bht-kevin wrote:
akin_t wrote:
bht-kevin wrote:
... Lets get some pixel level ISO response, mirror less designs, etc... Lets get some real technology advancements.

Unless you're an Engineer, I think you should keep your opinions on design to yourself.

Too many of you are just so fond of talking out of your rear when brainstorming ideas. How the hell do you expect a mirrorless design to work without compromising low light sensitivity, AF accuracy, and aperture at which AF is still functional.

You people just hear 'mirrorless' and want it without even knowing wtf it brings to the table.

I am an Engineer(electrical), with 3 patents and multiple products used by 100k+ people per year. Brainstorming ideas is "talking out of your rear." True innovation comes from breaking the mold. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt.

Don't let the patent thing scare you guys off...

funny thing is you have to talk out your rear just to break the mold ..... sometimes.

sometimes listen to your customers is an upgrade. Canon did that - why? they watched the competition come out with some good equipment. At the time Canon needed to respond.

Which they did. ... the 7D
(and there was a sensor change too.)

I would personally shoot with a 7D over a 40D any day. it is just a fun camera to shoot events with.
The ability to adjust the AF spot size plus the customization ability are good evolutions.

I would disagree on the cropper going away. Take a little trip out of your cubical and over to the pacific rim and you will see the rebel series matched up with "L" glass. It actually surprised me....
I can not speak about europe since it has been a while since i walked over there.

We will have to see where the market goes from here. Personal do not like using small camera for work.

bht-kevin wrote:
I wanted a 7D but after 2.5 years, you know something new should be coming soon so I personally don't want to spend the money on 2.5 year old technology.

Pretty much everyone summed up my feeling even though they didnt mean to, there has been no real camera innovations in 4 years.

You also say that the 7D is 2.5 year old technology, then say technology hasn't changed in 4 years. So you really mean the 7D is 4 year old technology, right?

kev, just switch. if something is that frustrating to you, then it's best to move on.

I think a lot of people including myself get wrapped up in the pursuit of new technology.
The current lineup of DSLRs by Canon and Nikon allow photogs to get results that are beyond the imagination of photogs from just a decade ago. Looking at it from the results perspective, is there really something the current technology doesn't allow us to do?

bht-kevin wrote:
The 7D is geriatric... When is Canon finally going to update it?! So frustrated with Canon right now I am about to sell it all and go Nikon.

Let us not hold you back in your quest for technology advancement.

One word of caution though: I do not think Nikon cameras can be used for texting nor they have a cell phone capability. Therefore, get yourself the latest blackberry or an Iphone, and therein you might finally find what you seek.

bht-kevin wrote:

I actually dont own a 7D...

That cracks me up even more...

bht-kevin wrote:
... Lets get some pixel level ISO response

I understand what he's talking about here, but I always chuckle at pixel talk. DPP or Photoshop shouldn't let you zoom that close, it causes irrational behavior.

I have never printed a picture of a single pixel.

I do have a print in my house taken on a 7d and printed to 36x54. It is straight out of the camera, no PP. It looks perfectly fine to me.

My experience has taught me that if I don't like my shots it's probably because of user error, not because my gear is geriatric.

If you are making a living from your photography 7d may not be your best choice. If photography is your hobby, stop pixel peeping and agonozing over technology yet to come. Enjoy the forest instead of focusing on the twig.

cbrown22 wrote:

If you are making a living from your photography 7d may not be your best choice. If photography is your hobby, stop pixel peeping and agonozing over technology yet to come. Enjoy the forest instead of focusing on the twig.

or the LEAF!!!!!!

Typically in the science or technical field you have a problem and you try to solve it.
You usually don't try to invent something without having a specific purpose for it.
It sounds like the technological advancements we're talking about doesn't address any underlying "problem".

As an engineer, I'm surprised the OP doesn't get this or refuses to see it this way.

Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah, 7D really sucks:


Ditto ... except perhaps when it comes to taking pictures of Hummingbirds! ;-)
alek

P.S. Your shot Tony was AWESOME!!!

bht-kevin wrote:
uz2work wrote:
Over the course of nearly a decade, I continued to chase the advancing technology and owned a 1D Mark II, a 1D Mark III, a 1D Mark IV, every x0D camera from the 10D to the 50D, and a 7D. As I moved from one body to another, I eventually realized that the technology was advancing at a rate many times faster than were my skill and ability. Further, I realized that, as much as I enjoyed using the improvements in each generation of camera bodies, the improvements in the quality of my images were only very marginal with each camera upgrade.

Les


That is because overall, the technology isnt advancing. Its stagnant. Its a rehash of the same technology over and over with very minor tweaks. You think the technology has changed leaps and bounds but it hasnt. Its just slowly refined and the reason you see marginal improvements with the quality of your images.

By taking a small portion of what I said out of context, it becomes convenient for you to ignore a main point of my earlier post. While it may be the case that "improvements" are largely incremental from one generation of camera body to another, the accumulation of those incremental improvements over a span of less than 10 years has been both amazing and remarkable, and one of the best examples of that remarkable progress can be seen in comparing, as I did, the 10D to the 7D.

With a generally matured technology, not only do I not expect continuous revolutionary changes, but I also find it difficult to understand how it could be reasonable to be disappointed by the absence of such continuous repeated revolutionary change. Further, the evolutionary and incremental changes in Canon DSLRs are a sign, to me, that the technology has come a long way and that, at its current level, the cameras we are using are able to do a remarkable job of helping us to get the pictures that we want to get. And assertions to the contrary do come across as mere complaining for the sake of complaining.

