keithreeder wrote:
I've got to say that every one of the images in that pool was godawful - I don't know if you looked at the full sized ones, but there wasn't a single sharp thing in any of 'em.
Even at the reduced sizes they were grim.
But that doesn't prove anything about the camera - I've seen far better examples, and there'll be more to come, no doubt: I'm still looking to get a 7D myself.
Agreed.... those pictures look terrible. I was surprised that someone Canon blessed with a preproduction unit would put out images that looked that bad/boring.
A day in NYC and you can't come up with better focused, more interesting pictures?
Putting the 7D IQ aside for a moment. The new feature set is very important in what it portends for Canons direction. I'm sure we will only see these enhanced in the next 1D series and spreading to the entire line up in time.
The next releases look to be inline for more than just a mild refresh as was so often the case in the past. Looks like a very interesting year ahead.
Well! It seems that Canon will perfect their next generation AF on the 7D and then (for double the price) issue the Mk IV with, obviously, greatly improved sports specs to eclipse today's current models.
But Brianiac is right Canon has us itching for a scratch we never will get. Canon, it must certainly be obvious now, continues to "feature segment" their bodies so that we cannot get the utility and performance of Nikon (D700/D3) even though Canon has the edge in sensor technology with their own custom manufacturing.
SoundHound wrote:
Well! It seems that Canon will perfect their next generation AF on the 7D and then (for double the price) issue the Mk IV with, obviously, greatly improved sports specs to eclipse today's current models.
But Brianiac is right Canon has us itching for a scratch we never will get. Canon, it must certainly be obvious now, continues to "feature segment" their bodies so that we cannot get the utility and performance of Nikon (D700/D3) even though Canon has the edge in sensor technology with their own custom manufacturing.
Why would Canon do that? Nikon hurt D3 sales with the D700+grip. Similarly, Nikon may be in a quandary because a cheaper D700x+grip may hurt the D3x.
SoundHound wrote:
But Brianiac is right Canon has us itching for a scratch we never will get. Canon, it must certainly be obvious now, continues to "feature segment" their bodies so that we cannot get the utility and performance of Nikon (D700/D3) even though Canon has the edge in sensor technology with their own custom manufacturing.
There's a TV ad on UK TV at the moment. It features about half a dozen little scenes, such as: a bunch of teenagers looking at and discussing a car engine. One of them then says "oh yeah, just like a Golf..."; a TV car show presenter throwing a car round a track and then saying "It handles just like a Golf..!"; a car salesman gently closing a car door and saying "If you listen carefully, this sounds just like a Golf..."
The tag line of the ad is "Why get something like a Golf when you can have a Golf?"
I think the fact that - so far - Canon hasn't "copied" the D3/D700 is an example of the same thing.
They're not going to plagiarise the Nikons, and I don't blame them for that. Instead they're ploughing their own furrow and keeping the differentiation between their products and those of "rivals" clear.
It's a perfectly valid business model.
Besides, can you imagine the forums - both Canon and Nikon - if they did "copy" a D700, say?
This side of the fence would be awash with ranting about "what happened to Canon originality?" and the Nikon guys would either be howling with laughter about Canon "having to" rip Nikon off; or (hopefully!) bitching that Canon's D700 was better than Nikon's D700!
As others have said, we can't have everything (many folk are still waiting for a Canon 200-400mm F/4 IS, and I'd love them to half the price of the 400mm F/4 DO) and while I'm sure both Canon and Nikon would love to provide the perfect camera and lens(es) for each and every one of us (as long as doing so kept the profit margins healthy), it's not hard to understand why we're not there...
ohyeah wrote:
The DoF on some of the Flickr pool images reminds me of my P&S. Take a look at the one of the bubble. It's shot at f/2.8, appears to be fairly close to the camera, and there's a lot of detail of the people sitting in the background.
Wait, that bubble shot is simply OOF. Says more about the AF or the photographer than DOF. The dude holding the bubble is more OOF than those 20 feet away. Almost looks like the focal point was the people in the background.
APS-C cameras have approximately 1.5 stops more DOF than the FF for a shot like this. The example you mention is not an example of the DOF differences.
On that shot, the AF point was right on the top right edge of the bubble itself - at the point where the bubble and the stick in the guy's left hand intersect, so I bet it got the trees behind instead.
I suspect Ohyeah means this shot, incidentally - the AF point for this one is on the bubble, about where the tip of the fountain(?) behind the bubble is.
Besides, can you imagine the forums - both Canon and Nikon - if they did "copy" a D700, say?
This side of the fence would be awash with ranting about "what happened to Canon originality?" and the Nikon guys would either be howling with laughter about Canon "having to" rip Nikon off; or (hopefully!) bitching that Canon's D700 was better than Nikon's D700!
I wonder about that. The iPhone has been a huge hit and now every competitor has a near clone with similar touchscreen, interface and apps. One even claimed to sync with iTunes (until Apple fixed that). Nobody seems to care much about originality albeit the competitors seem to still fall a bit short.
Oh, you could be right of course, but don't you get the sense that the DSLR camera market has a greater tendency to the kind of polarisation I suggest than there is in other markets?
keithreeder wrote:
On that shot, the AF point was right on the top right edge of the bubble itself - at the point where the bubble and the stick in the guy's left hand intersect, so I bet it got the trees behind instead.
I suspect Ohyeah means this shot, incidentally - the AF point for this one is on the bubble, about where the tip of the fountain(?) behind the bubble is.
You are probably right about which one Ohyeah meant, I should have delved deeper.
However, even in the 2nd shot, I have issues. AF'ing off of a shiny thing like a bubble is gonna confuse the situation. Who's to say the focus was on the bubble or the object that was being reflected in the bubble, which was probably moving and morphing around. Either way, I think it is a horrible example of what you could do with a 7D and shouldn't be used as an example of why APS-C cameras are limiting.
python2000 wrote:
However, even in the 2nd shot, I have issues. AF'ing off of a shiny thing like a bubble is gonna confuse the situation. Who's to say the focus was on the bubble or the object that was being reflected in the bubble, which was probably moving and morphing around. Either way, I think it is a horrible example of what you could do with a 7D and shouldn't be used as an example of why APS-C cameras are limiting.
Oh I couldn't agree more: it never actually occurred to me that ohyeah was criticising crop sensors so I'll say nothing about that, but any camera of mine that gave me images as downright crappy as the ones we're discussing would be out of the window in a shot!
What baffles me most of all is that on the blog page that links to the Flickr pool, the author (who also took the pictures) describes them as "great images"!
I know nothing of "street" photography, but although it has crossed my mind before that sharpness and absolute IQ aren't necessarily the biggest things to the genre, I'd never have thought that standards were that low..!
Aside from Pentax and Olympus who specifically draw attention to their environmental sealing, I'd say anything else is a "bonus" and you should still be careful.
If Canon or Nikon had guts they'd seal their $2k+ cameras the way Pentax or Olympus does...
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
To be fair, he is a Canon Ambassador. Love his work and not at all saying this clouds his judgment, but since many were dismissing Rob Galbraith's credibility due to Nikon ads on his site, we might as well hand out the unfair beatings evenly on both sides of the Canon-v-Nikon fence.
Yeah, not saying he doesn't really feel what he wrote, but he sure did use a lot of ad-speak.
oh dear, I hope that site is a joke site or something....
I was about to make a joke that the 7D takes the best photos ever when the icon for this one popped up and then I clicked to look at size original for this sample.... is that REALLY what they call far and away superior AF to the 5D2 yikes!
I don't want to embed it so just copy below and add "www." to the front of it:
Wow, wow, I seriously hope whoever used the camera had less than zero clue because man, if THAT, is what the AF does, the 1D3 original production's AF will dust this to pieces.... as would manual focus pull peering through the VF from 1 foot back!
I imagine it has got to be the guy who shot the stuff, but it seems almost impossibly bad technically.
The thing I never get is again and again canon lets all these jokers get their hands on the pre-pro units and all we ever see is utter technical jokes of samples with each camera release. As they say, it is who you know, not what you know.... I remember it took like 3 months after the 40D and 50D releases and even 5D2 releases for things to calm down a bit and people to believe the cameras could actually produce technically decent files. Heck, to this day you still see some comments about how the 50D and 5D2 and Canon's in general have 'soft' sensors and I bet a lot of it starts with these pre-pro samples....
Liquidstone wrote:
It's not too bad when seen at 333x500 pixels, and I'm about 3 feet from my LCD.
Yes, true, the thumbnail WAS mad sharp.... from 3'.
I didn't look at the other samples, maybe they are better, but I was afraid too look (the other comments don't sound encouraging).
Anyway, hopefully you can turn the tide for pre-production in the field samples when you get your hands on it and can deliver some sharp sunbirds of another sort at a full glorious 18MP when viewed 3" from screen at 800%.
keithreeder wrote:
There's a TV ad on UK TV at the moment. It features about half a dozen little scenes, such as: a bunch of teenagers looking at and discussing a car engine. One of them then says "oh yeah, just like a Golf..."; a TV car show presenter throwing a car round a track and then saying "It handles just like a Golf..!"; a car salesman gently closing a car door and saying "If you listen carefully, this sounds just like a Golf..."
The tag line of the ad is "Why get something like a Golf when you can have a Golf?"
I think the fact that - so far - Canon hasn't "copied" the D3/D700 is an example of the same thing.
They're not going to plagiarise the Nikons, and I don't blame them for that. Instead they're ploughing their own furrow and keeping the differentiation between their products and those of "rivals" clear.
It's a perfectly valid business model.
Besides, can you imagine the forums - both Canon and Nikon - if they did "copy" a D700, say?
This side of the fence would be awash with ranting about "what happened to Canon originality?" and the Nikon guys would either be howling with laughter about Canon "having to" rip Nikon off; or (hopefully!) bitching that Canon's D700 was better than Nikon's D700!
As others have said, we can't have everything (many folk are still waiting for a Canon 200-400mm F/4 IS, and I'd love them to half the price of the 400mm F/4 DO) and while I'm sure both Canon and Nikon would love to provide the perfect camera and lens(es) for each and every one of us (as long as doing so kept the profit margins healthy), it's not hard to understand why we're not there...
yikes!