EOS 7D - Have Canon excelled themselves?

[goulden]

<p><em>" Michael Liczbanski> Makes me wonder whether the new processors are powerful enough to deliver HD feed via HDMI port while shooting (would be awesome for focus pulling!)"</em><br>

I've connected my 5DII via a mini-HDMI cable (€8 on ebay) to a HDTV and yes, live HD works great for assistance in focusing. I'd presume the 7D can do it as well</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Assuming early adopters will not find any fault the 7D and 100/2.8 IS will be my next purchases, though Canon has not rectified nothing I feel lacking in my 40D. I wish I was one of the 5000... :-(</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p> live HD works great for assistance in focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While shooting..? On 5d2 I use HDMI for initial focusing on an external monitor (Marshall with "peaking") and - if refocusing is required while shooting - go with composite video for the take. Wouldn't it be nice to have full time HD output!</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>J.P. Treen wrote: looking at that ISO3200 image, it doesn't look 'that' good - and I come from Pentax land...<br>

Coming also from Pentax land...I find the high-ISO images quite nice. I like the noise grain. I am <em>very</em> impressed by the 7D's ISO 12,800 performance; as someone who uses high ISO to shoot live music, I understand what a great job the camera is doing in these photos.</p>

[davebell]

<p>On the face of it, i.e. a few minutes of thinking, given the fact that the 5DII is only 13.5% more expensive than the 7D, I know which one I would choose. No contest, and it begins with a 5...</p>

[jptreen]

<p>Oops, my bad, Mis. I didn't look into the 12,800 7D shot. The 3200 didn't impress me that much and I failed to investigate more...you're surely right though, I shoot candle-lit sometimes and I wish I had another couple of stops beyond 3200 - looks like this camera would provide.<br>

If this camera *really does* have good weatherproofing then I'm interested...despite myself.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=1771703">David Bell</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 01, 2009; 01:39 p.m.<br>

On the face of it, i.e. a few minutes of thinking, given the fact that the 5DII is only 13.5% more expensive than the 7D, I know which one I would choose. No contest, and it begins with a 5...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmm, the cost of the 7D is $1699. Where can you find a 5D2 for $1928?</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>given the fact that the 5DII is only 13.5% more expensive than the 7D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? The 7D will be $1,700, while the 5D mkII is $2,700 (both body-only). The 5D mkII is therefore 58.8% more expensive than the 7D.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>no pop-up flash?</p>

[siamakjafari]

so with difference in price between 7D and 5D II ,what is the major difference between these two?

[david_amberson1]

<p>Looks promising. Hope the new AF system pans out, so far, the only somewhat test looks good. I know RG said it was horrible in Zone, but it looks like Zone may have its different purposes...which may or may not be for sports.<br>

I noticed he said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> through about 200 frames, the camera was able to hang onto focus properly for portions of several sequences, better than we've ever seen from the 50D, as well as deal with the AF point moving off the subject briefly. But it would also lose focus for several frames for no apparent reason, even when the AF point was right on the mark and the subject was moving at an easy pace.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I read on Canons site where it clearly states that the use of spot AF was not recommended for sports cause the smaller AF area could lose contrast more easily.<br>

So, it looks like he may have done even better using the regular AF point and perhaps some surrounding points. Maybe after more testing, and using it as Canon recommends, it will gain even more keeper. Looks promising though.</p>

<p>I wasnt crazy about the high ISO performance....but, this was really crummy lighting and even the 5D2 looked less than great as well. Hopefully its better than the 50D. I really wish they had used 12MP sensor with that tech. It could have really done something awesome.<br>

But if its better than the 40D, then I guess its fine for a $1600 that gives you what was pretty good on the 40D, all of the new goodies. I cant wait to see what the 1D4 looks like. I may not need to switch after all. I really really really welcome the new iFCL metering system. I was wondering when Canon was gonna do something revolutionary in this department. For those that always shoot manual, its not such a big deal.<br>

But I often shoot sports in daylight...and night and cant/dont use flash, so its much easier to us the Av mode and let the camera work out the SS for me in the changing light due to clouds or differing light levels in different areas of a field i.e high school soccer at 8pm. In Av, I'm always riding EC to make up for different areas where a large portion of background is black, or the jerseys are extreme in color difference. This new system should drastically help with this and was one reason I had considered switching to Nikon. The Nikon 3D Color Matrix metering worked so much better at this...but now, this may have single handedly changed my mind. I was hoping for AF improvements, and had actually gave up on ever seeing the old system changed. It had been untouched for a long time. I always shoot manual indoors using flash, so I'm sure that flash metering will be more consistent and accurate now...THANK YOU Canon. Hope its not premature. Come on 1d4, show me whatcha got.</p>

