ClubTread Community

ClubTread Community (https://forums.clubtread.com/)
-   Photography Talk (https://forums.clubtread.com/29-photography-talk/)
-   -   Canon announces an 18MP 7D with APS-C sensor (https://forums.clubtread.com/29-photography-talk/31006-canon-announces-18mp-7d-aps-c-sensor.html)

BillyGoat 08-31-2009 09:44 PM

Canon announces an 18MP 7D with APS-C sensor
 
Preview and specs here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/

It's been tried with limited success at the 14 and 15MP level. It'll be interesting to see how this latest Canon offering performs. I'm skeptical.

Backroader 09-01-2009 09:34 PM

I'm torn. I want a 5D II, but it is out of my price range. This I might be able to afford. I wish they would have let the MP go, and concentrated more on low light performance, but if it can produce half decent files at 1600 or 3200, I may have to blackmail my wife or something so I can get one....

splitboarder 09-01-2009 10:09 PM

Agreed, skeptical. 18mp aps-h (1.3x crop) I think would be much more desirable. It'll come down to just how good that new AF system is, the rest of the specs are interesting but not too enticing. We'll have to wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding as they say.

I like that the g11 and s90 actually dropped megapixels from their like predecessors. I'm interested in the s90 I gotta say.

seawallrunner 09-02-2009 08:48 PM

Quote:

quote:I want a 5D II, but it is out of my price range.
Start looking on Craigslist - they do appear from time to time.

The Mark II is a phenomenal camera, I've had mine since January and absolutely love it. It was worth the wait, and it's miles ahead of the 'regular' 5D. Small enough to take hiking, yet it creates very sharp HD video and takes excellent images. It's a purchase that I do not regret.

As for the 7D, this has been a difficult year for Canon (for all camera manufacturers!) and this appears to be a stop-gap offering. Nothing in the 7D interests me, I'm afraid. I don't think this will be a winner for Canon.

Monster 09-02-2009 09:06 PM

You guys are looking at this all wrong.

There is a very important niche in the professional photography market that will absolutely love this Canon offering. Many wildlife, action and sports photographers very much appreciate the tighter crop of the APS-C frame factor and... at 8fps with an improved 19-point autofocus system and a 100% viewfinder this new camera will likely be the 1st choice for those with a need a for speed.

Not everyone shoots static landscape scenes where full frame is the preferred option, and at 18MP, the 7D will provide plenty of cropping room too :)

Mauricio 09-07-2009 08:44 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Monster
There is a very important niche in the professional photography market that will absolutely love this Canon offering. Many wildlife, action and sports photographers very much appreciate the tighter crop of the APS-C frame facto.,
This is a common misconception. No wildlife, action or sports photographer who knows what they are doing cares for the APS-C crop frame. They understand that a crop is just a crop. The subject is still at the same distance, and you are still focusing the action through the same lens. There is no magical magnifying power in throwing away the edges of the frame. What matters for image quality is photosite size, and cramming 18 MP on a smaller sensor takes things the wrong way. Provided you use the same lens, you will get a better picture of that charging grizzly with a 5D Mark II and cropping the center part. This is why the best sports digital camera in the market today is the Nikon D3, a full frame camera with a low MP count and gigantic photosites that still delivers 8 fps.

The only reason to get an APS-C camera is cost. All other things held equal (particularly speed and needed lenses), APS-C systems are still a lot cheaper than full frame ones.

danjurak 09-07-2009 10:47 AM

Unless you are very, very serious about your photography and need the slightly better quality of a full frame camera, I'd suggest the partial APS-C crop for a few reasons.

First is weight. I have both a Canon Rebel and a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. There is a huge difference in weight between these types of cameras and if you use the smaller dedicated lenses for the smaller sensor cameras the weight savings is even greater.

If it weren't for the requirements of the agencies I shoot for, I would always be taking the smaller Canon out and leaving the heavy one at home.

Second is cost versus performance. Make an 11x14 print from either camera and the viewer wouldn't know or care what camera it came from. Simply put, unless you enlarge beyond 11x14 under most light there is a negligible difference at quite a difference in cost.

Weight. Quality. Cost. For the average backpacker, without a doubt I'd recommend the smaller cameras.

My blog http://www.danjurak.wordpress.com
My website http://www.danjurak.com

Monster 09-07-2009 06:01 PM

I think your missing the point Mauricio... A prosumer Canon dslr that does 8 frames per second means I dont have to buy all new lenses or spend the kind of money Nikon wants for it's FF D3. Besides, if I wanted an FF camera... it'd be a Canon 5D mkII for quality of glass and price of body alone ;)

BillyGoat 09-07-2009 10:37 PM

But here's the thing.. the 15MP 50D was essentially a flop due to noise isues. So what does Canon do? Use the same sized 1.6x crop sensor and throw in an extra 3MP and a few more features. So what advantages does 18MP have unless you have to shoot under 400ISO because of noise issues? Any perceived advantages the cropped sensor has for wildlife or sports photogs have just been quashed by having to shoot at low ISO's.

ge-an_bas 09-07-2009 11:12 PM

Hi,

I'm following the 7D because I want a new camera and want it to perform very well with low light. 5D MkII is amazing but expensive. 7D seems nice, but noise might be a big issue. Camera has made it into the hands of people who are knowledgeable on this subject. Short summary from DPreview:
----
Note: I am talking about the RAW images.

The 7D is excellent in the noise department.

The "read noise" on pixel level is equal to or slightly lower than the 40D and 50D with ISO 100 and 200. From ISO 400 the 7D is somewhat better, and ISO 3200 (the top useful ISO of the 7D with raw) is quite better than the 40D.

All that is with 80% more pixels.

However, there is no question: this is far from the 5D2. Pixel (sensel) size does matter.
----
[Source = http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...read=32880471]

So Canon did do some magic to the pixels

Bas

Mauricio 09-08-2009 05:46 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Monster

I think your missing the point Mauricio... A prosumer Canon dslr that does 8 frames per second means I dont have to buy all new lenses or spend the kind of money Nikon wants for it's FF D3. Besides, if I wanted an FF camera... it'd be a Canon 5D mkII for quality of glass and price of body alone ;)
I don't think so. Your post was about "a niche in the professional photography market". There is an enormous difference between the "prosumer" market (which used to be called amateur, but I guess manufacturers know how to stroke an ego) and the professional one. I fall, at best, in the amateur category. Danjurak's post is spot on - a professional cannot shoot APS-C, even in situations where it would have obvious advantages (backpacking being the one closest to us), or their pictures would just be rejected. For a professional - defined as someone who makes a living from photography - a $3,000 extra cost is irrelevant if it means the difference between selling their pictures or not. And a professional sports photographer will not be caught dead near an APS-C sensor.

The 7D will live or die on its appeal to the consumer market. It will definitely not be because it satisfies the needs of a niche in the professional market.

Andrew Strain 09-08-2009 08:28 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Mauricio\ And a professional sports photographer will not be caught dead near an APS-C sensor.

I know plenty of professional sports photographers that already have orders down for the 7D (or at least, have expressed desire to do so at the earliest available opportunity), and I know plenty of professional photographers in general shooting with APS-C cameras.

BrianG 09-08-2009 08:38 PM

I would but myself into the professional category and have already ordered a 7d to use as my secondary body and for the ability to do hd video @ 24fps. I normally do wide angle shooting so I'll probably be getting a Tokina 11-16 to adjust for the 1.6x

Monster 09-08-2009 09:17 PM

Plenty of APS-C images have wound up in professional print and many of todays APS-C cameras are capable of taking equally superb photographs as FF's can despite FF's obvious low light advantages but fine, I'll rephrase just for you...

There is a niche "market" that requires very fast cameras and some of those people are professionals. They are the sports, wild life and other action shot enthusiasts who need and want 8 frames per second with out paying the premium that FF bodies demand.

