How long as the Canon 7d been £1299?

I was rather hoping you might just pop into this thread CT :)

I agree that "having a play" with a camera is probably the worst possible way to evaluate it!

I remember when I got my 1Ds and for the first few weeks I honestly thought "what the heck have I done?" It was a nightmare and the pics were just awful!

Was that the fault of the camera? Should I therefore write it off as a steam driven piece of c***? Errm nope. I had to persevere and work at it and learn how everything worked until it all came together and it became my tool rather than the burden it was to start with.

If people think that new gear will instantly be a panacea to make them a better photographer, think again. It's YOU that makes you a better tog. Kit helps but writing it off after 5 mins is equally as silly :)
 
"The 7D has 3 times the pixel density of the 300D and comparisons with such a dated camera are ludicrous."

Why is it ludicrous? Because it calls the 7D IQ into question?

I had a 300D and I have ISO 1600 straight from the camera JPEG's that are by no means shabby so comparing the new stuff to the old seems like a perfectly justifiable thing to do to me and I'd be interested in seeing if 3 times the pixel density is a good thing or a bad thing for the shots that I take.

Personally when I look at 7D shots on the net I don't see anything IQ wise to justify such a high price.

I may look at a 7D one day but if and when I do I take a very close look at real world picture quality and judge it against the camera I have now which seems to me at least to be a perfectly understandable thing to do.
 
woof woof said:
"The 7D has 3 times the pixel density of the 300D and comparisons with such a dated camera are ludicrous."

Why is it ludicrous? Because it calls the 7D IQ into question?
Click to expand...

No.... because it doesn't even begin to compare like with like and he's not even quoting the source of his info - a bit like you claiming good 1600 ISO images from the 300D without posting the evidence. Sorry mate but it's just wasted bandwidth and uninformative. That bird shot on a 300D would probably be only a 3rd of the size in the full size file. By the time you'd finished cropping you'd have so few pixels left that image quality would be totally gone for any sort of usable image, But that's the whole point of the 7D, you either need that reach and all those pixels or you don't.
 
Not like with like?

They're all cameras and we must or at least should decide for ourselves.

As for me not posting ISO 1600 shots, foolishly I expected to be believed but if you insist, all these are hand held at ISO 1600, JPEG's and with no processing and they all look fine in print.

I accept that cropping gives an advantage to the higher mp cameras but I think I said something about deciding for myself? I rarely crop so I'll need to take a good look at the 7D and any improvement it offers in IQ over my current 20D for the shots I take.

1.jpg


2-2.jpg


3-1.jpg


4-1.jpg


6.jpg


5.jpg
 
The 300D in question is the Canon EOS 300D, a 6mp camera which is a few years old now.
 
The following are all 20D shots taken at ISO 3200, no processing other than straight JPEG from RAW. My point being that a well exposed full image from an older camera can look acceptable. I'm not sure if a 7D will be the camera for me but I will expect to see an improvement in IQ before I put my hand in my pocket.

20-32-1.jpg


20-32-2.jpg


20-32-3.jpg


20-32-4.jpg
 
woof woof said:
2-2.jpg
Click to expand...

you're not seeing the point of what CT is getting at though - say if you took this photo with both cameras and compared them side by side, one taken with the 7D and one with 300D

full picture viewed at print distance yeh, they'd look similar (7D would deffo be sharper) but then if you went in on the image and looked at those cross-beam wires on the pier at 100%, the 7D's picture would be sharp, clear and recognisable and the 300D would be a blueish smudge with a darker line in the middle

the amount of detail the 7D (and 50D) resolves would blow it out of the water; and if you require this kinda detail - especially with birds and wildlife, minute hairs, feathers etc and the need to crop then you go for the 7D. If you want ok'ish wide shot viewed at print distance then stick with you 300D

drew
 
I haven't got a 300D.

I did say whole shots from older cameras without cropping can look ok.

I did say it's up to us all to decide and I'll decide what's best for me.

Maybe I should have said, read posts carefully. :)
 
Orville said:
Canon ripped it's UK customers off by releasing it at £1699.
Click to expand...

Er, the RRP is still £1699. It wasn't Canon that was making money from the early adopters - it was the dealers. And who can blame them? If people are willing to spend £1699 then you'd be stark, staring, mad to sell it at anything less.


Orville said:
I feel sorry for the early adopters who have seen resale values slashed within 6 weeks.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel sorry for them? Either they knew that prices would drop after the initial peiod or they didn't do their research properly (one look at any of those Camerapricebuster graphs would give you a hint). I don't recall anybody holding a gun to my head, or waking up next to a horse's head.
 
artyman said:
I've been into my local Jessops several times since launch and I haven't seen one yet, so is it still in short supply or are Jessops badly organised in getting stock to their branches.
Click to expand...

Any question that has 'are Jessops badly organised' as one of the options doesn't really need to be asked.
 
lol amen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top