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.

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.

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:

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.......

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.

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

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...

Thanks for the link! That's awesome.

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