As far as the name of the 7D, and wondering if it's pro or semi-pro, the name makes perfect sense.

Single number means pro. 2 digit number means prosumer. 3 digit number (outside NA) means consumer.

So, the 7D is definitely aimed at pros.

As far as the actual number, in the pro line, lower is 'better', so the 7 is lower than the 5.

As far as cropped sensor, don't forget the 1DMKIII is also a crop sensor, but is definitely a pro camera.

So, the name makes perfect sense to me, assuming Canon sees this as an entry level pro as opposed to a high-end prosumer.

Wow I can't believe how wrong you guys have it on the 7D. I was listening to your podcast and just shaking my head. The BIGGEST selling feature of the new 7D is the new video features. Just head over to someplace like DVXuser.com and see how many people could really care less about this camera as a still camera. This is an indie filmmakers camera.

This is the first time we can buy an affordable video camera that has a large super35mm sized sensor, can shoot 24/30p at a decent bitrate and has a great low light capabilities. A truly evolutionary camera that will go down in the history books. Just like there were tons of people who were buying 5DmkII's because it was the first full frame 30p video DSLR. The reason that camera became so popular so fast. It appealed to both photogs and filmmakers.

You guys really don't see it do you? You really don't seem to understand just how revolutionary these two cameras are do you? That's really kind of sad.

As for 1080p vs 720p. Someone on the podcast mentioned very few people will be able to tell the difference. They also said most peoples monitors are something like 1024x768. This isn't 2002 anymore guys. I don't know anyone who uses a monitor that isn't at least 720p (1280x800) resolution. That resolution these days comes on a 13 laptop. Even most of these new netbooks can do that resolution. Top that off with the fact that 24" LCD monitors these days can be had for $230 and start with a resolution of 1920x1080. Even YouTube HD is 854x480 displayed resolution.

You guys really need to learn a little more about video. Otherwise you'll end up being those photo dinosaurs they talk about on TWIP.

For VIDEO people this is huge, for photographers, its interesting. The problem is that photography consumers have no use for video. You dont put video into magazines, you dont put video into photo albums, you dont hang videos on your walls. Its going to be a long time before video is pervasive in the existing photography market.

As for monitors, the VAST majority of existing computer monitors today are 1024x768. I can show you the stats to back that up. You may not have one, and I may not have one, and there are very few new ones sold today but there are millions out there.

I personally love video but there is nothing about the new DSLR's that fits the video I do today that justifies the cost. For my needs, and many many people, a good quality camcorder is going to be the right decision. I don't know too many people that want to mess with manual focus and all manual controls. While movie makers do this routinely, that is a very very small niche of the market.

"For my needs, and many many people, a good quality camcorder is going to be the right decision."
And I agree with you. But then we aren't talking about a $400 consumer point and shoot camera here. We're talking about a $1700 professional grade DSLR. People aren't going to run out and spend that kind of money to shoot Billy's 5th birthday party. They're buying that camera for indie film and/or pro photo shoots. So it doesn't matter what "most" people would be good with. This isn't a camera for most people. Heck even a digital rebel isn't a camera for "most" people.

Don't get me wrong. I get everything you're saying. Maybe I'm just frustrated that many photographers seem to care less or outright dislike the video features of these cameras. I don't really get it. I'm a professional video guy and hobbyist photographer. I've always felt that if you have an interest in one, how could you not have a great interest in the other?

The reason these cameras are such a big deal for video guys is the chip size. It's all about the chip size. The 7D now has roughly the same sized imaging sensor as a super 35mm motion picture frame. Combined that with 24p, HD and low light shooting and we've finally got a camera that carries the basic physics of a 35mm motion picture camera. Something that was once reserved only for the rich elite. People who were paying $60,000+ for an Arriflex plus the cost of film stock to get that kind of look. Now we can get it for $1700.

While I agree the that dedicated video cameras have benefits. Believe me my work would be a real pain if my vid cams didn't have XLR jacks or zebra bars. But until Canon brings out a dedicated video camera that has a 1.6 crop (super 35mm) sensor and uses some type of EF mount lenses, photographers are going to have to share the DSLR space with us. So it's probably a good idea for you guys to learn exactly why we're here and so excited about all of this. Totally different kind of look then we can get out of our current vid cams. This isn't just an added bonus feature to toy around with. There are people who will be out shooting independent feature films on this cameras because of these features.

You can buy a $1,000 Sony HD camcorder and take excellent video for such a device. And, you don't have to become a video expert and learn how to shoot on a tripod, manual focus, etc. And, if you want good video, the new Panasonics are probably doing as good a job as far as functionality goes.

I don't want a $1000 HD camcorder if it lacks the SHALLOW DEPTH OF FIELD i can get with large sensor SLR and a 1.4 or 1.8 lens aperture.

I really DON'T need auto-focus or even full-hd (1920x1080).

I would be thrilled with 720p with the option of 24p and 60p for slow motion. I will sell my Nikon D90 simply because it lacks what the Canon 7D has: manual control of ISO and shutter speed.

This will be my main and only VIDEO camera.

whatever floats your boat. It's not as easy as the PR departments and forums make it sound.

Glad to see I'm not the only one that was astounded about the podcast! I think the main point that amazed me was not the question whether a dedicated photographer would find video useful..(that is their prerogative)...but rather the comments about videographers not finding the cam useful or appealing versus a traditional video camera.
I'm actual in the hobbyist/enthusiast videographer bracket...and this camera is incredibly appealing to me simply because it offers me the chance to explore all manner of creative filming opportunities at a price that is actually within reach...it is also a dream camera for travel...excellent dslr and video all in the one package...

this camera is going to appeal to a lot of enthusiasts - a lot of 'amateurs' loved exploring what they could achieve with dslrs when they first became affordable. I bought the 300D when it was first available for this very reason...I could have bought a cheap point and click job (the equivalent of a normal video cam)....but I loved the idea of learning and utilising something that the pros used.....my photography has not looked back....and I've now had the opportunity to shoot weddings and other shots used in semi-professional situations because of the skills I learned with it....

and now the 7D comes in at nearly a similar price point to what the 300D first did..and offers the same benefits for video...and I can use all my old lenses!

..and finally...as a teacher I have seen first hand the generation coming through...these are digital natives who are video editing from 10 years of age...they are very excited about what can be achieved with modern tech...they don't have the bucks of the pros...but they have the ideas and creativitiy...and they are looking for the tools too.

I remember Vin Bui's comments about if you're shooting video, you're not shooting pictures. Also, if you're a video enthusiast, you may be interested in the 7D but you have to be somewhat hardcore because you have to buy the camera, the lenses and take the time to properly set it up with a tripod, microphone, whatever. That's a whole new skill set for photographers and they're hired to shoot pictures. Again, it's the practical application in the field by photogrpahers that is the limiting factor, not the potential.

Speaking of real-world, Canon has no incentive to enhance their video capabilities in DSLRs to the point of making it super easy to use because Canon makes video cameras, so they would cannibalize some of their high-end sales if they made it simple to use. Nikon doesn't make video cameras, so they don't care.

Hi there,

I enjoyed the podcast and your expertise re: cameras...

The point I found absolutely astonishing and would debate strongly is the comments re: videographers not finding Canon 7D's HD video feature set useful and a selling point. This is literally the equivalent of a videographer telling a photographer that variable depth of field and interchangeable lenses is not a useful feature on a still camera!!
The 7D is creating a massive amount of excitement in the world of budget filmakers and creative videographers. The ability to fix all manner of lenses and record full HD video with film like motion video is a revolution - it allows the average creative video maker to produce videos with creative effects that previously were unheard of in this price range. I don't think even Canon and Nikon themselves fully realised what they had actually made possible when they first brought these features to the D90 and 5D MkII. Many previously spent lots of money strapping complicated lens adaptors to traditional video cameras to achieve this very feature...and now you can buy an unobtrusive, portable, cost efficient filmmaking dynamo with manual control and audio that achieves the same thing...and the 7D specifically brings the last piece of the puzzle to the table.... 24P/25P film like frame rates.

Let me assure you....videographers absolutely are VERY interested in what this camera offers...
Imagine if we lived in a world of digital compacts with lenses that just put everything in focus...and then someone introduced the very first digital SLR with changeable lenses...imagine the possibilities!

That is what is happening right now in video land.

Check out www.dvxuser.com forums for the excitement...google "Reverie" by Vincent Laforet....you will see that the Canon 7D is very much a camera some people would purchase for this HD video feature alone!

Hi Kerry,

I really appreciate your presenting one of the few unbiased Canon vs. Nikon comparisons I've seen. I'm a Nikon shooter and I always get a laugh when Canon shooters pontificate how much better Canon is and gloss over Nikon's superior flash system, noise management the lack of certain functionality that, up until the 7D, has been missing from the Canon line. I know it goes both ways and they're both excellent manufacturers, but it's nice to get some representation.

However, please talk to the Nikon guy and tell him that it would have been nice to have actually spent a few minutes prepping for the podcast. I think you knew more than him about the D300s. Specific examples are getting the crop factor wrong, not knowing about the dual card slots.

Again, thanks for being objectve!

Great comment ramoncarcases, I was actually checking the comment thread to see if anybody shared my opinion. I thought the comparisons between the 7D and the D300S was unbiased but I agree that the "Nikon Expert" could been a little more prepared. It was a little embarrassing that when asked about the D300S he didn't seem to have any idea of the features. An interesting point to make would have been discussing the idea of buying a used D700 or a new D300S for almost the same price... Which would you buy?

Depends on your investment in lenses. All things being equal, I'd take a used D700 over a D300s and use the difference in price to buy a nicer camcorder. But, I'm more interested in pictures because I get paid to do that.