« OT: Self-Incrimination | Main | DMD: The Panasonic GF1 camera and Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 ASPH. lens »

Tuesday, 01 September 2009

Comments

I'll spend $2,000 0n the A850. Spending that much for resolution which permits me to see leaves on the trees in the depths of a Canadian winter is well worth it!!

Hopefully I'm not showing any bias (I'm a Sony user) in saying I'd pick the A850. Between in-body IS and a balance of IQ over features that suits my needs, it's the easy choice. I can see someone opting for the Canon for LV, video, AF/fps performance or expansive lens lineup if those things are priorities.

The A850, no hesitation.

Probably the 7D: autofocus speed is high on my priority list and there are a few lenses that I would need that Canon offers and Sony doesn't (as a current Nikon shooter, I don't have any bias between Canon & Sony).

Having "grown up" using digital cameras, crop sensors don't really bother me. The main reason I'd look to a larger sensor would be better high ISO performance for events; I wouldn't be surprised if the two cameras had similar ISO performance.

Definitely buy a Sony FF. Note that the 7D weighs as much as the 5DII.

I'll wait for a much lighter FF. If Sigma can put an APS sensor in the DP1, why can't Canon put a FF in a Rebel. I can do without most of the bells and whistles including video.

Many years the top film camera were growing into king kongs. The compact Olympus OM-1 (after being high rated by Consumer Reports) pushed all the other companies into making such a body.

Mike, I'd choose a Nikon D700.

Let me explain. If I was in the market for a camera, I would know upfront whether I wanted a FF or APS-C sensored camera, so for me the 7D/ A850 pairing doesn't make sense. Also, since I have all the APS-C cameras I want, and I don't need the megapixel overkill of the A850 (at the expense of some low-light capability), I'd choose a Nikon D700. I know, I'm no fun.

Maybe you didn't make a typo on the UK price. I'll wager a pound to a pinch of pig dung that the UK price ain't something you'd calculate from looking up exchange rates. Add 40% as a rule of thumb.

Now there's a tough question and I've a bunch (maybe even a shed load) invested in Canon. There are enough good things about Sony to make me seriously consider selling some gear, saving some pennies and setting myself up for landscape work with Sony.
For sheer image quality (and that must include lens considerations) Sony are looking pretty hard to beat at the moment.
I'm actually going to have to dive into the 7D's deeper functions to see if it's a banker for me, despite all the headline goodies.

A850, no doubt about it.

"which would you choose: a $1700 7D or a $2000 A850?"

I have no answer at this time. But if I were to logically start with choosing the lens and then the camera then I'd come up with an answer pretty fast.

You can bet that this question will be asked again and again on just about every dslr forums.

That question at the end of your post is the one I've been puzzling over ever since I read the specs.

(And no, that UK price appears to be correct, given the markup usually applied, and the weak pound :))

"Add 40% as a rule of thumb."

The whole situation is really...scandalous. I suppose all U.K. photographers can't boycott all camera companies, but they should.

Mike

"which would you choose: a $1700 7D or a $2000 A850?"

Easy. Sony is FF, and has body IS. That's a no-brainer, isn't it? I'm thinking about switching from the 4/3 system. Or maybe I'll run both.

Technical question: how good is the Sony 850 with manual focus lenses? What's the screen like?

(Oh but let's face it, you only give Canon a hard time on the 7D name because you're miffed they didn't pick your 60D prediction from Feb. 2006 :))

In answer to what was probably a rhetorical question - the A850. Hands down. Luckily, I do have a camera and lenses already, and, because I do, I don't have the money in my pocket, sooooo I don't have to worry about the choice. Oh, to be Michael Reichmann.

Dear Mike,

Which one? If I had to decide immediately with no additional data, I would pick the Sony, because it's the devil I know and I really like the way the photographs from it look.

If I were allowed a little more research, here's what I'd consider important. Pixel count... NOT. Although the difference between the two exceeds the 30% threshold (if there's less than a 30% increasing pixel count, it's ignorable), it's not by a lot.

First thing I'd look at would be exposure range for the new camera. I really make use of long exposure ranges. I don't necessarily need the 12 stop range of the Sony, but if the Canon cost me more than a stop of that, I'd take the Sony.

Secondarily, I'd look at lowlight capability. Contrary to the pixel-peepers' complaints, the Sony has extremely good lowlight capability. Images up to ISO 1600 look very, very good. Certainly better than anything I've had before in film or digital. So I'd be satisfied with the Sony. But there is no question that other cameras can surpass that substantially, and if the Canon gave me another stop or so of lowlight capability, that would be nice. Not as critical for me as long exposure range, though.

Absent deciding factors there, it would boil down to the ineffable look and feel of the photographs. I really like the way the Sony photographs look, just as I like the way the Fuji photographs look in the camera I have now. I'd want to see if the Canon can match that.


~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================


Oh, you do tempt me to condider buying this new camera, based on that last line. What I would like is a 100% finder. Or the Pentax K7, which also has a 100% finder. I can't stand it when I see some element encroaching in my images where I thought there was none. All the rest are just bonus features I can do with or without. But how about the auto HDR feature on the new Sonys. Some people will surely want that.

JR

"which would you choose: a $1700 7D or a $2000 A850?"

If you're asking, an A850.


(Do I win an A850?)

I guess we will have to wait for the pixel gurus to make there reports however if there were questions about the 50D's 15mp to out-resolve a lenses capabilities then surely 18 mp is really pushing it. I am disappointed that it is not full frame. So it is back to the same dilemma a 5D mkII or a Sony a900 at about the same price. Whats that you say the Sony a850 same camera $1000 bucks cheaper, oh.

When you see the photos taken with this new sensor and the excellent 17-55 EF-S lens, it seems the lens cannot cope with it. The photos are soft, have color aberration and miss detail. At iso 100 and f10. What lens should you put on this thing? Or the jpegs that camera makes are rubbish. Wait to see raws .. Or ... maybe ... possibly ... the sensor is crap ??

I'd by the Sony A850 of course - if I didn't have a cabinet full of Canon lenses... But then again, I'm a "wide angle guy" so I wouldn't buy an APS-C camera anyway. Now, if Canon could just put that sensor in a rangefinder style camera with 1/4 the weight and size I'd be first in line, even at $1699!

>>which would you choose: a $1700 7D or a $2000 A850?<<

Given that those are the only choices, the 7D.

- $300 change (and the greater DOF) to go towards that interesting new 100mm macro.
- better flash system
- (slightly) lighter
- (slightly) less ugly
- more (and more cheap) lenses
- video and FPS (FWIW)
- the new 15-85 looks good

Though as a UK resident, I'd probably use the £42,365.29 to pay down my mortgage first.

Well, it's good to see I'm not alone perplexed with the name of the camera, which should indeed have been named something like 70D. (I had doubts about the sensor size right until the official announcement came out! What a bizarre decision.)

I also asked the same question about the A850. Unfortunately, I don't think Sony has penetrated the higher end of the DSLR market enough for people to really be aware of that option. The video mode will certainly have something to do with the success of the 7D.

Additionally, I don't understand the need for a new 100mm macro lens, and an expensive "L" lens at that! The other 100mm macro is already excellent. I can think of many lenses I wish were added or revamped in the lineup, and this one would never have crossed my mind...

Selling your KM 7D for $200? Moving up to the a850 huh? Enjoy!

The A850. Likely noticeable better image quality plus in body stabilization. On the other hand, if you want video...

Like all technology purchases, the important question is "what do you want to do with it TODAY?" Not tomorrow, cause tomorrow it will be better/faster/cheaper and of course newer - just don't look back once that cash has left your pocket - not a pretty sight.

If you want great flexibility, video, high iso, easy re-sale, use of almost any lens system (with adapters of course), get the Canon.

Want better image quality (probably), and a bit more detail in normal shooting - get the Sony.

Can't choose TODAY - wait for tomorrow and buy a used Canon/Nikon/Sony or other today.

Canon also released a 24-yada equivalent zoom for the apsc crowd. Even pentax already had one of those.

I'd get the 7D over the A850. The 7D has the advantage of not being a Sony product. Sony should be rendered into lard.

A850 no brainer

Mike,
Is it true that the Japanese consider the number 6 as an unlucky number aka 13 in the west? Note no 6D, no 60D and no 600D

BK

Yeah, you made a typo, but probably not by much........(UK follower)

Undeniably a strong effort, but still no cigar for me. It needs in-body IS, Canon has to offer a great 40-50mm equivalent prime (would love to see them update their 28/1.8) and Galbraith's high ISO samples show too many hot pixels, so I'd say they should have gone with 12-14MP.

