Tried a Maxxum 7D and 20D - my first impressions

[mobydick]

So .. the statement in the manual (that we had a chance to download
) of magnification of 4.7 x is true ?!

I do not remember exactly, but I think it stopped at 4.7.

And 4.7*4.7*207,000 = 4.6 millon
=> This is less than 6 million, needed for magnification up to the pixel level.

Even if I take into consideration that the LCD seems to be in 4:3 format and the image in 3:2 format and adjust the above computation accordingly, I never reach really pixel level - just slightly below.

 

[kiklop_2]

Hm ... I would like to have the option to zoom 10x in few steps. For some shoots it would be very useful.

As far as I understood this (missing ?!) feature and as described in that press material, the camera would show focus points on the preview. And that's a feature I would like to have. Also, I can't understand why is such a big problem to have raw files enlargements too. That's a big downside for the D7D as one very advanced camera.

I wonder if some features has been disabled in firmware and waiting for D9D. That would be very odd from KM.

Well, I know we can't get all ... but I was hopping for that since I have already ordered D7D

 

[kiklop_2]

Thanks mobydick for your comment.
However, I was hopping for that "Focus poit" mark. I find this a great feature.

 

[macuser]

if you can. I would like to know how it compares to both, especially the 7D. Thanks!

Tom

 

[macuser]

just wanting to know how the viewfinder, build, etc compares. Thanks!

Tom

 

[mobydick]

I wonder if some features has been disabled in firmware and waiting
for D9D. That would be very odd from KM.

I do not think it is crippled firmware. The A2 behaves in the same way. Maybe Minolta has no fast algorithm for RAW magnification yet (or no time to implement it, or it is very low on their priority list, or whatsoever...)... One needs to shoot RAW+JPEG to be able to magnify on location.

 

[alex74298]

I've seen a review of the 20D that says the 10X magnification isn't
actually useful because at that magnification its actually quite
difficult to judge image sharpness as the image is actually blown
up on screen a little TOO much to judge if it is in focus or not.

Personally I dont have an opinion on whether 4.7 is worse/the same
in practical usefulness as 10X but that's what the Amateur
Photography reviewer seemed to think.

The Pentax istD has 12x and I find it very useful to judge critical focus. (Not much difference between 10 and 12 )

 

[JusGene]

From the start, I took this one person's review as just that, 'his' review.

Though attempts were obvious by him to attempt pure objectivity, his background may not be strong enough to produce a totally unbiased review.

Your 'mini-review' was similarly subjective, for example, with your mention of 'tangled user interface'. Though many users may view the 7D ro 20D as 'their' entry level camera, they are in fact sophisticated SLRs.

Looking back, my first SLR was much more sophisticated (complicated?) than cameras which preceeded it. I evolved with it and learned, with only great interest, it's complexities and advances over P&S, etc.

Like you and the original poster, I would too have some bias, though not necessarily intentional. These cameras are not really designed to be 'intuitively easy to be use', though they often are to SLR and experienced digicam users. I had the Rebel 300D and it is much like the 10D which the 20D is based upon. The 7D is said to be very close to the Dynax 7, and having owned a 300D and familiar with other menuing/controls, I don't see the 7D layout so difficult.

If this style of camera is to your interest, your interest alone will get you through it.

Good Luck

Thanks a lot for the review! I think it's a fair comparison without
bias. Really helps, esp. the part regarding 7D's responsiveness.

It's very biased review actually. Good comparative revies don't use
"win by big margin" and comparative words like that. For me,
both 20D and 7D have similarly tangled user interface and both of
them are not intuitively easy to use for first time users. So
comments about UI are very biased. Not sure about rest, I never
tested startup time for 7D and never seen tech charachterstics.

--
JusGene
'The easiest thing you can be ... is wrong!' -Me (7/29/1993)
'Statistically, people make mistakes 70% of the time' -Independent Research Firm
'The more you know, the more you don't know' -Me (8/14/1987)
'Life is nothing, but for a bunch of words' -Me (11/4/1990)

 

[digicam_fetish]

While for your own purposes you want only to know how the D7D performs, there are many of us here who have no commitment to either Canon or K-M and are trying to decide which camera to buy. Therefore it is natural, and in fact necessary, to examine the relative benefits of either camera. Remember, not everyone here owns a huge pile of K-M glass already.

Another point with these comparative reviews is that I very much
doubt that many people here have actually used a 20D for any
period, so telling us that the viewfinder image is about the same
as the 20D is like telling us that something we've never seen is
about the same as something else we've never seen. Don't get me
wrong, this is not pointed directly at you, its simply that this
list is now getting a bit overendowed with what are essentially 20D
reviews and this one was just the latest of them.

Hi all,

I was just at a small camera show in Edmonton where both K-M and
Canon had booths. I was able to try out both a K-M D7D and the
Canon 20D for about 30 mins. Below are my impressions. To let you
know my background, I have owned many Canon point-and-shoots in the
past, and I'm now about to get into D-SLR's (no prior D-SLR
experience). I'm trying to decide between the 20D and the D7D
(have no lenses for either system at the moment).

Note: D7D camera firmware version was 1.00u. Lens was a fairly
inexpensive looking 28-100 f3.5-5.6 Minolta. 20D had a 17-85 IS
lens.

Body:
D7D wins here. The grip is a little nicer, and the D7D body is a
little heavier than the 20D, which makes the camera with lens feel
more "balanced" overall. Both cameras have a "quality" feel,
though.

Viewfinder:
D7D wins, but only by a very small margin. The D7D viewfinder is
slightly brighter than the 20D. However, the AF points are
brighter and easier to see on the 20D, and with glasses on I found
it a little difficult on the D7D to see the right side "shake

 

[PDM]

I think Minolta is making a big blunder here. If the 7D is being sold as a high level camera (as the price indicates),then why market it with such a cheap lens? It may help profits, but it will also alienate many potential users who try out the camera. I'm sure that optical quality is sub par and are AF slow. At F5.6 what would you expect for AF speed? I'm convinced that many users (including Jeremy here) would have a different conclusion about the AF and final results with a lens of higher speed and better optical quality (not to mention build) like the 17-35/2.8-4 ot 28-75/2.8.

Paul

Hi all,

I was just at a small camera show in Edmonton where both K-M and
Canon had booths. I was able to try out both a K-M D7D and the
Canon 20D for about 30 mins. Below are my impressions. To let you
know my background, I have owned many Canon point-and-shoots in the
past, and I'm now about to get into D-SLR's (no prior D-SLR
experience). I'm trying to decide between the 20D and the D7D
(have no lenses for either system at the moment).

Note: D7D camera firmware version was 1.00u. Lens was a fairly
inexpensive looking 28-100 f3.5-5.6 Minolta. 20D had a 17-85 IS
lens.

....... Jeremy
Edmonton, Canada

 

[santoguapo]

In this review, the Canon 17-85mm lens is a $600 lens (at B&H Photo). The Minolta 28-100mm lens is a bottom of the barrel, plastic $100 lens (B&H). So, compared to the Minolta, the Canon is a high-end lens. Get a $600 Minolta zoom, and I bet the focus/image quality differences between the 7D and D20 would be hardly discernable.

You want to see unreal fast AF put an L lens on the 20D.

That said I stilll think the D7 is going to be a great camera and
will be very competitive.

Ed

[snipped]
--
JusGene
'The easiest thing you can be ... is wrong!' -Me (7/29/1993)
'Statistically, people make mistakes 70% of the time' -Independent
Research Firm
'The more you know, the more you don't know' -Me (8/14/1987)
'Life is nothing, but for a bunch of words' -Me (11/4/1990)

--

--
Ed
http://www.cbrycelea.com/photos/

--
Cheerio...
Rich

 

[ZiPA]

In this review, the Canon 17-85mm lens is a $600 lens (at B&H
Photo). The Minolta 28-100mm lens is a bottom of the barrel,
plastic $100 lens (B&H).

Well, the Minolta lens has a larger aperture, so it would lead to a brighter viewfinder and faster, more accurate focusing than with the Canon lens. The difference isn't all that big, though. 3.5 vs 4, but it is there.

-JP

 

[Vance Zachary]

PDM--It is a matter of basic economics. Each manufacturer that offers a "kit" zoom lens--offers a cheap lens. This is so they can offer the kit at a bargain price. A kit is not going consist of the 28-75 lens because that would push the price of the kit to near $2000. USD--a level at which it would not be competitive with other "kits." The average consumer can't tell the difference between the kit lens and premium G lenses. Your serious photographers usually just buy the body and then go after the lens quality that they desire and can afford.

I think Minolta is making a big blunder here. If the 7D is being
sold as a high level camera (as the price indicates),then why
market it with such a cheap lens? It may help profits, but it will
also alienate many potential users who try out the camera. I'm sure
that optical quality is sub par and are AF slow. At F5.6 what would
you expect for AF speed? I'm convinced that many users (including
Jeremy here) would have a different conclusion about the AF and
final results with a lens of higher speed and better optical
quality (not to mention build) like the 17-35/2.8-4 ot 28-75/2.8.

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com

 

[David McGaughey]

It is a fabulous feature. I find it is extremely helpful in determining whether an image is in focus or not.

I've seen a review of the 20D that says the 10X magnification isn't
actually useful because at that magnification its actually quite
difficult to judge image sharpness as the image is actually blown
up on screen a little TOO much to judge if it is in focus or not.

Personally I dont have an opinion on whether 4.7 is worse/the same
in practical usefulness as 10X but that's what the Amateur
Photography reviewer seemed to think.

--
http://www.dmmphotography.com

 

[Michael Meissner]

I think Minolta is making a big blunder here. If the 7D is being
sold as a high level camera (as the price indicates),then why
market it with such a cheap lens? It may help profits, but it will
also alienate many potential users who try out the camera. I'm sure
that optical quality is sub par and are AF slow. At F5.6 what would
you expect for AF speed? I'm convinced that many users (including
Jeremy here) would have a different conclusion about the AF and
final results with a lens of higher speed and better optical
quality (not to mention build) like the 17-35/2.8-4 ot 28-75/2.8.

Don't buy the kit lens then. As a general rule, most lenses sold as a kit aren't the top of the line lenses, but they are usually adequate as a first lens. Note, one of the things that the D70 did was to bundle a much better lens than people were expecting in a kit lens, but then the difference between the body alone and body + kit lens is $300 for the D70 while it is $80 for the Canon 300D.

 

[pramarko]

Well, now i at least know why would i want to use the RAW+JPEG option

I wonder if some features has been disabled in firmware and waiting
for D9D. That would be very odd from KM.

I do not think it is crippled firmware. The A2 behaves in the same
way. Maybe Minolta has no fast algorithm for RAW magnification yet
(or no time to implement it, or it is very low on their priority
list, or whatsoever...)... One needs to shoot RAW+JPEG to be able
to magnify on location.

--
IE is a bug! Get yourself a smarter pet - FireFox!

 

[Desmond Lim]

Hi All,

There is much arguement about AF performance of 28-100 on 7D, and interestingly digicam_fetish and mobydick have different impression when different lens is used (28-100 vs 28-75 and 24-105).

As I mentioned earlier, I don't own a 28-100, my closes match is a 28-80 as shown below.

24-105/3.5-4.5 (D)



28-80/3.5-5.6 II



28-100/3.5-5.6 (D)



In my room, EV 4 (ISO100, F5.6, 1sec) condition, I've toyed with both 28-80 and 24-105 with my film 7 (continuous AF) to get a feel of their AF performance, and the result? They perform very differently.

Both lens are quite snappy, and doesn't hunt much. 28-80 has much slower response comparing to 24-105. No real timing taken, but I would estimate 24-105 takes about 60-70% of the time taken by 28-80 on the various different subjects. And on occasions, the 28-80 doesn't actually focus properly on the subject, especially when I shift between 2 close subjects. It doesn't seem to 'know' the new subject is slightly out of focus.
On the contrary, the 24-105 focus very accurately on those situation.

Although both lens have the same aperture at wide end, f3.5, but their performance is so much different. I'm not sure how closely the 28-80 and 28-100 are related in the design, but if the AF performance is like my 28-80, I hope KM will use some other better lenses in the next camera show.

Just to share my little finding.

Cheers!
Des

 

[Kwai]

Interesting. I thought I'd read somewhere that KM focussing speed was more body dependent than Canon's, which was more lens dependent. Maybe I misunderstood, or just missed the point entirely!
cheers,
Ben

Hi All,

There is much arguement about AF performance of 28-100 on 7D, and
interestingly digicam_fetish and mobydick have different impression
when different lens is used (28-100 vs 28-75 and 24-105).

As I mentioned earlier, I don't own a 28-100, my closes match is a
28-80 as shown below.

24-105/3.5-4.5 (D)



28-80/3.5-5.6 II



28-100/3.5-5.6 (D)



In my room, EV 4 (ISO100, F5.6, 1sec) condition, I've toyed with
both 28-80 and 24-105 with my film 7 (continuous AF) to get a feel
of their AF performance, and the result? They perform very
differently.

Both lens are quite snappy, and doesn't hunt much. 28-80 has much
slower response comparing to 24-105. No real timing taken, but I
would estimate 24-105 takes about 60-70% of the time taken by 28-80
on the various different subjects. And on occasions, the 28-80
doesn't actually focus properly on the subject, especially when I
shift between 2 close subjects. It doesn't seem to 'know' the new
subject is slightly out of focus.
On the contrary, the 24-105 focus very accurately on those situation.

Although both lens have the same aperture at wide end, f3.5, but
their performance is so much different. I'm not sure how closely
the 28-80 and 28-100 are related in the design, but if the AF
performance is like my 28-80, I hope KM will use some other better
lenses in the next camera show.

Just to share my little finding.

Cheers!
Des

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk is cheap... if you want me to think as well...

 

[Kwai]

Thanks for your comments. I'm in a similar position (no glass to speak of) and it's useful to hear comparisons from likeminded people!

Hi all,

I was just at a small camera show in Edmonton where both K-M and
Canon had booths. I was able to try out both a K-M D7D and the
Canon 20D for about 30 mins. Below are my impressions. To let you
know my background, I have owned many Canon point-and-shoots in the
past, and I'm now about to get into D-SLR's (no prior D-SLR
experience). I'm trying to decide between the 20D and the D7D
(have no lenses for either system at the moment).

Before trying the cameras, I was planning on buying a D7D. Now I'm
not so sure which to buy, but I'm leaning more toward the 20D.

I hope this review was helpful - thoughts, anyone?

Jeremy
Edmonton, Canada

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk is cheap... if you want me to think as well...

 

[Nuno Severiano]

I was under the same impresion!

--
Regards,

Nuno Severiano