# Canon 7D owners..



## beni_hung (Oct 17, 2009)

What kind of RAW editing software do you use?


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 17, 2009)

At the current time, I would guess the software that it came with!


----------



## inTempus (Oct 17, 2009)

Lightroom 2.5 is the latest (Sept 15th) and it added support for the D300s, D3000, E-P1, and two new Panasonics.

I don't think there's an update for ACR yet either.

So, until they release updates for LR or ACR, you're stuck with DPP.  It shouldn't be too long before Adobe releases updates.


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 17, 2009)

I finally found some answers on Aperture. It took Apple 3-4 weeks to make updates for the 5dmk2 so hopefully it won't be too much longer. 

For those who have the 7D and aperture you can send Apple some feedback to hopefully push them along at Apple - Aperture - Feedback


----------



## Garbz (Oct 17, 2009)

inTempus said:


> I don't think there's an update for ACR yet either.



Indeed ACR and Lightroom use the same engine and run identical release schedules. When Lightroom 2.6 comes out ACR 5.6 will too


----------



## astrostu (Oct 17, 2009)

Well, as soon as mine ships (2 weeks ...) I'll be using Lightroom.


----------



## epp_b (Oct 17, 2009)

A friend of mine who recently bought a 7D says that Lightroom can open the uncompressed RAW files.  I think he uses the latest version of Lightroom.


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 17, 2009)

Yeah, I sent one of my RAW files from my 7D to a friend that uses Lightroom and he opened it up no problem. I almost broke down and spent the $280 on Lightroom, but I'm going to try to stick it out with Apple. I just don't want to spend the money right now. (Especially right after buying a new camera!)


----------



## Garbz (Oct 18, 2009)

Just did a quick google.

- 7D is unsupported in Lightroom 2.5 and ACR 5.5
- Yes Lightroom will open some of the files, but a quick look down under the profile tab says "BETA" in big letters.
- The ability to open is sketchy. One user reported most of his files would open, another reported more than half produced an unrecognised file error. Same result in both Lightroom and ACR.
- Apparently if you can open your file the quality out of Lightroom for the 7D at this point is poor. Users on other forums are reporting visible noise from their ISO100 shots along with heavily oversaturated colours.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 18, 2009)

Why the hell did canon make a Crop frame Pro DSLR anyway? and why did everyone buy it? 

My guess is because it was new or they thought those hoax pictures of the Canon camera with nikon mounts was real that had dvd disc and photoshop built in etc..


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 18, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> Why the hell did canon make a Crop frame Pro DSLR anyway? and why did everyone buy it?
> 
> My guess is because it was new or they thought those hoax pictures of the Canon camera with nikon mounts was real that had dvd disc and photoshop built in etc..



My guess would be upgrade. Getting the the 7D after using the 20D since it was released seemed like a good idea.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 18, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> Why the hell did canon make a Crop frame Pro DSLR anyway? and why did everyone buy it?



Could be because smaller sensors are far cheaper to make. Could be because the Nikon D300 was many times more of a camera than the 50D so Canon didn't have a competitor. Could be because quite a few pros prefer the APS-C sensor (especially wildlife photographers who'd rather buy a 400mm than a 600mm lens). Could be because there is a market for a pro APS-C camera (clearly since people bought Nikon D1, D2x, and D2h). 

Why did people buy it? Could be because it's a good camera at a good price. 

If it weren't 10pm I'm sure I could come up with like 20 more reasons.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 18, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> Why the hell did canon make a Crop frame Pro DSLR anyway? and why did everyone buy it?
> 
> My guess is because it was new or they thought those hoax pictures of the Canon camera with nikon mounts was real that had dvd disc and photoshop built in etc..



Yup, that's exactly why I bought two 7D's. Yup, those pics really got me. And I was really stoked about the 7D having PS CS5 built-in to the camera. Too bad about that. *rolls eyes*

They did it because they were pushing boundaries on a whole lot of fronts. A good ol' redesign of just about everything, from the sensor to the viewfinder to the processors (and they put two of them in there which means better battery life to boot). I highly suspect that things the 7D team discovered in engineering it were used to further perfect the 1D MkIV. Not to mention plenty of very experienced photographers will use crop sensors for the sake of having higher pixel densities. A crop sensor camera body, capable of 8fps with an 18MP sensor is something many nature and sports photographers would understandably be interested in. Oh, and the fact that it costs less than a 5D MkII by about $1,000 is nice too.

Oh yeah, and the AF system is Canon's most advanced yet, period, hands down. No, not even the AF points of the 1D series can compete head-to-head (though they do have many more points). Oh, and hey, they also did a great job with video and have thus provided budding videographers with something to chew on. Until they release the 1D MkIV, the 7D is Canon's best camera is several areas.

Anyway, I digress. MRAW and SRAW aren't supported by LR 2.5 and ACR 2.5. The uncompressed RAWs are, but generally need some odd tweaking in post. I've used a colour card to calibrate both of my 7D's, so these oddities have been significantly lessened for me. Otherwise, the images coming from it are fine and quite usable for my purposes (which right now is mainly shooting a veritable myriad of subjects for a twice-a-week newspaper with online articles as well).


----------



## Overread (Oct 18, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Yup, that's exactly why I bought two 7D's



Now that's just being greedy! :lmao:


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 18, 2009)

Yeah.... Canon didn't have a D300(s). It doesn't make a lot of sense to leave gaps in your line-up. Of course, they tried to do better than Nikon. It was a smart move, and Nikon should take note. Also, the price gap between the 50D and 5D Mk II was too large -- they needed another high-end consumer DSLR to fill that gap. People who buy a 7D often claim that they can't afford a 5D II. Or they may have upgraded from a 20D and have a lot of "crop frame" glass.


Why did so many people buy it? Canon's marketing campaign was pretty impressive, I thought.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 18, 2009)

Fair enough, I considered the fact that Crop sensor = less need to buy larger lens' allowing the photographer to save some cash
and I like the response to my post XD

I am guessing they fixed the fact that crop sensor = more noise than full frame then?
I would have thought they would have made it  Canon 60D just to annoy everyone who paid for the 50D and to keep their Pro range with full frame..
then again... they only have 9 cameras in their pro range.. the 1D and the 5D and now the 7D
(I know there is 1D, 1D II, 1D III, 1Ds, 1DsII and 1Ds III and soon to be 1D IV and 5d, 5d ii but yeah.)
ahh just ignore me


----------



## Overread (Oct 18, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> I am guessing they fixed the fact that crop sensor = more noise than full frame then?



nope. The 5DM2 and other fullframe options will still beat the 7D in the noise department. That is not to say the 7D has bad noise control (from what I have heard it appears to have very good noise control). Its a factor of physical and pixel densities and stuff.
But as pointed out hte crop sensor camera has a different market than the fullframe - which is not to say that either camera cannot do the others job (and do it well) but to say that when given the choice some will go for more "apparent" focal length in the crop sensor options whilst others will want that larger frame capacity of the fullframe cameras.

Heck canon even make a 1.3 crop sensor body at the full 1DM3 range - so crop does have a market purpose.

As for cheaper glass - canon have a policy that thier best (L grade) is all fullframe compatabile and whilst some EFS lenses are very good (optically L grade) they are no where near as large a range as the fullframe lens options. So when people are dropping money on a 7D chances are they are serious and so after some really good glass - they will only find that in thefullframe options mostly (exceptions would be ultrawide angles and things like the EFS 60mm macro).


----------



## epp_b (Oct 18, 2009)

> Why the hell did canon make a Crop frame Pro DSLR anyway? and why did everyone buy it?


I thought the same at first, but after talking to someone who recently bought one, I realized that it competes directly with the Nikon D300.


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 18, 2009)

I absolutely love my 7D. Definitely worth putting myself further into debt :mrgreen:


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 18, 2009)

Overread said:


> UUilliam said:
> 
> 
> > I am guessing they fixed the fact that crop sensor = more noise than full frame then?
> ...



Noise is not necessarily worse with higher pixel densities, as is sharpness of any particular lens. The difference is that the 100% crop of a FF sensor of non-equivalent pixel-density simply covers a larger physical area than a high-pixel-density crop sensor, and so shot noise is less apparent. If you down-sample the image from a high-pixel-density crop sensor so that it is roughly equivalent to the pixel density of the FF sensor you're comparing it to, the noise would be roughly equal (I would argue that the 7D would likely outperform the 5D in this area, since the sensor was redesigned to significantly reduce shot and thermal noise).

Larger pixels don't mean less noise, it just means the noise will be less apparent.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 18, 2009)

Yes, the 7D clearly has more noise than the first-generation 12.8 MP EOS 5D.

