Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

My first thoughts on the 7D

profile picture
japollner
Posts: 1699 - Karma: 459
So I did it, and made the jump (after years of shooting Minolta and Sony)and bought a 7d.  After having it for lest than 24 hours, here are my thoughts.

The body is solid...super sold.  I have played with 5dmk2's that didnt feel this built.  The feel in your hand is great too.  It is pretty heavy compared to film bodies and most dslrs, but I feel like this is something I will just get used to.

The 8 fps drive is awesome.  Had no problem writing to an 80x card at 18mp fine.  Havent tried RAW yet, but I dont shoot raw that much.  For what I do, RAW is overkill and more time consuming.  The in camera jpeg comression is great.

The bad?  With all the new buttons, things feel a bit crowded sometimes.  I havent really shot it enough to appreciate the new buttons, so maybe my feelings on this will change.

I bought it with the 18-135 is kit.  It came with the body, lens, charger, lens hood, extra battery, and uv filter packages from canon.  Price was $2000 exactly.
Nov 10 2009 10:56AM
0 0
profile picture
powday
Posts: 3055 - Karma: 326
congrats! post up pics/video when you can. Happy shooting!
Nov 10 2009 12:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
I would suggest that you always shoot in RAW for the sake of post. Seems silly to have a 7D and not shoot in RAW.
Nov 10 2009 1:52PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61470 - Karma: 122,041
Did you read what he said?
Nov 10 2009 1:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
Yes i guess I jus't don't understand why you would get a 7D and not shoot RAW. If RAW is over kill then a 7D seems kinda overkill but whatever.
Nov 10 2009 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
dutch1
Posts: 465 - Karma: 11
^ agreed. I see it as being equivalent to buying a video camera that can shoot 1080p and setting it up for 480. It may be more time consuming and take up so much more space but it makes a difference in post processing quality... consider this: opening a jpg file in photoshop, toning and saving as a full quality jpg still degrades the quality [you are further compressing compressed info].

Sorry to make this a raw/jpg argument thread. Congrats on the 7D, love my mk2's and have heard good things about the 7D.

{if you are interested in a canon 50 1.4 drop me a line}
Nov 10 2009 4:06PM
0 0
profile picture
bout_it
Posts: 1233 - Karma: 17
isn't that what tiffs were meant for?
Nov 10 2009 4:49PM
0 0
profile picture
dutch1
Posts: 465 - Karma: 11
few cameras shoot in .tif [last i can remember is the original canon 1d]. but yes, a tiff is a lossless uncompressed format. canons produce a .cr2 [or similar] and nikons a .nef as raw files. a tiff is just a more common lossless format that different software utilities can use more freely without having to pay the electronic corporations licensing fees, so if your software doesn't edit a .cr2 file you can convert into a tiff without losing any data [like a .jpg would]. if you are really serious about backing up and archiving a lossless file look into adobe's open source digital negative format [.dng].
Nov 10 2009 6:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Snowcase
Posts: 11456 - Karma: 634
That was my first reaction.
Nov 10 2009 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
i interned at a newspaper this summer and raw is a big no no apparently. They had me only shoot in jpegs. I dont like that photoshop cant use my cameras adjustments when opening a raw file, but other than that its nice to have the flexibility of RAW.
Nov 10 2009 6:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
That seems really strange to me. I would have assumed that the workflow be shoot RAW do your post and then final image be a TIFF.

Sorry to be a dink and to the thread creator props on the new purchase.
Nov 10 2009 7:35PM
0 0
profile picture
1080ski
Posts: 4424 - Karma: 191
if you think about it, all it does is take up space. You wont be doing any heavy editing to a newspaper photo, just simple cropping and some dodging/burning. No need for the RAW.
Nov 10 2009 8:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Snowcase
Posts: 11456 - Karma: 634
For almost everything else though, raw is the standard.
Nov 10 2009 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
LjayCinema
Posts: 368 - Karma: 1,645
OH GOD am I jealous. Pics/vids preeez?!
Nov 10 2009 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyOhio
Posts: 6044 - Karma: 60

congrats man! post up some pics

i just had a side question, bought my 40D last spring and have been shooting with it often, i always always shoot RAW, just cause its a larger file, doesnt compress as much and leaves more editting of the bare elements, in canon's zoom photo editor or whatever.

what are pros/cons to shooting RAW and what are pros/cons to shooting JPG?

thanks

Nov 10 2009 11:15PM
0 0
profile picture
dutch1
Posts: 465 - Karma: 11
this could be a long drawn out conversation.. maybe suited for elsewhere? also do a web search.

raw.
in my opinion you should always shoot raw. the bottom line is you will never know when you capture an image that can make your career [financially or through prestige]. it may be shooting 'dog of the day' assignment for your tiny newspaper or goofing off with friends or covering a wedding or at a major ski comp. you never know when an image will happen in front of you and if others want to use it behooves you to be able to reproduce it in any format at the highest quality possible. newspaper print is close to toilet paper. but large display on the web and hq print like a rotogravure press will suffer from the lack of quality.
pros - highest quality file. 12 or 14 bit imaging [read higher dynamic range]. in digital imaging [contrary to analog] clipping highlights is the worst thing you can do, with jpeg you cannot recover that data, but in raw it is in some situations.
cons - storage size and computing power required [read time consuming] are extremely high. requires post-processing sharpening and toning.

jpeg.
pros - a compressed file that holds a large amount of detail. much smaller than raw [~1/4 the size at quality 10]. can look dynamic right out of the camera [read faster workflow] because of in camera presets.
cons - 8 bit imaging. losses quality with every open and save [even if you don't do anything but save!]. No matter what you do you will never be able to have an end product that is as high quality as the original file you captured [you can come close].

those are the basics. sorry to hijack the thread. if anyone would like i can email my data sheets that i gave all my college freshman students. cheers.
Nov 11 2009 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Vinci
Posts: 701 - Karma: 1,472
Have you shot some Videos with the 7D 1080 or 720p mode yet?
Im seriously thinking about hooking me up with this beast just for shooting videos...

Ive seen a couple of sport clips on vimeo (like FMX) shot with the 7D and the quality is STUNNING, but Im not really sure if its the right choice for skiing. Way more and faster movement might make it hard to film without proper AF... and follow cam would be pretty much impossible without some shoulder mount (which is like 1000$ alone... damn)

Together with some proper 28-35mm (1.4-1.8) lenses the whole package is like 2800$

Rolling Shutter might be a problem too?


As far as pictures go Im still happy with my 20D...
Nov 11 2009 9:36AM
0 0
profile picture
japollner
Posts: 1699 - Karma: 459
To kind of pop in on the raw vs jpeg debate.  I dont do any serious photography and to be honest have only shot in raw once or twice in the past.  To me, the work flow, converting the raw file to something PS could work with, editing, then saving it as a jpeg anyway in the end was tiresome and long winded.

I have a strong belief that if hat you do in camera looks good, than a print made from an 18mp jpeg wil look fine.  Raw (to me) is just a safety net for trying to save a shot that didnt come out right.  I dont need that safety net because i am not getting paid for my images.  If it doesnt come out great, then damn, I messed up, not the ceompression algorithym in the camera.

Video looks good, but I am going to have to do some messing around with my computer.  1080p @30fps is alot to work with.
Nov 11 2009 9:49AM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
as far as video goes you want to use a tripod as much as possible and. And then focus is an entire different issue. To get good focus you will need a follow focus and the cheapest one that I'm aware of is the D focus. Then even after you have a follow focus you need a rail system to put it on. They are tons of options here nothing that is the cheapest. Red rock makes some really nice shit but its really expensive.

If you want to know more about shoulder rig or stabilization and follow focus ill tell you more.

or just chek you cinema 5d forum for SLR filmers

D Focus
http://www.designbydave.net/dfocus/

Cinem 5D
http://www.cinema5d.com/index.php
Nov 12 2009 12:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Vinci
Posts: 701 - Karma: 1,472
ok, since ive spend a lot of my time in the hospital lately I got the chance to read through a couple of threads on cinema5d

now I got a proper film-tripod (Sony VCT-1170) with a fluid head and shit
and a sigma 18-50 2.8 EX lense (guess 2.8 is enough for most days, considering that snow stuff is usually very bright)

since my season is over anyway ill try to build a follow focus and some kind of cheap glide/steady cam
maybe with a hdmi screen to make it possible to lift or lowering the cam without filming completly blind?


any suggestions?
Nov 20 2009 5:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Trent_Palmer
Posts: 226 - Karma: 936
I cant comment on a follow focus because I have never used one, but from what I have heard they are not that helpful for shooting on these, unless you have someone else pulling focus for you. Turning the lens works fine in most cases.

As for the steadicam and monitor, I have been looking into these too for a while. And I am so up in the air on it that I havent stepped up and bought anything. It seems like to get a "decent" flyable steadicam you are looking at the steadicam merlin ($800) or a glidecam 4000HD ($600?) and they are supposed to be really hard to setup and balance with these cameras. Plus with the shallow DOF you get off the big sensors you cant really do too much while keeping your subject in focus. Also you have to remember that it takes 15-20min to balance a steadicam once you are good at it, and once its balanced you cannot change the zoom or focus or just the glass moving in the lens will through it off balance. All of this seems like a big inconvenience to me.

That all being said I am still looking into it because I would love to have "steadicam operator" to put on my reel/resume.

Oh, and let me know if you find a good monitor at a decent price because I need one for sure, that little screen on the 7D is a bitch to try to focus with.
Nov 20 2009 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
dergblerp
Posts: 1303 - Karma: 77
For the 7D, the Glidecam 2000 pro would probably be plenty.  It's a pretty sweet little device.  check out some sample vids on youtube.
Nov 20 2009 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Blandct
Posts: 1858 - Karma: 37
as far as a follow focus goes look into the D focus its the cheapest one you will find
its no redrock or zacuto but it should be enough.

Also for rigs check out the korean rigs...shit is all over c5d
Nov 21 2009 2:01AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)