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.
There's a third honking big advantage, related directly to AF.
The D300/D3/D700 AF has 15 sensitive cross-type sensors, all in a big lump, in the middle of the sensor.
The 7D has 19, and they're throughout the AF array, where they can do the most good. The Nikons' outer points are all less-sensitive horizontal-only sensors.
The difference in effectiveness between cross and horizontal AF points was glaringly obvious even comparing the D300 with the 40D, and it's a big deal.
The 40D, 50D and now the 7D also have the extra-sensitive "double-cross" sensor in the middle, something else lacking in the Nikons.
So - in the 7D - we have an AF array where any of its 19 sensors are as good as anything in any Nikon; the ones on the periphery are significantly better than equivalents in the Nikons; and the one in the middle is better than anything in a Nikon.
Add the new configurability, which introduces options not available to the Nikons; the dedicated AF processor lacking in the D300 (although it is acknowledged that the 40D and 50D already have quicker acquisition than the D300); the automatic switching of AF points when turning the camera between landscape and portrait orientation; the new "Spot AF" mode which uses a smaller area of the AF sensor to focus so that distracting backgrounds can more easily be avoided...
keithreeder wrote:
There's a third honking big advantage, related directly to AF.
The D300/D3/D700 AF has 15 sensitive cross-type sensors, all in a big lump, in the middle of the sensor.
The 7D has 19, and they're throughout the AF array, where they can do the most good. The Nikons' outer points are all less-sensitive horizontal-only sensors.
Great point, and surprising it doesn't come up more often. I'd much rather have fewer points all cross-type spread over the frame than more points with less cross-type that are all clumped in the middle.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Great point, and surprising it doesn't come up more often. I'd much rather have fewer points all cross-type spread over the frame than more points with less cross-type that are all clumped in the middle.
This was the #1 reason why I prefer the Canon 1Ds3 AF over the Nikon D3x/D3/D700.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Great point, and surprising it doesn't come up more often. I'd much rather have fewer points all cross-type spread over the frame than more points with less cross-type that are all clumped in the middle.
I've been saying this since the 40D and D300 AF argument started, Yohan - it really matters.
I wish I had a pound for every time I've written "more isn't necessarily better" or "quality is more important than quantity" when discussing this stuff.
Hopefully, now we've got quality and quantity - the best of both worlds.
have we not yet learned that comparing two models from different companies is futile and results in long, head-banging threads?
I thought we understood that Canon and Nikon view the market in slightly different ways and therefore design bodies with slightly different combinations and of features. As in any technology-related area, it's futile to try to compete head-on with you main competitor.
Differentiation is the name of the game, and both the 5D2 and 7D have certainly given Canon some differentiation -- more so (IMO) than Nikon, which has basically applied the same formula (albeit a very good forumla) to three different bodies (D300, D700, D3).
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
Here's a suggestion, don't try to start a business.
That's not how they can put Nikon in their place, that's how they can put themselves out of business.
keithreeder wrote:
There's a third honking big advantage, related directly to AF.
The D300/D3/D700 AF has 15 sensitive cross-type sensors, all in a big lump, in the middle of the sensor.
The 7D has 19, and they're throughout the AF array, where they can do the most good. The Nikons' outer points are all less-sensitive horizontal-only sensors.
The difference in effectiveness between cross and horizontal AF points was glaringly obvious even comparing the D300 with the 40D, and it's a big deal.
The 40D, 50D and now the 7D also have the extra-sensitive "double-cross" sensor in the middle, something else lacking in the Nikons.
So - in the 7D - we have an AF array where any of its 19 sensors are as good as anything in any Nikon; the ones on the periphery are significantly better than equivalents in the Nikons; and the one in the middle is better than anything in a Nikon.
Add the new configurability, which introduces options not available to the Nikons; the dedicated AF processor lacking in the D300 (although it is acknowledged that the 40D and 50D already have quicker acquisition than the D300); the automatic switching of AF points when turning the camera between landscape and portrait orientation; the new "Spot AF" mode which uses a smaller area of the AF sensor to focus so that distracting backgrounds can more easily be avoided...
The only advantage I see with the D300 is that the AF is sensitive to -1 EV where the 7D is sensitive to -0.5EV. And what about the limit of f/5.6 for AF? I thought the D300 had a limit of f/8 so it can focus with f/4 lenses using a 2x teleconverter?
pipspeak wrote:
have we not yet learned that comparing two models from different companies is futile and results in long, head-banging threads?
Please Sir, he started it..!
But yeah, you're right - it's just that I can't be doing with this nonsense of already deciding the camera is a failure before it's even been tested when based on what evidence is actually available right now, nothing could be further from the truth.
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 bet all those Nikon fanboy trolls are coming out of the woodworks just about now A last gasp to hold onto a short-lived taste at the top of the dslr mountain. I think the OP is being presumtuous and living in denial. And that gives ME a laugh in my belly!
Andrew J wrote:
Nikon doesn't have a 400/5.6L so the D7 wins before it even leaves the shelf. At least for the 1.6 crop, action, sports, and wildlife crowd.
+1. Neither does Nikon have a reasonably priced 400 zoom.In Australia one could purchase a 7D,70-200,100-400,400 f5.6 & 85L for the price of the Nikon 200-400. Or if one prefers the 500 f4 L IS.
Having a working mkIII & excellent 5D I do not really care who does what at this moment in my life.
I know this is ancient, but why is my powershot A620 better than a D300s. I Have a 7D also and in every way possible, it smashes the D300s to bits. I have used a friends one on a number of occasions and what a POS it is. Canons rock, nikons dont, simple as that. You Cant On Nikon...
I have no idea I'm just "upping" my post count.
Personally I think the 7D is schlappin the living poo doo out of the D300.
The flip side of that (IMO) is that Nikon is winning the FF war by a fair margin.
A last gasp to hold onto a short-lived taste at the top of the dslr mountain. I think the OP is being presumtuous and living in denial.