Is the new Canon EOS 7D a Nikon D300s killer?

skamalpreet · 09-03-2009, 12:47 AM

A comparison with the K7 at the bottom of the article

Is the new Canon EOS 7D a Nikon D300s killer? | Digital Cameras & Camcorders | ZDNet.com

KP

janneman · 09-03-2009, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by skamalpreet

A comparison with the K7 at the bottom of the article

KP

All very nice but many camera buyers don't go after specs. here are still many who like the look of that red triangle or who have some sentimental Nikon -feeling or know someone with Nikon, or see pro's shoot with Nikon. All these things count for more than specs I think.

Slugger · 09-03-2009, 01:50 AM

It's pretty clear that the K-7 is the 7D killer.

Jonson PL · 09-03-2009, 01:38 PM

Thanks for the link

Rener · 09-03-2009, 05:56 PM

very interesting, and what about this from the other forum.

7D noise reduction: where did the texture go?: Canon EOS 7D / 50D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review

Chwisch87 · 09-03-2009, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by OPTMEKX&

very interesting, and what about this from the other forum.

7D noise reduction: where did the texture go?: Canon EOS 7D / 50D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review

WOW!!

That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! I guess they rushed the product to market and didn't care like Canon does with their cameras (with the exception of the Mark 2's and 3's).

Sadly it has Canon on the front of it which means it will sell nicely.

pingflood · 09-04-2009, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Chwisch87

WOW!!

That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! I guess they rushed the product to market and didn't care like Canon does with their cameras (with the exception of the Mark 2's and 3's).

Sadly it has Canon on the front of it which means it will sell nicely.

Sounds like they just left it on default NR which is pretty heavy handed. If you set it to low or even off then it's entirely different.

My 50D on default is a little too "smeary" but on low it looks great.

In other words, a lot of noise(!) about nothing.... people are quick to jump to conclusions without actually thinking about it for a second.

regor · 09-04-2009, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Chwisch87

WOW!!

That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! ...

Interesting comparison indeed. This being said, I personally don't care all that much about these JPEG NR comparisons. The very great majority of serious photographers shoot RAW, therefore such comparison mean diddly squat to me ! What we need to see is a comparison of the native sensor performance in the type and amount of noise generated at higher ISOs. I couldn't care less about in-camera NR, vigneting and CA reduction for that matter as they don't apply to the RAW images. So why are the majority of us spending so much time comparing and arguing about cameras JPEG performance against one and another ?

superfuzzy · 09-04-2009, 08:30 AM

I think the 7D will keep Canon users in the Canon systems. The camera is (pre)selling well - Amazon pre-orders sold out. The big question is quality at high ISO with all of those megapixels. The Nikon d300s has some cool features, such as dual cards - SD and CF. Not sure if it is raid, but images can be written to both cards to prevent failure due to a bad card.

The k7 is looking better and better! Sales are strong, great reviews and the green line defect seems to have been resolved. Pentax may have a real winner on their hands. At $400+ less than the 7D and d300s, it is the best choice for many.

pingflood · 09-04-2009, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by regor

Interesting comparison indeed. This being said, I personally don't care all that much about these JPEG NR comparisons. The very great majority of serious photographers shoot RAW, therefore such comparison mean diddly squat to me ! What we need to see is a comparison of the native sensor performance in the type and amount of noise generated at higher ISOs. I couldn't care less about in-camera NR, vigneting and CA reduction for that matter as they don't apply to the RAW images. So why are the majority of us spending so much time comparing and arguing about cameras JPEG performance against one and another ?

A lot of the time people just look for comparisons that aren't fair but rather lean towards their own personal preference/agenda...

RBellavance · 09-04-2009, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

A lot of the time people just look for comparisons that aren't fair but rather lean towards their own personal preference/agenda...

And it's possible to select different crops of the Imaging-Resource comparometer images to "demonstrate" that a given camera is superior to just about any other...

pingflood · 09-04-2009, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by RBellavance

And it's possible to select different crops of the Imaging-Resource comparometer images to "demonstrate" that a given camera is superior to just about any other...

Pretty much. And a good 18MP sensor like in the 7D won't be much different from a good 15MP sensor like in the K-7.

The strength of the 7D is in the whole package: 8fps, very capable AF system.

The strength of the K-7 is the in body stabilization, the weather sealing, and the compact primes for those who want a small setup.

Unfortunately, hardly any of the reviews consider real world usage.

kittykat46 · 09-05-2009, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by regor

Interesting comparison indeed. This being said, I personally don't care all that much about these JPEG NR comparisons. The very great majority of serious photographers shoot RAW, therefore such comparison mean diddly squat to me ! What we need to see is a comparison of the native sensor performance in the type and amount of noise generated at higher ISOs. I couldn't care less about in-camera NR, vigneting and CA reduction for that matter as they don't apply to the RAW images. So why are the majority of us spending so much time comparing and arguing about cameras JPEG performance against one and another ?

In a way, comparing JPEGs straight out of camera does make sense for the mass market. A lot of dSLR buyers just use JPEG off the camera without any intention to Post-Process those images. I used to be one of them

. Partly a matter of convenience, partly because I was totally ignorant of RAW software PP when I first went digital.

That's the market segment that camera makers have to cater to with decent JPEG engines and effective in-camera Noise Reduction. It wouldn't be wise to ignore the size of that market.

soccerjoe5 · 09-05-2009, 03:19 AM

Seems like a great camera! It's huge though and size and ergonomics are a huge factor of my satisfaction with my K-7.

I really like the little switch for video to still camera

jamesm007 · 09-05-2009, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Chwisch87

WOW!!

That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! I guess they rushed the product to market and didn't care like Canon does with their cameras (with the exception of the Mark 2's and 3's).

Sadly it has Canon on the front of it which means it will sell nicely.

Well the tried to cram too many mega-pixels onto an APS sized sensor. IMO its apparent the Pentax K-7 is a threat to them in that price range and it might take some sales (I know nothing big or to hurt them...), this is the reason for it being. So they are playing the mega-pixel game and consumers especially many Canon consumers sadly will fall for it and say WoW 18mp, but I am 95% sure when all the tests and reviews come in that's going to be one soft sensor with detail lacking even at iso100 compared to others. That camera is for the person who looks at features and specks and does not know what noise is. They may look at the K-7 and be compelled by all the specks...

09-03-2009, 12:47 AM	#1
skamalpreet Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Sydney Posts: 150	Is the new Canon EOS 7D a Nikon D300s killer? A comparison with the K7 at the bottom of the article Is the new Canon EOS 7D a Nikon D300s killer? \| Digital Cameras & Camcorders \| ZDNet.com KP

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
(The Big shock) CANON 7D - NIKON D300S & PENTAX K-x ISO PERFORMANCE (The Big shock)	starscream	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	01-14-2010 05:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: (CAN) Nikon D300s + glass + flash	alexeyga	Sold Items	8	10-25-2009 08:42 AM
Nikon D300s versus Pentax K-7 ?, toughts ?	brosen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	61	10-21-2009 11:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: Canon EOS Digital Rebel + Battery Grip + Canon EF 28-135IS	inneyeseakay	Sold Items	0	04-30-2009 01:31 PM

09-03-2009, 12:56 AM	#2
janneman Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 908	Originally posted by skamalpreet A comparison with the K7 at the bottom of the article KP All very nice but many camera buyers don't go after specs. here are still many who like the look of that red triangle or who have some sentimental Nikon -feeling or know someone with Nikon, or see pro's shoot with Nikon. All these things count for more than specs I think.

09-03-2009, 01:50 AM	#3
Slugger Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Vancouver Island Posts: 77	It's pretty clear that the K-7 is the 7D killer.

09-03-2009, 01:38 PM	#4
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	Thanks for the link

09-03-2009, 05:56 PM	#5
Rener Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 292	very interesting, and what about this from the other forum. 7D noise reduction: where did the texture go?: Canon EOS 7D / 50D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review

09-03-2009, 08:49 PM	#6
Chwisch87 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Photos: Gallery Posts: 317	Originally posted by OPTMEKX& very interesting, and what about this from the other forum. 7D noise reduction: where did the texture go?: Canon EOS 7D / 50D - 10D Forum: Digital Photography Review WOW!! That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! I guess they rushed the product to market and didn't care like Canon does with their cameras (with the exception of the Mark 2's and 3's). Sadly it has Canon on the front of it which means it will sell nicely.

09-04-2009, 05:33 AM	#7
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by Chwisch87 WOW!! That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! I guess they rushed the product to market and didn't care like Canon does with their cameras (with the exception of the Mark 2's and 3's). Sadly it has Canon on the front of it which means it will sell nicely. Sounds like they just left it on default NR which is pretty heavy handed. If you set it to low or even off then it's entirely different. My 50D on default is a little too "smeary" but on low it looks great. In other words, a lot of noise(!) about nothing.... people are quick to jump to conclusions without actually thinking about it for a second.

09-04-2009, 08:02 AM	#8
regor Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Victoria, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 356	Originally posted by Chwisch87 WOW!! That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! ... Interesting comparison indeed. This being said, I personally don't care all that much about these JPEG NR comparisons. The very great majority of serious photographers shoot RAW, therefore such comparison mean diddly squat to me ! What we need to see is a comparison of the native sensor performance in the type and amount of noise generated at higher ISOs. I couldn't care less about in-camera NR, vigneting and CA reduction for that matter as they don't apply to the RAW images. So why are the majority of us spending so much time comparing and arguing about cameras JPEG performance against one and another ?

09-04-2009, 08:30 AM	#9
superfuzzy Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: NJ, USA (close to NYC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 278	I think the 7D will keep Canon users in the Canon systems. The camera is (pre)selling well - Amazon pre-orders sold out. The big question is quality at high ISO with all of those megapixels. The Nikon d300s has some cool features, such as dual cards - SD and CF. Not sure if it is raid, but images can be written to both cards to prevent failure due to a bad card. The k7 is looking better and better! Sales are strong, great reviews and the green line defect seems to have been resolved. Pentax may have a real winner on their hands. At $400+ less than the 7D and d300s, it is the best choice for many.

09-04-2009, 10:20 AM	#10
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by regor Interesting comparison indeed. This being said, I personally don't care all that much about these JPEG NR comparisons. The very great majority of serious photographers shoot RAW, therefore such comparison mean diddly squat to me ! What we need to see is a comparison of the native sensor performance in the type and amount of noise generated at higher ISOs. I couldn't care less about in-camera NR, vigneting and CA reduction for that matter as they don't apply to the RAW images. So why are the majority of us spending so much time comparing and arguing about cameras JPEG performance against one and another ? A lot of the time people just look for comparisons that aren't fair but rather lean towards their own personal preference/agenda...

09-04-2009, 10:29 AM	#11
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Originally posted by pingflood A lot of the time people just look for comparisons that aren't fair but rather lean towards their own personal preference/agenda... And it's possible to select different crops of the Imaging-Resource comparometer images to "demonstrate" that a given camera is superior to just about any other...

09-04-2009, 11:24 AM	#12
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Originally posted by RBellavance And it's possible to select different crops of the Imaging-Resource comparometer images to "demonstrate" that a given camera is superior to just about any other... Pretty much. And a good 18MP sensor like in the 7D won't be much different from a good 15MP sensor like in the K-7. The strength of the 7D is in the whole package: 8fps, very capable AF system. The strength of the K-7 is the in body stabilization, the weather sealing, and the compact primes for those who want a small setup. Unfortunately, hardly any of the reviews consider real world usage.

09-05-2009, 01:08 AM	#13
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by regor Interesting comparison indeed. This being said, I personally don't care all that much about these JPEG NR comparisons. The very great majority of serious photographers shoot RAW, therefore such comparison mean diddly squat to me ! What we need to see is a comparison of the native sensor performance in the type and amount of noise generated at higher ISOs. I couldn't care less about in-camera NR, vigneting and CA reduction for that matter as they don't apply to the RAW images. So why are the majority of us spending so much time comparing and arguing about cameras JPEG performance against one and another ? In a way, comparing JPEGs straight out of camera does make sense for the mass market. A lot of dSLR buyers just use JPEG off the camera without any intention to Post-Process those images. I used to be one of them . Partly a matter of convenience, partly because I was totally ignorant of RAW software PP when I first went digital. That's the market segment that camera makers have to cater to with decent JPEG engines and effective in-camera Noise Reduction. It wouldn't be wise to ignore the size of that market.

09-05-2009, 03:19 AM	#14
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	Seems like a great camera! It's huge though and size and ergonomics are a huge factor of my satisfaction with my K-7. I really like the little switch for video to still camera

09-05-2009, 09:23 AM	#15
jamesm007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit MI, USA Posts: 508	Originally posted by Chwisch87 WOW!! That is pretty shocking! Where did Canon go wrong??? It looks like they seriously screwed up on their noise reduction algorithm!! I guess they rushed the product to market and didn't care like Canon does with their cameras (with the exception of the Mark 2's and 3's). Sadly it has Canon on the front of it which means it will sell nicely. Well the tried to cram too many mega-pixels onto an APS sized sensor. IMO its apparent the Pentax K-7 is a threat to them in that price range and it might take some sales (I know nothing big or to hurt them...), this is the reason for it being. So they are playing the mega-pixel game and consumers especially many Canon consumers sadly will fall for it and say WoW 18mp, but I am 95% sure when all the tests and reviews come in that's going to be one soft sensor with detail lacking even at iso100 compared to others. That camera is for the person who looks at features and specks and does not know what noise is. They may look at the K-7 and be compelled by all the specks...