With the announcement of the Canon EOS-1 D Mark IV, I have to rethink my choice for a dSLR.
So...
In its favor, the Canon EOS 7D Digital has:
- 17.9 megapixels (as opposed to 16.1)
- lighter (820g as opposed to 1180g)
- greater range of compatible lenses for cross-type AF
- CHEAPER ($1899 with EF 28-135 as opposed to $4999 for body only)
- start/stop button for Live Mode/HD Video Recording
- Transmissive viewfinder LCD
- APS-C enables longer equivalent range
In it favor, the Canon EOS-1 D Mark IV has:
- larger, APS-H sensor (1.56x the size of 7D sensor)
- fewer megapixels
- greater weather sealing
- 45-point AF inc. 39 cross-type (with select lenses)
- greater native ISO (12,800 as opposed to 6400)
- greater ISO range (50 [L] - 102,400 [H3] as opposed to 50 [L] - 12,800 [H])
- 10fps (7D's 8fps isn't much worse, though)
- Dual card slots (CF & SD)
- Greater number of RAW+JPEG in burst mode (20 as opposed to 6)
Is it worth it to start pinching pennies?
Your first DSLR will be a $5000 DSLR. If you were going to shoot pro sports and making enough money then it would be a great choice, but there's no way you'll see a non-pro using one. The 1D series DSLRs are massive.
...but that's how I learn. When I bought my SX10 IS I didn't even know what the word light meant (just kidding, but you get my point). Now I shoot in PASM only (no full AUTO). If I were to buy the 7D and then move up (because, ultimately, that is my goal), it would, in my opinion, be a waste of $1899.
Nonetheless, my amateur status is a huge factor, one that I am not at all taking lightly. As for the weight, a 3lb body (versus a 2lb body) isn't a terrible difference.
I already tested 7D although I've not yet got to see any 1D IV yet. The 2 camera serve quite many different purposes. 1D series is more flexible and contains more features for professionals who demand speed and accuracy. The new focusing system is something different from 7D ; I'd say much faster and more features. For example, when rotating 1D mark IV while shooting, you can choose any focusing points and types you want, along with more cross type focusing points - from left to right, top to bottom. 7D certainly isn't capable of doing this.
Moreover, the buffer size of 1D allows you continuously shoot pictures so that you won't miss any demanding shot. Look at the amount of pictures when shooting at burst mode ( 15 RAW for 7D and 28 RAW for 1D ) for professionals the number is very important that they won't miss any action shot.
I've not yet mentioned many features, such as shooting many 1D camera and maintaining the same settings for every camera. This is only for 1D series. You can set the camera parameters, save into your memory card, and reload to another 1D camera. Another more professional feature, FEL light metering features which evaluate light condition of chosen multi-spots ( as many as 9 points ). Then, the light condition will be evalulated for any desire shot. These are some features I found out from my 1Ds mark III which I'd say that 1D mark IV has all and improve these features.
There are more features and functions in 1D mark IV that I've not got any chance to explore. But, the professionals and serious ametuers demands are quite different. So, you be the judge for how serious you are and what you really want. Specification isn't just something you say whether the camera is worth that. Dig deep and find out !
Thanks, I think I will take your advice. Now it's off to Best Buy/B&H/etc... TIME, TIME, TIME... ![]()
1 lbs. here and there adds up quick. Don't forget you'll be toting around lenses, a flash, maybe a tripod, ect. If for every extra piece of gear you bought you opted for the product that was one pound heavier, you'd end up with quite a bit of extra weight. And after a couple hours of lugging it around, you'll start to feel it. Plus the 1D is somewhat bigger.
Anyway, I don't understand why anyone who isn't a pro who's shooting sports, a photojournalist, or some crazy NatGeo nature photographer would spend this kind of money on a camera. It just doesn't make sense. Do you think spending $5k on a camera will give you better photos than a $800 camera? They serve different purposes.
More megapixels doesn't mean better pictures. Ever hear of diffraction?
8fps is retardedly fast, you really think you'll need 10fps?
I don't get it. Maybe you just have money to burn. Have fun.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |