Canon's EOS 7D is a pretty grandiose piece of image-recording equipment, whether you're talking about its size, features or price. You're probably aware of the
18 megapixel APS-C sensor and
dual DIGIC 4 processors already, but we've all had to be a bit more patient than usual in waiting for the pro reviews to come out.
Dpreview doesn't disappoint though, with a thoughtful 31-page tome awaiting the keen reader, and we've also got more digestible video reviews from
DPhoto Journal for the less patient among you. If you're after direct comparisons against competing models, such as the
Nikon D300s, you'll find those sprinkled in among the reviews as well, with
Cameratown throwing in a direct head-to-head with Canon's own
5D Mark II. The 7D was found to produce "virtually no visible noise" all the way up to ISO 1600, and scored further points for its gorgeous 100 percent frame-covering viewfinder and fast 19-point AF. With a weather-sealed, highly ergonomic body design, ridiculously fast processing and a sensor so good that "in most situations the lens, rather than the camera, is likely to be the limiting factor," the only thing reviewers could criticize was the somewhat uncompetitive pricing, but that's likely to soften with time anyway. Read on... if you dare.
Read - dpreview review
Read - Photography Blog review
Read - Tech Radar review
Read - DPhoto Journal video roundup
Read - Cameratown comparison with 5D Mark II
posted Nov 7th 2009 4:52PM
excellent. this is good news.
But what is Canon's problem with comprehending the importance of frame rates? They pulled similar crap with their video cameras, while Panasonic introduced 24P, Canon kept marketing their fake "frame" mode for years afterward. Then they feigned surprise at the flap over the 5D's lack of 24 FPS?
Yes, they finally pulled their head out of their ass and included 24/25 FPS on the 7D, but it looks like you can't shoot 1280x720 at those rates. Hey Canon, here's an idea: Make the resolution and frame-rate settings INDEPENDENT, and let users max out the bitrate at every setting. Then we could pick a smaller image or lower frame rate to reduce compression and increase quality.
And then there's the continued inexplicable lack of an intervalometer for time lapse, and no way to lock the mirror up indefinitely for multiple exposures. So you wind up with the mirror flapping up and down thousands of times unnecessarily when shooting time lapse.
These aren't tough things to fix; it's just software on the camera. Get it together, Canon. The hardware's good!
@ Cy Starkman,
The arrogant one is you, assuming we were in error and 'waffling' on as if were 'technical experts', if you're going to throw it out, expect to receive it. I for one never claimed to be a technical expert but I know enough about the terminology used in DSLR's.
Regardless, since you have asked, in cinematic terms 24p refers to 24 fps with progressive scanning, the p an abbreviation for 'progressive'. It's used in more than just DSLR terminology, for instance tv sets and blu-ray/dvd players. It's probably more a marketing terminology that for some one as technical as you doesn't really explain the full details. You'll see it for instance marketed as a feature on Sony Bravia tv's as 24P True Cinema. Which is meant to denote it plays back 24p sources to give a 'cinematic quality' to the image.
damn! sorry posted this in the wrong place!
It is indeed a great camera. Personally, I am more excited about its video capabilities. You can now create videos with quality that used to cost 20x the money! This is my favorite 7D video so far: http://vimeo.com/7199178 It's not uploaded in HD unfortunately, but it still shows the "filmic" quality the camera possess.
I bought a 5D MarkII recently myself, since Canon semi-officially announced that an upcoming firmware upgrade will also offer 24p and 25p support in that model too (it's not certain it will do 50/60p though, like the 7D can).
that video was sweet! and it was just with this 7D?!
I really hope extremely shallow depth of field and a subject that is often out of focus don't become measures of "filmic" quality. It's more distracting than anything and it seems like everyone with a video capable D-SLR is desperate to show how shallow the depth of field is. Many critics consider Citizen Kane to be the greatest film of all time and it is praised for its deep depth of field. If anything is impressive about this new breed of D-SLR's, it's their low-light capability. It comes at a high cost though, given the rolling shutter issues and lack of appropriate physical controls. These cameras make sense for photographers who want to shoot video at times, but less sense for filmmakers.
Hey hot stuff
Erm, depth of field is not -- for me -- the most important "filmic"/"movie" quality. In fact, I don't care much about it. There are other, more important, points to consider. The fact that the 7D can have shallow depth of field (when using the right lens) it's just an added plus, but nothing more than that. Besides, the kit lens doesn't generate much shallow depth of field -- and most non-pro people are going to use the kit lens anyway. I've written on my blog about what I consider important in trying to recreate an impressive movie-like look:
http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2009/09/08/the-elusive-film-look/
(sorry I am linking to my blog for this, but that's a long article)
Yay Eugenia is back to fanboy up these parts with such high praise of the 5D Mark II.
And why wouldn't I? The 5D and the 7D are the first cameras to offer impressive video image quality and shallow depth of field -- for such low prices. It brought the cinema look to everyday people. Before that, you had to buy 35mm adapters, and big prosumer cameras to get a similar look, and let's face it, they wouldn't work as well, they made them bigger and bulky and heavy, and the image resulted was NOT as sharp (both because of the lower bitrate of HDV, and because *all* 35mm adapters soften the image -- including the good ones). So right now, you are able to get a better image quality, no need for adapters, and at a cheaper price. So yeah, if you call realism and appreciation as "fanboyism", then I guess that's what it is.
Panasonic's GH1 would have gain that praise instead of Canon 5D/7D only if:
1. They used more bitrate than the very low 17 mbps.
2. Their PF24 mode was true 24p and not PF24. PF24 requires pulldown removal, which is a major pain in the rear (I am coming from the HV20 background which also had PF24 instead of real 24p, and I know first hand how bothersome that is).
I just think EM1 is just remembering as I do that you referred to your Canon 5D Mark-II when the question was "what's the best starter DSLR?" in an Ask Engadget post.
You're a fanboy if you're commenting on something you've only read about and seen on the Internet. It wasn't until recently that you bought a 5D MII. This topic isn't on that camera. Completely different camera all together. Yet you base your 'knowledgeable' opinion on what, a YouTube video a couple of pictures? Any good photographer can make good images and movies from a crappy cam. Good images and a good spec sheet don't mean it's a good camera.
I am not here to say it's a bad camera. I have used both and found them to be good cameras. But I can't call them great cameras. I cannot backup Canon anymore. When was the last camera they release that didn't have problems out of the box. The 1Ds Mark III, their $8000 flagship camera? That mean you have to pay $8000 so you're not Canon's ginuea pig? How long has the 7D been out? How many firmware updates have there been. How many more will there be? (I will bet there are more)
but yes, I was more referring to the topic where someone wanted an entry level DSLR and you recommended the 5D Mark II.
@Eugenia
Wow that list is bloody ridiculously ignorant.
3. Cutting, so all those foreign films from Japan, Iran, France are doing it wrong i suppose with their long cutting? Quick cutting is only for the people with short attention spans. If you have to cut quick then it's fine but it's not a rule to get it looking like film. You can usually get more meaning out of a shot that has a longer cut.
6. 24p, Sure in alot of aspects 24p is used for film but that's only because cinema projectors can run them at that speed only. It's not a rule unless your film is selected for screening at a cinema or a festival... that is unless they run it digitally.
The other parts of the list are good but it's generally stupid. Film making is a freedom to express ideas however way you want.
>if you're commenting on something you've only read about and seen on the Internet.
I am very familiar with both cameras. I suggest you look me up before you talk back to me in this derogatory and aggressive manner.
>so all those foreign films from Japan, Iran, France are doing it wrong i suppose with their long cutting?
I personally hate foreign films exactly because of that. And I am European myself. It's a personal opinion, but there's a reason why US films are more popular worldwide.
>that's only because cinema projectors can run them at that speed only.
This is incorrect. Newer ones can do 48 fps too, but it's more of a religion between DPs and directors, not a real technical limitation today. Try telling DPs to switch to 48 fps and most of them will eat you alive. Besides, my article is about people who want to do small films and music videos for online distribution, not about showing their work on a theater. My article was not about how to make your film look good in a theater, but how to emulate theatrical films. There's a difference.
psh. way to post a lindsay lohan video
You're kidding right?
-I personally hate foreign films exactly because of that. And I am European myself. It's a personal opinion, but there's a reason why US films are more popular worldwide.
