I use the D300 and the 50D side by side all the time. The 50D has as good if not better autofocus system as the D300, no question about it. I've missed more bird flight shots with the D300, it seems to have trouble in high contrast situations, and frequently seems to lock on to clouds where the 50D tends to stick to the subject better.
Both are great cameras, the 50D is a better wildlife camera in many regards. Just my opinion.
d300s has 51 AF points with 15 points cross type while 7d has 19 all cross type (even on 1d & ds mark III you can only manually choose 19 AF points, but the users who upgrade from predecessor seems happy with the upgrade). Besides IMO, the transmissive LCD screen on the viewfinder itself is a great innovation (i can see how useful to use illuminate grid in the dark area than interchangeable focusing grid)
On spec, the 7D has topped the D300s in:
Frame rate, resolution, ability to shoot 14-bit RAW at full speed, and video.
in all other areas it at least matches it.
Oh wait. It's $100 less?
Again, I don't get what the OP is saying. Maybe it's just me.
Make no mistake, I've used both systems professionally and really like both systems. But being entirely impartial, the 7D is revolutionary both in terms of DSLRs and also Canon's history.
I don't get the OP. On specs, the 7D is roughly equal to the D300(s), but it adds two major advantages--a huge resolution advantage, and much better video at a lower price point.
Unless the sensor turns out to be terrible, the 7D is more than just competitive with the D300s (and given that Nikon just released the D300s, it's not as if they're about to one-up Canon next month).
thebac1 wrote:
Unless the sensor turns out to be terrible
This definitely doesn't look to be the case, though the high ISO samples posted are what could be expected of an 18MP APS-C sensor.... nothing revolutionary there.
I find it very funny the side-cracks at me because I didn't ask "why does the 7d suck" in fact I clearly pointed out the 7d is a huge step forward rivaling the d300 but my question was why isn't it better.
The real amusing thing to me here is the apparent hatred for anyone who dares question the true "innovation" at canon.
ISO 800 is very good, which was my minimum requirement. I'd rarely use more than that for birding, wildlife, sports or macro. But's it's good to see Canon seem to have improved per pixel noise, which is amazing.
droopy1592 wrote:
Actually per image noise looks pretty damn good, per pixel it's better than the 50D. Per image I'd say better than D300.
Certainly better than the 50D so far- as for the D300, well the 40D already bested the D300 in noise performance and detail retention.
Let's see...how could they have put Nikon in their place? Hmmmm...
1. Made the 7D full frame but down to 15MP
2. Made the LCD a 3" OLED screen that articulates
3. Made it possible to use EF-S lenses (maybe at 10MP or so resolution)
4. Added ISO51200 (just for kicks)
5. Added full weather sealing
6. Added dual memory card slots
7. Still kept the price at $1699 after all of the above
talexander wrote:
I clearly pointed out the 7d is a huge step forward rivaling the d300 but my question was why isn't it better.
Agreed. If Canon's so great at innovating, why they didn't come out with a full-frame camera for under $1000?
Breakthrough, ha. People act like this 7D's a big deal but clearly if Canon listened to us they'd be offering twice as much camera as the 7D for half its price. It's a ripoff, plain and simple.
thebac1 wrote:
I don't get the OP. On specs, the 7D is roughly equal to the D300(s), but it adds two major advantages--a huge resolution advantage, and much better video at a lower price point.
Unless the sensor turns out to be terrible, the 7D is more than just competitive with the D300s (and given that Nikon just released the D300s, it's not as if they're about to one-up Canon next month).
Not too sure about the lower price point
Here in the UK
Warehouseexpress.com
7D = £1699
D300s = £1494
Both body only
Now yes the 7D is the pre order price so it will probably go down a bit but the D300s is only just shipping the price on that is probably top end as well
talexander wrote:
I find it very funny the side-cracks at me because I didn't ask "why does the 7d suck" in fact I clearly pointed out the 7d is a huge step forward rivaling the d300 but my question was why isn't it better.
The real amusing thing to me here is the apparent hatred for anyone who dares question the true "innovation" at canon.
Tim
I guess you assume the D400 is going to be miles ahead of everything! Based on what sony has put out the D400 will be 14 or so MP with most of the same features it already has plus improved video (maybe) and wireless flash (maybe) and it will just be the equal to or still not as featured as the 7D, and it will still be probably more expensive. There is a part of the market that the 7D and D400 will fit in and anything too much more than that will cost you more money. It's simply not equal to the D300, it's better! Don't know why you keep saying that.
The video options are FAR better on the 7D (fps and resolution)
More fps on 7D without grip and with 14bit images... what's your 14bit fps on the D300? 2.5fps? THat's a laugh! HAHA
More resolution on the 7D
Wireless flash system controls more groups on 7D.
Better lens selection unless all you want are the $2400 70-200 or the 14-24mm wide angle.
Again, you asked, we answered, you ignore the points we give.
RalphJ wrote:
Agreed. If Canon's so great at innovating, why they didn't come out with a full-frame camera for under $1000?
Breakthrough, ha. People act like this 7D's a big deal but clearly if Canon listened to us they'd be offering twice as much camera as the 7D for half its price. It's a ripoff, plain and simple.
