K7 vs new canon 7D 18mp (That was fast too!)

ozlizard · 09-01-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

The 7D is very nice, but unless one is invested in Canon gear or is a sports photographer, the K-7 represents a more compelling package

From a hands on preview at Gizmodo...

Quote:

The 7D feels like Canon took the results of a survey they handed out to people about what they wanted in a camera and crammed ‘em all into one product targeted at semi-pros. Full HD video with manual exposure in 24, 25 or 30 frames per second, check. More rugged, weatherproof body than 5D, check. Customisable buttons, including a new multifunction button, check. A dedicated button for switching to RAW+JPEG mode. Um, check. Electronic axis level? Also check. It has dual DIGIC IV image processors, the first model outside of the pro 1Ds line with dual image processors for fast burst shooting: 8FPS with 94-shot JPEG bursts (124 with UDMA card) or 15 RAW shots, all at full resolution with 14-bit A/D conversion.

Sounds like it stacks up pretty well against the K7 if you ask me! Read two previews this one and one at Cnet and they didn't even mention the K7 only the Nikon D300...see what we are up against?

KungPOW · 09-01-2009, 10:52 PM

Ok, I need to revise my previous statement.

I just pixel peeped the 7D vs. the A900 vs the D3 vs the K-7.

I'm really blown away with the high ISO the 7D can do. In low ISO all three cameras perform really well. No huge diferences. But at the higher ISO'S, well the A900 falls apart. To my eyes the 7D and the D3 are very close, the edge going to the D3. The K-7 does ok, but really falls apart at 6400.

After the 50D reviews, I really thought that 14 mpix was the max we would see from APS-C. I am really impressed with the 18 mp from the 7D. So, Canon was able to improve image quality from the 50D to the 7D. Well done Canon.

pingflood · 09-01-2009, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Maxington

I'd be seriously worried about that many megapixels starting to show the limitations of your lenses. Add that to the fact that Canon degraded image quality with the megapixel jump from 40D to 50D, be interesting to see if they've avoided that problem this time around.

Reviews will be very interesting.

No, no, no, no, no.

Canon did NOT "degrade" image quality going from 40D to 50D. This whole BS comes from a badly made test at dpreview, and their findings have not been duplicated by other reviewers. In fact, some places (cameralabs and/or IR) found a ~20% increase in horizontal and vertical resolution over the 40D, as could be reasonably expected from the bump in pixels.

Further, the noise on the 50D on a _per pixel level_ is slightly worse than a 40D. On the same size output, the 50D is better. In other words, a 16x20 print from a 50D will have less apparent noise than one from a 40D. This is pretty much to be expected from such a bump in sensor density. I think the 50D's gapless microsensors is what helps give it a slight edge in the noise department when considering the output size.

I am getting so sick of hearing this repeated since hardly anyone who says it has experience with either camera and the whole mess just comes from dpreview screwing up (the initial test was done with a beta RAW converter that underperformed, and it's fairly clear the lens they used was not performing particularly well). Suddenly everyone--most who've never even HELD either camera--"knows" that the 50D is "worse".

Believe me, I did my homework before deciding to spend the extra $400 on the 50D over the 40D... and if you don't believe me, go ask the pros who switched to 50D for wildlife/birding because they found it an overall better camera.

edit: here you go...
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/noise.shtml

Quote:

But between 100 and 3200 ISO, the EOS 50D really does deliver very similar noise levels to the earlier 40D at a pixel level. This is impressive given the significant boost in total pixels and remember if you're reproducing 40D and 50D images at the same size, the 50D's noise artefacts will appear smaller. It also proves the 50D's greater sensor efficiency in practice

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/resolution.shtml

Quote:

In terms of resolving power, the Canon EOS 50D delivers 2350 and 2400 lpph of horizontal and vertical resolution respectively when equipped with the EF-S 18-200mm IS kit lens. Fit a higher quality prime lens like the EF 85mm f1.8 and the 50D delivers higher resolution figures of 2450 lpph for both horizontal and vertical resolution.

This places it comfortably ahead of the Canon EOS 40D which when equipped with the same EF 85mm f1.8 lens scored 1950 and 2100 lpph of horizontal and vertical resolution respectively.

So there you go. No surprise that the 50D needs good glass to really shine, but it's also pretty clear that with good glass it really outdoes the 40D by quite a margin.

Torphoto · 09-02-2009, 09:22 AM

Your both right but guess what, the 7d needs REALLY good glass to shine, more so than the 50D, right now the 18mp is being wasted your probably only getting 16mp out of it as the rest is being lost by the lenses.

Playing with the samples and hitting it with usm is not bringing out more detail, just making things sharper and this says it all. I'm sure they could get a 21mp apsc sensor with lower noise but again alot of the detail is going to waste unless you have the glass.

Maxington · 09-02-2009, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

No, no, no, no, no.

Canon did NOT "degrade" image quality going from 40D to 50D. This whole BS comes from a badly made test at dpreview, and their findings have not been duplicated by other reviewers. In fact, some places (cameralabs and/or IR) found a ~20% increase in horizontal and vertical resolution over the 40D, as could be reasonably expected from the bump in pixels.

So what about DPReview's comment on reduced DR on the 50D in shadows compared to 40D? Nothing you linked to said a thing about DR, just noise. And you still need better lenses to gain any resolution advantage and you need to print LARGE, but with all lenses you will be getting equal or slightly better/worse noise at higher body cost.

I don't actually care, I don't own any Canon gear to justify my purchase, but I think Nikon has done the smart thing in my opinion, keep the megapixels lower and achieve the best high iso performance you can get. There is no need to keep pushing a megapixel number and keeping noise about the same as a few generations ago. I personally want better DR and noise, not more pixels and the same!

I cynically think Canon has done some smart marketing, if the 7D outperformed the full-frame cameras with noise, they'd cannibalize their higher models.

pingflood · 09-02-2009, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Maxington

So what about DPReview's comment on reduced DR on the 50D in shadows compared to 40D? Nothing you linked to said a thing about DR, just noise. And you still need better lenses to gain any resolution advantage and you need to print LARGE, but with all lenses you will be getting equal or slightly better/worse noise at higher body cost.

Print large OR crop heavily. I use my 50D for birding and generally have to do a fair bit of cropping. The extra resolution is a huge benefit. If I crop out 50% of the area on a 40D shot I have 5MP, but 7.5 from a 50D one. That DOES make a difference and you don't need to print 20x30s to see it.

And sure, you can't throw an 18-55 on it and expect it to shine, but even more modest glass like the 85/1.8 will show a clear resolution advantage on the 50D.

I pretty much disregard dpreview's "testing" (they've lost all credibility in my eyes lately), but other places have found the DR of the 50D to be close enough to that of the 40D to not make a difference. In my shooting I see nothing but advantages using the 50D compared to a 40D...

Pentaxor · 09-02-2009, 11:45 PM

I dont want to sound like paranoid, but I think the model name 7D is a marketing trick by Canon to deliberately misled buyers. I think Canon is riding on the buzz that the K-7 has created. I mean there is just no clear distinction between the two unless it's Canon or Pentax is mentioned. I mean, Canon could simply named it 6D or 8D for that matter inorder to be more unique and identifiable.

but anyways, I think it's a double-edge sword. it could steal some of the potential customers that are really looking for the K-7 or lose some potential buyers looking for a 7D. I'm just not sure how would this work out for both systems.

I do admit that the 7D's specs are flattery and so does the initial photo results. but I dont think that the increased ISO, MP size, more AF points, 8fps burst mode, faster movie fps (is this HD video?), etc... is worth the extra 400-500 bucks even if it doesn't have built-in SR, weather-proof capability, and cheap and excellent VR lenses. I don't think that a high-ISO would be enough to compensate for the need to shoot under slower shutter speed.

pingflood · 09-03-2009, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I dont want to sound like paranoid, but I think the model name 7D is a marketing trick by Canon to deliberately misled buyers. I think Canon is riding on the buzz that the K-7 has created. I mean there is just no clear distinction between the two unless it's Canon or Pentax is mentioned. I mean, Canon could simply named it 6D or 8D for that matter inorder to be more unique and identifiable.

but anyways, I think it's a double-edge sword. it could steal some of the potential customers that are really looking for the K-7 or lose some potential buyers looking for a 7D. I'm just not sure how would this work out for both systems.

I do admit that the 7D's specs are flattery and so does the initial photo results. but I dont think that the increased ISO, MP size, more AF points, 8fps burst mode, faster movie fps (is this HD video?), etc... is worth the extra 400-500 bucks even if it doesn't have built-in SR, weather-proof capability, and cheap and excellent VR lenses. I don't think that a high-ISO would be enough to compensate for the need to shoot under slower shutter speed.

You have got to be kidding me.

Canon named it the 7D to "confuse" K-7 buyers into buying it? Do you wear tinfoil hats on a regular basis?

The reason for the '7' is the Elan/EOS 7 heritage.

edit: Also, it's well worth the extra 400-500 for those who want/need the higher fps, the (presumably) excellent autofocus, and slightly higher res. And (not cheap, but very very good) superteles.

And yeah, the video is HD. 1080p, 24/25/30 fps I believe.

Pentaxor · 09-03-2009, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

You have got to be kidding me.

Canon named it the 7D to "confuse" K-7 buyers into buying it? Do you wear tinfoil hats on a regular basis?

The reason for the '7' is the Elan/EOS 7 heritage.

edit: Also, it's well worth the extra 400-500 for those who want/need the higher fps, the (presumably) excellent autofocus, and slightly higher res. And (not cheap, but very very good) superteles.

And yeah, the video is HD. 1080p, 24/25/30 fps I believe.

that's why I said I dont want to sound like I'm paranoid. but anyway, eventhough that Canon has it's basis for naming it's new cam as 7D because of it's EOS 7 heritage as they may claim it was, IMO, it's still close. I don't dismiss the possibility for misconception from the unsuspecting and unoriented buyer, except that he/she heard someone mentioned a cam with a 7 on it but not sure what brand it was. no matter how silly these scenarios are, they do exist. what's more is that these cams are only a few months apart from the release period. K-7 in July and 7D in October.

I mean, in the world of business where certain brand of items are almost named the same or a simple rip-off of the original just to create an attention to the unknown one. or somehow borrow the idea among themselves. so are dslrs are an exception?

for what I know, Canon's mid-range APS-C dslr's are double digits. Pentax sandwiched their digits with two letters but dropped the idea by releasing the K-7. speaking of which, the 7D is not even an FF if I'm not mistaken? so why lose the "0" ?

it may sound silly, but people (basically newbies) have misconceptions about camera models.

now I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon would release a camera model name D7 because it's based from the D700 blueprint, but an APS-C sensor.

now go on, and let's have a laugh !!!

schmik · 09-03-2009, 01:50 AM

Hahahah I am paranoid too.... i have had the same thought the names are so similar. Especially when in my mind the k7 is the k7d (except pentax did drop the d..... i just keep forgetting).

And you know what they say "just because you are paranoid does mean that they are not watching you!".

mike

pingflood · 09-03-2009, 01:55 AM

The 7D is not intended to be a mid-range APS-C camera. There will still be a 60D. The 7D is supposed to be the "pro" crop camera, with higher grade autofocus/fps/features.

So Canon will have the following lineup, effectively:
Rebel -- entry level crop camera
XXD -- mid-grade enthusiast crop camera
5D -- mid-grade full frame
7D -- "pro" crop camera
1D/1Ds -- "pro" FF/1.3x cameras with bulletproof build and the top of the line everything

The one thing missing is a "3D" similar to the old EOS 3 which would be like a 1D/1Ds without the integrated grip -- just a smaller/lighter version. We shall see if that comes next.

Believe me, Canon is worrying about Nikon beating them and I have a feeling they are not too concerned about trying to confuse prospective Pentax owners into buying a 7D.

The relatively smaller number of people looking at the K-7 most likely already know Pentax fairly well and wouldn't accidentally buy a Canon because they both have '7' in the name.

I don't see too many BMW buyers ending up with a Mazda just because they're both referred to as '3-series'.

