UCSB wrote:
I agree ... I just don't understand why Canon is offering the stupid kit lens they are in the US. Why not offer the 15-85mm at least (or the other international kits)?
Yeah, it's really hard to fathom.
Maybe so many people buy them to sell them off for a $70 profit that they think we like them
IDK, very weird....
A kit with the 15-85 would be awesome and make a heck of a lot more sense. Heck at least toss it in with the 18-55 IS....
Tom_W wrote:
I realize that I'm a full-frame snob ( ) but I would say that the 5D2 is the only one that appear to be useable at ISO 6400 in that example, headroom.
As your text suggests, more study is needed on this issue. 6400 is a pretty extreme test.
Lookat this pics here I see a much more realistic comparsion6400 ISO 5DMkii and the 7D (not based on not optimized for 7D RAW converter )
Gil_W wrote:
While there are good reasons to compare the 5DmkII to the 7D, I personally think a comparison to the 50D or 40D may be more appropriate. The upgrade of the 1.6 cameras is what Canon was aiming for here. I am sure that my 40D will be bested by the 7D, at least I hope so
I dont get it either ..why the comparison 5dmk2 and 7d? just because its a
xd body people want to compare it to the last xd body 5dmk2..apples and oranges I still feel the 7d should be compared to other Canon crop cameras or the compitition...
btw FF is always going to exceed abilities of a crop by some percentage in ISO,noise,DOF,ect which should be a given by NOW...for Canon to try to get the best out of a crop sensor isnt a slight towards FF buyers...it seems some here think so which is silly when you hear" Canon purposely crippled the 5dmk2 A/F"
to put a better one in a newer camera and feel cheated they didnt put it in the one they want a FF. You know the next FF camera will have some of the benefits/features from the 7D, canon does this alot put features in the lower end cameras and migrates up...
digitalbug30d wrote:
I dont get it either ..why the comparison 5dmk2 and 7d? just because its a
xd body people want to compare it to the last xd body 5dmk2..apples and oranges I still feel the 7d should be compared to other Canon crop cameras or the compitition...
Because some people here believe that full frame is the best and others try to show that, at least with the 7D, the difference is not as much as some like to believe.
I am debating myself to get a 1dmk3 or a 7D..in the next upgrade MP count isnt the factor since 10.1 is more than enough but like the idea of possiblally the best crop camera yet...which I have a feeling the 7d may very well be.
n0b0 wrote:
Because some people here believe that full frame is the best and others try to show that, at least with the 7D, the difference is not as much as some like to believe.
Because some people here believe that full frame is the best and others try to show that, at least with the 7D, the difference is not as much as some like to believe.
headroom wrote:
Lookat this pics here I see a much more realistic comparsion6400 ISO 5DMkii and the 7D (not based on not optimized for 7D RAW converter )
I saw that - looks like some NR is effecting the noise level and detail on the 7D shot to a greater extent than on the 5D2. We need to see more examples, but I would say that at ISO 3200 and 6400, the 5D2 has nothing to fear.
I am interested in seeing how much latitude this camera has to pull up shadow details without noise.
UCSB wrote:
I agree ... I just don't understand why Canon is offering the stupid kit lens they are in the US. Why not offer the 15-85mm at least (or the other international kits)?
According to Canon, the 15-85 will be available at the end of October. I suspect that once the lens is available, it will be offered in a kit with the 7D. I agree, the 28-135 is not what I'd consider the best choice for a kit lens on any APS-C camera.
I've just had my first 7d body only shipped. the first wave of them are being delivered to dealers who have ordered them. its pre sold and highly anticipated by many.
I hope everyone who compares 7D vs 5D2 noise performance realises that, in order to use the same ISO setting on the larger formats, they will get either reduced DOF or longer exposure times for a given framing and perspective. For low light photography, it is a given that you don't want longer exposures, and if you don't want the DOF any shallower than what you get with the smaller format, there is no noise advantage from the larger format.
alundeb:
...and if you don't want the DOF any shallower than what you get with the smaller format, there is no noise advantage from the larger format.
I am always confused when DOF is thrown into the comparison. I just want to know which camera has higher achievable S/N (in my case when using a 50 mm lens)
alundeb wrote:
... if you don't want the DOF any shallower than what you get with the smaller format, there is no noise advantage from the larger format.
On the other hand, if you want a DOF shallower than offered by the APS-C body with a fast lens, then there is no advantage to the smaller format.
