Tom_W wrote:
If it is successful in rendering a wide dynamic range, and low noise (without detail-smashing software-based noise reduction), I may buy one. I have guarded skepticism at this time, but hopeful.
there was even some vague talk about a dual ADC readout, hard to say if they just meant that is how they get the speed or if they meant they are doing high gain reads and low gain reads and then blending, that could be a big deal indeed, but that may be reading too much into it, being overly optimistic.
snowboarder wrote:
OK so for the price difference between 50D and 7D we're getting
some pro features. That's about $500 for a good AF, 100% VF etc.
Probably less because the sensor is updated and some other stuff...
So we can expect a new 5D III with all this for ~$3200 right?
Or that would be too obvious?
globalkiwi wrote:
Useful comparative tables - in case you haven't bothered looking after the multiple threads here - makes very clear that the 7D (assuming it arrives) is pitched directly at reclaiming the mid-level market from Nikon.
Anyone know where the announcement will be made? Hope like hell it's not in some part of the planet that will require us to sit through most of tomorrow without bonfide specs!
Except that the guy writing it is a revisionist and not the best informed. The d200 was ALWAYS outclassed by the 20d/30d; the d200 had multicam 1000 AF and a 6MP CCD sensor that was noisy as hell above ISO 800. It wasn't until the d300 was announced that Nikon jumped ahead. There's also the fact that the international date line is in the pacific and the sun rises in the east, so if it is sept 2nd here in the US it can't be sept 1st any where else but the middle of the ocean.
OCphotography wrote:
No offence, but if these specs are true, whats the point in buying the 5D Mark II, besides the full-frame-sensor? I mean, with better AF, more AF points, more speed (key issues that 5D MKII owners are missing), all that is left is the sensor, a bit higher ISO and HD video, or am i all wrong?
OCphotography wrote:
No offence, but if these specs are true, whats the point in buying the 5D Mark II, besides the full-frame-sensor? I mean, with better AF, more AF points, more speed (key issues that 5D MKII owners are missing), all that is left is the sensor, a bit higher ISO and HD video, or am i all wrong?
No offence [sic]? I'm assuming you meant offense, but I'll join you and draw the attacks of many by telling the truth.....
I could never find much of a reason to buy a 5d2. Besides the FF 21MP sensor, the 5d2 is pretty lame (or is that major lame) on every level. I've never been able to get excited about it because it represents the biggest collection of compromises Canon has dumped on the market since the 50d. Oh that's right, they came out a few days apart. Something about all the 2008 releases were redolent of bad fish IMO...
Let's hope the 7d is better. I'll withhold judgment until I see the images...
What's the deal with the people celebrating D700 as some "revolution" to show how FF and high burst rate can be done in the same body?
Yes, D700 do some nice things, BUT (except for the high-ISO) with the IQ almost retarded compared to present level. The same level was achieved back in 2004. year (original 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds Mk2...), so when we come to the point that output is most important photographers result, who the hell's excited about the all the bells and whistles that D700 offers?
Your client or whoever lookes at your photos certainly is no excited about your 12765 AF points, ISO102400, 20fps burst and all other crap - the photo is all that counts, and when we come to that, what D700 has to offer over the old 5D in the terms of IQ?
I'm tired of people mentioning D700 in every topic I've read past year. D700 is no close to market top seller to celebrate it like some religion, or I've missed something? Initial D700 sell rate is most provoked by Nikonians hunger for cheapo FF, rather than unbeliveable IQ.
Everyone who is enlightened when "D700" word is spoken, should buy one for himself to live the nirvana starting right now... no one stops them.
Oh Christ...
Best regards and NHF!
P.S. Sorry for eventual bad grammar - english isn't my native language.
jamesf99 wrote:
No offence [sic]? I'm assuming you meant offense, but I'll join you and draw the attacks of many by telling the truth.....
I could never find much of a reason to buy a 5d2. Besides the FF 21MP sensor, the 5d2 is pretty lame (or is that major lame) on every level. I've never been able to get excited about it because it represents the biggest collection of compromises Canon has dumped on the market since the 50d.Oh that's right, they came out a few days apart. Something about all the 2008 releases were redolent of bad fish IMO...
Let's hope the 7d is better. I'll withhold judgment until I see the images...
I must agree with you on the 5D, had mine for 4 weeks, sold it and bought 1D Mark III.. If the "7D" should have a 1.3x crop sensor with the option to use EF-s lenses too, then I might go for that.. But lets not jump the wagon yet 9 hours till they reveal it here in Denmark
timbop wrote:
Except that the guy writing it is a revisionist and not the best informed. The d200 was ALWAYS outclassed by the 20d/30d; the d200 had multicam 1000 AF and a 6MP CCD sensor that was noisy as hell above ISO 800. It wasn't until the d300 was announced that Nikon jumped ahead. There's also the fact that the international date line is in the pacific and the sun rises in the east, so if it is sept 2nd here in the US it can't be sept 1st any where else but the middle of the ocean.
Are we talking about the same article? I was refering to the comparative tables she laid out ... which don't go into remotely that level of detail (understandably as the thing still hasn't been released). She's obviously mistaken about the dateline but the where is still important in terms of how long folks in the US (& elsewhere) have to wait for actual specs instead of speculation.
StORM48 wrote:
What's the deal with the people celebrating D700 as some "revolution" to show how FF and high burst rate can be done in the same body?
Yes, D700 do some nice things, BUT (except for the high-ISO) with the IQ almost retarded compared to present level. The same level was achieved back in 2004. year (original 1Ds, 5D, 1Ds Mk2...), so when we come to the point that output is most important photographers result, who the hell's excited about the all the bells and whistles that D700 offers?
Your client or whoever lookes at your photos certainly is no excited about your 12765 AF points, ISO102400, 20fps burst and all other crap - the photo is all that counts, and when we come to that, what D700 has to offer over the old 5D in the terms of IQ?
I'm tired of people mentioning D700 in every topic I've read past year. D700 is no close to market top seller to celebrate it like some religion, or I've missed something? Initial D700 sell rate is most provoked by Nikonians hunger for cheapo FF, rather than unbeliveable IQ.
Everyone who is enlightened when "D700" word is spoken, should buy one for himself to live the nirvana starting right now... no one stops them.
Oh Christ...
Best regards and NHF!
P.S. Sorry for eventual bad grammar - english isn't my native language. ...Show more →
Er... welcome to the forum?
For me the significance of the D700 is that it proved that FF plus pro features (pro AF, weather sealing, etc.) can be done for less than $3000. Many Canon apologists claimed it couldn't be done until Nikon proved otherwise. In that sense it's a watershed camera, and in a sense, yes, a "nirvana" of sorts.
IQ isn't everything for you. Otherwise you'd be shooting large format instead of hanging out with us 35mm peasants. Most of the time people who say IQ is the main thing want to pretend that IQ is the only thing, when clearly it's not.
Features matter. It's just a question of where does your personal balance lie. How much more important is IQ than functionality? For some IQ is so paramount that they don't mind shooting large format. For others IQ is important enough that they don't mind sacrificing a few functional niceties to get ultimate IQ. For yet others the balance is more on the other side, willing to sacrifice a bit of ultimate IQ for better functionality.
There's room for all of us. No need to be so angry over nothing.
For me, the most attractive and crucial part is the pricing of the 7D. Granted, I was looking at the 5dII for a full frame camera with video capability, but I have been shooting with a 1.6x for five years now and I've gotten used to it.
If the rumors about the price turns out to be true, this might be my new camera. I've heard way too many friends complain about the focusing on the 5dII and it's clear that this camera is a step up.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
For me the significance of the D700 is that it proved that FF plus pro features (pro AF, weather sealing, etc.) can be done for less than $3000. Many Canon apologists claimed it couldn't be done until Nikon proved otherwise. In that sense it's a watershed camera, and in a sense, yes, a "nirvana" of sorts.
Yes, but you could equally say that the 5D2 proved that high resolution with pro-level image quality and HD video could be done for less than $3000. As you put it: "features matter".
The 5D2 may not be a camera that suits *your* needs, maybe you don't want the extra resolution or video capture, but some do. I think both of these cameras offer a compelling mix of features that suit the needs of particular audiences well.
So far, you can't "have it all" for less than $3K from either vendor...
garyvot wrote:
Yes, but you could equally say that the 5D2 proved that high resolution with pro-level image quality and HD video could be done for less than $3000. As you put it: "features matter".
The 5D2 may not be a camera that suits *your* needs, maybe you don't want the extra resolution or video capture, but some do. I think both of these cameras offer a compelling mix of features that suit the needs of particular audiences well.
So far, you can't "have it all" for less than $3K from either vendor...
Uh... why are you saying this. Isn't this what I already said? Read the rest of my post that you didn't quote, namely "there's room for all of us" with regards to different personal preferences in balancing IQ vs. features. I completely agree with you!
or if they meant they are doing high gain reads and low gain reads and then blending, that could be a big deal indeed, but that may be reading too much into it, being overly optimistic.
