[Eug]

I'm gonna get the Canon 7D.

I have waited and waited and waited with my now 5 year old Canon EOS 20D. The 30D, 40D, and 50D didn't impress me, but that 7D? She's the one.



18 MP with less noise than 50D (albeit not quite as good as 5D)
ISO up to 12800 (with 3200 supposedly being quite usable)
EF-S support - 1.6X crop sensor
8 fps, and UDMA Mode 6 Compact Flash support
Built-in wireless flash support
Built-in pop up flash
100% viewfinder, with live view support
Revamped metering
Revamped autofocus with 19-point AF
Dual Digic4 CPUs
Electronic level
HD video support: 1080p at 23.97, 25, 29.97 fps. 720p at 50 and 59.94 fps.
47 Mbps video bitrate, saving to H.264 QuickTime .MOV
Built-in mic with external mic input
HDMI output
Weather sealed
US$1700

Dublin's People: Video demonstrating HD p24 video support and low light performance.

Now the question is if I'm gonna get the EF-S 17-55 IS lens too. I already have the 10-22 and the 24-105L.

P.S. I am getting this primarily for still photos, but this is going to replace my DV camcorder. That said, ironically it looks like I'm getting new Firewire hardware to support this. Given that I'll be getting 16 GB UDMA 6 Compact Flash cards, a Firewire 800 Compact Flash reader will be perfect for it. That will mate quite nicely with my 13" MacBook Pro and my iMac.

[mattyb]

It does sound very very impressive, however (and I'll let you trawl through the threads on dpreview) it doesn't seem that the IQ is up to scratch. Obviously, its only beta but still.

I am on the cusp of having spent too much money to consider changing systems. If this beast does improve its IQ between now and release then I may have to splash out on this instead of the D300. The 8fps is MOST impressive - and something I want more of having only 2.5fps with my little D40.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

It does sound very very impressive, however (and I'll let you trawl through the threads on dpreview) it doesn't seem that the IQ is up to scratch. Obviously, its only beta but still.

The threads suggest its image quality is slightly better than the 50D, but not as good as the 5D. That's exactly what I was expecting. I don't want full frame anyway, so this is perfect for me.

For video support the crop sensor potentially makes it more useful due to the greater depth of field, although as I said, I'm buying it more for still photos than video. (It depends on the personal preferences of the shooter anyway.)

[OreoCookie]

Even though you said you don't want full frame, I'd rather get a used 5D or a new 5D Mark II if I were you. Any particular reason why you prefer the 7D?

I'm asking, because i really don't get the 7D: I'd be very excited if it had an APS-H-sized sensor, but with an APS-C-sized sensor … I don't get it.

[richwig83]

It does look good... but i was a bit disappointed it was 1.6x! I suppose its do it doesn't trample on the 1DIII. IMO 18MP is just too much for a 1.6 crop!

I thinking of going FF and getting the 5DII.... just wish it had 19point AF...but then it would encroach on the 1Ds spec!

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Even though you said you don't want full frame, I'd rather get a used 5D or a new 5D Mark II if I were you. Any particular reason why you prefer the 7D?

I'm asking, because i really don't get the 7D: I'd be very excited if it had an APS-H-sized sensor, but with an APS-C-sized sensor … I don't get it.

My understanding is that the 7D is meant to hit the D300/s head on. Of course, I'm very new to this photo lark, so could be *very* wide of the mark.

[richwig83]

Your correct mattyb!! But thats all it does.... it doesnt exceed the D300's specs... which it should do!! For one the D300 has 51 point AF!!

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

Your correct mattyb!! But thats all it does.... it doesnt exceed the D300's specs... which it should do!! For one the D300 has 51 point AF!!

Yeah but that 8fps does grab your attention. Plus it satisfies the pixel peepers. Lets see how fast the AF is for those 8fps. No good shooting loads if its all blurry eh?

[richwig83]

I dont really care for FPS.... 99/100 i keep the 1st image I shoot and bit the 5 or so consecutive shots due to focusing probs!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

My understanding is that the 7D is meant to hit the D300/s head on. Of course, I'm very new to this photo lark, so could be *very* wide of the mark.