I'd like the 7D just for it's weather sealing alone, cant count the number of times my 40D has been completely soaked just from condensation in the evening air, and now the shutter button is getting sticky.

swebster 09-08-2009 09:17 PM

Danjurak, if you don't mind me asking, what are the specific requirements of the agency that cause you to need full frame? Pixel count? EXIF data must say it is a FF camera (which would be dumb)?, pass some kind of noise level test?

Andrew Strain 09-08-2009 10:00 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by swebster

Danjurak, if you don't mind me asking, what are the specific requirements of the agency that cause you to need full frame? Pixel count? EXIF data must say it is a FF camera (which would be dumb)?, pass some kind of noise level test?
I'd say its 10% technical and 90% credential.

danjurak 09-09-2009 08:20 AM

Swebster, it's different depending upon the agency. From what I've seen Masterfile has the highest technical requirements.

Even Getty, which is the largest and hardest to get into as one of their stock photographers has lower standards. Things that technically might pass at Getty wouldn't get past Masterfile. Their philosophy is that everything they sell should be able to be reproduced at very high magnification.

They are especially critical of noise, chromatic aberration and color banding. Try burning a corner down too much, banding appears and your photo gets rejected.

Some agencies have a list of approved camera equipment, others take anything, any size. So you need to check out their websites, it's usually on there somewhere.

As someone posted 10% technical and 90% credential, it might be that way with some agencies but Getty could care less who you are, Masterfile or Firstlight for that matter. If you can produce interesting, marketable, high quality images consistently, you're in.

It costs nothing to apply. Look for the agencies links on their websites and send them a link to your portfolio or a submission, whatever they ask for. You'll know within a month if you're in.

It's not a club for name shooters. They're in it for the money. If you provide a product they think they have a market for, they'll represent you.

My mountain landscapes sell very little compared to my other stock. The agencies take them but the market for that stuff isn't as large as for other types of photos.

Good luck,
Dan

BillyGoat 09-09-2009 08:47 AM

Masterfile eh? I'll have to take a look, but they might not like me since my portfolio is also with several microstock agencies. With regard to FF sensors, Im still waiting for Sony to whip out something more like a 16MP FF rather than the 24.6mp's; although the new A850 24.6 FF priced at 2,000 looks rather enticing.
Lets not also forget that lens quality also plays a critical role in the final quality outcome of an image. I recently bought the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for my A700 and its much better than the other wide-angles Ive used.

Monster 09-09-2009 04:17 PM

And there you have it, as BG points out...

When it comes to the quality of images from modern dlsr sensors, the quality of glass you own will have a far greater impact than all the difference between FF and APS-C put together.

Andrew Strain 09-09-2009 04:29 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by danjurak
As someone posted 10% technical and 90% credential, it might be that way with some agencies but Getty could care less who you are, Masterfile or Firstlight for that matter. If you can produce interesting, marketable, high quality images consistently, you're in.
What I meant was that the camera requirement IS the credential. Big money bodies mean (usually) that you're serious about what you do and weed out most of the wannabes. Odds are, if you're packing a $5k++ body, you know what you're doing (or have way too much money on your hands). For better or worse, its a barrier to entry for the market.

Thom Hogan has something to say on the subject, as well: http://www.bythom.com/sonyenvy.htm

BillyGoat 09-09-2009 06:03 PM

Naw it's still ultimately all about the lenses. You can put a pancake lens on a D3X and it won't look very impressive anymore. I'd say that a D40 with a 300mm F2.8 or even a 70-200 F2.8 would look more impressive and lofty than the D3x with a pancake lens. Look at professional photog's profile shots and they usually have some impressive lens attached to their bodies.
I'm still of the opinion that the money should be spent on the glass and a nice tripod before going with a more expensive FF. High resolution FF's otherwise only give you higher resolution files of compositional and exposure errors and further magnify poor quality glass.
Yeah in one sense I'd love to get a Sony 24MP A900 or A850 but the thing is there's be no advantage at all unless at the same time I plunked down the cash for some really nice FF glass.

Andrew Strain 09-09-2009 07:22 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by BillyGoat

Naw it's still ultimately all about the lenses. You can put a pancake lens on a D3X and it won't look very impressive anymore. I'd say that a D40 with a 300mm F2.8 or even a 70-200 F2.8 would look more impressive and lofty than the D3x with a pancake lens. Look at professional photog's profile shots and they usually have some impressive lens attached to their bodies.
I'm still of the opinion that the money should be spent on the glass and a nice tripod before going with a more expensive FF. High resolution FF's otherwise only give you higher resolution files of compositional and exposure errors and further magnify poor quality glass.
Yeah in one sense I'd love to get a Sony 24MP A900 or A850 but the thing is there's be no advantage at all unless at the same time I plunked down the cash for some really nice FF glass.
Common misconception - crop sensors are actually more demanding on glass than FF - the 7D will provide a much greater torture test for lenses than the 5DII. FF just exposes lenses, especially poor ones, where they are at their weakest: in the extreme corners, beyond the coverage of the APS-C image circle.



BillyGoat 09-09-2009 07:56 PM

That may be so Andrew but the fact remains that excellent quality lenses still help make or break a good quality shot from a great quality shot. I'm sticking with my 12MP APS-C for awhile as it is quite adequate for my work and more than meets the requirements for my clients and stock agencies that I submit to.
I'd still like to see Sony put out a decent 16MP FF DSLR as to me that would be about the perfect size.

Arnold 09-09-2009 09:30 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by BillyGoat

That may be so Andrew but the fact remains that excellent quality lenses still help make or break a good quality shot from a great quality shot.
I totally disagree. I bet you won't be able to tell which lens was used if you were to look at random pictures on the internet (or in print). Sure, you could probably tell, that here a long telephoto lens was used, and there a wide angle lens used, but that would be as far as it would go in most situations, especially for landscape photography. Besides, considering image quality, a cheap prime will always outperform an expensive zoom lens. That's why I don't see here how a technically great shot can be made just a "good shot" by a "cheap" lens.

Monster 09-09-2009 11:01 PM

Seriously Arnold, in all the years I've been doing photography that is the very first time I have ever heard anyone try to make that argument :D

I am not even a pixel peeper but I can promise you there is a vast difference in image quality between good glass and cheap glass even while only observing 100% crops.

Arnold 09-10-2009 07:20 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Monster

Seriously Arnold, in all the years I've been doing photography that is the very first time I have ever heard anyone try to make that argument :D

I am not even a pixel peeper but I can promise you there is a vast difference in image quality between good glass and cheap glass even while only observing 100% crops.
Monster, I'm not interested in replying to your insanity. What you just wrote has absolutely no logic, nor you're competent enough on this subject to even open up your filthy mouth.

eeyun 09-10-2009 10:18 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Arnold


Monster, I'm not interested in replying to your insanity. What you just wrote has absolutely no logic, nor you're competent enough on this subject to even open up your filthy mouth.
Quoted for longevity, not because I agree. What's with the vitriolic reply to an otherwise reasonable discussion?

Go somewhere else, you're not wanted here.

splitboarder 09-10-2009 10:40 AM

Arnold, while its perfectly clear you received no love as a child, there is no reason to result to calling names because someone has a different viewpoint. Why is it that every topic you post to is just you bullying (unsuccessfully) other members. The value in this forum is the combined input from everyone, regardless of viewpoint, experience, etc. For you to systematically respond with such senseless drivel paints a picture of a sad and lonely individual crying out for help.

Do you need help Arnold? Going through a rough time? I suggest you vent your frustrations elsewhere, you have no idea how stupid you ridiculous you make yourself look...

Now to respond to the quarrel you caused on this topic. I somewhat agree with you, there will be times when a difference cannot be discerned from for example a prime vs. a zoom lens. Good glass vs. bad glass are such general terms though, I wouldn't consider the nifty 50 from canon (ef 50 f1.8ii) to be good glass but yet stopped down its stellar, in fact most poorer lenses are still quite adequate when stopped down. But then there's the times you shoot with wider aperatures, wide open even. There you would certainly see a difference in most comparisons (sticking with prime vs. zoom as the example though there are still exceptions - see above nifty 50 or the 70-200f4L is great wide open). There are also more things to consider then just sharpness/detail. Strong considerations in many lens choices include flare resistance, bokeh, good contrast and colour, qualities that pricier glass is engineered to improve on. SLR lenses span the gamut to match any application, hell I know pro photogs who have never bothered with primes, others still who use them exclusively, they all have their reasons. At an amateur level though, I would agree the difference is mostly insignificant all other things being equal.

Matt 09-10-2009 12:40 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Arnold



I totally disagree. I bet you won't be able to tell which lens was used if you were to look at random pictures on the internet (or in print). Sure, you could probably tell, that here a long telephoto lens was used, and there a wide angle lens used, but that would be as far as it would go in most situations, especially for landscape photography. Besides, considering image quality, a cheap prime will always outperform an expensive zoom lens. That's why I don't see here how a technically great shot can be made just a "good shot" by a "cheap" lens.
You're joking, right?

swebster 09-10-2009 01:29 PM

There are a lot of really great photos taken with very inexpensive lenses, often the kit lenses, out there. Stopped down, a lot of lenses perform very well. I do to some degree agree that it would be difficult to tell the difference between some of these and a technically superior lens. Of course there are many scenarios where the differences are much greater.

Monster 09-10-2009 04:43 PM

Actually, all things being equal and in a studio controlled environment, anyone who wants to can clearly observe the very obvious difference in image quality between various levels of lenses.

Pick two lenses to compare and the camera body of your choice... [u]Lens Comparison</u>

I have owned mid range glass that, as a walk around lens, was adequate but only until I became more familiar with photography and processing RAW images in photoshop. Eventually the resolving detail and performance just became too much of an issue for me so I upgraded to all f2.8 Ultra-Low Dispersion glass and I have never looked back or regretted ever since.

Also, and to add another point to Splitboader post, not all the good lenses are expensive or even marked "L" by Canon for that matter. I would absolutely agree that the 50mm f1.2 is a fantastic lens in so far as it's sharpness and usability. Indeed one of the sharpest zooms Canon has ever produced in the wide angle range is not an "L" lens either, and only mid range in price.

Bottom line is that the glass you use will make a noticeable difference in the final image quality, and that is observably undeniable.

Arnold 09-10-2009 04:55 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by eeyun
Go somewhere else, you're not wanted here.
Thank you, you're not wanted here either.

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by splitboarder

Arnold, while its perfectly clear you received no love as a child, there is no reason to result to calling names because someone has a different viewpoint.
Not because he has a different viewpoint, but because he's an asshole.

Quote:

quote:Why is it that every topic you post to is just you bullying (unsuccessfully) other members.
That is your viewpoint, that you are free to express if it makes you happy.

Quote:

quote:Do you need help Arnold? Going through a rough time? I suggest you vent your frustrations elsewhere, you have no idea how stupid you ridiculous you make yourself look...
Does it look like I care how I look to you? If only people were a little more independent...

Quote:

quote:Now to respond to the quarrel you caused on this topic. I somewhat agree with you, there will be times when a difference cannot be discerned from for example a prime vs. a zoom lens. Good glass vs. bad glass are such general terms though, I wouldn't consider the nifty 50 from canon (ef 50 f1.8ii) to be good glass but yet stopped down its stellar, in fact most poorer lenses are still quite adequate when stopped down. But then there's the times you shoot with wider aperatures, wide open even. There you would certainly see a difference in most comparisons (sticking with prime vs. zoom as the example though there are still exceptions - see above nifty 50 or the 70-200f4L is great wide open). There are also more things to consider then just sharpness/detail. Strong considerations in many lens choices include flare resistance, bokeh, good contrast and colour, qualities that pricier glass is engineered to improve on. SLR lenses span the gamut to match any application, hell I know pro photogs who have never bothered with primes, others still who use them exclusively, they all have their reasons. At an amateur level though, I would agree the difference is mostly insignificant all other things being equal.
You miss the point that a great lens doesn't make a photo great, and that a good lens doesn't make a photo good. Seeing that you're mentioning "good contrast and colour" does not help either. Why are you comparing a 50/1.8 lens wide open to 70-200/4 wide open? If you were comparing them both being at f4, then the 50 will put the 70 to shame. Pixel peeping aside, you will not see a difference and it will not make a great photo just a "good" photo. Flare resistance...of course, but we're talking about technically great photos. Shooting into the sun (aka being completely oblivious to where the sun is) is not technically great, but technically awful. I understand there are some special situations where shooting into the sun would make a great photo, but these are minimal, and even an expensive lens will have enough of visible flare.

I see the same thing over and over again among SLR beginners. First they ask what camera you use, so they would buy the same one, ignorantly assuming that all it takes is a nice big black camera. They buy the camera, then they progress to the next logical step: whine about how absolutely what's holding them back from taking great pictures is the consumer grade lens they got. They buy an "L", and realize that their pictures still suck. If they're smart, they will start looking at themselves as being the source of all the problems. If they're stupid, they'll just put their expensive toys on ebay and find themselves a new pocket sized P&S camera. It would have been much better if they would instead used and learned what they had, mastered their skills, and hit the ceiling, then they would precisely know the limitations of their current gear, and why they need something more expensive. So what I'm trying to say here is a photographer makes a great/good/awful photo, not his equipment or his status (pro/amateur). If someone is taking just good or awful photos, then he should look for problems in his techniques and fix them. If I still didn't get my point across, then it's likely that we have a different definition for great/good photos. For examples of great photos you can look here: http://borievky.com/gallery.php or here http://www.photographybyvarina.com/

For examples of good photos...I'm sure you can find them yourself all over the internet.


Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Matt
You're joking, right?
About what?

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by swebster
Of course there are many scenarios where the differences are much greater.
In landscape photography the most evident scenario you will ever see is in the amount of CA. By this I mean see in real life, not pixel peeping. However, that will not render a technically great photo just "good". Besides, any such flows are later easily removed in PP anyway.

Arnold 09-10-2009 05:20 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Monster

Actually, all things being equal and in a studio controlled environment, anyone who wants to can clearly observe the very obvious difference in image quality between various levels of lenses.

Pick two lenses to compare and the camera body of your choice... [u]Lens Comparison</u>
Oh, OK, Monster, I'm very happy for you...now you can spend a week or two on that site picking out the best lens, buying it, and then showing us all these beautiful charts in your trip reports or maybe even get one of your charts seen in the new CT calendar.

Quote:

quote: Eventually the resolving detail and performance just became too much of an issue for me so I upgraded to all f2.8 Ultra-Low Dispersion glass and I have never looked back or regretted ever since.
Since you're an asshole, I don't feel bad saying here that your pictures still suck.

Quote:

quote:I would absolutely agree that the 50mm f1.2 is a fantastic lens in so far as it's sharpness and usability. Indeed one of the sharpest zooms Canon has ever produced in the wide angle range is not an "L" lens either, and only mid range in price.
Huh? What?!?! The 50/1.2 is one expensive "L" lens. It is not a zoom, it is a prime. It is not a wide angle lens. It is not mid range in price. I can't believe this n00bness.

Quote:

quote:Bottom line is that the glass you use will make a noticeable difference in the final image quality, and that is observably undeniable.
I'm looking forward to seeing the great charts you visited in your next trip report, which otherwise would have been just good.

Monster 09-10-2009 05:27 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by ArnoldIf someone is taking just good or awful photos, then he should look for problems in his techniques and fix them. If I still didn't get my point across, then it's likely that we have a different definition for great/good photos. For examples of great photos you can look here: http://borievky.com/gallery.php or here http://www.photographybyvarina.com/

For examples of good photos...I'm sure you can find them yourself all over the internet.
Realizing that you are a bit sensitive about me Arnold, I hope I can find a way to say this with out inciting your volatility.

Your own examples of "great photos" argue against the very point you are trying to make. I did not even have to go to the pages that explained what equipment was used to produce those images in order to clearly see that all of them were taken with very high quality, ultra wide glass (but I did anyway).

Not one part of this discussion was ever about the lack of value in acquiring good photography skills but your point about glass not being a noticeable quantity in final image quality is not only wrong but... demonstrated wrong by your own examples of "great photos".

Monster 09-10-2009 05:50 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Arnold
Quote:

quote:I would absolutely agree that the 50mm f1.2 is a fantastic lens in so far as it's sharpness and usability. Indeed one of the sharpest zooms Canon has ever produced in the wide angle range is not an "L" lens either, and only mid range in price.
Huh? What?!?! The 50/1.2 is one expensive "L" lens. It is not a zoom, it is a prime. It is not a wide angle lens. It is not mid range in price. I can't believe this n00bness.
Notice the period ending the first sentence, or maybe the word "either" after I referred to another sharp Canon lens in the very next sentence?

Oh well, thanks for catching my typo on the 50 f1.2 thing, I was referring to the 50 f1.8 that Splitboarder mentioned, and agreeing that it is a very sharp lens at a mid range price.


Arnold 09-11-2009 08:22 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Monster
Your own examples of "great photos" argue against the very point you are trying to make. I did not even have to go to the pages that explained what equipment was used to produce those images in order to clearly see that all of them were taken with very high quality, ultra wide glass (but I did anyway).

Not one part of this discussion was ever about the lack of value in acquiring good photography skills but your point about glass not being a noticeable quantity in final image quality is not only wrong but... demonstrated wrong by your own examples of "great photos".
These photos didn't become great because of the glass that was used, but because of the photographers' skills. I clearly can see why you cannot understand that simple fact, because you merely cannot describe why a particular photo looks great. You only see a great photo and you know in your mind that it's great, but you don't know why, and all you can resort to is the usual novice answer: it must be the camera/glass! My point was that a less than expensive glass will not (magically) transform a great photo into just a good photo. Your pixel peeping you can leave to yourself and other alike pixel peepers, as I wasn't even discussing that subject.

Quote:

quote:Notice the period ending the first sentence, or maybe the word "either" after I referred to another sharp Canon lens in the very next sentence?

Oh well, thanks for catching my typo on the 50 f1.2 thing, I was referring to the 50 f1.8 that Splitboarder mentioned, and agreeing that it is a very sharp lens at a mid range price.
Even if it is a typo, you were still talking about the 50/1.8 as if it's a wide angle zoom lens. The price is not mid range by any means either, but simply cheap.

BillyGoat 09-12-2009 10:04 PM

Well Arnold, time to add you to my ignore list; maybe I'm one of the last here on CT to do so. I don't appreciate you coming in here and hijacking this thread with your insensitive and thoughtless arguments.

19351 09-13-2009 01:30 PM

I found this thread interesting to start. Over the last few years I have learned a great deal from this site and the people on it. While Ill agree in part that it is the photographer that makes the shot, I have seen the difference good glass can make. I have also had some outstanding captures from a P&S but they dont compare with a DSLR.
I dont know why Internet Heroes feel the need to be belligerent 90% of the time. My guess is that they just lack some serious social skills, both on-line & in real life.
Most of us here constantly hone our photographic skills and use this form as an exchange of ideas and techniques.
Too bad people cant put personal opinions aside to give intelligent input!
I guess Ill have to finally use that ignore button myself.[V]



"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst."
Henri Cartier-Bresson

"Why are the pictures square if the lens is round?
Steven Wright

"You miss 100% of the shots you never take.
Wayne Gretzky


Arnold 09-14-2009 05:27 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by BillyGoat

Well Arnold, time to add you to my ignore list; maybe I'm one of the last here on CT to do so. I don't appreciate you coming in here and hijacking this thread with your insensitive and thoughtless arguments.
I really don't care where you put me. It's not as if I'm dying for you to read my posts. I did not hijack your thread though. My reply was to your post about great/good photos, which you started.

WestCoastPaddler 09-15-2009 05:47 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome