D7D better than 20D??

JusGene · Oct 7, 2004

If people don't buy the 7D, they'll buy the 20D, or they'll buy another camera, or they'll buy nothing at all! (TIC)

Ciao

svensven said:
Summary of Daemeon's points:

Compared to the 7d, the 20d:
1/lets you shoot a bit faster
2/has 2 more megapixels
3/has a higher flash sync

The 7d is expected to be equal or better in all the rest. (also no
point in nominating other features that are marginal between the 2
cameras)

(the 20d may or may not have better high iso performance as that is
subjective and comes at the cost of lost detail,unnatural plastic
look etc. )

If people are giong to buy one or the other they will probably be
assessing whether the above 3 advantages of the 20d outweigh the
rest of 7d's advantages.

--------------------------------

Daemeon said:

I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Please note that this is not a dig at the D7D. I'm quite impressed
and think it will be one of the finer camera's on the
marketplace....but I'm not seeing why everyone else believes it
should be #1 in its segment ahead of the 20D.

Better Viewfinder? Yes (I'll give KM the nod here based on
expectations)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

Someone please tell me what I'm missing. Again, this isn't a dig
at the D7D. I'm just trying to understand the perspective of some
other photogs here....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Click to expand...

--
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)

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

svensven said:
It's easier to just put it this way:

Summary of Daemeon's points:

Compared to the 7d, the 20d:
1/lets you shoot a bit faster

Almost twice as fast with a significantly larger buffer. 20D write speed is phenomenal with a fast compact flash card. My buffer clears in 7.5 seconds.

7D buffer clearing is unknown, but if it similar to its other specs, it will be a notch or two below the 20D.

svensven said:
2/has 2 more megapixels
3/has a higher flash sync

The 7d is expected to be equal or better in all the rest. (also no
point in nominating other features that are marginal between the 2
cameras)

(the 20d may or may not have better high iso performance as that is
subjective and comes at the cost of lost detail,unnatural plastic
look etc. )

Those high ISO 7D samples don't have better detail IMO than what I get out of my 20D. Also, when comparing high ISO, compare apples with apples. Resample the 20D image down to 6mp. That's only fair if you are comparing the final result, i.e. apparent noise at some certain print size.

As it stands at 8mp, the 20D looks like a stop better, with plenty of detail. "Plastic" is a word Nikon users, and now I guess Minolta people use to describe a superior noisefree image. I guess pretty soon, if the Nikon parallel continues, we'll see threads here that actually praise that "classic" grainy film look.

svensven said:
If people are giong to buy one or the other they will probably be
assessing whether the above 3 advantages of the 20d outweigh the
rest of 7d's advantages.

--------------------------------

Daemeon said:

I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Please note that this is not a dig at the D7D. I'm quite impressed
and think it will be one of the finer camera's on the
marketplace....but I'm not seeing why everyone else believes it
should be #1 in its segment ahead of the 20D.

Better Viewfinder? Yes (I'll give KM the nod here based on
expectations)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

Someone please tell me what I'm missing. Again, this isn't a dig
at the D7D. I'm just trying to understand the perspective of some
other photogs here....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Click to expand...

JusGene · Oct 7, 2004

the 'classic' grainy look if it replaces the digital jaggies and noise specking.

Though I'm a 7D potential buyer, I really like the 20D and it would presently be a second choice.(I have glass).

Seems like most posters present their case(s) with a slant toward their own preference. Even get defensive some times...
Psychological thing I guess; people want their choices to be appreciated.

That 20D is a great camera. 7D users, though hopeful, would be naiive not to consider the possibility of problems during the 'first issue'. I'm disappointed with what have been pointed out as 7D deficiencies, and hope that some can be improved. But I'm not a hi-speed shooter, so mostly the 7D will be perfect for me.(I think the 20D would be, too. Can I say that?)

Good Luck

JackRiley said:
svensven said:

It's easier to just put it this way:

Summary of Daemeon's points:

Compared to the 7d, the 20d:
1/lets you shoot a bit faster

Click to expand...

Almost twice as fast with a significantly larger buffer. 20D write
speed is phenomenal with a fast compact flash card. My buffer
clears in 7.5 seconds.

7D buffer clearing is unknown, but if it similar to its other
specs, it will be a notch or two below the 20D.

JackRiley said:

2/has 2 more megapixels
3/has a higher flash sync

The 7d is expected to be equal or better in all the rest. (also no
point in nominating other features that are marginal between the 2
cameras)

(the 20d may or may not have better high iso performance as that is
subjective and comes at the cost of lost detail,unnatural plastic
look etc. )

Click to expand...

Those high ISO 7D samples don't have better detail IMO than what I
get out of my 20D. Also, when comparing high ISO, compare apples
with apples. Resample the 20D image down to 6mp. That's only fair
if you are comparing the final result, i.e. apparent noise at some
certain print size.

As it stands at 8mp, the 20D looks like a stop better, with plenty
of detail. "Plastic" is a word Nikon users, and now I guess Minolta
people use to describe a superior noisefree image. I guess pretty
soon, if the Nikon parallel continues, we'll see threads here that
actually praise that "classic" grainy film look.

JackRiley said:

If people are giong to buy one or the other they will probably be
assessing whether the above 3 advantages of the 20d outweigh the
rest of 7d's advantages.

--------------------------------

Daemeon said:

I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Please note that this is not a dig at the D7D. I'm quite impressed
and think it will be one of the finer camera's on the
marketplace....but I'm not seeing why everyone else believes it
should be #1 in its segment ahead of the 20D.

Better Viewfinder? Yes (I'll give KM the nod here based on
expectations)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

Someone please tell me what I'm missing. Again, this isn't a dig
at the D7D. I'm just trying to understand the perspective of some
other photogs here....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
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)

larsbc · Oct 7, 2004

William Lin said:
JackRiley said:

Well, Minolta didn't put a number on it, but Canon has rated the
20D shutter at 150,000 actuations.

Click to expand...

I though Canon rated 1D Mark II's shutter at 150,000 actuations,
but not 20D's. Where did you read that? ;-)

I've also had trouble finding a hard figure for the expected lifetime. Some have said that Canon is claiming twice the 10D but I haven't seen 75,000 has the min. expected cycles for the 10D.

Of course, this is nothing more than an expected lifetime anyway, and it won't affect most people. However, if a slower shutter mechanism results in a longer lasting shutter, then I would also expect the odds of failure to be reduced as well.

And yeah, I can see a slower flash sync speed being a result of AS, but not a lowered top shutter speed.

Larry

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

larsbc said:
William Lin said:

JackRiley said:

Well, Minolta didn't put a number on it, but Canon has rated the
20D shutter at 150,000 actuations.

Click to expand...

I though Canon rated 1D Mark II's shutter at 150,000 actuations,
but not 20D's. Where did you read that? ;-)

Click to expand...

I've also had trouble finding a hard figure for the expected
lifetime. Some have said that Canon is claiming twice the 10D but
I haven't seen 75,000 has the min. expected cycles for the 10D.

Of course, this is nothing more than an expected lifetime anyway,
and it won't affect most people. However, if a slower shutter
mechanism results in a longer lasting shutter, then I would also
expect the odds of failure to be reduced as well.

And yeah, I can see a slower flash sync speed being a result of AS,
but not a lowered top shutter speed.

If the actual spped is reduced, wouldn't that result in both slower sync and top speed? I gues they could reduce the slit width to get a faster top speed, but perhaps they couldn't do it reliably, hence the slower speed.

larsbc said:
Larry

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

Just for fun. ISO 1600, 17-85 IS at 68mm, handheld available light f5.6 at 1/13 sec. I like the sharpness and detail.

JusGene · Oct 7, 2004

for different reasons. It's a unique shot. I'd differ with you about sharpnesss, but we're also in a PC screen environment. As I follow the upper edge of the subject's shirt sleeve, I don't find it that sharp.

One of the traits that I appreciate is the 'grain' which appears 'scene appropriate'. This pic from a lesser camera probably wouldn't reproduce as well. The subject's indifference to being posed adds intrinsic value, as professional models often do.

I look forward to seeing a more valid comparison when the 7D reivew hits.

JackRiley said:
Just for fun. ISO 1600, 17-85 IS at 68mm, handheld available light
f5.6 at 1/13 sec. I like the sharpness and detail.

--
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)

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

JusGene said:
for different reasons. It's a unique shot. I'd differ with you
about sharpnesss, but we're also in a PC screen environment. As I
follow the upper edge of the subject's shirt sleeve, I don't find
it that sharp.

That's a DOF issue. I'm shooting wide open. The shirt at the neckline is very sharp.

JusGene said:
One of the traits that I appreciate is the 'grain' which appears
'scene appropriate'. This pic from a lesser camera probably
wouldn't reproduce as well. The subject's indifference to being
posed adds intrinsic value, as professional models often do.

That's "teenage" indifference.

JusGene said:
I look forward to seeing a more valid comparison when the 7D reivew
hits.

JackRiley said:

Just for fun. ISO 1600, 17-85 IS at 68mm, handheld available light
f5.6 at 1/13 sec. I like the sharpness and detail.

Click to expand...

--
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)

larsbc · Oct 7, 2004

JackRiley wrote:
[snip]

JackRiley said:
If the actual spped is reduced, wouldn't that result in both slower
sync and top speed? I gues they could reduce the slit width to get
a faster top speed, but perhaps they couldn't do it reliably, hence
the slower speed.

Hypothetically, they could have used the same shutter in the Maxxum 7 which has a top speed of 1/8000 and a sync speed of 1/200. To cater to the slower sync speed required by the AS, the firmware could be set to limit the shutter speed to 1/160 when using the flash.

The cynic might think that they chose a slower shutter assembly to save money. The optimist might believe the Minolta engineer who said they chose a slower shutter for durability. ;-)

Larry

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

larsbc said:
The cynic might think that they chose a slower shutter assembly to
save money. The optimist might believe the Minolta engineer who
said they chose a slower shutter for durability. ;-)

And the pragmatist might say it was for both reasons.

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

Messy teenagers...

ISO 800, 17-85 IS at 17mm f4, handheld at 1/6 second.

William Lin · Oct 7, 2004

JackRiley said:
Messy teenagers...

ISO 800, 17-85 IS at 17mm f4, handheld at 1/6 second.

Well Jack, Canon's 20D is a superb piece of technological wonder, and you have proven that a 20D w/ 17-85 IS is capable of great low light shots, but given that the D7D w/AS will make my entire arsenal of Maxxum lenses handholdable at 1/4 second (that's according to Phil, and let's say it's proven valid), I wonder if a D7D can do better noise wise at 400 ISO than the 20D at 800 ISO if any of my following lenses are used wide open: 28-70 f2.8G, 24 f2.8, 28 f2, 35f2, 50 f1.4, 50 f2.8 Macro, or the lowly Sigma 20 f1.8 EX? (Oops, I just realized that I can use 200 ISO with the 20 f1.8, 28 f2, and 35 f2, and 100 ISO w/ the 50 f1.4 to get the same shot...)
;-)

JackRiley · Oct 7, 2004

William Lin said:
JackRiley said:

Messy teenagers...

ISO 800, 17-85 IS at 17mm f4, handheld at 1/6 second.

Click to expand...

Well Jack, Canon's 20D is a superb piece of technological wonder,
and you have proven that a 20D w/ 17-85 IS is capable of great low
light shots, but given that the D7D w/AS will make my entire
arsenal of Maxxum lenses handholdable at 1/4 second (that's
according to Phil, and let's say it's proven valid), I wonder if a
D7D can do better noise wise at 400 ISO than the 20D at 800 ISO if
any of my following lenses are used wide open: 28-70 f2.8G, 24
f2.8, 28 f2, 35f2, 50 f1.4, 50 f2.8 Macro, or the lowly Sigma 20
f1.8 EX?

Of course. You'll be able to take pictures at midnight in the clothes closet with the door closed, if you are so inclined.

William Lin said:
(Oops, I just realized that I can use 200 ISO with the
20 f1.8, 28 f2, and 35 f2, and 100 ISO w/ the 50 f1.4 to get the
same shot...)

Well, yes, but there is something to say for having more than a 1/4 inch DOF.

William Lin said:
;-)

William Lin · Oct 8, 2004

So exactly what is your point? Let me try a wild guess after reading ALL your recent postings in this forum: Minolta's AS w/ their best prime lenses and zooms that match Canon's "L" lenses in sharpness and overall quality is utterly overkill and doubtful in its usefulness and reliability, while Canon's Image Stabilization technology is just right for MOST users in this market segment? Or is it a simpler case of sour grapes if everything pan out as Minolta planned? I have already stated that the 20D is a beautical camera (my fellow photographer owns one, along with all the blinding white "L" lenses), but I wonder why a Minolta user would want to wander into a Canon 20D forum and openly expresses his doubt about 20D's dependability as a serious photographer's tool, among other issues, such as lack of a true spot meter, smallish 1.8" LCD, plastic vertical grip, erratic AWB, etc. So exactly what is your point?
;-)

Filipe Marques Dias · Oct 8, 2004

I couldn't find any offitial confirmation on this so far.. Probably because it is not something for a manufacturer to talk about openly, and because I haven't seen tests of D7D with 3rd party equipement..

If ir works, up to what focal length could it go? I would be interested to fit a 1250mm manual focusing "lens" on it.. I wouldn't be handholding it, but it does balance a bit when pointing it mounted on a trypod.

JackRiley said:
E Scott Cragg said:

Another Comparison-

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 Ex APO recieves absolute Raves for Optical
quality, right along the same line (even wide-open) as the Canon L
glass...

Click to expand...

Well, I hear it's pretty good.

JackRiley said:

799.00 new...

on the Minolta, that makes it the equivolent of the 70-200Lis, 1680
new...

That's not a price difference to snease at.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It will be interesting to see the D7 tested with long
focal lengths.

JackRiley said:

JackRiley said:

David Goolsby said:

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

Click to expand...

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

Click to expand...

--
Fil.

Desmond Lim · Oct 8, 2004

Hi,

A beta tester has test 7D with a sigma lens previously, and it working, however never mentioned about compatibility with AS.

I don't think we are going to recieve an official confirmation from Minolta that 7D will work with 3rd party lens. Why would KM wants to be responsible for 3rd party lenses without getting a single cent from the sales?

Cheers!
Des

Filipe Marques Dias said:
If ir works, up to what focal length could it go? I would be
interested to fit a 1250mm manual focusing "lens" on it.. I
wouldn't be handholding it, but it does balance a bit when pointing
it mounted on a trypod.

JackRiley said:

E Scott Cragg said:

Another Comparison-

The sigma 70-200 F2.8 Ex APO recieves absolute Raves for Optical
quality, right along the same line (even wide-open) as the Canon L
glass...

Click to expand...

Well, I hear it's pretty good.

Filipe Marques Dias said:

799.00 new...

on the Minolta, that makes it the equivolent of the 70-200Lis, 1680
new...

That's not a price difference to snease at.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It will be interesting to see the D7 tested with long
focal lengths.

Filipe Marques Dias said:

JackRiley said:

David Goolsby said:

=
I've seen a lot of people shots using available light and it
depends on the situation (light & photographer), some turned out
well and others not as well. But there are situations when shooting
wildlife where using flash would scare off your subjects. The point
was not that you couldn't do it, rather it would cost you
considerably more to do so.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 300 f4 L IS is about $300 more than the Minolta.

Click to expand...

--
Happy 10D User.

http://mail.rochester.edu/~ec009j/ESC 's%20Online%20Portfolio/

http://www.pbase.com/eridanman

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Fil.

JusGene · Oct 8, 2004

JackRiley said:
Messy teenagers...

ISO 800, 17-85 IS at 17mm f4, handheld at 1/6 second.

--
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)

danielsan · Oct 8, 2004

or at least reviewers' hands.

My expectation is that it is the follow up to the D7D that will really light a fire under Canon and Nikon. Built-in IS is and will contnue to be a huge selling point because Canon and Nikon, especially Canon, will not give up selling those big expensive pieces of IS glass easily.

The D7D looks like a fine camera but it is their first generation DSLR and you know how all manufacturers like to leaving something to improve on for the next model. Again though we will have to wait for production models to come out before drawing any meaningful conclusions.

Daemeon said:
I keep hearing the above sentiments thrown around. The D7D will be
better than the 20D, or so people say, but as I look over the spec
list, I fail to see why, so help me understand your perspective.
What am I missing?

Please note that this is not a dig at the D7D. I'm quite impressed
and think it will be one of the finer camera's on the
marketplace....but I'm not seeing why everyone else believes it
should be #1 in its segment ahead of the 20D.

Better Viewfinder? Yes (I'll give KM the nod here based on
expectations)
In-Camera AS? Yes
Better Image Quality? No. (At best, this is debatable)
Better High ISO performance? Nope
Bigger top Shutter speed? Nope
Better Metering? Questionable.
Better X-sync speed? Nope.
Faster Continuous shooting? Nope.
Larger Frame Buffer? Nope.
More custom functions? Nope.

Someone please tell me what I'm missing. Again, this isn't a dig
at the D7D. I'm just trying to understand the perspective of some
other photogs here....

--
--The artist formerly known as The Krakken

larsbc · Oct 8, 2004

William Lin wrote:
[snip]

William Lin said:
blinding white "L" lenses), but I wonder why a Minolta user would
want to wander into a Canon 20D forum and openly expresses his
doubt about 20D's dependability as a serious photographer's tool,
among other issues, such as lack of a true spot meter, smallish
1.8" LCD, plastic vertical grip, erratic AWB, etc. So exactly what
is your point?

If we're talking about a Canon 20D, what's wrong with a Canon shooter providing his opinions on this thread?

As for casting doubt on some of the attributes of the 7D, well, it's fair comment since NO ONE has had the opportunity to try out a production sample. This entire thread is premature and based on assumptions.

Larry

JackRiley · Oct 8, 2004

William, if you did in fact read my previuos posts, then you would have come across one that sums up my position regarding AS.

I wrote:

"I still think the benfits of AS in a DSLR (with good ISO perf. ) is being overstated. IMO the other features of the D7, build, viewfinder, ergonomics, these are much more compelling."

William Lin said:
So exactly what is your point? Let me try a wild guess after
reading ALL your recent postings in this forum: Minolta's AS w/
their best prime lenses and zooms that match Canon's "L" lenses in
sharpness and overall quality is utterly overkill and doubtful in
its usefulness and reliability, while Canon's Image Stabilization
technology is just right for MOST users in this market segment? Or
is it a simpler case of sour grapes if everything pan out as
Minolta planned? I have already stated that the 20D is a beautical
camera (my fellow photographer owns one, along with all the
blinding white "L" lenses), but I wonder why a Minolta user would
want to wander into a Canon 20D forum and openly expresses his
doubt about 20D's dependability as a serious photographer's tool,
among other issues, such as lack of a true spot meter, smallish
1.8" LCD, plastic vertical grip, erratic AWB, etc. So exactly what
is your point?
;-)

D7D better than 20D??

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts