I don't get the 7d isn't FF complainers

OK, a lot of people have reacted to the 7d by stating it isn't FF or even 1.3 crop. Basically, "nice features, but not for me, I need full frame."

I don't get it.

If you want FF, buy the 5dII. What, it's not fast enough, doesn't have a pro AF, not weather sealed? So what these people wanted was the best of the 5dII and 7d in one camera for under $2500? Or less than the cost of a 5dII?

Don't these people realize that such a product would be over $4000? And it probably wouldn't do 8 FPS? I mean, if you want a camera that can do the ultimate in landscapes, and do the ultimate in sports, it's gonna cost you, like a sports car w/a great A/C and comfortable ride.

So OK, for those of you who the 5dII or the 7d isn't good enough for, get a Canon 1Ds Mk III for $8000. It will do everything you want. While you're saving up, I'll be using my 7d to take sports photos. Good compromise Canon.
Poor argument. Sports shooters already had the 10fps 1Dmk3III and 6.5fps 40/50D.

It's not hard to see why Canon failed to pull the trigger and make the 7D full frame. Not only would it kill 1Ds sales, it would also kill the 5Dmk2.

With larger pixels it would offer better high ISO performance over a 21mp sensor, which is the only other reason why you'd buy a 5Dmk2 over a 7D. Surely a lot of 5Dmk2 owners would trade slightly less resolution for a pro AF system and 8fps over 3.9.

19-point cross-type AF + 8fps would make it compete directly with the D700, only offering more resolution. That forces Nikon to produce an 18MP D800 which could still be a year or more away given a D700s/x still hasn't been released.

Major opportunity missed for Canon.
 
dominikov wrote:
[snip]
Major opportunity missed for Canon.
Yep. Canon are so concerned not to have competition among their own models that they forget to compete with competitors.

--
Cheers,
Martin

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top