Canon EOS 7D pics and specs leak out
By Paul Miller 
posted Aug 29th 2009 8:24PM
posted Aug 29th 2009 8:24PM
[Thanks, Darko]
Read - Spec breakdown
Read - Forum source
posted Aug 29th 2009 8:24PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I WANT ONE, although the 8fps (~14 fine jpeg or 15 RAW) puts me off a bit :/
Uh what? 14 jpeg?? It says 94
And how does this put you off?
No, you don't understand, 8fps is for still photos, not video.
That was a mistranslation. The 14 is for 14-bit RAW, and even if it were 14 JPEGs that doesn't make any sense. 15 RAWs are way bigger than 14 JPEGs... no reason why the buffer could fit that many RAWs but one fewer JPEG.
You may be turned off by the 8 fps but I'm certinately turned on by the resolution of the viewfinder. 900k is basically 1280x720 or a variation pretty close to that. So nearly a 720p 3" live viewfinder that has 100% coverage of your shot. That to me is a pretty cool feature since I'm still using the Digital Kiss X (Rebel XT branding in Japan) which has no live-view and a 2.5" screen and I'm pretty sure the viewfinder doesn't display pictures in 720p. I'd guess 640x480 or roughly 300k pixels.
Ladies and Gentlemen, meet my next camera!
Such a whore! Everyone seems to be getting her! :/
Looking good. Does anyone know if this is intended to be a midrange camera such as the 50D? I am looking to replace my XSI soon
I think Canon have tried to create a new range here, it sits a little higher than the 50D mid-range level but below the 5D mark II- there are enough new features to warrant this hence the single digit nomenclature instead of calling it the 60D (which would be the natural successor to the 50D)- we still don't know if Canon intend to introduce a 60D yet and carry on that line or if this line will be the new mid-range.
Looks more like an upper range camera, Canon trying to fill in its lineup:
Full frame w/ vertical grip: 1Ds
1.3x crop w/ vertical grip: 1D
Full frame w/o vertical grip: 5D
1.6x crop w/o vertical grip: 7D
Of course there are a lot of varying specs in between, and you can always attach grips to the 5D and probably 7D, but this way Canon should have its bases covered.
It's really interesting to see Canon marking an EF-S-capable body among the single-digits. Canon L lenses are great but pricy. With the introduction of the 7D, I'd like to see them step up the quality/performance of the EF-S lenses (while still keeping them inexpensive) to match the single-digit series. High quality EF-S lens, excellent DiGiC 4, lower entry price = excellent value.
"It's really interesting to see Canon marking an EF-S-capable body among the single-digits."
They're appealing to the people who bought a Digital Rebel years ago and now have a bunch of lenses for it.
Wonder if this will bring us L rated EF-S lenses
The poor man's 5dmkII, from what I've heard. And that is in no way an insult, I would love to own this if I could not afford the 5d.
But wait... isn't this suppose to be the same price as the 5dmkII??!??
Apparently it's going to retail around $1699 US without a lens.
I don't think this is a "poor mans" 5d2. Till you've shot fullframe with great glass, you can't make a comparison.
The 5d2 does some amazing things, but so did the 5d (still does imo).
The 7d, hopefully is the sign of things to come, canon improving AF on their non pro series to better compete with the great stuff Nikon is doing.
9point AF (on the 5d2), just doesn't cut it.
I've got the 5DII and if this new thing has 24FPS native I'm going to send gnomes to kneecap someone at Canon HQ.
This is a poor man's 1D M3, with all the new fancy AF and 8fps.
Too many damn megapixels for the sensor size. I'll stick with the 5DMKII.
I used to think the same way... they're cramming them too tight. Bigger pixels are better in low light.
But the science argues otherwise. A high MP image downsized actually has a better signal-to-noise ratio than those larger pixels from the lower res sensor.
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3#pixelsize
More megapixels really is better, although you can argue that we don't need images that large. My aging workstation surely doesn't... :)
Sorry Vance-
I didn't believe you so I read the article. This is directly copy and pasted from the study: "There is an advantage to big pixels in low light (high ISO) applications, where read noise is an important detractor from image quality, and big pixels currently have lower read noise than aggregations of small pixels of equal area. For low ISO applications, the situation is reversed in current implementations -- if anything, smaller pixels perform somewhat better in terms of S/N ratio (while offering more resolution)."
It's Canon's answer to the Nikon D300S.
The 50D will eventually be replaced by a 60D but the 7D is a new prosumer DSLR set to compete with the D300 & D300S. The 50D is more in the range of the D90, and the 5D Mark II is FF just like the D700.
Better AF, metering, higher FPS, decent 1080p movie mode, 100% VF and dual DIGICs; it will be one of the best APS-C SLR out there if Canon manages to improve marginally the IQ of the 50D, especially on noise level and dynamic range.
The big issue is the AF and metering. There is no point shooting at 8 fps if you can't expose or focus the picture right (The D300/D300s also do 8 fps with the using the grip).
This 7D has a mere 19-AF points compared to the the 51-AF points in the Nikon D300. It would have been preferable if Canon used the professional 45-point AF in the 7D, much like the D300 uses a variant of their professional 51-point in the D3/D3x.
Both do HD video, but likely Canon's is better compared to the unacceptable rolling-shutter effect that happens on the D300s.
@Temple
Careful, the D300 actually only has 15 true cross type AF points, the rest of them are assist points. Nikon advertises them as 51 true af points though. Canon does not typically put the assist points on a spec sheet.
For instance, the spec sheet for the 1ds Mark III also has 19 af points. I'm pretty sure one wouldn't call the AF in the 1Ds Mark III, 'non-professional', or certainly one wouldn't call it worse than the D300/D300s.
One advantage is that nikon's laser etched viewfinders allow you to select all 51 of the focus points, assist points or not. I believe canon's professional AF system is limited to selecting only the 19 real AF points.
I'm pretty sure the systems will be comparable, in the end.
Double check the D300 spec sheet here if you don't believe me:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300/page2.asp
(Under AF: • 51 focus points (15 cross-type sensors) * )
Note that the 7D could have all 26 assist points or none at all. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
@ Alan
Sorry Alan, you got it all wrong. All 51-points of the D300s AF is addressable, assist points are defined as being non-addressable.
The D300 has 15-cross type AF sensors and 36 horizontal sensors. They are NOT "assist points" by the simple fact that every single one of the 51-points are selectable. And the spot metering is linked to every focusing point. You can meter and focus off of any point.
Assist points are more akin to what the 5D/5D MarkII uses 9 AF points (1 cross type) + 6 Assist, the 6 assist are non-selectable (invisible) points that only serve to aid the AF point it surrounds (the center point in the case of the 5D/5Dii). You cannot individually meter off of them and you cannot select those points as areas to focus.
My point is that Canon has a horrible record with AF, even the otherwise fantastic 1DMkIII has a critical recall of their AF. For the D300, the AF is near identical to their professional D3/D3x. Canon should have done the same with their 7D and put in the 45-point to be competitive.
I'm sorry but I don't get the hubub surrounding the AF point count. I mean, in practice I don't see this being all that big a deal. For action shots, you don't select a point, and for portraits and landscapes, by the time you select the "correct" point(s) you could have manually focused (and metered) 5 effin' times. If there's a true problem with the accuracy or speed of the AF system, then that's a different story, but I don't see how having 15 vs. 19 vs. 51 (or even 9 for than matter) user addressable AF points really makes that big of a difference.
@ Paul
Its not merely about having more focus points that is effective, for any photography that has any degree of action being able to focus properly and expose the image properly is incredibly import. Especially when you're talking about shooting at 8 fps with 18MP of detail.
In practice, having more focus points means you cover a larger area of your view finder. This is why professional cameras from Canikon have 45-51 AF points. You can imagine, if you're a sports photographer, how important that one crucial instant of that sporting event can be; the goal, the knock-out punch, the crash, the homerun. I'm sure even if you're photographing your son/daughter with a prosumer camera that important instant is equally as valuable to the user.
Let's look at the Canon 5D/5DII AF system as an example (I own the 5D BTW), the sport meter does NOT work on the outer focusing points. This means that if you have your camera tilted sideways taking a portrait of an individual you can't spot meter off the face since the spot meter is only linked to the center point. The bigger issue is that the outer point aren't f/2.8 AF points like the center, which means that it gives incredibly spotty focusing when in dark or low-light conditions.
You can think of the AF system as the transmission system in the modern dSLR. Speed, low-light, dynamic-range, high megapixels can't be put to good use without a good AF to back it up. It's high-time Canon puts decent AF in their non-pro bodies.
Canon has a rather bad history involving cameras that have extremely high frame rates. They don't focus all that well, with lots of OOF shots.
Hope this one is better.
I've read in several photography magazines, and have even taken a look into the science myself - they, and I, have conluded that the 50D has got all it can out of the APS-C size sensor. Increasing the megapixels will only increase noise, and lower dynamic range. I would have thought that the 50D, barring some new advancement in technology, would house the last APS-C size sensor, 15MP or higher, that Canon ever made. Photographers demand better noise control and higher dynamic range nowadays - it's not all about megapixels.
well they did already realize MP wasn't king with the release of the s90. We'll have to see how this performs. I'll wonder if they give this 24p mode and not the 5dmkii
I have a 50D, and that's definitely right. The 50D is a great cam but noise levels are worse than the 40D due to the needless megapixel bump. If the 7D is indeed an APS-C camera, which it appears to be, I would be surprised if the image quality weren't noticeably worse than the 50D. So much for those declarations that Canon had abandoned the megapixel war with the reduced megapixel PowerShot G11.
On the other hand, if this happens to be a full frame camera, it could have even better image quality than the 5D MK II due to a much lower pixel density. I hope that ends up being the case.
But you must compare equal image sizes to conclude that the denser image has more noise. Downsize to the lower res, then compare.
Given equal processing and sensor technology, a higher MP sensor will actually outperform the lower res sensor IF the larger image is downsized to the smaller one.
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3#pixelsize
The sensor size is pretty much the only factor in sensor noise, not how many pixels are crammed in that sensor size. So, if you want the cleanest possible image, go full-frame.
If you're only printing 8x10's, it doesn't matter how many pixels are crammed in the sensor, since you'll be downsizing that noise out when you print.
This camera seems to be built for speed freaks, a target market that also likes to have bragging rights on the megapixel front, so Canon probably made the right move... If high ISO performance suffers a bit so be it.
Vance, noise not only creates noise, it, reduces colour accuracy, dynamic range, sharpness, and host of other things that downsizing can't fix, or reduce.
Also, cleaner, higher ISOs can produce amazing photos that film and digital cameras with more noise and lower dynamic range can't. Take for example, the cost of high-end, fast glass - it is much cheaper for someone, especially in that price range, to use a higher ISO than to buy fast glass.
I would rather have a cleaner, smaller (and 15MP can go really big anyways!) picture than a slightly larger, noisier picture any day!
looks cool. just wish i could get into the photo gear.
18 megapixels on an APS-C sized sensor? No thanks.
I second this. The senors are not getting that much better. squeezing 18 MP into a sub 35 mm sensor means each pixel is getting that much less light. This is the reason Full Frame and 4/3 sensors have better low light performance. However 8fps very nice.
The gradual advance in sensor technology (not megapixels) is awesome.
Imagine if over the last 100 years films ability to capture light advanced the way digital technology is at the moment. I see a day where sensors can capture roughly what the human eye sees (or what you tell the camera to capture) in any light and at any speed with no noise.
Yeah, that's too bad. Film has a lot more potential but the cost to add more silver into the emulsion would be too expensive. I think film manufacturers only use about 10% of the films ability.
I'm sure people THOUGHT about film's potential overthe last 100 years. The last ten on the other hand for digital is sign of things to come. Film has NO remaining advantages over digital, unless of course you own a darkroom, your low light prints are 100 sq. feet, and you don't value productivity and time.
Isnt there a new 1D MKIV due next month? I'm looking forward to that. Hopefully this will be priced around $1600
RAW buffer will only last you just under two seconds... Bit of a downer if you ask me.
But what a great 2 seconds they will be!
I suspect that if you do not need the full 8fps then you'll be able to reduce the speed so that your continuous shooting will last longer.
Yes, I saw that and thought it was pathetic! I shoot explosion sequences sometimes and this would be next to useless, especially since the directors countdown and the guy who's pushing the button sometimes don't exactly sync - so I have to start shooting on the '3' of 3-2-1 just to make sure I get it!
I think in the 7D, Canon have made a camera that's perfectly suited to Paparazzi use.
Cheaper than 1DMK3, 1.6 crop for a longer reach and 18MP for 'croppable' images and the lower quality coming from the densely packed sensor won't matter a bit when the 'celebrity' images gets put on TMZ.com at 300x400 px. :)
The shots show an EF-S lens on the 7D body, so assuming the photos are genuine, this isn't full frame :(
It likely will not expand on the HD movie features of the 5D Mark II because it is a lower end camera. The 5D is the lowest end Camera that uses the 35mm vs. APS sensor.
Why am I reading this, I've been shooting 5dm2 video all day! Now that the files are moving.. The dual procs is kinda cool, I wonder if they will be used to deploy the new focus system that works in live view:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/canon-patent-application-offers-solution-for-live-view-autofocus/
You can see some 5dm2 vids on my tube, and some 3D stuff you'll never forget.
Guess I'll install that 2nd firmware and see how the video work goes:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/26/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-to-get-manual-exposure-control-for-video-re/
Keep shooting! -S
Dee ta dee, here are those 5dm2 sample vids.
http://www.youtube.com/sheadesign
So much editing....
100% coverage viewfinder ?? there is NO way, these information are false, a 100% viewfinder takes a LOT of space, look at the D3x or the 1ds