Beni wrote:
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....Show more →
Dude, you obviously weren't cruising this forum or POTN when the D300 was announced. The D300 was EXACTLY the camera I and many other people wanted at the time, and we were all very vocal about it here. You are correct that Nikon pushed Canon begrudgingly into releasing the 7D, and it did take 2 years. It is obvious that the 7D is not your cup of tea, or at least doesn't have enough of what you are looking for in terms of features. Has it occurred to you that a D700 response may very well be in the works as well, with an emphasis on the kind of photography that you do?
From the business side, do you sell only 1 wedding package that all your customers buy, or do you have several packages with varying prices? Do the people who buy the low end packages get exactly the same thing and they just pay less?
I would venture a guess that in fact you do the very same thing Canon does in order to entice your clients to spend more money with you. It is not underhanded or sneaky - it is a value proposition based on market forces
Thanks Tim I think you have covered this nicely. It is business and if you don't like the way Canon does business there is many other manufacturers out there you can use. If a business doesn't have something I like I don't buy from them.
I have been shooting Canon since 1966 and they have always operated as a business and their decision have been based on their profit margin not your satisfaction. Do you think I was happy when they switched to an EF mount from FD? I was livid considering the amount of money I had invested in FD glass but Canon did it so they could move forward in the market and AF cameras. They didn't care about me because it is a business.
You need to get over the idea that Canon owes you something because it is just not going to happen. If you don't like what they offer then move on. Canon is not going to lose any sleep over your whining. I can live with the options they provide in some of their cameras and I don't buy the ones I can't live with.
Now back to the 7D. The ISO 1600 & 3200 files have some promise. definitely look better than the 50D and more than I expected from a 1.6x 18MP camera.
so... 41 pages that I don't have time to read. Can I get the two minute summary? Are half the people claiming the camera is junk? Is everyone complaining that this relatively affordable mid-level camera isn't loaded with 1 series goodies? Do a few people see it for what it actually is? Another price and performance point?
sskoutas wrote:
so... 41 pages that I don't have time to read. Can I get the two minute summary? Are half the people claiming the camera is junk? Is everyone complaining that this relatively affordable mid-level camera isn't loaded with 1 series goodies? Do a few people see it for what it actually is? Another price and performance point?
I think we're busy trying to get on the shortest waiting list
Sep 15, 2009 at 03:50 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
In the context it was intented, some of the samples from pre-release 7d's look extremely good, and overall it is promising. Rob G. hates the AF (he made questionable choices for AF modes during his tests), most other reviewers like the AF, and everyone seems to be praising the IQ and high ISO performance
sskoutas wrote:
Seriously? Is the overall reaction positive? I'd be shocked... no sarcasm intended at all.
Yes. While there are people with concerns about a few features lost (e.g., replaceable focus screens) or not added (e.g., spot metering for each focus point), it may be that this camera sets a new standard for APS-C image quality, and body functionality.
This is the most positive reaction I have seen for a new Canon 1.6x crop since I jumped into the game with the 10D. And yes, I have placed my pre-order. And - I can actually conceive of skipping this camera's successor - this from a guy who has upgraded every time since that 10D to my present 50D.
longisland.km wrote:
Keith, respectfully, I must disagree with you on the issue of metering tied to the AF zone.
If you are taking photos of people in uncontrolled lighting, for example, sometimes they will present an expression that you want to capture. It totally ruins the moment if you call out to them "wait, hold that while I meter and recompose".
yeah i don't think the metering bit is the slightest bit niche
timbop wrote:
To answer your questions: yes, yes, and yes.
In the context it was intented, some of the samples from pre-release 7d's look extremely good, and overall it is promising. Rob G. hates the AF (he made questionable choices for AF modes during his tests), most other reviewers like the AF, and everyone seems to be praising the IQ and high ISO performance
Glad to hear it. I've been thinking it for a while, and I'm starting to get more convinced - I think Robbie is on Nikon's payroll.
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?
no (and if it is then they have crappy marketing research, especially if they are the ones who couldn't imagine anyone wanting manual control in video, etc., AutoISO in M and so on and so forth)
some of the features are no more than changing the value 3 to 5 say, so it's not like it costs any development effort.
anwyay, at least they are starting to change, they did go back and add M to 5D2 video and they have made a start by adding a bunch to the 7D.
I have put together a camera/ISO matrix based off the Imaging Resource RAW files and ACR 5.5/LR 2.5. Click to link view actual pixels. All other cameras were resized (up or down) to the 7D's size to keep the comparison fair.
Keith, thanks for pointing this out. I had seen this webpage before, but somehow did not notice the wealth of info available in the "Technical" portion.
For any of you who have not looked at this yet, there is even more information than usually seen in a "white paper," and furthermore, there is discussion of some of the reasoning behind the design choices made. In some places, there are discussions of tradeoffs, such as 'if you choose spot focusing, this other aspect of AF performance takes a hit' and in other places, along the lines of 'we didn't go with this design because it would have impacted such-and-such.'
Certainly there is propaganda in there, but along with a great deal of information. Highly recommended reading.
ISO 12,800 comparison for the Canon cameras. Forgot to mention that in all of these LR's noise reduction was set to 0 (for both lum. and color) and all sharpening set to 0.
skibum5 wrote:
yeah the 7D seems pretty promising (i'd still use the 5D2 for a lot of stuff though).
Nail on the head. The 7D will be a replacement for my 30D, so it and the 5D II will make for a good combination. The ideal combination would be the 7D and the mythical 3D (FF 7D)... but then there's always next year.
Those 12800 examples are all a noisy mess at 12800. But that is not a realistic ISO on any camera.
if the 7D produced clean images at 800, 1600, 3200 that would be a huge improvement
over other 1.6 bodies. Even just usable 800 and 1600 would be great.
