*Note: much of the "improvement" in recent bodies has been due to in-camera software rather than the hardware specs, as the reviewer here points out. The implication is that with careful exposure and skillful handling in post the "advantages" become less important.
*Note: much of the "improvement" in recent bodies has been due to in-camera software rather than the hardware specs, as the reviewer here points out. The implication is that with careful exposure and skillful handling in post the "advantages" become less important.
Neil, maybe true but your not taking away from my happiness in getting a new 7D!
Neil, maybe true but your not taking away from my happiness in getting a new 7D!
Brad, that could not have been further from my mind. I am a little shocked that you even thought it might have been anywhere near my intention! I have a policy of hands-off where another person's pleasure is involved. If I were buying a new camera this instant it would be a 7D. I have not yet been tempted to replace my 40D, by any brand item that I can afford. I wish you the greatest of satisfaction and happiness with your equipment.
It is not rocket science that specs sell, eg more MP, more AF points, more processors, and so on, while announcements of improvements in secret and hidden proprietary in-camera processing to make images more appealing when viewed in certain forms would not only be unlikely, but a crashing anticlimax and even incomprehensible in the context of the real world marketplace. The entire marketing division would be sacked if every year they announced improved noise fudging in jpegs as the main event! Slapping hardware components together in some new configuration on demand for the next Photokina etc is easily doable and eminently attention grabbing, on the other hand. Obviously, that stratagem only works for those who want to be novelty struck. The assessments of people who are prepared to do the work of testing the results of these utopian confections in real world shooting contexts are difficult to hear in the noise(!) of all the trumpeing of their arrival. An empty pot makes the most din!:D
Brad, that could not have been further from my mind. I am a little shocked that you even thought it might have been anywhere near my intention! I have a policy of hands-off where another person's pleasure is involved. If I were buying a new camera this instant it would be a 7D. I have not yet been tempted to replace my 40D, by any brand item that I can afford. I wish you the greatest of satisfaction and happiness with your equipment.
Peace, brother.
Neil
No worries Neil. I felt no pain and I was just poking fun at you.
I do understand what you are saying and agree with your point.
Engineers and science can never keep up with marketing and sales expectations.
Neil, I can't WAIT for for the day you do get a 7d (or whatever comes after it), because I think you may change your tune a bit once you start to use one!!! :giggle {tongue poked firmly in cheek}
Bill, Neil has had this convo with us 7d owners for months now and we've batted it back and forth for a while, hence my ribbing him gently. While I think we all appreciate his valid point that Canon are in the business of selling cameras and will indeed work hard to make you want the latest and greatest, I don't think anybody who's used a 40 or 50d would argue that the 7d is an upgrade in many ways. Better AF, tons of cropping resolution, more useable high ISO (yes, it gets noisy once you're at ISO2000+, or if you underexpose, but it also cleans up better than its predecessors so end result is a much more useable shot), built-in flash commander etc etc. Regardless of what "the numbers may say" about the pixels and how they behave scientifically, in real life use there's a huge difference between the 40/50d and 7d, and I don't consider my response due to susceptability to marketing hype, but from the results of using it for nearly a year now. Don't get me wrong - not knocking the XXd's - but the 7d is definitely a different beast above and beyond mere marketing or fanboi "hype".
The MKII is already encroaching RED territory in the cinema industry you know
Ya' know, Red does look like some alien contraption. Overfocused, not sure if you're joking, but I was thinking stills. I'm referring to Red cause it's modular. Seriously, read the bottom half of this and tell me what you wouldn't pay for that system... it's similar to Ricoh GXR, but GXR has lenses built in. My idea is a little different, but very similar. It makes today's cameras look... just, not good enough. And what's more, it's totally possible. The camera makers just don't get it. Ricoh kinda did it, but the system has the lenses, which makes the usefulness less.
And it would sell. Way more than today's cameras. And companies would make more by charging more, and guess what, people would pay.
Ya' know, Red does look like some alien contraption. Overfocused, not sure if you're joking, but I was thinking stills. I'm referring to Red cause it's modular. Seriously, read the bottom half of this and tell me what you wouldn't pay for that system... it's similar to Ricoh GXR, but GXR has lenses built in. My idea is a little different, but very similar. It makes today's cameras look... just, not good enough. And what's more, it's totally possible. The camera makers just don't get it. Ricoh kinda did it, but the system has the lenses, which makes the usefulness less.
And it would sell. Way more than today's cameras. And companies would make more by charging more, and guess what, people would pay.
Yeah, you said cinema... I'm talking about stills. I was mentioning Red because of the modularity. And make no mistake, the 7D is a GREAT camera. Thom's model is just better than any current DSLR.
Neil, I can't WAIT for for the day you do get a 7d (or whatever comes after it), because I think you may change your tune a bit once you start to use one!!! :giggle {tongue poked firmly in cheek}
Bill, Neil has had this convo with us 7d owners for months now and we've batted it back and forth for a while, hence my ribbing him gently. While I think we all appreciate his valid point that Canon are in the business of selling cameras and will indeed work hard to make you want the latest and greatest, I don't think anybody who's used a 40 or 50d would argue that the 7d is an upgrade in many ways. Better AF, tons of cropping resolution, more useable high ISO (yes, it gets noisy once you're at ISO2000+, or if you underexpose, but it also cleans up better than its predecessors so end result is a much more useable shot), built-in flash commander etc etc. Regardless of what "the numbers may say" about the pixels and how they behave scientifically, in real life use there's a huge difference between the 40/50d and 7d, and I don't consider my response due to susceptability to marketing hype, but from the results of using it for nearly a year now. Don't get me wrong - not knocking the XXd's - but the 7d is definitely a different beast above and beyond mere marketing or fanboi "hype".
Enjoy the new camera once it arrives!
What a fun dimension you dm (and Dgrinners in general) bring to the serious hard work - and hard spending - of photography! If there is a 7D Hall of Fame or Starwalk you should have some real estate there, dm! In this battle of the 40D vs 7D your fervour is beyond mine. I concede that to you!
But that is as far as it goes!:rambo
Tell ya what honourable ole D-battles warrior-san dm, you post a shot (or several) from the 7D @ 3200 ISO and 100%, PPed for NR, exposure, contrast, sharpness and saturation, and I'll do the same from the 40D, and we'll let Dgrin judge. Would you like to choose targets and weapons? I'd need a couple weeks to do it in.
Tell ya what honourable ole D-battles warrior-san dm, you post a shot (or several) from the 7D @ 3200 ISO and 100%, PPed for NR, exposure, contrast, sharpness and saturation, and I'll do the same from the 40D, and we'll let Dgrin judge.
Scroll down about 1/4 the page and there are noise comparisons of the 7D, 50D, 5DMKII, etc. I'd recommend reading all the stuff he says about it too since just looking at noise alone takes the camera out of context of relative noise vs. total picture size and etc.
On a side note: the MKII spanks the 7D quite hard. Quite. This is why I love it for macro
What a fun dimension you dm (and Dgrinners in general) bring to the serious hard work - and hard spending - of photography! If there is a 7D Hall of Fame or Starwalk you should have some real estate there, dm! In this battle of the 40D vs 7D your fervour is beyond mine. I concede that to you!
But that is as far as it goes!:rambo
Tell ya what honourable ole D-battles warrior-san dm, you post a shot (or several) from the 7D @ 3200 ISO and 100%, PPed for NR, exposure, contrast, sharpness and saturation, and I'll do the same from the 40D, and we'll let Dgrin judge. Would you like to choose targets and weapons? I'd need a couple weeks to do it in.
Neil
That would be fun, if nothing else just for the fun of it. Put 'em in a poll thread.
Goodness me, Neil, you seem to think I have a lot more invested into this debate than I do! It would indeed be an interesting comparison if we could shoot the same scenes side-by-side, otherwise I'm not sure it has greater value than any other comparison already on the net. If we're ever in the same environs, then sure - you're on
The only reason I've challenged you on this and why I'll respond here earnestly (although, as I said above, my tongue was poked VERY firmly into my cheek, as I think yours is too!!) is because I know when I'm researching a product I really appreciate "real world" info above and beyond the scientific numbers. All I can say is that the 7d has for my needs, in my experience, proved a better choice than the XXd's. (The 5dII would be even better, but I can't afford it!) Pathfinder and others who have used both series' have had similar experiences which they have shared, so I don't think that we're all suffering from the "placebo effect" you have suggested in the past, simply finding the product living up to its claims as a very useful tool for the jobs we ask it to do.
Anyway, no need to debate this into the ground - to each their own (which is the beauty of having product choices!). It's all good!
