc.
> 
> ...



Agreed... If sensor were all that mattered Canon and Nikon would each have 1 FF camera and probably 0 crop cameras. Oly and Panasonic would each sell 1 micro-4/3 camera. It's all the other features that really sets the cameras in the lineup apart.

To my way of thinking, AF is the most important aspect of a DSLR. It does not matter how many mega pixels and stops of dynamic range an out of focus image has.... I really hope a new 7D2 has a kick-ass focus system....


----------



## Rocguy (May 11, 2013)

Why don't the gear doesn't matter people trade in all their gear and only use a Rebel with the 18-55 kit lens?


----------



## Don Haines (May 11, 2013)

Rocguy said:


> Why don't the gear doesn't matter people trade in all their gear and only use a Rebel with the 18-55 kit lens?



or an iPhone.... Apple claims that more pictures are taken each day with an iPhone than any other camera..... they could be "gear doesn't matter" and "cool new-age trendy hip" at the same time.... and they could post on the forum while out taking pictures..... that would be great gear to have.... oh wait, "it doesn't matter"....

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.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> 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. 



Don Haines said:


> 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 (May 11, 2013)

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 (May 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> 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 (May 11, 2013)

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 (May 11, 2013)

anthony11 said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Disappointed but not 100% surprised
> ...



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 (May 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> anthony11 said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


The guy's a troll


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2013)

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 (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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 (May 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> dlleno said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...





> 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 (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> CanNotYet said:
> 
> 
> > But convenience matters...and so gear matters. Or do you dispute that convenience matters?
> ...


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 (May 11, 2013)

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 (May 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 11, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



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 (May 11, 2013)

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 (May 11, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> 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 (May 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The CR regulars seem to be in a belligerent mood on this thread.
> ...



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


----------



## sanj (May 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 12, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (May 12, 2013)

Krob78 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dlleno said:
> ...



agree with your $.02


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 12, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The CR regulars seem to be in a belligerent mood on this thread.
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

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 (May 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> 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 (May 13, 2013)

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.



sfunglee said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2013)

9VIII said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Some logic?
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

sanj said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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 (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 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 (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


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 (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

insanitybeard said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > A great photo is a great photo. It's irrelevant what equipment was used.
> ...



+1000 Equipment only enables. The photographer creates.


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



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 (May 13, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


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 (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



hahahaha. Well said!


----------



## sanj (May 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It is obvious that RLP has never tried bird photography and so is talking so ignorantly... Sad...


----------



## Sporgon (May 13, 2013)

All is not in vain 

If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance. ;D

Trouble is I don't intend to swim one handed whilst holding the camera up above the water, and I can't afford a 600mm lens 

What to do ?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> All is not in vain
> 
> If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance. ;D
> 
> ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOD1imznwRY


----------



## dlleno (May 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> All is not in vain
> 
> If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance. ;D
> 
> ...



you just have to be patient. its only a matter of convenience, you see, so if you are willing to wait out the odds, until you are able to swim one-handed whilts holding the camera, and coaxing the birds to stay put, you will get the photo and it will be great. If you wait long enough, the odds tell you that it will happen!


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2013)

sanj said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



It's not just this, though. Same kind of debate ensued regarding a comment I made about the closing gap between FF and MF. Similar, anecdotal, non-factual comments there as well, and generally debating a point I never made. Not sure why he persists in his flawed arguments...but I've grown tired of trying.


----------



## jrista (May 13, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > All is not in vain
> ...



That'll work!


----------



## Sporgon (May 13, 2013)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...




;D

And I never even got my feet wet ! Like it


----------



## CanNotYet (May 13, 2013)

Sporgon. One word: SX50


----------



## Don Haines (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



This is a rare opportunity to prove that Neuro is wrong....

Let us examine the red squirrel, which will run away if you get too close. Since equipment has nothing to do with how great your shot is, I chose a GoPro and a 60D with a 400mm lens. My goal is to take a picture of a red squirrel for my community newspaper... Both pictures were taken a few minutes ago from the same location.

Picture 1 is the GoPro, Picture 2 is the crop of the squirrel on the GoPro, Picture 3 is the 60D, Picture 4 is the crop of the 60D. I think we can all agree that there is no difference in quality between the GoPro squirrel crop and the 60D squirrel crop, and I think we can all agree that even if I had a 1DX and a 600F4 lens that the image would still be comparable to the GoPro. Sorry Neuro, there is no noticeable difference between images from the two cameras...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2013)

Nice try, Don...but I'm sure if you just put your mind to it and used your imagination, you could have gotten a great close up shot of the red squirrel with the GoPro or an A1400 or a pinhole camera. I'm not going to go into all the reasons that's true or ways you could have accomplished it - that's up to you to figure out (hint: the Brenzier method and Harry Potter's invisibility cloak are just two of the many ways). I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Don Haines (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice try, Don...but I'm sure if you just put your mind to it and used your imagination, you could have gotten a great close up shot of the red squirrel with the GoPro or an A1400 or a pinhole camera. I'm not going to go into all the reasons that's true or ways you could have accomplished it - that's up to you to figure out (hint: the Brenzier method and Harry Potter's invisibility cloak are just two of the many ways). I'll leave it at that.


and sub-pixel imaging..... that could work....