Here's a comparison done by an owner of the original 5D and the new 7D.

Image Quality: 7D vs 5D original ? - FM Forums

Take note--the 2.5x larger sensor of the "old" 5D classic provides the same, or better, resolving power,and lower noise, than the new 7D. Why? The sensor of the 7D is 2.5 times smaller than the full-frame 5D's sensor, AND such small (4.9 microns) and densely-packed pixels demand lens performance that,frankly, a lot of Canon glass simply can not provide. it's quite clear to me that the 5D out-performs the 7D in noise performance AND in detail on a like-for-like basis.

The EOS 5D is a slight bit better than the Nikon D3 or D700 at the per-pixel level at ISO's up to an including 1600. The EOS 5D is a 12.8 MP sensor,and it's exceedingly clear that both Canon,and Nikon, understand that the 12 megapixel full-frame sensor offers an amazing combination of high-ISO capabiliy, low noise, easy processing, easy storage requirements,and a very high level of performance that eliminates a lot of potential issues with lenses, diffraction, camera movement, moving subjects, etc. Witness the EOS 5D, Nikon D3, Nikon D3s, Nikon D700. All 12.1 to 12.8 MP models.

It's pretty simple really: a larger capture format, digital or film, will out-perform a smaller capture format, even if the larger-format camera has a lens that delivers only moderate quality. The smaller the sensor, the higher the absolute lens quality required to get good performance. Since lenses for Nikon and Canon are/were designed mostly for 35mm film use, and it's exceedingly difficult to make a lens that is 2.5x better than what's in the lineups today, the sensors that are 2.3x larger than 1.5 or DX (Nikon and Sony) or 2.5 larger than 1.6x APS-C (canon), the full-frame cameras deliver higher resolution,higher acuity, and better noise profiles. The FF cameras cost more than the APS-C bodies,and in the case of Canon, the affordable FF cameras don;t have the feature sets many buyers want; the 5D Mark II's AF system is very centrally-weighted and not all that good for action work.

The Canon 7D has high framing rate at an affordable price, and was aimed to compete directly with Nikon's D300 and D300s bodies, which pretty much set the standard in the mid-priced body category, and which left the 40D and 50D looking kind of flat-footed and behind.


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 19, 2009)

Derrel said:


> The EOS 5D is a slight bit better than the Nikon D3 or D700 at the per-pixel level at ISO's up to an including 1600.



The old 5D being better than the D3 / D700 in the ISO department in the 200 -1600 range? That's quite a claim. Can you prove it?


edit: for some reason the "old" 5D isn't listed in the imaging resource comparometer.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2009)

Why don't you do some work and dis-prove it?


----------



## Garbz (Oct 19, 2009)

Derrel said:


> Why don't you do some work and dis-prove it?



Here we go: It's just something this guy called Derrel said. There disproved. Everyone's claims carry equal weight until some source is cited. The onus is on you to prove your point, otherwise my friend you're just likely to be ignored.



musicaleCA said:


> Noise is not necessarily worse with higher pixel densities, as is sharpness of any particular lens. The difference is that the 100% crop of a FF sensor of non-equivalent pixel-density simply covers a larger physical area than a high-pixel-density crop sensor, and so shot noise is less apparent. If you down-sample the image from a high-pixel-density crop sensor so that it is roughly equivalent to the pixel density of the FF sensor you're comparing it to, the noise would be roughly equal (I would argue that the 7D would likely outperform the 5D in this area, since the sensor was redesigned to significantly reduce shot and thermal noise).
> 
> Larger pixels don't mean less noise, it just means the noise will be less apparent.



That's actually wrong on all accounts. Firstly the uncertainty of photo measurement is the square of the number of photons counted. So physics introduces an exponential decrease in noise with larger frame, but you don't get the same level when down sampling. Secondly you are assuming that the gaps between pixels are smaller when in fact they stay the same, the sensor isn't one contiguous surface, there are microscopic signals routed around on it. So as you cram more pixels on, less realestate is dedicated to the capture of photons. 

So ultimately assuming two otherwise identical sensors one with a higher density, the noise would not be the same after interpolating down, the larger frame will win.


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 19, 2009)




----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 19, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you do some work and dis-prove it?
> ...



Heh. Given the first reply in your post, I find it funny that I'm saying this: Source? 