I'm being picky, of course. What I'd really like to see from Canon is to stop the obsession with competing point-for-point against Nikon. Instead of responding to the D300S, many would have been overjoyed with an APS-C sensor in a G11-like camera with interchangeable lenses. That market is just getting started and when Canon eventually decides to jump in, they'll be years late to party, as usual.

The "*":
Sad joke on the brittons, and generally on the europeans: the latest trend from CaNikon is to give a slightly higher number in Euros than the number of dollars; up until a month ago (and for some years) the trend was to give equal numbers for the price. Of course, that happened even if an Euro got from $1.2$ to more than 1.40$.
At least Sony (for now) stays at equal *numbers* (still a 30% tax just because it permits camera sales on Europe); Olympus fares a tiny bit better, but that depends on the country (with Greece, part of the European Union, getting unexplainably low prices).
And Adobe does the same since ever, even if it sells some bits (cheaper to... transport :D in Europe) and has basically zero support, unlike in USA.

Back to the matter at hand:7D = $1699 in USA, 2000 Euros in... Europe :)
For the converting-challenged-people over the pond: 2800$
Yep, 7D in Europe is a fair bit more expensive than a 5DmkII in USA.
Now where's a scottish Ken Rockwell to go boycotting everything that moves? I've heard that D3X is actually kinda lazy on the shelves; not necesarily b/c of that boycott, but simply because all the manufacturers seem to have gone nuts.

P.S.: and regarding the old naming-scheme rant, Canon actually went ahead and released a (water/shock-proof) camera named... D10!

"no-nonsense shape and control set to its completely overhauled AF to its take-no-prisoners new sensor."


happy to see poetry still has its place among photography blogs ;)


nice camera, nice pricing, nice competition. the only negative point(for me, before anyone starts...) are the 18mp as it just seemed as if canon would focus less on the megapixel race (see G11).

PS. I'd buy the 7D most likely, Canon's got some nice lenses to get the most out of the resolution.

greetings
michael

Well, AE-1D, A-1D and F-1D are still availabale...

Tamron today announced that it has broken the record for the longest lens name. "Our new SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] sets the standard by which all other lens names will be judged," said Tamron spokesman Peter Piper. "Competing companies, like Nikon with their puny AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED, have been left in our alphabetic dust. And wanna-be's like Olympus and their Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 Digital ED SWD may as well just pack up and go home."

Tamron's reign may be short-lived, however. Canon is rumored to be preparing a new "EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 L ISii USM IF EZ RLN AF MarkII", for release around 4/1/2010. When asked about this, Piper replied that Tamron is well-aware of the competitions' plans and is already developing new acronyms to further extend their lead. "We won't be playing second fiddle to anyone," he said.

Mike, "superlative" isn't necessarily a good thing. "Ugliest" and "slowest" are both superlatives, but don't apply in any way to Canon products.

Yet another camera for the Canon bandwagon brigade! Cameras for those who like to follow the herd...

For the money, I'd rather buy an Sony A850!

The 7D may have all sorts of keen, whizzy features but Canon still does not have an 8.75mm EF-S lens to address those of us who need a 14mm full frame equivalent. Not to mention the 10-22mm EF-S zoom does not exactly set the world on fire with it's optical abilities. So the 7D is not only inept in it's appellation, it is irrelevant for the dedicated wide-angle photographer. The forthcoming Nikon D700X with the magnificent 14-24mm Nikkor G zoom looks like the way this Canon user is going.

(Sung to the tune of Alouette)

Tiny sensor, teeny tiny sensor,
Tiny sensor, this is how you play.

Compare it to a nice full frame,
now your feeling lots of pain,
lots of pain,
cry in vain,
OH!!!!!!!!!

Tiny sensor, teeny tiny sensor,
tiny sensor this is how you play......

Canon, "when it didn't try hard enough with the 50D" - or the 5D-II, or dropping RAW format and useful features from their PS line, then back again, or the 1D-III focus publicity,... more?

The 7D does appear to up the game on Nikon's and Sony's lineup. A lot of "me-too" and catch-up it seems as well. Time and testing will tell. No rush here.

Sincerely,

A Canon EOS systems owner

As a bird photographer I'd much rather carry a 400mm lens with an APS-C sensor than a bigger more expensive lens with a full frame sensor, so I'd go for the 7D. It hurts to say that given how often I have had Canon gear fail on me though!

BTW, what happened to the canon eye control stuff? They're giving us 782 AF points and we get to scroll through them one at a time. Didn't Canon have the tech some 10 years ago in their friggen F-SLR rebel line to know that if I'm eye balling something in frame maybe it ought to focus on that?

Bah!

I've owned Canon and Nikon (currently a Nikon.) but my next camera will probably be a Pentax.

I'd take the $1200 Pentax K7 and use the $500 (or $800) towards the 50-135/2.8 or the 21mm pancake and 35/2 primes.

Some thinking [I know, not good to think] I´ve done.

"Mike, "superlative" isn't necessarily a good thing. "Ugliest" and "slowest" are both superlatives, but don't apply in any way to Canon products. ".

Canon products [overall, all current camera stuff] suffer the biggest problem of aesthetics: they are bland and forgetable. It is the very sin "zee germanz carz" do: efficient, sort of engaging, but completely forgetable. To any of them: Ford, BMW, VAG group, MB and Opel-Chevy-Vaxhall -never been able to spell that last briton name without looking it on the internets-.

By the way, that includes most of rangefinders.

On the other hand, there are problems to APS-C, and usually they are quite important: lack of propper wide angle lens. I don´t mean a 20 mm equivalent stuff. What I mean is the, pardon my bias and not knoweledge of it, the equivalent of the old Pentax A 15 mm rectilinear, or even the Sigma ultrawide angle zoom.

You simply can not get a good UWA lens for APS-C because it does not exist [and the current Sigma Zoom does not a good job, leaving it at 16mm, just].

Surprisingly, and answering the question, I think that both cameras are, for my use -research, mainly- a big overkill. Let me ellaborate.

Both cameras will require not only the 1900 euros, aprox, on the body only [plus all the expenses of switching systems and not being able to get anything back from an old *ist DS, and I´m not going to part with my FA 43 or the sweet FA 50]. It will require a major overhaul of my computing equipment.

Even if that computing equipment will be as cheap as possible, going for a Mac instead of a Lenovo, Packard Bell, Dell or HP [ever got to notice how EXPENSIVE high end PC´s can be?] will make me go for yet another 1800 euros laptop, minimum.

My current laptop struggles to use 15 mpx raw data flow, and I´ve set it as the upper limit.

I can´t spend THAT much money for such an overkill, sorry. On both systems.

Practicality wins. In this case [and other issues that are a tangent to this thread].

Cheers.

Your 7D should be famous enough to command a premium as a collector's item. Or will be someday.

The Tamron lens is one to watch. Tamron's VC is extremely effective, at least matching the respective Canon and Nikon stabilization. Tamron also prioritizes compact size in their zoom design. What they tend to give up is a bit of autofocus speed.

To make an observation: I think a lot of people are looking at this new Canon and shaking their heads a bit. At first glance the pixel counts seems high for an APS C sensor (the 50D at 15 megapixels already seemed too high to some) and the price isn't exactly a bargain. However, if you think about it a bit more, this starts to look like a very clever move from Canon. In the midst of a serious economic downturn, news organisations that previously might have bought a 1D or D3 type of camera are probably looking to save money. The 7D fits the bill perfectly. Stonking AF, high frame rate, excellent viewfinder, environmentally sealed body, ample resolution, (comparatively) low-cost and built-in video make this a perfect photojournalist's camera. And, if I were to speculate, it also perhaps points the way to a full frame 1D replacement (at a significantly higher price point) to follow at PMA next year.

To the previous poster - while "ugliest" and "slowest" might not apply, "heaviest" and "dearest" would be in the running :)

This announcement does smell a little of trying to catch up with the big "N" - wireless TTL from the popup strobe and the release of a macro with stabilization being the most obvious.

Unlike some of the previous posters I do think updating the 100mm macro makes sense - if I think about it the way Canon seems to. They seem to concentrate on messing around with the top-selling primes, and completely ignore the rest of the lineup - good examples being the new 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L and now the 100mm f/2.8L. I seem to recall a quote from a Canon rep saying the 100 macro was their best selling prime.

Now one other trend I also notice in all those cases was that all the new lenses are priced in the absolutely insane money range... which is not so good news. As a bottom feeder I'll be keeping an eye on used old 100 macros, hopefully there will be enough people dumping their perfectly good old ones for bargain prices to pick one up...

