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

[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

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

 

[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."

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

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

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

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."

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 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), 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.

 

[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