CANON 7D realesed!!!

[Village Idiot]

18 mp....aps-c...

 

[icassell]

18 mp....aps-c...

Now, now ... there were many large-format users who poo-pooed (and those that still do) 35mm film (what many hold up as the 'gold standard' sensor size) when that came out ... and many pros showed how good it could be (and I have seen incredible images taken with smaller format than that). Why is full-frame 35 such a technological limit in your eyes?

 

[Big Mike]

Well, I guess this one is my next buy ... I sorta wish they had weather-resisted it, but oh well

sounds like they did....

Impressive Design
Canon has listened to photographer feedback when designing the body, as well as the internal technologies. A magnesium alloy body offers environmental protection – the tough, lightweight construction is designed to defend against moisture, and dust – equivalent to the legendary EOS–1N.

 

[astrostu]

I'm not happy that it won't ship until the end of September ... that misses the wedding I'm doing in 3 weeks and my trip to Flagstaff in 4. Grr.

 

[Village Idiot]

18 mp....aps-c...

Now, now ... there were many large-format users who poo-pooed (and those that still do) 35mm film (what many hold up as the 'gold standard' sensor size) when that came out ... and many pros showed how good it could be (and I have seen incredible images taken with smaller format than that). Why is full-frame 35 such a technological limit in your eyes?

It's not, it's the amount of pixels crammed into that area. Until I see proof that I can get usable, although noisy, 1600 ISO shots then I will remain skeptical. They did fit 21mp into a FF sensor with amazing results, but still the pixel density is no where near that of an 18mp 1.6x APS-C sensor.

 

[rufus5150]

sounds like they did....

Mike, you are totally going overboard with this 'reading' thing. Scary, man. Very scary.

 

[icassell]

18 mp....aps-c...

Now, now ... there were many large-format users who poo-pooed (and those that still do) 35mm film (what many hold up as the 'gold standard' sensor size) when that came out ... and many pros showed how good it could be (and I have seen incredible images taken with smaller format than that). Why is full-frame 35 such a technological limit in your eyes?

It's not, it's the amount of pixels crammed into that area. Until I see proof that I can get usable, although noisy, 1600 ISO shots then I will remain skeptical. They did fit 21mp into a FF sensor with amazing results, but still the pixel density is no where near that of an 18mp 1.6x APS-C sensor.

Or silver grains packed into a 35mm frame ...

 

[blash]

Even if they improved the high ISO performance over the 50D, the 50D was 15 MP and bad at high ISOs. So instead of the 7D being terrible at high ISO's, it sounds like it's only going to be bad... but I'll reserve final judgement until I see some final pictures from a production copy.

Once you take that 18 MP out of the picture, for pure photography the D300 still seems to be a better camera - better AF performance and ergonomics. The horizon LCD sounds like a gimmick to me - if you have the time to pay attention to that, just use a $25 horizon bubble level hot-shoe adapter if you really don't trust yourself to get it straight in the first place. Any other time, it's generally not going to matter as much. And then it's an LCD - will be interesting to see how accurate they can show tilt when dealing with pixels and diagonal lines (i.e. jaggies).

I don't shoot video and I don't know many SLR photographers who do. Once you get past the hype you see a catch-up product and marketing selling points.

 

[Big Mike]

Even if they improved the high ISO performance over the 50D, the 50D was 15 MP and bad at high ISOs. So instead of the 7D being terrible at high ISO's, it sounds like it's only going to be bad... but I'll reserve final judgement until I see some final pictures from a production copy.

I've never heard a 40D or 50D owner say that the the ISO performance was bad. It seems like the only ones who say that it's bad...are the ones who are pissed off because Canon isn't offering a full frame, fully weather sealed body with ISO 800,000 for under $700. :roll:

I think the issue (if there even is an issue) is that when the 50D came out, Canon was already falling behind Nikon and they wanted a HUGE improvement in ISO performance. They didn't get that....but what they did get was an increase in MP with the same (or similar) ISO performance.

 

[rom4n301]

18 mp....aps-c...

Now, now ... there were many large-format users who poo-pooed (and those that still do) 35mm film (what many hold up as the 'gold standard' sensor size) when that came out ... and many pros showed how good it could be (and I have seen incredible images taken with smaller format than that). Why is full-frame 35 such a technological limit in your eyes?

uhm what i hate bout it is that if i get a 50mm lens its not really ganna be 50mm.. and if i get a 70-200 lens.. its not really ganna be 70-200

 

[icassell]

18 mp....aps-c...

Now, now ... there were many large-format users who poo-pooed (and those that still do) 35mm film (what many hold up as the 'gold standard' sensor size) when that came out ... and many pros showed how good it could be (and I have seen incredible images taken with smaller format than that). Why is full-frame 35 such a technological limit in your eyes?

uhm what i hate bout it is that if i get a 50mm lens its not really ganna be 50mm.. and if i get a 70-200 lens.. its not really ganna be 70-200

And that's a problem? Buy your lenses for the image they give you, not by focal length. It's not the numerical focal length that's important, it's the image. Ask any large-format user what a 50mm does for him, and he will give you a different answer still.

 

[Village Idiot]

Even if they improved the high ISO performance over the 50D, the 50D was 15 MP and bad at high ISOs. So instead of the 7D being terrible at high ISO's, it sounds like it's only going to be bad... but I'll reserve final judgement until I see some final pictures from a production copy.

Once you take that 18 MP out of the picture, for pure photography the D300 still seems to be a better camera - better AF performance and ergonomics. The horizon LCD sounds like a gimmick to me - if you have the time to pay attention to that, just use a $25 horizon bubble level hot-shoe adapter if you really don't trust yourself to get it straight in the first place. Any other time, it's generally not going to matter as much. And then it's an LCD - will be interesting to see how accurate they can show tilt when dealing with pixels and diagonal lines (i.e. jaggies).

I don't shoot video and I don't know many SLR photographers who do. Once you get past the hype you see a catch-up product and marketing selling points.

First of all, the 40D and 50D were good at high ISO's. Nikon played catch up until they put out the D90.

How do you know the D300 has better AF performance and ergonomics? Have you held a 7D? Have you seen the AF working? The camera was just announced this week.

You know why the 5D MKII is so hard to find? All the videographers that are shooting video. SLR photographers may not, but there are sure a hell of a lot of video people that were super excited about the 5D MKII and use it. I think it's even getting some time in the spot light for being used in some up coming main stream movie or another.

18 mp....aps-c...

Now, now ... there were many large-format users who poo-pooed (and those that still do) 35mm film (what many hold up as the 'gold standard' sensor size) when that came out ... and many pros showed how good it could be (and I have seen incredible images taken with smaller format than that). Why is full-frame 35 such a technological limit in your eyes?

uhm what i hate bout it is that if i get a 50mm lens its not really ganna be 50mm.. and if i get a 70-200 lens.. its not really ganna be 70-200

Yes they will be. They don't magically change to a different lens because of your sensor. FOV may be different, but the lenses are still the exact same lenses.

 

[astrostu]

So, there's an application for the video that no one's seemed to catch onto: Planetary astrophotography!! Most of the best photos of planets are taken by people with webcams (yes, that's right) because they can shoot a ~5-minute movie via a modified webcam and then have literally thousands of individual frames to use to average together for a great photo. That was really the one downside when I got my first and so far only DSLR, upgrading from my P&S Canon PowerShot S30 -- the Rebel didn't have any video, but my S30 did!

For example, click here. Yes, that was done with a webcam (and no , I can't post the image since it's not mine, darn TPF rules ).

I realize that obviously this is not and will not be a mainstream application, but the addition of HD video to a DSLR body that I am 70% sure I'll be buying is a major plus for me.

 

[gsgary]

No instant boner here even though i'm a Canon user, not on my shopping list

 

[Overread]

Aside from the ISO side (which I am going to wait on till its in peoples hands and in use) this camera is exciting me far more than the 50D did - weathersealing, fast AF and FPS, a flash commander mode, a host of other things and a nice crop sensor video mode (with full manual controls and such). All things I mostly want!

The ISO is the big one for me still though - its what I feel most lacking in my 400D, along with weathersealing aspects - the rest is a nice boon.

Gary, don't you use a 1D model camera anyway - I agree if your in the 1D line of things (and budget) then waiting for the 1DM4 is the best thing to do, but I think for many others this could very well be the upgrade camera for them. Certainly I feel that is a stronger midrange camera than the 50D was