Travel Photography - Canon 7D released

18MP APS-C
ISO 6400, expandable to 12800
8fps
built-in external flash controller
63 zone metering
19 cross-type AF sensors
selective zone, Horizontal/Vertical, and spot-Auto Focus settings
HD Video, 1080@24, 25, or 30fps; 720@30, 60 fps
1.0x, 100% viewfinder
1N-class weathersealing
LCD viewfinder overlays for composition grids, horizon line, AF locations
Dual Digic 4 processors, full UDMA support
$1699

Proof will obviously lie in the images/usage, but it looks pretty good on paper.

Hmmmm.... so what will the Nikon reply to this be....?????

If it was full frame I would be all over it.

Hmmmm.... so what will the Nikon reply to this be....?????

A D400 using a Sony sensor "of course" but my question is, unless Canon has had some type of monumental technological breakthrough, I don't see how they are going to get 18MP on an APS-C sensor and still keep up with Nikon in the low noise/high ISO department.

Not sure what the benefit of an additional 3 or 4 MPs will be if the other IQ parameters can't keep up.

Nikon will however have to do something about price. The D300s is currently priced several hundred dollars above where Canon says the 7D will be. If a D400 does come out soon Nikon will have to be within a few hundred dollars of the 7D and slice the heck out of the price of both the D300 and D300s.

I am no expert but I would question whether or not the D300s could in the marketplace go head-to-head with the 7D. In terms of absolute image quality I bet they will be quite close but Nikon loses the PR war on price and features.

Also, were I Nikon I would be far more worried about how far Nikon has fallen behind Canon in the ~f/4-affordable-high-quality lens department. Along with their long and fast glass, the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and new 70-200 f/2.8 are the best lenses on the market bar none but after that, meh.

unless Canon has had some type of monumental technological breakthrough, I don't see how they are going to get 18MP on an APS-C sensor and still keep up with Nikon in the low noise/high ISO department.

That's been a question raised many times - the 50D was no/marginally better that the 40D, blamed on jamming too many pixels on an APS-C sensor. Many x0D users were clamoring for a 12MP next generation, similar to what Canon did by putting out a G11 with 10MP vs. the 15MP of the G10.

Canon claims there were several improvements - tighter microlens alignment, improved S/N electronics in the amplifiers, etc., etc. Imaging Resources has published their evaluation - "All in all, the Canon 7D delivers exceptional print quality, with phenomenal detail (especially when working from RAW) at low ISOs, and a very graceful trade-off between noise and subject detail as you go up the ISO scale." and the only comparison I've seen so far - http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5231/50dvs7d.jpg - shows better detail and noise performance over the 50D. D300 comparisons will be interesting.

And there's a 10.1MP mRAW version, which uses pixel binning to effectively deliver a 10.1MP version of the 7D. If the native 18MP is already better than the 50D, I imagine a 10.1MP binned version will be outstanding.

In either case, it is at least a competitive offering with current Nikons, whereas the 50D fell a bit short, and competition will only serve to better everything for the consumers - us.

From the press release:

We consulted over 5,000 photographers worldwide and asked them what they most wanted to see from a camera.

Seriously? These 5,000 photographers didn't say they want a full-frame dSLR that's cheaper than the 5DII?

Edit: But come to think of it, I may be interested as I can keep my EF-S lenses.

Sounds promising.......

From the press release:

Seriously? These 5,000 photographers didn't say they want a full-frame dSLR that's cheaper than the 5DII?

Edit: But come to think of it, I may be interested as I can keep my EF-S lenses.

Wait. The successor to the 5D is a 1.6x crop sensor?

[pauses. searches the internet.]

Okay, that numbering scheme was unexpected. But it looks like a nice camera. And yes, keeping my EF-S lenses is a minor benefit here. I'd better start saving the nickels...

Wait. The successor to the 5D is a 1.6x crop sensor?

[pauses. searches the internet.]

Okay, that numbering scheme was unexpected. But it looks like a nice camera. And yes, keeping my EF-S lenses is a minor benefit here. I'd better start saving the nickels...

The 7D is not a successor to the 5D. It is a lower cost alternative, which will be the top 1.6x crop camera.

From the press release:



Seriously? These 5,000 photographers didn't say they want a full-frame dSLR that's cheaper than the 5DII?

Edit: But come to think of it, I may be interested as I can keep my EF-S lenses.

I've got to admit, I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I've always kinda wanted the 5D, but part of me looks at how I take photos, and I realize I frequently actually like the apparent gain in length you get from the crop sensors. Largely because I'm too cheap to buy the really expensive L lenses. The 70-300IS on a crop camera is a pretty nice compromise to that problem.

Of course, every now and then I do wish I could get a wider field of view. But for me personally, that tends to be a little less common.

Wonder how this one will do with teleconverters on slower lenses.

