Sent back the 7d ):

rpphoto wrote in post #9707200
I hope somebody from canon reads this stuff, or at least their dwindling market share makes them take a hard look at the product they're putting out there. Like I said, a d3 blows my iq out of the water straight out of the camera. Post Production is where I compete. A d3s, well that is a different story, it just KILLS my iq producing totally useable images at 12800.

I don't think it matters if Canon does read this or not. They have pressed forward with more MPs, so I don't see them going backwards. It is the choice they have made, and for some, they are happy with it. For those who have owned the 5D and just wanted a bit better performance from that sensor in a better body, I don't think that is going to happen with Canon. Even something like 16-18MPs with better high ISO than the 5D2 would be welcomed by Canon shooters. Sadly, it won't be happening.

You guys have read that Nikon is going to "balance pixels and noise performance" in future right. They must be feeling the low megapixel pinch. As much as many of us don't want to see crazy high megapixel numbers this veiled release really says, "sorry we haven't released as high a res as Canon, will up it in future" to me: http://www.dpreview.co​m …/10022304nikonb​alance.asp

As for normal lenses on 1.3, 35mm is pretty much normal. Any decent 16/17-40/50ish zoom is normal. I quite like the 1.3x crop even after 30 years of shooting 35mm film "full frame". Actually I really like the AF point coverage better than on the 1Ds which with full frame doesn't cover very much of it. I like being able to focus nearer to the corners than with any other Canon body. You can get wide enough too, Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 12-24 give you quite a wide view on 1.3x. Gives a bit more reach on telephoto though not as much as 1.6x. A good compromise I'd say.

tharmsen wrote in post #9707308
Regardless, they did give me a return label to send the body in for inspection. I probably won't send it in since I know there's nothing wrong with my body other than its just not meeting my expectations.

Assuming that return label is prepaid, and you have other cameras, I would go ahead and send it in if I were you, just in case. If nothing else, like I said a few posts ago, it will send a message.

KenjiS wrote in post #9707282
Also I'd still like to show that comparison again, with the 1Ds III vs the 7D...

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …icles/canon_7d_​review.htm

Thanks for that link. Between that link, and another look at some comparisons on dpreview in the 7D review, I'm starting to feel better about my upgrade decision.

This is a good thread. I'm glad so see that people aren't afraid to speak up when they believe something isn't right. This equipment is very expensive . . . people want their money's worth. Many online forums like this are simply "love fests" for whatever their theme happens to be. If you go in and criticize anything, they jump all over you like mindless apes, banging their chests and saying nothing of value.

hpulley wrote in post #9707674
You guys have read that Nikon is going to "balance pixels and noise performance" in future right. They must be feeling the low megapixel pinch. As much as many of us don't want to see crazy high megapixel numbers this veiled release really says, "sorry we haven't released as high a res as Canon, will up it in future" to me: http://www.dpreview.co​m …/10022304nikonb​alance.asp

As for normal lenses on 1.3, 35mm is pretty much normal. Any decent 16/17-40/50ish zoom is normal. I quite like the 1.3x crop even after 30 years of shooting 35mm film "full frame". Actually I really like the AF point coverage better than on the 1Ds which with full frame doesn't cover very much of it. I like being able to focus nearer to the corners than with any other Canon body. You can get wide enough too, Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 12-24 give you quite a wide view on 1.3x. Gives a bit more reach on telephoto though not as much as 1.6x. A good compromise I'd say.

Yeh but I like a 24-135/24-105-ish kind of lens as my walkaround I dont want to carry 2 lenses to do that range which I would most certainly have to do on a 1.3x crop..

hpulley wrote in post #9707674
You guys have read that Nikon is going to "balance pixels and noise performance" in future right. They must be feeling the low megapixel pinch. As much as many of us don't want to see crazy high megapixel numbers this veiled release really says, "sorry we haven't released as high a res as Canon, will up it in future" to me: http://www.dpreview.co​m …/10022304nikonb​alance.asp

Sounds like Nikon will add MPs while trying to retain their current high ISO ability rather than crank for even better high ISOs at this time. Like I said, a 3D or D700 with 16-18MPs with the high ISO ability of the D700/D3 would be a great camera all-around. Wonder if anyone is going to make it?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #9706346
I don't understand your comments on the 1D, there has always been a FF and a 1.3 crop, this is nothing new introduced on the 1DIV. There will most likely be a 1DsIV, just wait for it. And why is 18mpx laughable? It works quite well. As somebody else stated, the 7D isn't as perfect as it could have been (sure, they could have engineered it around the 12mpx mark), but it is definitely not laughable. There is a certain amount of elitism in this thread. If you purchased a 7D with zero issues, along with the proper set of lenses for APS-C, and cannot make it work for what you want, it won't be the body holding you back.

I didnt mean to sound elitist, but factual. Sorry if I offended anyone. I try to see both sides of an arguement most of the time.

I wish canon would do away with the 1.3 crop. It is my opinion that it is no good (for lots of reasons). I like the way Nikon is handling things rights now and I wish canon had gone in a fairly simialr direction. BTW i am probably still gonna get a mark IV by the end of the year, and if nothing else, sell it for a small "rental" period fee of wahtever the price goes down by.

Back on topic, I will hold down my ground on the 7D. The reason i say that 18MP on a 1.6 crop is laughable is beacuse that makes it a really diffraction limited camera. For my purposes, thats not good at all.

And again, that might not stop me from getting one, since thats pretty much the best option I have on the canon camp for an advanced crop body (which i find useful for sports). I jsut wish i didnt have to spend 1400 bucks on a body i think is flawed, but swtiching to nikon right now is not feasable, personally.

To be honest i think ill just go back to the 1d3 if i cant adapt to the IV and the 7, and keep the 5d2 as a backup...

many of you guys have already made your point...like everything else in life they will be differences in opinion...
tharmsen...you said you like your 5d2 so just sell ur 1d4 and be happy with it...and if canon next full frame body don't meet your expectation just jump to nikon...all the argument here won't solve a thing..

update: here's another take on 5d2 vs 7d...from what I've seen, the 5d2 Iq is definitely better but that's justifiable given the price differences...but the 7d is not that bad...of cause that's my opinion... see for yourself...
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/86888​1

and here's and interesting update/observation...n​ot sure how true...anybody care to try...tharmsen?

from: alundeb
Warning!

Many of the tests of the 7D out there, use DPP (the-digital-picture.com, Roland Lim) or ACR (DPReview), as a basis tool. These RAW converters render 7D images soft, more soft than for other cameras. CaptureOne renders 7D images more similar to other cameras.

This is not a conclusion, it is not trying to favor CaptureOne, but I tell you to be VERY careful about drawing conclusions about the image quality of the 7D based on images from those converters.
source: http://www.fredmiranda​.com …/topic/809801/1​32#7748307

http://img14.imageshac​k.us …noneos7dmastert​hreadf.png <--click here to see, the moderator says its too big to be displayed here ...

Even funnier....so 5D II has no diffraction limit ?.

power_play21 wrote in post #9707960
Back on topic, I will hold down my ground on the 7D. The reason i say that 18MP on a 1.6 crop is laughable is beacuse that makes it a really diffraction limited camera. For my purposes, thats not good at all.

One theory, Canon intentionally made the RAW converter for the 7D a little softer because they were scared of noise complaints, By sharpening less they reduce apparent noise...

Again, I've had no problems with Lightroom conversion...which uses ACR...I have applied some extra sharpening in photoshop true, but i was doing that on my 30D...RAW files need processing, and its 2 simple clicks and its done...i very rarely play with the sliders (I have some rough "guides" for types of photos)

OK guys. You know who you are, I've deleted your posts. Stop arguing at each other.

KenjiS wrote in post #9707725
Yeh but I like a 24-135/24-105-ish kind of lens as my walkaround I dont want to carry 2 lenses to do that range which I would most certainly have to do on a 1.3x crop..

I normally carry 2-3 cameras and 3-6 lenses so I don't really have a 'walkaround' setup with one lens though I will on occasion pick a lens and go with it but in this case I tend to know if I want ultra wide (take the Tokina), normal (take the nifty) or telephoto (yes, I'll walk around with just 100-400L on the 1D or 55-250IS on crop).

Strangely I don't use the 50-100 length much, never have (I had an 85mm f/1.8 for years for film, used it at most a handful of times but used 50mm and 100mm all the time) so having that 'hold' in my setup never bugs me.

Canon has had the 1.3x crop for years and years. There are legions of sports shooters who are used to this length with their lenses. I don't see Canon getting rid of it anytime soon. Perhaps they'll follow Nikon in letting their full frame cameras take different crops?

Me, I didn't buy the 7D when I tried one. Didn't like it for some reason but these days more and more I do think about trading my T1i (perhaps also the 40D) in for a 7D for some reason... but then the stories of bad ones and some little nit picky things about the 7D (6 shot Raw + JPEG burst, no red AF points in viewfinder, et al) bug me and I say forget it again.

Tharmsen, I for one have enjoyed your comments very much, as I'm in the research phase and it's good to hear about opinions of the 7D from all different angles. Where it is not hitting the sweet spot for you pros is good for a hobbyist like me to learn about and get the bigger picture (pun intended). It's very easy to get blown-away and impressed with specs, but I can see how vital it is to see how people are actually using the camera, with what lenses, and what they're experiencing. It's all good, in my eyes, since I think/hope we're all here to learn as well as share.

Well... If i'm not mistaken, the 7d is still one of the best crop framed camera's available right? The nikon d300s is not noticeable better... eh?

having said that...

where canon is coming up short IMHO is in the full frame market. D700 features kicks the 5d mk2's (but i believe 5dmk2 has the IQ advantage), and the d3s outshines the 1d mk4, right? Canon really needs to build a full frame (not 1.3x) for $5000 that competes with the d3s...

while there may be a market for 20+megapixel camera's, isn't 10 really enough for most normal sized prints?

maverick678 wrote in post #9708189
Even funnier....so 5D II has no diffraction limit ?.

I think Rai33 shoots with the 7D and his images are so, so, .... well look for yourself.