I guess you guys are right, the location right at the bottom of the on/off switch would make it liable to getting turned off accidentally. I was thinking of the 1 series which is nicely recessed and located further up the body.
I prefer the on/off switch up the top, I always ended up switching the rear dial to the off position accidentally on many occasions while walking around (On a few different models) I like the switch on my 500D though.
Maybe they moved the on/off switch to make room for some video controls?
musclepics wrote:
Also, since there is already a "7D" DSLR out there (Minolta), I don't think Canon is going to use the same model name.
Canon had the D60 in 2002ish.... Nikon currently has a D60. I don't think it's farfetched for Canon to settle on the 7D name.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
Nice. Let's dissect that picture :-) Definitely not a Rebel because of the top illuminated LCD.
No scene modes (ala Rebel, xxD) - so targeted for pro's?
Not necessarily targeted specifically at pros, more like advanced photographers, similar to those who would buy a 5DII, which would be amateurs and pros.
brainiac wrote:
According to people round here you shouldn't bother. Nobody prints above 6x4", and you can only see the difference at A0. No client ever wants his pictures cropped, and any surplus quality is unprofessional ;-)
The two people I shoot weddings for do 8x10's all the time and have done some 20x30's.
Will Patterson wrote:
The two people I shoot weddings for do 8x10's all the time and have done some 20x30's.
I'm on your side Will. I have been shooting weddings for 15 years and I find preposterous the suggestion that I should settle for 12 Mpixels when my current 21 Mpixel cameras are the best wedding cameras I have ever used. Real weddings are punctuated by moments of perfect panic as the bride and groom accidentally leave the church early (happened to me a month ago), or some quaintly-dressed page boy decides to perform improvised modern dance in the aisle during the vows. The congregation are getting their shots of it, but you only have your 85 f1.2 mounted and the memory card just filled in your other body. You've got 2 seconds to react, if that. Give me 21 Mpixels every time, because it gives me the versatility to crop when I don't have time to change lenses, or when the bride's brother gets dumped by his Russian girlfriend and they don't want her in the shot any more. I switch to sraw when it makes sense, but shoot 21 when it counts. I do not intend to be one of those wedding photographers that people bitch about because I cynically do the minimum.
MaxiKana wrote:
It won't be FF with that kind of a top-plate (if it is genuine). The prism wouldn't be big enough for FF mirror box. Most likely 1.6 I'd say.
michael49 wrote:
So, do you guys think it will be FF, 1.3X or 1.6X?
I think I'm 90% sure it's full frame - direct competition with D700 and a850. And the bundle of a regular EF lens (28-135) is an even bigger tell tell sign it will go this direction.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
I think I'm 90% sure it's full frame - direct competition with D700 and a850. And the bundle of a regular EF lens (28-135) is an even bigger tell tell sign it will go this direction.
But then, I could be wrong..............
I really wish, but I doubt it's FF. And Canon has bundled the 28-135 with 1.6X crop in the past if I remeber correctly.
I don't know where you guys are getting these cheap FF ideas from. It would cost Canon just about as much money to produce the old 5D chips as it does for them to make the 5d II/1ds3 chip. They would lose money, IMO, to establish a new FF line due to economies of scale. Until a major paradigm shift in sensor fabrication occurs, the marked for a FF will remain higher end with features outside the sensor becoming the distinctions.
This was a couple weeks ago, but a good primer--focus on what JohnJ80 and myself talk about in terms of wafer fab.
There are 3 FF sensors on the market, and the products they are delivered in are differentiated on body and read-out/data processing electronics, primarily.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
And the bundle of a regular EF lens (28-135) is an even bigger tell tell sign it will go this direction.
That's a very good point. Does the picture of the top-plate categorically rule out full-frame? It seems like it does, but we don't really have an indication of the height of the prism.
MaxiKana wrote:
It won't be FF with that kind of a top-plate (if it is genuine). The prism wouldn't be big enough for FF mirror box. Most likely 1.6 I'd say.
I'm going to suggest that we're talking about two different cameras here (assuming both photos are genuine). The top plate camera really looks like it will have a crop factor, but I just don't see Canon releasing something marketed as a 7D that has crop, pop-up flash etc. Maybe, but I think it makes better marketing sense to release a higher-end FF 7D to compete with Nikon's offerings. The top plate camera could be a 60D (although the lack of scene modes seems to contradict this).
..............................
