1. gripes about the mp count in the 7d..before it get here assuming it will suck as the 50d seems to
2. gripes about the A/F being better than the one in the 5dmk2 people crying Canon did this on purpose just to put a better A/F in a crop camera the horror.
digitalbug30d wrote:
if one is so hung up about the lack of ISO performance,dynamic range,noise ect in a crop camera them get a FF one
I would agree with you if canon had two versions of every bodie:
One with a 1.6x crop and other with a FF.
Same bodies, just different sensors.
However, reality is very far from that ideal scenario.
If you want FF, you only have two choices.
One is crippled (on purpose or for budget reasons, take your pick), and the other costs more than some cars.
So many people don't really have a choice, or at least a FF camera that suits their specific needs.
Yes, I realise canon can't make bodies for every need that is out there (they would have to make dozens of bodies, and even then...) but there is a very large gap between the 5DMII and the 1DsMIII, both in price and features.
On a side note, I often see FM members saying that if the 5DMII does not meet some photographers needs/wishes in terms of bodie features, they should go get a 1DsMIII and stop complaining.
They need to realise that in most countries people are not fortunate enough to make money as the average american, so paying $8K for a camera will definitely never be an option...
Now that they see all of those features on a 1.6x cropper (7D), it's easy to understand the wish for a 3D (7d with FF).
There is definitely a market for it.
"They need to realise that in most countries people are not fortunate enough to make money as the average american"
the average american can't afford a 1DsIII either. and in that lies our salvation (i.e., america is a large market). because there are very few people that will leisurely shell out 8K for a camera body, and the budget FF market is heating up competition wise, we'll be seeing the features we want finding their way into ~€2500-3000 bodies.
thedigitalbean wrote:
And if people were being critical of the camera you may have a point, but so far people have done exactly what they should be doing, using these images to give them a rough basis for where in the IQ spectrum this camera will likely end up.
He does have a point. Some people were already whinging about the lack of interchangable focusing screen for Manual Focus application even when the main selling point of this camera is obviously the new (semi?) pro AF.
fraga wrote:
Now that they see all of those features on a 1.6x cropper (7D), it's easy to understand the wish for a 3D (7d with FF).
There is definitely a market for it.
But how would you differentiate that 3D with the future 1D? Nikon differentiate their bodies by making the D700 12MP and D3X 24MP and even then it's rumoured that the D700 is still eating into the D3X market.
There are other ways to diffrentiate between the 7D and the 1D, just apply those to the FF version of the 7D. No dual card system, less weather sealing, lacking the 1 series build and shutter, certain other lacking features, etc. Basically take a leaf out of Nikon's book for their D700 vs D3 not that canon would ever make a mid level camera quite that well speced.
Exactly.
Make the 3d more expensive than the 5dMII (obviously) and leave the bigger, bulkier bodie do the 1DMIV (with grip included) as well as way better weather sealing, dual cards, better batery, +2 or 3 fps, more and better AF points with AF up to f8, larger buffer, longer life shutter, and some other tweaks and features like spot metering on every focus point, interchangable focusing screen, etc.
Make the 3d for $3300 - $3600, and pleople (specially pros) will still go for a $4300-$4500 1DMIV.
After seeing a few comparisons my only question is if 7D is very close to 5D, as far as noise is concerned.
I mean, is 7D almost matching 5D? I believe that color is better in 5D images and 7D has a better dynamic range. We know that 5D mkII is better.
If 7D has IQ that is very close to 5D, the only reason to have that 4 year old camera is the focal range, one can get for certain zooms, and (may by) the depth of field (but this debatable). I much prefer simplicity of 5D to 7D's "sophistication" but IQ and some features are most important.
IQ is several things. Noise, tonality, DR, highlight headroom, etc. I think we're going to have to wait and see when the RAW files are better supported for real comparisons.
Thing is though, the EFS line of lenses is very consumer in its makeup. I don't think I would want to trade the use of my 17-40L for a 10-22 lens. There is no fast 50mm equivelent other than a very expensive L, no equivelent at all for the 24L that wedding photographers love so much, etc. So many loved the fact that when they returned to FF their lenses finally worked as designed, the focal lengths in most of canons lineup were designed to be eminently suitible for a particular purpose and that never really transistioned over to the crop world.
That's just my thoughts on the question, others will have different priorities. I would find it difficult to believe that a crop sensor could match even the 'ancient' 5D for tonality and highlight headroom. I'm open minded though, I think the noise levels are pretty close and that's with early beta software.
I think you can't really compare the two cameras since the 7D is targeted at sports, wildlife and other action type photography with its pro AF and crop sensor which gives it extra "reach". Yeah yeah I know 400mm is still 400mm on a crop sensor but it's the resulting image that matters, not some technicality.
fraga wrote:
I would agree with you if canon had two versions of every bodie:
One with a 1.6x crop and other with a FF.
Same bodies, just different sensors.
However, reality is very far from that ideal scenario.
If you want FF, you only have two choices.
One is crippled (on purpose or for budget reasons, take your pick), and the other costs more than some cars.
So many people don't really have a choice, or at least a FF camera that suits their specific needs. Yes, I realise canon can't make bodies for every need that is out there (they would have to make dozens of bodies, and even then...) but there is a very large gap between the 5DMII and the 1DsMIII, both in price and features.
On a side note, I often see FM members saying that if the 5DMII does not meet some photographers needs/wishes in terms of bodie features, they should go get a 1DsMIII and stop complaining. They need to realise that in most countries people are not fortunate enough to make money as the average american, so paying $8K for a camera will definitely never be an option...
Now that they see all of those features on a 1.6x cropper (7D), it's easy to understand the wish for a 3D (7d with FF). There is definitely a market for it....Show more →
Beni:
So many loved the fact that when they returned to FF their lenses finally worked as designed
Yes, this is the main issue and in addition to primes, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms are another example that FF has a big advantage.
I also understand that IQ is different things. My point was that 7D images seem to be very close to the ones from 5D, as far as noise is concerned. That is a surprise to me.
digitalbug30d wrote:
by this logic you were to compare a 4cyl car with an 8cyl car...and make it a fair comparison you would cripple the 8cly car to 4cly and expect the fair equal outcome ???
No. Comparison at 100% without uprezzing the file with fewer pixels is like comparing a 2 litre and 4 litre car by timing them around a track, but giving the 2 litre car a 600 yard shorter track. The (probably) better car is being given a 600 yard handicap, for no other reason than that the tester has failed to notice that the outside lane is 600 yards longer, and doesn't believe it when you tell him because he doesn't understand basic geometry.
>...it is intellectually dishonest to compare an FF sensor to a 1.6crop sensor
also what does it really prove ?
You have missed the point. I use both formats in my work. It is perfectly reasonable to compare performance between crop and full-frame cameras. That is not the point here. The unequal magnification in tests on review sites heavily favours cameras with fewer pixels. It does not favour full-frame over crop or vice versa.
...a camera should be critiqued on it own merits but on a level playing field FF vs FF,1.3 crop vs 1.3crop,1.6 crop vs. 1.6crop..and how each stacks up to each other in real world tests...not charts,brickwalls,batteries,20$ bills...
A camera should be critiqued on how well it takes any given picture (amongst other requirements). If your critique shows that the Chevy Malibu (with no aliens in the boot) beats the McClaren F1, and the Minox beats the Hasselblad, then there's something very wrong with your test, and most of your readers won't have a clue which camera actually provides better quality.
mfurman wrote:
My point was that 7D images seem to be very close to the ones from 5D, as far as noise is concerned. That is a surprise to me.
Why is that a surprise? It is 4 years since the 5D was released. Sensor makers have been working hard. It amazes me that the 5D has held its own for so long. Scale up the 7D sensor to full frame and you would have a camera which is 4 years better than a 5D instead of level with it. That's why magnification counts, and comparing native 100% crops between 18 Mpixel and 29 Mpixel cameras at unequal pictorial magnification is a lie.
brainiac:
Why is that a surprise? It is 4 years since the 5D was released.
I am surprised that a crop sensor results may be close to FF, after just 4 years of development. Many thought that 15 Mpixels on 1.6 crop was the end of what could be achieved. The results from 50D were not, I think, an indication that it could get better.
Beni wrote:
Thing is though, the EFS line of lenses is very consumer in its makeup.
After two years with the 10-22 and 17-55 and several months with the 60 macro I must admit I don't really care. BQ is good enough and IQ equals any lens, L, prime or whatever. Oh, and you have IS in the 17-55 which regretfully lacks in the 24-70.
Beni wrote:
I don't think I would want to trade the use of my 17-40L for a 10-22 lens.
I did just that and am very glad I did. Most IQ ingredients are the same but sharpness in the corners and flare resistance have actually improved.
