talexander wrote:
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.
I actually looked at Robs photos where he compared the 5DmkII and the 7D all the way up to ISO 12800. Just from the looks of the low light samples anyone can see how close the 7D is to the FF 5DmkII. The reviews are marveling over how Canon pulled off the low noise with so many MP's. The D7 will best the D300s in high ISO shooting AND do it with 50% more MP's. This camera will be the factor that sends many Nikon crop users over to Canon.
I'm waiting to hear all the "psuedo experts" begin the yammering about how the pixel density in the 7D is too much and it can't be a good camera because of it. I'll bet money DP review doesn't like it.
Everybody break out your calculators, the math and pixel geeks are about to start.
Everytime I only print out 1 to 3 A3+ or bigger after a shooting activities, should I also print out the camera spec. sheet with how many AF point used and stick it on the back of the photo?
Gary Gray wrote:
I'm waiting to hear all the "psuedo experts" begin the yammering about how the pixel density in the 7D is too much and it can't be a good camera because of it. I'll bet money DP review doesn't like it.
Everybody break out your calculators, the math and pixel geeks are about to start.
Let's watch Dpreview compare it per pixel and claim it's too high, even though posters have analyze and shown how dpreview's blog post on downsampling to reduce noise was flawed and done incorrectly. Dpreview's reviewers haven't responded to those posts either....
And they will refer to the smudged samples of the Nikon and say the noise is less and even though you can clearly see a lack of detail for Nikon shots they will say the Nikon and canon are equal on detail.
As long as it betters 50D in noise controlling, and looks promising, 7D will be an amazing crop camera with plenty of pixels and features come with it.
Gary Gray wrote:
I'll bet money DP review doesn't like it.
Yeah well, seriously, what gives.
DP Reviews are usually what first time DSLR or digital camera buyers reference. Of course, they don't know that they're full of crap.
Gary Gray wrote:
I'm waiting to hear all the "psuedo experts" begin the yammering about how the pixel density in the 7D is too much and it can't be a good camera because of it. I'll bet money DP review doesn't like it.
Everybody break out your calculators, the math and pixel geeks are about to start.
I am with you there buddy. and if it turns out that the 7D is actually better at high ISO with more pixels I'd be smiling to myself for weeks.
So, I'm sitting here with a 5D, 50D and 1DsMKII (in my Canon kit) and thinking I'm still not going to upgrade anything at least until Canon comes out with a new full frame camera that at least matches the performance of the 7D and doesn't cost more than $3000. The D700 was almost there, so maybe Nikon will beat them to that punch. I'm just now realizing that I want a compact version of the 1DsMKII with current features. The 5DmkII isn't it. The 7D isn't it.
In 1989, the EOS-1 was released to high acclaim. In 1994, the successor to the EOS-1, the EOS-1n was released, also to praise. For 10 years, both cameras were standards in professional quality, much like the Nikon F4 and F5.
The thing about those cameras is that they all had relatively few AF points (the 1 had 1 AF point and the 1n had 5. The F4 had 1 large AF area and the F5 had 5 AF points) and people were still able to take excellent, and sometimes amazing photographs with them. Before that, a large chunk of the focusing screens in cameras either used split prisms in the center or some sort of microprism area.
If people were able to take all the collective photographs of the world prior to 2000 with relatively obsolete technology, then by golly, I doubt the AF performance of even the Rebel XT will hamper me too much.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
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
Sorry about that--made the mistake of looking from a US-centric perspective (7D: $1699, D300s: $1799). Why is the UK price so much? I saw on Dpreview that the EU price was supposed to be 1649 Euros.
They listened to me, apparently. The 7D sounds like it's everything I, as a surf photographer, want. It has high FPS, far better resolution than my 1D2, HD video and actually the 1.6x crop doesn't bother me in the slightest. If the AF works as well as the 1D2, it'll do for me.
Thank you Canon. If you'd only incorporate a beer cooler, doobie rolling machine and personal cooling fan like I asked for, you'd be on to a winner.
farscapes wrote:
They listened to me, apparently. The 7D sounds like it's everything I, as a surf photographer, want. It has high FPS, far better resolution than my 1D2, HD video and actually the 1.6x crop doesn't bother me in the slightest. If the AF works as well as the 1D2, it'll do for me.
Thank you Canon. If you'd only incorporate a beer cooler, doobie rolling machine and personal cooling fan like I asked for, you'd be on to a winner.
Cheers
Rich
Rich,
Good for you! Surfing is one application I think both the pixel density and the new AF system would be perfect for. I can only imagine the amazing detail you can capture with a 500/4 or 600/4 and that pixel density at base ISO.
Better or not, Canon users are benefiting from Nikon's good products.
The D300 was a good reason to choose Nikon. The 7D (probably) eliminates that reason. Video also figures into what's going on. Canon has recieved a lot of attention for 5D video. I believe the shortage of 'L' lenses is primarily the result of interest in video.
Harold Carlson wrote:
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
Many people have been clamoring for smaller cameras. I don't think Canon can do all those things yet in a 7D size body. It's the first dual digic in a smaller camera. The throughput of the camera is amazing.
As I have a 5D, I prefer the 7D with a crop sensor. There seems to be a fair number of people who like crop cameras. I think Canon has positioned the 7D well. The large gad in pricing between the 5D and the XXD has been a problem, and one that Nikon exploited.
So all in all, a smart camera I think.
There may be a 3D that includes more of your list.
orangefirefish wrote:
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.
Ditto. As the OP won't get into a point-by-point comparison, neither will I, but orangefirefish summed it up nicely. Better and cheaper. What more were you hoping for
Plus nobody expected the changes (read: improvements) to be revolutionary. At best, it would be only gradual, no matter the brand. Let's see what Nikon will put in into the D400 or whatever name it may get later.
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
If that is what you meant your original post was poorly worded.
Anyhow, I am no fanboy that will praise anything they put out just because it carries the Canon name, but I see the 7D as a very smart move on Canon's part. They appear to have beaten the competition (the D300s primarily) at a price point that is likely to have broad appeal. A lot of individual features are superior like resolution, video, native fps, etc. Plus it is cheaper (in the US market at least.)
As for questioning why they didn't aim even higher with the 7D, I think Canon targeted a particular segment of the market. They brought a revolutionary (for Canon) feature set to an APS-C cam at a competetive price. Sure they could have added yet more features, but that would obviously have brought the price up. The line between the 1 series would have been blurred significantly, which is something that Canon has always worked very hard to avoid.
Basically, they could have created a "true Pro" APS-C cam in the 7D, but why? The current feature set and price point is a nice balance and as a whole package it is likely to appeal to a broad audience. A >$2000 7D would have been impressive, but it probably wouldn't have sold nearly as well.
EDIT: I should probably add that I have no intention of buying this (or any) APS-C camera. If they had made the rumored APS-H cam at $2600 or so I would have given it a long look.
The Nikon D300s is a dog compared to the 7D since it lacks in every area including AF. Canon is using new sensor technology and has put all of the desired feature set in to this model. Sure, there are some short comings, but all in all a very good camera. Note, Rob Galbraith NEVER tested the Nikon D300/D300s AF to the extent he did the beta-unit of the 7D. HE SHOULD BE ASHAMED!
I like the sentence "on specs only"
