So, if I use sRAW1 do the pixels get physically larger and gather more light and do it more effiently.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
7D compared to D300s
- Thread starter Yip Chun Yu
- Start date
I think it already made a lot Nikonians uncomfortable.
KALEL33
Senior Member
A lot of Nikonians are are hoping the 7D is a great camera, so that the D400 will better than it was planned to be. Everyone is going to have to step up their game, Canon was just behind by 2 years against the D300.
The only reason I did not buy D300 was it does not accept Canon lens.
For me:
10-22, 17-55, 100mm macro, 55-250, 70-200 f2.8L IS, MP-E, plus 580EX, 420EX, MR-14EX, ST-E2 (which I won't need with the 7D), plus a few other Canon-specific bits (such as 10D, 20D, and 40D), so switching brands would be expensive.
--
Jeff Peterman
Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com
E
Erik Magnuson
Guest
The pixels are binned so that higher-frequency noise is not resolved. So yes, a 100% view will look less noisy ;-)
--
Erik
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Hi Erik,
I don't think that's really the case. It's my understanding that the MRAW and SRAW files are software downsized and really have nothing to do with pixel binning. I believe the demosaic process would not work with true pixel binning at least at this time.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
Many people seem to equate the high MP count to poor noise performance and low DR. This may of course be true, but at least I will wait for some tests before saying anything final. Some of the images taken with 7D I have seen seem to indicate Canon may just have done a very good sensor. Not perhaps to match the 5D2, but potentially something with as good or even better pixel as e.g. in D300, and a lot more of those to make the extremely fine details in the image.
But of course some people may see the 12MP is just fine for their needs - or at least try to convince themself this is the case. Quite like the discussion in 2004 when all Nikonian were so happy with the 6MP Nikon offered in their cams. I personally wellcome all the pixels Canon can put in their sensors, if they have again been able to keep the pixel quality at their normal xxD level.
pz797_mizzou
Well-known member
In 5D you can half press the shutter than use the joystick to direct select AF point. You can enable it via a custom function. It's always the first thing I do when I got a new canon. Read the manual or the DPreview.
Keith Reeder
Senior Member
Not where IQ and actual real-world capability is concerned.
Yes, Canon came out with a worthy compeditor (In the same price category) to the D300 2 years "late", but only because Nikon has been behind IQ-wise for so long and only came out with a new body once about every 3 years, so they hypnotised Canon into a coma, Canon still sold great.
It´ll take at least 2 years to respond.
Some makes it sound like -Canon "can´t" make one as good... Lol!
Like the D300 has an impossible hightec inside that is beyond Canons reach?
It´s all about marketing/strategy/buissness.
I´m happy for the 7D, looks great!
--
Sorry for sometimes poor spelling!
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
1) Viewfinder size. Both are now 100%, but the magnification of the 7D is greater to almost exactly match the size of the finder in the D300.
2) Transmissive LCD Viewfinder overlay that allows dynamic AF point display and on-demand grid lines (as well as low-battery warning, No Card and potentially other bits of data). Nikon SLRs, including the D300, have featured this technology since 2000, with its introduction in the 35mm Nikon N/F80.
3) Color-aware evaluative (Matix II for the D300) metering. Nikon SLRs, including the D300, have featured this technology since its introduction in the 35mm Nikon F5 of 1996.
4) User-configurable function button.
5) Virtual Horizon. Though appropriately rebranded as Dual-Axis Electronic Level.
6) Wireless speedlight control. Nikon SLRs with built-in flashes, including the D300, have had this capability since the entry-level D70 of 2004.
7) Environmental sealing. Although Canon still doesn't go as far as Nikon does with the D300, instead adhering to the vintage paradigm of the film-era EOS-1n of 1994–long before SLRs become as chock full of relatively delicate electronics as they are today.
8) Dynamic Area AF. Rechristened Zone AF for the 7D.
9) Even the size and styling of the buttons to the left of the LCD seem a direct lift from the D200/D300.
