gfiksel wrote:
Let's see. You spend half an hour choosing perspective, setting up a tripod, etc and can't waste another three second to get your 6 shots?
For me it's for HDR and in three seconds things move (clouds etc.). I'm trying everything to get the camera to be in the same place without shaking (mirror lock up, remote trigger etc). So it isn't a matter of a few seconds and a couple of adjustments, its a matter of getting the shot(s). Isn't that why we spend all this money, to get the shot? I'm not a programmer, but it seems a very simple setting to change this.
As a wedding shooter I would expect you to shoot manual exposure anyway, in order to keep shot-to-shot consistency. I often meter with the center point in manual to get the "best" starting point, then F&R to take the first/test shot with my 5D. That does take a little longer to do, but you can't really "trust" the camera to do it completely perfectly anyway. I would expect that even with AF linked spot metering and your own experience with how to adjust EC, you'd still want to chimp and look at the histogram to make sure you got it right. You also probably sometimes will get it wrong, and have to adjust EC and reshoot it.
I am not saying it is "not a problem", my point is and has been that the feature set in the 7d must by definition be less than the 1's. In this case, there are ways to deal with that. I am not saying Canon was "right" to pick this feature as excluded, just that I understand where they are coming from and I can personally work around it.
And Canon does make 2 bodies for which you can give your hind leg, because they have exactly what you are asking for. Naturally, one of those is more than twice the price of the 7d and the other is 4 times as expensive.
Ransome wrote:
For me it's for HDR and in three seconds things move (clouds etc.). I'm trying everything to get the camera to be in the same place without shaking (mirror lock up, remote trigger etc). So it isn't a matter of a few seconds and a couple of adjustments, its a matter of getting the shot(s). Isn't that why we spend all this money, to get the shot? I'm not a programmer, but it seems a very simple setting to change this.
It ain't about easy or hard - it's about market value.
John McLean wrote:
I just checked the Adobe list of cameras supported by ACR5.5 and the 7d is NOT listed...
Not yet. I'm sure the moment this thing hits the shelf, adobe will release an update. They release updates all the time thanks to all the camera manufacturers not willing to go to a universal format.
Nowhere Man wrote:
Not yet. I'm sure the moment this thing hits the shelf, adobe will release an update. They release updates all the time thanks to all the camera manufacturers not willing to go to a universal format.^
Dont belive everything TRY IT YOURSELF . It can convert the 7D CR.2 files D7 from IR with ACR 5.5 I just opend a few files
Actually ACR 5.5 does support 7D RAW files. However its not officially supported by Adobe since there hasn't been enough testing done on it. This support was added without even having an actual camera to generate test files with. The conversion quality should hopefully be improved by the next ACR update.
John McLean wrote:
Thanks... they usually note when a camera is supported but note that in the download.
Thats because the camera isn't officially supported, there has been virtually no testing thats been done which is why it isn't listed. Hence you can expect things like the colors to be slightly off.
I find the discussion about the "two missing features" rather weird. These features can't cost much more than a few of lines of programming, and is obviously taken out to make the camera less able. If Canon wants to compete with the D300s, and most things about the 7D indicate they want to do that, they should have learned the most important lessons from the success of the Nikon: it copied more or less every feature from the D3, except the vertical grip, the full frame sensor and the speed/processing.
The last time I considered a Canon seriously (the 20D), one of the reasons for not choosing it, and go for Nikon instead, was the lack of spot metering. Business decision or not, it has resulted in five years worth of Nikon bodies and lenses in my case. And for many photographers, the 1D series of cameras are simply not on the agenda, not only because of price, but because of weight and size.
It's a pity, because to many photographers, this reflects an attitude from the manufacturer that they don't want to live with. I'm still considering the 7D, but I won't sell any of my Nikon bodies to get it.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
I find the discussion about the "two missing features" rather weird. These features can't cost much more than a few of lines of programming, and is obviously taken out to make the camera less able.
Well you could interpret this as Canon deliberately crippling the 7D in order to short-change and upset its customers - lets face it, there's always room for another conspiracy theory - but isn't it just possible that Canon's market research has indicated to them that for most of the 7D's potential customer base, these features are not a priority?
I really don't think that Canon has tried to make a "Jack Of All Trades" camera here - it looks really obvious to me that the 7D is primarily an "action" camera, with a feature-set that suits that kind of use - use which by definition makes things like wide exposure bracketing for HDR purposes, less relevant.
As to the metering linked to the AF point question: as I post above, they're delivered something which appears to be very closely akin to that - in terms of likely end results if not in basic implementation.
keithreeder wrote:
The fact that 1D bodies have some functions that xxD - and the 7D - don't have, can easily be seen as confirmation that they are seen as appropriate to a certain target audience: you might not agree, but their presence in the 1D bodies surely doesn't disprove the idea of them being "niche".
I have to respectfully disagree with you here.
Remember how the 300D was crippled and someone had to crack the firmware to enable various hidden functionality? In essence the 300D was not too different from the 10D in terms of capabilities.
CHDK has recently unlocked the spot metering and ISO 3200 capabilities of the 400D. Also note that the 500D now have these features upon release. Certainly the 400D and 500D are targeted at the same buyers, no?
I believe Canon has intentionally crippled their cameras though firmware for class differentiation as well as to provide upgrade motivation.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Actually ACR 5.5 does support 7D RAW files. However its not officially supported by Adobe since there hasn't been enough testing done on it. This support was added without even having an actual camera to generate test files with. The conversion quality should hopefully be improved by the next ACR update.
I thought LR 2.5 handles the 7D files very nicely.
The low noise & high rez capabilities of the 7D really shine in comparison to the 50D.
Took a very quick look at the ISO 1600 and 3200 sample CR2s from Imaging-Resource, and found that they clean up very nicely in Neat Image while retaining good detail and color fidelity. Very little blotching evident in these (good light) samples.
Even with the higher resolution this is certainly quite improved over the 50D. Nice!
keithreeder wrote:
Well you could interpret this as Canon deliberately crippling the 7D in order to short-change and upset its customers - lets face it, there's always room for another conspiracy theory - but isn't it just possible that Canon's market research has indicated to them that for most of the 7D's potential customer base, these features are not a priority?
Haha that's funny, explain the direct print button then! Everyone knows that canon cripples it's cameras to protect the next level cameras. I expect the canon 5D and 5D mkII market (huge amount of pro wedding and studio/fashion shooters) aren't interested in anything but focus recompose with their fast primes so they didn't bother putting in off center focus points that are actually useable. Or the non existent sealing in the mkII as proven by a guy here who actually stripped one down. Methinks you protest rather too much on this forum in defence of canon in every single way possible. This is ridiculous though. Why didn't they leave out MLU then, when was the last time a sports shooter ever used MLU? Or any shutter speed slower than a second, or iso 100, or why bother with a flash, or....I could go on....see how silly your suggestion is?
I don't EVER recall through years on this and many other forums, during years of chatting in 3 local pro stores to fellow pros in town, not once ever have I heard a request for a APS pro sports camera. If you saw what most 1D bodies look like after a few months in the hands of journalist or sports shooters you would know why they buy 1 series bodies. What I have heard many many times is for canon to produce a small and affordable FF pro body. You still believe canon doesn't make cameras of lower spec to protect their pro line? Do you really believe that the 7D would exist if it weren't for the D300?
I understand the Canon strategy underhand though it may seem, they are in the business of making money. However in a world where all the competition are offering pro features in non pro bodies, when people are caring about it as part of a buying strategy, the concept is outmoded. As someone astutely said, Nikon were willing to caniblise their own top end camera rather than have another company do it and I have little doubt that their strategy is working. Canon has has to follow suite with the 7D however unwillingly. As many have said, maybe this is the start of the end of mid body crippling and the return to the Canon film days when new features were tested on the mid end bodies before making their way into the pro bodies.
thw2 wrote:
I believe Canon has intentionally crippled their cameras though firmware for class differentiation as well as to provide upgrade motivation.
It wouldn’t surprise me, even a little bit.