Printable View
A lot of them do. MP (given it's not just an increase for the sake of it - the resolving power is higher), ISO performance, shutter speed, autofocus accuracy, exposure compensation range and off camera flash control all affect IQ in the areas they are needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408
If you mean affects IQ for a static well lit scene when using a tripod then yes, you're largely right. But then, phones can do a good job too ;)
its never a simple subject considering photography - probably why i like it so much hehe
main reason i was fond of the 7d is for its auto focus, af system, 1080p video and overall IQ and build quality...
was hoping to shoot race horse/dogs and aeroplanes to name a few with a good high end setup...therefor the crop factor would come in useful. not to say porttraits will be bad with 1.6x 7D - it gets majority excellent review everywhere
the mk2 is like £500 more.. thats a huge extra outlay for FF IMO.
ill leave the purchase for now and consider it in a week as i want to get the purchase bang on for my needs and expectations :)
thanks for this thread - good discussion !
actually printed 30x20in you'll see a massive difference between the 2..Quote:
Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408
What system are you on right now? Do you have a favorite lens that still lets you down somehow?Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvdbuk
I'd probably say unless your wanting to play with the effects of low DoF, your probably better off looking at APC-S.
I do sometimes wish I had a full frame, but since I moved on to a more modern sensor, the low light performance I get from it, is definitely 'enough' for what I want, extendable to 51200, or even just using it at 3200 with relatively little noise.
Given the weight, the cost of glass, I really can't see the advantage of a full frame from what you've said you want, sure the sensor is better, and the same way I found something very nice about the medium format 645d I played with a few months ago, its 31megapixels of astonishing detail and quality, but even at A3 size prints you'd still struggle to see the difference in most of the types of photography I practice. I'm also no way practiced enough to demonstrate the differences when I'm not taking forever to compose a shot :D
When it comes to the things you mentioned about the 7D, its auto-focus system is one of the best in class, but myself I normally keep it on center using 'single' auto focus mode, so it locks on a half shutter. I also use the metering this way too. If your wanting to spend £1,350 on a body for better autofocus, I'd make sure you can't get by with better use of a more 'manual control style' thing. As for everything else you mention, Image Quality & Build Quality, the 7D is towards the bottom of the pile, objectively against the much cheaper k-5, which is almost half the price with better build quality, better image quality, much better low light image quality....... I can't see why the 7D would be a good purchase. Also all bodies really now that are above the £500 mark seem to have good 1080p video, so don't worry about that, worry about how quickly they gobble the battery when doing 1080p!
Quick, fill his inbox with spam :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The 7D doesn't cost that much anymore..
It is currently selling for £899 from HDEW. It come with 3 YEAR GUARANTEE. I got mine from them when it is just less than 1K.
I got no problem at all.
Buy the 7D with a fast lens and you will never look back. Apart from the weight infact!
Its still a LOT of money, if your already happily on a 500 or something will you really see that much improvement for £900! (Thou that is a MUCH better price than the OP started with!)Quote:
Originally Posted by BerZerk
What I mean is the 7D is just not very exciting, its not a bad camera per say, its just its not the best compared to the CHEAPER ones on Nikon and Pentax.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_7D-vs-Nikon_D7000 for instance.But if the OP has no canon glass as is, he could easily get say the loverly 16-50mm pentax, all weather sealed, f2.8, for MUCH less money. Hell he could get the 50-135mm from the same series (DA* all very good in wet weather, straight f2.8) which is quite good if your just sitting round an aerodrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by BerZerk
About 3-4 years ago there was a very exciting improvement in dslrs. Sadly I think we're down to slight advances, which cost quite a lot of dosh.
If I had a 500 and some canon glass, I'd probably think, nah I'll spend that £900 on glass or flashes or something, rather than the 7D.
If I didn't have anything, there is no way I could see anyone recommend the 7D above Nikon or Pentax offerings, maybe there are some canon only lenses that change that view slightly, but as it stands I just can't see what the advantage would be?
But apart from that, what have the Romans done for us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobster
I entirely agree, though, the 7D has a lot to commend it ... and whether it's the right choice entirely depends on what the prospective buyer wants it for, and where they're going both with their hobby/usage, and in terms of future upgrades.