I'll try again tonight with pictures of Jupiter..... I'll use the 60D with a telescope for the lens and the GoPro again... but to get closer with the GoPro I'll stand on a ladder...... that should work


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I'll try again tonight with pictures of Jupiter..... I'll use the 60D with a telescope for the lens and the GoPro again... but to get closer with the GoPro I'll stand on a ladder...... that should work



Of course it'll work. If it helps, you can use Eric Carle's _Papa, Please Get the Moon for Me_ as an instruction manual.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> A great photo can be taken with any camera, but it does *not* follow that _every_ great photo can be taken with _any_ camera.



Great, I'll certainly quote that when I meet the "a really good photog doesn't need expensive equipment" mob again, some are out to get me because sometimes even I with my midrange 60d+70-300L seem to look like a rich snob  ... well, unless you look at my clothes after crawling through the woods for half a day.


----------



## Don Haines (May 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I'll try again tonight with pictures of Jupiter..... I'll use the 60D with a telescope for the lens and the GoPro again... but to get closer with the GoPro I'll stand on a ladder...... that should work
> ...



It's still not working.... these are previous photos of the moon.... one with a 60D, the other with an iPad. What should I be doing to get the iPad photo as good as the 60D photo. Since camera does not matter, I must be doing something wrong, but I can't figure it out.... I tried to get closer to the moon, but I can only reach so high...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


I see no difference in the 2 images....LOL


----------



## danski0224 (May 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> It's still not working.... these are previous photos of the moon.... one with a 60D, the other with an iPad. What should I be doing to get the iPad photo as good as the 60D photo. Since camera does not matter, I must be doing something wrong, but I can't figure it out.... I tried to get closer to the moon, but I can only reach so high...



Obviously, the second photo is a close up of the bright spots in the first photo. The iPad is too close.


----------



## 9VIII (May 14, 2013)

There's the other end of the spectrum!
Astrophotography, entirely gear dependant, and the more money you have the better your pictures, extending into the range of billions of dollars.


----------



## coreyhkh (May 14, 2013)

Wow based on this topic it seems there are a lot of pent up demand for the new 7D


----------



## jrista (May 14, 2013)

coreyhkh said:


> Wow based on this topic it seems there are a lot of pent up demand for the new 7D



Indeed, Indeed! I really can't wait...especially if its 24mp and 61pt AF. *DROOL* ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 14, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I love the second one, pure abstract art. Outstanding!


----------



## jrista (May 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Haha, love that second image man! Superior quality in every respect, no doubt about it! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (May 14, 2013)

jrista said:


> coreyhkh said:
> 
> 
> > Wow based on this topic it seems there are a lot of pent up demand for the new 7D
> ...



One of the things that I really wish to see is the integration of tablets/smartphones and the camera over a wifi link. Use the tablet as a remote shutter release... as an intervalometer... focusing aid.... lots of possibilities.

Set yourself up for bird pictures by placing the camera near a feeder or perch, go far enough away as to not scare birds away, and live-view/click....


----------



## Marsu42 (May 14, 2013)

coreyhkh said:


> Wow based on this topic it seems there are a lot of pent up demand for the new 7D



It is *here* and the 7d2 will certainly sell, but this forum is hardly any representation of Canon's market. Imho if the 70d gets roughly the 7d1 specs there are not that many people left who really need something "better", of course except higher iso capability...

... so it might come down to safari & wildlife shooters, other are probably better served with a 70d or 6d.


----------



## kennephoto (May 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > coreyhkh said:
> ...



Can't you do that with the 6D?


----------



## 2n10 (May 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > coreyhkh said:
> ...



Like that idea.


----------



## Don Haines (May 14, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


There's not much range on the little canon remote, plus you have to be in front of the camera. It's nice to stay hidden, 30 or 40 feet away, and be able to see what the lens sees.... You should be able to do anything over wireless that you can do tethered, plus using the tablet to do intervals, trigger on sound, changes in exposure, movement......


----------



## kennephoto (May 14, 2013)

I swear I read somewhere people were using their iPhone or ipad with the 6d as a remote via wifi. I've done your setup and had my camera pointed at a bird bath and used my wireless remote to take photos of birds without scaring them off. But I would like to be able to live view on my ipad or iPhone and control settings remotely via an app.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 14, 2013)

The 6D absolutely has WiFi built in

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/02/02/canon-6d-wi-fi-the-complete-set-up-process-explained-without-all-the-jargon/

Many other cameras dating back years can use the WFT transmitters, though they are pricey and often not intuitive. Cameras with Ethernet ports like the 1DX can eve be used with very cheap wireless accesories.


----------



## Wildfire (May 14, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> > Can't you do that with the 6D?
> 
> 
> There's not much range on the little canon remote, plus you have to be in front of the camera. It's nice to stay hidden, 30 or 40 feet away, and be able to see what the lens sees.... You should be able to do anything over wireless that you can do tethered, plus using the tablet to do intervals, trigger on sound, changes in exposure, movement......



He's not talking about the Canon remote shutter, he's talking about the 6D's integrated Wi-Fi. Canon has released an app for Apple and Android devices called EOS Remote, which can remotely control the 6D completely from the phone.


----------



## CTJohn (May 15, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > > Can't you do that with the 6D?
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 26, 2013)

For my needs and wants, a 7DII must offer two things over the current model:
Iso noise which is a lot better (I'm talking about a huge disparity between a 5DII and 7D) and the general per pixel image quality. When compared to the output from a 5DII/III the 7D was often left wanting. The rest of the original 7D is still very competitive and very usable...but anything over Iso 400 wasn't for me. 
I loved the AF system, the 8fps, the handling, everything except the sensor...the most un-Canon camera Canon have made!


----------