I have mixed opinions of "tests". Theoretically, they show interesting data. But they can easily be executed incorrectly and show bad data. This one, for example, is purely from-camera JPEG, which doesn't necessarily mean much to me as a RAW shooter. But fwiw, here's the first comparison I've seen, from imaging-resources. D300 on left, 7D on right. ISO100 on top, ISO6400 on bottom
http://richs.smugmug.com/photos/637667676_VZVMZ-XL.jpg

I have mixed opinions of "tests". Theoretically, they show interesting data. But they can easily be executed incorrectly and show bad data.

Look at the positions of the book and glass relative to the bottle - they are completley different.

How many other vairables/parameters were also changed?

The 7D may or may not be a great camera but to me all this test shows is that someone with some free time was able to get their hands on both a D300 and a 7D.

Also, if you could edit the physical dimensions of that image down just a bit it would make it easier to view the page.

Check this out, it is funny.

Mr Hitler not happy about the Canon 7d... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp9WMy4ihg)

Check this out, it is funny.

Mr Hitler not happy about the Canon 7d... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZp9WMy4ihg)

Thanks for the link! That's awesome.

The 7D may or may not be a great camera but to me all this test shows is that someone with some free time was able to get their hands on both a D300 and a 7D.

Imaging Resource has been doing testing of DSLR's since 1998 and has just short of 800 cameras in their database, from my quick scroll through their database. Below is their test setup, and details of their testing approach and methodology can be found at http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/HMI.HTM

There is no perfect testing, but I'm pretty sure IR is near the very top of the controlled, repeatable, trusted test sources. At a minimum, it's far from a guy with some free time.

http://richs.smugmug.com/photos/638584497_BPY68-XL.jpg

Imaging Resource has been doing testing of DSLR's since 1998 and has just short of 800 cameras in their database, from my quick scroll through their database. Below is their test setup, and details of their testing approach and methodology can be found at http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/HMI.HTM

There is no perfect testing, but I'm pretty sure IR is near the very top of the controlled, repeatable, trusted test sources. At a minimum, it's far from a guy with some free time.

http://richs.smugmug.com/photos/638584497_BPY68-XL.jpg

Scientific methods require changing only one variable at a time [in this case the camera itself] in order to be able to understand just what you are observing.

Between the D300 and the 7D they changed at least three variables that I can see, maybe more.

As I said, the 7D may be a great camera [looks like a smoking deal at the very least] but this test does not support either that generic or comparative claim – IMO of course.

If they do the smart thing and slap a full-frame sensor in it, the resulting model would sell faster than they could make them...

Scientific methods require changing only one variable at a time [in this case the camera itself] in order to be able to understand just what you are observing.

Between the D300 and the 7D they changed at least three variables that I can see, maybe more.

As I said, the 7D may be a great camera [looks like a smoking deal at the very least] but this test does not support either that generic or comparative claim – IMO of course.

Well, to be pedantic about it. Changing one variable at a time is always a good idea, but certainly not an absolute requirement. Sometimes [not necessarily in this case] changing a single variable is not possible, yet good science can still be done.

In this case, I haven't looked at the referenced website yet. I suspect they made a good faith effort to have comparable setups. I'm sure they failed in places and succeeded in others. Such is the genesis of opinions and disagreements. But saying that what appears to be a fairly involved test does not *support* a claim is perhaps standing too firm on principle and missing the practical. The test almost certainly supports such a claim. Conclusively? That's a different horse entirely...

All the above, of course, said without rancor. Just trying to turn down the gain a bit... :)

If they do the smart thing and slap a full-frame sensor in it, the resulting model would sell faster than they could make them...

They already do. It's called the 5D MkII.

They already do. It's called the 5D MkII.

a $1700 full frame 35mm camera would be much cooler than a $3000 one.

Can't help but think the dSLR makers are missing things as the SLR part becomes more a hindrance than a help. The reluctance to migrate features showcases this.

Without the two cameras in the exact same location at the exact moment, with the exact same lens, etc., all of which is physically impossible, you are always changing more than one variable at a time. IR has one of the best test methodologies available, certainly better than dpr and more relevant than DXO, IMHO.

At the end of the day, it's a data point. It don't proclaim the 7D as the king of all DSLRs on one test. Anyone is free to proclaim every test as poorly designed and thus no way to every prove any camera is better than any other camera (or any other physical device, for that matter). I tend to be more pragmatic and believe that this, plus a couple of other similar results, show a believable comparison with pretty high confidence.

Personally, I don't shoot sports or BIF, so don't really need the fps or increased pixels/'reach'/cropping ability, and haven't had focus issues with my 40D, shooting mostly static nature shots. So it will join the 5DII as a nice piece of technology to read about as I continue to focus on content.

They already do. It's called the 5D MkII.

:confused:

I think you are mistaken. The 5D MkII does not have the same level of autofocus performance (on paper, anyway) as the 7D and it certainly doesn't have the ability to operate wireless flash units without the ST-E2 or a 580EX/EXII flash on top. The paltry fps speed of the 5D MkII is nowhere near the class of the 7D either.

Unless we're thinking of different cameras?

Can't help but think the dSLR makers are missing things as the SLR part becomes more a hindrance than a help. The reluctance to migrate features showcases this.

I'm not sure I follow you here...

:confused:

I think you are mistaken. The 5D MkII does not have the same level of autofocus performance (on paper, anyway) as the 7D and it certainly doesn't have the ability to operate wireless flash units without the ST-E2 or a 580EX/EXII flash on top. The paltry fps speed of the 5D MkII is nowhere near the class of the 7D either.

Unless we're thinking of different cameras?

All things equal,if 7D with full frame, who will buy 5D mkII? It just doesn't make any business sense. Actually 8fps sounds nice, but without improve shutter durability like 1 series worries me.

:confused:

I think you are mistaken. The 5D MkII does not have the same level of autofocus performance (on paper, anyway) as the 7D and it certainly doesn't have the ability to operate wireless flash units without the ST-E2 or a 580EX/EXII flash on top. The paltry fps speed of the 5D MkII is nowhere near the class of the 7D either.

Unless we're thinking of different cameras?

The 7D is a new camera than the 5D MkII, so have the newer technologies. And of course, there are other differences in spec. But the two cameras have very similar in most ways with the main difference is the sensor size.

The 7D is a new camera than the 5D MkII, so have the newer technologies. And of course, there are other differences in spec. But the two cameras have very similar in most ways with the main difference is the sensor size.

Hmm< I would argue that the 7D is aimed at sports/ action photographers. High FPS, crop sensor (so more zoom for your buck) and fast/ flexible autofocus. 5D mkII aimed at still life (portrait/ landscape) photographers

The problem with FF and price, is speed of image processing and shutter. That is why we have the 1D' series. The 5D Mark II is great, but at only 4fps, this is never going to be a great sports, or outdoor enthusiast camera. I think the 7D is filling that performance gap, yes at the sacrifice of the FF sensor.

At the most recent UsOpen I saw almost EVERY photographer had a 1D, AND a 5D mark II. Now, granted, Canon basically GAVE the 5D to them, but they had the best of both worlds and they are ALWAYS going to be carrying/shooting with two cameras as it is.

Hmm< I would argue that the 7D is aimed at sports/ action photographers. High FPS, crop sensor (so more zoom for your buck) and fast/ flexible autofocus. 5D mkII aimed at still life (portrait/ landscape) photographers

Yes, I agree. And that's due to the difference in sensor size.

Likewise, 7D to the 5D MkII is like to 1D to the 1Ds.

All things equal,if 7D with full frame, who will buy 5D mkII? It just doesn't make any business sense. Actually 8fps sounds nice, but without improve shutter durability like 1 series worries me.

I was actually just correcting the person I quoted. As for your question, the answer is to make a 5D mkIII (or mkIIn--whatever) with the same features. Such a camera would sell like hotcakes (my original point).

The 7D is a new camera than the 5D MkII, so have the newer technologies. And of course, there are other differences in spec. But the two cameras have very similar in most ways with the main difference is the sensor size.

Here's what I originally posted: "If they do the smart thing and slap a full-frame sensor in it, the resulting model would sell faster than they could make them..."

You then told me that they do make such a model...the 5D mkII, but as I've pointed out, they are far different indeed. In fact, the 5D, if you remove the video aspect and the (unnecessary for many) 21 megapixels is fairly identical to the original 5D (which was just a full frame 20D with lower fps). I do fully anticipate that Canon will debut such a model sometime to be competitive with the D700 with respect to more advanced features like AF and durability.

I was actually just correcting the person I quoted. As for your question, the answer is to make a 5D mkIII (or mkIIn--whatever) with the same features. Such a camera would sell like hotcakes (my original point).

not sure about that, since it would be most likely 2.7-3K+ at least. I think they would sell just as well as the 5dMkII only, or

Likewise, 7D to the 5D MkII is like to 1D to the 1Ds.

Not yet. The 1Ds is truly a FF version of the 1D feature-for-feature. The 5D II is more of a full-frame version of a 50D.

not sure about that, since it would be most likely 2.7-3K+ at least. I think they would sell just as well as the 5dMkII only, or

The 5D II is in that price range already. Let me try to rephrase:

The next version of the 5D should have the same basic features (especially AF/build) as the 7D but have a full frame sensor. If Canon does this, the camera will have even more people buy it than the 5D mkII available now. Or, they can debut an all-new 3 series...just as long as they have a full-frame camera with similar specs. Many of us don't need all the features available in the 1D (and don't want that price tag) but would prefer a camera slightly better equipped than the 5D II.

Nikon seems to get it by offering these features in a similar camera, namely the D700.