Talk:Canon EOS 7D

Photography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Screen resolution[edit]

What's going on here?

640 * 680 != 920,000

The 920k pixels is accurate, therefore it's more like 1100 x 830. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.26.236 (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there is an error somewhere else in the article, but infobox clearly says 921,600 dots. This is derived from 640x480 pixels (307200 total), and since each pixel has 3 dots (red, green, and blue) that is 307200 × 3 = 921600. Nebrot (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Category[edit]

FYI to all. I have made a commons category for this camera here. As soon as free image is available it should be categorized here. Thanks. Nebrot (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The index[edit]

I'm a huge fan of Canon and one of the things I've always loved about Canon EOS is the way their cameras range was "indexed" (you'll have to excuse my English or edit this).

You see 1000D and you know it's the lowest level. You see 5D and you know you're somewhere near the top of the range. Unlike Nikon where D50 was followed by D40, D40x and D60, then the series split into... D3000 and D5000. It's all very confusing (unless you're a faithful fan).

But now all of a sudden Canon does the same stupid thing. 7D, which logically should be the successor of 5D, turned out to be the replacement of 50D. What the heck happened to 60D? Why change the tradition?

Canon has done a lot of strange things lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.60.158 (talk • contribs)

Please only use the talk pages to discuss how to improve the article, not what you personally think of Canon (WP:NOTFORUM). That said, the numbering system is still consistent, the 7D does not (in all likelihood) replace the 50D, but is a professional grade crop sensor camera and shares features with other single digit cameras (shutter, weather sealing, ...). Rror (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, clearly you (not you Rror) have not seen how the film EOS's were named. The EOS 100 was replaced by the EOS 50, which was then replaced by the EOS 30. Heck some of the first Ditigal EOSs were named D2000, and D6000. They where in no way "beginner" level cameras, but they still had a 1000's type name. Just face it, Canon has always had wacky naming schemes. The only series that has had continuity is the EOS 1 cameras. Nebrot (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Video Licensing[edit]

Yes true but this section is not needed since it would apply to any MPEG-4 capable device. I suggest removal. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 14:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the Canon EOS 5D Mark II page. Here is my comment on the talk page. -- Autopilot (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes but I think it's an issue because for example Nikon cameras have Motion JPEG, so I can just buy a Nikon, record a video, burn it and sell it, while with those canon models I can't without licensing problems. I do think it's a camera feature, ok, maybe it does not need a big section saying "Video License" but then I suggest that we should indicate the format the camera uses in it's features and if is h.264 put just a link to a page that informs about this video licensing issue. something like: "Movie Format: h.264/mpeg4 (see: video license link). I am insisting on this because it is relevant, especially for Linux users that may have problems working with h.264 codecs in some countries. If someone pays 5000$ for a pro camera should be aware of this issue. So what do you think about transforming this video license section in a one line in the specifications with a link to the issue? Mihai.ile (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that topic be more relevant on the MPEG-4 article? I say this because all articles of devices that have the ability to produce MPEG-4 would have to have this section included in it. It would become redundant. -- ErnestVoice ^{(User) (Talk)} 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the discussion is more appropriate for the MPEG-4 article or perhaps MPEG LA. The license terms appear in almost every mpeg4 software package, too, such as Final Cut Pro. -- Autopilot (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such information is not in the scope of this article. For instance, we do not go into the detail of how JPEG compression works in this article, or how auto focus works. This information is included in other articles. If a reader wishes to know more on these subjects they can find it in those articles. Last time I checked, wikipedia had no obligation to include legal information relevant to different aspects of the subject that article was describing. For instance, we do not talk about that people should not use the 7D to reproduce copyrighted work, like a painting. Nor do we describe that a photographer needs to get a model release in certain jurisdictions, in order to make commercial use of persons image. I do not agree with this informations inclusion in this artcle. Nebrot (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the average layman, this "video licensing" section is misleading. Here we're talking about content distribution in h.264, not generating works themselves. You can basically do whatever you want with video generated by the 5dmkII or 7d, your final product just has to be encoded in a different format if you want to sell it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.47.164 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be consensus here to remove this section, I'm going to delete it. 198.175.253.81 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Sealing[edit]

The Canon 7D, contrary to popular rumor, is not weather sealed. Nor is it waterproof or water resistant by any recognized standard, and Canon has never made any claim to the contrary. Canon has stated it to be "As weather resistant as the 1N" - an old film camera. This was mistaken for being as resistant as the 1D series, which is weather sealed. The canon-released diagram here: http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS7D/Images/whatsnew_sealing.jpg makes this very clear. Red shows weather sealed seams, green shows seams with "tightened tolerances", whatever that means. Seams shown in black are neither sealed nor "tightened." Given this, I think we can get rid of "weather sealed" as a stated feature of the camera. Perhaps "Improved weather protection as compared to the 50D" would be an honest statement. Velinion (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canon does specifically state the 7d to be dust and weather resistant on their website, and is recognized to be among canon's best sealed bodies, second only to the 1d series. Thus, "dust and water resistant" should at the very least be listed as a feature. Theelephantsays (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see "Due to its weather sealed body, and dual Digic IV Processors, the Canon EOS 7D is prone to overheating after short periods of time during video capture, when the outside temperature is higher than 30 degrees Celsius.[citation needed]". I use it regularly in video mode in Thailand (almost always > 30 deg C) & have never even noticed it getting warm. I thought firmware v 1.2.1 fixed this. I suggest this is removed. Markjholloway (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What effective resolution means[edit]

"Effective resolution", as used in the infobox, is not simply the result or "effect" of simply multiplying the official specs of pixels in the x and y dimension, as those official specs are, in fact, interpolated specs that result from the camera taking a very cruddy, tiny effective image taken by the sensor and then blowing it up and artificially sharpening it (introducing sharpening artifacts and the like), which is then given in the official specs as official resolution of that camera. See Pixel#Megapixel and Demosaicing, according to which the *EFFECTIVE* resolution of a camera like this is actually that of 1080p, or about 2 MP, which the camera then interpolates to 18 fake MP in post before actually saving the image. --2003:EF:13C6:FE11:61E2:258B:D37C:7B1F (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compact Flash Cards[edit]

The maximum size for cards being used is 128GB. Type 1 (3mm) or type 2 (5mm) can be used. 2400:4053:82C1:4810:F40B:2CF6:4B17:8EED (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessories?[edit]

In what sense is the "EOS 7D Digital SLR Body" an accessory? Assuming that it is not in actual fact a spare body that Canon supplies with these cameras, irrespective of whether it is listed on Canon's website as an accessory, the statement in the article here should either be clarified or deleted. LookingGlass (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]