Well, yes, but the 40D and 50D were already quite fast.
What strikes me as odd is the 18 MP sensor: I'm much rather have lower resolution with better high-noise behavior. Hell, even the 50D has worse high-noise behavior than the 40D (although I should put quotation marks around worse, the 50D is still very capable).

I have an uneasy feeling, because Canon is doing too much marchitecture lately: they could have put the same AF system and two of the new 4th-gen processors into the 5D Mark II. It's no speed demon, but 21 MP, very good fps and a very good AF system, who'd say no? If the speed scales linearly, such a hypothetical camera should be capable of 6.8~6.9 fps.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

It does look good... but i was a bit disappointed it was 1.6x! I suppose its do it doesn't trample on the 1DIII. IMO 18MP is just too much for a 1.6 crop!

Not really. The pixel peepers seem to think it's at least as good as the 40D (10 MP) and 50D (15 MP), and probably slightly better on a per pixel basis actually.

So no, 18 MP is not too much for a 1.6 crop. Then again, I would have been perfectly happy with a 12 MP 7D had the noise been lessened.

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Yeah but that 8fps does grab your attention. Plus it satisfies the pixel peepers. Lets see how fast the AF is for those 8fps. No good shooting loads if its all blurry eh?

Initial tests suggest it's noticeably better than the 50D, but not perfect.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Even though you said you don't want full frame, I'd rather get a used 5D or a new 5D Mark II if I were you. Any particular reason why you prefer the 7D?

I'm asking, because i really don't get the 7D: I'd be very excited if it had an APS-H-sized sensor, but with an APS-C-sized sensor … I don't get it.

I think crop sensors are a better bang for the buck, and I already own the EF-S 10-22 anyway. I might also get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which has no real full frame counterpart. By all accounts, the EF-S 17-85 is L-quality glass without the L's weather sealing, and without support for full frame bodies. (The EF 24-70L is f/2.8, but doesn't have IS. The EF 24-105L has IS, but is f/4.)

Furthermore, other than FF and the improved noise characteristics associated with that, which granted is very important, the 7D beats the 5D Mark II in most other categories, for $1000 less. Basically, this is a "pro" 1.6X crop camera. Also it solves most of the issues of the 5D Mark II's video. While I'm not really a video guy at heart, I really like the fact that it's built-in (so I don't have to carry my DV cam), and I'm not saddled by all the niggling issues of the 5D's video (like no p24, p50 or p60 support). See informative video below:

Mr Hitler not happy about the Canon 7d... (NSFW)

[mattyb]

<Marketing_head>

We'll throw buckets of pixels at it - BUCKETS, but not enough to butcher 1D or 5D sales.
Loads of FPS, we *NEED* fps.
Video, balls out, FTW video.
Not full frame, hit Nikon where it hurts - again.
And a very Merry Xmas.

</Marketing_head>

No?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

<Marketing_head>

We'll throw buckets of pixels at it - BUCKETS, but not enough to butcher 1D or 5D sales.
Loads of FPS, we *NEED* fps.
Video, balls out, FTW video.
Not full frame, hit Nikon where it hurts - again.
And a very Merry Xmas.

</Marketing_head>

No?

Well, if they can get all that marketing stuff into the actual camera and get it to work well, why the hell not?

Basically, I think this REQUIRES one or more of the following:

1) The 5D Mark II gets a firmware update to compensate for some of its deficiencies compared to the 7D.
2) The 5D Mark II gets updated to the Mark III sooner rather than later.
3) Canon introduces a 3D.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I have an uneasy feeling, because Canon is doing too much marchitecture lately: they could have put the same AF system and two of the new 4th-gen processors into the 5D Mark II. It's no speed demon, but 21 MP, very good fps and a very good AF system, who'd say no? If the speed scales linearly, such a hypothetical camera should be capable of 6.8~6.9 fps.

My guess is it's much harder to do high fps cheaply in a full frame camera, and that speed does not scale linearly.

[richwig83]

IMO they will never put more than 9 point AF in the 5D format.... cos if they did who would buy a 1Ds?

