I know... you read that topic expecting some thread with SS's and detailed point by point comparison's but I'm talking about in general... why isn't the 7d better?
If you're competing with a product that clearly has been accepted as a much better mid tier dSLR then why did you design it with "just at" the level of your competitor? Why not improve instead of meet that level?
I know a lot of people will respond with the tired old "no one needs more then 1 AF point and iso 400 and 1 FPS to shoot 95% of the photos they are ever going to take" but the reality is people buy cameras based on that 5% of theoretical in the "prosumer" market not based on what they actually need.
Why do you think canon doesn't one-up nikon? Is it technical limitations? Is it the simple "we just need to stop the bleeding not beat them" focus on keeping canon shooters canon instead of actually being superior to the competition since most folks 1st body isn't this tier? Is it just canon who doesn't feel better would sell?
What could they of done to really "knock it out" of the ballpark? 1d's AF system for one (since rob galibraith's preview seems to say the AF tracking is horrific in the 7d) real weather sealing not this half somewhat sealed but don't take in the rain crap? Really high performance 10 MP sensor vs a crammed with pixels 18 that "matches" the 50D performance instead of actually improving? I'd bet more consumers would love a 10MP image at 5d mk2 levels of noise then a 18mp one that doesn't gain anything over the 40d's 10.
What do you think? Nice product aside is this just a sad sign from a company who used to lead the way not follow.
So - and it's hard to figure out what your point actually is, but here goes - you're one of these people who equate AF performance solely to the number of AF points available, right?
I despair...
The fact is that - in terms of actual Real World capabilities - the 40D/50D AF is every bit as good as the one in the D300: different, but just as good, and in some use cases, better.
I've tested this, others have tested it, and the consensus really is that more is by no means a guarantee of better.
Oh and just to add some flame retardant I do think canon has superior glass having used the insanely wonderful 35l, 70-200 F4's (both IS and non IS) and the 17-55 IS but imho are being held back by this insane focus on not providing anything but the minimum the market demands.
Keith: Really? Come on, let's be real... the 40D's AF tracks things as well as the d300? It lets you compose without recomposing after AF? Single point AF in regular light/low light center AF point sure the 40D's is as good if not better (quicker lock) then the d300 but what about everywhere else?
Like I said... I'm not going to go into a 1:1 "this af point is 1.07% more accurate then this af system" but in general the reason behind the 1d's AF system not being in this camera?
Tim
Edit: Also have to say what's the deal with the battery change?
Galbraith only seemed to have problems with the 200 f/2, the 800 f/5.6 tracked very well. Maybe it's the narrower FOV helping. But unless we know what the conditions were it's hard to say anything.
I love these wailing, hand-wringing posts that pair up two models from two companies' entire lineups, decide that one model is a "winner" and the other a "loser," and then despair that the company offering the "loser" has lost its way because it failed to listen to one's personal opinion about what is important (in this case, the number of AF points).
When Nikon offers a 21mp FF camera with HD for less than $2700, I'll agree that (at least temporarily) Nikon has the innovation edge. Until then, I'm not seeing it.
Again... it's not just AF but please if you want to turn this into claiming that's what the only issue is please do.
Again, why is this camera NOT better? Please point to me where with a working production camera in hand (the d300) canon actually improved on anything over it?
That's like a car company taking a 2009 toyota prius and saying "in 2011 ford is going to make a prius clone that's almost as good." People would say "wow... why are you aiming for almost as good? Shouldn't you want to make a superior product?"
Look at all of the different AF modes, it's got comparable metering, on demand focusing grids, better video options, the overall image noise is the same or slightly better than the D300 (compare at imaging-resource.com) plus the 7D has quite a bit more detail in those same images. All at a lower retail point. The canon doesn't need a grip for 8fps
Well no camera is perfect, but what else did you expect from Canon with the 7D? Anymore improvements would have added to the cost and stolen too much thunder from the 1D IV. Canon has offered a great package at a good price and maybe realised pushing a cropper too much higher would be risky.
