I'll edit it this to clarify. For my fast typing, I apologize. Mea Culpa.
Title: 7d AF vs 1-series AF in a new camera
New title [Using the]7d AF vs 1-series AF in a new camera [such as the speculated 5 series]
"?" question marks mean I'm asking a question, not telling the experienced 7d users anything.
-------------------------------
OK, I've never owned - or shot - a 7d, so I can't speak from experience, but I've read enough assessments [of the 7d's capabilities] and have owned enough 1-series and 5-series cameras to know how much they differ [to clarify, I meant between the 1 and 5 series]. I've often wondered why anyone, using any Canon camera, would want the 7d AF in anything.
Why would anyone set their sights so low? Why accept another crippled AF system like that found in the 7d (and yes, it absolutely is crippled [compared to the 1 series] even if it's better than the circa 1995 [call it 1999 if you want, but still old, old old} stuff we have in the 5 series)? I see it all the time here and have never understood it.
Can someone please explain, with rational points about why you think trading one crippled system for one that is only slightly less crippled is a good thing? Are we just beggars waiting for Canon to drop something into our cups?
Personally, I have no desire to see the crippled 7d AF show up in another body, even if it is better than the one-usable AF point in the 5 series.
Note: to apologists or those that insist the 5 series AF is fine, just move along and be happy.
jamesf99 wrote:
Why would anyone set their sights so low?
Obviously many (most?) people would prefer 1-series AF over 7-series--I just think it's a case of being realistic. The reality of being disappointed with anything less is still there, so hoping for 'decent' seems a lot safer than banking on 'best', if that makes any sense.
When I owned a 7D some time ago, I found the AF system to be fantastic. Very flexible, and configurable. Orientation-sensing auto AF points, etc. The AF on my 1DmkIV was a bit faster, and more accurate- but the 7D AF was fine. If the 5DmkII had the AF system from the 7D, I never would have sold it.
palmor wrote:
I guess I'm just wondering what is so crippled about the 7d AF?
Because saying everything Canon is crippled is the new fad. And Canon has done it to us on purpose. We had no choice when we gave them our money. There were no internet reviews, or forums where people could say how awful this crap was that they were jamming down our throats. And now we're stuck with it and we can't even take pictures any more.
To the OP: Sell all your Canon gear - or give it to the goodwill, its not worth much anyway. Then buy the new Nikon D800 and all your life wishes will be fulfilled. And please move over to the Nikon forum where you can gloat over how bounteous your life is.
Heaven forbid anyone want anything better than 5D autofocus. I mean, who could possibly make use of more than one good AF point? What is this, the year 1989?
deepbluejh wrote:
Heaven forbid anyone want anything better than 5D autofocus. I mean, who could possibly make use of more than one good AF point? What is this, the year 1989?
You mean people actually believe a ~3K camera should perform better than a sub 1K camera in terms of AF? Appalled is what I am...appalled.
deepbluejh wrote:
Heaven forbid anyone want anything better than 5D autofocus. I mean, who could possibly make use of more than one good AF point? What is this, the year 1989?
The OP just doesn't want a better AF, he specifically says he doesn't want the 7d's "crippled" AF. IMO there isn't anything crippled about it so I'm confused with that statement.
I shoot both the 7d and 1d III and the differences in AF are fairly small. The AF systems are different which doesn't mean that the 7d AF is crippled. Actually the 7d has spot focusing that I don't believe even the 1d IV has.. and something I'd imagine the FF crowd would really like with the much narrower DOF.
Sorry MVers, just fighting hyperbole with hyperbole. These are interesting times for gear heads, lots of new stuff to think and speculate about but many are making it sound like the demise of Canon because another top rated camera manufacturer comes out with what is specified to be a top rated camera. This thread, for example, assumes that because D800 AF might be better than 7D AF that the 7D was maliciously passed of as a crippled camera. I think the OP is deserving of some serious flaming.
palmor wrote:
The OP just doesn't want a better AF, he specifically says he doesn't want the 7d's "crippled" AF. IMO there isn't anything crippled about it so I'm confused with that statement.
I believe by 'crippled' he is referring to the fact that it's not 1-series AF, so relatively speaking (at least in comparison to Nikon's offerings). Personally I wouldn't have used that descriptive, but I know what he (James) means. Aside from that I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, deepbluejh's comment's were not in response to the OP, rather several other posts following the original post.
I'll try to take this thread seriously and assume it's not just a rant.
Assumption #1) the 7D has "crippled" AF
Assumption #2) the 7D should have had the best AF available by Canon - pro-series customizable 45-point AF
Assumption #3) the mythical, non-crippled, 45-point AF 7D should cost the same(?)
Assumption #4) Nikon doesn't cripple their cameras (closest competitors were the D90 (11-point), D300S (51-point)
I would say that all camera manufacturers, just like most companies, make compromises in 99.9% of their products to meet the demands of their customers, while providing price points for a range of consumer pocketbooks.
My personal take on the Canon vs Nikon feud:
Canon over the past several years seems to be trying to make specific cameras for specific needs with "just good enough" for the typical consumer strategy. The 5D2 for landscape/studio. The 1D4 for sports. The 7D for wildlife/sports on a budget.
Nikon seems to take the opposite approach with do-it-all cameras that try to eke out the best feature set for each price point (high MP an obvious omission, except in the case of the D3x and D800). The D700 is an exceptional example of the do-it-all camera.
This is obviously an over-simplification of a very complex issue. For me it simply means that their are two competing companies that have products that us avid consumers care a lot about and neither will ever satisfy the wants of everyone. This is a good thing, because competition is good, and as long as we ask for more, more, more, these companies will keep deliver it.
jamesf99 wrote:
OK, I've never owned - or shot - a 7d, so I can't speak from experience, but I've read enough assessments and have owned enough 1-series and 5-series cameras to know how much they differ. I've often wondered why anyone, using any Canon camera, would want the 7d AF in anything.
Jim, with all due respect, your not having owned/used a 7D and relying primarily on internet rhetoric to fuel your 'argument' does indeed make it seem like another post intended to rile up the natives, just for sport.
People need to calm a bit, quit using 'WTF' and 's*^t' in every other post, stop posting whiner threads about people whining in the forums, and just sit on their hands and wait and see what happens with Canon's upcoming offerings. Stopping by the forums is getting increasingly like accidentally changing the channel to kick-boxing (or whatever they call it these days).
Oh c'mon now...it has nothing to do with being a "fad" and everything to do with what the competition (Nikon) is offering. 