Overall, a preponderance of the 7D's photographic "advancements" simply bring it to parity with the D300 and a slew of Nikon SLRs as far back as the turn of the century. But it's cool, because when Nikon finally adopted ultrasonic in-lens focusing motors and image stabilization, Canon had been using each for about a decade prior as well. The game of leap frog goes on and on. I'm just glad Canon wasn't either to proud or stubborn to realize good ideas and, when possible, adopt them for their own cameras. To be sure, the 7D and subsequent Canons will be more capable and more competitive as a result.
Yes, I agree.
I feel the opposite. CA and corner softness due to field curvature in many of Canons lenses–particularly wide angles and zooms–are so prominent with the current generation of cameras that I feel that a high percentage of the current lens library are unusable for critical purposes. So, unless Canon are committed to introducing a handful of lens replacements with each new DSLR, the benefits of ever-denser sensors are dubious. I think Nikon's apparent approach of limiting resolution to maximize the use of current lenses is smarter and more productive from a system standpoint. There aren't many Nikkors, AF or MF, that I wouldn't use with complete confidence on any Nikon DSLR south of the narrowly-focused D3x, and indeed the results are generally excellent and almost uniform across the lineup.
But that's just my outlook. We all have different needs.
Cheers.
--
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
KALEL33
Senior Member
IQ no, but real-world cabability is conerned yes. The AF was much better on the D300, and Canon has finally come out with a competitor. If it wasn't any better than the 7D would never had been designed and they would have chugged along with the next 60D as a D300 competitor.
bronxbombers
Forum Pro
....shoot wildlife with a fisheye because reach is useless?
Dietmar Fichter
Senior Member
I placed an order for my 7DYes, Canon came out with a worthy compeditor (In the same price category) to the D300 2 years "late", but only because Nikon has been behind IQ-wise for so long and only came out with a new body once about every 3 years, so they hypnotised Canon into a coma, Canon still sold great.
It´ll take at least 2 years to respond.
Some makes it sound like -Canon "can´t" make one as good... Lol!
Like the D300 has an impossible hightec inside that is beyond Canons reach?
It´s all about marketing/strategy/buissness.
I´m happy for the 7D, looks great!
--
Sorry for sometimes poor spelling!
Dietmar
Kabe Luna
Veteran Member
...to either augment or replace my 30D.
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
--I placed an order for my 7DYes, Canon came out with a worthy compeditor (In the same price category) to the D300 2 years "late", but only because Nikon has been behind IQ-wise for so long and only came out with a new body once about every 3 years, so they hypnotised Canon into a coma, Canon still sold great.
It´ll take at least 2 years to respond.
Some makes it sound like -Canon "can´t" make one as good... Lol!
Like the D300 has an impossible hightec inside that is beyond Canons reach?
It´s all about marketing/strategy/buissness.
I´m happy for the 7D, looks great!
--
Sorry for sometimes poor spelling!
Dietmar
- -
Kabe Luna
http://www.garlandcary.com
rwbaron
Forum Pro
Hi Kabe,
I agree with most of what you stated but if we go further back the Canon T90 introduced in 1986 was years ahead of anything else in the manual focus film days. It really set a new design standard for 35mm film cameras to follow with many features and capabilities not found on cameras of that day.
I wanted to post an example to demonstrate my point but PBASE puked again and I don't have access. I did a series with my 50D, tripod, mirror lock and timer using the camera in liveview (tethered to my laptop for best focus) shooting the same resolution chart I've used for years. All my decent glass, 50f1.4, 100f2.8 macro, 24~105, 70~200f4LIS, 100~400, 300f4L and even my 70~300DO all peak at the same element and group on the chart (about 80 lp/mm) no matter the aperture. You can see the lenses have more to give but the sensor resolution is not fine enough. The interesting thing is the f4 lenses give this resolution across the frame even wide open at most FL's. The 50 needs about f2.8 to accompish this but the macro does it wide open. For me this is a big bonus with crop sensors as I will admit the performance will be less at the edges on a FF but the 7D is a cropper.