Your personal taste doesn't mean anything. If you have a short attention span then it explains why you like US films more, hell you do realize they have the highest budget than any other country which is why the appeal is higher because far more visual enhancements can produce that awe... however foreign films focus more on the story which i guess is why it doesn't appeal to you.
And what's your point about the new projects being able to play 48? It still doesn't mean it can play 25 or 30.
It's funny seeing you hop from blog to blog, you went quiet on engadget for a while because talkbackers called you out on constantly wanting 24p, I mean not once... but every single video DSLR post you chanted the same mantra; I saw your posts on Gizmodo complaining about it. Funnily enough, the talkbackers on there got tired of you aswell for your tireless self-promotion so now you're back here to do the same!
You have perfectly valid points but please change the record. I think most people don't mind regular talkbackers as long as it's not for self-promotion or constantly about the exact same issue over and over. :)
What's with this 24/25p. P?
what like it does 24 or 25 lines progressive scan instead of interlaced?
I rather think y'all mean fps for frames per second.
Mixing terms and abreivating like iTouch or Wiimote is one thing (often better than real name) or one could reasonably expect the odd MB vs Mb mixup..
But p instead of fps when another related element of video uses p is daft. More curious is the persons In error are waffling as if they were technical experts
"Cy Starkman", and "Solid Gray Fox": nice trolling. I didn't start the actual 24p discussion (it started when someone commented about one of my bullet points on the linked article), I commented here because I had something to say about these cameras since I do have experience in the field, and yes, "24p" and "25p" are the correct terminologies in this case.
If you think you can bully me around just because I have the balls to sign with my own name, put a real picture of me, or because I am a female, think again. You obviously don't have the same amount of balls when hiding behind nicknames. And I seriously doubt you have the same amount of footage shot as I have.
@ Cy Starkman:
Lol! Ever heard the adage 'better to stay silent and look a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt?' You'd do well to listen to that if you're chiming in on something you don't know enough about. ;)
Funny you should mention it curious that we're 'waffling' on in error about stuff as if we're 'technical experts', but I find it more entertaining listening to you 'waffling' on as if you know what you're talking about and some how you're illuminating us with your superior grasp of technical expertise.
Funny you calling me a troll Eugenia, I never said you started the 24p debate this time around, what I am saying is you seem to chime in about it every chance you get... you know... record getting old! We've heard you 'troll' about this countless times so if you're going to call me a troll maybe you should stop trolling on this issue over and over, quite frankly it's tiring listening to you go on and on about it.
Also funny is the fact that every where you go get called a troll and get called out, you got banned on RED forums only to be reinstated because those that were having discussions with you took pity and didn't see censorship as a progressive means to settle issues.
You have no idea who I am or what videos I have posted, just because I don't shamelessly self-promote myself and 'how many' videos I have shot doesn't mean your opinion is more valid than mine. Seriously is that even a real argument? How many videos you may have posted over me? You're living in your own little bubble, i've read enough about your stuff and seen your videos, you're not that great, you have talent but you're not be all and end all so stop trying to dictate to the rest of us how things should be.
And honestly, you're seriously playing the 'sexism card?' I couldn't give a crap about you being a male/female or about how many balls you have for that matter, or what lovely picture you post up of yourself. I'm talking about your incessant narcissistic behaviour. Just like you have been called out on so many other blogs.
Fine if you have an opinion we'll listen and take note, but opinions are opinions and shouldn't be rammed down everyone's throats as if you know best.
RED forums, huh? This explains your attitude towards me. So I am sorry, you are not a "troll". But you are certainly prejudiced against me.
Your first reply to me was completely baseless, and that's why I called you out on it. You are the one who accused me of "shameless promotion" (honestly, I don't see how this works just because someone is using their real name and picture in a sea of anonymous cowards), and that I am repeating myself. I did not re-iterating anything, I came here to say that these 5D/7D cams are good cams for video. In the past I have commented here and elsewhere that the 5D lacked 24p, but what I did say here today is that this is a feature that's coming. In other words, I brought a sort of closure to my previous comment a few months ago, I didn't repeat it. It was new information.
I have nothing further to say to you. You have obviously made up your mind, and I am too sick tonight to drag this on.
Darn I wrote a nice reply and the comment system lost it.
In brief.
- I wasn't referring to you Eugenia, I would have named you
- I also use my real name, so?
- in 20 years of working with video starting back on BVU SP I've never seen a device or app refer to frames, fields or cels as p, maybe f ( sans the ps) but never p
- I've also not used a DSLR that shoots video so maybe the stills background boffins at canon couldn't break from their roots and went for pps to infer pictures or photos.
- When I hire a 5D2 at the of this year (for the iso not the video as I'm shooting night time lapse) I'll check the menu and if it says pps instead if fps I'll still roll my eyes
- it's the same as people who go on about MB being base 10 now and no longer base 2, it's like yeah yeah get over it, only telcos use it so they can rip you more for downloads. It doesn't serve to think in base 10 because it's not what you will be working with.
As for being the fool, the only fool is the one that doesn't question.
Worse is the arrogant who in seeing a question doesn't answer it. You both win that prize.
@ Cy Starkman,
The arrogant one is you, assuming we were in error and 'waffling' on as if were 'technical experts', if you're going to throw it out, expect to receive it. I for one never claimed to be a technical expert but I know enough about the terminology used in DSLR's.
Regardless, since you have asked, in cinematic terms 24p refers to 24 fps with progressive scanning, the p an abbreviation for 'progressive'. It's used in more than just DSLR terminology, for instance tv sets and blu-ray/dvd players. It's probably more a marketing terminology that for some one as technical as you doesn't really explain the full details. You'll see it for instance marketed as a feature on Sony Bravia tv's as 24P True Cinema. Which is meant to denote it plays back 24p sources to give a 'cinematic quality' to the image.
I checked to see who you are Eugenia. Your blog doesn't tell me anything. If you have any real technical knowledge or experience, I would expect to see something like an 'About Me' page on your blog. But there's nothing. Anyone can start a blog and pretend like they know what they're talking about. You seem to me after reading your blog and reading everyone else's run-ins with you on the internet, you sound like you're sense of entitlement is way off base.
If you came here with real experience with the 7D, I figure your first comment would be about true-to-life uses with the camera- not about how it compares to your 5D Mark II.
And to whomever was going on about calling 24/25p wrong, you're the one who is wrong. That's how high end cameras designate resolution with fps. Go flip through the PDF manual of a Canon XL H1 online.
@EM1
"I checked to see who you are Eugenia" - out of curiosity, I Googled Euginia (yeah I know that's a little bit harder than just clicking on a URL), and came up with plenty of pages, including her home page and a very impressive biography on Wikipedia.
Seriously EM1, you sir are one hell of an arrogant tool. And I'd trust Euginia's insight over yours any day.
I'm not sure the pricing is uncompetitive, when it's less (retail and street price) than the D300, which is what most are considering its natural competitor...
Either way, fantastic camera.
Wow, great camera, I currently have myself a 500D as my first dslr, has some rolling shutter issues, and i wish it supported 1080p 30fps, 720p 60 fps, also to be able configure shutter speeds aperature iso manually during movie mode
The Ti1/500D would have been perfect with just 24/25p and full manual controls. 30p only at 720p. The reason I am limiting that model with that wishful thinking is not because this is a cheaper camera, but because it's running a different chip and operating system than the 5D/7D/1D. It has less processing power. Therefore, 1080/24p and 1080/25p with 720/30p, but with full manual controls (shutter, aperture, ISO, and some color settings) would have been more than enough for that hardware/software model, for that price.
A dual processor camera *_*
where is the engadget podcast?
It's 'approximately' 100%, not completely 100%
Canon admitted it, and is quickly becoming a huge issue
Right - huge huge issue. It must have messed up so many of your shots.
It actually is crucial for professionals
Being able to see what is actually being taken instead of a crop, no matter how insignificant it seems
Just the fact that Canon (and everyone else for that matter) is keen on emphasising its 100% viewfinder shows that this is very important for a lot of people
All the flagship bodies have true 100% viewfinders and it became somewhat of a signature feature of the most professional cameras
Well there goes my #1 reason for picking the 7D then. Now I need to start reading reviews and comparing everything again...
Delicious camera!
(gotta love dpreview, they do the best thorough reviews)
Canon 7D, you will be mine. Soon(er or later).
I moved up from an APS-C sized sensor DSLR to full frame and never looked back.
