Is the 7D a replacement for the 50D?

[youngd]

Some of you on here will have heard me "sing this song" before.

I have just been reading an early review of the Sony 850. The Spec is fuil frame, 24 mp, no video and no live view, and a price tag of around £1,900.

Wouldn't it be great if Canon did something similar. That is, take the spec of the EOS 7D, keep the 18 mp, remove the unnecessary video and live view, and give us full frame - all for the price of the current 7D of £1,700.

I am sure this would be an extremely popular camera. Put the two side by side and I know which I would choose - and I suspect many others also.

So, come on Canon, follow the courage of Sony, refuse to follow the crowd, and give photographers an affordable full frame camera without the unnecessary frills.

Daryl.

[minky_monkey]

Originally Posted by flake

I do have to ask the question why when you could have bought a 5D MkII for £1850 ?

Er, because I`d lose the 1.6 factor.



Two different cameras for different needs.

Seeemples...

[minky_monkey]

Plus the slow frame rate of the Mk2 is no good for what I need.

[youngd]

Minkey.

The point I was making is that, in addition to the 7D, Canon should also be developing a more affordable full frame model, without all the unnecessary bells and whistles of the 5D Mark II. At the moment that affordable choice is not available.

I take it from your two comments that you are more into sport or nature photography, where I don't doubt that the current 7D suits your style of photography.

However, my photographic interests lie in the more sedate landscape and plant photography, where quality rather than a fast frame rate is the ideal.

By the way, in the days of film, if we wanted more telephoto power, we bought a longer telephoto lens!! We didn't have the luxury of a 1.6 crop to boost our reach. Also, the advantage to you of the 1.6 crop is also the disadvantage to landscapers - ie we loose the wider end of things.

So, it doesn't have to be one or the other, what about both!

Daryl.

[minky_monkey]

TBH, my post was a reply to flake`s mention of why buy a 7D when a Mk2 is a few hundred quid more.

However yes, it would be nice to have one camera that does everything, indeed Nikon are closer to achieving that than Canon are but having invested several thousands of pounds into the Canon system, I`m not going to be changing anytime soon!

Yes, I could get a longer lens, but then I don`t have bottomless pockets! My 100-400 covers most things, the only thing I`m limited by with it, is the apperture. And I can still go to the equivalent of 16mm on a 35mm with my sigma 10-20.

I would concur though, that FF is the way to go for landscape work!

[youngd]

Thanks Minkey.

There's nothing like a few "crossed wires"!!

I agree with your Nikon comment, but I too am locked into Canon.

Daryl.

[flake]

Bells & Whistles ? Trouble is that most of the features are part of the Digic IV processor and don't actually cost anything, so where would the cost saving come from ? The sensor doesn't cost more because of more pixels, the autofocus is pretty basic (9 point) in fact the controls are more or less the same as the 40/50D.

It might be better to think of it as a cheaper version of the 1Ds series

[Robster]

It will not be long before the EOS 5mk111 is on the market with features like the EOS 7 such as 100% view finder and 8 a frames per second drive, cant see the point in all the focusing points though unless moved over a much larger area or the video feature for that matter.
But would say it will be over 3K for the body, then the mk11 will get sold off cheap making the gap huge again between aps and full frame.
If money is not an issue Full Frame every time.

[youngd]

Flake.

I don't buy into your theory about pricing. Almost every product you care to mention, including a vast array of electronic equipment, provide a different range of features and are differentially priced accordingly. I don't see how digital cameras somehow break this mould.

As I said in an earlier post, Sony have already produced an a more affordable full frame.

Canon did it with the original 5D, and I think most people were genuinely surprised when the SD Mark ii came out with the spec it did in terms of pixels and video. I still think that Canon could produce a very competitive FF camera along the lines of the 7D but removing what I suggested earlier.

Purely as a matter of interest, how many times have you used the video on your 5D Mark ii for any serious purpose? The truth now!!!


Daryl.

[flake]

The reason that digital cameras are different to other electrical products is the way they are made. The image processor (digic IV) has features which can be switched on and off, which costs very little to do. The other components such as the exposure meter, & autofocus modules are already quite basic on the 5D MkII (compared to the 1D series) so seeing where there's a cost saving is difficult.

Sony have produced a more affordable FF? the Alpha A850 is £1650 and the A900 is £1680 which is not far away from the cost of 5D MkII, and seeing as the 7D isn't far off either, making a FF camera 'along the lines of' isn't going to save anything.

To save money the only way is to took to what the product lines already have and the entry level models, I somehow can't see a 500D FF equivalent though, would you really want one?

As for video no I haven't used it because the SX1 does it a lot better than the 5D MkII, but if you're thinking that video adds cost think again, the Digic IV handles all that, there's no microphone, no autofocus, and until recently no way to change the aperture while filming (firmware update changed that). So where's the cost? The truth is that there is no real additional cost in providing video, but it does generate more sales, so it might be argued it actually helps to keep costs down!