I heard the K-5 is far superior though and is cheaper?Quote:
Originally Posted by HSK
Printable View
I heard the K-5 is far superior though and is cheaper?Quote:
Originally Posted by HSK
Lol, ok so I'm the preist and cats the choir master!Quote:
Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408
It's more a case of the 7D is a bit of a damp squib.
This does seem to often happen with the firms thou, as Saracen was saying when he was looking to go digital, the Pentax offerings weren't good.
But right now, if your wanting the prosumer end of a 7000d or 7D of k-5, the 7D is clearly the worst value for money option.
If you've only got a kit lens, nifty 50, then you can really consider the cost of shifting platform. Myself I think that cannon isn't a good place to be for the prosumer on a budget, you should evaluate the cost of moving, if you only loose 50% of the cost of the lenses trading them in, but the body costs £300 less and is a better body...... You see what I'm saying.
Blind faith is always a bad thing, and regretably people do seem to get bought in to platforms and things, however I'm no fan boy, I'm aware of the negatives of the platform I'm heavily bought in to! (I've about £4k of pentax glass)
well i just invested 1.8k on a 70-200 f2.8canon lens so i doubt i would jump ship.
OP should get a pantex then if he hasnt invested too much on canon.
i thought canon and nikon are the best?
Define the best! It's really not that simple, the 7D is a bit of a damp squib as I've said, I'm not saying all canon is awful, far from it, they have some great glass which is lacking in other systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408
Fact of the matter is people will get loverly pictures almost no matter what they use!
We're in exciting times as the difference in quality between each release becomes less and less because what we have today is really so bloody good.
But I will say again just to be clear, the 7D is a let down, not the whole canon range. Also you will still get great pictures with it, its just it cost a heck of a lot more than something which has more in the way of quality and features.....
Its not as simple as good and bad. More a case of good and slightly better, whilst cheaper.
camera is more than just the IQ and features
i would have gone with Nikon long ago - but the UI is the pits compared with Canon. Canon's interface and button layout is more intuitive to me..
i don't want to be stuck at a wedding/event pressing multiple buttons to twiddle a dial only to miss a moment..
and the angular lines also don't fit well in my hands.. so Canon wins YMMV
As a 7D owner I'd just like to say that it is in no way a 'damp squib' (the 60D on the other hand probably is and I can't really see the point personally).
The 7D was, and still is, a very capable camera with some features that matched the 'pro-level' cameras when it was released (which was actually a good couple of years ago now - and doubtless there are bodies which offer more features for less cost). e.g. the AF system, frames per second, MPs, HD video....
I went for a 7D over a 5DII at the time because there was about a £400 price difference and at the trade-off of not having a full-frame sensor (which like other's I don't have and don't miss) you get a frame per second rate which is double the 5D - which is useful for the when I do wildlife, hand-held macro and motorsport stuff. The AF is also superb for some of this stuff.
I fully agree that I would have expected the price to come down more given the age of the 7D now - a big problem for people locked into Canon stuff is that Canon *can* sell it at that price on its reputation, whereas the smaller manufacturers will always undercut. If I hadn't already invested in Canon kit before getting the 7D I would have thought seriously about getting a Nikon or a Pentax who do offer better value for money (something that my professional tog Nikon user always goes on about). On the other hand the lens range that Canon offers is unsurpassed, so for flexibility it's a winner (if you can afford it) - and I agree with Bobster about the user-interface.
As for the 7D having no IQ advantages over the 400D this I think has been quashed and is clearly not the case for a variety of reasons which have already been mentioned. Probably the most important component for IQ will be the lens anyway, so if that's all you're concerned about you may aswell stick with a XXXD camera and buy a £3000 lens. Personally, the 400D and the rest of that series do not fulfil the role I would want to use them for.
My next body might be a pro-level one (if I can afford it) although I would have no qualms about upgrading to a 7DIII if that offered a significant improvement (I don't think the 7DII will be much of an upgrade).
Ultimately the best advice for the OP is to go and try some out, and read some (impartial) reviews. If a Pentax does the job, and has the flexibility in lens choice to fulfil what you want to do, then go for that.
One last thing, if you have friends who are keen photographers it might be beneficial to go for the same system as them; I've got about £800 of equipment on 'long-term loan' from people at the moment, and have borrowed lenses worth £5000 on some trips, which is always good fun.
If you take the devaluation of the exchange rate into account, it kinda has come down. Most lens, flashguns, etc, though, have gone up for he same reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by stavroshamster
My new 7D is will be in the post tomorrow, I am quite looking forward to it. That is all.
(Watch this space for a well loved 40D for sale soon)
You've taken what I said out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by stavroshamster
As a choice, right now, in todays prices, its a complete damp squib.
Its the worst performing, and the highest price.
I'm not saying the performance is going to make a massive difference, hell I'm half tempted to get a micro mirrorless jobbie for some travel where my dSLR is just too big..... Its not a case of having a great spec sheet.
Its just anyone who is buying a 7D is buying the worst camera in class, at the highest cost.
I'm NOT saying canon is bad, or that everyone who is on it is a fool, quite the opposite, just that RIGHT NOW anyone who isn't tied in to a system, is making a very bad choice going with one. I can't see how people can possibly justify the price tag.
Unless of course they have no choice. Now I'm not saying that the other brands don't or won't at some point be in the same situation, pumping out a camera which is stupidly expensive because they know their invested users have little choice.
That is the point I'm trying to make to OP, if your wanting to spend £1k, there are probably much better ways to spend it, which will give you more enjoyment.
Hence why I'm buying second hand, the retail price is a bit rich for my blood.
Which is probably quite a good awnser to OP's question, nuts to grey or uk, try second hand!
Otherwise just make sure you consider jumping ship!
I'd argue that anything past ISO 800 though and you *will* start to see some significant differences in terms of noise. I don't have any experience of the 400D admittedly, but putting a 450D and a 550D side by side was a pretty interesting experiment. ISO 800 on the 450D was approximately equivalent to ISO 1600 on the 550D, and similar at the 450D's ISO 1600 vs the 550D's ISO 3200.Quote:
Originally Posted by j.o.s.h.1408
On that alone, I wouldn't necessarily advocate the 7D of course, but I'd argue that any from that DIGIC4 generation (50D, 60D, 550D, 600D and 7D), *should* give better IQ at these higher ISOs (which may be the difference between the photographer being comfortable shooting at ISO 800 for instance).
DPreview did their review on the 7D and the noise tests against the 50D and K-7 speak for themselves.
Yeah, it beats the out of date cameras, which you can't even buy new anymore :PQuote:
Originally Posted by rox0r
(At the risk of flaming a friend of mine, I didn't think the K-7 was a good camera, it was expensive, and under performed, it was a damp squib)
Its also worth noting that the noise performance in RAW against a obsoleted and incredibly cheap camera, the k-7 is about 1/3rd of the price now, is almost the same as a 7D.
I'll say it again, the 7D is grossly over priced junk by todays standards.
Those are older cameras long replaced. The newer cameras such as the K5 and D7000 have a Sony 16MP sensor which is known for its excellent performance, across multiple models from from Nikon,Pentax and Sony. Every single model which has had this sensor or a derivative of it has been excellent in long light and had great dynamic range.Quote:
Originally Posted by rox0r
As I mentioned before the OP should really go to a camera shop and handle the cameras,and also see what they can get for their money as a package.
Actually after a better look, the much obsoleted K-7, which is about a 3rd of the price of the 7D, and is an older camera, performed better or just as good in RAW noise. Now if the only benefit of a camera is getting better in body JPEG in low light, that might be of interest, but the fact in a few scenarios it actually performed worse!Quote:
Originally Posted by rox0r
Your using that as a plus point?! Even at launch the 7D was a bit crap for the money. Its even worse now.