[davebell]

<p>Hmmm, the cost of the 7D is $1699. Where can you find a 5D2 for $1928?</p>

<p>There is a world outside of the USA, which is unfortunate in terms of camera prices! In the UK, one of the large reputable online stores (Warehouseexpress) they have the 7D listed at £1699 whilst the 5DII is listed at £1928. That equates to roughly $2735 (7D) and $3104 (5DII). Not a very big difference at all so I think in the UK the decision making process between these two cameras will be a little different to those in the USA where the price differential is greater.</p>

<p>What is scary is that the 7D is listed at the same number in both currencies - 1700 - while the exchange rate is $1.61=£1, rip of Britian!</p>

[simon_t1]

<p>This is great. WOW Canon<br /> I like it all, especially the electronic level and the wireless flash trigger.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p> RG said</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, Rob Galbraith appears to be one of the founding members of the "glass is half empty" club who also likes to complain that the Lamborghini he dreams about doesn't have enough cup holders. <br>

I'd wait for unbiased user reviews/previews published on non-ad supported sites.</p>

 

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>Pricing - it makes no sense to compare list (7d) and street (5dII) prices. I' m sure the street price will settle in a few months around 300 bucks under the list price. And then, its a lot of camera for the money.</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p>For image quality you guys should be looking at the imaging-resource.com studio samples which allow you to make fair comparisons between sensor generations.</p>

<p>* At ISO 100 the 7D is very close to the 5D2 in detail rendered with less per pixel sharpness. But this can be recovered with USM. It's better in terms of detail than every other crop camera I looked at including the 40D, 50D, D300, and better even than the full frame D700.</p>

<p>* At higher ISOs (i.e. 1600 and above) the 5D2 pulls away. But the 7D is still the match of any of the crop cameras. Noise is equal or better on screen (which means better in print), and detail is better. IMHO it's still holding its own against the D700 at ISO 1600!</p>

<p>I'm glad Canon went with more resolution given their noise control in this sensor. I almost never need more than ISO 1600, but more detail is always welcome. You can always scale the 18 MP image down to 9 MP or even 6 MP to squash noise at high ISO. If I'm shooting at ISO 6400 my purpose is not to make 20x30 exhibition prints. You can't scale 10 or 12 MP to 18 MP and actually recover lost detail when shooting ISO 100 for 20x30 however. Same thing when you need to crop.</p>

<p>This is not just a bird camera. This body will produce large prints better than the infamous 5D (first one), which was a benchmark in terms of use by landscape and portrait photographers. Look at Canon's portrait and owl samples. They are gorgeous. They would put a lot of medium format work over the years to shame.</p>

<p>If you want the ultimate high ISO body, right now it's the 5D2. But if your typical ISO range is 100-400, with the occasional 800-1600, that's a tough call. The 7D sensor offers a lot of bang for the buck, and the body features are top notch. Sure, if you're wealthy enough get both and use the 7D for action and the 5D2 for landscapes. If you can only afford one, the 7D is very tempting.</p>

<p>The 7D is a home run by Canon.</p>

[jfr1]

<p>Wow - what a camera!</p>

[anthony_hicks]

<p>True, the 7D price will fall a little before long, even here in the UK. But essentially, I agree with David. A premium of almost £1000 over a 50D is a hell of a lot to pay. Yes you get more bells and whistles, but at the end of the day its still a 1.6 crop camera...</p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>I believe the 7D is the mark of the next generation of cameras, which will probably be competing against the D400 (whenever it comes out) for the top spot of the APS-C level.</p>

[paul_f3]

<p>18 MP packed into an APS-C sensor?</p>

<p>And they expect us to be overjoyed that it costs less that full frame?</p>

<p>It appears the "5000 photographers" Canon consulted felt differently, but if Canon would like to see me not switch to Nikon, I would have advised them to shoot for a 12 MP full frame to compete with the D700. If Canon could produce that for a lower price than the 5D MkII, they would indeed have something about which to brag. </p>

<p>But cramming 2.9 million more pixels into an APS-C sensor than the 50D, which already suffered from too many pixels?</p>