I know it's way to early to draw any conclusions but I have spent some time comparing the still life JPEG's with NR=off on IR's site. Yes, these are JPEG's and lenses will make a difference but the 7D is resolving considerably more detail than the D300, D90 D700 or the 50D. Of course RAW's properly converted will tell us more but the initial indications are the 7D will be capable of very high resolution (probably in the 90+ lp/mm range) which is getting closer to Velvia but still not quite there. I've tested Canon L zooms (28~80f2.8/4L, 80~200f2.8L) almost twenty years ago that resolved well over 100 lp/mm on KodaK Tech Pan and slightly over 100 on Velvia.
I've guarded enthusiasm about the 7D but will wait for several reviews before jumping in. I was an early adoptor on the 40 and 50D so it's someone else's turn this time (I know you like these).
Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
I agree with most of what you stated but if we go further back the Canon T90 introduced in 1986 was years ahead of anything else in the manual focus film days. It really set a new design standard for 35mm film cameras to follow with many features and capabilities not found on cameras of that day.
I don't know if I can agree with your statements above though. I've been testing my equipment for a good 20 years now and have to say that even the 50D is not capable of providing the resolution equivalent to Velvia. Certainly there is no "grain" but it's amazing what you can find in Velvia if you look hard enough and no, a 4000 dpi film scanner will not bring it out. Based on my tests the 50D resolves about 80 lp/mm which although very good, is about equal to good ISO 100 slide film like Provia or Ektachrome 100. I don't remember anyone complaining back in the film days that their lenses weren't good enough to shoot Velvia. We just used tripods, mirror lock, remote release and stopped down to the best aperture. Why would we not want the same capabilities with digital.
I wanted to post an example to demonstrate my point but PBASE puked again and I don't have access. I did a series with my 50D, tripod, mirror lock and timer using the camera in liveview (tethered to my laptop for best focus) shooting the same resolution chart I've used for years. All my decent glass, 50f1.4, 100f2.8 macro, 24~105, 70~200f4LIS, 100~400, 300f4L and even my 70~300DO all peak at the same element and group on the chart (about 80 lp/mm) no matter the aperture. You can see the lenses have more to give but the sensor resolution is not fine enough. The interesting thing is the f4 lenses give this resolution across the frame even wide open at most FL's. The 50 needs about f2.8 to accompish this but the macro does it wide open. For me this is a big bonus with crop sensors as I will admit the performance will be less at the edges on a FF but the 7D is a cropper.
I know it's way to early to draw any conclusions but I have spent some time comparing the still life JPEG's with NR=off on IR's site. Yes, these are JPEG's and lenses will make a difference but the 7D is resolving considerably more detail than the D300, D90 D700 or the 50D. Of course RAW's properly converted will tell us more but the initial indications are the 7D will be capable of very high resolution (probably in the 90+ lp/mm range) which is getting closer to Velvia but still not quite there. I've tested Canon L zooms (28~80f2.8/4L, 80~200f2.8L) almost twenty years ago that resolved well over 100 lp/mm on KodaK Tech Pan and slightly over 100 on Velvia.
I've guarded enthusiasm about the 7D but will wait for several reviews before jumping in. I was an early adoptor on the 40 and 50D so it's someone else's turn this time
(I know you like these).Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
I thought this has been a pretty standard feature in all true pro bodies like 1D.
Quite many of my gear have had configurable buttons a long time.
3D copied ???
I have understood this is originally from Minolta
Canon newer have had environmental sealing before ???
...
I'm sure Nikon will some day get somewhere an imaging sensor close or par to what Canon has today.
Jose Rocha
Senior Member
Practical results is what matters. Geez, even my D50 has a great focus accuracy with its outer focus points, and the D50 can't compare with the D300!
Even if the 7D is better at continuous focusing with its outer points, one has to question: how many times do you use continuous focusing with those outer points really?? I believe the D300 will be hard to beat for AF speed and accuracy at its price point, but nevertheless I'll wait for reviews of the 7D.
--
Jose Rocha
http://olhares.aeiou.pt/jplacebo
Jose Rocha
Senior Member
Jose Rocha
Senior Member
Can you explain this better? How does Canon do the downsampling? The pixels get physically larger??? Hey, the pixels don't change physical size
--
Jose Rocha
http://olhares.aeiou.pt/jplacebo
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum