While this looks like a decent camera, I'm really looking forward to seeing it's new features in the 1 and 5 series. Kudos for a fresh design approach.
Give me a FF, 18mp equivalent (same features as 7D) and I will really be impressed.
digitalbug30d wrote:
doesnt a new sensor design mean anything? with regard to noise at High ISO if not why would Canon bother if there wasnt a difference from the 50D...not to mention 2x digic4s...amazes me
Why did they bother with the 50D when the 40D had better IQ in some situations? Resolution is a bigger problem than noise. I'm crossing fingers than the 500/4 and 800/5.6 are up to the challenge.
kewlcanon wrote:
IMHO Canon hits a home run with 7D.
Right now it's just a high fly ball to center field...waiting for the wind to blow any which way. We'll see in a few weeks whether or not it makes it out.
EB-1 wrote:
Am I the only one not very impressed? The 50D already shows the limits of noise and resolution on the small sensor. The 7D will have more pixels, and even if the noise level is the same, what good is the difference?
EBH
I am somewhat impressed it looks great but I want to wait and see what it does a month or two after it's out on the market. I know a lot of the concern with the 50D is noise with that many MP now the 7 has added more. I see a lot of nice gimmick features some I think are very cool. But let the dust settle and I may buy one if the value of my 50D doesn't fall to far
EB-1 wrote:
Why did they bother with the 50D when the 40D had better IQ in some situations? Resolution is a bigger problem than noise. I'm crossing fingers than the 500/4 and 800/5.6 are up to the challenge.
EBH
because its people the whine for more MPs and if they dont get them to look elsewhere...but we know more isnt always better 50D,but give Canon a chance here just maybe they got something right or really improved an aspect or two....
Here is a link on Robgalbraith.com. He had a Beta 7D & the new lenses, and posted up some sized for web images + actual images you can download that are full resolution. I've already downloaded a few, and they are 13MB JPEGS Quite the in depth detail of information & some pretty detailed pixs. Used the 16-35/2.8 II, 200/2 IS, 85/1.2 II, & others, for testing purposes.
n0b0 wrote:
What lenses were used in those samples though? I saw the DPreview sample of a bridge taken with the 17-55IS, looks plenty crisp to me. Also bear in mind that these probably haven't gone through any post processing. A little high pass sharpening and USM and they'll look fine.
Rockies Photo wrote:
Here is a link on Robgalbraith.com. He had a Beta 7D & the new lenses, and posted up some sized for web images + actual images you can download that are full resolution. I've already downloaded a few, and they are 13MB JPEGS Quite the in depth detail of information & some pretty detailed pixs. Used the 16-35/2.8 II, 200/2 IS, 85/1.2 II, & others, for testing purposes.
Were we expecting the 7D to BLOW THEM AWAY
It seems to me, however, that the claims about photon efficiency, more photosensitive area per pixel and improved microlens performance are turning out to actually add up performancewise, rather than something they had to say even if it only totaled 1%.
I'm left with the impression this is a testing ground for the upcoming 1D4, they crammed in alot of technology, I thinks they are pulling a "microsoft" and sending it out for consumer elavualtion and inevitable debugging (at least for ealry adopters) so they can tweek and fuss the kinks out.
It's a very nice looking camera that will most definately suit the prosumer crowd who want more than point and shoot but don't want to invest too much or will primary use it for wildlife shooting and enjoy the 1.6 crop and carrying shorter lenses.
There no doubt this could be an excellent backup unit for the pro and offering 24p high def video is a bonus as it's seems still a toss (at least on the rumour curcuit) that the next round of 1D's will or won't have video given the tv contract restrictions at sports events.
Had this been an APS-H sensor I'd be extremely tempted to wait 6 months and buy one (I hate debugging!) but I think I'll pass, I have a variety of interests not the least of which is portrait & architecture and other wide angle photography, I'm having a had time imagining spending 2 grand on a 14mm only to turn it into a 23mm with a "C" sensor.
Noise is the other issue, looking at some of the beta pics I'm not so impressed with the noise at highter ISO, and not alot higher at that.
Bottom line is that the days of vast IQ improvements, from the sensor alone, with each successive generation are past us. Maybe some people will be able to see the difference but the majority of folks won't. Where the 7D is clearly superior (assuming they actually work) is in the little things like AF, metering, flash control, speed, viewfinder, etc.
It would be a huge mistake to not associate those improvements with the potential for vastly improved IQ. If you limit the discussion of IQ to pixels you ignore the fact that the sensor is but one component in a complex equation that ultimately determines what a picture looks like. For example, the new flash control offers options for making much better pictures in many situations even if Canon had done nothing with the sensor. Same goes for the AF system and the metering and so on.
Although I will withhold forming an opinion until I get a chance to test one, I must say that on paper it appears to be a very attractive package and I suspect that it will meet with good success from a wide variety of users, including pros.
per another thread here it looks like, normalized, 1/2 stop more DR than 40D/50D at ISO100 and very nearly the same as the 5D2 (but with less banding perhaps thus making the effective max DR better than on the 5D2 it seems). That said there is far more to image quality than the DR rating. SNR, for one, should be at least 2/3 stops better with the 5D2 and probably noticeably more.
I bet the SNR is at least 1/3 stop better than with the 50D.
Quite the in depth detail of information & some pretty detailed pixs. Used the 16-35/2.8 II, 200/2 IS, 85/1.2 II, & others, for testing purposes.