Canon 7D: Released (Link on post #1)

[Full of Win]

Its has been released! Looks like we have a D300s killer on our hands :)

Hands on from Gizmondo, with video and sample pictures (at various ISO's)

http://gizmodo.com/5349829/canon-7d-dslr-first-hands-on-18-megapixels-24fps-full-hd-video-for-1900



The embargo at DPreview has been lifted, and this is what we got. The servers are being slammed at the moment, so the images are not us, at least this is my assumption.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090105canoneos7d.asp

Hands on preview
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/

[Phrasikleia]

I was really hoping it would be an 18MP full-frame sensor and that the megapixels war had finally blown over. If Canon can pull a rabbit out of a hat and make an APS-C sensor of that density with better noise handling and DR than the 50D, then I might be interested. Otherwise, not interested.

[CATinHAWAII]

Looks like it might be real. Interesting, to say the least. Don't know what to expect from an 18 MP 1.6 crop.

These are the rumored specs from canonrumors.com, will know more on 1 Sept when Canon will hold a press conference.

- 18mp
- dual digic 4
- 8 fps

sounds good, so far.. I'LL TAKE ONE!:D

[Mousse]

8 fps. That's encroaching upon 1D turf. If I were a poor sports shooter, I'd be interested. But then 18mp on a APS sensor...:(

[SLC Flyfishing]

It needs the 1DmkIII's focusing system (or and APS-C version of it anyway), then I'd be concerned. As it stands I think I'd still go D300 and battery grip if I were looking for a crop body sports camera.

Nikon can do it (D300 and D3 have same focusing systems)

SLC

[dllavaneras]

8 fps. That's encroaching upon 1D turf. If I were a poor sports shooter, I'd be interested. But then 18mp on a APS sensor...:(

Then again, the 1D Mark III was announced two and a half years ago. If this rumor comes true, then we might get to see the 1D Mark IV along this one.

If this comes out, I might think about getting it over a 5D Mark II. Then again, I was really hoping to upgrade to FF.

Ah, wishful thinking...

[CrackedButter]

I really wish Canon would simplify their camera lineup instead of adding another camera to it, if this rumour is to be believed.

Simplify the number of models and the naming conventions.

[Nicolasdec]

I really wish Canon would simplify their camera lineup instead of adding another camera to it, if this rumour is to be believed.

Simplify the number of models and the naming conventions.

Canon has the same amount of DSLR's as Nikon. both companies have 9 DSLR cameras.

[OreoCookie]

That camera wouldn't make sense: why would you cram 18 MP onto a 1.6x crop sensor? The 50D's 15MP sensor already has worse high-noise behavior than its predecessor. Plus, diffraction would set in earlier. And why break with the current numbering scheme? Single-digit = full frame makes sense. Double digit = advanced amateur/semi-pro. Triple digit = amateur.

[OatmealRocks]

According to canonrumors.com, the author suggest a CROP body. I wonder if this is the case. If it is FF, I may have to upgrade.

Oreo, If it is indeed FF than I think this would hurt 5DII sales no?

Opinions?

[anubis]

That camera wouldn't make sense: why would you cram 18 MP onto a 1.6x crop sensor? The 50D's 15MP sensor already has worse high-noise behavior than its predecessor. Plus, diffraction would set in earlier. And why break with the current numbering scheme? Single-digit = full frame makes sense. Double digit = advanced amateur/semi-pro. Triple digit = amateur.

+1

The 40D's 10MP 1.6x crop has vastly superior noise and linearity performance compared to the newer and more expensive 50D's 15MP 1.6x crop, as proven by dpreview. Canon has already demonstrated an inability to cram pixels and extract better noise performance. An 18MP 1.6x crop would just be pointless at this time. Then again, I have seen many semi-pro wedding photographers use 50D's so people must still be falling for this MP crap; why not bump the pixel count up even more? If they can get people to trade in their older cameras for a new model regardless of the new model's technical shortcomings, why not?

It would make far more sense technically to make it FF. The problem is that it would cost more and cannibalize sales of the 5DmkII

[toxic]

I really wish Canon would simplify their camera lineup instead of adding another camera to it, if this rumour is to be believed.

Simplify the number of models and the naming conventions.

what's so difficult about Canon's naming convention? go complain about Nikon's. it makes no sense whatsoever. moreover, Canon is more or less using the same convention as the film models.

And why break with the current numbering scheme? Single-digit = full frame makes sense. Double digit = advanced amateur/semi-pro. Triple digit = amateur.

what? single-digit just means prosumer (or semi-pro, whichever you prefer)/professional bodies. double is amateur, triple is consumer, four is entry-level. the 1D series has APS sensors, in case you didn't notice.

According to canonrumors.com, the author suggest a CROP body. I wonder if this is the case. If it is FF, I may have to upgrade.

if you're putting so much weight into rumors, then you'd believe the supposed images of the 7D. look at the viewfinder bulge. based on that, it's way too small for anything but APS, be it -H or -C, unless they came up with some new design or use a crappy viewfinder.

I personally don't think 18MP and 8 fps go together, especially for a camera slotted below the 5D. in any case, there's no point getting worked up about some rumors when the official announcement is 3 days away.

[butterfly0fdoom]

According to canonrumors.com, the author suggest a CROP body. I wonder if this is the case. If it is FF, I may have to upgrade.

Oreo, If it is indeed FF than I think this would hurt 5DII sales no?

Opinions?

It's crop for sure; the lens in the poster is an EF-S.

[CrackedButter]

Canon has the same amount of DSLR's as Nikon. both companies have 9 DSLR cameras.

what's so difficult about Canon's naming convention? go complain about Nikon's. it makes no sense whatsoever. moreover, Canon is more or less using the same convention as the film models.

Wow, both of you bringing Nikon into the discussion. I'm using Canon as an example is that okay? This thread is about Canon isn't it, otherwise lets being Pentax, Olympus and SONY into discussion? I'm not hating on anybody here, I'm just going to keep this simple.

You're both Mac users, surely you can see how Apple keeps their product lines simple. Compare that to Canon's line, or [insert your favourite here].

Below the 5D and the 1D series, what are the major differences between the SLR's. Enlighten me, pretend I'm not a photographer for a moment and tell me in layman's terms what are the differences.

[toxic]

Below the 5D and the 1D series, what are the major differences between the SLR's. Enlighten me, pretend I'm not a photographer for a moment and tell me in layman's terms what are the differences.

it's already been stated. but I'll say it again:

4 digits (e.g. 1000D): entry-level. basically a watered down 100-series so Canon could make it cheaper, making it easier for P&S shooters to get a foot in the door.
3 digits (500D): consumer camera. small, lightweight body with some more advanced features than 1000-series.
2 digits (50D): amateur. larger and slightly heavier due to magnesium (?) frame and high-quality plastics. few more features and improved ergonomics due to a rear control wheel.

the fewer the number of digits, the more advanced the camera.

for the North American market, it's not clear where Canon is going with consumer-level cameras since there's only been one entry-level camera (XS), but it seems like two letter will be entry-level and three will be consumer, and then digits for the more advanced cameras.

there's an overlap between the new and old model for a few months after every release, which is why the 40D was still selling after the 50D was released.

right now, there are seven Canon models: 1Ds, 1D, 5D, 50D, 500D, 450D, 1000D.

[CrackedButter]

it's already been stated. but I'll say it again:

4 digits (e.g. 1000D): entry-level. basically a watered down 100-series.
3 digits (500D): consumer camera. small, lightweight body with some more advanced features than 1000-series.
2 digits (50D): amateur. magnesium (?) frame with high-quality plastics. more features and improved ergonomics due to a rear control wheel.

there's an overlap between the new and old model for a few months after every release, which is why the 40D was still selling after the 50D was released.

right now, there are seven Canon models: 1Ds, 1D, 5D, 50D, 500D, 450D, 1000D.

You missed the point, I said in laymans terms. You haven't explained the differences to me as a person who is new to photography. Why should I care about build quality when all I'm after is image quality and megapixels, most people buy based on what they've been marketed then ask all sorts of questions regarding the specs.

[toxic]

You missed the point, I said in laymans terms. You haven't explained the differences to me as a person who is new to photography. Why should I care about build quality when all I'm after is image quality and megapixels, most people buy based on what they've been marketed then ask all sorts of questions regarding the specs.

I don't see the difference.

3-4 digits means inexpensive, small, and plastic. 2 digits means more expensive, better ergonomics, and better image quality, even in the sense of more megapixels.

a Macbook is inexpensive and plastic. a Macbook Pro is more expensive, has a larger and higher quality display, and some more features. what else is there to explain?

we could always go into specific specs for the differences, but it's not any simpler for Apple's computer line. one computer has more RAM or hard drive space or whatever, one camera has a larger buffer or more FPS.

[CrackedButter]

I don't see the difference.

