Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 09 Aug 2011 (Tuesday) 23:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Will the 7D cause Canon to go bankrupt?

 
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,401 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Aug 12, 2011 02:48 |  #121

It's a case of horses for courses. A Ferrari isn't probably the best car for the weekly shop, but it can manage it, yes the 5D2 is probably more suited to landscape and portrait, the 7D for sports action, but both cameras can do both things. I wonder if the instigators of these sort of threads are so rubbish with whatever camera they have they spend their time in controversy rather than getting better.


Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Aug 12, 2011 03:42 |  #122

artyman wrote in post #12921256 (external link)
It's a case of horses for courses. A Ferrari isn't probably the best car for the weekly shop, but it can manage it, yes the 5D2 is probably more suited to landscape and portrait, the 7D for sports action, but both cameras can do both things. I wonder if the instigators of these sort of threads are so rubbish with whatever camera they have they spend their time in controversy rather than getting better.

Heh.

Well, here's how I look at it:

How much better at sports/action is the 7D compared with the 5D2? Yeah, the 5D2 can do it, but how much easier is it with the 7D? From what I've read, people who have used the 5D series for sports/action generally strongly prefer the 7D, 1D series, etc., for that. So it's natural to conclude that the 7D is considerably better at sports/action than the 5D2.

Now, turn that question around: how much better at landscapes and portraits is the 5D2 compared with the 7D? Sure, the 5D2 may be better, but how much better? The evidence suggests that the difference is minor, at least when the images from both cameras are used to their maximum potential.

So it appears the 7D is better than the 5D2 at action/sports to a significantly greater degree than the 5D2 is better than the 7D at portraits/landscapes. And so, if you have to choose just one of those cameras to do all of it, the 7D is probably the better overall choice.


I really hope the 5D3 changes all this, and becomes the best all-purpose camera Canon has to offer short of the 1D series, because frankly, I think it's a waste of an amazing full frame sensor to put it into an otherwise mediocre body.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrewq
Member
133 posts
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 12, 2011 12:32 |  #123

kcbrown wrote in post #12921363 (external link)
Heh.

Well, here's how I look at it:

How much better at sports/action is the 7D compared with the 5D2? Yeah, the 5D2 can do it, but how much easier is it with the 7D? From what I've read, people who have used the 5D series for sports/action generally strongly prefer the 7D, 1D series, etc., for that. So it's natural to conclude that the 7D is considerably better at sports/action than the 5D2.

Now, turn that question around: how much better at landscapes and portraits is the 5D2 compared with the 7D? Sure, the 5D2 may be better, but how much better? The evidence suggests that the difference is minor, at least when the images from both cameras are used to their maximum potential.

So it appears the 7D is better than the 5D2 at action/sports to a significantly greater degree than the 5D2 is better than the 7D at portraits/landscapes. And so, if you have to choose just one of those cameras to do all of it, the 7D is probably the better overall choice.


I really hope the 5D3 changes all this, and becomes the best all-purpose camera Canon has to offer short of the 1D series, because frankly, I think it's a waste of an amazing full frame sensor to put it into an otherwise mediocre body.

I would agree with all of the above. I shoot a bunch of live music and use my 7D. My buddy, who also shoots live music, uses a 5DII and is consistently frustrated with its focus issues (he uses L lenses too but feels the focusing problems are with the body) but always reminds me of the low noise. I never have a problem with my 7D when it comes to AF and for a guy who came from a 30D to a 7D the noise at 1600 (even 3200) is still way workable.

I also shoot a bunch of landscapes. There is no doubt that his 5DII probably edges my camera out in this regard but it is certainly not enough to bother me. Now I'll tell you, if they blend the best of both into that 5DIII THEN I will think about full frame. The accurate AF with the low noise and wideness of FF? How could I not think about starting to save money? :)


Canon 5DIII Gripped, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Aug 12, 2011 14:41 |  #124

Here is some silly math I just did. It is about what you pay that noise price for.