Les

OP, congrats on your purchase of a new Nikon dslr and felt that you need to justify your purchase by posting here.

If you know what you are talking about in terms of geriatric, Nikon's D300s is by far the most ancient of 'em all. At launch it was already outclassed by the 7D. Nikon sorely needs a D400 replacement 3 years ago and counting.... but still vaporware.

Until then, I doubt Canon will move its fat lardy of an @$$ to come out with a 7DII. It's real lonely being king of the hill for this long.

The personal attacks make me laugh. Got to love the internet.

The only thing that I want to point out is I never said the current cameras are crap, or can't take a great photo. I really like my 40D which is why I havent upgraded since then. Yes there are better cameras, but nothing that will change my photography.

Obviously the current camera line is the peak of photography. No further innovations needed.

OP bought a d300s? And is complaining about the 7D? oh lol. double lol.

uz2work wrote:
Sometimes, I think that there can be value in putting things in perspective. I am amazed when I look at how much DSLR technology has advanced in about a decade.

My first DSLR was a 10D in 2003. That was the camera for which I decided that the technology and price point were at levels that made moving into a digital SLR practical and worthwhile. With that camera, I was able, usually, to get a static subject in focus. With some luck, I got moving subjects in focus. I could shoot at an amazing 3 frames per second and buffer 8 or 9 shots. If I hit the buffer limit, I could go to get a cup of coffee while waiting for the buffer to clear. And I could shoot at an astounding ISO 800 level (if I was willing to tolerate lots of noise in exchange for getting the shot).

Over the course of nearly a decade, I continued to chase the advancing technology and owned a 1D Mark II, a 1D Mark III, a 1D Mark IV, every x0D camera from the 10D to the 50D, and a 7D. As I moved from one body to another, I eventually realized that the technology was advancing at a rate many times faster than were my skill and ability. Further, I realized that, as much as I enjoyed using the improvements in each generation of camera bodies, the improvements in the quality of my images were only very marginal with each camera upgrade.

Now, for the first time, I have no interest whatever in upgrading the two camera bodies that I am currently using (a 1D Mark IV and a 7D). Not only is each of them amazing, in terms of its capabilities, in its own right, but the strengths of each complement those of the other quite well for my uses. I have all the pixels that I want. I have AF systems in both bodies for which I can say that, when I get an out-of-focus image, it is my fault and not that of the camera. I can shoot at ISOs beyond levels that I am likely to need, and I have feature sets that I never would have imagined, ten years ago, would have existed.

While I'm sure that the 1DX and a potential 7D Mark II will have improvements over my 1D Mark IV and 7D, I'm also confident that those improvements would have a very negligible effect on the quality of my photography, and I am happy to know that I am comfortable with taking a break from continuing to chase the technology and from lusting for "improved" camera bodies.

Les

Very well stated, and my sentiments exactly!

Andy

Well I for one feel the step up from a 350d to a 7D (and decent lenses) had a significant impact (in whatever way) to the quality of my photography. I was ready for something more capable and flexible, and now for me its time to move to full frame (mainly for lenses), the 7D has been an awesome camera.

"I urge, again, avoiding the common illusion that creative work depends on equipment alone, it easy to confuse the hope for accomplishment with the desire to posses superior instruments. It is nonetheless true that quality is an important criterion in evaluating camera equipment, as are durability and function. Inferior equipment will prove to be a false economy in the long run. As his work evolves, the photographer should plan to alter and refine his equipment to meet changing requirements." - Ansel Adams, The Camera

RobDickinson wrote:
I was ready for something more capable and flexible, and now for me its time to move to full frame (mainly for lenses)

II or III?

II for now. III later.

Well, I think the OPs original post wasn't very well put.

No, I don't think there is much to fix on the 7D.

But I do agree that DSLR developments do appear to have stalled somewhat, which is an entirely different point. We've all been living through an amazing technological decade in which each generation of DSLR was radically better than the one before (arguably). The latest generation of improved bodies don't appear to me to be that much better than the one before.

Looking on the bright side I will now expect my DSLRs to last much longer because I feel I am less likely to be tempted by their replacements. That's why I am not waiting keenly for the 7D2, I just don't believe it will be much better than my (excellent) 7D Mk2.

I think that technology has been advancing, but now at a much less significant rate as it was 10 years ago when the digital market was just maturing. The technology now is only moving incrementally as most new digital cameras satisfy what the majority of photographers need.

A 7D now has enough megapixels to satisfy 95% of the people that use it. It shoots at enough frames per second to do the most challenging birding or sporting events and has enough ISO ability to do night work without flash.

Yes, canon can improve upon those things, but only incrementally. Will these improvements drastically change ones product at the end of the day? Probably not a whole lot.

People keep on chasing new technology in the hopes that it will make them a good photographer.

IMHO, someone that can use a 40D will blow my photos out of the water even if I am shooting with a 5DMKIII.

The more important question is to ask why you need to upgrade. What features do you need that necessitates the change. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is throwing money down the drain.

If you see no reason to upgrade your 40D that satisfies what you need, why would you bitch about the 7D. What features in the nikon line up makes you want to switch?