The light-gathering surface of the 7D's sensor is essentially gapless, with microlenses directing all incoming light to one photo diode or another, so I really don't think my comments are baseless at all. Shot noise is going to be less apparent on a sensor with larger pixel pitch and consequently photo diode size, yes, but only because per photo diode, as you said, more photons are being counted. But that still doesn't mean that somehow a FF camera magically produces less noise; if you cram 44MP of photo diodes on a FF35 sensor, all things being equal, you're still going to see the same amount of noise as an 18MP 1.6 APS-C. So as I said, it's not that there's more noise, it's that it's more apparent on the higher-density sensor. (If we're talking thermal noise, well yeah, then larger sensors could certainly have a clear advantage simply because there's more potential real estate to devote to dissipating heat.)

Show me the maths and I'll believe you, Garbz.  (Not that belief enters into it when talking math.  )


----------



## astrostu (Oct 19, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Garbz is right, you're wrong musicaleCA.  Though Garbz made a slight mistake (I assume type-o since he and I have explained this concept MANY times on this forum) that the noise is the SQRT (square-root, not square) of the number of photons counted.  If you want a source, there are hundreds of articles in the scientific literature.  To quote from Wikipedia:  "Light intensity from a single source varies with time, as thermal fluctuations can be observed if the light is analyzed at sufficiently high time resolution. Quantum mechanics interprets measurements of light intensity as photon counting, where the natural assumption is to use the Poisson distribution. When light intensity is integrated over large times longer than the coherence time, the Poisson-to-normal approximation is appropriate."  And if you do any basic search on Poisson statistics, you will see that the standard deviation is the SQRT of the counts (the mean).

Very straight-forward.  And because I've explained at length why down-sampling one sensor to the size of another is not equivalent, I will refer you to this TPF thread, specifically reply #3 and reply #9.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2009)

There are quite a few good, somewhat older comparisons between the Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 and D700 in term sof per-pixel resolution, acutance, and noise. Garbz's conttntions about noise are very full of mathematicall blowhard numbers and incorrect assumptions, like his disagreement that noise is noise. The actual facts will tell you that there is chroma noise and luminance noise, and one looks like crap, and the other looks like film grain. Garbz seems to have the mind of a college student who studies physics, but lacks eyes and actual experience in photography to trust his own senses; noise "measurements" are very subjective,and quite often cameras with lower mathematical noise measurements look WORSE than cameras that turn in higher noise numbers on test charts. That is why noise "numbers" are not the same as actual images in terms of judging noise in terms of how the images actually "look".

Shocking as it might be, the Nikon D3 camera out in 2007, with the D700 following not too many months behind, at seven months after. The EOS 5D has a 12.8 megapixel sensor, the D3 and D700  have slightly smaller sensors with 12.1 or so effective megapixels. Anybody who wishes can do a Google search on noise comparisons between EOS 5D and Nikon D3 and D700,and will eventually find some real-world comparisons. Some of them were done on dPreview by a couple of well-known commercial studio photographers who were interested in the best FF d-slr performance. I downloaded the sample images back in 2007 and early 2008,and my own EYES showed me that the "old" Canon 5D delivered a slightly higher-resolution, higher-acutance picture than either the Nikon D3 or the D700. Very simple really--I looked at actual images, not noise graphs. It's a testament to Canon's sensor design, microlens design, and internal software that it took Nikon almost three years to come up with a FF sensor that ALMOST equalled the 5D's overall,total imaging capabilities in the 200-1600 range.

Visually, that the "old" EOS 5D is the equal,or better, of the Nikon D3 and D700 in terms of per-pixel sharpness, which is a combination of resolution and acutance, as well as noise, from ISO 200-1600. It is also very clear, according to the URL I linked to above that at EQUAL IMAGE SIZES, the new 7D loses out in terms of noise,and shows lower detail than the "old" Canon 5D. Both Canon and Nikon have figured out a 12-12.8MP FF sensor is sweet!

I love how a Norwegian Nikon lover challenges me, and how a newbie who has been involved in photography for less than a year challenges me, one no doubt thinking I am a Canon lover basking Nikon, the other thinking I am bashing on the two brand new 7D's he bought,and eager to try and convince me what I have seen with my own eyes is invalid. Funny...I own both systems. I like both, for different things. Everybody sees bias where none exists. Nikon fans and Canon fans see bias where none exists.

Check out MAJOR Nikon fanboy Ken Rockwell's comments here Nikon D3 and D700 vs Canon 5D
"The Canon 5D excels in image quality. It's also the lightest and least expensive of these cameras. It has the sharpest pictures of these three cameras by a slight margin. If you're backpacking or shooting careful landscapes, the 5D could give superior image quality above anything from Nikon, at a bargain price. If you want the best picture quality for landscapes and huge enlargements, the 5D is the best camera. I'm not kidding: I have 20x30" (50 x 75cm) prints here, and the 5D is clearly superior. (Then again, medium format film is superior to any of these in 20x30" prints.)"

Wow,in actual tests of the three, the 5D proves to be the better imager! 

Nikon D3, D300 and Canon 5D Sharpness Comparison
Canon 1Ds Mk III vs. Canon 5D vs. Nikon D3
Nikon D3X Sharpness Comparison

One of the most interesting tests was comparing 20x30 inch prints from the D3 and 5D and Nikon D40 here: 20x30" Print Comparison
Where the conclusion about PRINTED versus on-screen comparisons was made, 
"I didn't expect such an obvious difference, but if you're too close, the Canon 5D is clearly superior to the D3. I shot the world's best 14-24mm on the D3, and Canon's not-as good (in the lab) 16-35mm L II on the 5D, and the 5D shot still smokes the D3 in sharpness. I shot the D3 on a tripod, and shot the 5D freehand. Both files were the same size.The 5D image is much better, but does show some lateral color fringes which the D3 corrects itself. If I had used the NEF from the D3 (shot but not shared here), many raw converters don't remove the fringes as does the D3 in its own JPGs.The on-print results are more striking than the differences seen on-screen at my sharpness comparison." Wow, yet another real comparison,and the "old" 5D makes a betetr 2030 inch print. 

Combine Ken's multiple tests over several years, plus the tests of Fredric Frauhaus,and other commercial photographers, and it's pretty clear that Canon's original 5D sensor and image processor was *far* ahead of its time.
It's not just pixel count that determines how a camera performs, but how the images turn out. One of the more striking comments was from Rob Galbraith about why he prefers the 10.1 MP Canon 1D Mark III over the 12.1 MP Nikon D3: per-pixel image quality of the 1D Mark III is higher than that of the D3.

Last reference. Go here Nikon D3 Review: 18. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review

and use your own eyes to see which camera has more detail at ISO settings from 200 to 1600. The winner? Canon 5D, by a nose.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 19, 2009)

OH GOD LOOK WHAT I STARTED!!!!! ale:ale:


----------



## AverageJoe (Oct 19, 2009)

beni_hung said:


>



:cheers:


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 19, 2009)

*rolls eyes and quietly goes off to take some pictures with his 7D's...OMG THE HORROR, THE NOISE!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!* >.>

AverageJoe: Pass the bottle please. :lmao:


----------



## MrLogic (Oct 20, 2009)

Derrel said:


> There are quite a few good, somewhat older comparisons between the Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 and D700 in term sof per-pixel resolution, acutance, and noise. Garbz's conttntions about noise are very full of mathematicall blowhard numbers and incorrect assumptions, like his disagreement that noise is noise. The actual facts will tell you that there is chroma noise and luminance noise, and one looks like crap, and the other looks like film grain. Garbz seems to have the mind of a college student who studies physics, but lacks eyes and actual experience in photography to trust his own senses; noise "measurements" are very subjective,and quite often cameras with lower mathematical noise measurements look WORSE than cameras that turn in higher noise numbers on test charts. That is why noise "numbers" are not the same as actual images in terms of judging noise in terms of how the images actually "look".
> 
> Shocking as it might be, the Nikon D3 camera out in 2007, with the D700 following not too many months behind, at seven months after. The EOS 5D has a 12.8 megapixel sensor, the D3 and D700  have slightly smaller sensors with 12.1 or so effective megapixels. Anybody who wishes can do a Google search on noise comparisons between EOS 5D and Nikon D3 and D700,and will eventually find some real-world comparisons. Some of them were done on dPreview by a couple of well-known commercial studio photographers who were interested in the best FF d-slr performance. I downloaded the sample images back in 2007 and early 2008,and my own EYES showed me that the "old" Canon 5D delivered a slightly higher-resolution, higher-acutance picture than either the Nikon D3 or the D700. Very simple really--I looked at actual images, not noise graphs. It's a testament to Canon's sensor design, microlens design, and internal software that it took Nikon almost three years to come up with a FF sensor that ALMOST equalled the 5D's overall,total imaging capabilities in the 200-1600 range.
> 
> ...




 Dear god. Calm down, man... it's not that serious. From your last "reference" and only reference that is the least bit scientific, the overall ISO performance of the D3 is actually better at, say, ISO 500 and upwards. Scroll to "noise graphs". I'd say it's better in the entire ISO 200 - 1600 range, based on those graphs (and text) , but I guess that's debatable. 


You're talking perceived resolution, though... my bad... yes, the 5D "has significantly more detail" at lower ISO settings. I was aware of that and see what you mean now. 

The EOS 5D has a much weaker AA filter, though, so that should explain most, if not all of it.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 20, 2009)

Alright now we're talking and I'm satisfied Derrel 

Are you satisfied with astrostu's explanation musicaleCA? If not Page 242 of Optoelectronics and Photonics by S.O.Kasap (one of my uni texts) was my source. Basically I wasn't talking about shot or thermal noise, but quantum noise which is very similar to shot noise in a mathematical sense. You say the light gathering surface is essentially gapless, I say the pixels are essentially tiny. Sure the gaps are minuscule but there's one for every pixel on the sensor, microlenses aren't perfect, and even the literature on Nikon's website will attest to that. 

Anywho I agree. Time for a beer


----------



## GBofSA (Oct 23, 2009)

I started reading this topic looking for stuff on ACR for the 7D, skipped two pages and found a discussion on the D3 vs 5D????? You guys should sell your FF junk and buy MF. Do you know how bad FF is compared to MF? LOL


I just received my 7D as a replacement for my 40D. I try to spend some of my free time shooting birds so I have a 1D3 also (see, another CF) which I bought from someone who could not get it to focus. Weird how it does just fine for me. I must just be lucky.

I usually use ACR because I got it with PS extended CS4 and it has more features than DPP but still I do use DPP sometimes. I think it is easier to get straight forward results in DPP but ACR does actually perform better when you need to do something fancy like applying different settings to different parts of the image (which is usually when you messed up the shot in the first place).
I guess until the 7D is fully supported by ACR, I will use DPP. DPP has come a long way and there is actually no issue in using it from Bridge to PS going either way (ACR or DPP). Batch processing may be slightly different but I hardly ever do that - I tend to cull and then process one by one.

I'll try to give the 7D a workout on AF performance this weekend. Just messing around with it it seems to be a pretty decent piece of kit and although it cannot focus at F8 like the 1D3 it seems to manage a bit better than the 40D did.

And to the irritating Nikonians who wonder why Canon built a CF semi-pro? Because the D300 showed them there is a market for it. No, the 50D was never meant to compete with a camera $700 more expensive. Now we have a Canon CF with similar features, proper video and a better sensor. My initial impression of the camera confirms my suspicion that is it is a much better CF camera for someone with canon lenses than a D300. I haven't tested this yet but I believe it will suck with Nikon lenses so if you are silly enough to pay more for Nikon lenses that are no better than Canon lenses, you should rather get a D300.

Time for another beer...


----------



## inTempus (Oct 23, 2009)

GBofSA said:


> I'll try to give the 7D a workout on AF performance this weekend. Just messing around with it it seems to be a pretty decent piece of kit and although it cannot focus at F8 like the 1D3 it seems to manage a bit better than the 40D did.


It's my understanding that Canon cameras focus at the widest possible aperture of the lens attached regardless of the camera settings.  So if you have an f/2.8 lens attached, it will focus at f/2.8.  At the moment of firing it will dilate the aperture to your selected setting (in this case f/8).  If this is true, what are you doing to cause your camera to focus at f/8?


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 23, 2009)

Teleconverter, mayhaps?


----------



## Overread (Oct 23, 2009)

Teleconverters with tapped pins I think - since the 7D (like the 40D) is no pro end camera and thus its AF function is disabled after the lenses max aperture goes smaller than f5.6.


----------



## astrostu (Oct 24, 2009)

Now that my 7D's arrived ... Photoshop's RAW converter works fine.  Apple doesn't recognize it yet.


----------



## beni_hung (Oct 24, 2009)

Yep, still waiting for Apple...


----------

