7D Guinea Pig

[kenraw]

Here's my thoughts on the current situation, especially with the rumour of no 7Dmk2

I personally think that after the focus nightmare canon had with the 1Dmk3 and the amount of pro's it upset that went to Nikon, they knew they couldn't make that mistake again. Hence the 5dmk2 having an old safe option AF system. They were obviously in the stages of designing the MKIV but didn't dare release it without some serious real world use in case they dropped another bollock with the AF.

Here's where I think the 7D fitted in. They released a pro body that was weather sealed etc that would one day become the blue print for the 5dx. They then put a aps sensor in it so they could sell it to the masses which worked a treat. This way they were getting to test out their new AF system in the real world and wait for feedback to roll in from sites like this one. Once the AF got the all clear they could set to work on the development of the Nikon killer 1DX and soon 5Dx. I don't think Canon were even bothered that the sensor in the 7D produced soft,noisy images as it was never supposed to be a full pro camera. they just knew the 18mp would sell it to enough photographers to make sure they got it right without the risk of losing anymore pro's to Nikon. I own two of them myself and find the 7D an awesome piece of kit for what it is but always wished it was full frame. Well it looks like my and many others prayers are about to be answered. I've always had a feeling from the moment I bought my first 7D just after the 5dmk2 was released that one day the two would be combined and I've been waiting a long time for this moment.

I would like to everyones thoughts on this. obviously this is just my opinion!

 

[Loswr]

I don't really agree, at least about the AF for future bodies being 'tested' in the 7D. The 7D does have a nice AF system, but at a basic level it's a straightforward bump to the 40D's AF - same dual-cross center points, same f/5.6 cross outer points, just 10 more of them. Spot AF, tracking modes, etc., are firmware mods. As for that being reactionary to the 1DIII AF fiasco, that was a hardware problem with the secondary mirror, and an APS-C mirror assembly would not effectively test a FF design.

 

[kenraw]

I don't really agree, at least about the AF for future bodies being 'tested' in the 7D. The 7D does have a nice AF system, but at a basic level it's a straightforward bump to the 40D's AF - same dual-cross center points, same f/5.6 cross outer points, just 10 more of them. Spot AF, tracking modes, etc., are firmware mods. As for that being reactionary to the 1DIII AF fiasco, that was a hardware problem with the secondary mirror, and an APS-C mirror assembly would not effectively test a FF design.

I didn't know what the problem was with the 1Dmk3 AF to be honest.
Seems strange to me why the 5dmk2 had such a basic AF even though the 7D was released soon after.

 

[japhoto]

I wouldn't say that the 7D AF system is all that great. On paper sure, but I've had my fair share of erratic behavior with it.

So on that note there very well could be a guinea pig inside the camera doing the focusing...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Seems strange to me why the 5dmk2 had such a basic AF even though the 7D was released soon after.

You call 1 year soon after??

 

[TexPhoto]

Obviously, the 5D was purposefully limited in some areas just to keep from cutting too many 1Ds sales. AF was one of them. I mean -2 to +2 on the exposure compensation instead or 3? That's software for $@#$%#$ sake.

On the other hand, it is/was one hell of a camera for the money.

 

[briansquibb]

Obviously, the 5D was purposefully limited in some areas just to keep from cutting too many 1Ds sales. AF was one of them. I mean -2 to +2 on the exposure compensation instead or 3? That's software for $@#$%#$ sake.

On the other hand, it is/was one hell of a camera for the money.

.... it has the ability to changes the settings via the screen whereas the the 1Ds3 doesn't

The 1Ds3 also has Series 1 features such as 7 shots bracketed, twin cards etc etc

The 5DII focusses better at very low light (on the centre AF point) than the 1Ds3

 

[photophreek]

japhoto:

I wouldn't say that the 7D AF system is all that great. On paper sure, but I've had my fair share of erratic behavior with it.

Hopefully, this discussion doesn't turn into yet another "bash the 7D" thread. However, there seems to be signs......

 

[wickidwombat]

Obviously, the 5D was purposefully limited in some areas just to keep from cutting too many 1Ds sales. AF was one of them. I mean -2 to +2 on the exposure compensation instead or 3? That's software for $@#$%#$ sake.

On the other hand, it is/was one hell of a camera for the money.

.... it has the ability to changes the settings via the screen whereas the the 1Ds3 doesn't

The 1Ds3 also has Series 1 features such as 7 shots bracketed, twin cards etc etc

The 5DII focusses better at very low light (on the centre AF point) than the 1Ds3

how do you think it is compared to the 1D4?

 

[AUGS]

I think the 7D may well have been a guinea pig, but maybe not for the reasons mentioned.

Technology is evolving all the time, and we are more than happy to reap the benefits (more mpix [doesn't the 7D has highest pixel density?], better AF, faster processors). But these all come with some overhead during the development process.

There is always a first camera to pilot some new system to help future-proof the development process - be it software language, manufacturing technique (sensor build, seal moulding, manufacturing line), CAD software. The rewards for that targetted technology may well have been the commercialisation of the 7D, allowing scalability of all processes at the same time.

 

[stabmasterasron]

I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig. It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach. It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not. They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras. Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system. How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests. I see lots.

 

[AprilForever]

I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig. It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach. It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not. They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras. Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system. How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests. I see lots.

APS-C works. Once upon a time, 4x5 film was the stuff. 35mm film killed it. Sure now, and 4x5 quality will always beat 35mm quality. However, there are qualities beyond sterile image quality. FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Nikon knows this. see how much they have put into their DX lineup? If Canon boggles this, Nikon will gladly scoop up disgruntled photographers with a shiny new D400.

 

[briansquibb]

I don't know about using the 7D as a guinea pig. It seems to me that plenty of pro wildlife/sports fotogs were happy with the 7D being a crop sensor as it gave them more reach. It could have been the case of canon marketing saying - we have the sensor, we have the AF system, why not. They only had a pro AF system on the 1D cameras. Putting it on a crop sensor camera is just a way to use what they already had without eroding too much the sales of the 1D system. How many sports fotogs do you see walking around with a 1D and a 7d strapped to their photography vests. I see lots.

APS-C works. Once upon a time, 4x5 film was the stuff. 35mm film killed it. Sure now, and 4x5 quality will always beat 35mm quality. However, there are qualities beyond sterile image quality. FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Nikon knows this. see how much they have put into their DX lineup? If Canon boggles this, Nikon will gladly scoop up disgruntled photographers with a shiny new D400.

Push this argument further and you get little cameras with iPhone sensors

 

[Loswr]

FF digital requires lenses which are more expensive. It requires a larger camera. It's lenses are shorter. APS-C has serious benefits.

Push this argument further and you get little cameras with iPhone sensors
[/quote]

...and superzoom lenses, too. But that's ok, no one is buying those anymore - they're just buying iPhones, which is why Canon's P&S sales have been flat, while dSLR sales are growing.

 

[AvTvM]

the 7D was no guinea pig. It was Canon's last moment answer to Nikon's surprisingly good D300. Canon was really under the gun, because the 50D was such a lame upgrade over the 40D. Had they just brought a 60D marginal evolutionary upgrade instead of the bigger step to the 7D [adequate sensor/IQ, AF-system, sealed-body etc.] they would have lost a large part of their enthusiast/semi-pro/crop-pro user base to Nikon.

I for one would have made the switch to Nikon had the 7D not entered the scene "at the last moment". Glad I didn't, because I prefer Canons user interface over Nikon's and I am very happy with the 7D and the pictures I can get with it.

No matter what 5D III, 5D X etc. Canon my bring ... I will not go FF any time soon. In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images. Not to mention the tele side where I get stellar results from the 70-200 II and good results from the 100-400 on a 7D, whereas on a FF I#d be forced into super-tele land. No way!

 

[briansquibb]

In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images.

Have you a link that shows this?

 

[Tijn]

No matter what 5D III, 5D X etc. Canon my bring ... I will not go FF any time soon. In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images.

I think you're not taking FF noise performance into account, which is undeniably a major part of image quality. It is pretty much THE reason to want to go full-frame at all. You'll be spending more money to get lenses with the same framing as on crop cameras, and IQ wise they do not provide much of an upgrade to the best crop-only lenses (in the standard 'wide' zoom range at least). However, those FF lenses are better built, often weathersealed. They will last longer and take more of a beating. And as said, they open the door to significantly less noisy pictures.
APS-C has advantages if you need tele range on a budget. Its noise performance, however, is basically sh**, at least when compared to full-frame.

I just got a nice up-to-date decent crop camera of my own. I'm very happy with it and the reach I can get from teles. The only major downside for me personally is noise performance. My next upgrade will most probably be full-frame.

 

[briansquibb]

No matter what 5D III, 5D X etc. Canon my bring ... I will not go FF any time soon. In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images.

I think you're not taking FF noise performance into account, which is undeniably a major part of image quality. It is pretty much THE reason to want to go full-frame at all. You'll be spending more money to get lenses with the same framing as on crop cameras, and IQ wise they do not provide much of an upgrade to the best crop-only lenses (in the standard 'wide' zoom range at least). However, those FF lenses are better built, often weathersealed. They will last longer and take more of a beating. And as said, they open the door to significantly less noisy pictures.
APS-C has advantages if you need tele range on a budget. Its noise performance, however, is basically sh**, at least when compared to full-frame.

I just got a nice up-to-date decent crop camera of my own. I'm very happy with it and the reach I can get from teles. The only major downside for me personally is noise performance. My next upgrade will most probably be full-frame.

I would say that you can get good picture with APS-C, it is just that you can get better with 1.3 and ff

 

[AmbientLight]

Agreed, but the chain of communication actually leads away from the original topic of this thread. It should be clear by now that FF gives you better noice performance and much better opportunities for wide angle shots ;D.

Getting back to the original topic I don't think 7D was a Guinea Pig. Instead I believe Canon to have considered that at the time of 7D's launch it would be both an excellent addition to a full-frame body as a secondary body with more reach and as kind of an ultimate upgrade for people coming from the prosumer area and looking for something gradually better.

For me there is no obvious reason to buy a 7D Mark II or anything similar after I already own a 7D, expecting that the Mark II will be only a gradual upgrade similar to going from 40D to 50D. What I will be doing is to go straight for a 1D-X once it hits stores in my area. If this is too big a step forward for others, then maybe a 5D-X or similar more price-conscious pro body may be a better step forward, but I believe going FF is the thing to do, if you already have a 7D, because then the difference in lens reach becomes quite a useful feature.

Just look at how many people have a 5D Mark II and 7D combination.

 

[AvTvM]

In addition to the body it would mean having to replace my 10-22 and my 17-55 with over-priced FF-lenses that cost four times as much without delivering way better IQ for my images.

Have you a link that shows this?

yes. look it up at www.photozone.de