Well, it's hard to tell but I'd be very surprised if the 18mp sensor in the 7D isn't noisy.

Either way though, I'd get the a850. I looked through a viewfinder of the a900 at B&H and now I really know what I'm missing.

$1800 or $2000? if I had that kind of cash, I would stick with my 40D and buy a new lens. The 40D still works and still takes good pictures.

woop de do,another one just like the ten thousand other ones!

Personally I am very interested in the A850 though I don't think I am buying it at the moment. I also want to see what Olympus does past the E-3 if they are about to announce something.

I think if you want video then obviously the 7D is a no brainer, but from the early previews looks like in low ISO the A850 still rules as far as the tonal depth/DR. I suppose if you want more "far" telephoto then the 7D may be more worth considering.

Handled the A900 last weekend and I was very impressed with feel/ergonomics and view finder. And for the higher ISO noise you can at least size reduce a bit to compensate in equivalence though probably the Canon may still pull ahead.

I think the A850 would still get my vote over the Canon. I am also a bit wary of Canons QA given Reichman's field trip report with the 5D Mark II and the A900. I get a hunch though the 7D is better built.

Neither, I'd just buy an OM3Ti. Small light and with a full frame sensor.

That is a tough choice really would like a full frame but the canon has some nice touches. I think I can continue to live with my 20d a while longer until canon gets a full frame for $1500. I would love the more dynamic range and high ISO performance but that is lot of money not to move up to a full frame.

Inaki- what are you on about classifying german cars as forgettable? Are you a italian car snob or have you never driven a 911 or M3? What cars are memorable in your mind? Certainly not japanse.

"would you choose: a $1700 7D or a $2000 A850?"

Assuming these are the only available choices, A850 - for the autofocus Zeiss lenses.

While I've yet to use one or even see one, I won't get a Canon 7D because...

1. It's a crop sensor.
2. The camera body's too big.
3. It's to small.
4. There are too many pixels.
5. It's too noisy.
6. It's too expensive.
7. Weather sealing? You call that weather sealing?
8. Doesn't focus like a 1 series.
9. Video? What a stupid idea!
10. If I take it to Arntartica it might fail.
11. Dual card slots??
12. I only view images on screen at 100% and I can see noise there.
13. I'd have to buy new resolution test charts to find the 7D's shortcomings.
14. It's black.
15. It has too many buttons.
16. It has too complex menus.
17. It's digital. Digital sux.
18. It's not as good as my 'blad.
19. It's not a Nikon.
20. Canon's trying to make money from me and I resent that.
21. They've removed the direct print button and made it a sub function. Unbeleivable!
22. I'll have to set up a menu entry to reach the mirror lock up in less than three button presses. Even though I never use it.
23. It doesn't have enough resolution.
24. I hate white lenses.
25. It wont take my large supply of Xd memory cards.

Ok. I think that about covers it. Very dissapointing Canon. Very dissapointing....

Gordon

In regards to your comment
>
How long has it been now since a new film SLR came out?

Well there are two new Film SLR's on the market

http://vivitar.com/slr.php

http://www.eyeopte.com/phenixdcdc.html

Not nearly enough in my opinion -- Long live film

@BK

"Is it true that the Japanese consider the number 6 as an unlucky number"

No. Four is considered unlucky by some.

"Well there are two new Film SLR's on the market"

Well, not *exactly* two...those are both the same camera, OEM'd from Cosina.

Mike

In fairness to Canon, their current naming scheme is actually starting to make sense. The 1 series is still the big dog, and the 5 series echoes the EOS 5, which was such a step forward, and one of my all-time favorite cameras. And Canon has had several 7's - the wondrous 7 and 7sz RFs, as well as the last new film body you could afford from Canon EOS 7/Elan 7.

I think the 60D/D60/D30/D20/D40/40D/D90 confusion is worse than the possible Minolta identity problem. And heck, it's sure to be a lucky 7 for a lot of photographers....

I think 17 MP in an APS-C sensor is too dense. Besides, I'd much rather have a FF 24 MP sensor in a good body with in-camera image stabilization. That way I don't have to remember all of those two- and three-letter acronyms for lens names.

I'll take the A850.

Mike,
I would choose the Canon.
Why?
Lens selection.

Those of you knocking the UK list pricing policy forget that Japanese/Korean cameras sold here have all their plastic parts removed on arrival. These are replaced by the finest lacquered & polished oak and sumptuous leather trims (applied by ageing craftsmen called Albert, or Walter). Any functional grommets are discarded, and quirky, brilliantly-conceived-but-practically-pointless bits n'bobs are substituted, making the final product an object of deep longing for those of taste and discernment (ie, small volume snobs, men in tweeds, and, of course, American tourists).

I mean, would we be so stupid as to hand over the loot otherwise?

Eh, I'd rather save my money for the new Pentax. ;)

Based on the specs that I think the average consumer would look at, I think the Sony is the obvious choice here. But based on things I look at, it's not so simple. I want full frame, but I also want high ISO. My perfect camera? A full frame 7D. All of the specs of the 7D but with a full frame sensor. Heck, take out the video — I don't need it. It would be sort of a 5D lite. I know, I'm dreaming, but that's the camera I want today.

I'd have to choose neither, and go with the 5DMkII. I have a few nice Canon lens already, so that influences me a lot (that's why I chose the Canon Rebel XTi over the Nikon D40 two years ago---the Canon lens). I have the Canon 17-40, and if I bought a 7D I'd have to spend another $700 for the 10-22 to have something comparable, and that puts me at the 5DMkII price when added to the price of the new 7D. I don't do any "action" photography, so the higher image quality of the FF would suit my style a lot better---I think. The 7D sounds like a real winner though, if the image quality is just there; same with the Sony 850 if their lens line-up is useful for you.

I'm waiting for a 24mpg cropped sensor. (snicker)

I think I'd spend the $1700 on a nice 24-70 f2.8 piece of glass and hang onto the camera I already have.
If I really had to choose though, I haven't liked Sony since I bought a Sony Minidisc player a few years ago (ipod'll never catch on...) and had to figure out the dreadful NetMD software that came with it. Then the time I picked up a friends Sony digicam, and couldn't figure out how to use it. Maybe Sony is better now, but if I had to choose between these two cameras .... ah I'd still go for some nice glass instead

and £42,365.29 in the U.K.*

Woah...I'm on my way to the solicitors now to cash in the deeds to my gran's bungalow on the south coast.

I am in that situation. My Pentax body with 21mm lens was stolen a few weeks ago so I'm virtually starting over right now. And on weighing the options it looks like I'll be going with a Pentax K-7, Pentax 15mm and (probably) Sigma 30mm f/1.4. If anyone else made a compact ultrawide lens for less than $1000 things might be different.. but they just don't.

PS: did I miss your writeup on the DA15 Mike?

I'd go for a Nikon, either a D300s or a D700. We still have to see if those sensors can face Nikon's one, in therms of performance in low light and EV wideness.

A lot of catch-up technology, including the wireless flash that Nikon has had for quite a time. Nothing as groundbreaking as Canon would like you to believe.

By the way, Warehouse Express in the UK have body only units for preorder at £1699 with free card and battery (wow). That's $2744 at today's exchange rate. Bargain.

Went to T.O.P. today to see what Mike has to say about the new Lumix 20 mm 1:1.7 micro-4/3 lens, and what do I find ...?

I'd pick the one with the cantilevered bust.

Who cares? Where's the GF1?

I won't be buying one due to the baby sensor but it has placed me in quandary regarding a backup for the 5D. I'm now wondering when we'll see the auto focus and other features moved into a 5D replacement. I'm thinking the current 5DMkII may have a short life.

Well, I've a Nikon D700 so my natural choices would be another D700 or a D300s/D400.

If I've to choose I'd prefer the Canon 7D, only if the AF works and the noise is not too much ...

The welcome innovations on the 7D (metering, AF and the 100% viewfinder with overlays) suggests a 5D III should not be too far away.

But my concern is build quality. My 3 months old, 1000 actuations 5D II refuses to accept its CF card at the moment; appears to have a misalignment between viewfinder and sensor and shows non-optical concentric rings on images taken with an EF 50/1.4 (OK, the latter could be a lens problem but the lens is fine with my other Canon bodies).

I love the Canon image quality but, if I did not have so much invested in bodies and glass, I would be sorely tempted to trade in for a D700 and the Nikkor 'holy trinity' (14-24, 24-70, 70-200).

In the 'Canon vs. Sony / Brand X vs Y' debate, what seems to get missed is the financial challenge of migrating from one brand to another. Yes, the Sony will do an outstanding job but when I add up the cost of replacing my closet-full of Canon lens that go with my (still used) 20D it's just something I elect not to do. The comparisons all become an academic exercise at some point. And in any case, I subscribe to the MJ approach of knowing what you have and using it well. Although the in-body stabilization would, I'm sure, allow me to get that shot I otherwise would miss :) Oh well, dream on.....

As a Canon user of many years, with a range of lenses and accessories, it would have to be the Canon over the Sony - total cost of ownership for any other brand is too high.

I think a more interesting question is Canon 7D or Canon 1Diii? (given the 1D3 is nearly double the price of the 7D). If (big if) image quality is up to standard, it seems to me I could replace the 1D3 with a 7D, lose a little performance and build but gain a fair bit in useful features.

I would guess this means a very highly spec'd 1Div is imminent.

Regarding numbering - makes perfect sense to me. This is not an upgraded 50, it is a very different camera - traditionally Canon has added 0s to the number to suggest the target market: one 0 = serious amateur, no 0 = semi-pro.

While the new AF and metering may filter down into other models, I suspect features like the level of weather proofing and remote flash management will only be found at the single digit level. I think dual processors will also be restricted to single digit models, with a resultant performance differential.

All in all I think the 7D is at least a credible response to Nikon's recent resurgence. If I was in the market I'd buy one. My only disappointment is that it doesn't (as far as I know) have an articulated screen. How hard can that be?

Cheers,

Colin

If I had to buy today, I'd get the Canon. As much as the a850 was a shock to the system in terms of features/image quality vs. price point, it's still all about the lenses.

However, I don't have to buy today and can wait for the 5D MKIII. I'll get full frame, better autofocus, and a great selection of fixed focal length lenses.

I've upgraded from a Canon 10D to a 30D to my current 50D.

Despite the negative comments, I find this to be an incredible camera and I am extraordinarily pleased with the results.

In the UK it appears to be c.£1699 body only. That's about US$2750. With 18-135 lens it's £2099 or US$3400.

However if I was going to buy one I'd pop over the Channel and get it from Europe, VAT included. Current price seems to be around EUR1599!

I'm going to ignore the choice of either camera and go straight to saying:

I'm glad Canon introduced the 7D, even as someone who doesn't have a Canon system.

It means Canon cares enough about the nice established by the D300: A sturdy, featured camera using an APS-sized sensor.

It also means that all this overhyped talk about FX FX FULL FRAME FULL FRAME ONLY DX APS R 4 WEENIES like a buzzing plague of locusts can die down a bit (just a bit; like locusts they're just too many of them).

More importantly, it means that there's still a future for professional-grade APS-sized cameras. As a hobbyist, the cost savings bundled with the great technical competency of today's cameras (I regard people saying APS-sized sensors are rubbish as I would to people who claim that homeopathy is good for health), means I actually get to *do* some great photography for not too much cost. I'm still amazed at what I can pull out. Something I wouldn't have been able to do as little as 8 years ago.

Amazing times like these and people are whining even more.

"In the 'Canon vs. Sony / Brand X vs Y' debate, what seems to get missed is the financial challenge of migrating from one brand to another."

To be fair, I think it's only missed because I specifically asked people to ignore it.

Mike

Misha, to answer your question, there probably isn't a better DSLR than the A850/900 for manual focusing lenses. Add in the user replaceable type "M" focusing screen, it'll be even better.

As far as high ISO is concerned, the A850 will be well ahead of any APS-C camera out there at like viewing/print size.

"Despite the negative comments, I find this to be an incredible camera"

Bruce,
No disrespect to the 50D. The only "shortcoming" I meant to point out that it was considered by Canonistas to have been not very exciting as a replacement for the 40D. That's no great sin, and the 40D is also still an excellent and eminently usable camera and the 50D refined it still further.

Mike

Sony is still on my blacklist for their CDs shipped with root-kits to take over your computer. Both Sony and Canon have not very good flash systems. I think I'll just stick with my D700.

If I could get adequate low-light performance, I'd go to an APS-C sensor; I'm more of a telephoto guy than a wideangle guy, and 15mm-e (10mm x 1.5) is really pretty wide, wider than anything I ever owned until this summer in fact.

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. As you can see from my note, my upgrades have been every other X0D. The 50D might not have been much of an upgrade for 40D owners, but it was a big change for me with my 30D (similar to when I upgraded from 10D to 30D).

While the techno-geek in me says "gotta have a 7D" the Jiminy Cricket on my shoulder says "wife will kill me, kid going to college next year, two kids in college two years after that, taxes, car insurance (17 year old driver), yadda yadda yadda."

Life often interferes with what we really wanna do...

Excellents photos...

I buy this!!!!

Funny, I have a considerable investment in Canon glass and have been waiting quite awhile for Canon to come out with the camera I really want, which would be a 5D with better autofocus and true environmental seals. But for the APS-C sensor this might have been that camera.

I am a Canon user and have both the 40 D and a 5D mkII. Does this camera interest me? As a geek...yes..as a user of cameras..not at all. Why? I personally hate the menu system and wish that all my cameras had a few dials here and there to deal with apertures and shutter that never change their functions unlike that maddeningly multifunctionality of the Canon system. I just never get them right first time around. IF I were one who needed to change my settings often, I would have spontaneously combusted long ago ( ha ha) but my style of work does not require such and thus I manage well enough with the arrangement. What is most important to me is the abilty to crop and manipulate images AFTER the shoot and that means having very quiet files which I get from the 5D and less so from the very decent 40D. Working as I do with very large size image prints, 24 by 36 inch most of the time, noise is an issue that I have to contend with. I was astounded the other day in using the 25k ISO setting on the 5D and making sure that the lighting was flat enough so that there were no deep shadows and finding that the image quality with a little tweak in RAW made a perfectly fine image, not at all as noisy as I was lead to believe and yes, I could print it to that size. I shot the identical image at ISO 100 and sure, the latter was sharper and cleaner but considering that I came from the world of 35mm film, the results at 25k were mind boggling. I suspect that the new Canon cannot compete in the noise department with the 5DmkII but for most uses it is probably a fine camera with features that menu lovers will be happy with. All I want myself are manual controls that are out there to use..sharp lenses and auto focus and quiet files..I have them now. Hurrah...

Should anybody be interested (and able to read Japanese), Canon Japan's web site refers to the 7D as the "Image Monster."

That alone is the reason why the 7D trumps Sony.

http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/7d/index.html

I cant understand Canon's design choices.

The 7D is advertised as being targeted at wildlife photographers.
Unfortunately, I am not sure Canon has asked any wildlife photographer for feedback.

I shoot animals mostly during the first hours after dawn with long focal lenses (hence limited aperture).
This means that f/5.6 AF points will certainly be hunting (even if the 7D have 19 of them).

I am also very concerned with the noise and low detail level of the sample 7D photos (eg. in DPreview sample gallery).

18Mpixels is certainly too much to handle.

... gosh... this here hammer looks like it'd do the job... well... but this hammer looks prettier... but they're both hammers, right? Could I still build a beautiful home with either one? You bet!

So it is with cameras: They're only as good as the nutter behind the eyepiece.

I'll take a 7D (on order) and use it's vast capabilities to the very best of my (admittedly limited) abilities.

You were right, same in dollars as it is pounds.

US: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646908-REG/Canon_3814B004_...

UK: www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-eos-7d-digital-slr-cam...

1700 dollars should be 1039 UK Pounds at normal exchange rates.

Utterly disgraceful. If this is canons official launch price in the UK and the US, they can go and swivel.

Kris.

I'm a little blown away. Still love my full frame, architectual photography!

As to your question Mike...both fine cameras to be sure...but different tools for different purposes (for me anyway).

I probably do have a Canon bias, but, if I was starting from scratch, as I did not that long ago when I made the switch from manual to auto focus system:

First, I would look at the system components that Canon and Sony offer...you're not just buying a body.

Second, I would consider the (small but important) APS-C, "extra depth of field advantage" for macro.

Third, I would consider the APS-C telephoto advantage, (described in a post above). My 40D is a terrific accessory for my EF70-200 2.8 lens.

Fourth, I would consider which of the two companies has the best record of longevity as a photo equipment supplier.

Finally, for my purposes, I would select the Canon, not the Sony.

Cheers! Jay

After having used a Sony Vaio for a year and having it fail twice after one year within a space of 1 month and with their terrible service I would not touch a Sony product even if it was offered for free.

Canon for me! Have used 6 of them beginning with the Ae-1P, Ae-1, EOS 1000, EOS 500n, A2 and now 400D without a single problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.