<p>This is progress?</p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>If I had been one of the "5000 photographers," the last thing I would have talked about is the number of pixels on a given sensor. Maybe it's because I'm a photographer and not a technoid camera guy, but I would ask for improved high ISO performance, improved AF, higher resolution (I do print large rather than count pixel density), and even video. I suspect that Canon listened to people with similar concerns rather than people telling them how to design the sensor.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>looking at that ISO3200 image, it doesn't look 'that' good - and I come from Pentax land...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wait until the better RAW converters catch up, John-Paul - Capture One 4 will make high ISO 7D files look <em>fantastic,</em> I'm certain, and Raw Therapee is cleaner than ACR/Lr too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>no pop-up flash?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em>Yes</em> there's a pop-up flash!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>but it looks like Zone may have its different purposes...which may or may not be for sports.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on my reading of the AF system so far, Zone would appear to be <em>the worst</em> setting for chasing a mutt around a field..!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You can always scale the 18 MP image down to 9 MP or even 6 MP to squash noise at high ISO</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>David, the 7D has an M-RAW setting, giving c. 10mp files with <em>identical</em> linear proportions to 40D RAW files.</p>

<p>Converted and processed "properly" (ie not using Adobe converters!) I'm very confident that 7D files (I mean the full RAWs - the smaller RAW files are a given, IMHO) will look great at well north of 1600 ISO; and - wonder of wonders - some testing done of RG's 12,800 ISO files <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809449/1#7481395">by a clever soul on Fredmiranda</a> confirms that 50D/5D Mk II-type banding is not an issue, at least on those files, whereas the files from a 5D Mk II on the same shoot displays banding a-plenty.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes you get more bells and whistles</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"Bells and whistles" implies trivial or irrelevant gadgetry: sorry, but what this camera is bringing to the table is - almost across the board - truly worthwhile image-quality/performance enhancements.</p>

<p>No bells and whistles that I can see.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>but at the end of the day its still a 1.6 crop camera...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's a hell of a lot of camera regardless of sensor size.</p>

<p>I for one (and I imagine I'm just the kind of photographer the 7D is pitched at - a "serious enthusiast" bird photographer that also shoots a bit of "extreme sport" such as mountainbiking and powerkiting) have no interest whatsoever in FF, and one thing this sensor delivers in spades is properly useful extra "croppability".</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>It appears the "5000 photographers" Canon consulted felt differently, but if Canon would like to see me not switch to Nikon, I would have advised them to shoot for a 12 MP full frame to compete with the D700.</em></p>

<p>Paul, you better spend some time reviewing the imaging-resource.com studio samples before spending your money. The 7D produces superior image files to the D700 through ISO 1600. It has more detail with comparable noise. Even up through 6400 it holds up well by comparison. The 5D2 is clearly better at high ISO, but not the D700. When I first looked last night I was quite surprised, but I can't deny what's before my eyes.</p>

<p>Granted, the D700 may do better at very high ISO given less than the ideal lighting in the studio scene, which might stress the 7D sensor more. But it's not clear cut or automatic that the D700 is better overall. The opposite is true at low to mid ISO under good lighting.</p>

<p>The full frame mythology has gotten out of hand. All things being equal you can resolve more with less noise in FF. But the gap isn't as wide as people make it out to be, which means newer/better APS technology can trump older/lesser 35mm technology. You say Canon should have brought out a 12 MP FF? I say Nikon needs to worry about the fact that Canon's APS body is edging out their 12 MP FF at most ISOs.</p>

[pgranone]

<p>I applaud Canon for listening and offering a 1.6 camera with better focusing --- the new 7D<br /> but 18 MP may be too many pixels crammed into a tiny 1.6 sensor (less than 40% the area of full frame)<br /> <br /> Canon said most of that same wording on the new sensor when they released the 50D<br /> the improvements to the 50D did not get the job done noise wise at ISO 400+<br /> seems the 50D just had too many pixels for the sensor size - difficult to use in less then optimal light<br /> <br /> With the 7D, Canon may have improved 1.6 sensor technology - that remains to be seen in testing<br /> I do hope they are successful<br /> <br /> the 7D sensor has the smallest pixels of any camera Canon has produced to date<br /> the smaller the pixel, the less sensitive to light<br /> the result is more noise and less dynamic range<br /> <br /> so if the sensor improvements do in fact work as stated, the 7D may be the best 1.6 crop camera<br /> <br /> possible problem is .....<br /> a 1.3 sensor with the same technology will be much better noise wise since 1.3 crop is almost twice the sensor area<br /> thus larger pixels with better signal to noise ratio<br /> so people may wait for a 1D Mark IV with the same technology<br /> the problem with 1D cameras is they are too friggin' expensive, too large, and are too heavy<br /> <br /> There is a market for the 7D from people who like 1.6 crop camera for birding or EF-S lenses<br /> or just like the smaller size of 1.6 sensor cameras<br /> There is also a market for the 7D from those that cannot afford a 1D. That is a huge market indeed.</p>