Enjoy the new beast, Joe - there's a bit of a learning curve with it, but once you find your way around it it's a pleasure to use. Have fun (and share some shots!)
Scroll down about 1/4 the page and there are noise comparisons of the 7D, 50D, 5DMKII, etc. I'd recommend reading all the stuff he says about it too since just looking at noise alone takes the camera out of context of relative noise vs. total picture size and etc.
On a side note: the MKII spanks the 7D quite hard. Quite. This is why I love it for macro
The 40D is not in the noise comparison... funny???...
Did you read the link I posted comparing high ISO in noise 40D vs 5D2? It's all in the software. The 40D has better resolution (just math), but the 5D2's in-camera NR produces a more detailed image at above 100%.
Goodness me, Neil, you seem to think I have a lot more invested into this debate than I do! It would indeed be an interesting comparison if we could shoot the same scenes side-by-side, otherwise I'm not sure it has greater value than any other comparison already on the net. If we're ever in the same environs, then sure - you're on
Hypothetical challenge accepted! Shame about the real one!
You know, dm, how I feel about my 40D when I take it out of the bag has undergone some evolution during this interchange. I am just a little more caressing of it, I talk to it nicer, there is a warmness and fuzziness (in my heart, that is, not in the images... well, only when it's my mistake... the fuzziness, that is... a little warmness can be nice, actually)... I actually feel I'm able to make a commitment to it, tie a knot, so to speak...
I guess you have a different experience with that wizzkid of the tech high ground. I don't think I could live with its habitual look of contempt at my poor efforts with it...
Your reply beat me to editing my post (written fairly late last night) - I left out a sentence (which I'll go back and fix) and I really DO know the difference between "you're" and "your". :giggle /editorial correction
Yeah, i have a fairly non-emotional relationship with mechanical tools - I'm the same with computers and cars too. As long as they do the job and don't break down, I'm a happy camper
The 40D is not in the noise comparison... funny???...
Did you read the link I posted comparing high ISO in noise 40D vs 5D2? It's all in the software. The 40D has better resolution (just math), but the 5D2's in-camera NR produces a more detailed image at above 100%.
So, not so fast pardner!:D
Neil
Yeah and the 7D has twice the processing power of the MKII but much more noise...
Guess I'm confused about all this banter over the 40D. My eyes read that the OP was interested in either the 7D or 5D2.
IMHO, with the copies of each that I currently own, my 5D2 spanks my 7D for quality images over ISO 800.
Yours may be different, if you own both, but that's an easy call on my copies.
Camera's are just tools, choose the best tool for your intended job(s). Both of these bodies are really good, each just has strengths in different areas is all.
Guess I'm confused about all this banter over the 40D. My eyes read that the OP was interested in either the 7D or 5D2.
IMHO, with the copies of each that I currently own, my 5D2 spanks my 7D for quality images over ISO 800.
Yours may be different, if you own both, but that's an easy call on my copies.
Camera's are just tools, choose the best tool for your intended job(s). Both of these bodies are really good, each just has strengths in different areas is all.
Carry on...
Everything in this thread is indeed relevant, Randy. Savour it and you will find the wisdom, which a quick look loses.
I'm one week in with my 5D, and I have to say, I'm completely blown away by the quality of its images and its performance. This is one sweet tool.
And being back on a full-frame camera again - seriously, it's as if I've been trapped in a tunnel for the past five years and someone just let me out. clap
And for all you 40-D lovers - I've got two for sale
I'm one week in with my 5D, and I have to say, I'm completely blown away by the quality of its images and its performance. This is one sweet tool.
And being back on a full-frame camera again - seriously, it's as if I've been trapped in a tunnel for the past five years and someone just let me out. clap
And for all you 40-D lovers - I've got two for sale
So many people argue that the difference in IQ is negligible, but it really does make a big difference in the overall experience and clarity. Welcome to FF territory
So many people argue that the difference in IQ is negligible, but it really does make a big difference in the overall experience and clarity. Welcome to FF territory
Perhaps some amount/most of the IQ difference can be leveled with skillful post processing.
I really do want a waffly kind of consumer eulogising to be challenged. I am not interested in touching any individual consumer's satisfaction, but about the unsupported conclusion that is all too easily thrust at us along with each on-date release of new product that it is a significant piece of new hardware.
It seems probable to me, and other thinking (and testing) people, that the differences in IQ of images (as distinct from native differences in FOV etc) from the 5D2 and the 7D (and the 40D since it was introduced into this discussion - with good reason- by Pathfinder) are mainly due to software processing. Whether done covertly in camera, or emulated in post, I think it highly likely that IQ from any of these cameras can be produced (within the ISO 100 - 1600 range) which is indistinguishable in normal viewing conditions.
The obvious consequence is that IQ should not be the main reason for choosing between them. That is part of an answer to the OP's question about choosing between them.
So if we put IQ aside (and the software involved in producing it), do the differences between these cameras in the number of MPs, frame rate, AF points, processors, and sensor size, matter? Well, I think, the answer must be "not directly". What is more directly significant is lens, and lighting, and the hands and the head of the photographer. And then with what happens next in post processing, which is also mainly dependent on the skills of the editor. The 7D has more on paper potential for sporties and birders vis a vis the 5D2, while the 5D2 has more potential for artifiers. That's kind of obvious and non-controversial, just like the differences between those cameras and MF. I wonder if the OP really needed to ask the question. Unless the original question was really about IQ, and we have dealt with that.
I will say that the 40D is more work than the other two, but work is mainly about the user, and while SOOC usability might be easier with later products, work is not removed from the equation even with them.
Facts and romance are often at odds, and I think this is indispensable to keep in mind in the case of choosing between the current cameras in question.
Comments
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=653496
Neil
*Note: much of the "improvement" in recent bodies has been due to in-camera software rather than the hardware specs, as the reviewer here points out. The implication is that with careful exposure and skillful handling in post the "advantages" become less important.
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil, maybe true but your not taking away from my happiness in getting a new 7D!
http://bgarland.smugmug.com/
Brad, that could not have been further from my mind. I am a little shocked that you even thought it might have been anywhere near my intention! I have a policy of hands-off where another person's pleasure is involved.
Peace, brother.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
No worries Neil. I felt no pain and I was just poking fun at you.
I do understand what you are saying and agree with your point.
Engineers and science can never keep up with marketing and sales expectations.
http://bgarland.smugmug.com/
Bill, Neil has had this convo with us 7d owners for months now and we've batted it back and forth for a while, hence my ribbing him gently.
Enjoy the new camera once it arrives!
Ya' know, Red does look like some alien contraption. Overfocused, not sure if you're joking, but I was thinking stills. I'm referring to Red cause it's modular. Seriously, read the bottom half of this and tell me what you wouldn't pay for that system... it's similar to Ricoh GXR, but GXR has lenses built in. My idea is a little different, but very similar. It makes today's cameras look... just, not good enough. And what's more, it's totally possible. The camera makers just don't get it. Ricoh kinda did it, but the system has the lenses, which makes the usefulness less.
And it would sell. Way more than today's cameras. And companies would make more by charging more, and guess what, people would pay.
I said cinema, didn't I?
7D = Goooood.
What a fun dimension you dm (and Dgrinners in general) bring to the serious hard work - and hard spending - of photography! If there is a 7D Hall of Fame or Starwalk you should have some real estate there, dm! In this battle of the 40D vs 7D your fervour is beyond mine. I concede that to you!
But that is as far as it goes!:rambo
Tell ya what honourable ole D-battles warrior-san dm, you post a shot (or several) from the 7D @ 3200 ISO and 100%, PPed for NR, exposure, contrast, sharpness and saturation, and I'll do the same from the 40D, and we'll let Dgrin judge. Would you like to choose targets and weapons? I'd need a couple weeks to do it in.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
No need for that... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
Scroll down about 1/4 the page and there are noise comparisons of the 7D, 50D, 5DMKII, etc. I'd recommend reading all the stuff he says about it too since just looking at noise alone takes the camera out of context of relative noise vs. total picture size and etc.
On a side note: the MKII spanks the 7D quite hard. Quite. This is why I love it for macro
My Smugmug Site
That would be fun, if nothing else just for the fun of it. Put 'em in a poll thread.
Congrats on the 7D Joe! :ivar
The only reason I've challenged you on this and why I'll respond here earnestly (although, as I said above, my tongue was poked VERY firmly into my cheek, as I think yours is too!!) is because I know when I'm researching a product I really appreciate "real world" info above and beyond the scientific numbers. All I can say is that the 7d has for my needs, in my experience, proved a better choice than the XXd's. (The 5dII would be even better, but I can't afford it!) Pathfinder and others who have used both series' have had similar experiences which they have shared, so I don't think that we're all suffering from the "placebo effect" you have suggested in the past, simply finding the product living up to its claims as a very useful tool for the jobs we ask it to do.
Anyway, no need to debate this into the ground - to each their own (which is the beauty of having product choices!). It's all good!
Enjoy the new beast, Joe - there's a bit of a learning curve with it, but once you find your way around it it's a pleasure to use. Have fun (and share some shots!)
The 40D is not in the noise comparison... funny???...
Did you read the link I posted comparing high ISO in noise 40D vs 5D2? It's all in the software. The 40D has better resolution (just math), but the 5D2's in-camera NR produces a more detailed image at above 100%.
So, not so fast pardner!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Yeah, would be. Just need to confab about target, lens, settings and post work.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Hypothetical challenge accepted!
You know, dm, how I feel about my 40D when I take it out of the bag has undergone some evolution during this interchange. I am just a little more caressing of it, I talk to it nicer, there is a warmness and fuzziness (in my heart, that is, not in the images... well, only when it's my mistake... the fuzziness, that is... a little warmness can be nice, actually)... I actually feel I'm able to make a commitment to it, tie a knot, so to speak...
I guess you have a different experience with that wizzkid of the tech high ground. I don't think I could live with its habitual look of contempt at my poor efforts with it...
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Your reply beat me to editing my post (written fairly late last night) - I left out a sentence (which I'll go back and fix) and I really DO know the difference between "you're" and "your". :giggle /editorial correction
Yeah, i have a fairly non-emotional relationship with mechanical tools - I'm the same with computers and cars too. As long as they do the job and don't break down, I'm a happy camper
Yeah and the 7D has twice the processing power of the MKII but much more noise...
What the heck are you talking about?
The 5D2 is better, but not by that much.
Where's the confusion?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
What's weird?
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Oh! Yes that's *weird*!:D (I thought you were referring to something I said!)
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
IMHO, with the copies of each that I currently own, my 5D2 spanks my 7D for quality images over ISO 800.
Yours may be different, if you own both, but that's an easy call on my copies.
Camera's are just tools, choose the best tool for your intended job(s). Both of these bodies are really good, each just has strengths in different areas is all.
Carry on...
Everything in this thread is indeed relevant, Randy. Savour it and you will find the wisdom, which a quick look loses.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
And being back on a full-frame camera again - seriously, it's as if I've been trapped in a tunnel for the past five years and someone just let me out.
And for all you 40-D lovers - I've got two for sale
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
So many people argue that the difference in IQ is negligible, but it really does make a big difference in the overall experience and clarity. Welcome to FF territory
Perhaps some amount/most of the IQ difference can be leveled with skillful post processing.
I really do want a waffly kind of consumer eulogising to be challenged. I am not interested in touching any individual consumer's satisfaction, but about the unsupported conclusion that is all too easily thrust at us along with each on-date release of new product that it is a significant piece of new hardware.
It seems probable to me, and other thinking (and testing) people, that the differences in IQ of images (as distinct from native differences in FOV etc) from the 5D2 and the 7D (and the 40D since it was introduced into this discussion - with good reason- by Pathfinder) are mainly due to software processing. Whether done covertly in camera, or emulated in post, I think it highly likely that IQ from any of these cameras can be produced (within the ISO 100 - 1600 range) which is indistinguishable in normal viewing conditions.
The obvious consequence is that IQ should not be the main reason for choosing between them. That is part of an answer to the OP's question about choosing between them.
So if we put IQ aside (and the software involved in producing it), do the differences between these cameras in the number of MPs, frame rate, AF points, processors, and sensor size, matter? Well, I think, the answer must be "not directly". What is more directly significant is lens, and lighting, and the hands and the head of the photographer. And then with what happens next in post processing, which is also mainly dependent on the skills of the editor. The 7D has more on paper potential for sporties and birders vis a vis the 5D2, while the 5D2 has more potential for artifiers. That's kind of obvious and non-controversial, just like the differences between those cameras and MF. I wonder if the OP really needed to ask the question. Unless the original question was really about IQ, and we have dealt with that.
I will say that the 40D is more work than the other two, but work is mainly about the user, and while SOOC usability might be easier with later products, work is not removed from the equation even with them.
Facts and romance are often at odds, and I think this is indispensable to keep in mind in the case of choosing between the current cameras in question.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix