AF is better, metering is better, burst mode is better, blackout time from shutter is faster, weathersealing, 100% viewfinder, larger viewfinder, more custom controls and setup, flash commander(control your flash from the body not attached)
7d shouldn't be compared to d300 it should be d300s.
It is a better camwra. Have you shot both to compare? I have and it is a no brainer. A few recent events anoher tog had d300 (not s) and I used 7d. Guess who the promoter thought had better images? Me.
Saying it matches the 50d but then is no better than 40d just shows the ignorance in this post. The 7d is a lot better than the 40d. Have you shot both? I have and the answer is clear which one is better.
The weather sealing thing is tired too. You're aware even one series can get water damaged from exposure? Albeit probable drowning of the camera would have to happen, but let us not kid ourselves that it is an underwater camera.
So myh question for you is, why aren't you shooting a d300 rather than posting this dribble?I'm curious if you've even shot both or are jut taking bits from one review and pieces from dxo.
There are folks who will tgell you it is hard to tell a difference in image quality between 1d3 and 7d...so does that mean the 1d3 is behind the 40 and 50d? I think not.
Now I'm not up on this but is the d300 weather sealed?
I'm thinking this post is a troll post.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.
RobertLynn wrote:
It is a better camwra. Have you shot both to compare? I have and it is a no brainer. A few recent events anoher tog had d300 (not s) and I used 7d. Guess who the promoter thought had better images? Me.
This is what the whole brand war is about, the belief that using a "better" camera makes a better photographer. As long as the manufacturers can convince the buying public that this is true, the constant upgrading will continue.
I doubt seriously that the you sold images because they were taken on the 7D, more likely your photographic ability is better.
Speaking for myself, to tell the truth, I can't even remember how I stumbled upon this forum thread. I might have been reading about Thailand on Wiki.... but anyway.
Something made me stop, sign up, and get caught in this better camera Ford/Chevy truck war thang. I apologize to myself and the world for that. As for my brand experience, I've owned Canon 300D, Canon 40D, Nikon D200, Nikon D60, and had a borrowed (for one month) 50D. Oh I also had an Olympus, I think E420, but hated it. I got rid of everything(through time and upgrade) except the D200. I upgraded that to a D90, and then acquired a D300, and kept both. I'm saying that, the D300 was a very obvious and amazing upgrade to the D200. From my experience, the 50D was not an "obvious and amazing" improvement on the 40D, except for only the LCD. Which is why I stick with the Nikons, because little improvements don't make me sell my stuff anymore.
I also agree, robertlynn, that you were most likely a better photographer than your counterpart, and the cameras had nothing to do with that.
We were for the most part the same. Opposite positions same settings more or less. The specific reason they said was his were grainier than mine or rather his word "speckled ".
I personally know the other tog and our sports workflow is very similar with no nr or only basic nr.
I attribute this to either better high ISO or perceived better high ISO as a result of the extra cropping/ downsizing ability.scott f wrote:
This is what the whole brand war is about, the belief that using a "better" camera makes a better photographer. As long as the manufacturers can convince the buying public that this is true, the constant upgrading will continue.
I doubt seriously that the you sold images because they were taken on the 7D, more likely your photographic ability is better.
abqnmusa wrote:
why should a Canon user care if a Nikon is better?
or a Nikon user care if a Canon is better?
The MEASUREBATION is pointless
both cameras can produce excellent images IF the photographer does their part
Use the camera that fits your existing lenses and other kit
+1. You pay your money & you take a chance. And I really don't want to know if you switch to Nikon. I based my choice on lens use & price & will live with it.
RobertLynn wrote:
We were for the most part the same. Opposite positions same settings more or less. The specific reason they said was his were grainier than mine or rather his word "speckled ".
I personally know the other tog and our sports workflow is very similar with no nr or only basic nr.
I attribute this to either better high ISO or perceived better high ISO as a result of the extra cropping/ downsizing ability.
No disrespect intended, but I would have to see full examples, specific circumstances and so on to be convinced. As I've mentioned, I prefer the files from the 7D over the D300, but there are many other variables to be considered before declaring a winner. It's kind of like two sprinters arguing that the reason they won the race was due to the brand of their shoes.
scott f wrote:
No disrespect intended, but I would have to see full examples, specific circumstances and so on to be convinced. As I've mentioned, I prefer the files from the 7D over the D300, but there are many other variables to be considered before declaring a winner. It's kind of like two sprinters arguing that the reason they won the race was due to the brand of their shoes.
I don't have access to the photos shot on the night I mention, from the other guy. I do have mine.
Conditions are largely irrelevant. I mean, if the "d300 is the better camera" it should be better all of the time. Not just under "some" circumstances. FWIW ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/400. Mixed color temp and low color temp.
It is only like the 2 runners talking about shoes if one guys shoes make him inferior to the other.
TVRguy wrote:
No sample shots anywhere in this post.... isn't the print (or at least, an onscreen sample) the ultimate measure of how good a camera is?
(note: sarcasm) Who needs pictures when you have spec sheets? Bob Atkins on photo.net grades cameras without even touching them just by reading a spec sheet. (/sarcasm)
telyt wrote:
(note: sarcasm) Who needs pictures when you have spec sheets? Bob Atkins on photo.net grades cameras without even touching them just by reading a spec sheet. (/sarcasm)
I guess that makes him the Ken Rockwell of Canon...
scott f wrote:
Nor did I equalize the resolution difference, if the D300 was uprezzed to match the 7d , I think it is pretty clear the 7d would look better.
The thread detail is much better w/ the 7D shot already, let alone after an uprez of the D300...
Thank you for stating this. This is basicallhy what I said without the pictures.
I forgot to mention that I feel nikons awb is much better when dealing with warm temps.scott f wrote:
Okay, just for fun I did a comparison shot of the 7D and D300 at ISO 3200 and cropped equal sections from an in focus area of cloth, and an OOF background. I wouldn't get too excited about comparing the amount of detail in the cloth between the two cameras since they are from different lenses(maybe some day I will try it with the same lens). But neither does very well at showing detail, ISO 3200 is a bridge too far for fine detail with these cameras. The auto WB is much better on the D300, it nailed the color, the 7D is too warm. I didn't bother to equalize them since this was just a quick test. Nor did I equalize the resolution difference, if the D300 was uprezzed to match the 7d , I think it is pretty clear the 7d would look better. ...Show more →
