This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Canon 7D
p.57 #1Canon 7D
henryng wrote:
I think most of us don't drive a Ferrari because we CAN'T AFFORD ONE! (To be exact, we cannot even afford the oil change)
Same reason for not having a 5D2 or 1Ds3 or D3X in my(if not many others') hands.
Man wish I could say that in local forum. I'd get stonned if I did.
I think most of us don't drive a Ferrari because we CAN'T AFFORD ONE! (To be exact, we cannot even afford the oil change)
Same reason for not having a 5D2 or 1Ds3 or D3X in my(if not many others') hands.
Man wish I could say that in local forum. I'd get stonned if I did.
Aug 30, 2009 at 01:14 AM
p.57 #2Canon 7D
dhphoto wrote:
...a baby 1D, that will take the cheapo crap EF-S zooms?
I have 3 EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60) and their IQ easily rival (and sometimes surpass) L lenses. If you refer to the rumored 15-85 and 18-135 then it's best to wait for actual tests, no? I recall trying a friend's 18-55 IS a month ago while taking similar shots with my 17-55 IS. The differences in IQ were seen only 100% scrutiny and even then, they were minor.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
...a baby 1D, that will take the cheapo crap EF-S zooms?
I have 3 EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60) and their IQ easily rival (and sometimes surpass) L lenses. If you refer to the rumored 15-85 and 18-135 then it's best to wait for actual tests, no? I recall trying a friend's 18-55 IS a month ago while taking similar shots with my 17-55 IS. The differences in IQ were seen only 100% scrutiny and even then, they were minor.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:19 AM
p.57 #3Canon 7D
countdown ... 2 days (depending of which side of the globe you are).
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:27 AM
p.57 #4Canon 7D
Yakim Peled wrote:
I have 3 EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60) and their IQ easily rival (and sometimes surpass) L lenses. If you refer to the rumored 15-85 and 18-135 then it's best to wait for actual tests, no? I recall trying a friend's 18-55 IS a month ago while taking similar shots with my 17-55 IS. The differences in IQ were seen only 100% scrutiny and even then, they were minor.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Good that you like them. I have never seen or used an EF-S lens that wasn't very averagely built and vastly over priced, even if it did have good optics.
IMHO the EF-S range is one that Canon doesn't care that much about, certainly not at the higher end. If anyone can quite justify why a 17-55IS costs as much as it does - with the build quality that it has I'd be interested, considering a 24-105L and 24-70L aren't far off the same price, for an entirely different quality of lens.
dhphoto wrote
...a baby 1D, that will take the cheapo crap EF-S zooms?Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Good that you like them. I have never seen or used an EF-S lens that wasn't very averagely built and vastly over priced, even if it did have good optics.
IMHO the EF-S range is one that Canon doesn't care that much about, certainly not at the higher end. If anyone can quite justify why a 17-55IS costs as much as it does - with the build quality that it has I'd be interested, considering a 24-105L and 24-70L aren't far off the same price, for an entirely different quality of lens.
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:31 AM
p.57 #5Canon 7D
n0b0 wrote:
Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better value.
Absolutely right, but "Better value" means different things to different people.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better value.
Absolutely right, but "Better value" means different things to different people.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:31 AM
p.57 #6Canon 7D
dhphoto wrote:
I have 3 EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-55, 60) and their IQ easily rival (and sometimes surpass) L lenses. If you refer to the rumored 15-85 and 18-135 then it's best to wait for actual tests, no? I recall trying a friend's 18-55 IS a month ago while taking similar shots with my 17-55 IS. The differences in IQ were seen only 100% scrutiny and even then, they were minor.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.Good that you like them. I have never seen or used an EF-S lens that wasn't very averagely built and vastly over priced, even if it did have good optics.
IMHO the EF-S range is one that Canon doesn't care that much about, certainly not at the higher end. If anyone can quite justify why a 17-55IS costs as much as it does - with the build quality that it has I'd be interested, considering a 24-105L and 24-70L aren't far off the same price, for an entirely different quality of lens.
Just to add a bit more info, I replaced the 17-40/4 L for the 10-22, the 24-105/4 L for the 17-55 and the 100/2.8 for the 60/2.8. IQ is every bit as good or (in the former case) a tad better. Also, after owning the 17-55 alongside the 35/1.4 L and Sigma 50/1.4 for several months I eventually sold the primes as they became redundant. It's O.K., I have 5 more.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim Peled wrote
dhphoto wrote
...a baby 1D, that will take the cheapo crap EF-S zooms?Happy shooting,
Yakim.
IMHO the EF-S range is one that Canon doesn't care that much about, certainly not at the higher end. If anyone can quite justify why a 17-55IS costs as much as it does - with the build quality that it has I'd be interested, considering a 24-105L and 24-70L aren't far off the same price, for an entirely different quality of lens.
Just to add a bit more info, I replaced the 17-40/4 L for the 10-22, the 24-105/4 L for the 17-55 and the 100/2.8 for the 60/2.8. IQ is every bit as good or (in the former case) a tad better. Also, after owning the 17-55 alongside the 35/1.4 L and Sigma 50/1.4 for several months I eventually sold the primes as they became redundant. It's O.K., I have 5 more.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:39 AM
p.57 #7Canon 7D
skibum5 wrote:
RobertLynn wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
xabi wrote:
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an L design per se, every lens needs its own specific type of design, but at the time of the 17-55 they really hadn't used much in the way of low dispersion glass or fancy aspherical elements outside of L lenses, which the 17-55 has. Basically the 17-55 is sharper than 24-70L,24-105L and uses exotic elements and is priced as if it were an L. Aside from non-L outer construction I don't see anything different from a typical L.
Nearly every Canon lens use that "fancy aspherical elements" or UD glass Here are justt a few of those outside of the L lenses
EF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-85
EF-S 18-55 all versions of that lens
EF-S 55-250
EF 28/1,8
EF 28/2,8
EF 135/2,8
MP-E 65
EF 24-85
EF 28-90
EF 28-105
EF 28-135
EF 28-200
EF 70-300
RobertLynn wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
xabi wrote:
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an L design per se, every lens needs its own specific type of design, but at the time of the 17-55 they really hadn't used much in the way of low dispersion glass or fancy aspherical elements outside of L lenses, which the 17-55 has. Basically the 17-55 is sharper than 24-70L,24-105L and uses exotic elements and is priced as if it were an L. Aside from non-L outer construction I don't see anything different from a typical L.
Nearly every Canon lens use that "fancy aspherical elements" or UD glass
Here are justt a few of those outside of the L lensesEF-S 10-22
EF-S 17-85
EF-S 18-55 all versions of that lens
EF-S 55-250
EF 28/1,8
EF 28/2,8
EF 135/2,8
MP-E 65
EF 24-85
EF 28-90
EF 28-105
EF 28-135
EF 28-200
EF 70-300
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:51 AM
p.57 #8Canon 7D
Yakim Peled wrote:
Just to add a bit more info, I replaced the 17-40/4 L for the 10-22, the 24-105/4 L for the 17-55 and the 100/2.8 for the 60/2.8. IQ is every bit as good or (in the former case) a tad better. Also, after owning the 17-55 alongside the 35/1.4 L and Sigma 50/1.4 for several months I eventually sold the primes as they became redundant. It's O.K., I have 5 more.
It depends if you want to limit yourself to crop sensors, I have personally more or less given up on them as I find full frame cameras so much easier to get properly sharp results from.
Canon wants to create a 'second-class' system of crop cameras and lenses, so it sells more gear. I'm not playing that game any longer
Just to add a bit more info, I replaced the 17-40/4 L for the 10-22, the 24-105/4 L for the 17-55 and the 100/2.8 for the 60/2.8. IQ is every bit as good or (in the former case) a tad better. Also, after owning the 17-55 alongside the 35/1.4 L and Sigma 50/1.4 for several months I eventually sold the primes as they became redundant. It's O.K., I have 5 more.
It depends if you want to limit yourself to crop sensors, I have personally more or less given up on them as I find full frame cameras so much easier to get properly sharp results from.
Canon wants to create a 'second-class' system of crop cameras and lenses, so it sells more gear. I'm not playing that game any longer
Aug 30, 2009 at 02:53 AM
p.57 #9Canon 7D
twilighter wrote:
The new Sony A850 is full-frame and will be sold for $2000.
Nikon D700 is full-frame and has been well known for a good AF system.
Canon will disappoint many of us by announcing a 7D with a cropped-sensor. They are likely to lose some market share to Sony and Nikon because of this.
I hope the rumors and the posted pictures turn out to be fake.
Now let's just think about how Sony competed with Nintendo and Sega.
Would you rather they announced the 50D II erm I mean 60D, same old same old with HD video.
Plenty of were disappointed with the 5D II AF and wondered if they would ever offer pro level AF in a consumer body and many said no. At least now it appears they have finally pulled their finger out. This means eventually the 5D II will cop the upgrade too. They have to start some where. Plenty to like about this camera even as a 1.6x cropper, it is an aswer to the D300s. I have 1 series but would love a great focusing cropper as well.
LoneWolf2 wrote
it definitely won't be FF no matter how bad everyone wants it to be.Nikon D700 is full-frame and has been well known for a good AF system.
Canon will disappoint many of us by announcing a 7D with a cropped-sensor. They are likely to lose some market share to Sony and Nikon because of this.
I hope the rumors and the posted pictures turn out to be fake.
Now let's just think about how Sony competed with Nintendo and Sega.
Would you rather they announced the 50D II erm I mean 60D, same old same old with HD video.
Plenty of were disappointed with the 5D II AF and wondered if they would ever offer pro level AF in a consumer body and many said no. At least now it appears they have finally pulled their finger out. This means eventually the 5D II will cop the upgrade too. They have to start some where. Plenty to like about this camera even as a 1.6x cropper, it is an aswer to the D300s. I have 1 series but would love a great focusing cropper as well.
Aug 30, 2009 at 03:45 AM
p.57 #10Canon 7D
Haven't read the Whole thread... but can I get this?
1D/s mkIII
7D
5D mkII
50D
bla bla bla?
Or does the 7D replace the 5DmkII?
1D/s mkIII
7D
5D mkII
50D
bla bla bla?
Or does the 7D replace the 5DmkII?
Aug 30, 2009 at 03:48 AM
p.57 #11Canon 7D
mjkoolio wrote:
Haven't read the Whole thread... but can I get this?
1D/s mkIII
7D
5D mkII
50D
bla bla bla?
Or does the 7D replace the 5DmkII?
No, if true the 7D would sit under the 5D II as an advanced 1.6x crop camera, with essentially a 1 series type AF, better sealing, faster frame rate, HD video, etc than 50D. It appears to be Canon's answer to the D300s.
Haven't read the Whole thread... but can I get this?
1D/s mkIII
7D
5D mkII
50D
bla bla bla?
Or does the 7D replace the 5DmkII?
No, if true the 7D would sit under the 5D II as an advanced 1.6x crop camera, with essentially a 1 series type AF, better sealing, faster frame rate, HD video, etc than 50D. It appears to be Canon's answer to the D300s.
Aug 30, 2009 at 04:16 AM
p.57 #12Canon 7D
Yet, I don't know what the D300 is, or Nikon haha
But thank you, I read a bit more re the 7D rumors and the 1.6x crop.
Shanks!
/// a t t
hahaBut thank you, I read a bit more re the 7D rumors and the 1.6x crop.
Shanks!
/// a t t
Aug 30, 2009 at 04:19 AM
p.57 #13Canon 7D
Well, as a long-time Canon owner I am still sitting here by the sidelines with my old 5D. I am still waiting for Canon to put out something that will really entice me to spend some more money, and it hasn't happened yet.
The 5D2 has always sounded like a good camera to me, but only an incremental improvement over what I have now. I'm not convinced it will help me take pictures sufficiently better to justify its cost. And it still has too many shortcomings.
The 7D doesn't interest me because I really like full frame. And I'm somewhat surprised that it appears to have pro-level features that are not in the 5D2.
The pro offerings are too expensive.
Canon used to really innovate but lately it seems their only focus is evolutionary improvements and market segmentation. --c
The 5D2 has always sounded like a good camera to me, but only an incremental improvement over what I have now. I'm not convinced it will help me take pictures sufficiently better to justify its cost. And it still has too many shortcomings.
The 7D doesn't interest me because I really like full frame. And I'm somewhat surprised that it appears to have pro-level features that are not in the 5D2.
The pro offerings are too expensive.
Canon used to really innovate but lately it seems their only focus is evolutionary improvements and market segmentation. --c
Aug 30, 2009 at 04:40 AM
p.57 #14Canon 7D
If the 7D is 1.6x I won't buy it. 1.3x or FF will make me very interested.
Aug 30, 2009 at 04:50 AM
p.57 #15Canon 7D
Well Canon still has no answer to Nikon D700.
Neither do they have any answer to the Nikon D300s.
So logically, Canon will have to come up either a D700 or D300s killer. Or both. That's the name of the game.
Neither do they have any answer to the Nikon D300s.
So logically, Canon will have to come up either a D700 or D300s killer. Or both. That's the name of the game.
Aug 30, 2009 at 04:54 AM
p.57 #16Canon 7D
"I have never seen or used an EF-S lens that wasn't very averagely built and vastly over priced."
try the 60mm 2.8 macro, mate.
"This means eventually the 5D II will cop the upgrade too."
that's something that i find to be encouraging. (possibly false consolation after having shelled out 2700 for a camera that has an iron-age af module, but wth.) if the 50D successor has this wunder-af, then the 5D2's successor will have to have it ({*nervously*} right? right?). and with the FF dslr wars heating up, we just might see in 24 months time a 5D3 with the proper af. better late than never.
try the 60mm 2.8 macro, mate.
"This means eventually the 5D II will cop the upgrade too."
that's something that i find to be encouraging. (possibly false consolation after having shelled out 2700 for a camera that has an iron-age af module, but wth.) if the 50D successor has this wunder-af, then the 5D2's successor will have to have it ({*nervously*} right? right?). and with the FF dslr wars heating up, we just might see in 24 months time a 5D3 with the proper af. better late than never.
Aug 30, 2009 at 04:55 AM
p.57 #17Canon 7D
Paolo Dolina wrote:
Same reason for not having a 5D2 or 1Ds3 or D3X in my(if not many others') hands.Man wish I could say that in local forum. I'd get stonned if I did.
Ferrari is pretty useless if you need to haul a bunch of people, or get a few miles off the maintained road, or bring a load of firewood home. Different tools for different purposes. Just because I only need a certain feature set doesn't mean that I'm being betrayed if someone makes a tool that meets other people's requirements.
Enjoy your 5D series; I'm happy for you that Canon served your market first. I'm looking forward to putting a 7D on the back of my 500.
Edited on Aug 30, 2009 at 05:42 AM · View previous versions
henryng wrote
I think most of us don't drive a Ferrari because we CAN'T AFFORD ONE! (To be exact, we cannot even afford the oil change)Same reason for not having a 5D2 or 1Ds3 or D3X in my(if not many others') hands.
Ferrari is pretty useless if you need to haul a bunch of people, or get a few miles off the maintained road, or bring a load of firewood home. Different tools for different purposes. Just because I only need a certain feature set doesn't mean that I'm being betrayed if someone makes a tool that meets other people's requirements.
Enjoy your 5D series; I'm happy for you that Canon served your market first. I'm looking forward to putting a 7D on the back of my 500.
Edited on Aug 30, 2009 at 05:42 AM · View previous versions
Aug 30, 2009 at 05:17 AM
p.57 #18Canon 7D
abam wrote:
"I have never seen or used an EF-S lens that wasn't very averagely built and vastly over priced."
try the 60mm 2.8 macro, mate.
"This means eventually the 5D II will cop the upgrade too."
that's something that i find to be encouraging. (possibly false consolation after having shelled out 2700 for a camera that has an iron-age af module, but wth.) if the 50D successor has this wunder-af, then the 5D2's successor will have to have it ({*nervously*} right? right?). and with the FF dslr wars heating up, we just might see in 24 months time a 5D3 with the proper af....Show more →
Once the AF genie is out of the bottle, it'll appear in future cameras including a consumer FF.
"I have never seen or used an EF-S lens that wasn't very averagely built and vastly over priced."
try the 60mm 2.8 macro, mate.
"This means eventually the 5D II will cop the upgrade too."
that's something that i find to be encouraging. (possibly false consolation after having shelled out 2700 for a camera that has an iron-age af module, but wth.) if the 50D successor has this wunder-af, then the 5D2's successor will have to have it ({*nervously*} right? right?). and with the FF dslr wars heating up, we just might see in 24 months time a 5D3 with the proper af....Show more →
Once the AF genie is out of the bottle, it'll appear in future cameras including a consumer FF.
Aug 30, 2009 at 05:24 AM
p.57 #19Canon 7D
I can't help to wonder if this could be the first step in the merging of the 1 series. If it is as good as speculated in this thread it will take many nature and sports shooters away from the 1 series and anyone else wanting more effective focal length for that matter. Allowing one full frame 1 series pro body. Just a thought.
Aug 30, 2009 at 05:52 AM
p.57 #20Canon 7D
dhphoto wrote:
It depends if you want to limit yourself to crop sensors, I have personally more or less given up on them as I find full frame cameras so much easier to get properly sharp results from.
In what way does someone "limit" themselves using croppers? Personally I'd be more limited by FF.
Croppers absolutely ideal for certain kinds of photography and most people seem to have no problems whatsoever getting "properly sharp" images from them.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that if a competent photographer can't get sharp as you like images using a cropper, the camera body isn't the issue.
WillWeb wrote:
Different tools for different purposes. Just because I only need a certain feature set doesn't mean that I'm being betrayed if someone makes a tool that meets other people's requirements.
Some people do seem to find that idea hard to get their head round, don’t they?
Edited on Aug 30, 2009 at 06:18 AM · View previous versions
It depends if you want to limit yourself to crop sensors, I have personally more or less given up on them as I find full frame cameras so much easier to get properly sharp results from.
In what way does someone "limit" themselves using croppers? Personally I'd be more limited by FF.
Croppers absolutely ideal for certain kinds of photography and most people seem to have no problems whatsoever getting "properly sharp" images from them.
In fact I'd go as far as to say that if a competent photographer can't get sharp as you like images using a cropper, the camera body isn't the issue.
WillWeb wrote:
Different tools for different purposes. Just because I only need a certain feature set doesn't mean that I'm being betrayed if someone makes a tool that meets other people's requirements.
Some people do seem to find that idea hard to get their head round, don’t they?
Edited on Aug 30, 2009 at 06:18 AM · View previous versions
Aug 30, 2009 at 06:15 AM