Report on the 7D having 'residual image' issue? Am I missing something? :(

its $1699.95 without the 'residual image' issue.

Because they push the envelope. High-volume cameras generally use cheaper, tried and true hardware. Their users also aren't nearly so picky about minor image quality issues.

This is hardly show-stopping for 99% of photographers, though. I've not noticed anything. Not that I'm pixel-peeping my 8fps sequences, but I've not seen any ghosting. I've only seen AMAZING pictures...well, the photographer is mediocre, but the pictures are amazing. :)

@ Paul

This has been something of a pattern with Canon's cameras. Pushing the envelope isn't an excuse for releasing half-baked products, especially when there are people who rely on their equipment for a living.

Most every DSLR has had bugs later fixed by firmware. For instance, the D80's "dead battery syndrome." It's a function of the increasingly complexity of the software combined with pressure to release new products often. On higher-end cameras, the users are more discriminating and less forgiving, which makes such models seem more problem prone.

Although many people accuse Canon of not listening to their users, my read is that Canon listens to *particular* users ... the ones representing the biggest chunk of income for them. In the case of the 7D, they seem to have aimed the camera at least in part at sports photographers. Since such photographers (A) tend to buy expensive telephoto L lenses and (B) often have their cameras provided by magazines that buy a lot of the cameras and have purchasing clout, Canon seems to address their problems ahead of others, hence this fix coming so quickly and being announced well before it's even ready.

I have to agree with David... If I just dropped nearly two grand for a camera for my profession (which it isn't—I'm just an enthusiast), I'd be guttered to find ghosting in my photos. Or weird lines. Things like that. When you potentially have to blow the photo up to a two-metre banner, any little minor issues could be show-stopping. I'll admit I haven't seen examples of this ghosting, but it isn't doing Canon's reputation any good...

the ghosting could be good for paranormal photography effects less plug-in photo editing or blurry cam shots

To be fair, this is not a pro-level camera, by Canon's own estimation. Problem is Canon keeps releasing cameras before they're ready. Remember the black-dot issue with the 5DII? Had to wait for a firmware update to "fix" that. Now this. What the hell is going on @ Canon?

the EOS Mark III Ds had the oil issues. we use them for work and have had to send our Mark III's in numerous times.. then again, we shoot 60000 frames per day, per camera.

@Ardin

That many shots? Why, what do u guys do?

@JS

They're making a stop motion version of the whole Star Wars series.

The only thing that could take that many pictures is a red light camera. Those things use high end DSLRs, but even then there are only 86400 seconds in a day. Taking 60000 shots a day would mean people are blowing through redlights all day long.

@JS

We do asset survey. Essentially google streetview, but with much more detailed pictures, and for cities themselves instead of publicly available.

@chris kusy

86400 is MORE than 60000... couple that with 5fps and there is more than enough time to go through 6k shots in a day.

Try shooting at night. I see a lot of similar issues where one layer (one color? light?) goes 1 pixel to the right, and the picture gets distorted at some points.
Don't remember what cameras made such issues.