3-4 digits means inexpensive, small, and plastic. 2 digits means more expensive, better ergonomics, and better image quality, even in the sense of more megapixels.

a Macbook is inexpensive and plastic. a Macbook Pro is more expensive, has a larger and higher quality display, and some more features. what else is there to explain?

we could always go into specific specs for the differences, but it's not any simpler for Apple's computer line. one computer has more RAM or hard drive space or whatever, one camera has a larger buffer or more FPS.


The difference right away is that I know how big a screen is. You can explain the megapixel difference for that person to turn round and say 'yeah but will it let me take good pictures'.

You can't go into specifics that's my point, no way would anybody talk about buffers.
I just think canon should have a 4 tier lineup and forget the numbering scheme and use words like Apple does.

[Full of Win]

The difference right away is that I know how big a screen is. You can explain the megapixel difference for that person to turn round and say 'yeah but will it let me take good pictures'.

You can't go into specifics that's my point, no way would anybody talk about buffers.
I just think canon should have a 4 tier lineup and forget the numbering scheme and use words like Apple does.

If Canon when to a word based naming convention, they would be laughed at.

Alphanumeric have been a tradition in camera circles for decades.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/series_eos.html

[OreoCookie]

what? single-digit just means prosumer (or semi-pro, whichever you prefer)/professional bodies. double is amateur, triple is consumer, four is entry-level. the 1D series has APS sensors, in case you didn't notice.
It's APS-H (1.3x) and not 1.6x. It's still a pro-body. with a non-1.6x sensor.

In any case, the specs of the 7D don't make any sense. It's more like a 60D (or 70D if you insist on the 7) rather than a 7D. Even if they went for a 1.3x sensor (something that's not in the specs), I'm still left wondering `why?' It's not clear who this camera is aimed for? Sports enthusiasts? Then it would cannibalize sales of the 1D Mark III. I think it's fake.

[CrackedButter]

If Canon when to a word based naming convention, they would be laughed at.

Alphanumeric have been a tradition in camera circles for decades.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/series_eos.html

As Mac users we should know too well that things can change. Computers for the most part still use numbers in their names.

I seriously doubt anybody would laugh at Canon.

You do know Apple still use Alphanumeric but they hide it from the end users?

[AlaskaMoose]

I don't care is Canon calls it 7D, nor any other model number. I like the specs, and that's all there is to it. It should be a good one for sports, and birds.

[toxic]

The difference right away is that I know how big a screen is.

no you don't, there's Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro. you differentiate the individual models with the screen size and processor speed.

with Canon, there's thousand, hundred, ten, and single digits. there's nothing to differentiate since there's only one model per class, old model overlap notwithstanding.

You can explain the megapixel difference for that person to turn round and say 'yeah but will it let me take good pictures'.

you don't need to explain any megapixel difference. if they're new and don't wanna slap down $1000+, there's the 500D and 1000D. if they're more advanced, there's the 50D. ALL of them will take good pictures, so there's no explaining anything about that.

You can't go into specifics that's my point, no way would anybody talk about buffers.

I didn't get into any specifics, and I don't need to. the point is you don't have to get into any specifics to explain one model over the other.

you can go make your own cameras and call them what you like. meanwhile, there's nothing illogical or difficult about Canon's naming convention.

back to the actual topic.

Update: It looks like Canon 'borrowed' some Nikon styling on this one. I like it.

I don't see the Nikon styling...except for the extra few buttons, if you mean that.

[someoldguy]

Photoshop's a wonderful thing !! . I personally believe the 7D will be a full frame sensor , maybe 12-15 MP . Something to entice people to buy FF.
Assuming Canon retains its' numbering system , the second set of specs in the below link make sense.

http://photorumors.com/2009/08/07/canon-eos-7d-rumor/

[AlaskaMoose]

Photoshop's a wonderful thing !! . I personally believe the 7D will be a full frame sensor , maybe 12-15 MP . Something to entice people to buy FF.
Assuming Canon retains its' numbering system , the second set of specs in the below link make sense.

http://photorumors.com/2009/08/07/canon-eos-7d-rumor/

I too believe that it will be a FF camera, perhaps without video, but faster than the 5DII. I lot of photographers don't have use for a video feature of the 5DII, but would like a faster camera.

[Grimace]

No, it will not be Full Frame. Canon is still in short supply of the $2700 5D camera. This would be direct competition with the 5D if it were full frame - it would actually overshadow it.

Hint: the two lenses that were released with it? EF-S. This will not be a FF camera.

[compuwar]

what's so difficult about Canon's naming convention? go complain about Nikon's. it makes no sense whatsoever.

The only major difference I can see between the Canon and Nikon body naming schemes is if the D goes in front or at the end. Nikon suffixes the cameras with model information (s,x,h) as necessary, but that's consistent.

nD = Dn (though the 5D sort of breaks it as it's really a Dnnn)
nnD = Dnnn
nnnD = Dnn
nnnnD = Dnnnn

Seems about as easy a transposition as you can get without the companies having to worry too much about the fact that they didn't just add one each time they introduced a new model.


If Canon when to a word based naming convention, they would be laughed at.


You mean like "Digital Rebel XTI?" ;)

Anyway, the thing I was going to ask was if anyone had done the math on the resolution/sensor size numbers, because I think the pixels would have to be much smaller than is traditional on a DSLR- somewhere around 3.6u perhaps? I think that's smaller than the pixels on an A650- so if the rumor is true, and we expect relatively good low-light performance, then Canon may have upped the high-ISO game once again- though it'd certainly challenge most lenses. I think APS-H would be around 6u, if that's right it makes much more sense.

[Full of Win]

You mean like "Digital Rebel XTI?" ;)

Ohh... you mean the 450D or the Kiss X2?

However, you will note that the name of the most resent revision of the line is named "T1i"

[gkarris]

Didn't Canon listen to Photo Enthusiasts and drop the pixel density in the new G11?

[toxic]

I too believe that it will be a FF camera, perhaps without video, but faster than the 5DII. I lot of photographers don't have use for a video feature of the 5DII, but would like a faster camera.

again, look at the viewfinder bulge (or whatever it's called). it is simply too small to be anything but APS.

The only major difference I can see between the Canon and Nikon body naming schemes is if the D goes in front or at the end. Nikon suffixes the cameras with model information (s,x,h) as necessary, but that's consistent.

nD = Dn (though the 5D sort of breaks it as it's really a Dnnn)
nnD = Dnnn
nnnD = Dnn
nnnnD = Dnnnn

Seems about as easy a transposition as you can get without the companies having to worry too much about the fact that they didn't just add one each time they introduced a new model.

now it's starting to make more sense, though it's still not consistent as Canon (fewer digits = better). like before it was D40, D60, D90, D300, D3. when I first read something on the Nikon line, I was confused about which camera went where in the lineup - I only knew D40 was the lowest since it's the smallest, and D3 is probably the highest since it has a built-in grip. everything else was a guess.

so it makes some sense now, but it sure didn't when I first saw it.

[compuwar]

again, look at the viewfinder bulge (or whatever it's called). it is simply too small to be anything but APS.



now it's starting to make more sense, though it's still not consistent as Canon (fewer digits = better).

so it makes some sense now, but it sure didn't when I first saw it.

At first glance 1D > 5D doesn't make much sense either- so I don't think there's a heck of a lot of sensible naming scheme people at either company.

[FX120]

The specs are probably quite acurate. The viewfinder prism looks enormous for a APS-C sensor, much much larger than what you would typically see on a 40D or 50D, so the 100%, 1.0X specs are probably acurate, and honestly the most atractive thing about this camera. The main reason I moved up to a 5DII was for the bigger viewfinder.

18MP might be high, but I believe that there was some article I read a while back about Canon making a "breakthrough" for high ISO noise performance on dense sensors, so who knows.

[Grimace]

At first glance 1D > 5D doesn't make much sense either- so I don't think there's a heck of a lot of sensible naming scheme people at either company.

I originally thought that too, but you always know that the 1 series is the top dog, and the rest of the lineup can change at will.

The dumbest thing about Canon's naming/numbering is the difference between the USA and everywhere else. XSi? Call it a xxxxD!

XD
XXD
XXXD
XXXXD

Done.

[luminosity]

again, look at the viewfinder bulge (or whatever it's called). it is simply too small to be anything but APS.



now it's starting to make more sense, though it's still not consistent as Canon (fewer digits = better). like before it was D40, D60, D90, D300, D3. when I first read something on the Nikon line, I was confused about which camera went where in the lineup - I only knew D40 was the lowest since it's the smallest, and D3 is probably the highest since it has a built-in grip. everything else was a guess.

so it makes some sense now, but it sure didn't when I first saw it.

The D3 follows the same line as the original F series. There are modifications to it, of course, (there was no plain D2, but rather the D2X and then the D2Xs), but the original F series had some quiet modifications as well.

D1/2/3/
F/2/3/4/5/6

Pretty straightforward.

[Full of Win]

I originally thought that too, but you always know that the 1 series is the top dog, and the rest of the lineup can change at will.

