The Canon 7D « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

The Canon 7D

(33 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

The camera is released, DPReview got their hands on preview and based on its specs, this camera is a D300s killer.

Better video,
Same viewfinder (about time Canon work on this aspect)
18mp (I wonder how the noise is tho.. if it's good, this camera will really be a success)
New better AF (look at it in the preview, it seems good)

Link to the complete preview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/

This camera has good chance to be a true D300s killer... thing that wouldn't happen if Nikon released a D400 to compete with that. Could it be because of the current economy? Canon sells printer, video camera, etc. Nikon is much smaller, they might be more affected.

The Canon 1D4 should be coming in feb 2010, Nikon better be ready with more than a 12mp camera because since a few hours ago, 12 mp is now a thing of the past. Nikon have to follow in that megapixel war ... that makes me wondering if considering a D700s is even plausible... Nikon will want to release more mp cameras... at a price under 8000$.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Will the last one leaving the Nikon Forum please turn off the light, LOL

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

jbl - I guess You haven't seen image samples from 7d, it's worst than on d90, so I would hold up with saying that it's d300s killer - it's pretty good up to 800, good at 1600 and that's all... everything above that is, well sony a550 produces better images :) (at least that's my conclusion after seeing samples from the beta firmware - check Nikos post)

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Yeah... I think they made a mistake putting that many pixels on an APS-C sensor. Those are even smaller than DX (just slightly, but smaller none the less). I think 12-14 is the upper limit for DX until some seriously new technology comes along.

But seriously nikon... You've got the 12mp market covered. How about something different?

Posted 3 years ago #
darko26

member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 31
offline

adamz.... can i see the pictures of 7D pls???

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

adamz: I just checked the samples.

ISO 1600 is usable, iso 3200 is still usable if you resize... It doesn't seem too bad... a bit worse, but still comparable to the D300, except with more mp for some more resizing... if you take one of these iso 3200 and resize it at 4288 x 2848 it's usable.

and to those who only shoot at iso 100, Well, the D300 doesn't even go there unless you push it. The Canon 7D will definitely be an option for those considering the D300... unless they already got nikon gear, then they should wait..

So yeah, maybe not a D300 killer, but some competition to it... more than what the Canon 50D could ever do.

Personally, I'm really happy with my D300 but I'm considering upgrading if I can get 2 things: video and FX. I'm waiting for a D700s/D700x.

Nikon should try to compete with the Canon 5D mk2. I would like a 16-18mp FX sensor D800 with 1080p video.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Jbl,go back to the canon forum and stop causing trouble here :^)

I posted the samples from the canon 7D on a previous thread:

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=528&page=2#post-7159

You can also compare it directly to the D300 here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Just pick the 7D on the left and D300 on the right

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

Thanks for the link Niko

To me, the 7D looks better at ISO 6400 @ imaging resource.

More details and a bit less noise.

Wow I didn't expect the 7D to be this good.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

O RLY ?! I think it's the other way around. Well yes the 7D has a very slight detail advantage but it's surprising it's not more considering its 6mp "advantage" over the Nikon. Noise is more pronounced on the canon. Look at the white background in the below pic and notice the difference. It's not that bad but not LESS noise than the D300.

O Noes !

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

OK so the 7D has the most MP of any APS-C SLR

The D300 has by far a better focus system

The D300 is a stronger body and has better weather sealing

The D300 has the ability to shoot with lenses from the M/F area

The D300 has (might have) a better meter system, special when using a flash

The 7D camera is using a new and more expensive battery, around double the cost of the Nikon battery

Yes I moved from Canon to Nikon and still very pleased with that decision

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

bmxdad, what you said is very true.

niko, if you took that canon 7d sample thing and downsized it just a bit (to fit the D300 resolution) I think the 7D would look better.

AKA: if worse case of high iso, you downsize the 7d to D300's size.

Anyway... I see that both cameras are good but in the end, I would not ever switch to Canon for something that gives me a 1.6 crop factor... also, I love Nikon's interface on the bodies, it's much better than Canon's.

I love my D300 it's a kick ass camera and all I need in extra is FX sensor and full hd video.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Canon has developed a habit of adding more MP at the expense of ISO performance. The proof of this is the 50D. It's ISO is not as good as the 40D. Nikon does need to keep up with the MP race for sure. However, Nikon is doing so in a smart way. They want to at the very least maintain ISO performance and increase it if they can.

Also, Canon has nothing like the multi-cam3500 AF system or the expeed processor anywhere. Their version of ADL can only handle shadows or just highlights. I forget which but it can't hold both well like Nikons can.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

"niko, if you took that canon 7d sample thing and downsized it just a bit (to fit the D300 resolution) I think the 7D would look better."

Then what's the point in spending $1900US on a 18mp camera & lens if I have to down size it's pictures to get images like I get straight out of my Nikon?

Same goes for those who say if you upsize images from a Nikon D700 they look terrible and noisy compared to the same ISO pics from a 5DmkII !?!

I'm not convinced about the canon 7D's AF either. Especially since Rob Galbraith said he experienced some strange auto focus behavior on the sample camera he tested out. Seemed like he wanted to say more about it but was holding judgment because of the controversy that came with the canon 1DmkIII AF fumble.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

jbl - look at the shadows and at the white part on the pictures posted by niko, it's a huge difference between this two cameras - and it's not canon who is winning this comparison, and I'm not saying this c-z I'm on this forum

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Like I said before, this is again a numbers camera, 18MP and 8 frames per second. but what use is 18MP if their is problems with noise, what good is 8 frames per second if the AF system can not keep up

Someone else was saying that the D300 was a 4 year old design, then how old a design should we call this new camera from Canon

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

While I mostly agree with adamz, I would like to see them at the same resolution and sized the same way. However even here it's still evident that the D300 is a bit better.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"Someone else was saying that the D300 was a 4 year old design, then how old a design should we call this new camera from Canon"

Those who say the D300 is a four year old design are those who's brains cannot get around the fact that the D300 IS NOT a revamped D200. The D300 is a 2 year old bag of tricks. Design is cosmetic and by that logic, most of our cameras are a minimum of 15 year old designs.

As far as the Canons are concerned, their cameras barely change at all over the years. In some cases as I mentioned earlier, they may even take a step back in the interest of megapixels.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Stability in design is a good thing. I love that I can pick up a new Nikon body at best buy and instantly know how to use 95% of what's important to me. I even bought a cheapo Nikon Film camera off E-Bay for $20, and had the thing figured out in about 10 min.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

The Canons too are largely like that to be fair. Between the 10D and 50D on the outside, they're almost all the same camera.

Nikon has the advantage however of not only having things mostly the same but they are in logical places moreso than other brands.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

The Canons too are largely like that to be fair. Between the 10D and 50D on the outside, they're almost all the same camera.

Nikon has the advantage however of not only having things mostly the same but they are in logical places more so than other brands.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

For the people that missed the point about comparing D300s and 4 year old D200 I will try and explain.
D300 and D200 are very different design inside and out, D300 share some parts with D700 but none with D200 though all are in some extend based on old F100/F6 design.
So where is the point? Oh yeah the point, well it should have been like this:
Saying that more Mpix, higher ISO, larger viewfinder 7D has does not matter is just like saying that D300s is no better then D300 witch is no better then D200 witch is no better then D100 so why we are spending all the money on a new gear when we could get D100 for just a couple of nickels in mint condition, hell we could get top pro grade D2 for not much more.
What bothers me about D300s is that it is overpriced and, as far as I can tell, only handful of existing Nikon customers would consider buying it (I personally do not see any reason for upgrade, the only advantage in my book, 2 card slots, is not worth it), and most will wait full frame D700something in hope it will not cost much more.
Nikon will have serous trouble attracting any new customers when they have the option to compare D300s with Canon 7D or 50D or Sony α850, α700 or α550, I doubt many of them will buy a story of someone dropped D300 and it survived as an argument in favor of Nikon.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Yes I agree the D300s is overpriced and should not have been any higher priced that the old D300, Yes it has better technology and features but they are also cheaper to make. I would say that the D300s would be a great value in comparison to the 7D if priced like the old D300 (app $400.00 lower)

Nikon is wrong in charging extra for minor upgrades, that were made to get some extra time out of the old D300

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Whether Nikon is right or wrong will be determined by D300s sales. While I would, of course, prefer to pay less, I will pay what they ask when the time comes to buy one. Now if the price increases past $2,000 because of currency issues, then all bets are off. (And don't someone think that a D700 would then look more attractive. If currency forces a D300s above $2K, then a D700 will probably be close to $3K.)

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

The D300s is selling for the price that the D300 sold for when it was new. I think a D700 replacement will be between $4000 and $5000 dollars. I doubt we will like the price of it.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

4 to 5 grand?! No way. D700(s)would sell for the current D700 price, around $2,999US. A D700(X) would not sell for a 1 or 2 grand more over that price. Not when there's the 5DmkII,a900, and now a850.
The D3 is already at $5,000US price and a D700X would not replace that model.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

The Canon 7D

Reply »