D7Hi review from Phil!

Another missed yet very important point about the NiMH batteries. Case in point: Last week I was photographing by the Charles River (here in Boston). I have three sets of batteries but dumbly neglected to charge one set. I ran out of power. Had it been a 5700, that would have been the end. I saw a CVS near by and bought some AA batteries. I finished with those. I wouldn’t do it on a regular basis, but at least I had the option to continue (the lighting was perfect).

-Craig
http://www.csbrown.com

Marko Björkroth said:

frank mccabe said:

I read his review on the 717, and he did complain about the memory
stick.

Click to expand...

Then why it's not listed as a con in the table? And why cheap NiMH
batteries are bad (=red) while the more expensive battery Nikon is
using is OK? According to Phil's own test, Nikon's battery life is
shorter than Minolta's.

Marko Björkroth said:

I think if you simply look at the fact that between the
three top 5 meg cameras, considering that the Sony is the cheapest,

Click to expand...

Wrong. If you absolutely need buffered RAW or a pc-sync terminal,
D7Hi and E-20 are the only contenders.

If you can live without those features, you can quite as well
choose the D7i. It's still available and is cheaper (at least in
Europe) than the 717.

Marko

Click to expand...

You can see this "Brand Defense" Phenomenom about anywhere... For some reason people feel the need to justify why their camera, car, or whatever is not bad or why is it better than a certain other brand...

Sometimes almost religious battles break out.... I wonder why ... its not these people who designed these things. Not even the manufacturers defend their stuff that vigorously.

Member said:

I'm always amused when people get so defensive about their camera
especially when I give that camera a "Recommended" (look that word
up in the dictionary and you'll realize what I mean).

Click to expand...

It does have a very nice feature set. Before writing it off, you might want to download a few of the images and see how they work for you.

Personally I either print my pics at 4X6 or 5X7 or display them on a TV. So I'd try the samples out under these circumstances. It would matter not to me that they look noiser if you blow them up 100X on a computer screen since I'd never actually use them this way. I believe that even Mr. Askey's review, which focused on the noise, mentioned the noise would be hard to detect (not visible?) when printing at sizes up to 8X11. (I think the review is very good by the way, I'm not criticizing it as much as suggesting it has to be used correctly).

You might use images in other ways -- perhaps you send them via email or print them at much larger sizes such as 11X17. So you'd want to test them this way. But the principle should be to test the images using them the way you'd use them, not how someone else uses them. Or even judges them for that matter. Here is an article about this which essentially argues that the only thing that matters is how the image prints. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/not-film.shtml This makes sense if that's your ultimate goal, but it may not be yours. However, it's a counterpoint to those who judge image quality without EVER printing them. So don't give up on the Minolta picture quality until you've tested it for yourself.

Robert Holloway said:

Uly

I had waited for this review with keen interest.
A "pro" type camera with 28mm facility is very attractive
I have problems with the heft of todays DSLR's

Unfortunately picture quality is the number 1 criteria after that
and again Minolta has not come up trumps
i'm sure it's not bad, just not great either
from what Phil seems to be saying

Grrr - I fancied this camera alot

Click to expand...

Can you please point me to some unmodified samples of shots taken on a bright sunny day containing brightly lit surfaces as well as shadows? (using a correctly adjusted D7i/Hi of course)

Marko Björkroth said:

Jared Hunter said:

Are those samples really typical of the D7i/Hi? That is some of the
worst dynamic range I've seen out of a digicam. Looks like Phil was
trying real hard not to blow the highlights (only partially
successful) at the expense of underexposed shadows. I checked some
of the images in Photoshop and found the lighter portions
practically pure white while the shadows were almost pure black.

Click to expand...

The default contrast setting is very high and better suited for
cloudy days or indoors. Because Phil always refuces to change any
settings his ratings are only useful for people looking for
point'n'shoot cameras. For anyone looking for a more advanced
camera the ratings are meaningless.

Marko

Click to expand...

So if you were to be interested in (and/or perhaps own) a camera and Phil wrote an entirely positive review of it, would IT be artifical and not represent real life situations?

Or are the positives real, and reflect reality, only what you don't agree with is artificial and not reflecting real life.

Phil I think is saying that the 7Hi has a wealth of features and is recommended. However considering the cost, there are cameras available like the 717 that cost less and are able to produce better pictures.

If you need the features on the 7Hi that are absent on the 717 then the Minolta may be the better buy for you.

I own a Canon G2 and have been thinking about getting a 7Hi, I was waiting for Phil's final review and now it is here. I am going to keep considering for awhile. Minolta is likely to introduce an updated camera to the 7Hi in a couple of months as they introduced the 7i and then the 7Hi. Perhaps the next version will address the noise and resolution concerns.

David Martin said:

Hi Ulysses!
Be interested to know the extent to which you go along with Phil,
or if there is any respect in which you feel his methodology is
artificial and does nopt reflect real-life situations. Don't get me
wrong, I have a lot of respect for this forum and the analysis
therein, but I do feel to a certain extent that the methodology
takes over from real-world use. How do you feel?
Phil purely has to be joking if he rates the 717 above the DHi!
What do you think?
Who cares about CA, WA, RAW and saturation?
Regards to both of you,
--
DaveMart

Click to expand...

--
Pbase Supporter

Sorry to point this out, but why is it so hard to admit a mistake?....Read the front page news blurb that you wrote:

"...The 7Hi also hits the market as one of the most expensive five megapixel 'prosumer' digital cameras, so is it worth the extra?"

This is not a reference to the 7HI price in relation to the 7i price as you seem to now claim. This statement clearly refers to the 5 MP market as a whole.

And it is not a true statement--you can get the 7HI for $998 from a legitimate Minolta dealer (many here have).

Phil Askey said:

I'm always amused when people get so defensive about their camera
especially when I give that camera a "Recommended" (look that word
up in the dictionary and you'll realize what I mean).

If you'd rather I didn't review Minolta's in the future, just drop
me an email.

David Martin said:

Although not usually a conspiracy theorist, I'm slowly becoming
more paranoid about my D7. I'd stop being paranoid if they'd stop
picking on me!
Regards,
--
DaveMart

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

--
Steven Lyons
http://stevenlyons.com

The Minolta IS more expensive. You paid $998, but that is a low price, compare the low prices for the Sony and Nikon and they will be less.

The Nikon is kind of out of consideration since it has focus difficulties. The Sony offers great value and picture quality, BUT, the memory stick keeps me from considering it.

I am still condidering purchasing a 7Hi as I desire the zoom range it offers (especially the 28mm end), as well as the huge list of built-in features and controls.

But, I would like Minolta to address the noise and resolution shortcomings.

Steven Lyons said:

I know its silly to argue about this. This site is great and free
and all that good stuff. But I had to jump in for the benefit of
others considering the Minolta 7HI. To anyone looking at the 7HI,
take the "Recommended" rating with a grain of salt. The reviewer
got the price wrong. I paid $998 for my 7hi(as have many others
here). That's less than the Nikon and equal to the Sony(which I
never considered seriously due to storage limitations). It really
comes down to the Nikon and the Minolta if one wants manual control
in this price range.The higher rating here for the Nikon makes no
sense. The 7HI is faster than the Nikon. Wider than the Nikon.
Better Autofocus than the Nikon. Image quality is on par with the
Nikon(very subjective I know). I looked seriously, loyally,
hopefully at the Nikon (have had 2 Nikons in the past) and was
amazed at its inferiority(the zoom alone is a killer - its so
slow). The Minolta has its own limitations, but its easily on par
with the Nikon 5700. The 7HI "Recommended" rating is hard to
understand in the grand scheme of the other reviews on this site.
Other website reviews (admittedly not as critical as this one) have
heaped praise on the 7HI. Maybe I am easily impressed. Maybe the
reviewer got a bad camera. Maybe he didn't use it long enough. All
I can say is the 7HI has been a total joy to take pictures with.
The prints on an Epson 1270 are absolutely beautiful and the camera
is ready to shoot in an instant.

Click to expand...

--
Pbase Supporter

Steven Lyons said:

Sorry to point this out, but why is it so hard to admit a
mistake?....Read the front page news blurb that you wrote:
"...The 7Hi also hits the market as one of the most expensive five
megapixel 'prosumer' digital cameras, so is it worth the extra?"
This is not a reference to the 7HI price in relation to the 7i
price as you seem to now claim. This statement clearly refers to
the 5 MP market as a whole.
And it is not a true statement--you can get the 7HI for $998 from a
legitimate Minolta dealer (many here have).

Click to expand...

Ah.....Isn't the 5MP market as whole inherently and obviously a reference to the 7i?

As with all camera's we talk list price here.....after all thats what the manufacturer thinks its worth.....market prices often reflect the ACTUAL worth....

And what's he supposed to do? Completely ignore the "worst" feature of the camera....(noise)?

Sheeeesh!

That's a very good point
I'll download a few and have a look
Thanks
Rob

Donald Cooper said:

Personally I either print my pics at 4X6 or 5X7 or display them on
a TV. So I'd try the samples out under these circumstances. It
would matter not to me that they look noiser if you blow them up
100X on a computer screen since I'd never actually use them this
way. I believe that even Mr. Askey's review, which focused on the
noise, mentioned the noise would be hard to detect (not visible?)
when printing at sizes up to 8X11. (I think the review is very good
by the way, I'm not criticizing it as much as suggesting it has to
be used correctly).

You might use images in other ways -- perhaps you send them via
email or print them at much larger sizes such as 11X17. So you'd
want to test them this way. But the principle should be to test the
images using them the way you'd use them, not how someone else uses
them. Or even judges them for that matter. Here is an article about
this which essentially argues that the only thing that matters is
how the image prints.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/not-film.shtml This makes
sense if that's your ultimate goal, but it may not be yours.
However, it's a counterpoint to those who judge image quality
without EVER printing them. So don't give up on the Minolta picture
quality until you've tested it for yourself.

Robert Holloway said:

Uly

I had waited for this review with keen interest.
A "pro" type camera with 28mm facility is very attractive
I have problems with the heft of todays DSLR's

Unfortunately picture quality is the number 1 criteria after that
and again Minolta has not come up trumps
i'm sure it's not bad, just not great either
from what Phil seems to be saying

Grrr - I fancied this camera alot

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jared Hunter said:

Can you please point me to some unmodified samples of shots taken
on a bright sunny day containing brightly lit surfaces as well as
shadows? (using a correctly adjusted D7i/Hi of course)

Click to expand...

You've proved yourself capable of finding bad examples - you've already got quite a collection. You can find good ones as well, if you really want.

BTW, what draws you here? Are you not happy with Fuji s602 or are you again looking for new samples to your horror collection?

Marko

Your points are well taken. The issue is that if you skip right to his conclusions, the 7HI is rated less (on the scale) then the other cameras. If you are not going to do any more reserach, that's all you have to go on. I often skip right to the conclusion when I read a review (then go back later). Thus, you get a false impression.

Regards,

CRaig

HuNan said:

The Nikon is kind of out of consideration since it has focus
difficulties. The Sony offers great value and picture quality,
BUT, the memory stick keeps me from considering it.

I am still condidering purchasing a 7Hi as I desire the zoom range
it offers (especially the 28mm end), as well as the huge list of
built-in features and controls.

But, I would like Minolta to address the noise and resolution
shortcomings.

Steven Lyons said:

I know its silly to argue about this. This site is great and free
and all that good stuff. But I had to jump in for the benefit of
others considering the Minolta 7HI. To anyone looking at the 7HI,
take the "Recommended" rating with a grain of salt. The reviewer
got the price wrong. I paid $998 for my 7hi(as have many others
here). That's less than the Nikon and equal to the Sony(which I
never considered seriously due to storage limitations). It really
comes down to the Nikon and the Minolta if one wants manual control
in this price range.The higher rating here for the Nikon makes no
sense. The 7HI is faster than the Nikon. Wider than the Nikon.
Better Autofocus than the Nikon. Image quality is on par with the
Nikon(very subjective I know). I looked seriously, loyally,
hopefully at the Nikon (have had 2 Nikons in the past) and was
amazed at its inferiority(the zoom alone is a killer - its so
slow). The Minolta has its own limitations, but its easily on par
with the Nikon 5700. The 7HI "Recommended" rating is hard to
understand in the grand scheme of the other reviews on this site.
Other website reviews (admittedly not as critical as this one) have
heaped praise on the 7HI. Maybe I am easily impressed. Maybe the
reviewer got a bad camera. Maybe he didn't use it long enough. All
I can say is the 7HI has been a total joy to take pictures with.
The prints on an Epson 1270 are absolutely beautiful and the camera
is ready to shoot in an instant.

Click to expand...

--
Pbase Supporter

Click to expand...

HuNan said:

So if you were to be interested in (and/or perhaps own) a camera
and Phil wrote an entirely positive review of it, would IT be
artifical and not represent real life situations?

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for an entirely positive review. I have many times commentated on the real shortcomings of the D7 range.

I do however think it is fair to state when I don't feel that a fair crack of the whip has been give.

For instance, whilst I quite agree that for most users the 7i would provide far better value, the whole point of the 7Hi is that it provides better connectivity to strobes and also takes RAW images quickly. The review entirely erroneously states that you have to wait for the first RAW image to be written to the card before taking anoither shot.

If the actual strenght and indeed the purpose of the camera are not assesed then a review can hardly be deemed to have addressed the issue.

For studio work and if you don't want to go to a DSLR the 7Hi is in a class of two together with the E20 and needs to be assessed accordingly.

HuNan said:

Or are the positives real, and reflect reality, only what you don't
agree with is artificial and not reflecting real life.

Phil I think is saying that the 7Hi has a wealth of features and is
recommended. However considering the cost, there are cameras
available like the 717 that cost less and are able to produce
better pictures.

Click to expand...

In whose opinion? It all depends what you want to use it for. If you are talking about sports shots the 717 is ahead as they have a readily available extender, but if you want full control in many situations the D7 would be preferable.Does it cost less when you add in the cost of memory sticks? I have 1GB on a IBM, what would that cost in memory sticks?

HuNan said:

If you need the features on the 7Hi that are absent on the 717 then
the Minolta may be the better buy for you.

I own a Canon G2 and have been thinking about getting a 7Hi, I was
waiting for Phil's final review and now it is here. I am going to
keep considering for awhile. Minolta is likely to introduce an
updated camera to the 7Hi in a couple of months as they introduced
the 7i and then the 7Hi. Perhaps the next version will address the
noise and resolution concerns.

Click to expand...

Have you tried printing out the pictures from anyone who takes care to use the camera with appropriate settings?

Are you looking at actual pictures or pictures of resolution charts for resolution?

The lack of current exteders is a real issue. Low-light photography at high shutter speeds is also difficult, although no more so than for other cameras with the same size sensor.

It's a little unfair to assume that I would defend the camera I happen to own regardless of the justness of the criticism.

Believe me, if they came out with an update of the Canon IS cameras, I might well change.

I just think a lot of people are being worried unnecessarily about minor or non-existent issues.

HuNan said:

David Martin said:

Hi Ulysses!
Be interested to know the extent to which you go along with Phil,
or if there is any respect in which you feel his methodology is
artificial and does nopt reflect real-life situations. Don't get me
wrong, I have a lot of respect for this forum and the analysis
therein, but I do feel to a certain extent that the methodology
takes over from real-world use. How do you feel?
Phil purely has to be joking if he rates the 717 above the DHi!
What do you think?
Who cares about CA, WA, RAW and saturation?
Regards to both of you,
--
DaveMart

Click to expand...

--
Pbase Supporter

Click to expand...

Regards,
--
DaveMart

Robert Holloway said:

That's a very good point
I'll download a few and have a look
Thanks
Rob

Click to expand...

The following might be a pretty fair comparison. The reviewer has used the correct settings instead of default, but is not a regular user and has shot these to compare with other cameras.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7HI/D7HIPICS.HTM
Hope this helps.
--
DaveMart

I don't place much faith on the opinions of those that limit themselves to frequenting just one forum. It leads to tunnel vision. The defensive nature of your response to my sincere request speaks loads...

Marko Björkroth said:

Jared Hunter said:

Can you please point me to some unmodified samples of shots taken
on a bright sunny day containing brightly lit surfaces as well as
shadows? (using a correctly adjusted D7i/Hi of course)

Click to expand...

You've proved yourself capable of finding bad examples - you've
already got quite a collection. You can find good ones as well, if
you really want.

BTW, what draws you here? Are you not happy with Fuji s602 or are
you again looking for new samples to your horror collection?

Marko

Click to expand...

Jared Hunter said:

I don't place much faith on the opinions of those that limit
themselves to frequenting just one forum. It leads to tunnel
vision.

Click to expand...

So, you have devoted your life for saving poor souls ever considering Minolta in any other forum.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1012&message=3676314
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=3471999
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=2932912

If you can't find examples bad enough, you'll make them up yourself (simulated D7 samples).

When I showed you the lack of fine detail in some pictures shot with the 602, you had a nice list of excuses:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=2907641

Jared Hunter said:

The defensive nature of your response to my sincere request
speaks loads...

Click to expand...

I've already seen what you are. but I indeed have a couple of samples for your collection:

http://www.pbase.com/image/414531
I thought strawberries were supposed to be red, not orange.

http://www.pbase.com/image/409406
What a lovely skin color.

http://www.pbase.com/image/2547640
Nice, soft and smooth trees.

http://www.pbase.com/image/414611
Fujicolor - what else can I say.

Marko

David Martin said:

HuNan said:

So if you were to be interested in (and/or perhaps own) a camera
and Phil wrote an entirely positive review of it, would IT be
artifical and not represent real life situations?

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for an entirely positive review. I have many times
commentated on the real shortcomings of the D7 range.
I do however think it is fair to state when I don't feel that a
fair crack of the whip has been give.
For instance, whilst I quite agree that for most users the 7i would
provide far better value, the whole point of the 7Hi is that it
provides better connectivity to strobes and also takes RAW images
quickly. The review entirely erroneously states that you have to
wait for the first RAW image to be written to the card before
taking anoither shot.
If the actual strenght and indeed the purpose of the camera are not
assesed then a review can hardly be deemed to have addressed the
issue.
For studio work and if you don't want to go to a DSLR the 7Hi is in
a class of two together with the E20 and needs to be assessed
accordingly.

Member said:

Or are the positives real, and reflect reality, only what you don't
agree with is artificial and not reflecting real life.

Phil I think is saying that the 7Hi has a wealth of features and is
recommended. However considering the cost, there are cameras
available like the 717 that cost less and are able to produce
better pictures.

Click to expand...

In whose opinion? It all depends what you want to use it for. If
you are talking about sports shots the 717 is ahead as they have a
readily available extender, but if you want full control in many
situations the D7 would be preferable.Does it cost less when you
add in the cost of memory sticks? I have 1GB on a IBM, what would
that cost in memory sticks?

Member said:

If you need the features on the 7Hi that are absent on the 717 then
the Minolta may be the better buy for you.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I bought a 7i recently and mistakenly thought that it would fire studio or external flash – whoops! I normally shoot medium format and when i use my 801s Nikon in the studio I use a £6 connector between it and the other lights. It has never failed. Imagine my horror when I find I have to pay £70 for the privilege on the Minolta, or for a little less try and acquire the brilliant Metz adaptor – so far unsuccessfully. I had to wait a long while to get the 7i in the UK (got one in Japan instead) and was horrified to find that by the time they were generally on sale in the UK, the 7HI had been announced. But at a ridiculous extra cost.

And how do I find the 7i? very accomplished and adaptable but it does have a noise problem. I recently photographed a large print and the 7i introduced noise into all the flat areas of colour on the original, just as it would bring in noise shooting a live scene. But there people say that the noise in some way constitutes detail... .

As a professional Mac user, I can't use Neat Image, so I bought a PC to batch process stuff which is a real drag. I don't mind a little post processing but you have to do a lot to get the 7i images as crisp and as clear as those straight out of the 707/717. But I chose the Minolta because of the lens, its control and its abundance of features. I was under no illusion that the S*ny with the same sensor produced more detail from a particular shot. It was my choice, I stick by it, but I am not going to defend the camera where it falls short or its manufacturer charging through the nose for connectivity just to fire a flashgun with more clout than the tiddly little thing that it comes with.

Laurie Caddell

Jared Hunter said:

Jared Hunter said:

Jared Hunter said:

Can you please point me to some unmodified samples of shots taken
on a bright sunny day containing brightly lit surfaces as well as
shadows? (using a correctly adjusted D7i/Hi of course)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Perhaps a fair example might be:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7HI/D7HIPICS.HTM

These aren't taken by an expert D7 user, but Dave has at least made an effort to use the correct settings for the conditions. It makes little sense to buy a camera with a lot of options and then refuse to use them.

BTW, I would never assert that the D7 has the same noise level as something like the D30 with it's much larger sensor, only that noise issues are greatly exagerated and are in fact fairly similar between different cameras using the same sensor, if you will allow that some prefer to leave NR as an out-of-camera option. You don't need to do it often anyway if you use the camera in fairly appropriate conditions: ie makes allowance for the relativly low latitude of this type of sensor, and 't expect noise free shots at high ISO in low light conditions at fast shutter speeds.

Of course, if you prefer to have NR carried out in-camera that is a different choice and is a perfectly valid option.

However, that is not so much a comment on the capabilities of the camera, but more on a preferred mode of use.
Regards,

--
DaveMart

How many 5 MP prosumer cameras cost as much or more than the 7Hi (use lowest price from reputable dealers as a reference)? Phil's statement is in fact true. Now, will you admit your mistake?

Steven Lyons said:

Phil Askey said:

I'm always amused when people get so defensive about their camera
especially when I give that camera a "Recommended" (look that word
up in the dictionary and you'll realize what I mean).

If you'd rather I didn't review Minolta's in the future, just drop
me an email.

David Martin said:

Although not usually a conspiracy theorist, I'm slowly becoming
more paranoid about my D7. I'd stop being paranoid if they'd stop
picking on me!
Regards,
--
DaveMart

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

--
Steven Lyons
http://stevenlyons.com

Click to expand...

If you don't like Phil's samples (which seem adequate to me), check the ones at imaging-resource.com. They're shot on a sunny day, adjusted every which way. But if you're looking for some that don't show above average noise for this level of camera, don't bother--it's still there.

Jared Hunter said:

Marko Björkroth said:

Jared Hunter said:

Are those samples really typical of the D7i/Hi? That is some of the
worst dynamic range I've seen out of a digicam. Looks like Phil was
trying real hard not to blow the highlights (only partially
successful) at the expense of underexposed shadows. I checked some
of the images in Photoshop and found the lighter portions
practically pure white while the shadows were almost pure black.

Click to expand...

The default contrast setting is very high and better suited for
cloudy days or indoors. Because Phil always refuces to change any
settings his ratings are only useful for people looking for
point'n'shoot cameras. For anyone looking for a more advanced
camera the ratings are meaningless.

Marko

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Laurie Caddell said:

David Martin said:

HuNan said:

So if you were to be interested in (and/or perhaps own) a camera
and Phil wrote an entirely positive review of it, would IT be
artifical and not represent real life situations?

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for an entirely positive review. I have many times
commentated on the real shortcomings of the D7 range.
I do however think it is fair to state when I don't feel that a
fair crack of the whip has been give.
For instance, whilst I quite agree that for most users the 7i would
provide far better value, the whole point of the 7Hi is that it
provides better connectivity to strobes and also takes RAW images
quickly. The review entirely erroneously states that you have to
wait for the first RAW image to be written to the card before
taking anoither shot.
If the actual strenght and indeed the purpose of the camera are not
assesed then a review can hardly be deemed to have addressed the
issue.
For studio work and if you don't want to go to a DSLR the 7Hi is in
a class of two together with the E20 and needs to be assessed
accordingly.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Laurie Caddell said:

I bought a 7i recently and mistakenly thought that it would fire
studio or external flash – whoops! I normally shoot medium format
and when i use my 801s Nikon in the studio I use a £6 connector
between it and the other lights. It has never failed. Imagine my
horror when I find I have to pay £70 for the privilege on the
Minolta, or for a little less try and acquire the brilliant Metz
adaptor – so far unsuccessfully. I had to wait a long while to get
the 7i in the UK (got one in Japan instead) and was horrified to
find that by the time they were generally on sale in the UK, the
7HI had been announced. But at a ridiculous extra cost.

And how do I find the 7i? very accomplished and adaptable but it
does have a noise problem. I recently photographed a large print
and the 7i introduced noise into all the flat areas of colour on
the original, just as it would bring in noise shooting a live
scene. But there people say that the noise in some way constitutes
detail... .

As a professional Mac user, I can't use Neat Image, so I bought a
PC to batch process stuff which is a real drag. I don't mind a
little post processing but you have to do a lot to get the 7i
images as crisp and as clear as those straight out of the 707/717.
But I chose the Minolta because of the lens, its control and its
abundance of features. I was under no illusion that the S*ny with
the same sensor produced more detail from a particular shot. It was
my choice, I stick by it, but I am not going to defend the camera
where it falls short or its manufacturer charging through the nose
for connectivity just to fire a flashgun with more clout than the
tiddly little thing that it comes with.

Laurie Caddell

Click to expand...

Laurie, I hear you loud and clear and totally agree with you about the absurd cost of the Minolta accesories. As a D7 owner with a 5600 flash it's even more painful for me, as to use it off-camera I would have to buy loads of them!
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the quality of the Sony's NR.

To me, it just appears to introduce a lifeless, plasticky gloss which on some shots can look awful.

Surprised you had to buy a PC to do anything with the Minolta's shots. Would have thought that a blur in the right channel would have done fine.

Another thing which I would love to see improved on the D7 is the EVF, as it doesn't quite magnify enough to show if your shot was in focus.
Just hope they don't 'improve' it by introducing a Sony-style NR.
Matter of personal taste I guess.
Regards
--
DaveMart