The dumbest thing about Canon's naming/numbering is the difference between the USA and everywhere else. XSi? Call it a xxxxD!

XD
XXD
XXXD
XXXXD

Done.

This just keeps with our proud tradition of doing things different. I travel MILES to get gas by the GALLON and then go buy a quarter POUNDer with double cheese!

Serious, in Japan they call the Rebel (in the US) the Kiss…which I don’t know seems odd.

[OreoCookie]

This just keeps with our proud tradition of doing things different. I travel MILES to get gas by the GALLON and then go buy a quarter POUNDer with double cheese!
Differently? You just forgot to switch from the units of measurement of the colonials! ;)

[Padaung]

This just keeps with our proud tradition of doing things different. I travel MILES to get gas by the GALLON and then go buy a quarter POUNDer with double cheese!

Serious, in Japan they call the Rebel (in the US) the Kiss…which I don’t know seems odd.

Come to the UK where we buy milk and beer by the pint, but petrol, coca cola, orange juice etc by the litre. Long distances are measured in miles, we drive at miles per hour and measure fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. We measure most other distances in metres (officially) but a lot of people still refer to things in feet and inches. Sugar is purchased by the kilogram but we can still walk into a burger shop and get a quarter pounder. Keeps life interesting :D The EU have recently admitted defeat and stopped trying to make us fully metric, we like our odd little ways.

However, digital camera naming conventions can still be a little confusing to us too! It was easier in the old film days ;)

[flosseR]

I think someone screwed up.. this would completely mess up Canon's line-up... why on earth would you cram THAT much into a APSC sensor?.. i really think this is either a canon 70D (so someone made a typo) with a crop, or a 7D with full frame..

[Edge100]

This really makes no sense to me. To whom does this camera appeal? 18MP on a 1.6x crop sensor, when Canon already knows damn well that 15MP in a 1.6x crop sensor is too much, at least as far as noise and IQ are concerned? 8 fps is nice, as are 19 cross-type AF points, but why are these features being coupled to such a ridiculously jam-packed sensor?

This sounds very, very odd.

[Phrasikleia]

This really makes no sense to me. To whom does this camera appeal? 18MP on a 1.6x crop sensor, when Canon already knows damn well that 15MP in a 1.6x crop sensor is too much, at least as far as noise and IQ are concerned? 8 fps is nice, as are 19 cross-type AF points, but why are these features being coupled to such a ridiculously jam-packed sensor?

This sounds very, very odd.

If the rumors are true, I can only guess this camera is being targeted at sports enthusiasts, who need the extra reach of a cropped sensor and want the extra MP so they can crop even more. As for noise, well, maybe Canon has made some advancement in sensor tech? If not, then I guess it's a camera targeted at outdoors sports enthusiasts.

[Ambrose Chapel]

so now that this isn't the sub-$2k full frame eos camera everyone (or at least me) wants...

how long before canon can figure out how to produce one? sony fired the first shot with the A850, and i assume it's inevitable that the industry will move that way, but when? any educated guesses?

[wheelhot]

how long before canon can figure out how to produce one? sony fired the first shot with the A850, and i assume it's inevitable that the industry will move that way, but when? any educated guesses?

On the next update, meaning the next generation release of FF camera. Sony is definitely pushing the market to change but Canon and Nikon is still superior.

[compuwar]

so now that this isn't the sub-$2k full frame eos camera everyone (or at least me) wants...

how long before canon can figure out how to produce one? sony fired the first shot with the A850, and i assume it's inevitable that the industry will move that way, but when? any educated guesses?

As slowly as possible. FF sensor cameras are commanding a premium for Nikon and Canon, nobody in business would advise someone to kill the margins on a high-margin product before they absolutely have to. The D700 is ~2300 now street- Canon's been happy with a ~$500 delta and Nikon is a "safer" switch than Sony, so it really depends a lot on how far Sony will discount and for how long- I don't see Nikon or Canon trying to price-match Sony soon though- unless someone does some surprising volume/unit price statistics for the holiday season for new DSLR buyers- if you're invested in Canon, you're likely to wait for a new model or a price drop rather than switch systems, or eventually just pony-up.

[Ambrose Chapel]

that's what i was afraid of... :(

i guess the good news for me is that i'm in no hurry to upgrade, and in the meantime i can always splurge on glass! but i do hope that it's no more than a couple of years before we can get the equivalent of an xxD with FF...after all, every tourist i see has already upgraded their p&s to a DSLR...gotta tempt them with something shiny to upgrade to.

[wheelhot]

Alright, the confirmed specs (source canonrumors)

7D Translation
1. 18MP APSC CMOS (confirmed to be 1.6x from Chinese press translation)
2. Dual DIGIC 4
3. 8 FPS (94 FINE JPEG/ 15 RAW)
4. New eight-directional double cross central AF point, total 19 cross AF points
5. ISO 100-6400 (Exp 12800)
6. 100% 1.0X magni VF with intelligent display, horizon assist
7. New iFCL metering (exposure and colour)
8. 3′ 920K Version II LCD, 160 deg viewing
9. Full HD video (w external mic input n HDMI output) - alright again from the Chinese press, if I recall there will be both 720p and 1080p at 24/25/30 and bonus 60 for 720p
10. Live view w Face-priority AF
11. New switch for Live View/Video mode
12. Aero-dynamic body design, metallic shutter sound, 150K shutter life
13. New 24mm built-in flash, supports EOS intelligent speedlite system (Canon version of CLS)
14. A.L.O
15. P.I.C
16. Picture style
17. EOS Integrated Dust Removal system

[anubis]

1. 18MP APSC CMOS (confirmed to be 1.6x from Chinese press translation)
5. ISO 100-6400 (Exp 12800)

:rolleyes: Oh please, the 15MP 50D is already a piece of crap at ISO 800 and beyond, don't insult my intelligence by telling me this camera will be capable of ISO 12800 ;)

If the rumors are true, I can only guess this camera is being targeted at sports enthusiasts, who need the extra reach of a cropped sensor and want the extra MP so they can crop even more. As for noise, well, maybe Canon has made some advancement in sensor tech? If not, then I guess it's a camera targeted at outdoors sports enthusiasts.

I think you've got it here. It's the only thing that makes sense. Sports, birding, wildlife/nature, etc.... The kind of things where you maybe want a lot of MP and have the $$$ to spend on L-lenses, but need the extra reach of a 1.6x crop

[dllavaneras]

Alright, the confirmed specs (source canonrumors)

7D Translation
1. 18MP APSC CMOS (confirmed to be 1.6x from Chinese press translation)
2. Dual DIGIC 4
3. 8 FPS (94 FINE JPEG/ 15 RAW)

The 1D Mark III puts out 100 Mp/s (10Mp @ 10 fps) with dual Digic III precessors. Are the Digic 4 so superior that they can handle a 44% increase in load? (18 Mp @ 8 fps = 144 Mp/s) This would mean that it's just slightly slower than the 1D (8 vs 10 fps), slightly lower resolution than the 1Ds (18 vs 21 Mp) and with better video capabilities than the 5D Mark II. And ISO 12800? On a crop sensor? I'll believe it when I see it, although it makes no sense.

[toxic]

first, about 50D noise: DPR uses ACR, which was proven to make all 50D images noisier than they should have been. I don't know if that's been fixed yet since I don't use ACR or a 50D. with DPP or other RAW converters, the noise handling of the 50D vs the 40D is a lateral move. that said, I think the 50D exhibits a bit more chroma noise than expected...but that's an easy fix in post without loss of detail.

back to the 7D:

badly translated chinese press release:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/08/eos-7d-press-release/#more-2538

I would wait for the english release before seriously reading all that... some thoughts/note:

- sensor technology has improved (don't people know that it always improves? pixel density is not everything), and Canon claims that the redesign boosts SNR, among other things. ok, to be fair, they always claim that.

- it is 1.6 crop, and Canon seems committed to APS-C since, according to the translation, the 7D is considered the "flagship" for APS-C cameras.

- viewfinder is now the same as the 1DIII's...meaning not that much bigger. but everyone should have expected that since the sensor/mirror's so small compared to APS-H and 35mm.

- 5 (or more?) AF modes, improved tracking/auto AF point selection. I've never used a 1D so I don't know how they compare.

- remote flash triggering, finally

- more and more customizable Picture Styles, for the Jpeg shooters

- shutter press feels more like 1DIII and 5DII? I guess that just means a softer half-press

- power switch location is changed, no idea why they bothered

:rolleyes: Oh please, the 15MP 50D is already a piece of crap at ISO 800 and beyond, don't insult my intelligence by telling me this camera will be capable of ISO 12800 ;)

capability and whether it'll be any good at it are two separate things. P&S' regularly go to 3200+. other than that, see my above comments on DPR/ACR and the 50D.

[wheelhot]

Oh please, the 15MP 50D is already a piece of crap at ISO 800 and beyond, don't insult my intelligence by telling me this camera will be capable of ISO 12800

Sorry I'm not, but wait for a couple of hours time :)

first, about 50D noise: DPR uses ACR, which was proven to make all 50D images noisier than they should have been. I don't know if that's been fixed yet since I don't use ACR or a 50D. with DPP or other RAW converters, the noise handling of the 50D vs the 40D is a lateral move. that said, I think the 50D exhibits a bit more chroma noise than expected...but that's an easy fix in post without loss of detail.

erm not actually, the problem is, the 50D exhibits too much noise till any NR made to reduce chroma will still make the image unusable.

capability and whether it'll be any good at it are two separate things. P&S' regularly go to 3200+. other than that, see my above comments on DPR/ACR and the 50D.

Yeah but PnS at ISO 3200 is usually more gimmick then function :rolleyes:

and yes, many people are worried bout 18mp on APS-C, guess we'll have to just wait and see :|

[John.B]

The dumbest thing about Canon's naming/numbering is the difference between the USA and everywhere else. XSi? Call it a xxxxD!
Actually, in the USA they are still primarily advertised as the Rebel (which might not play as well in the UK). See thumbnail attachment below. Andre Agassi was their ad spokes-tennisplayer for years and years with the older film versions, which has quite a lot of marketing carryover even today in the USA.

The 40D's 10MP 1.6x crop has vastly superior noise and linearity performance compared to the newer and more expensive 50D's 15MP 1.6x crop, as proven by dpreview.
DPReview hates Canon, because Canon won't give them advanced models before the official announcement (like Nikon does). They admitted to as much in one of their Canon dSLR reviews. I wouldn't put too much stake in a review from an outfit with an axe to grind. The 40D and 50D actually compare favorably at pixel-peeping 100% crops for anything approaching normal ISOs.

dpreview.com 1D MkIII Review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022208canoneos1dmarkiii.asp)
As has become Canon’s approach we had no information on this camera before embargo, this lack of trust they show with their most important (and reliable) publications only continues to damage their image within the industry.

Still, since nobody here seems to have taken the 7D for a ride (judging from how wrong everyone was about this camera :p), maybe we'll just see how it actually pans out when it hits stores in late September? ;)

[sangosimo]

cheers. canon finally has something that competes with the d300...

[Edge100]

The 1D Mark III puts out 100 Mp/s (10Mp @ 10 fps) with dual Digic III precessors. Are the Digic 4 so superior that they can handle a 44% increase in load? (18 Mp @ 8 fps = 144 Mp/s) This would mean that it's just slightly slower than the 1D (8 vs 10 fps), slightly lower resolution than the 1Ds (18 vs 21 Mp) and with better video capabilities than the 5D Mark II. And ISO 12800? On a crop sensor? I'll believe it when I see it, although it makes no sense.

100% agree. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon do this, of course, because they've clearly staked their interest in the "more-MP-is-better" camp when it comes to their DSLR lineup.

But it still makes no sense. They would have throngs of people lining up to buy one of two cameras:

1. An updated original 5D (so to speak...3D, if you like), with 15 MP or so, FF, ISO 50-12800, AF system from the 1DmkII or better

2. A 12-15MP 1.6x body, again with better AF system than the 50D

But perhaps they're selling enough 50Ds and 5DmkIIs to make these cameras unnecessary.

Strange.

[Edge100]

cheers. canon finally has something that competes with the d300...

This can be the only rationale for this camera. The D300 is a very popular DSLR, and the 50D really doesn't compare.

That said, unless they've done something magical with that sensor, the IQ and noise from an 18MP 1.6x sensor is going to leave a lot of people disappointed.

[akdj]

"Still, since nobody here seems to have taken the 7D for a ride (judging from how wrong everyone was about this camera ), maybe we'll just see how it actually pans out when it hits stores in late September?"

Thanks John B. Probably the most sensible comment in this thread;)

While not a 50D owner, I've shot with it many times. I am incredibly surprised by the "exaggeration" of noise in the 50D. Hilarious! It's not that freakin' Bad! Good Lord....it is spoken like it measure like a P&S! The 50D is an excellent camera. It does exhibit a "bit" more noise because of it's pixel population, but give me a break!!!

To "assume" disappointment amongst the legions BEFORE we even know for sure what it is! It's obviously aimed at the sports/wildlife crowd...that's a given, if the specs are true. Certainly a 1D upgrade is on the way for the "other" photographers:) amongst us.

On a serious note though. The 50D is a great camera. We don't even know what the 7D is (or 60D). Why not wait until it is released, until we do know what it is, and until.....get this, WAIT until someone has shot a PICTURE with it! Then, maybe we'll find out if it is decent choice for whatever the hell you're shooting!

It's pretty easy to count the optimists/pessimists in the forum....and the Nikon fans! ;)

J

[gnd]

Canon EOS 7D dpreview preview (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/)
Canon EOS 7D Specifications (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page2.asp)
What's new / key features (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/page3.asp)
Official Canon announcement (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090105canoneos7d.asp)

[ksz]

Everything about the 7D seems Wow, just have to wait and see if the new photodiodes (new sensor technology) live up to expectations for low noise, high dynamic range, and sharper focus. But if so, Canon's got a real hit on their hands...and it may find itself in my hands too!

[compuwar]

DPReview hates Canon, because Canon won't give them advanced models before the official announcement (like Nikon does). They admitted to as much in one of their Canon dSLR reviews. I wouldn't put too much stake in a review from an outfit with an axe to grind.

Seems like their 7D review is based on a "pre-production model."

[wheezy]

I'm sold, an affordable solid upgrade to my 20D. Yes, I was hoping for FF, but the new viewfinder with LCD overlay, HD Video, 63 Grid Metering, 19AF, FAST AF (Finally, the Nikon'ites can shut up about AF), dual Digic... seems like a very solid upgrade.

Count me in.

[toxic]

well guess what, it's weathersealed. Canon now has a logical upgrade path for APS-C shooters. now we get to see if Canon sticks with three sensors or builds its second line around a 35mm sensor, and if Canon expands the EF-S line to include professional and/or weathersealed lenses.

I'd be really excited if I were still using APS-C.

[dllavaneras]

Everything about the 7D seems Wow, just have to wait and see if the new photodiodes (new sensor technology) live up to expectations for low noise, high dynamic range, and sharper focus. But if so, Canon's got a real hit on their hands...and it may find itself in my hands too!

If and only if the new sensor lives up to Canon's hype, I'll consider it. For the time being, I still want the 5D Mark II for the FF sensor (although the 19 AF points and viewfinder of the 7D would be nice). I'm more interested in the new 100mm f2.8L macro lens than the 7D, to be honest :p

Oh well, I'm not going to upgrade my XTi for another year or so, so I'll just see what I can get then.

BTW, there are sample pictures (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/) on Canon's site. Funny how the highest ISO they use is 200. :rolleyes:

[ksz]

Imaging Resource has a good preview (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA.HTM) of the 7D including a look at image quality (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DIMAGING.HTM). ISOs 100 through 1600 seem quite clean, with noise showing up beyond 1600. Some "tight grain pattern" visible at ISO 400 and 800, but still high detail. Wondering how the production model will compare (will probably be very very close).

Initial previews of image quality are good (not great). Still have to wait for more analysis.

[wheezy]

Imaging Resource has a good preview (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DA.HTM) of the 7D including a look at image quality (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DIMAGING.HTM). ISOs 100 through 1600 seem quite clean, with noise showing up beyond 1600. Some "tight grain pattern" visible at ISO 400 and 800, but still high detail. Wondering how the production model will compare (will probably be very very close).

Initial previews of image quality are good (not great). Still have to wait for more analysis.

This 'High Noise' battle is just the megapixel battle of a few years ago - all hype, but in the end no paid professional is going to go into those extreme realms. Sure, it's great for birthday parties and paparazzi but really, who cares?

I'm pretty darn sure Canon isn't betting everything on noise that seems to get worse from previous generations. They obviously reacted to Nikon stealing a lot of the market and is now offering more AF, weathersealing and a few new features that no one has done before. Good stuff, very convincing stuff. They'd be crazy to match these new features with a sensor plagued by noise. Canon is on top (with Nikon) for a reason - they don't do stupid things. (they'll do mildly, slightly stupid :))

[wheelhot]

wow, its interesting to see that Canon says this (quoted from DP Review)
DIGIC 4 removes the highly noticeable colour noise as well as reducing luminance noise without loss in detail, allowing for very clean high ISO images. Even at ISO 6400 noise levels are similar to those of ISO 1600 from DIGIC III. Auto Lighting Optimiser is now also available during manual exposure, without any drop in performance.

So if it's as good as it seems and the ergonomic fits me, guess I'll be staying. Otherwise, hello D300

[Full of Win]

This 'High Noise' battle is just the megapixel battle of a few years ago - all hype, but in the end no paid professional is going to go into those extreme realms. Sure, it's great for birthday parties and paparazzi but really, who cares?