[Demonhood]

i wasn't interested in this at first, but the more i read, the more i like it.

i wanted a camera to replace my ancient XT (my 40D is still going strong), that has HD video, improved noise reduction (and thus low light performance), and more weather sealing. this does all of those. and like Eug, i have the 10-22 lens, which won't work on a full frame camera. so if this is the last non-ff camera that i purchase, at least it appears to be a quality one.

[Jawbone54]

All this until the D400 (or whatever) comes out in a few months...

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

i wasn't interested in this at first, but the more i read, the more i like it.

i wanted a camera to replace my ancient XT (my 40D is still going strong), that has HD video, improved noise reduction (and thus low light performance), and more weather sealing. this does all of those. and like Eug, i have the 10-22 lens, which won't work on a full frame camera. so if this is the last non-ff camera that i purchase, at least it appears to be a quality one.

It would be cheaper just to buy a dedicated HD camcorder!

[Demonhood]

no, it wouldn't. the HD video is just a nice addition. it'll still be primarily for still photography.

[richwig83]

But youve got a 40D... the 7D wont be (in my opinion of course) 1700GBP better than the 40D! The 5DII at 1900GBP... now that is significantly better! Looked at a 5D the other day... what a camera!!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

All this until the D400 (or whatever) comes out in a few months...

Heh. Competition is good. I hope the D400 leapfrogs the 7D by a good amount. That will make the 7D Mark II that much better.

Originally Posted by richwig83 

It would be cheaper just to buy a dedicated HD camcorder!

That's just it. I have a SD DV cam, but I found I don't carry both the DSLR and digicam around at the same time. I just carry one or the other, and 95% it's the DSLR. Now I'll always have both with me.

Actually, I suspect sometimes I'll carry two still cameras with me... if my GF is with me. One a 7D and one a 20 that my GF will carry. (My GF won't use the digicam.)

[Eug]

Full sized 7D pix from Canon Korea:

http://www.canon-ci.co.kr/pds/produc...UNVtqE084T.JPG
http://www.canon-ci.co.kr/pds/produc...nRoxYBKGPk.JPG
http://www.canon-ci.co.kr/pds/produc...Nspo7p4PHe.JPG
http://www.canon-ci.co.kr/pds/produc...d3xMdrtc4B.JPG

Originally Posted by Eug 

Dublin's People: Video demonstrating HD p24 video support and low light performance.

Download link for original 1080p video available here

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

But youve got a 40D... the 7D wont be (in my opinion of course) 1700GBP better than the 40D! The 5DII at 1900GBP... now that is significantly better! Looked at a 5D the other day... what a camera!!

you misunderstand my needs. i require two still cameras (at a time) for my job. i agree that the 7D isn't a huge leap from the 40D, but it certainly is for the XT it is replacing.

and from all accounts, this 7D is going to be even sturdier than the 5D. slap on my telephoto and i'll be building some more muscles for the not-so-cold autumn months.

also, damn eug; that 24p video looks mighty impressive. it's going be be so fun to play with (haven't broken out my GL1 in awhile).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not really. The pixel peepers seem to think it's at least as good as the 40D (10 MP) and 50D (15 MP), and probably slightly better on a per pixel basis actually.

I'll reserve my judgement on the comparison until I see the numbers. However, no matter what, if Canon had used the advances of sensor technology they have put into the 7D's CMOS sensor into an APS-H-sized sensor, the result would simply be better.

The second reason I was hoping it not to be equipped with an APS-C-sized sensor is that I would like the price of full frame-sensor-based dslrs to come down. Sony made the first step and using APS-H sensors in higher volume would be a step to bring costs down. I would like a full frame sensor -- not because of noise, but because of the smaller depth of field at equivalent focal lengths. I'm thinking of getting a used D700 in three, four years. Perhaps I'll stick to APS-C, though.

Originally Posted by Eug 

So no, 18 MP is not too much for a 1.6 crop. Then again, I would have been perfectly happy with a 12 MP 7D had the noise been lessened.

That's the point: most people don't really need 18 MP. It's a spec sheet advantage that's not really relevant for most.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think crop sensors are a better bang for the buck, and I already own the EF-S 10-22 anyway.

