It seems like all the leaks have come out. ; Canon Rumors has pics: http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/08/7d-1 ... -pictures/ Supposed stats are 18mp sensor, 100% VF, a new exposure system, built in wireless commander mode, dual DiGIC IV processors... The macro lens is the first with the new hybrid IS system. The other 2 lenses are: ; EF-S 15-85 IS, EF-S 18-135 IS.
FWIW, I'm reading what is supposed to be the press release, and even with the Engrish translation, it seems as if Canon has put the 1DMk3 AF system in this camera. ; I guess this is Canon's response to the D300s; to have a pro-level AF in a prosumer body. ; (What the EOS-3 was supposed to be) ; I'm guessing that they probably also put the 1DMkIV algorithm in it, so they can have field testers for the spring's release of the MkIV. ; (Which I'm going to bet is the end of the 1Ds Line, the MkIV is going to be full frame, prob around 16/18 mp. ; And the EOS-3D will be the pro 5DMk2.)
Re: EOS 7D, you should read Rob G's essay on it.... I guess Canon is still trying to get into his good graces, he's got a two page study on the 7D. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_ ... 0042-10239 When you go down to how much the AF can be fine tuned on this camera, I'm guessing that I'm right that this is a beta for the MkIV....and even he said this is Canon's response to the D300s.
I'm still perplexed why they are including the 28-135 IS (as part of a kit) when they just announced the EF-S 18-135, which would be a better range for the crop......
I know it is an early review, but I was really hoping this camera would be better at high ISO. ; I agree with Rob...12 megapixels and great ISO sensitivity would have been better.
I'm glad to see Canon putting more gear out, but I don't understand why they are upping the megapixels. ; When this camera was first announced I must gave misread the press release because I thought it was going to be another full-frame. ; Just as well, because I have not saved enough $$ to buy a full frame.
While I can understand how it looks like Canon is muddying the waters, I like what I'm seeing here. Canon's ##D ; (10D, 20D, and so on) series has traditionally been their prosumer line, the mid range between the 1D series and the Digital Rebel series (with the 5D as the low cost, but lower performance full frame option). ; But the feature set on the double digit D series hasn't been up to par with Nikon's equivalent prosumer crop factor line. ; Nikon was putting out higher performance bodies, with pro spec AF, at a slightly higher price point. The 5DmkII was a weird situation. ; Canon put a high resolution sensor in an otherwise lower performance body to market while Nikon put out a much lower resolution full frame sensor in a high performance body. Now Canon appears to be trying to step up to the D300's niche, a high end crop factor body that doesn't cost as much as the 1D line. ; I'm pleased with this, until now I've felt that there was a strong difference in design philosophy between the two manufacturers. ; If you were, say, a sports photographer, you had a strong reason to consider Nikon because of their superior AF on the prosumer line. I really like what I'm seeing in the specs on this camera. ; In particular the digital level function. ; I was just out shooting on a tripod a few days ago, I could have used that feature then. ; Oh sure, nothing's stopping me from getting something like one of those inexpensive bubble levels that can be mounted on the flash shoe, but having such a feature built in to the camera would be pretty nice. But yes, what about the resolution? ; From what I've seen, the D700, offering 12.1 megapixels to the 5DmkII's 21.1, doesn't have near as much of a noise advantage as I'd have expected from the numbers. ; So I'm looking forward to seeing a comparison between the D300s and the D7. ; However there's another factor that does concern me. ; Here's a quote from the dpreview review of the 50D: "Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution" So.. what's the point of pushing it up to 18? ; The noise issue is a question of tradeoffs. ; I decided the 50D wasn't for me because I often use high ISOs, either because I'm using a long lens and need the higher shutter speeds or else I'm just shooting in darker conditions. ; The prospect of squeezing more detail out of my 400mm lens is attractive, but it's an F5.6 lens, it's one of the reasons that I frequently find myself increasing the ISO in the first place. But if it's true that even the best primes would struggle to provide enough resolution for a 15mp 1.6 crop sensor, I admit I don't see any benefit in stepping up to 18. ; I was initially thinking that it might work, that Canon might be able to make the noise levels at least adequate if not spectacular for such a densely packed sensor. ; But if there's little to no real world advantage to having such resolution then really.. just say no to pointless resolution increases. ; Especially not for something like this that has such an otherwise high specification. ; My cynical side wants to suggest that this is an attempt to ensure a market for the 1D MKIV generation which may end up having a larger pixel pitch (larger sensor sites, which may or may not translate to lower resolution with the larger sensor sizes). I'm hoping this is it, the moment when Canon's bodies start matching Nikon in terms of performance and feature sets. ; At least on the prosumer level. ; If they can beat them in resolution while still keeping close enough in terms of noise levels I'll be happier still. ; I just hope that this doesn't turn out to be a high performance body fundamentally limited by a sensor resolution that's too high instead of too low. I'll be very disappointed if it really does appear to be a case of Canon intentionally overpacking the sensor with pixels. ; But I really don't see how else they can expect to maintain the market for the 1dmk4 which will presumably have a price tag twice that of the 7D.