Assuming you don't have a long enough lens to fill the entire frame with your subject. How many pixels do you get on the subject?


For an object size 100x50mm at distance 10.0m, focal length 50mm:
"5d2": 67.9 x 36.8 => 2495.2 pixels on subject
"7d": 110.5 x 56.7 => 6262.6 pixels on subject
"1d2": 56.0 x 29.5 => 1650.3 pixels on subject
"1d3": 63.7 x 33.4 => 2130.8 pixels on subject

For an object size 300x200mm at distance 100.0m, focal length 200mm:
"5d2": 92.8 x 62.2 => 5772.5 pixels on subject
"7d": 139.0 x 92.6 => 12882.6 pixels on subject
"1d2": 72.9 x 48.8 => 3557.1 pixels on subject
"1d3": 82.6 x 55.3 => 4570.1 pixels on subject

As you can see there is a reason that Canon went that high in pixel density.

My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dave ­ kadolph
"Fix the cigarette lighter"
Avatar
6,138 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Mar 2007
Location: West Michigan--166.33 miles to the Cook County courthouse
     
Aug 12, 2011 16:08 |  #125

uOpt wrote in post #12924013 (external link)
Here is some silly math I just did. It is about what you pay that noise price for.

Assuming you don't have a long enough lens to fill the entire frame with your subject. How many pixels do you get on the subject?


For an object size 100x50mm at distance 10.0m, focal length 50mm:
"5d2": 67.9 x 36.8 => 2495.2 pixels on subject
"7d": 110.5 x 56.7 => 6262.6 pixels on subject
"1d2": 56.0 x 29.5 => 1650.3 pixels on subject
"1d3": 63.7 x 33.4 => 2130.8 pixels on subject

For an object size 300x200mm at distance 100.0m, focal length 200mm:
"5d2": 92.8 x 62.2 => 5772.5 pixels on subject
"7d": 139.0 x 92.6 => 12882.6 pixels on subject
"1d2": 72.9 x 48.8 => 3557.1 pixels on subject
"1d3": 82.6 x 55.3 => 4570.1 pixels on subject

As you can see there is a reason that Canon went that high in pixel density.

You're going with the assumption that all pixels are created equal and more= better. It doesn't work that way IMHO.


Middle age is when you can finally afford the things that a young man could truly enjoy.
Tools of the trade

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Aug 12, 2011 16:20 |  #126

If that was true my Canon S1100 would blow everything away :-)


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Aug 12, 2011 16:58 |  #127

dave kadolph wrote in post #12924418 (external link)
You're going with the assumption that all pixels are created equal and more= better. It doesn't work that way IMHO.

Excuse me?

The point was to demonstrate why Canon would do that thing that gets us the noise - high pixel density.

Enough has been said about the drawback (the noise). Not enough has been posted about the benefit - you do get more "reach" if you don't have a lens long enough to fill the frame at hand, for whatever reason.

I think the numbers for pixels count on subject are as telling as the noise pictures are.

(also note that I am a 7D basher)


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MilesW
Member
240 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2005
     
Aug 12, 2011 21:58 |  #128

Same with with those that are lousy shots on the range must be the gun LOL


20D Canon EFS 17-85IS, 70-2001:4 L IS, Macro 100 F2.8, Canon 50 1.4Canon ext EF 1.4X II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kbar7285
Member
Avatar
130 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Northeastern NJ
     
Aug 12, 2011 22:03 as a reply to  @ uOpt's post |  #129

Aside from being a satisfied 7d owner, I also play a lot of golf. The best analogy I can draw from the all the negative 7D posters, are the 20 handicappers who claim their new TaylorMade custom fit irons suck because they can't hit heir 7 iron 160 yards with backspin to an elevated green.
Must be the clubs.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
5x5 ­ photography
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,156 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: North Carolina
     
Aug 13, 2011 10:08 |  #130

I do appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts.
I realize that there is something to be said for the tools but as my father used to say, "maybe it is the Indian not the arrow".


My firearms review site. http://rangehot.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NEMESIS_2020
Member
Avatar
88 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Canada
     
Aug 13, 2011 10:09 |  #131

Here is my 2 cents about the 7d even though i dont own it: based on all the soft image issues with the 7d, the 7d was meant for pros which requires post processing. No sharpening is applied when the image is taken and was always meant for sharpening to be applied in post. The t2i, t3i, and the 60d have their sharpening applied when the photo is shot. The end result after poat processing is the same. People who complain about sharpening are simply not aware of the purpose of the 7d and if they dont like post processing, they should downgrade to a t3i or 60d which is more geared towards consumer use.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
talbot_sunbeam
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: UK
     
Aug 13, 2011 10:19 |  #132

NEMESIS_2020 wrote in post #12928062 (external link)
Here is my 2 cents about the 7d even though i dont own it: based on all the soft image issues with the 7d, the 7d was meant for pros which requires post processing. No sharpening is applied when the image is taken and was always meant for sharpening to be applied in post. The t2i, t3i, and the 60d have their sharpening applied when the photo is shot.


Forgetting JPEG for a second - no sharpening is applied at all when shooting RAW. All RAW images require sharpening. The parameters won't be the same though, as the 7D images have a lot higher pixel density and will require a different amount of sharpening.



7D, 450D | 17-55, 10-22, 55-250, 50 1.8, 580EXII | YN568II | YN622 x3 | Magic Lantern | (Still) Jonesing for a 70-200 2.8...
Turns out a gripped 7D + 622 + 580exII + 70-200 2.8 IS MK2 is BLOODY HEAVY! Who knew?!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,168 posts
Gallery: 105 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5370
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 13, 2011 10:24 |  #133

NEMESIS_2020 wrote in post #12928062 (external link)
Here is my 2 cents about the 7d even though i dont own it: based on all the soft image issues with the 7d, the 7d was meant for pros which requires post processing. No sharpening is applied when the image is taken and was always meant for sharpening to be applied in post. The t2i, t3i, and the 60d have their sharpening applied when the photo is shot. The end result after poat processing is the same. People who complain about sharpening are simply not aware of the purpose of the 7d and if they dont like post processing, they should downgrade to a t3i or 60d which is more geared towards consumer use.

You are incorrect. There is nothing different about the image processing on the other cameras as compared to the 7D. I am not sure why you think pictures come out differently on those cameras over the 7D, but they don't. Raw is raw between all these bodies, and all support picture styles if you want to razz up the photos in camera, etc.

What differentiates those other cameras would be features, like lesser AF capabilities, fewer FPS, fewer custom function settings, and the addition of the preset shooting modes for those that don't know how to set up their camera for portrait, sports, etc. Also ergonomics, size, and build would be different.

talbot_sunbeam wrote in post #12928105 (external link)
Forgetting JPEG for a second - no sharpening is applied at all when shooting RAW. All RAW images require sharpening. The parameters won't be the same though, as the 7D images have a lot higher pixel density and will require a different amount of sharpening.

Some raw converters honor in-camera settings, others use a default profile to sharpen as you import. So while the raw may not be sharpened, what you are presented with, in camera or via your raw converter may be.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock
For Sale: Ladies Thirty-One Camera Sling

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,324 posts
Gallery: 86 photos
Likes: 670
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Aug 13, 2011 10:30 |  #134

I shoot the 7D and love the heck out of it.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
appsyscons
Senior Member
Avatar
563 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Port Charlotte, FL
     
Aug 13, 2011 10:39 as a reply to  @ Naturalist's post |  #135

[SIZE="4"]I love my 7D!:D


Gear: 7D gripped | EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS | EF-S 10-18mm | , Nikon P530, Manfrotto legs, 496RC2 Ball Head /QR
My flickr (external link)
Upgrade wish list: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM | EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (I or II) USM | Canon EF 1.4X (II or III)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

28,782 views & 0 likes for this thread
Will the 7D cause Canon to go bankrupt?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Jpcullen
1167 guests, 209 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.