Sure they offer a better bang for the buck, they are a lot, lot cheaper to manufacture and lenses are lighter and cheaper to make.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I might also get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which has no real full frame counterpart.

Huh? The counterpart is clearly the 24-70 mm. For marchitectural reasons (crop lenses can't be professional), they decided to give the lens a plastic shell and not put the L badge on it. It's a good lens. However, I'd probably take Tamron's 17-50 mm for less than half of what they want for the Canon.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Furthermore, other than FF and the improved noise characteristics associated with that, which granted is very important, the 7D beats the 5D Mark II in most other categories, for $1000 less. Basically, this is a "pro" 1.6X crop camera.

Yes, it's a marchitecture camera -- actually two. They should have taken the good parts of the 7D (everything - sensor size) and put it into the 5D Mark II. I'm sure most people would be content with a minor bump to the 50D (new AF sensor, updated 15 MP sensor, slightly faster fps). I dare say that to most, the miniscule difference in fps is not enough to sway someone from Canon to Nikon (and vice versa).

In the (semi-)pro segment, Nikon doesn't do marchitecture on us, for instance: they didn't cripple the D700 in any way. (Instead, Nikon crippled entry-level cameras by not including a focus motor, screw you, Nikon!) Even the D300 retains a lot of pro features. This is what ticks me off here: I think Canon was and is capable to make a better camera than either the 5D Mark II and the 7D, but decided not to, not based on technological reasons, but purely based on marketing. This is when companies start to stumble. I'm complaining on a very high level here, though

Originally Posted by Eug 

Also it solves most of the issues of the 5D Mark II's video. While I'm not really a video guy at heart, I really like the fact that it's built-in (so I don't have to carry my DV cam), and I'm not saddled by all the niggling issues of the 5D's video (like no p24, p50 or p60 support).

Personally, I don't care about video, to me it's a dslr. If I want video, I'll get a video camera.

Originally Posted by Eug 

My guess is it's much harder to do high fps cheaply in a full frame camera, and that speed does not scale linearly.

Perhaps, but at least 5 fps are possible for sure (that's what the 1Ds Mark III manages to churn out with an older sensor). With improvements in sensor technology and dual Digic4 processors, it should be able to do 6 fps easily. Not as fast as a D700 or a 1D Mark III, but almost twice as many pixels. I'm sure many pros would love it!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh? The counterpart is clearly the 24-70 mm. For marchitectural reasons (crop lenses can't be professional), they decided to give the lens a plastic shell and not put the L badge on it. It's a good lens. However, I'd probably take Tamron's 17-50 mm for less than half of what they want for the Canon.

The 24-70 has no IS. Neither does the Tamron.

[richwig83]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

you misunderstand my needs. i require two still cameras (at a time) for my job. i agree that the 7D isn't a huge leap from the 40D, but it certainly is for the XT it is replacing.

and from all accounts, this 7D is going to be even sturdier than the 5D. slap on my telephoto and i'll be building some more muscles for the not-so-cold autumn months.

also, damn eug; that 24p video looks mighty impressive. it's going be be so fun to play with (haven't broken out my GL1 in awhile).

Sorry... if you need 2 SLRS... you need 2 SLRS.... What I would do tho is keep your 40D and get an old 5D an stick a 17-40 on it for the wide stuff! (depends what your shooting of course!)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The 24-70 has no IS. Neither does the Tamron.

IMHO you don't need IS for these focal lengths and initial aperture. The new version of the Tamron does have IS, though.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

IMHO you don't need IS for these focal lengths and initial aperture. The new version of the Tamron does have IS, though.

I have the 24-105L IS and I guarantee the IS is awesome. I also had the 17-85 IS. With that lens the IS was awesome too, but the lens itself was mediocre at best so I got rid of it (for the 24-105L).

Both the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 17-55 IS are reportedly quite sharp, so the Tamron does look like a reasonable option, although it tends to have a fair amount of chromatic aberration, especially at the wide end.

Canon 17-55 IS:



Tamron 17-50 (non-VC):



I'm not a big fan of CA obviously, and that's one problem that kinda bugs me about the 24-105L. It has noticeable CA at 24 mm. The good news for the Tamron is that it vignettes a bit less than the Canon. I don't notice vignetting on the 24-105L, but that's because it's a full-frame lens on an APS-C body. That's arguably one of the advantages of APS-C. Either lighter weight lenses, or else the same weight but with better sharpness and no vignetting because you're only using the centre cropped area of the lens.

However, all of this brings me back to the original point. There is no comparable lens on full frame to the 17-55 IS. The Tamron does not work on full frame bodies either. It's an option, but only for cropped sensors. BTW, the Tamron is rumoured to be $750. If that's the case then the price argument is not as compelling.

P.S. One thing that worries me about 3rd party lenses is the compatibility. I blame Canon, but nonetheless it's an issue. I had a 24 mm Sigma lens for my film-based EOS, but it wouldn't work at all on my 20D. Canon had updated the lens control, and the Sigma was not compatible, and couldn't be updated to be compatible.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In the (semi-)pro segment, Nikon doesn't do marchitecture on us, for instance: they didn't cripple the D700 in any way. (Instead, Nikon crippled entry-level cameras by not including a focus motor, screw you, Nikon!) Even the D300 retains a lot of pro features. This is what ticks me off here: I think Canon was and is capable to make a better camera than either the 5D Mark II and the 7D, but decided not to, not based on technological reasons, but purely based on marketing. This is when companies start to stumble. I'm complaining on a very high level here, though

As far as I'm concerned, the 7D now supports the advanced amateur (price) to pro (features) market, at least for 1.6X crop sensors.

However, if you want the true pro's pro full frame camera, just wait a few more weeks.

Originally Posted by Some rumour monger

"In the autumn the Canon one of their biggest and most important product launches in the company's history and we hope you can attend. During a lunch date you are welcome to listen to CEO Jouko Tuominen, Marketing Director Monica Forsberg and trend analyst Magnus Lindkvist, when they're talking about future trends and success factors in an increasingly digitalized everyday.

Date: 29 September
Time: Cl. 11-13

An invitation with more details coming soon. Welcome!

[OreoCookie]

Well, since I'm on Nikon, the Tamron looks even better as the Nikkor is gold ring and costs an arm and a leg. Tokina makes one, but it's not one of Tokina's better lenses (one of the main reasons is that the tubus extends quite a bit and has too much play).

I didn't know the new version of the Tamron was so much more expensive. It better be well built. Bummer. The biggest downside to me is the rather cheap feel -- once you get spoiled with pro glass and Tokina lenses, you never want to get a plasticky lens again

I usually shoot portraits either in natural light or with flash, so I personally have never felt the need of IS/VR/VC/whatever (although if I'd get it with the lens, I wouldn't complain ). If I were you, I'd lust for a larger initial aperture -- and I'd happily trade IS for it.

What other lenses do you have?

PS Regarding compatibility, since I shoot Nikon, I don't worry about that at all (as long as I keep buying bodies with built-in focus motors, of course).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

As far as I'm concerned, the 7D now supports the advanced amateur (price) to pro (features) market, at least for 1.6X crop sensors.

However, if you want the true pro's pro full frame camera, just wait a few more weeks.

Well, let's see. Keep the technology wheel turning and turning

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I usually shoot portraits either in natural light or with flash, so I personally have never felt the need of IS/VR/VC/whatever (although if I'd get it with the lens, I wouldn't complain ). If I were you, I'd lust for a larger initial aperture -- and I'd happily trade IS for it.

What other lenses do you have?

All Canon:

EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
EF 24-105 f/4L
EF 70-200 f/4L
EF 24 mm f/2.8
EF 35 mm f/2
EF 50 mm f/1.8 II
EF 100 mm f/2.8 Macro (Lusting after the f/2.8L Macro with IS, but I don't use it enough to justify it.)
1.4X teleconverter. (I also have a cheap 2X 3rd party teleconverter that bypasses Canon's autofocus restrictions.)

Matched up to my 1.6X camera, the 70-200 is very, very nice. If I went full frame, I'd probably want to get a longer telephoto.

All my primes are good bank for the buck, but their bokeh isn't the greatest. However, I wasn't going to spend craploads more for higher end ones, because I don't use them much. The 24 and 35 are good just for the angle of coverage as general walk-around low light lenses, but with no zoom (and no IS), obviously they can be quite restrictive, which is why I am considering the 17-55 IS. The good thing about them is they're tiny and can be put into any pocket just as a backup.

PS Regarding compatibility, since I shoot Nikon, I don't worry about that at all (as long as I keep buying bodies with built-in focus motors, of course).

Couldn't compatibility still be an issue, just for lens control?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Eug 

As far as I'm concerned, the 7D now supports the advanced amateur (price) to pro (features) market, at least for 1.6X crop sensors.

However, if you want the true pro's pro full frame camera, just wait a few more weeks.

From further on in the same thread (three and a half hours ago), by the same poster giving more information about the invitation:

"Under hösten gör Canon en av sina största och viktigaste lanseringar i företagets historia och vi hoppas att du kan vara med. Under en lunchträff är du välkommen att lyssna på VD Jouko Tuominen, Marknadsdirektör Monica Forsberg och trendanalytikern Magnus Lindkvist, när de pratar om morgondagens trender och framgångsfaktorer i en allt mer digitaliserad vardag.
Datum: 29 september
Tid: Kl. 11-13

En inbjudan med mer information kommer snart. Välkommen!"

En bild på en, som jag tolkar det, skapligt stor kartong med ett rött skynke över. Ena sidan av kartongen skymtar, kartongfärgad utan tryck. Borde innebära någonting åt proffshållet. Förhoppningsvis inte en ny färglaser...

Jag skulle tycka det vore oerhört kul om Canon släppte en videokamera med EF-bajonett och 35-millimetersfullformtssensor för proffsbruk. Deras tidigare kartonger till proffsvideokameror har inte haft något flashigt tryck på sig utan bara svart text på kartongbotten

Translation:

“This fall, Canon will be making one of our biggest and most important releases in the history of the company, and we’re hoping you’ll join us. During a lunch meeting, you’ll have the chance to listen to CEO Jouko Tuominen, chief of marketing Monica Forsberg, and trend analyst Magnus Linkvist talk about the trends and success factors of tomorrow, in an increasingly digitalised everyday life.
Date: 29 September
Time: 11 AM till 1 PM

An invitation with more information included will be sent shortly. Welcome!”

There’s a picture of what I interpret as being a fairly large cardboard box with a red cover over it. One side of the box is just visible under the cover, cardboard-coloured with no print on it. Should mean something in a pro direction. Hopefully not some new colour laser printer …

I’d find it awesomely cool if Canon were to release a camcorder with an EF bayonet [a what?!?] and a 35mm full-frame sensor for pro use. Their earlier pro-camcorder boxes have all been plain boxes with no flashy print, just black text on the bottom.

(I have no idea what an EF bayonet is, nor if it’s called that in English—Google does give some results, though …)

[Eug]

Canon's EOS camera lens mount is called "EF" and and it is a bayonet style mount.

In English people just call it "EF", but to call it "EF bayonet" makes perfect sense.

P.S. The translation from Google that I added in my post later is actually pretty good then:

"In the autumn the Canon one of their biggest and most important product launches in the company's history and we hope you can attend. During a lunch date you are welcome to listen to CEO Jouko Tuominen, Marketing Director Monica Forsberg and trend analyst Magnus Lindkvist, when they're talking about future trends and success factors in an increasingly digitalized everyday.

Date: 29 September
Time: Cl. 11-13

An invitation with more details coming soon. Welcome!


BTW, it seems that it might just be a Canon 1Ds Mark IV.

Jeff Brehm, a photo editor and photographer made this statement on the sportsshooter message board.

“I won’t say who told me … but a well-placed person at one of the site sponsors told me last week that the new Canon Mark IV is coming out next month.”

[Oisín]

P.S. The translation from Google that I added in my post later is actually pretty good then:

Errr … yeah … uhh. How did I miss that big blob of text right there underneath the link I clicked, I wonder..?

(I should have phrased that differently—I know what EF is, I’d just never heard of ‘bayonet’ used to mean anything other than the weapon.)

I don’t really need two SLRs. But dammit, I want two SLRs! The 7D looks mighty nice. Then again, so does the 5D. The 7D looks about $900 cheaper, though. If I were going to the States any time soon, I’d get it there, if that $1700 price tag is anywhere near correct (it’s $2400 here), but I don’t think I am. I wonder if Iceland is still broke enough for cameras to be cheap there …

[Eug]

Bayonet style just refers to how the thing is connected (with locking tabs), like how a bayonet (weapon) is connected to the rifle.

This is in contrast to the old screw type lenses.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by some cunning MacNN linguist

“This fall, Canon will be making one of our biggest and most important releases in the history of the company, and we’re hoping you’ll join us. During a lunch meeting, you’ll have the chance to listen to CEO Jouko Tuominen, chief of marketing Monica Forsberg, and trend analyst Magnus Linkvist talk about the trends and success factors of tomorrow, in an increasingly digitalised everyday life.
Date: 29 September
Time: 11 AM till 1 PM

An invitation with more information included will be sent shortly. Welcome!”

[richwig83]

EOS 1Ds IV???

[Eug]

Another 7D video: Perya (Town Fair)

[Brien]

Originally Posted by richwig83 

EOS 1Ds IV???

Hopefully. With any luck they'll kill the 1D and focus on two sensor sizes.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Brien 

Hopefully. With any luck they'll kill the 1D and focus on two sensor sizes.

I agree. 1.3X is dead (maybe).

[mattyb]

Sorry had to post this, its a thread about the rumoured 1DsMk4 :

kubelik Reply:
September 9th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I’m pretty sure almost every DSLR on the market from APS-C up counts as an “ISO” monster these days.
I used to shoot weddings with Fuji 100 and 200 rated films. Even in dark churches. Handheld using ambient or with flash.
Yes, clean high ISO is great, I won’t deny that. I love being able to take shots at 1600 and know I can still get a print out of it.
But do you really, really, absolutely NEED it?
The way people talk about high ISO it’s as if God rolled back ambient lighting across the universe by 3 EV

Excellent!!!

[Eug]

I don't absolutely need it, just like I don't need digital either. But it's pretty damn useful.

However, since I'm an amateur without an unlimited budget, I'll be happy with ISO 1600 and 3200. I'll leave the 6400 and 12800 to the hard core $5000 pro cameras. (Actually, the 7D can sometimes do usable 6400. And I'm sure the new 1D Mark IV will have 25600 as an option.)

P.S. When I was on film, I used to experiment with ISO 1600 film. It was pretty cool... if you liked having every photo giving you that old-style grainy look. I used to pine for the day when ISO 1600 film became as good as ISO 400 film was at that time. Well, we've hit that target already, and I don't even have to pay for one-use-only film and development any more. I just buy a few solid state cards.

[Demonhood]

i'd had plenty of occasions in which i can't (or am not allowed to) use flash indoors. so yeah, a nice high ISO with limited noise is a must.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, since I'm an amateur without an unlimited budget, I'll be happy with ISO 1600 and 3200. I'll leave the 6400 and 12800 to the hard core $5000 pro cameras.

I don’t even think I’ve ever used 3200 on my 40D. I’ve used 1600 a few times, but I’ll do anything I possibly can to avoid going past 800.

[Eug]

I use 800 on my 20D, but I don't like using 800 on the 20D because it's fairly noisy. Judging by the (very few) pix out there, 800 on the 20D is probably closer to 6400 on the 7D. This is going to be a huge upgrade for me, and not just for ISO either, but in terms of just about everything:

megapixels
ISO
fps
video
autofocus
metering
viewfinder
LCD size
live view
etc.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

All Canon:

That's a sweet and well-chosen selection of lenses. I understand your affinity to keeping the primes, they're just so handy. Compared to my bazooka zoom, my 50 mm is just tiny and weighs nothing.