09-01-2009, 11:38 PM	#33
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Maxington I'd be seriously worried about that many megapixels starting to show the limitations of your lenses. Add that to the fact that Canon degraded image quality with the megapixel jump from 40D to 50D, be interesting to see if they've avoided that problem this time around. Reviews will be very interesting. No, no, no, no, no. Canon did NOT "degrade" image quality going from 40D to 50D. This whole BS comes from a badly made test at dpreview, and their findings have not been duplicated by other reviewers. In fact, some places (cameralabs and/or IR) found a ~20% increase in horizontal and vertical resolution over the 40D, as could be reasonably expected from the bump in pixels. Further, the noise on the 50D on a _per pixel level_ is slightly worse than a 40D. On the same size output, the 50D is better. In other words, a 16x20 print from a 50D will have less apparent noise than one from a 40D. This is pretty much to be expected from such a bump in sensor density. I think the 50D's gapless microsensors is what helps give it a slight edge in the noise department when considering the output size. I am getting so sick of hearing this repeated since hardly anyone who says it has experience with either camera and the whole mess just comes from dpreview screwing up (the initial test was done with a beta RAW converter that underperformed, and it's fairly clear the lens they used was not performing particularly well). Suddenly everyone--most who've never even HELD either camera--"knows" that the 50D is "worse". Believe me, I did my homework before deciding to spend the extra $400 on the 50D over the 40D... and if you don't believe me, go ask the pros who switched to 50D for wildlife/birding because they found it an overall better camera. edit: here you go... http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/noise.shtml Quote: But between 100 and 3200 ISO, the EOS 50D really does deliver very similar noise levels to the earlier 40D at a pixel level. This is impressive given the significant boost in total pixels and remember if you're reproducing 40D and 50D images at the same size, the 50D's noise artefacts will appear smaller. It also proves the 50D's greater sensor efficiency in practice http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/resolution.shtml Quote: In terms of resolving power, the Canon EOS 50D delivers 2350 and 2400 lpph of horizontal and vertical resolution respectively when equipped with the EF-S 18-200mm IS kit lens. Fit a higher quality prime lens like the EF 85mm f1.8 and the 50D delivers higher resolution figures of 2450 lpph for both horizontal and vertical resolution. This places it comfortably ahead of the Canon EOS 40D which when equipped with the same EF 85mm f1.8 lens scored 1950 and 2100 lpph of horizontal and vertical resolution respectively. So there you go. No surprise that the 50D needs good glass to really shine, but it's also pretty clear that with good glass it really outdoes the 40D by quite a margin. Last edited by pingflood; 09-01-2009 at 11:59 PM.

09-03-2009, 12:03 AM	#38
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Pentaxor I dont want to sound like paranoid, but I think the model name 7D is a marketing trick by Canon to deliberately misled buyers. I think Canon is riding on the buzz that the K-7 has created. I mean there is just no clear distinction between the two unless it's Canon or Pentax is mentioned. I mean, Canon could simply named it 6D or 8D for that matter inorder to be more unique and identifiable. but anyways, I think it's a double-edge sword. it could steal some of the potential customers that are really looking for the K-7 or lose some potential buyers looking for a 7D. I'm just not sure how would this work out for both systems. I do admit that the 7D's specs are flattery and so does the initial photo results. but I dont think that the increased ISO, MP size, more AF points, 8fps burst mode, faster movie fps (is this HD video?), etc... is worth the extra 400-500 bucks even if it doesn't have built-in SR, weather-proof capability, and cheap and excellent VR lenses. I don't think that a high-ISO would be enough to compensate for the need to shoot under slower shutter speed. You have got to be kidding me. Canon named it the 7D to "confuse" K-7 buyers into buying it? Do you wear tinfoil hats on a regular basis? The reason for the '7' is the Elan/EOS 7 heritage. edit: Also, it's well worth the extra 400-500 for those who want/need the higher fps, the (presumably) excellent autofocus, and slightly higher res. And (not cheap, but very very good) superteles. And yeah, the video is HD. 1080p, 24/25/30 fps I believe. Last edited by pingflood; 09-03-2009 at 12:08 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Megapixels and resolution: K-x 12MP beats 18MP Canon 60D. Why?	rawr	Photographic Technique	4	10-08-2010 09:01 AM
Sports Who says you need a 1-digit Canon for fast Sports?!	Scubadoo	Post Your Photos!	4	04-24-2010 06:58 PM
For Sale - Sold: EX+++ Canon EF USM 100mm f/2.0 Fast Portrait Lens, Worldwide Shipping	wallyb	Sold Items	1	12-01-2009 11:23 AM
old rumor : Pentax 18MP MF camera and evetually 30MP!	eigelb	Pentax Medium Format	1	11-22-2009 01:36 PM
A Fast Fifty Is Really A Fast 75mm	drewdlephone	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	182	12-08-2008 10:38 AM

09-01-2009, 09:57 PM	#31
ozlizard Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Bridgetown West Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 903	Quote: The 7D is very nice, but unless one is invested in Canon gear or is a sports photographer, the K-7 represents a more compelling package From a hands on preview at Gizmodo... Quote: The 7D feels like Canon took the results of a survey they handed out to people about what they wanted in a camera and crammed ‘em all into one product targeted at semi-pros. Full HD video with manual exposure in 24, 25 or 30 frames per second, check. More rugged, weatherproof body than 5D, check. Customisable buttons, including a new multifunction button, check. A dedicated button for switching to RAW+JPEG mode. Um, check. Electronic axis level? Also check. It has dual DIGIC IV image processors, the first model outside of the pro 1Ds line with dual image processors for fast burst shooting: 8FPS with 94-shot JPEG bursts (124 with UDMA card) or 15 RAW shots, all at full resolution with 14-bit A/D conversion. Sounds like it stacks up pretty well against the K7 if you ask me! Read two previews this one and one at Cnet and they didn't even mention the K7 only the Nikon D300...see what we are up against?

09-01-2009, 10:52 PM	#32
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Ok, I need to revise my previous statement. I just pixel peeped the 7D vs. the A900 vs the D3 vs the K-7. I'm really blown away with the high ISO the 7D can do. In low ISO all three cameras perform really well. No huge diferences. But at the higher ISO'S, well the A900 falls apart. To my eyes the 7D and the D3 are very close, the edge going to the D3. The K-7 does ok, but really falls apart at 6400. After the 50D reviews, I really thought that 14 mpix was the max we would see from APS-C. I am really impressed with the 18 mp from the 7D. So, Canon was able to improve image quality from the 50D to the 7D. Well done Canon.

09-02-2009, 09:22 AM	#34
Torphoto Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Trinidad W.I. Photos: Gallery Posts: 612	Your both right but guess what, the 7d needs REALLY good glass to shine, more so than the 50D, right now the 18mp is being wasted your probably only getting 16mp out of it as the rest is being lost by the lenses. Playing with the samples and hitting it with usm is not bringing out more detail, just making things sharper and this says it all. I'm sure they could get a 21mp apsc sensor with lower noise but again alot of the detail is going to waste unless you have the glass.

09-02-2009, 11:14 PM	#35
Maxington Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 255	Originally posted by pingflood No, no, no, no, no. Canon did NOT "degrade" image quality going from 40D to 50D. This whole BS comes from a badly made test at dpreview, and their findings have not been duplicated by other reviewers. In fact, some places (cameralabs and/or IR) found a ~20% increase in horizontal and vertical resolution over the 40D, as could be reasonably expected from the bump in pixels. So what about DPReview's comment on reduced DR on the 50D in shadows compared to 40D? Nothing you linked to said a thing about DR, just noise. And you still need better lenses to gain any resolution advantage and you need to print LARGE, but with all lenses you will be getting equal or slightly better/worse noise at higher body cost. I don't actually care, I don't own any Canon gear to justify my purchase, but I think Nikon has done the smart thing in my opinion, keep the megapixels lower and achieve the best high iso performance you can get. There is no need to keep pushing a megapixel number and keeping noise about the same as a few generations ago. I personally want better DR and noise, not more pixels and the same! I cynically think Canon has done some smart marketing, if the 7D outperformed the full-frame cameras with noise, they'd cannibalize their higher models.

09-02-2009, 11:41 PM	#36
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Maxington So what about DPReview's comment on reduced DR on the 50D in shadows compared to 40D? Nothing you linked to said a thing about DR, just noise. And you still need better lenses to gain any resolution advantage and you need to print LARGE, but with all lenses you will be getting equal or slightly better/worse noise at higher body cost. Print large OR crop heavily. I use my 50D for birding and generally have to do a fair bit of cropping. The extra resolution is a huge benefit. If I crop out 50% of the area on a 40D shot I have 5MP, but 7.5 from a 50D one. That DOES make a difference and you don't need to print 20x30s to see it. And sure, you can't throw an 18-55 on it and expect it to shine, but even more modest glass like the 85/1.8 will show a clear resolution advantage on the 50D. I pretty much disregard dpreview's "testing" (they've lost all credibility in my eyes lately), but other places have found the DR of the 50D to be close enough to that of the 40D to not make a difference. In my shooting I see nothing but advantages using the 50D compared to a 40D...

09-02-2009, 11:45 PM	#37
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I dont want to sound like paranoid, but I think the model name 7D is a marketing trick by Canon to deliberately misled buyers. I think Canon is riding on the buzz that the K-7 has created. I mean there is just no clear distinction between the two unless it's Canon or Pentax is mentioned. I mean, Canon could simply named it 6D or 8D for that matter inorder to be more unique and identifiable. but anyways, I think it's a double-edge sword. it could steal some of the potential customers that are really looking for the K-7 or lose some potential buyers looking for a 7D. I'm just not sure how would this work out for both systems. I do admit that the 7D's specs are flattery and so does the initial photo results. but I dont think that the increased ISO, MP size, more AF points, 8fps burst mode, faster movie fps (is this HD video?), etc... is worth the extra 400-500 bucks even if it doesn't have built-in SR, weather-proof capability, and cheap and excellent VR lenses. I don't think that a high-ISO would be enough to compensate for the need to shoot under slower shutter speed.

09-03-2009, 01:40 AM	#39
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by pingflood You have got to be kidding me. Canon named it the 7D to "confuse" K-7 buyers into buying it? Do you wear tinfoil hats on a regular basis? The reason for the '7' is the Elan/EOS 7 heritage. edit: Also, it's well worth the extra 400-500 for those who want/need the higher fps, the (presumably) excellent autofocus, and slightly higher res. And (not cheap, but very very good) superteles. And yeah, the video is HD. 1080p, 24/25/30 fps I believe. that's why I said I dont want to sound like I'm paranoid. but anyway, eventhough that Canon has it's basis for naming it's new cam as 7D because of it's EOS 7 heritage as they may claim it was, IMO, it's still close. I don't dismiss the possibility for misconception from the unsuspecting and unoriented buyer, except that he/she heard someone mentioned a cam with a 7 on it but not sure what brand it was. no matter how silly these scenarios are, they do exist. what's more is that these cams are only a few months apart from the release period. K-7 in July and 7D in October. I mean, in the world of business where certain brand of items are almost named the same or a simple rip-off of the original just to create an attention to the unknown one. or somehow borrow the idea among themselves. so are dslrs are an exception? for what I know, Canon's mid-range APS-C dslr's are double digits. Pentax sandwiched their digits with two letters but dropped the idea by releasing the K-7. speaking of which, the 7D is not even an FF if I'm not mistaken? so why lose the "0" ? it may sound silly, but people (basically newbies) have misconceptions about camera models. now I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon would release a camera model name D7 because it's based from the D700 blueprint, but an APS-C sensor. now go on, and let's have a laugh !!!

09-03-2009, 01:50 AM	#40
schmik Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sydney Aus Photos: Gallery Posts: 527	Hahahah I am paranoid too.... i have had the same thought the names are so similar. Especially when in my mind the k7 is the k7d (except pentax did drop the d..... i just keep forgetting). And you know what they say "just because you are paranoid does mean that they are not watching you!". mike

09-03-2009, 01:55 AM	#41
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	The 7D is not intended to be a mid-range APS-C camera. There will still be a 60D. The 7D is supposed to be the "pro" crop camera, with higher grade autofocus/fps/features. So Canon will have the following lineup, effectively: Rebel -- entry level crop camera XXD -- mid-grade enthusiast crop camera 5D -- mid-grade full frame 7D -- "pro" crop camera 1D/1Ds -- "pro" FF/1.3x cameras with bulletproof build and the top of the line everything The one thing missing is a "3D" similar to the old EOS 3 which would be like a 1D/1Ds without the integrated grip -- just a smaller/lighter version. We shall see if that comes next. Believe me, Canon is worrying about Nikon beating them and I have a feeling they are not too concerned about trying to confuse prospective Pentax owners into buying a 7D. The relatively smaller number of people looking at the K-7 most likely already know Pentax fairly well and wouldn't accidentally buy a Canon because they both have '7' in the name. I don't see too many BMW buyers ending up with a Mazda just because they're both referred to as '3-series'.