If I were really greedy, I would have like AF to f/8, 1.3x crop, EOS 1V sealing, dual card slots, built-in GPS.
Put it this way, if this camera had of been the expected 60D, which is a 50D with HD video, then I would have bought a D300s, now I see no need to at all. The D300s may still have a feature or two better, but this has some better features too IMO. Pretty good competitors now.
It's a beautiful day out where I am. I think I'll go out with my refurb 5d and take some photos. Yes, I love the innovations that are going on (or not) but every time I take a photo I realize that there is at least a 400% chance that it could be better because of something I can do - not because the camera is limiting me. In the end the cheapest, best way of getting better is to use what I have better. Someday I may own a 7D - I've been waiting for 3 years for a 3D that Canon hasn't made yet . . .
Happy Shooting
I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make but bottom line is, we won't be able to stack up the D300s next to the 7D until we have both bodies in hand for testing. On spec, personally I think the 7D blows away the D300s in all ways other than weather sealing (I'm not sure what Canon's spec is on this, but it really is up to how the camera is made, not what they say).
Image quality wise, my instinct is that the Canon wins easily in high ISO. The D300 always employed this disgusting default noise reduction algorithm that blurred away any detail you had at ISO 1600+, and it never was a really good high ISO cam. At base ISO the resolution advantage gives the 7D a point as well.
Video wise, no comparison. If you're comparing the 5D II vs 7D for cine, the customizability and frame rate options of the 7D blows the 5D2 away. Other than the smaller sensor, which will still be quite good, the 7D wins.
Oh yeah did I mention that the D300 is still doing 12bit @ those higher fps (vs canon 14 bit)? Or how about the Nikon users say using all 51 points are impractical anyway, and using what, 19, is far better in practice? Doesn't sound better at anything other than the dual card slot. Plus canon's lens line > Nikon, except for maybe the 14-24 and 70-200 f/2.8 new one, but it's $2400!
The d300 has same degree of AF modes and better AF system in terms of distribution and we'll see in terms of tracking though rob galibraith's preview of 3 of the modes seems like it's lacking.
Focusing grid? Grid's been on nikon bodies for a long time.
Metering? We'll see if it lives up to nikon's really good metering in general.
Noise? Sorry, I don't see the improved noise that you do.
Really... you're defending the 7d where as I'm not doubting it'll be a fantastic dSLR I'm questioning why canon refuses to take the lead but rather seems to be just matching nikon?
I think Daan B hit in on the head, marketing. You make the least you can make to sell which is a shame because it leads to slower innovation then what should have been. I bet if the D300 never come out the 7d wouldn't of we would of had the 60D at 18 mp and same af/metering/body design.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Anymore improvements would have added to the cost and stolen too much thunder from the 1D IV. Canon has offered a great package at a good price and maybe realised pushing a cropper too much higher would be risky.
Couldn't agree more.
You have read my mind.
After the official anouncement, I have been wondering what canon will have to put into the 1dMIV in order to justify the usual $4500 price...
I mean, the 7d has an incredibly high number of (new) features, that make it harder to justify the 3x higher cost of a 1D...
It will either be an extraordinary camera with cutting edge features and technology, or a substantially overpriced one (compared to 7d)...
droopy1592 wrote:
t. The canon doesn't need a grip for 8fps
Thats what I dont get about the D300/D700 grip. you dont just have to buy the the very overpriced grip but the battery from the D3 (so I would guess the charger as well?) to be able to get the improved FPS. OK I think you can get it from AA's as well.
On the whole from what I've seen from the spec of the 7D it looks as if Canon finally listened and put alot of good useful stuff on board.
8FPS
the level indicators
100% VF
The AF point clustering
The Spot AF point
The onboard Flash master
Any 2 or 3 of these could have been put on and the camera would still have looked a good improvement on the 50D
