i find my 7d lightning fast as well, the fastest, but most times disappointed on what it finds to focus on in that lightning speed. I used to shoot on 35mm and never worried about my auto focus ability, when i went digital I found myself in manual mode and was excited on learning and understanding what i care about in the frame to focus on. Advancements in auto focus abilities when i jumped to the 7d had me expecting great things, the 7d is an amazing tool like many others but at times i find it fast, but not to what i want it to be fast to, if that makes sense...
The odd thing is, without creating a huge hater thread, before digital i always shot nikon and loved the depth and colors from nikon 35mm film, i keep my film books on display proudly for viewers. My camera at the time always focused on what i wanted, not sure if it was a culmination of metering and af pints but it worked well. Personally i find it interesting how camera companies market things. For example a medium format camera for the past few years that cost 15k plus, like all things that advance will it be true to our (canon, nikon, minolta, sony....), etc that in years time a point & shoot will out perform the $40K hasselblad of the day? I have never shot a hasselblad or any camera valued at 15k plus but I do get paid for my for my work, in a studio setting i would put my shots on any camera against a 40k camera. I have mentioned the thought i miss the film days of shoot and print, i find at gigs i take twice as many shots and spend twice as many time editing. Editing is a full time job, thats why many times i let my studio do my post processing, unless its a gig where I'm requested and the client expects results of my past work, which is charged accordingly. Same goes from when I take on zap shots to be displayed the night and be given on a disc, with no editing at all. I would have went nikon when moving digital but got a gig with a company who had allowed me great access to canon lens.
The 5dmk3 is a great camera but if you have the most recent canon or any point and shoot in af in the same settings don't be shocked if a $200 camera is the same as a $3500 camera. My sister who always had a p&s, who was always happy but seemed more depth and option for manual controls, got a t3 and uses my old sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, she is very satisfied with her setup and feels no need to upgrade.
I agree technology can advance us and hope it does, i think our expectations over expect our demands, glad to see the af pints canon jumped to but to be honest canon has always been behind on af which is fine. Better af pints may lead us to deleting more or more let downs from shots expecting more from. While we have more points do we always agree on the science behind why the sensor chooses such points?
Im new to cr forum and believe me I'm a camera and technology junkie, i always want the latest and greatest I find myself included expecting more. My wife still had a 35mm rebel she likes to uses from time to time because, as i agree when she got it at an event for free as a gift still produces great results. She hates computers, appreciates my digital work and results but hates the time i spend editing and misses me dropping off a roll of film.
I understand how newer cameras focus and meter but as i mentioned what do we expect from out hardware? Amazon has a review stating a customer who went from a rebel xt to a $39950 Hasselblad was thrilled, well I would hope $38000 would be enough to satisfy any customer. Would todays 5dmk3 or nikon d800 beat an older now overpriced Hasselblad? I would hope? but to what extent?