I want to replace my 18-70 mm Nikkor next and I'm thinking of getting a prime (~ 30 mm) instead of the Tamron. Although I'm also toying with the idea of getting a 28-70 mm f/2.8.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Matched up to my 1.6X camera, the 70-200 is very, very nice. If I went full frame, I'd probably want to get a longer telephoto.

Since I love portraits, I find the 80 mm (120 mm equiv.) a bit much. Which lens do you use for portraits, the 24-105?

Originally Posted by Eug 

The 24 and 35 are good just for the angle of coverage as general walk-around low light lenses, but with no zoom (and no IS), obviously they can be quite restrictive, which is why I am considering the 17-55 IS.

If there were a Nikon badge on it, they'd go the extra mile and make a gold ring (read L) lens out of it. It's a nice piece of glass. (And unlike the Nikkor, relatively affordable.)

Originally Posted by Eug 

Couldn't compatibility still be an issue, just for lens control?

No, not really. AF-S (= Nikon speak for USM) lenses don't work on rather old bodies and some old manual lenses don't work on new, cheap bodies (unless you want to do everything manually), but the rule of thumb is: if your camera has a focus motor and the lens is an AF lens, you will be fine period. Some things (e. g. use of flash) work better if it's an AF-D lens (or newer, it means it can transmit distance information that can come in handy when calculating the exposure), but AF lenses all work. There are some special lenses (a medical macro Nikkor or the various PC lenses) that don't have an AF, but support all functions (except for AF).

The big compatibility issue is cheap bodies (= no AF screw motor) and non AF-S/AF-I lenses, then you have full functionality - AF.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

But do you really, really, absolutely NEED it?
The way people talk about high ISO it’s as if God rolled back ambient lighting across the universe by 3 EV

Excellent!!!

Need it? Well, that's a tough one. Back in the film days, you could hardly get your hands on ISO 3200 material (and that was lower ISO film pushed to 3200).

I've felt the need for usable ISO 3200 plenty of times, especially when the ambient light (think of candles) gives faces a great glow. Usually it's too slow for most lenses -- or even if the lens is fast enough, the depth of field becomes too shallow.

Also, once you get used to it, you never want to go back

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Since I love portraits, I find the 80 mm (120 mm equiv.) a bit much. Which lens do you use for portraits, the 24-105?

Heh. How about 188 mm on a 1.6X camera (300 mm equiv.)? (Canon 20D with 70-200 f/4L non-IS)



It would have been nice if he were a bit further from the wall/arch or if I had had f/2.8 (as this was f/4) so the background would be less in focus, but nonetheless the bokeh on this lens is quite nice so the background wasn't as bad as it could have been.

To be quite honest, I don't really think about it too much, which is probably a bad thing. I used to think much more with film, but lately I had gotten into the habit of just taking a zillion pix when possible and discarding the ones I don't like. Mind you, in this particular case I just took a couple of shots, and it's not as if I could have changed the subject placement, since it was just some random guard doing his usual tourist duties there.

One thing about having video support on the camera is that it might hopefully force me to think a bit more again about subject and background distances along with lens apertures, as getting the depth of field just right is one key aspect of making videos look half decent too. While it's easy to shotgun picture shoots with our new fangled cameras and digital media, it's not easy to do that with video.

P.S. These are more reasons the f/2.8 endowed 17-55 IS lens might come in handy. Dammit, that's it. I'm gonna buy it.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Need it? Well, that's a tough one. Back in the film days, you could hardly get your hands on ISO 3200 material (and that was lower ISO film pushed to 3200).

I've felt the need for usable ISO 3200 plenty of times, especially when the ambient light (think of candles) gives faces a great glow. Usually it's too slow for most lenses -- or even if the lens is fast enough, the depth of field becomes too shallow.

Also, once you get used to it, you never want to go back

Uh, I was quoting someones reply to a comment. I found the line about God rolling back ambient lighting quite funny.

My (very humble) experience of high ISO has not been a good one. I have not yet had the opportunity to use cameras that can take good pictures at high ISO settings. I also don't know how to handle the PP yet of high ISO photos. But I'm learning.

[Oisín]

PP = post-processing? Why would post-processing high-ISO pictures be significantly different from non-high-ISO pictures?