Took the next step..

[Ferry_vO]

Well, two steps actually, as I upgraded from a 400D to a 7D today!

I used the 400D for almost three years and over 20,000 photos and loved using it, but I felt like I reached its limits. I'm doing a lot of shooting in difficult circumstances these days (Airshows, racing, concerts) and the 400D couldn't give me the results I wanted. The 7D is a big step forwards, with 8 fps, 18 megapixel, ISO settings up to 12800 and a lot more goodies including live view and full HD (1080p) filming!

No photos yet because once I got home late this afternoon (150 mile drive through snow and rain) I still had to **** and charge the battery. For indoor shooting I also got me a new lens: A Tamron 17-50 XR Di F/2.8 with a B+W filter. Very good quality at half the price of the Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 (Though that one does have IS).

Will be going to a museum tomorrow (With some other SOH folks) to test it!

[jmig]

Congratulations! i know you will enjoy the new camera. We all looking forward to seeing the results.

[djscoo]

Oooh! I'm jealous!

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Congratulations, have fun with it!

But wouldn't the 100-400L on your 400D make a bigger difference than the 18 MP 7D ? I'm not sure but I'd say the 18 megapixel sensor would outperform your 70-300...because so many megapixels really needs good glass...I noticed the same with my A350 and my 70-400 G SSM.

[kilo delta]

Congrats on the new purchases, Ferry :ernae:. The 7D is a great body ,by all accounts.......I'd be tempted to get one myself but I've invested to heavily in Nikon gear
I'd be interested in your findings on the Tamron lens as I'm considering that lens to replace my nikon 18-70mm kit lens.

[Ferry_vO]

But wouldn't the 100-400L on your 400D make a bigger difference than the 18 MP 7D ? I'm not sure but I'd say the 18 megapixel sensor would outperform your 70-300...because so many megapixels really needs good glass...I noticed the same with my A350 and my 70-400 G SSM.

Which is why I'm saving up for the 70-200 IS USM F/2.8 L-series, possibly with a 1.4x converter; until then the 70-300 will have to do.

[Cloud9Gal]

Wooooooooo! Nice purchase Ferry! Good for you!

You'll have fun making good use of that new camera! And to echo jmig's comment, I can't wait to see the results. Make sure to share some of your photos with all of us!

Have fun "snapping & clicking"!

[Snuffy]

I have to echo some of the comments here already. Congrats on the purchase. Good Luck and have fun with it.

Oh!, yeah please share your results. Not that I want to see a mess of close ups of other SOH members from the Netherlands, but I'm sure you'll find plenty of other interesting stuff to shoot.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

That is one big and expensive step up Ferry! Congrats! If I had an $1800 camera body I'd spend all my time worrying about dropping it!

Looks like you have fully committed to both serious photography and Canon.

What mainly pushed you to a 7D over say a 50D at probably a little over half the price of a 7D (more $ available for glass then!)? HD video? More mega pixels?

-Ed-

[Ferry_vO]

Some first impressions after a day of shooting inside a museum:

-The 8fps setting is very sensitive; before I knew I made 2 or 3 photos. At least it also has a slower 3fps setting.
-It's quite a bit heavier than the 400D, but because it has a larger grip it fits my hand better so that's not much of an issue. The additional weight makes it more stable I think.
-The high ISO settings are great; at 3200 ISO I have about the same amount of noise as the 400D has at 400 ISO.
-The onboard flash is much stronger, and the camera works better with the external EX-430.
-I need to experiment a bit more with the settings on the Tamron lens and camera; most images are slightly overexposed and made at too small f settings. The exposure is easily corrected with the included Canon software though.

[Ferry_vO]

What mainly pushed you to a 7D over say a 50D at probably a little over half the price of a 7D (more $ available for glass then!)? HD video? More mega pixels?

The amount of megapixels only determines the size of the photo, and I don't think there's much difference visible between 12,15 or 18 mp unless you use very high quality glass.

The Full HD filming option was important, as was the higher ISO settings, coupled with a much better noise reduction and better image quality. The 50D has a max. ISO setting of 3200, the 7D goes up to 12800.
The 7D is 'weather sealed' unlike the 50D, the max speed is a bit higher at 8 fps (50D: 6.3 fps) and the shutter mechanism of the 7D is guaranteed up to 150,000 clicks (50D: 100,000, 400D: 50,000).
The 100% viewfinder is great, though it takes some getting used to after using the 400D with an 85% viewfinder for three years.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

Yeah I guessed it was mostly the high ISO IQ and HD video. The 50D goes to 12800 ISO as well. I've been thinking about how important that video might be myself.

Also I stopped by a local store at lunch today for a quick glance at the Canon cameras (50D, 7D). Both are impressive cameras but I have to say if I were to consider using either one I'd be signing up for a gym membership and really focus on weightlifting. I can't imagine packing one of those around in my hands all day - I just don't get enough exercise working an FS joystick . Besides I'm more a rangefinder kinda guy (wish I had the money for a Leica M9) :isadizzy:.