Who cares...a lot of people.

More quality at higher ISO = faster shutter speeds = more use with less than fast lenses

For example, if ISO 1600 looks good, you might be able to use that Canon 55-250 at a graduation , whereas before only 400 - 500 ISO looked good, and this might have made such a slow shutter speed or dark image that it was useless.

[ksz]

This 'High Noise' battle is just the megapixel battle of a few years ago - all hype, but in the end no paid professional is going to go into those extreme realms. Sure, it's great for birthday parties and paparazzi but really, who cares?
I used to think so too until I discovered Auto-ISO mode in which the camera picks the best ISO. I've taken a lot of high ISO shots in this manner, something I would not necessarily do otherwise. To be sure, many cameras let you limit the top-end ISO, but Auto-ISO mode has been a favorite of mine in recent months.

I'm pretty darn sure Canon isn't betting everything on noise that seems to get worse from previous generations. They obviously reacted to Nikon stealing a lot of the market and is now offering more AF, weathersealing and a few new features that no one has done before. Good stuff, very convincing stuff. They'd be crazy to match these new features with a sensor plagued by noise. Canon is on top (with Nikon) for a reason - they don't do stupid things. (they'll do mildly, slightly stupid :))
Noise matters to those who know. Canon's 50D has taken a beating because of noise. Do you have any reservations buying a 50D? Technicalities matter to those who know about them. And that's a good thing because technical specifications should improve over time as a complementary measure of progress.

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

I so want this camera, I think I'll get this one then later upgrade to a FF VDSLR. By that time there will be a 5D Mark II successor.

[toxic]

Noise matters to those who know. Canon's 50D has taken a beating because of noise. Do you have any reservations buying a 50D? Technicalities matter to those who know about them. And that's a good thing because technical specifications should improve over time as a complementary measure of progress.

yes, noise-handling is important, but it's of utmost importance to those who spend too much time looking at 100% crops and too little time printing. and for some reason, no one can understand that looking at a 10MP image at 100% is very different from looking at 15MP at 100%.

anyways, big step up for Canon.

I so want this camera, I think I'll get this one then later upgrade to a FF VDSLR. By that time there will be a 5D Mark II successor.

eh. the 5D is on a 3-year lifecycle, it seems. unless you're already thinking that far ahead...

[TH3D4RKKN1GH7]

yes, noise-handling is important, but it's of utmost importance to those who spend too much time looking at 100% crops and too little time printing. and for some reason, no one can understand that looking at a 10MP image at 100% is very different from looking at 15MP at 100%.

anyways, big step up for Canon.



eh. the 5D is on a 3-year lifecycle, it seems. unless you're already thinking that far ahead...

Yeah I am, by then the video functionality will be greatly expanded upon in the DSLR realm and I won't feel so bad about dropping 4-5K on a FF VSLR.

[LittleCanonKid]

For example, if ISO 1600 looks good, you might be able to use that Canon 55-250 at a graduation , whereas before only 400 - 500 ISO looked good, and this might have made such a slow shutter speed or dark image that it was useless.At that point, it's the matter of getting the shot or not getting the shot. I never understood why people are afraid to use even ISO 800. A clean photo is no good if it's blurred. Bump the ISO and get the shot.

[John.B]

Seems like their 7D review is based on a "pre-production model."
So it seems. Chalk one up for "Phil".

I can't wait to see their noise comparisons, I'm sure they'll use wait to use ACR again like they did with the 50D review (vs. using DPP on release day).

Anyway, I'm sure you could care less, but this will be my new camera (pre-ordered from Amazon, but not a dime to your DPR buddies pockets). :cool:

[John.B]

LOL, just checked the DPR site in more depth, they've loaded a bunch of the pictures from their 50D review. I think they really do write these reviews before they get a camera in hand! LOL!

[JFreak]

I have to admit I feel this model fails because it isn't full frame...

[JFreak]

I'm more interested in the new 100mm f2.8L macro lens than the 7D, to be honest :p

Me too! That might be one sweet lens [with one sweet price] :D

[John.B]

Me too! That might be one sweet lens [with one sweet price] :D
Suggested Retail Price: US$ 1049.00. Sheesh, I paid less than half that for my 100mm f/2.8 USM (non IS). Isn't that like 750 Euro?

Oh well, with my ring light the lack of IS doesn't matter as much.

Speaking of which, I'm guessing they'll have to create a special adapter to make the existing macro lights work with the 67mm filter threads on the new "L" 100mm Macro.

[dllavaneras]

DIGIC 4 removes the highly noticeable colour noise as well as reducing luminance noise without loss in detail, allowing for very clean high ISO images. Even at ISO 6400 noise levels are similar to those of ISO 1600 from DIGIC III

Judging from the small previews at Imaging Resource, I must say that ISO 6400 is about the same as ISO 1600 is on my XTi. I'd have to look at full size samples to be sure, though.

Me too! That might be one sweet lens [with one sweet price] :D

$1049 according to the Canon site, available in October. For that price, it has to be at least twice as good as my 100mm macro lens for me to consider it, and I'm not getting my hopes up. Not to mention that I'd need an adapter to get my Ring Flash to work with it.
It would be my first L lens, though, and a macro with IS would be awesome.

http://www.graphicshost.net/images/ckbofpcnb0gubuq.jpg (http://www.graphicshost.net/)

[John.B]

MTF charts:

Old 100mm f/2.8 USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_100_28mtf.gif

New 100mm f/2.8 IS USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/Lenses_2009/EF100Macro/profile/ef10028lmisu_mtf.gif

That's gotta be one sweet lens.

I wonder when they'll discontinue the old one. I'll have a collector's item! :)

[iBookG4user]

I have to admit that I'm very impressed with this camera, finally Canon has something to compete with the D300! The specs are just about perfect for my uses and it looks like noise performance won't be too bad, a stop better performance than my 40D would be a fine upgrade. And 8 FPS with good autofocus, that seals the deal, this will be my next camera :D Contrary to most, I would not be getting this camera if it were full frame, the crop is of great benefit for my super teles.

[toxic]

Judging from the small previews at Imaging Resource, I must say that ISO 6400 is about the same as ISO 1600 is on my XTi. I'd have to look at full size samples to be sure, though.

those are Jpegs. meaning they're useless if you shoot RAW.

$1049 according to the Canon site, available in October. For that price, it has to be at least twice as good as my 100mm macro lens for me to consider it, and I'm not getting my hopes up.

are you aware of the law of diminishing returns?

[Phrasikleia]

MTF charts:

Old 100mm f/2.8 USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/lens/ef_100_28mtf.gif

New 100mm f/2.8 IS USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/Lenses_2009/EF100Macro/profile/ef10028lmisu_mtf.gif

That's gotta be one sweet lens.

I wonder when they'll discontinue the old one. I'll have a collector's item! :)

Wow. I'm very interested in this lens. I've been griping for a long time about the lack of a stabilized prime lens shorter than 200mm in the Canon lens lineup. The price doesn't seem too bad, either. Might sell my 100/2 and 60mm macro and get this new macro lens to replace them.

[dllavaneras]

I wonder when they'll discontinue the old one. I'll have a collector's item! :)

They say the new version will supplement, rather than replace, the old version.

those are Jpegs. meaning they're useless if you shoot RAW.

I know, but still, they look better than I expected.

are you aware of the law of diminishing returns?

Yes, that's why my wanting of this lens is more "ooh, new gadget! with IS and a red stripe!" than actual need. My current lens performs quite well :)

[wheezy]

Noise matters to those who know.

Yikes. Can you be any more snide? I'm not the best photographer out there, but I do know a thing or 2. I know I hate noise, and the less the better, but we're hitting ridiculous numbers in terms of ISO speed. And I also know that at the resolutions 95% of all digital photos are viewed at (screen) having pixel perfect noise at 100% magnification just isn't a big deal. It's just... not a big deal. My 20D was the noise king 4 years ago and it tops out at 3200, now folks like you would call the quality reprehensible.

yes, noise-handling is important, but it's of utmost importance to those who spend too much time looking at 100% crops and too little time printing. and for some reason, no one can understand that looking at a 10MP image at 100% is very different from looking at 15MP at 100%.

DING! Noise matters to those who complain.

[Phrasikleia]

Yikes. Can you be any more snide? I'm not the best photographer out there, but I do know a thing or 2. I know I hate noise, and the less the better, but we're hitting ridiculous numbers in terms of ISO speed. And I also know that at the resolutions 95% of all digital photos are viewed at (screen) having pixel perfect noise at 100% magnification just isn't a big deal. It's just... not a big deal. My 20D was the noise king 4 years ago and it tops out at 3200, now folks like you would call the quality reprehensible.



DING! Noise matters to those who complain.

I definitely see your point of view, but I suspect that most people who are willing to invest in a camera on the level of the 7D are doing more with their photos than web posting/screen viewing. It's aimed at semi-pros, whose photos often have to pass muster with agencies and clients.

[romanaz]

Yikes. Can you be any more snide? I'm not the best photographer out there, but I do know a thing or 2. I know I hate noise, and the less the better, but we're hitting ridiculous numbers in terms of ISO speed. And I also know that at the resolutions 95% of all digital photos are viewed at (screen) having pixel perfect noise at 100% magnification just isn't a big deal. It's just... not a big deal. My 20D was the noise king 4 years ago and it tops out at 3200, now folks like you would call the quality reprehensible.



DING! Noise matters to those who complain.

exactly, judging by the pics I've seen around, it looks rather good at 3200/6400, specially compared to my 40D @ those levels.

But noise doesn't mean crap. Judging by the fact that two pictures of mine were accepted at alamy at 1600 and 3200 ISO, with very slight noise reduction, just tells me ISO means squat. I got an 14x11 print @ ISO 1600 that looks fantastic.

who cares? nobody that matters. I can see myself in 3-4 years going for a camera like this when my 40D is 'outdated.'

[anubis]

Well... at 18MP the photodiode size is 4.3 microns. Using the rule of thumb for airy disk diameter (2.44 * wavelength * f/#) at 650nm (red light) at f/2.8 you've already hit the diffraction limit. Taking bayer mask antialiasing into account (which is not a perfect assumption because of the asymmetry with having more green sites than red or blue) you're still looking at hitting the diffraction limit at f/5.6. Most lenses don't even have resolution that reaches the diffraction limit, and when they do, it's at f/8-f/11. So basically, all of those extra photo sites are a complete waste. All they're doing is making the file size bigger, slowing post production, and making the noise even worse. But go ahead and keep arguing for the 7D... whatever helps you sleep at night...

[John.B]

Well... at 18MP the photodiode size is 4.3 microns. Using the rule of thumb for airy disk diameter (2.44 * wavelength * f/#) at 650nm (red light) at f/2.8 you've already hit the diffraction limit. Taking bayer mask antialiasing into account (which is not a perfect assumption because of the asymmetry with having more green sites than red or blue) you're still looking at hitting the diffraction limit at f/5.6. Most lenses don't even have resolution that reaches the diffraction limit, and when they do, it's at f/8-f/11. So basically, all of those extra photo sites are a complete waste. All they're doing is making the file size bigger, slowing post production, and making the noise even worse. But go ahead and keep arguing for the 7D... whatever helps you sleep at night...
Since the camera will be available RSN why don't we wait until we can actually, you know, measure the diffraction before we condemn it prematurely? Instead of using rules of thumb to knock a camera that you've never even seen, let alone been out shooting with?

Sheesh, there is some serious 40D anxiety around here.

[Phrasikleia]

But noise doesn't mean crap. Judging by the fact that two pictures of mine were accepted at alamy at 1600 and 3200 ISO, with very slight noise reduction, just tells me ISO means squat.

Well, OK, but of course not every photo that goes through QC at Alamy has actually been checked by them. They usually check one or two per batch, so lots of stuff slides through unseen.

[anubis]

Since the camera will be available RSN why don't we wait until we can actually, you know, measure the diffraction before we condemn it prematurely? Instead of using rules of thumb to knock a camera that you've never even seen, let alone been out shooting with?

Sheesh, there is some serious 40D anxiety around here.

Uuhhh... diffraction is defined by the laws of physics. The rule of thumb applies to every optical system ever made (with the exception of metamaterials). There will be nothing to measure because it's already defined. But, go ahead and add "breaks the laws of physics" to the reasons why the 7D will be a great upgrade

[ksz]

Yikes. Can you be any more snide? I'm not the best photographer out there, but I do know a thing or 2. I know I hate noise, and the less the better, but we're hitting ridiculous numbers in terms of ISO speed. And I also know that at the resolutions 95% of all digital photos are viewed at (screen) having pixel perfect noise at 100% magnification just isn't a big deal. It's just... not a big deal. My 20D was the noise king 4 years ago and it tops out at 3200, now folks like you would call the quality reprehensible.
"Snide" is irrelevant. Not sure why you're rattled by my comment about grain noise at ISO 400 and 800 (which are commonly-used ISOs), and a general observation that initial impressions about image quality are good, but not great. You seem to think we're fixated on ISO 6400 or 12,800. No idea why. :rolleyes:

I will reiterate that noise and other technical specifications matter to those who read them and who use them when making a purchasing decision. Technical performance must improve over time. This includes improvements in banding, black dotting, purple fringing, noise, etc. Some might dismiss these issues as being of concern only to pixel peepers or complainers, but without complainers we would be stuck with the status quo. Complainers are often the engine for progress.

[MBX]

Can anybody tell me if the video quality is the same as 5D Mark II?

The examples i've seen by gizmodo don't seem to match the 5D Mark II. But could that simply be because of a inferior lens?

[wheezy]

"Snide" is irrelevant. Not sure why you're rattled by my comment...

It was more the assumed arrogance I got out of your comment. Notice I said assumed... and it was early in the morning.

ISO400 and ISO800 are already very well established as high quality, that's why I'm jumping at the 6400-12800 assumption. Also, the way people bitch and moan about noise you'd think that every image you take is going to be plastered with it, not that when you view it at 100% you can see various freckles and pops. (yes, that's exaggerated).

Anyways, back to what I said earlier, I'm pretty sure Canon knows what they're doing an awful lot more than we do, and I'm pretty sure they understand the physics of things. On top of (what I expect to be) fantastic IQ, the 7D has several extra new goodies that I think make it a solid upgrade from any XXD series. The remote trigger for flashes is awesome, the new color metering on top of the new AF... there is a solid list. $1600 is a steal.

[luminosity]

If you want to shoot or regularly do shoot at high ISOs, performance at those numbers is not just abstract theory. It is tangible and it matters.

[SLC Flyfishing]

$1,600 is a steal for this camera, but it's a little underwhelming I have to admit. More of a catch-up to the D300 and D300s than a leapfrog. Could it be that Canon has been put on their heels by Nikon these days?

I mean for $400 more one could even go full frame by selecting Sony (though that camera is geared for a different genre of photography admittedly), and for $700 more they could do it really well with a D700.

I would have expected more from Canon with this body.

There was a day when Canon was the only game in town if one wanted full frame digital, but since then they've been surpassed in performance (D700) and value (D700 and A850/900) even Sony has beat them at their specialty of caving to the more MP's is better crowd at least at the 5D mkII's price point; less if one selects the A850.

I suppose the days of Canon being the default brand of choice for professionals are long behind us eh?

SLC

[luminosity]

I paid $2,365 for my D700.

[toxic]

I mean for $400 more one could even go full frame by selecting Sony (though that camera is geared for a different genre of photography admittedly), and for $700 more they could do it really well with a D700.

another $700 more is quite a lot.

what Canon did was address the gap between APS-C and APS-H cameras, with some extras thrown in. there's nothing underwhelming, unless you expected them to start putting 1-series features in a sub-$2000 body.

AF is the same if not superior to the D300 in tracking, the body has weather sealing, the viewfinder as large as it can get, and the ergonomics are improved. AF points can be linked to the camera orientation and it gains double-cross center AF point and spot AF. what's so "underwhelming"?

I suppose the days of Canon being the default brand of choice for professionals are long behind us eh?

when was Canon the "default brand of choice"? 2005, when the 5D came out?

Canon has only been a standard in sports. portraiture, weddings, etc. have always been split.

[SLC Flyfishing]

another $700 more is quite a lot.

what Canon did was address the gap between APS-C and APS-H cameras, with some extras thrown in. there's nothing underwhelming, unless you expected them to start putting 1-series features in a sub-$2000 body.

I don't know, Nikon did it when they gave the D300 the same AF system as the D3.


AF is the same if not superior to the D300 in tracking, the body has weather sealing, the viewfinder as large as it can get, and the ergonomics are improved. AF points can be linked to the camera orientation and it gains double-cross center AF point and spot AF. what's so "underwhelming"?

The AF system has 19 points, not 51 like the D300. I've not used the 7D obviously, but I fail to see how it could track better than the D300 which is using the same system as the D3.



when was Canon the "default brand of choice"? 2005, when the 5D came out?

Canon has only been a standard in sports. portraiture, weddings, etc. have always been split.

Canon was the pro's default brand of choice when they were the only one's doing Full Frame. At least that's what just about everyone tried to tell me!

It's an exaggeration of course, but I can't tell you how many people tried to tell my wife that she needed to go Canon if she was serious about pursuing photography professionally since they were the only one's to offer Full Frame digital cameras.

I don't know, I'm still just underwhelmed by this new camera.

SLC

[luminosity]

I don't think it's so much the number of autofocus points past a certain number as the processing and tracking power. The D3/700 have it in spades, and that's why they're so good at tracking. The D300 is a small step down, but is still great overall.

[ksz]

I don't know, I'm still just underwhelmed by this new camera.
The 7D shows just how good the Nikon 300(s) is, but I don't see a reason to be underwhelmed. There are some questions about image quality, but at least the new sensor is promising. Canon has stuffed just about everything into this body and I'm not sure what else they could or should have stuffed...okay, I can think of GPS. Because I travel somewhat frequently, geotagging in iPhoto would be pretty cool. (External GPS attachments are much less desirable when traveling.)

Perhaps you were looking for Canon to not only catch up with Nikon, but to surpass them by introducing several novelties. But the 7D is already packed to the gills with features. And dual Digic processors with full 1080p video (probably not limited to 5 minutes like Nikon) are not insignificant, especially for this price point.

My only reservation is about image quality, but I'm willing to wait for professional or amateur reviews of production units before casting judgment.

[compuwar]

Well... at 18MP the photodiode size is 4.3 microns. Using the rule of thumb for airy disk diameter (2.44 * wavelength * f/#) at 650nm (red light) at f/2.8 you've already hit the diffraction limit.

While that's where I'd be concerned, they place a pretty-big emphasis on the microlenses over the sensor, and they'll likely be larger than the surface area of the sensel itself, any idea how that effects diffraction? Also, can you share your calcs, I got ~.7u smaller, and I'm not sure where I erred.

[sangosimo]

this camera should have been aps-h.

[JFreak]

this camera should have been aps-h.

At least!

[wheelhot]

Well I have checked around the net and have come to the conclusion that while the 7D IQ might not gave the D300 IQ a smack down, kudos to Canon for managing to cramp 18mp on APS-C while still retaining about the same noise level as the 12mp D300 (both comparison at ISO 3200).

The part where Canon manages to trump the D300 is at low ISO (100-200) where the details is just outstanding and that is thanks to the 18mp. Other then that nothing much can be said bout the IQ of the images. Canon and Nikon both makes excellent camera :cool:

Well here is how Canon does it (from my understanding), by increasing the mp count they are able to increase the NR and this time Canon decides to take a page out of Nikon NR strategy by removing mostly the chromatic noise and leave the high MP count to preserve the details. So pretty darn good job and of course the dual Digic 4 made all this heavy NR possible while still retaining the high FPS. Would be interesting now to see how Nikon will combat against this in the next D300s replacement (D400 perhaps?)

[OreoCookie]

At least!
That would have been a better match: no matter what tricks Canon has pulled, they'd work even better on a larger sensor ;) :)
I wonder what's going through Nikon's mind at the moment: releasing a D700x, perhaps?

[FX120]

I don't know, Nikon did it when they gave the D300 the same AF system as the D3.

The D300 does not have the same AF system as the D3.

The AF system has 19 points, not 51 like the D300. I've not used the 7D obviously, but I fail to see how it could track better than the D300 which is using the same system as the D3.

More AF points =/= better AF system. Also, one could argue that the AF points in the 7D "Do more", because unlike the D300, they're all cross-type. And I can say from personal experience in using a D3, D700, and D300, the AF system in the D300 IS NOT THE SAME. It tracks much slower, and overall is not nearly as quick to aquire lock, nor as accurate as the D3. While it's certainly not bad, but in use there is a noticeable difference in AF performance between all three cameras. Simply equating 51 points on a D300 = 51 points on a D3 reeks of arrogance.


Canon was the pro's default brand of choice when they were the only one's doing Full Frame. At least that's what just about everyone tried to tell me!

It's an exaggeration of course, but I can't tell you how many people tried to tell my wife that she needed to go Canon if she was serious about pursuing photography professionally since they were the only one's to offer Full Frame digital cameras.
Obviously you talked to a bunch of Canon users.

[OreoCookie]

The D300 does not have the same AF system as the D3.
The D300's AF module seems to be a DX version of the D3(x)'s/D700's AF module -- in that sense, SLC Flyfishing is right. However, AF performance and AF tracking performance depend very much on the software and the cpu performance. (It wouldn't be the first time a camera manufacturer implements some rather arbitrary limits via software.)
More AF points =/= better AF system. Also, one could argue that the AF points in the 7D "Do more", because unlike the D300, they're all cross-type.
The D300 has 15 cross-type AF points supplemented by 36 others while the 7D has 19 cross-type AF points. On paper they both seem very powerful. It certainly shows what Canon could have put into the 5D Mark II -- if they wanted to.

[wheelhot]

More AF points =/= better AF system. Also, one could argue that the AF points in the 7D "Do more", because unlike the D300, they're all cross-type. And I can say from personal experience in using a D3, D700, and D300, the AF system in the D300 IS NOT THE SAME. It tracks much slower, and overall is not nearly as quick to aquire lock, nor as accurate as the D3. While it's certainly not bad, but in use there is a noticeable difference in AF performance between all three cameras. Simply equating 51 points on a D300 = 51 points on a D3 reeks of arrogance.

Yup, you got it right that the D300 AF is not the same as the D3 eventhough it has the same 51 points, positioning and crosses. It seems part of the problem was the image processing is not fast enough and it seems early review states that D300s AF is as fast as D3/D700 :D

[toxic]

Well I have checked around the net and have come to the conclusion that while the 7D IQ might not gave the D300 IQ a smack down, kudos to Canon for managing to cramp 18mp on APS-C while still retaining about the same noise level as the 12mp D300 (both comparison at ISO 3200).

all the current sample images at high ISOs are useless since they're all Jpegs (unless you shoot Jpeg), and it's been shown repeatedly that even if NR is disabled, the camera may still apply some.

the only way to eliminate differences in Jpeg processing is to shoot in RAW...but even then, RAW conversions of different cameras with the same converter are not created equal. it's simply the best we can do for empirical data.

[akdj]

"I don't know, I'm still just underwhelmed by this new camera." :rolleyes:

For 1600 clams? Really? Wow!!! Even for a diehard Nikon fan to be underwhelmed...>I still say, "WOW!" You've not touched, felt, smelt or dealt with it....yet underwhelmed. I'm astonished.

I'm never surprised anymore what some folks will come up with online, but seriously...technology is ever evolving....getting better and more affordable with time. This camera is an example of that. A lot of new features, a lot of expansion on old systems and fine tuning/fixes to boot. I know I was excited to see the D700/D300/D3(x) models as they came out....even as a Canon shooter. Obviously, with these two companies, whoever is releasing the camera tomorrow will have the most up to date specs, technology, and abilities that the one that came out yesterday cannot match.

I'm not saying the 7d is revolutionary, but certainly evolutionary...and if not on the top...quite near the pinnacle of what can be done and showcased with an APS-C sensor...not only for still photography, but for video as well....

Yet some STILL find it "Underwhelming...."

*Rant over...negativity flusters me, sorry. I'm very excited when new technology and evolved tech hits the market. Doesn't matter which brand I drive, shoot with, or worship. Cool is cool. The 7D is pretty freakin' cool

PS....as is the new 100mm 2.8macro IS "L" series;)

J

[wheelhot]

PS....as is the new 100mm 2.8macro IS "L" series

yeah, the new 100mm f/2.8 IS L MTF chart is too good till its not funny anymore :p

[SLC Flyfishing]

"I don't know, I'm still just underwhelmed by this new camera." :rolleyes:

For 1600 clams? Really? Wow!!! Even for a diehard Nikon fan to be underwhelmed...>I still say, "WOW!" You've not touched, felt, smelt or dealt with it....yet underwhelmed. I'm astonished.

I'm guessing you're talking about me since it's my quote you used, but I'm no diehard Nikon fan. I'm a diehard Pentax fan who recently decided to shoot full frame so had to migrate away from Pentax. I have no real brand affiliation outside Pentax, and I really wanted to be blown away by the 7D because it forces other camera makes to really out do themselves with the next new body. I just don't think Canon has given Nikon or anyone else for that matter, very much to aspire to. Nikon on the other hand, totally spanked Canon with the last round of cameras (IMO) leaving Canon to scramble to catch up. You don't know how many threads I've read from 5D shooters who migrated to Nikon to use the D700, it's just that much of a kick in the face to the 5D for a lot of shooters, the 5D mkII hasn't seemed to slow the influx of former Canon shooters either. I still see threads everyday written by a former 5DmkII user who recently bought a D700.

I really don't care what the next Canon looks and behaves like, I won't be buying one, or even evaluating one. But I do wish it was more revolutionary as to give Nikon a high mark to try and surpass in the D300 successor. Now all they have to do is give the D400 more resolution and a slightly better video mode (even though I will never shoot video with a DSLR).

I was hoping it would wipe the floor with the D300's high ISO performance, I was hoping it would have a better AF system (one like the 1D mk III's) and I was hoping it would have a built in grip or something. We need a flagship APS-C camera that's more like the D3/1D MkIII. The D300 comes close, but Canon seems (in my eyes) to have dropped the ball on a chance to be the first ones to do it.

I'd even pay $2,000 or so to get it if I were in the market (I'm not, so I guess my wishes don't really mean anything).

SLC

[OreoCookie]

"I don't know, I'm still just underwhelmed by this new camera." :rolleyes:

For 1600 clams? Really? Wow!!! Even for a diehard Nikon fan to be underwhelmed...>I still say, "WOW!" You've not touched, felt, smelt or dealt with it....yet underwhelmed. I'm astonished.
I think you're missing the point entirely: if Canon had decided to put in an APS-H-sized sensor, I think people would be very enthusiastic as the pixel density is similar to that of the 40D and larger than those of the 50D. Then it would be a very tough competitor to the D700 and/or the D300. People could say that people who need speed tend to use long lenses and the crop factor actually helps. Or that this is a nice upgrade to a 1.6x crop sensor and cheaper than a full frame sensor.

Personally, I get the impression that Canon and Nikon are too much concerned with marchitecture at the moment rather than what people want: Canon could have put the 7D's AF system into the 5D Mark II. I'm sure the same people who are posting that the `5D's AF system is great and good enough, etc. etc.' would (in this alternate universe) rave about the great upgrade they have received in terms of AF performance. And rightfully so! On the other hand, they release a 7D with a crop sensor. Nikon has more guts in that perspective: the D700 is almost as good as the D3 in terms of specs and not really crippled in any way. (My beef with Nikon is the omission of the focus motor on low-end models.)

Cranking up the pixel density while keeping the sensor size fixed is pointless. It reminds me of a few years ago when compact cameras got 10+ MP sensors -- even though they have lenses the size of cent coins :rolleyes: You need much better lenses and you hit a diffraction limit sooner rather than later. Plus, physics dictates there will be more noise.

I'd much more like that the Big Two finally get down to making larger-sensor dslrs affordable to amateurs. I'll never shell out $2k+ for a body! Right now, I'm thinking of upgrading to a used full-frame body in something like 3 or 4 years' time. Hence, I'd really like to see a 1.3x crop or full frame Canon at a similar price-point. I'm sure I'm not the only one Canon has disappointed in that respect. Sony has taken the first step with the release of the alpha 850 -- a nice camera which I'd consider if I had invested in Minolta glass.

[Phrasikleia]

So far I've only seen sample images that were either JPEG output or else CR2 files subsequently subjected to a sharpening filter (link (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239)), which inevitably introduces artifacts, accentuates noise, and therefore seriously reduces the value of the sample images. ::::sigh::::

At any rate, I'm nonetheless tempted to judge the images and have the following (very tentative) observations: the 7D handles shadow noise remarkably well until about ISO 1600, when white artifacts appear in the darkest shadows (from the reviewer's sharpening?). In certain lighting situations at ISO 400 and 800, it displays a lot of luminance noise (either the guy did a lot of sharpening or it's an unusual quality of the sensor). Chroma noise seems nonexistent until ISO 3200.

Of course, if you scale down its 18MP image to something like 12.3MP, you're going to do away with most of the luminance noise and will have a very detailed image; but for anyone who really does need full 18MP output, the noise in the highlights and quarter tones could be a deal-breaker. Diffraction remains a big concern too.

So it would appear that this new sensor tech is a big step forward, and it will presumably bring great things later on when it gets scaled up to the FF sensors.

[gnd]

So it would appear that this new sensor tech is a big step forward, and it will presumably bring great things later on when it gets scaled up to the FF sensors.

FF sensor at this pixel density would take images with 8331x5567 pixels which is roughly 46.4 megapixels.

[Phrasikleia]

FF sensor at this pixel density would take images with 8331x5567 pixels which is roughly 46.4 megapixels.

So perhaps that's what we can expect to see, although I really hope not. I would of course like to see them keep the pixel density about the same and improve noise handling, something I hope will happen with the 60D.

[toxic]

I think you're missing the point entirely: if Canon had decided to put in an APS-H-sized sensor, I think people would be very enthusiastic as the pixel density is similar to that of the 40D and larger than those of the 50D.

yeah, they'd be enthusiastic, and at the same time Canon would all but nail the coffin shut on APS-C. now we know Canon is sticking with the format.

meanwhile, all of you going on and on about pixel density need to read this: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=706255).

[westycat]

Not to hi-jack the thread and change gears but I've got a question on the Video feature of the camera.

I'm just an amateur photographer and still learning about everything that is out there. My question is why do these cameras offer video capabilities? Why not just make it a still camera. The way I look at it, is if I want or need to shoot video i'll use an actual video camera. Am I not seeing potential for this feature? Someone please educate me.

Thanks in advance

[toxic]

Not to hi-jack the thread and change gears but I've got a question on the Video feature of the camera.

I'm just an amateur photographer and still learning about everything that is out there. My question is why do these cameras offer video capabilities? Why not just make it a still camera. The way I look at it, is if I want or need to shoot video i'll use an actual video camera. Am I not seeing potential for this feature? Someone please educate me.

Thanks in advance

because once Live View came out, it's just a few small software steps to video - all you have to do is record the Live View feed. then because it's an SLR, you can't just give it a piddly resolution of 640x480, you have to give it at least 720p. and video sells well to the consumer crowd.

basically, the manufacturer gets something to market and boost sales/name recognition while not having to spend much on development.

[akdj]

...on video...

I also think we may be heading that direction, where more clients (certainly mine are) are asking for video for web, iPhone, email, whatever. I think there will be a melding of the formats (video and still) as we move forward. Tons of documentaries, reality TV, etc...make use of still photography...

Why not the other way around? Also, these sensors...both the 1.6 aps-c and FF 35mm are HUGE for video cams. Sensor sizes that big are reserved for the most expensive designs in the video cam world. As Toxic mentioned, with "Live View" implemented, all that was necessary was software programming to "capture" motion. I believe the success was evident in the P&S markets, which maybe allowed for a "trickle UP" in technology:)

...earlier post...

"I was hoping it would wipe the floor with the D300's high ISO performance, I was hoping it would have a better AF system (one like the 1D mk III's) and I was hoping it would have a built in grip or something. We need a flagship APS-C camera that's more like the D3/1D MkIII. The D300 comes close, but Canon seems (in my eyes) to have dropped the ball on a chance to be the first ones to do it."

The D3 and 1Dmk3 are several time the cost of the 7d. Of course we would ALL love to have Pro level features at a welfare price, but cummon??? :) Seriously....

"I'd even pay $2,000 or so to get it if I were in the market (I'm not, so I guess my wishes don't really mean anything)."

But that is NOT enough $ to be willing to pay, obviously...at this point in time. Canon is due for a 1D overhaul right now as well. Why in the world would they put all of the technology of the flagship series into their "prosumer" level cam....when the former is due to hit shelves soon?

Look...not trying to be annoying, and you're not alone. EVERYONE would like to get EVERY feature into the camera that fits within their budget. That's not going to always be the case...in fact, unless you're an earning pro, most of the time we will have to accept trade offs and limitations at our established budget. This is a killer camera, period. I don't care what brand you're a fan of. Much respect is being given to Canon on the Nikon boards right now. In fact, I would venture to guess....MORE respect (praise) is being sung in the Nikon camps then the Canon side...LOL. Too funny. It would be a death knell to all that are invested in APS-C (EF-S) glass if Canon was to release a FF, under 2k camera. There is no need for FF in sports and action photgraphy. And when speed matters, there is no substitute for high FPS shooting. I'm a 5d2 owner with a 40d that I absolutely adore. FF was a fun revelation for me as a digital only photographer (film was a hobby for me). But APS-C has it's own merits and I believe this camera DOES fit near the top of the heap. I'm ready to pick one up as I believe it's a HUGE upgrade in the world of crop sensors and the video is important to me.

I think you'll find, even as a Pentax fan...all cameras will have shortcomings. It would be nice to be able to afford the mothership from all of the big dogs and lenses to boot....but can you imagine trying to decide which to take for what? In the end, learn to use the camera you can afford and make magic. I think this will be next in a long line of digital video/still acquisition platforms (I believe the whole "DSLR" idea will evolve as well) that continue to get better and better. Tough to not be impressed in my opinion. That said, I'm just as excited to see Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, and Sony's answers to this camera!!!!

[SLC Flyfishing]

The D300 does not have the same AF system as the D3.

Au contraire: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d300.asp
(note the AF system then compare to the next link) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d3.asp

Both posses the Nikon Multi-CAM 3500 AF system, the D300 has the DX version while the D3 has the FX version. The D700 also has the FX version, identical to that of the D3. It seems the only difference between the DX and FX versions is the sensor they are paired with, meaning that Multi-CAM3500 DX just means Multi-CAM3500 in a DX frame.

The D3 is bound to have a higher torque motor for the inbuilt focus motor, and it has access to a stronger battery by default. There may also be some differences in AF speed to to the D3's processor possibly calculating contrast differences faster than the D300's. But the assertion that the D300 and the D3 do not share the same AF system is just patently false.

SLC