The 7D has a lot of great features that I'm envious of for both photo and video capabilities, but it still isn't enough to make me let go of my 5DmkII - especially since Canon finally gave in to demands and announced a 2010 firmware update that will activate 24p on the 5DmkII's video mode.
I just LOVE my 7D. It is pretty much perfect. Check out http://www.vimeo.com/7460699 for a video that I created on the 2nd day of owning it. Keep in mind that the movie is raw footage from the camera. Just an amazing piece of technology.
Excellent!
Agreed!!!! I've had mine now for two weeks and I still feel that brand new gadget love whenever I touch it. Video is not my forte, but I'm absolutely loving it's high-ISO performance and it's amazing 3D metering. I'm basically NEVER using the flash now. Especially with the 50mm. If I can see it, so can the camera. Wonderful!
A $1700 camera that is very good.
How unsurprising.
then stick to your point and shoots junior. DSLR's are expensive tools, it's up to you how to use it.
Not going to deny it...this looks like a damn nice camera.
Hard for me to admit that...I'm a Nikonian. However, I will say that I think it is amazing that the 7D is just getting some features that have been on Nikon's for quite a long time...like a 920k dot monitor. And better ergonomics.
920K pixel screen came out on the 50D, then on the T1i, then on the 5D mkII, and then on the 7D. Ergonomics are 100% personal opinion between Nikon and Canon, but the 5D, 5D mkII, and 50D are essentially identical in this regard. I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at here? Yes, the 7D is a response to the excellent 300D, but not in terms of catching up, just in terms of slotting a body in between their x0D and 5D lines.
Really? I thought that this was the first Canon to have a really good LCD. So I guess I was a tad wrong there...
And I agree that ergonomics are all about preference, but I just don't understand how people can prefer to have a giant wheel for most settings instead of dedicated buttons. Personally, when I pay 2000 dollars for a camera I want it to be as specialized as possible in as many was as possible.
But I'm a purist. And a snob. So w/e.
Well, I've been shooting Canon for a long time, and really like the Nikon gear too. I'd have to say that the big wheel on the back is one of my favorite things about the Canon bodies. It just feels good to use, and its wicked fast. The big wheel allows you to scroll through options much more quickly and consistently than the dials on the Nikons, and you can change your scroll rate on by changing speed, which you can't do with buttons. It is just different and takes some getting used to.
I do like the dedicated buttons and switches on the Nikons because it allows for easier setting adjustments when you aren't looking at the camera, but rather through the viewfinder, but I rarely find myself needing to change those things anyway.
While very, very seriously considering switching camps to Nikon, I stumbled across the release information for the 7D several weeks ago. They were, in my opinion, in some ways playing catchup. They had to catch up with creative lighting control, viewfinder technology and focusing system. I preferred the D300 in that respect. Having spent a little time with the 7D I'm quite happy with the results.
Now, I don't have to replace glass, and my backup body will be more similar to my main than if I had moved to the Nikonian camp.
Oh, and to anyone who says its too expensive... Good gear costs money, you get what you pay for, that is why pros charge money to shoot, save your pennies, or whatever other comments you can think of. The fact of the matter is, $1700 or $1800 really isn't that much if you are seriously going to use the camera for a few years. Now, if you just shoot family birthday parties and your kids, it might not be the best use of your cash.
@Chester
I see right where you're coming from. I'd never switch at this point for two reasons, A) being that I am a Nikon fanboy, to some extent, and B) because I have so much money in lenses and so much time in getting used to them.
And yeah, the pricing of the 7D is actually really good. If I were in the Canon camp I'd be jumping at the 7D right now.
Cheers.
Anyone who says these cameras aren't useful for "Film Making" and never used a DSLR for for this purpose are dumbasses. There's nothing out there that even remotely stacks up in the price range unless you shoot actual film, then you have to develop it. The DOF adapters don't count. (Mr. DOF is useless guy... Why are these things so popular then) They lose way too much light and resolution to be comparable at full size. Sure, if your final delivery is a Youtube video and no one can see the difference there, then use your overpriced adapters. To be honest it's difficult to say which camera is best, as the 5D does work a little better in low light, but everyone wants 24p... There's this firmware update, but that could be several months away. the Mark IV is about 2 stops better, but it's 5 grand and doesn't come out until next month... What an amazing camera that is, though. If Nikon had added 1080 video to their camera they'd be in the running too... I have always liked Nikon, and I wasn't able to part with any of mine... I was all set to sell the D300, but I couldn't do it. As a still camera, it is a stellar performer. F-ing Sony, with their high end cameras... If someone else made Nikon sensors, they'd have 1080, and quite possibly a better codec.
I didn't say D-SLR's aren't useful for filmmaking. I said they make more sense for photographers who want to shoot video sometimes than for filmmakers. They make perfect sense for a photojournalist who wants to throw in a video from time to time. However, they make less sense, given the limitations of the D-SLR form factor, for someone who is primarily concerned with making films. That is not to say they cannot be used to that end. Obviously they can produce impressive video. However, the cameras lack the physical controls and connectors that are indispensable to many filmmakers and wouldn't be missed by most photographers. Maybe Canon will address this in future iterations, but I doubt it. They wouldn't want to cut into the profits of their own video cameras after all.
I also didn't say that depth of field is useless, although I should point out that saying depth of field isn't very descriptive as it can either be shallow or deep or somewhere between and we both seem to be referring to shallow depth of field. The reason people purchase depth of field adapters and are so obsessed with producing shallow depth of field is because they get it into their heads that that's the most important visual characteristic of 35mm film cameras. Now there are tons of videos being produced by these D-SLR's where it seems painfully obvious that user is just trying to show off how shallow they can make the depth of field, even if it means that the subject in the shot is out of focus. As many filmmakers have said again and again, the narrative itself is the most important part of a film and everything else is subservient. If the narrative requires deeper depth of field, a filmmaker should have the sense to realize it.
I will agree that some of these D-SLR's produce a very impressive image at their price point, limitations of workflow aside. They make sense for a lot of people on budgets.
Well I work in the field... Whatever the DSLRs are missing, no one who hires for side jobs seems to miss it. I always say, use the right tool for the job. If you're making a TV show, a 5D, 7D or Mark IV is a terrible idea. Short films, small budget features, documentaries (That don't require extended shooting) wedding shooters, etc. are perfect for this thing, as well as photojournalists who need to bring video cameras with them. The cameras fill a niche that's been needing to be filled for quite some time. a DSLR isn't a replacement for any kind of camera I know of that I use, even a Red cam. That being said, I've got 5 video cameras ranging from full size ENG to little Sony Z1Us, and everything that isn't a Canon DSLR is gathering dust... DOF has been the micro budget filmmaker's holy grail for easily the last 10 years or so... For filmmakers who couldn't afford to shoot on film, of course. Cinematically DOF plays a huge role in creating a more three dimensional look, allowing a subject to be accented via a shallow DOF. Every show I've shot over the last 5 years has used a DOF adapter if the camera's sensor wasn't 35mm size. (Or it wasn't film) The look is indispensable in the realm of drama.
Not sure what control they're missing that I can't add on, either...
At the end of the day, they have kind of a narrow use for video in my opinion. But it's a particular use that has been lacking for a really long time, as is evidenced by the wild popularity of HDSLRs. If someone can shoot on something more expensive with the same look, then go for it... There's advantages to that as well. The manufacturers know exactly what they're doing... If they made something cheaper that was just as good as the much more expensive verision, that wouldn't make a lot of sense
/jealous.
Now make it $600. :D
Not full frame = Not interested
I wish they had put the autofocus in the 5D MKII though
Not a Red Scarlet = not interested.
Review of "The Abyss" is not a review of "National Lampoon's Family Vacation" = not interested
Sushi, not hamburger = not interested.
Seriously, what's your point? Congrats on wasting your time and ours writing that comment.
Do you know the difference between a full frame sensor and an APS sensor? Some how I'm thinking not, dickweed. If you are a pro or even an amateur that is thinking pro, you go full frame--ALWAYS. Since some people are trying to compare the 7D to the 5D MKII, which is a pro level camera (and I know several pros that have dumped their 1D MKIII for the 5D MKII), is that if IT ISN'T FULL SENSOR IT'S NOT A COMPARISON. But if you knew WTF you were talking about you would have not posted your moronic reply.
errr...I should have said 1Ds MKIII for the 5D MKII.
You know that the red one has pretty much the SAME sensor size than the 7D?
So full frame mean nothing for video, full frame is OVERKILL for video.
now, Nikon, what's your next move?
Just got mine two weeks ago, This camera is amazing. I also bought a new 16 GB 600x CF card. Images record almost instantly. I love this camera so far! I put some samples of my first test shoot on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/josephloren/sets/72157622702948692/
I'll chime in and say I love my 7D. It's a great still camera and shoots some very unique, impressive video. I've already made a lot of use out of it shooting 1080P/24, and 720P/60.
My recommendation to anyone looking to get a 7D is to get a fast card reader. my first few imports were painful on my cheap USB reader, I've since upgraded to the Sandisk Firewire CF card reader and can ingest 8GB in 3 minutes. I also bought a pair of PNY 266x CF cards from Frys (Cheapest place I found them), http://www.frys.com/product/5902414?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
Based on Rob Galbraith's testing, these are the fastest cards that don't break the bank. (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9784)
I wish they threw in the new 18-135mm IS lens rather then the 28-135.. anyone agree?
They should eventually when supply of the 28-135's run out.
the 18-135IS is one of the bundles in the UK. The other is the 15-85.
Yeah, I got the 28-135 bundle here (got it at BestBuy and it was all they had). I expected to sell the lens on eBay and get the 15-85, but the 28-135 is worth more than the $200 they're going for now. I suppose I should just do it and get it over with, but I also want to wait for the 15-85 to come down to earth in terms of pricing.
FWIW, yes the 18-135 makes more sense (newer/wider), but the reviews on the lens that I've read slot it in below the 28-135 in IQ AND it doesn't have USM AF. I'm not all that religious about the USM part, but the quick focus ring would seem pretty handy for video (use AF to start and tweak or follow with the ring without having to switch off the AF).
Then I guess my desk must have cum on it, damn!
I bought a D300S after owning a D300 for 2 years, only to be VERY disappointed with its video capabilities. Sold all my Nikon gear (not much, really), switched to the Canon 7D and could not be happier! The only thing I miss about the D300S is the dual card slots (RAW to fast CF, JPEGs to cheap SD), but that camera's rolling shutter was TERRIBLE. And it only shot in 24p (true 24 fps, not 23.976 fps that is easier to work with for final deliver as NTSC video). The 7D has only a very slight rolling shutter effect, and is really only noticeable when lighting changes in the middle of a frame (camera flashes, strobe lights).
I also shoot high-speed sequences for skateboarding and bmx photography, and the 7D has outperformed both the D300 and D300S in this area as well. It can shoot the full 8 fps at 18 MP pretty much forever in JPEG mode, and about 5x longer than the Nikons in RAW. Thank you dual Digic 4 processors!
I'm not a fanboy of either Nikon or Canon, so it was really a no-brainer to switch to the 7D - it is truly an amazing camera!
I can't wait to get one of my own to work with. I'm glad to see canon is back to making a decent enough camera for the rest of us -- though quibbling about the extra thou on a 5DII is really a moot point here, I'm just tired of people saying that only a full frame is suitable for pro work. At this point, the only differences I see is shallower DoF and use of true ultra-wide angles, which I can live without at this point. For me, good noise performance approaching ISO 1600 is enough quality for me. Though full frame has the high noise IQ to best any crop frame camera, the 7D seems to move the APS-C market closer to that level of quality. Use a fast enough lens and most of the time it doesn't matter. I like how many of the reviews make a point to mention that lens use is important, especially considering the resolution. You just can't make any camera perform with kit glass, bottom line. So for anyone who likes to pixel peep, or whatever it is they call it, use the good glass and reconsider your opinions. This camera is not for amatuers, or newcomers to photography. It should be understood that along with a step up to a semi-pro body, a step up to L series glass would be a no-brainer if you want the best results. Those sample shots are never shot with kit glass. I was also one of those people who didn't see that video made much of a difference to still photographers. I see now that there are many applications for it in the work of a lot of photographers. I guess you can never assume what is or is not popular unless you're actually using it. I can't wait to use the 7D for my work, on paper is seems a very nice prospect. Way to go canon, from a nikon guy.
We've had one of the guys in here playing with his for a while, and the stuff he's captured in incredible. The depth of field on some of the HD recording takes your breath away.
High resolution images http://lotimages.com/