So This Guy Says To Me...

<p>G. Dan and others,<br>

as I have often suspected, you are not good at <em>irony,</em> to wit</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I too am a retired academic (many of us here seem to be), but my field was one concerned with how people actually USE the language and rules of their culture, not one that tried to prescribe how they should use it. It's like arguing that a double negative is a positive instead of, as it is, an emphatic no. You gotta stop being so literal minded. (Of course, littoral minded has to do with life being a beach).</p>

<p>JDM:</p>

<p>Ironically, I have a finely tuned sense of irony. It often gets me into trouble with people who don't share this affliction.</p>

<p>And, also ironically, I just wrote to someone else to defend to use of the word "data" as a singular noun. Ironically, you might enjoy the, dare I say, irony of my reply:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Language evolves. The use of the term "data" as a singular to reflect a collection of information makes sense even though the data prove that it was not originally intended that way. There is plenty of data to show that the new form works well, too.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm happy to say that I'm not exactly a language bigot. But I am somewhat obsessively interested in understanding how word meanings came about and evolved, and I think that precision with language (at least in places other than camera forums - and even occasionally there) is a useful discipline.</p>

<p>I'm sure that you understand that "encouraging" careful and thoughtful use of spoken and written language is part of my job. I'll try to keep in under control here. ;-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>You might enjoy <a href="http://faculty.deanza.edu/mitchelldan/quotefile">this</a>. :-)</p>

<p>I look forward to perusing it at leisure. :)</p>

<p>However, you have hit one of my own trigger points by arguing for <em>data</em> as singular. :(</p>

<p>I guess we all have our little sore spots.</p>

<p>1. Never take gear advice from a person who isn't a better photographer than you are. Seems you spoke to the guy and took for granted that he knew what he was talking about simply because he derives income from photography. But, this guy is no superstar. </p>

<p>2. Referring back to #1, why are you HERE, requesting the same kind of commentary, from people who may not know any more than you do? And, wouldn't any qualified response have to take into consideration the kind of work you do now, as well as in what you may be interested in the future?</p>

<p>I had sort of the opposite experience. A couple of weeks ago I was shooting a 4th of July event along with my significant other. She happened to be talking to another photographer when I walked up, and he immediately looked at my camera and asked what I was using. I told him that it was the 7D. He then stated that He was "on the fence about the 7" and that I really needed to get a 5DII. Then he looked at my 70-200/2.8 IS and told me I "needed" to get the new one because they're "worlds apart" in their performance. After all of this though, he proceeded to grab a stack of 8X10s he'd taken at the Indy 500 a week or so earlier, and went on and on about how good they were, and that he'd used a 7D for all of the shots. I quit listening to him after awhile and went back to shooting. I don't need a 5DII because my 7D does everything I want a camera to do. I don't miss full frame, partly because I still shoot a lot of film and can get my FF fix with those cameras. I've considered buying a 5DII but then realized that I only seriously considered it because of all of the 5DII users who insist that it's a better choice than the 7D. For me, it's not.While the 5dII is cleaner at high ISOs, the 7D is still excellent and the detail I can capture with it is amazing to me. Both cameras are superb for their own reasons, no matter what some "pro" may walk up to you and say.</p>

<p>I covet a full-frame camera. I would love my 50mm lenses to behave like 50mm lenses.</p>

<p>I think it's also good to consider the audience. There are people here whose first language is not English or "American".<br>

In the interest of clarity, I think it's a good idea to attempt to eliminate ambiguity of meaning. I'm not saying all colloquialisms or figures of speech should be shunned, just to try to make sure that a person less familiar with the language doesn't find a statement unclear or confusing. If the words are not clear by themselves, context should make them clear.<br>

Context in a sentence or paragraph matters for meaning, but in a different sense so does context of a conversation. An ordinary conversation needs precision, but banter and silliness lose their liveliness if rules are worried about too much.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents (to coin a phrase). ;>)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, you have hit one of my own trigger points by arguing for <em>data</em> as singular. :(</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not quite arguing <em>for</em> it - I tend to use data as a plural word, and annoy people that way - but perhaps for acceptance of an alternate use. ;-)</p>

<p>I'll stop now since other readers are perhaps recalling the quote attributed to Henry Kissinger: "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." (Yes, I laugh about it, too. Sometimes ironically...)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I covet a full-frame camera. I would love my 50mm lenses to behave like 50mm lenses.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of all the reasons given for using full frame, that is the one that baffles me almost the most.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Well, actually his comment and attitude are very common for photographers in his line od work; I read an article in a large newspaper re: a portrait photographer, and he was using a Nikon D200. A very excellent wedding photographer I know uses a Nikon D 300; the point is, these professionals have excellent skills, years of experience, and the equipment they use is of minor importance; while we amateurs and wanna bees place first importnace on our equipment, and believe that having the latest and the best will make our images better. Wishing will not make it so.</p>

 

<p>In the old days this would have started out with. And I use Tri-X with D-76. :)</p>

<p>What do I think about the choice between 7D and 5DII? I'd take either, but there are many "featured" photographers in publications that cater to pros who use 5DIIs. </p>

<p>I bet they could give a really good explanation. </p>

<p>Interesting conversations, both on language and camera gear. I have shot with a 5D for 2.5 years, consider myself an advanced amateur / wannabe pro (probably never will be) and mostly shoot scenic, animal and nature stuff. I recently considered "upgrading" to a 7D body because I started shooting a few rodeo type events. I didn't because of my ongoing ambition to save up for a 1DsMkIV when it comes out, ridiculous overkill though that may be. But here's another take on it that I've recently been perusing. Another of my long-time high-ticket "wants" that I will probably never fulfill is a 600mm f/4 with a teleconverter so I can get closer to birds and the like. But I already shoot with the 100 - 400 L and I'm thinking that on a 7D that is effectively a 160 - 640 mm zoom, albeit f/5.6 at the long end. So now I'm wondering if a 7D body might be a cheap way to get my 600mm L lens, regardless of all the other goodies like faster AF for rodeo work.<br>

Does any of that make ANY kind of sense? FWIW, I'm still very happy with my 5D and would not give it up, but then again I'm not exactly making a living selling images either.</p>

<p>G Dan, I'm wondering why the comment from the guy wanting his 50mm to behave like a 50mm baffles you so much? What's the poor guy supposed to do, shell out for a 28/35mm or, heaven forbid, a standard zoom?</p>

<p>[i don't know whether I'm being <em>ironic</em> here, or merely <em>sarcastic</em>. Can somebody please help me out? I do realize that I've made a rather mediocre pun.]</p>

<p>Hmm I never knew a 50mm could behave like anything else , well not unless it has some kind of focal opticality disorder .</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...I could care less what he says but I'd like to know what you photographers out there thought: what do you think about the choice between a Canon 7D and a Canon 5D Mark II?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it's "I COULDN'T care less..."</p>

<p>He's a geek and a novice if he said that. No more commentary needed. You were dealing with a nerd, likely out of shape (chubby) and inseure, perhaps someone with a *major* insecurity complex. Nothing more. A dweeb.</p>

<p>7D is a 'near' pro camera as is the 5D2. In some aspect each is BETTER than the other. What other warm and fuzzy hugs do you require? Enjoy your camera. Enjoy your work. Don't work about geeks,</p>

<p><strong>"7D is a 'near' pro camera as is the 5D2. In some aspect each is BETTER than the other. What other warm and fuzzy hugs do you require? Enjoy your camera. Enjoy your work. Don't work about geeks</strong>"(nicely said )<br>

When you consider how many "Pro"s (meaning people who actually make a living from photography ) are using 20, 30, 40 & 50D's (and I know of one or two using XTi's) I honestly think its pointless defining what a PRO Camera is (I have not yet used a 7D so can't comment but have owned 5D & 5Dii ), and if some one can produce quality work with what they have who really cares .<br>

Is there a right or wrong camera ? full frame is great for some things , crop bodies more suited to others but you can do most work with either .<br>

I guess it's all about what you are most comfortable using & having the skills to work around the pro's and con's of each particular model .<br>

So what if one model has more bells & whistles than another and in all honesty who actually uses all the settings availiable to them ? or even knows how to use all the functions availiable to them .(being of the old school of photography I haven't even bother with using liveveiw even though its there for me to use & if I wanted video I'd buy a video camera buts thats just my own opinon and people are entitled to use what equipment they like or are comfortable with without being ridiculed ) <br>

If you love your work then you work with what you have and produce the best you can with it .<br>

better for your camera to be a tool than you to be the tool behind it . </p>

<p>I think a hole in the head is very useful.</p>

<p>Enjoy your camera.</p>

<p>his 18MP APS-C pixels are more crammed than your 21mp FF; so if anyone's camera is overkill, its his.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>G Dan, I'm wondering why the comment from the guy wanting his 50mm to behave like a 50mm baffles you so much? What's the poor guy supposed to do, shell out for a 28/35mm or, heaven forbid, a standard zoom?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you can get a 30-35mm prime on a cropped sensor body to behave in virtually all important ways like a 50mm prime on a full frame body. And because, of all the differences between full frame and crop this seems like one of the least significant.</p>

<p>Note that I didn't say he is wrong, I just said that the concern baffles <em>me</em>.</p>

<p>On the "pro" camera business, it is better to just not go there. I've seen too many discussion of what is and is not a "pro" camera go either nowhere or to some very unpleasant places. In the end, a wide range of cameras can be used to do <em>photography</em> that could be regarded as "pro," whatever that means.</p>

<p>I definitely agree that both the 5D2 and the 7D are powerful and excellent cameras that have slightly different strengths and weaknesses. If you need the greatest possible resolution and you shoot in ways that can take advantage of its ability to deliver this, a full frame 5D2 can do a really outstanding job in this regard. If you need faster frame rates and an arguably better AF system, the 7D could be a better choice. Neither is "better" than the other in some universal, objective way. Relative to your own intended use either could be the better choice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Because you can get a 30-35mm prime on a cropped sensor body to behave in virtually all important ways like a 50mm prime on a full frame body. And because, of all the differences between full frame and crop this seems like one of the least significant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2224058">Len Kocurek</a> , Jul 17, 2010; 11:15 p.m.<br /> I think a hole in the head is very useful.<br /> Enjoy your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yea, I always need a place to put the lens cap. But seriously ...</p>

<p>I went with FF on the Nikon side because I wanted to pay more for the lenses. OK, what I really mean is I wanted to have access to the true pro-grade lenses and use them as they were designed. The lenses to me are a long term investment with the bodies coming and going. Neither Nikon or Canon offer a true, full line of pro-grade lenses that are designed for APS-C. It is that simple. If they would have had an extensive, pro-grade APS-C lens line, I probably would have gone that direction because I really like the smaller size and weight of the these bodies.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

Tell him you are saving up for the new 50 megapixel camera, because you like to shoot for clients that want billboards!

<blockquote>

<p>Actually it's "I COULDN'T care less..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's o.k. We have done that one already!</p>

<p>This is like someone with a Honda Accord telling a guy with an S-Class Mercedes V12 how much he doesn't NEED that much car. Does anyone NEED a 5D Mark II? I would certainly say absolutely, if you need extremely great low light sensitivity and wish to use your wide angle lenses as they were intended to be used.....</p>