Comments on: 7 Things to Love About the Canon 7D

By: Mou

Mou — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 23:05:06 +0000

can anyone tell me how good is canon 5d mark 2 with 24-105 lens for documentary filmmakers?

By: It’s simple: do something. | Everything is Everything

It’s simple: do something. | Everything is Everything — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:46:37 +0000

[...] Now I’m contacting the applicants and discussing the project. We will try to shoot it on the Mark 7D or 5D (relatively cheap SLRs that produce absolutely beautiful images and have been used to make [...]

By: Quazi Ahmed Hussain

Quazi Ahmed Hussain — Sat, 01 May 2010 09:07:38 +0000

It seems with 7D Canon has turned out a wonderful video camera (trying to guess what Canon camcorders do!!!).

How is it as a still camera? We’ll have to wait and see as mixed reports are gradually emerging.

By: David Barton

David Barton — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:35:02 +0000

Really pleased with my 7D which I bought before Christmas with just a prime 50 mm lens which gives nice sharp images, would also recommend Tamrons 70 -300 lens which I purchased in the New Year sales. Great camera so well done Canon.

By: John Miller

John Miller — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:46:35 +0000

It’s the best thing since sliced bread. At the end of the day, does it look good enough to be on a movie theater? Is its low light performance acceptable? The guys at Lucas Films think so and they are way better qualified than any of us here. Take a look at this video for a second and see its low light performance in play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBmW7Az1Mpw

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:39:07 +0000

I still do not understand why, when the Canon engineers find ways to improve the sensor technology and performance they feel compelled to increase pixel density and reduce pitch, thereby reducing what the advances in sensor technology equate to in final output performance. If Canon would have been smart enough and/or bold enough to make the 7D (with such advances in sensor technology) a 10mp or 12mp camera there would be absolutely no doubt that the 7D would be a significantly better performer than the D300s for low-light captures and extended dynamic range. ISO 6400 would have probably been rock solid and very usable for most purposes. Furthermore, on the rare occassions that someone feels the need to blow up an image beyond 16″ x 20″, there is software available to accomplish that very handily, especially with the clean noise free files provided by large photosite sensors. And as most serious professional photographers are aware, the most sensible way to shoot high quality, large size (greater than 20″ x 24″), images on a full-time regular basis is through the use of medium format digital cameras, eg. the new Leica S2 or PhaseOne/Leaf. If more photographers would come to realize how truly pathetic DSLR image quality is compared to DMF (by checking it out for themselves), then there could be more focus and attention on what the DSLR does really well (fast fps, fast AF, potentially high ISO, etc.) and stop racing for pixel density. Canon, and others, are taking advantage of the ignorance of well-heeled prosumers when they produce a really promising camera like the 7D with too damn many megapixels, just so they can put a bigger number on their packaging for marketing purposes. There are so many good things about the 7D that it really sucks that Canon would ruin it by making the decision for 18mp when 15mp on the 50D was already too many, and in most cases not needed!

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:48:24 +0000

@ Gerhard
Lol. I agree with your observations and comments in several posts. The article is about what to love about a new camera body (actually a new system). For people to rant without actually testing, holding, owning, or even seeing any images is, well, conjecture at best. If someone “loves” their full-frame sensor camera – great. If someone else “loves” their camera with a smaller sensor, equally great. I have XSi with a large collection of EF and EF-S lenses. I have been delighted with the camera, its performance, etc. but realize it could be improved upon. Pondered whether or not to abandon the investment in lenses made for APS-C Canon camera. Decided that the prudent upgrade path for me was the 7D which I have ordered but not received. That said, I couldn’t be happier with my decision (wink, wink) despite not actually seeing what it can do and will tell anyone who asks how great the 7D “actually” is. Looking forward to using it so my decision to buy it is validated.

By: Gerhard

Gerhard — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:47:09 +0000

@ cody

You so vely cleva! Us at Canon no think about difflaction limitashiaan! Oh thank you. We subtract 7D flom maket immediatlee befor honor becomes dishonor!

Really dude – A 7D only good enough for a kit lens? Very creative in bringing up a bunch of beaten dead pixelphobia arguments. Only problem is you havent a clue. As an electronic engineer and a photographer I can only wonder….

By: cody

cody — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:39:34 +0000

Two things that look appealing: framerate and number/layout/sensitivity of the AF poins. Other than that… sorry, no dice.

At the time the 50D came out I was utterly disappointed by the pixel density. I even promised myself that if the next crop camera that comes out from Canon sees a decrease in resolution (say..down to 12MP) I’d upgrade my 40D. Didn’t happen.

As an electronics engineer and a photographer I can guarantee that this much density will disappoint a lot of users. Remember that a very dense sensor requires increased accuracy in the design of the low-pass filter in front of it… Remember that the 50D images shot even with the amazing 200mm F/2 look soft. Remember that the diffraction limited aperture with this sensor is 6.8! One will need lenses which reach their maximum definition at 6.3 or 5.6. There are few of these around… and expensive.

As I write this I haven’t been able to look at any images shot with the 7D (nor compare them to anything for that matter), but, if I may, it is my guess that we will see a decrease in dynamic range, and a lot more use of the unsharp mask in photographer’s workflow.

The 5D mk2 is more expensive for a reason. If these reasons aren’t clear enough for a particular user, then he or she should go for the cheaper, cropped version, mount an off-the-shelf kit lens on it and feel good re-reading the system specs every once in a while.

By: Sheldon

Sheldon — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:34:19 +0000

@Gerhard

Thanks for the explanation. It’s clear now. For me, I like the 7D for airshow, wildlife photography, but like the 5D MKII for landscape/wide shots. I guess I need to win the lottery to buy both or perhaps wait for a 5D MKIII…maybe it’ll pack more pixels.

I was taking some celebrity pics at the film festival here with my 40D and 70-200 f2.8, kinda disappointed in some shots. I had the camera in AV and auto ISO with my Speedlite, it used 800, but there appears to be substantial noise of the reddish variety, the lighting wasn’t the greatest, but not bad. I’ve sent a RAW file to Canon to look at, hoping to hear back tomorrow. Doesn’t look normal to me, I’ve never really done low light photography, other than long exposure night shots.