Personally, and I stress personally, I'd go for the 7D rather than the 5DMk-whatever. Why? First, I have no particular interest in FF, and can get everything I want, at a quality I'm happy with, from a crop-frame. Second, I have lenses, like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (sorry, Bob, I know you had a bad experience mine mine still works perfectly and I'm delighted with the results) and one or two others that aren't suited to full-frame, and I'm not about to replace them all any time soon. Also, frame rate. And finally, because it's cheaper. Quite a bit cheaper. I'd rather spend the difference on other bits. Or keep it safely in my piggy bank.
I sympathise with why people say the 5DMii is better, and in many regards it is, but for me, the 7d is every bit good enough. And therefore the right choice.
I also understand the Pentax argument, but again, personally, that boat sailed years ago. Pentax tried to milk it in the early days of digital, and were grossly uncompetitive price-wise. So I went Canon. Short of a major disaster, like getting all my gear nicked (again :( Grrrr!) I'm staying Canon. Anyone that isn't locked ion in that way would be well-advised to look at all options, but I'm effectively locked in so I don't really care how good Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc are. It all depends on the individual.
:clapping:Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Indeed, thats why I was asking what the OP already has!Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
However most canon users I know have considered the 7d a bit of an expensive let down, and are awaiting for the next thing.
I'm not a full on fan boy, I'm mealy saying right now, anyone who isn't on a system already and chooses a 7d, I can't understand why!
Probably in much the same way Pentax was just overpriced when you where looking!
animus i currently have a 400d
have a few lenses like the nifty and the 18-55.
is that really true though? what particular things did they not like to consider it a "let down"?
The price tag!Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvdbuk
It's not a bad camera, its just that the offerings which in some cases are £300 cheaper, by competitors are better.
The other thing is compared to say the £300 for the low end canon 1100D or something? (I don't know canon well, only from playing with friends, I've noticed they have a lot of market penetration, but ever since I nearly bought one, because I'd tried Nikon and Pentax properly, I've always thought quite lowly of the prosumer and below canon kit. They have some great lenses, but the cost is, for a hobbiest like me, just to damn high, and the build quality to shoddy.)
At the end of the day if its just better image quality, lower light and video you want, would that tick the boxes? There is an at least £600 difference, that's a lot, for having something which doesn't set the world on fire.
Because ultimately the image quality between a 7D and the MUCH CHEAPER k-5 for instance, the k-5 wins hands down, espesually in low light, same with the Nikon 7000d (which uses the same sensor).
Now I'd have thought in 18 months this wouldn't be the case, something new and quite probably leap frogging everything else will be out.
But when you consider the street price of both cameras, hell you could replace your nifty fifty with a better one (f1.4), have a weather sealed kit lens, and still have some cash left over getting the superior k-5, I think you have to be mad to get the 7D.....
The Pentax K5 is probably the best value higher end APS-C body out there IMHO and if you are not tied into a system with expensive is worth considering. Remember the camera body and many of the lenses(even the cheap kit lenses) are weather sealed and stabilisation is built into the body. It means every lens including a 50MM is stabilised and also the K mount does have a lot of lenses(I know its the electronic version).
Here are some reviews:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM
The first review was done at its original RRP of £1200. You can get it with the kit lens for around £700 to £750 IIRC.
Have a look at the pictures TheAnimus took on his charity jaunt to the Gambia:
http://forums.hexus.net/photography-...ly-banjul.html
Despite the dusty conditions he had no problems with the camera at all.
Go into a shop and handle one - in fact I would do that for all the cameras you are considering. Its only when I tried out the K5 myself and saw the price tag is when I realised it was a good camera for the price. Another good but much more expensive camera is the Nikon D7000(similar sensor as the K5). The 7D naming is a misnomer. In terms of build and level it should be what the 60D was. What Canon did is re-jig their line-up and split the line which original ended with the 50D into the 7D and 60D.
oh you don't want to know whats happened to it now! (i am not happy with them at all)Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Mine works fine too.
Anyways about the 7d. i still rate teh 5dmk2 higher. why would canon price a 5dmk2 more expensive?
I tell u why. Because FF offers better IQ.
No ifs or buts about that ladsQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobster
^ Well that's pretty much a no brain-er, but comparing it to a 400D? Nah. Especially at a higher ISO, the 400D would fold.
7D is a extremely capable camera, way more consistent, robust than the lower end Canon's... pretty much all I use at work!
not had time to read thread but if you can please do go uk - we all need as much of a help as we can get right now and this kind of outlay makes a big difference for a camera shop. I used to work in camera retail back in the day and believe me they will love you if you're serious on buying this sort of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackvdbuk