ChrisDM wrote:
What\'s sorely lacking here, as it is in most of these types of discussions, is perspective. We\'re basically talking about amateur equipment used to make small to medium sized prints, right? I hope so, because professionals who REALLY need to examine their work under microscopes for issues like diffraction etc, BECAUSE THEY MAKE VERY LARGE PRINTS, don\'t shoot with amateur cameras anyways, for the most part. In other words, at the print sizes typically produced by those who use this line of camera, splitting hairs over these technical irrelevancies (for most practical purposes) are nothing more than mental maturbation for the gearheads. I could show you a bunch of 16x20 landscape prints, some made with my XSi and others made with my 1Ds3 and you would have exact odds of 50/50 to tell me which camera took which. Now if you\'re regularly displaying gallery work at larger sizes then I hope you\'re not seriously considering the 7D, or any other amateur camera for that matter. Otherwise you should be very happy with it.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OP\'s purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
I might add that there are many amateur photographers who, with good lenses, can and do professional-level quality work with prosumer camera bodies, but they simply don\'t make their living doing so. And the choice of their camera bodies usually falls within their discretionary funds budget.
ChrisDM wrote:
What\'s sorely lacking here, as it is in most of these types of discussions, is perspective. We\'re basically talking about amateur equipment used to make small to medium sized prints, right? I hope so, because professionals who REALLY need to examine their work under microscopes for issues like diffraction etc, BECAUSE THEY MAKE VERY LARGE PRINTS, don\'t shoot with amateur cameras anyways, for the most part. In other words, at the print sizes typically produced by those who use this line of camera, splitting hairs over these technical irrelevancies (for most practical purposes) are nothing more than mental maturbation for the gearheads. I could show you a bunch of 16x20 landscape prints, some made with my XSi and others made with my 1Ds3 and you would have exact odds of 50/50 to tell me which camera took which. Now if you\'re regularly displaying gallery work at larger sizes then I hope you\'re not seriously considering the 7D, or any other amateur camera for that matter. Otherwise you should be very happy with it.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OP\'s purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
I might add that there are many amateur photographers who can and do professional-level quality work with prosumer camera bodies, but they simply don\'t make their living doing so. And the choice of their camera bodies usually falls within their discretionary funds budget.
ChrisDM wrote:
What\'s sorely lacking here, as it is in most of these types of discussions, is perspective. We\'re basically talking about amateur equipment used to make small to medium sized prints, right? I hope so, because professionals who REALLY need to examine their work under microscopes for issues like diffraction etc, BECAUSE THEY MAKE VERY LARGE PRINTS, don\'t shoot with amateur cameras anyways, for the most part. In other words, at the print sizes typically produced by those who use this line of camera, splitting hairs over these technical irrelevancies (for most practical purposes) are nothing more than mental maturbation for the gearheads. I could show you a bunch of 16x20 landscape prints, some made with my XSi and others made with my 1Ds3 and you would have exact odds of 50/50 to tell me which camera took which. Now if you\'re regularly displaying gallery work at larger sizes then I hope you\'re not seriously considering the 7D, or any other amateur camera for that matter. Otherwise you should be very happy with it.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OPs purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
I might add that there are many amateur photographers who can and do professional-level quality work with prosumer camera bodies, but they simply don\'t make their living doing so. And the choice of their camera bodies usually falls within their discretionary funds budget.
ChrisDM wrote:
What\'s sorely lacking here, as it is in most of these types of discussions, is perspective. We\'re basically talking about amateur equipment used to make small to medium sized prints, right? I hope so, because professionals who REALLY need to examine their work under microscopes for issues like diffraction etc, BECAUSE THEY MAKE VERY LARGE PRINTS, don\'t shoot with amateur cameras anyways, for the most part. In other words, at the print sizes typically produced by those who use this line of camera, splitting hairs over these technical irrelevancies (for most practical purposes) are nothing more than mental maturbation for the gearheads. I could show you a bunch of 16x20 landscape prints, some made with my XSi and others made with my 1Ds3 and you would have exact odds of 50/50 to tell me which camera took which. Now if you\'re regularly displaying gallery work at larger sizes then I hope you\'re not seriously considering the 7D, or any other amateur camera for that matter. Otherwise you should be very happy with it.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OPs purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
ChrisDM wrote:
What\'s sorely lacking here, as it is in most of these types of discussions, is perspective. We\'re basically talking about amateur equipment used to make small to medium sized prints, right? I hope so, because professionals who REALLY need to examine their work under microscopes for issues like diffraction etc, BECAUSE THEY MAKE VERY LARGE PRINTS, don\'t shoot with amateur cameras anyways, for the most part. In other words, at the print sizes typically produced by those who use this line of camera, splitting hairs over these technical irrelevancies (for most practical purposes) are nothing more than mental maturbation for the gearheads. I could show you a bunch of 16x20 landscape prints, some made with my XSi and others made with my 1Ds3 and you would have exact odds of 50/50 to tell me which camera took which. Now if you\'re regularly displaying gallery work at larger sizes then I hope you\'re not seriously considering the 7D, or any other amateur camera for that matter. Otherwise you should be very happy with it.
Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OPs purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D presumably provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor (sans artifacting). That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OPs purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor. That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OPs purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in terms of AF acquisition, and sustained frame througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
It\'s not all just about full-framed print sizes, as the OP implicitly posits when he says that he is also interested in wildlife photography (the distance of subject matter which might not fill the frame, depending on his available lenses). The 7D provides a LOT of reach advantage over his 40D, due to the ability to crop from a much larger sensor. That\'s a very practical use of the new body for the OPs purposes, including cropping in landscape photography as well.
By most accounts, there is no comparison between the 40D and the 7D when it comes to shooting action, both in AF acquisition, and througput. So, if wildlife photography is indeed one of the OPs criteria, the 7D wins easily in that practical shooting realm. His \"keeper rate\" would be substantially higher with the 7D. Professional or not, that is important to most of us.
Nov 13, 2009 at 02:50 PM
Previous versions of cameron12x's message #7771750 « 7D not good for landscape? »
