Preview and specs here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/

It's been tried with limited success at the 14 and 15MP level. It'll be interesting to see how this latest Canon offering performs. I'm skeptical.

I'm torn. I want a 5D II, but it is out of my price range. This I might be able to afford. I wish they would have let the MP go, and concentrated more on low light performance, but if it can produce half decent files at 1600 or 3200, I may have to blackmail my wife or something so I can get one....

Agreed, skeptical. 18mp aps-h (1.3x crop) I think would be much more desirable. It'll come down to just how good that new AF system is, the rest of the specs are interesting but not too enticing. We'll have to wait and see, the proof will be in the pudding as they say.

I like that the g11 and s90 actually dropped megapixels from their like predecessors. I'm interested in the s90 I gotta say.

Start looking on Craigslist - they do appear from time to time.

The Mark II is a phenomenal camera, I've had mine since January and absolutely love it. It was worth the wait, and it's miles ahead of the 'regular' 5D. Small enough to take hiking, yet it creates very sharp HD video and takes excellent images. It's a purchase that I do not regret.

As for the 7D, this has been a difficult year for Canon (for all camera manufacturers!) and this appears to be a stop-gap offering. Nothing in the 7D interests me, I'm afraid. I don't think this will be a winner for Canon.

You guys are looking at this all wrong.

There is a very important niche in the professional photography market that will absolutely love this Canon offering. Many wildlife, action and sports photographers very much appreciate the tighter crop of the APS-C frame factor and... at 8fps with an improved 19-point autofocus system and a 100% viewfinder this new camera will likely be the 1st choice for those with a need a for speed.

Not everyone shoots static landscape scenes where full frame is the preferred option, and at 18MP, the 7D will provide plenty of cropping room too

This is a common misconception. No wildlife, action or sports photographer who knows what they are doing cares for the APS-C crop frame. They understand that a crop is just a crop. The subject is still at the same distance, and you are still focusing the action through the same lens. There is no magical magnifying power in throwing away the edges of the frame. What matters for image quality is photosite size, and cramming 18 MP on a smaller sensor takes things the wrong way. Provided you use the same lens, you will get a better picture of that charging grizzly with a 5D Mark II and cropping the center part. This is why the best sports digital camera in the market today is the Nikon D3, a full frame camera with a low MP count and gigantic photosites that still delivers 8 fps.

The only reason to get an APS-C camera is cost. All other things held equal (particularly speed and needed lenses), APS-C systems are still a lot cheaper than full frame ones.

Unless you are very, very serious about your photography and need the slightly better quality of a full frame camera, I'd suggest the partial APS-C crop for a few reasons.

First is weight. I have both a Canon Rebel and a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. There is a huge difference in weight between these types of cameras and if you use the smaller dedicated lenses for the smaller sensor cameras the weight savings is even greater.

If it weren't for the requirements of the agencies I shoot for, I would always be taking the smaller Canon out and leaving the heavy one at home.

Second is cost versus performance. Make an 11x14 print from either camera and the viewer wouldn't know or care what camera it came from. Simply put, unless you enlarge beyond 11x14 under most light there is a negligible difference at quite a difference in cost.

Weight. Quality. Cost. For the average backpacker, without a doubt I'd recommend the smaller cameras.

My blog http://www.danjurak.wordpress.com
My website http://www.danjurak.com

I think your missing the point Mauricio... A prosumer Canon dslr that does 8 frames per second means I dont have to buy all new lenses or spend the kind of money Nikon wants for it's FF D3. Besides, if I wanted an FF camera... it'd be a Canon 5D mkII for quality of glass and price of body alone

But here's the thing.. the 15MP 50D was essentially a flop due to noise isues. So what does Canon do? Use the same sized 1.6x crop sensor and throw in an extra 3MP and a few more features. So what advantages does 18MP have unless you have to shoot under 400ISO because of noise issues? Any perceived advantages the cropped sensor has for wildlife or sports photogs have just been quashed by having to shoot at low ISO's.

Hi,

I'm following the 7D because I want a new camera and want it to perform very well with low light. 5D MkII is amazing but expensive. 7D seems nice, but noise might be a big issue. Camera has made it into the hands of people who are knowledgeable on this subject. Short summary from DPreview:
----
Note: I am talking about the RAW images.

The 7D is excellent in the noise department.

The "read noise" on pixel level is equal to or slightly lower than the 40D and 50D with ISO 100 and 200. From ISO 400 the 7D is somewhat better, and ISO 3200 (the top useful ISO of the 7D with raw) is quite better than the 40D.

All that is with 80% more pixels.

However, there is no question: this is far from the 5D2. Pixel (sensel) size does matter.
----
[Source = http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...read=32880471]

So Canon did do some magic to the pixels

Bas

I don't think so. Your post was about "a niche in the professional photography market". There is an enormous difference between the "prosumer" market (which used to be called amateur, but I guess manufacturers know how to stroke an ego) and the professional one. I fall, at best, in the amateur category. Danjurak's post is spot on - a professional cannot shoot APS-C, even in situations where it would have obvious advantages (backpacking being the one closest to us), or their pictures would just be rejected. For a professional - defined as someone who makes a living from photography - a $3,000 extra cost is irrelevant if it means the difference between selling their pictures or not. And a professional sports photographer will not be caught dead near an APS-C sensor.

The 7D will live or die on its appeal to the consumer market. It will definitely not be because it satisfies the needs of a niche in the professional market.

I know plenty of professional sports photographers that already have orders down for the 7D (or at least, have expressed desire to do so at the earliest available opportunity), and I know plenty of professional photographers in general shooting with APS-C cameras.

I would but myself into the professional category and have already ordered a 7d to use as my secondary body and for the ability to do hd video @ 24fps. I normally do wide angle shooting so I'll probably be getting a Tokina 11-16 to adjust for the 1.6x

Plenty of APS-C images have wound up in professional print and many of todays APS-C cameras are capable of taking equally superb photographs as FF's can despite FF's obvious low light advantages but fine, I'll rephrase just for you...

There is a niche "market" that requires very fast cameras and some of those people are professionals. They are the sports, wild life and other action shot enthusiasts who need and want 8 frames per second with out paying the premium that FF bodies demand.

I'd like the 7D just for it's weather sealing alone, cant count the number of times my 40D has been completely soaked just from condensation in the evening air, and now the shutter button is getting sticky.

Danjurak, if you don't mind me asking, what are the specific requirements of the agency that cause you to need full frame? Pixel count? EXIF data must say it is a FF camera (which would be dumb)?, pass some kind of noise level test?