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

[John.B]

MTF charts:

Old 100mm f/2.8 USM:

New 100mm f/2.8 IS USM:

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 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:

New 100mm f/2.8 IS USM:

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.

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!