Access wrote:
Here's a question for you all, let's say the 7D2 was announced and it was your dream camera, all the features you wanted, and a price that made sense. But it only came in one color: a bright pink. Canon says this decision is final and they're never planning to offer the model in any different colors or reverse the decision. Oddly enough the camera is a big seller in Japan and other Asian countries so this reinforces Canon's mentality.
Knowing this, would you buy it or not?
I'm not sure where you're going with this?
This doesn't seem plausible.
Ed Brooks wrote:
Previously, I had the 7D - but found it to noisy above 1600 ISO. I have the full sensor Canon, but still needed a crop sensor camera. I have found the 70D to be a better camera all round. However, the 7D is built like a tank. The 70D -not so much.
I tested a 70D recently and to be honest, there is nothing much about it I could see that would replace the 7D in any way, its a nice XXD camera but thats it. The sensor improvement is not enough to make me buy one and if the next 7D has that same sensor I will probably pass on it as well
aladyforty wrote:
I tested a 70D recently and to be honest, there is nothing much about it I could see that would replace the 7D in any way, its a nice XXD camera but thats it. The sensor improvement is not enough to make me buy one and if the next 7D has that same sensor I will probably pass on it as well
And it did not have spot focus like the 7D, which many wildlife photographers found so very useful.
People have gotten just bored waiting for the camera and resorted to tertiary speculation (speculation based on implausible assumptions).
It's not just boredom. The fact that this thread has been going on for nearly a month and has hit 15 pages is proof positive that the members of this forum don't give a darn about photography. Instead of spending their time getting better at their art/craft, they'd rather hang around here shooting off their [digital] gums about a camera which may not even exist.
BluesWest wrote:
Instead of spending their time getting better at their art/craft, they'd rather hang around here shooting off their [digital] gums about a camera which may not even exist.
John
Speak for yourself. Many of us are capable of doing both. Thanks for your words of wisdom though.
I'm pretty sure we have the right to shoot off our gums on this forum, despite what you think.
BluesWest wrote:
It's not just boredom. The fact that this thread has been going on for nearly a month and has hit 15 pages is proof positive that the members of this forum don't give a darn about photography. Instead of spending their time getting better at their art/craft, they'd rather hang around here shooting off their [digital] gums about a camera which may not even exist.
John
And there are those that do neither, instead spending their own precious time worrying about what others are doing.
Thirty (30) days ago I made an observation/prediction which will soon come true and I have enjoyed seeing this thread grow, even though I have not read much of the speculation posted.
I think it would be best if everyone were to sit back and relax, stay inside and watch TV while monitoring FM.
With everyone safe and sound I won't have to contend with traffic and crowds and I can take my time setting up shots.
BluesWest wrote:
It's not just boredom. The fact that this thread has been going on for nearly a month and has hit 15 pages is proof positive that the members of this forum don't give a darn about photography. Instead of spending their time getting better at their art/craft, they'd rather hang around here shooting off their [digital] gums about a camera which may not even exist.
I wouldn't say that they 'don't give a darn about photography' as much as just that they aren't players or actors. But they still care greatly about the activity. You don't necessarily have to take part in something or practice it to care about it. And it's not a bad thing, it shows that photography is a mature activity on the level of many other activities in the modern world.
Take something like football. You don't have to be a player to care about the game. In fact the NFL is composed of less than 2000 active players. But the NFL in reality is much larger than that, because of the fans. It's the fans that make it all possible, if it was just 2000 guys playing football and no one else, it would be a bit of a joke. The fans don't actually play the game, but they still take the games very seriously. They share in the victories and the defeats, they get drunk and brag, debate, and argue with their friends about the different teams, players, games, etc. Commercially, they contribute to the business of football by contributing their time and money. So when it comes down to it, the players should be very grateful to the fans, since it's the fans that really make everything possible.
So while it may be easy to poke fun at, ridicule, or make light of the non-actors, I don't believe we should, instead we should be thankful that they exist. You cannot have stars without an audience, in multiple uses of the word. (In one sense, the active photographers are the stars, in another sense, the cameras ore camera models themselves are the stars).
BluesWest wrote:
It's not just boredom. The fact that this thread has been going on for nearly a month and has hit 15 pages is proof positive that the members of this forum don't give a darn about photography. Instead of spending their time getting better at their art/craft, they'd rather hang around here shooting off their [digital] gums about a camera which may not even exist.
John
blah blah blah
(not saying it's the case with you, but the last time someone posted something like that they were discovered to have a website that had nothing more than snapshots of cats in their backyard, while many of those who were the target of the comment had websites with thousands of images from around the world )
BluesWest wrote:
It's not just boredom. The fact that this thread has been going on for nearly a month and has hit 15 pages is proof positive that the members of this forum don't give a darn about photography. Instead of spending their time getting better at their art/craft, they'd rather hang around here shooting off their [digital] gums about a camera which may not even exist.
John
So, I guess that you're not capable of doing more than one thing over a one month period? I've participated a few times in this thread, and many more times in other threads over the time since this was first posted on 7 July, yet I've also had time to shoot scenics and events in Utah, perform and publish some lens tests, and get involved in many non-photographic activities.
skibum5 wrote:
...the last time someone posted something like that they were discovered to have a website that had nothing more than snapshots of cats.
I'm off to NYC to shoot a live CD recording.
