5d2 owners may be bored, but I have been on the sideline for five years waiting for a new body to attract my attention. My rusty trusty 1d2 has filled all my needs up until now.
Sure, I have filled in with point and shoots, and a used 5d, but this attracts my attention because of its frame rate and pixels.
This camera handles bursts of information at 250 megabytes per second. The 5D2 can only process 150 megabytes per second. This is the edge of technology, not the sensor, not the autofocus, not the pixel density.
John Power wrote:
I am already bored with the topic. Am I alone? A voice crying in the wilderness.
I agree with you about being bored with the 7D already because of so many threads discussing it. But, this is the only model that I've been excited about - I wanted to upgrade my 30D and skipped the 40D and 50D because they didn't excite me enough to pay up. The 7D, on the other hand (barring its horribly high MP count) is the first exciting model, so I might finally upgrade from my 30D.
veroman wrote:
>...I want to see a Canon crop camera that will let me shoot at f/13-16.
Holy crap - I didn't know those apertures were disabled. They never mention the limitations in the press releases. Do you think a firmware hack might re-enable f13-16?
>I want to see a Canon crop camera with no AA filter.
This is a misconception. There is no disadvantage to an appropriate scale of AA filtering, and Canon has always used filters which blur only on the appropriate scale. In fact, with 18 Mpixels and the correspondingly tiny pitch, the AA filter on this camera is certain to be the smallest scale (i.e. 'weakest') AA filter in any Canon DSLR to date. It never was a problem, and now it's even less of a (non) problem than ever. Hot-rodded cameras show more moire, and the apparent increase in detail is an illusion due to the fact that inter-pixel contrast is higher before sharpening. The only thing that heightened micro-contrast is showing you is the shape of your pixel grid - it's not recording any more data from the scene itself. I hope your AA filter-less camera never comes, because AA filters are there for a good engineering reason, even though the tinfoil-hat brigade don't understand the science of it.
freediverx wrote:
"I have a 1DMkII & a 1DsMkIII but sometimes I need better low light performance than they deliver."
You're not expecting the 7D to have better low light performance than a 1-series camera are you?
A 20D has better low light performance than a 1 series....granted it's the Mk I, but the point is that technology moves on, most owners of both put the 40D as being on a par (if not better) in low light performance when compared to 1D II and IIn, it's hardly a massive leap to think the 7D will be at least at the SAME level as the 40D with technology 2 generations more advanced!
1. How do you think the viewfinder will compare to that of the 5D2 (and other FF) in terms of SIZE?
2. Does the 7D have GPS encoding?
Thanks.
1) Larger than any APS-C, possibly as large as APS-H.
2) Canon is announcing the availability of the new WFT-E5A wireless file transmitter (WFT) exclusively for the EOS 7D Digital SLR camera. The WFT-E5A wireless transmitter offers professional photographers a wide range of digital connectivity options including IEEE802.11a/b/g and Ethernet, ideal for commercial and studio work. The WFT-E5A wireless file transmitter opens the door to new possibilities in remote and Geotagged shooting applications. Photographers can fire up to 10 cameras simultaneously from across the room or across the country while maintaining control over camera settings and remote live view on a laptop or smart phone.i The WFT-E5A wireless transmitter can also transfer and display images on DLNA (Digital Living Network Alliance) compatible televisions and photo frames. Geotagging is now possible via Bluetooth, using compatible GPS devices to append coordinate data to the images. ...Show more →
It looks like you'll need:
-WFT-E5A
-GPS device(usb or bluetooth)
and the camera will add it to the exif data
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Be an honour wonder what the waiting list is going to be like.
The next dance event that I will shoot isn't until next year but I agree that the demand for this body will be high. It could take that long to get one.
I'm on the waiting list at Fixation for a 1DMkIV and I'm nowhere near the top
BTW, even Rob Galbraith, who is not an engineer or physicist, peddles the mass delusion back to the masses: "This means that overall, 7D image quality is shaping up to be very good. If weighted against how minuscule its sensor's pixels are, image quality is astounding. Put in charge of the 7D's development, however, we'd have chosen something like a 12MP sensor with better high ISO performance and richer low ISO files." When are reviewers going to start behaving responsibly and admit that their armchair theories about noise are in direct contradiction of the facts about sensors from all manufacturers over the last decade. There are NO, and I mean NO examples of sensor quality decreasing alongside rising density. The 7D will smack a D30 at high iso despite having 6 times as many pixels. It's just a myth. There are now no gaps, and smaller pixels do not hurt high iso performance FOR ANY GIVEN SIZE OF SENSOR....Show more →
There are about 5 generations separating the D30 and 7D sensors, so hardly a fair comparison. It's difficult to compare like with like as rarely are similar sized sensors with different densities launched simultaneously be the same manufacturer.
At 100% view I consistently see more noise from densely packed sensors (no surprise) but I also see much of this noise remaining when images are down-sized to compare with smaller native resolutions at 1:1. Maybe there is a particular PP technique required to minimise noise when downsizing with which I'm unfamiliar but I'm not convinced that more pixels (if you don't print large enough or crop enough to need them) come without any cost to image quality.
I suspect sensors are never quite as gapless and light capture never as complete as the schematic diagrams would suggest. I'm not denying modern high density sensors are a marvel, particularly if you need to print very big but I think lower density sensors optimized for more moderate print sizes have some advantages. I think one of the DPR blogs tested the effect of downsizing to reduce high ISO noise and results were fairly underwhelming if I remember correctly.
Having said all that, if you could just post those images of the desktop one more time I may yet be convinced.
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
It is not very likely that Canon would put all of the design effort into this camera and have the sensor be a poor performer.
The 50D was a relatively minor upgrade to the 40D that they needed to get out the door so as to have something to introduce and also so that they would have - at least on paper - something that was somewhat competitive with what the other guys were doing at the time.
This is not an upgrade camera, this is a new camera. Dual Digic 4, new, from ground up, sensor, totally redesigned view finder, ability to wirelessly control speedlights.
Nope. Not thinking Canon is mailing this one in. This is likely to be the real deal.
Think of it this way: This family of cameras since the 20D has been like the orginal cast Star Trek pictures - every other one is a good one and the in between is just that - filler. What was the 30D?
That smug, know-it-all, "too cool for school" superiority is wearing pretty thin, Canonical.
The fact is is you know nothing more about the Real World performance of this camera than the folk who are enthusiastic about it: but unlike you, some of the folk who are enthusing have demonstrated many times that they know a thing or two about photography, rather than simply being some smartarse who likes to give the impression that he's too clever to be fooled by Canon marketeers...
brainiac wrote:
Holy crap - I didn't know those apertures were disabled. They never mention the limitations in the press releases. Do you think a firmware hack might re-enable f13-16?
Diffraction, my friend, diffraction. The greater DOF at f/13/-16 is almost totally negated by the smearing at f/13-f/16. I can shoot f/13 with my 1Ds II and 5D, but not with my crops. Let me put it this way: I CAN shoot at f/13/-f/16 with my crops, but I don't want to.
>I want to see a Canon crop camera with no AA filter.
This is a misconception. There is no disadvantage to an appropriate scale of AA filtering, and Canon has always used filters which blur only on the appropriate scale. In fact, with 18 Mpixels and the correspondingly tiny pitch, the AA filter on this camera is certain to be the smallest scale (i.e. 'weakest') AA filter in any Canon DSLR to date. It never was a problem, and now it's even less of a (non) problem than ever. Hot-rodded cameras show more moire, and the apparent increase in detail is an illusion due to the fact that inter-pixel contrast is higher before sharpening. The only thing that heightened micro-contrast is showing you is the shape of your pixel grid - it's not recording any more data from the scene itself. I hope your AA filter-less camera never comes, because AA filters are there for a good engineering reason, even though the tinfoil-hat brigade don't understand the science of it....Show more →
I have shot filterless and filtered. The science and technology of it all is one thing, the processing and printing is another. The difference is night and day in many instances. As far as moire goes, this has been a problem since forever. I ran into it a hundred times over in the ad business beginning in 1970. I have moire problems with my 5D (filtered) and had moire problems with my old D60 (filtered). I had moire problems with my old Kodak SLR/c (no filter), but they were no better or worse than with my 5D. I've also spent some time with a Leica M8 (filterless) and had few moire problems with that camera as well.
One of the irish online resellers issued a guide price of €1300 plus vat yesterday!!!
Gerry
That's since jumped to €1500 guide price. I've never found them that cheap to be honest. Gunns around the corner beat them for the 5DMKII and 50D I got earlier in the year.
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
The 50D, as you wrote, may well be the max resolution for that particular sensor. The 7D however, is a much different sensor by design, technology, and engineering, and may not be restricted by the old sensor's limitations.
I agree with you about being bored with the 7D already because of so many threads discussing it. But, this is the only model that I've been excited about - I wanted to upgrade my 30D and skipped the 40D and 50D because they didn't excite me enough to pay up. The 7D, on the other hand (barring its horribly high MP count) is the first exciting model, so I might finally upgrade from my 30D.
