# Canon D7 EOS - Good points and bad points?



## JRZL

I was looking to get the nikon d90 (started a thread yesterday) but people suggested that i looked at canons. I would be using it for 50% photos and 50% videos. Is this a good camera for this?

Thanks in advance


----------



## KmH

I'm guessing you mean a Canon EOS 7D.

The Canon camera that is direct competition for the Nikon D90 is the Canon EOS Rebel T2i (550D, Kiss X4).

The Canon EOS 7D competes with the Nikon D90's big brother, the Nikon D300s.


----------



## tsaraleksi

The 7D is going to beat the D90 all across the board but you pay for that difference.


----------



## KmH

According to an independent testing lab, DXO Mark, the still  image quality (RAW) of the Nikon D90 handily surpasses that of the much more expensive Canon EOS 7D:

Compare cameras

You would need to look to a different source of indendent testing to compare the EOS 7D video quality with the Nikon D300s video quality.


----------



## Montana

The 7D is a much better all around camera.  And using it 50% for video, its a no-brainer.  The 7D is light years ahead of the D90 in video.


----------



## KmH

Montana said:


> The 7D is a much better all around camera. And using it 50% for video, its a no-brainer. The 7D is light years ahead of the D90 in video.


Yep at nearly twice the cost, the $1700 EOS 7D *should be* a better all around camera than the $900, D90.

It looks like Canon is concentrating on developing the video portion of their dSLR cameras, to the detriment of the still photography portion.

It makes one wonder why the OP is even considering a D90. :scratch:


----------



## cfusionpm

KmH said:


> According to an independent testing lab, DXO Mark, the still image quality (RAW) of the Nikon D90 handily surpasses that of the much more expensive Canon EOS 7D:
> 
> Compare cameras


Forgive me if I find it kind of odd that somehow the D90 has a much higher ISO performance rating.... 

Some quick googling gave me these:

D90 @ 3200: http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90-iso-3200.jpg and http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90f-iso-3200.jpg
D90 @ 6400: http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90-iso-6400.jpg and http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90f-iso-6400.jpg

7D @ 3200: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/images/results/Can7D_JPEG_noise_3200iso.jpg http://www.ericreagan.com/photos/694238587_n8kwQ-O.jpg 
7D @ 6400: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/images/results/Can7D_JPEG_noise_6400iso.jpg http://www.ericreagan.com/photos/694238633_JpGP2-O.jpg

Those may not be the best examples, but if there are some better representative images, I would love to see them. 

_At best_ they're on par, if even that. And this is exactly why I don't like DxO Mark, nor do I think their results carry much real world value.

</predictable rant> :thumbup:

That being said, I think the 7D is probably the best crop sensor body camera you can buy today. There is a trade off of opinions on features compared to the D300s, but it's for sure the best offering from Canon, and has a much better video system than any other DSLR (though still limiting compared to a dedicated video camera).

Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR Camera Review


----------



## D-B-J

nikons have more focusing points than canons.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

The 7D is a much better all-round camera, however, you gotta make sure you're using really good lenses on it. 

18MP is too much for APS-C and most of canon's zoom lenses don't look too great on it when viewed at 100%.


----------



## rufus5150

D-B-J said:


> nikons have more focusing points than canons.



100% of the canon ones are cross-type.


----------



## Montana

KmH said:


> Montana said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 7D is a much better all around camera. And using it 50% for video, its a no-brainer. The 7D is light years ahead of the D90 in video.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep at nearly twice the cost, the $1700 EOS 7D *should be* a better all around camera than the $900, D90.
> 
> It looks like Canon is concentrating on developing the video portion of their dSLR cameras, to the detriment of the still photography portion.
> 
> It makes one wonder why the OP is even considering a D90. :scratch:
Click to expand...



Laughable at best......


----------



## inTempus

KmH said:


> It looks like Canon is concentrating on developing the video portion of their dSLR cameras, to the detriment of the still photography portion.


How is the inclusion of video in a DSLR a detriment to the still imaging capabilities of the camera?  I think Canon has proved beyond a doubt that video can be incorporated into a DSLR without sacrificing the still imaging capabilities.  The success of the 5D2 and 1D4 and even the 7D seem to stand as a testament to this.


----------



## emh

cfusionpm said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to an independent testing lab, DXO Mark, the still image quality (RAW) of the Nikon D90 handily surpasses that of the much more expensive Canon EOS 7D:
> 
> Compare cameras
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I find it kind of odd that somehow the D90 has a much higher ISO performance rating....
> 
> Some quick googling gave me these:
> 
> D90 @ 3200: http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90-iso-3200.jpg and http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90f-iso-3200.jpg
> D90 @ 6400: http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90-iso-6400.jpg and http://mansurovs.com/files/2008/12/nikon-d90f-iso-6400.jpg
> 
> 7D @ 3200: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/images/results/Can7D_JPEG_noise_3200iso.jpg http://www.ericreagan.com/photos/694238587_n8kwQ-O.jpg
> 7D @ 6400: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/images/results/Can7D_JPEG_noise_6400iso.jpg http://www.ericreagan.com/photos/694238633_JpGP2-O.jpg
> 
> Those may not be the best examples, but if there are some better representative images, I would love to see them.
> 
> _At best_ they're on par, if even that. And this is exactly why I don't like DxO Mark, nor do I think their results carry much real world value.
> 
> </predictable rant> :thumbup:
> 
> That being said, I think the 7D is probably the best crop sensor body camera you can buy today. There is a trade off of opinions on features compared to the D300s, but it's for sure the best offering from Canon, and has a much better video system than any other DSLR (though still limiting compared to a dedicated video camera).
> 
> Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR Camera Review
Click to expand...


Don't be silly -- you can't compare pictures taken by different people under different circumstances and draw any conclusions. The DxO Mark is a far more reliable measure than some random pictures from the web taken by random people.

And the side-by-side comparison pics you posted are from a review the author essentially admitted was done with different levels of noise reduction.

That said, for video, the 7D is better than D90. For stills, I personally prefer the D90 (and given a limited budget, I'd rather spend the difference on lenses) but that's a personal preference.


----------



## AdamGlick

D-B-J said:


> nikons have more focusing points than canons.



After testing, I think most pro reviews have gone out of their way to the 7D's 19 point AF is as good as you can get - at ANY price point...

I know i've missed very few shots because of AF misses on my 7D.

adamglick.net/Photography - Austin, TX


----------



## cfusionpm

emh said:


> Don't be silly -- you can't compare pictures taken by different people under different circumstances and draw any conclusions. The DxO Mark is a far more reliable measure than some random pictures from the web taken by random people.
> 
> And the side-by-side comparison pics you posted are from a review the author essentially admitted was done with different levels of noise reduction.


I would absolutely love to test both of them myself (and maybe when I get a 7D, I'll rent some Nikons and do just that).

Ideally, I would like to see shots taken at the same time, same conditions with the 70-200 2.8 IS II on the Canon and 70-200 2.8 VRII for the Nikon (or some other set of comperable, high-end lenses). It would eliminate pretty much all outside variables and provide a real world set of visual examples. DxO mark does not take into account resolution or lenses in any way, which (in addition to post production) are HUGE factors in creating an image. The site really only exists for e-peen waiving, IMO. But maybe if you take pictures without a lens, your eye can see 1/10 of a stop difference in dynamic range, and resolution doesn't matter, then DxO Mark would be your place to be. :thumbup:

Unfortinately, there seems to be no such comprehensive mass database of image comparisons, and my personal budget doesnt warrent me to undertake such a project myself. Cameralabs has some good sets though.


----------



## Derrel

cfusionpm>SNIP>The site really only exists for e-peen waiving said:
			
		

> That's quite a funny misuse of the wrong word. "Waving", not waiving is the word you were looking for...:thumbup:


----------



## cfusionpm

So silly typo aside, you don't disagree with the intended meaning?


----------



## bigtwinky

My Canon D7 can be set to stun or kill, all at the flip of a switch.
It will allow me to rule the world


----------



## emh

cfusionpm said:


> emh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly -- you can't compare pictures taken by different people under different circumstances and draw any conclusions. The DxO Mark is a far more reliable measure than some random pictures from the web taken by random people.
> 
> And the side-by-side comparison pics you posted are from a review the author essentially admitted was done with different levels of noise reduction.
> 
> 
> 
> I would absolutely love to test both of them myself (and maybe when I get a 7D, I'll rent some Nikons and do just that).
> 
> Ideally, I would like to see shots taken at the same time, same conditions with the 70-200 2.8 IS II on the Canon and 70-200 2.8 VRII for the Nikon (or some other set of comperable, high-end lenses). It would eliminate pretty much all outside variables and provide a real world set of visual examples. DxO mark does not take into account resolution or lenses in any way, which (in addition to post production) are HUGE factors in creating an image. The site really only exists for e-peen waiving, IMO. But maybe if you take pictures without a lens, your eye can see 1/10 of a stop difference in dynamic range, and resolution doesn't matter, then DxO Mark would be your place to be. :thumbup:
> 
> Unfortinately, there seems to be no such comprehensive mass database of image comparisons, and my personal budget doesnt warrent me to undertake such a project myself. Cameralabs has some good sets though.
Click to expand...


So you say the DxO Mark is irrelevant... fine... you are entitled to dismiss  data you don't like 

But then you post random images from the web -- different subjects, different photographers, different conditions -- including ones that the author has admitted to being useless. And that's supposed to be more useful? How?


----------



## MrLogic

Another random (EOS 7D) image from the web. ISO 800. Well... I didn't go out of my way looking for it. Juza posted it a few days ago. It just doesn't look good, IMO:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/galleries/012126.jpg

source: Juza Nature Photography



Look at those wings. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:




I sold my D90, but I know IQ quickly fell apart from ISO 800 onwards. This looks even worse.


----------



## rufus5150

In all honesty and speaking from experience with the 7D's camera side (AF-point/quality aside), the addition of any worth-its-salt post-processing NR will allow you to use up to ISO 6400 without thinking twice and still come up with usable images. I rarely apply anything beyond a '40' in ACR/LR's luminance NR with images up to ISO1600. It's High ISO performance is sound for all practical purposes, but knock yourself out with trying to figure it out in multiple rounds of pixel-peeping.


----------



## MrLogic

rufus5150 said:


> In all honesty and speaking from experience with the 7D's camera side (AF-point/quality aside), the addition of any worth-its-salt post-processing NR will allow you to use up to ISO 6400 without thinking twice and still come up with usable images. I rarely apply anything beyond a '40' in ACR/LR's luminance NR with images up to ISO1600. It's High ISO performance is sound for all practical purposes, but knock yourself out with trying to figure it out in multiple rounds of pixel-peeping.



Not exactly "pixel peeping" when someone bumps down the image size to only 1200 wide and it still looks horrible.

Are you saying that Juza doesn't know how to post-process an image? I'm not saying he's the best ever, but most of his 7D shots that were taken at ISO 100 look pretty damn good to me, knowing what he had to work with. Here's one example:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/galleries/012104.jpg

gallery: Juza Nature Photography


However... the ISO 800 shot looks horrible to me. 


If you can do better than that at ISO 1600 or above, please post some samples. And if you do, be sure to pick a challenging subject, such as a bird. Let's see that feather detail. :mrgreen:


----------



## tsaraleksi

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.


----------



## rufus5150

MrLogic said:


> rufus5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty and speaking from experience with the 7D's camera side (AF-point/quality aside), the addition of any worth-its-salt post-processing NR will allow you to use up to ISO 6400 without thinking twice and still come up with usable images. I rarely apply anything beyond a '40' in ACR/LR's luminance NR with images up to ISO1600. It's High ISO performance is sound for all practical purposes, but knock yourself out with trying to figure it out in multiple rounds of pixel-peeping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly "pixel peeping" when someone bumps down the image size to only 1200 wide and it still looks horrible.
> 
> Are you saying that Juza doesn't know how to post-process an image? I'm not saying he's the best ever, but most of his 7D shots that were taken at ISO 100 look pretty damn good to me, knowing what he had to work with. Here's one example:
> 
> http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/galleries/012104.jpg
> 
> gallery: Juza Nature Photography
> 
> 
> However... the ISO 800 shot looks horrible to me.
> 
> 
> If you can do better than that at ISO 1600 or above, please post some samples. And if you do, be sure to pick a challenging subject, such as a bird. Let's see that feather detail. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...


No, I'm not saying or not saying anyone, let alone the mythical 'Juza' knows or does not know how to post process an image. 

I don't have any birds handy, but I do have fur at ISO 6400:

http://www.toddmckimmey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/praerie_dog_03_2x3.jpg


----------



## MrLogic

rufus5150 said:


> No, I'm not saying or not saying anyone, let alone the mythical 'Juza' knows or does not know how to post process an image.
> 
> I don't have any birds handy, but I do have fur at ISO 6400:
> 
> http://www.toddmckimmey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/praerie_dog_03_2x3.jpg



"The mythical 'Juza'." 


Thanks, BTW. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess. Not even close to usable, IMO.

But fair enough... this daisy shot at ISO 1600 looks quite good: 

Flickr Photo Download: Droplets on Daisy #4


----------



## bigtwinky

tsaraleksi said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.


 
Than whats the point of being on a forum if everyone can't argue and debate and must spend time away from the forum to shoot?!?

I come here to discuss, read, debate and what not.


----------



## gsgary

tsaraleksi said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.



+1 never heard so much bull**** in all my life


----------



## cfusionpm

MrLogic said:


> rufus5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any birds handy, but I do have fur at ISO 6400:
> 
> http://www.toddmckimmey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/praerie_dog_03_2x3.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, BTW. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess. Not even close to usable, IMO.
Click to expand...

"Not even close"?? For use in what?  Maybe not a 36x24 poster, but a small print should turn out fine, I think.


----------



## tsaraleksi

bigtwinky said:


> tsaraleksi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Than whats the point of being on a forum if everyone can't argue and debate and must spend time away from the forum to shoot?!?
> 
> I come here to discuss, read, debate and what not.
Click to expand...


There's nothing wrong with reading/debating/talking. What is problematic is when people spend so much time worrying about their gear and theoretical capabilities that they lose sight of the goal of all this discussion. Far too often you find posters who talk all the time about gear, and not about pictures. And far worse, it's not uncommon to see someone so worried about using a feature of their camera because someone on a board told them not to because of some theoretical problem (such as high ISO on a 7D) that they lose out on shots that would have been excellent.


----------

