Can you please elaborate on the tests you made that led you to this conclusion? Also, how would you rate the difference, minor or major, and in which situations it was most pronounced?
Funny reading - it re'inds me of school boy talk: "my dad is stronger than your dad" and "our car is faster than your car" etc.
After I have been watching one of the best and most detailed photo ever seen of an african family - taken with a Canon 350D camera and EF 35L, I realized that lenses and photographic skill are more important than cameras.
websurfer wrote:
After I have been watching one of the best and most detailed photo ever seen of an african family - taken with a Canon 350D camera and EF 35L, I realized that lenses and photographic skill are more important than cameras.
You can get fine "portrait" photos with pretty much any camera - hardly a challenging AF test, and not really relevant to what's being discussed here...
It doesn't really matter how good a photographer is; if the gear is incapable of performing to the required standard, he probably won't get the shot.
I've played extensively with an mkiii and I own a 7d and the only difference I see in fousing is maybe the outermost lateral points in low light are slower on the 7d. Other than that the shutter lag difference and focusing speed and accuracy difference are imperceptible to me. I actually think my 7d had a tad less oof shots.
keithreeder wrote:
You can get fine "portrait" photos with pretty much any camera - hardly a challenging AF test, and not really relevant to what's being discussed here...
It doesn't really matter how good a photographer is; if the gear is incapable of performing to the required standard, he probably won't get the shot.
Disagree - IIMO the main reason for not getting the top notch shot is due to lacking skill of the photographer. To be on topic - a pro camera vs. a consumer camera. I think itīs a no brainer.
I love my 1D Mark III. I have read that the 7D's FPS slows down in very dim light due it is metering system. Which I would imagine that being an issue to 'some'. I will say though having the speed and pro AF in a small body like the 7D is welcome addition to the Canon line. There are times when I really don't want to have the weight of the 1D and wish I had something like a 7D. It be too hard for me to part with my 1D though for a 7D. I just love the speed, high iso, feel, durability and overall performance of the 1D III.
keithreeder wrote:
You can get fine "portrait" photos with pretty much any camera - hardly a challenging AF test, and not really relevant to what's being discussed here...
It doesn't really matter how good a photographer is; if the gear is incapable of performing to the required standard, he probably won't get the shot.
Gear is important to a point, but the photographers skill is what gets you the shots. After all, throughout the ages, there have been spectacular shots made with gear that pales in capabilities even compared to todays entry level cameras.
websurfer wrote:
Disagree - IIMO the main reason for not getting the top notch shot is due to lacking skill of the photographer.
The kind of shot you're talking about in your previous post is achievable with any DSLR.
Get out of a camera's performance "comfort zone" and it won't matter how good the 'tog is: a good photographer will get a few more usable shots than a beginner, but they'll both underachieve compared with how well they'd both do with kit that's up to the job.
websurfer wrote:
Disagree - IIMO the main reason for not getting the top notch shot is due to lacking skill of the photographer. To be on topic - a pro camera vs. a consumer camera. I think itīs a no brainer.
Well, I think you're wrong on two points, and Keith is right.
1) If "getting the shot" were solely dependent on skill and not the gear, every sports shooter would be using a Rebel or a D40. Why would they pay $5K for a camera when they could get the same job done with a $500 camera? They can't b/c the $500 camera cannot do the job.
2) The 7D is not being targeted to the "consumer" market. From Canon's website; "Made to be the tool of choice for serious photographers and semi-professionals...". The "consumer cameras" are the Rebels.
If you've been reading any of the other 7D threads, you would know that there are some very high-profile sports shooters on these boards using the 7D as part of their primary kit. One, who I will not name b/c its not my place to do so, shot this NFL season with a 7D-400/2.8 combo all season. That's not exactly "consumer-grade".
It's always the same, this argument: people who take (or see) images that might well be really good, but which aren't particularly taxing of a camera's technical abilities, assuming that what applies in those circumstances will apply in every other shooting genre and situation.