But getting back to the 7D - you don't find that camera pretty big and heavy? Do you carry and use a tripod? The high ISO performance will be nice I'm sure. I'd like to find high ISO performance in a small camera but not so much from a low light perspective but more the idea I don't want to use a tripod any more than I need to and generally want big DOF (small f-stop) and high shutterspeed which translates to needing high ISO performance - either that or get over the self conciousness of setting up a tripod. Anyway good luck with that 7D and do show off some images.

-Ed-

[Ferry_vO]

Also I stopped by a local store at lunch today for a quick glance at the Canon cameras (50D, 7D). Both are impressive cameras but I have to say if I were to consider using either one I'd be signing up for a gym membership and really focus on weightlifting.
But getting back to the 7D - you don't find that camera pretty big and heavy? Do you carry and use a tripod?

No tripod here, Ed.
The 7D is indeed heavier than the 400D is (820 vs. 530 grams) but the grip is larger and better shaped so it fits my rather large hands much better. The 400D I would hold with two fingers and my thumb, on the 7D I can use three fingers.

An interesting feature of the 7D that caught my eye in this review:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ra-Review.aspx

And the 7D finally gives me the full Auto ISO feature I've wanted for a long time - Auto ISO that uses the full range of ISO settings in most modes (starting at ISO 100 and going through ISO 3200) including M mode. This creates what is essentially an Aperture AND Shutter Priority Mode. I can dial in the M mode fixed aperture and shutter speeds I want and let AE determine the ISO setting needed. I can set the shutter speed I need and the aperture I want to track sports players from shade to full sun, under changing skies and with a rising or setting sun without exposure setting worries.

Something I definitely need to try at airshows!

[Panther_99FS]

Congrats Ferry!

[JorisVandenBerghe]

By the way, the 70-300 weighs only 630 grams, the 7D about 900 grams I'd say, so I think it's not a problem. That's about the weight of my 70-400 alone, 1.5 kilograms...when you'd put a 100-400 or anything heavier on it, it becomes a problem ...

(Having said that, when the A7xx will eventually be released I will upgrade as well).

[Panther_99FS]

Joris,
When are you going to get the A900 :ques: :mixedsmi:

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Probably never . As much I like it's extreme resolution and speed, I'm put off by the lack of crop factor which is important to me as I take mainly telephoto shots .

And I'm not willing to spend nearly $ 2000 on a full-frame camera and having to get a Carl Zeiss 24-70 as well in order to have a nice quality lens...although I might pick the lens up when someone makes me a great deal...(it's one of the most expensive but also one of the best lenses for Sony, second, third or fourth one when it comes to price, I reckon...$ 1600, currently about 1800 euro which is insane).

But when that A7xx (or whatever the A700's successor will be called :mixedsmi arrives at last...I'll buy it instantly...if it will be worth the additional money over the A550, that is...but it probably will...

I'm sorry for hijacking the thread, Ferry ..

[Ferry_vO]

No problem Joris.

Cameras are a lot like computers; there's always something slightly better just out of your budget, and new models are always close to release.

In my case the 5D mark II would have been the next option but it would have cost me more. It has more mp and even higher ISO settings but at 3,9 fps it is considerably slower than my 7D.

The 70-300 is not that heavy, but the 70-200 ISM USM F2.8 I'm considering weighs twice at much. Add the camera to that and the overall weight will be around 2.5 kilos. Still no problem for me though.

[Ferry_vO]

Had a chance to play with the new camera inside a very dark museum; a good opportunity to test the low light capabilities. All shots made with the Canon 17-85mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM lens, ISO set at 3200 or 6400, shutter speed at 1/8 to 1/60. No flash or tripod used. The only editting I did was a quick run through Picasa and a resize.











Just to compare: here's an old shot made with the 400D, same lens but with the 430EX external flash:

[djscoo]

Looking good!
I realize it was dark but it seems like you lost some sharpness with those slower shutter speeds. The rule of thumb I've always heard/used is to use the reciprocal of the focal length as your slowest shutter speed. (i.e. 17mm focal length > 1/17 minimum shutter speed.) :ernae:

[Ferry_vO]

1/17 hand held isn't going to work without image stabilizer I think, but I have increased the sharpness setting of the camera a bit for the standard profile. Of course these shots were made to push the camera; normally I would use the external flash and a shutter speed of at least 1/60.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Regarding that rule, one should keep the crop factor in mind...so 1/20 would be a bit on the optimistic side, 1/30 or above should do.

Canon's APS-C cameras have a 1.6 ratio vs a full-frame one, Sony and Nikon cameras 1.5, Olympus 2, don't know about Panasonic although since they're using Four Thirds I'd say they probably have a crop factor of 2 as well, like Olympus.

[Kiwikat]

Looking good!
I realize it was dark but it seems like you lost some sharpness with those slower shutter speeds. The rule of thumb I've always heard/used is to use the reciprocal of the focal length as your slowest shutter speed. (i.e. 17mm focal length > 1/17 minimum shutter speed.) :ernae:

The 17-85 isn't known to be a very sharp lens anyways. The new 15-85mm is much better in every way, except price of course.

I've taken .5 second shots with my 18-55 IS and they were as sharp as they could possibly be with that lens. IS is a very handy feature. However I'd rather shoot with fast primes.

[Panther_99FS]

Nice low-light shots Ferry.....