My reasons to hate my 7D

<blockquote>

<p>Here's a shot that I took this morning with my 7D and excellent 70-200mm f/4L IS:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dear David, did you notice that the sky is grainy in that photo? might be due to higher iso but still it is... or am I really nitpicking here?</p>

<p>Oh dear Kamran, you have pixel peeper's disease of a most serious kind. It really is the image that counts not the pixels for most people most of the time. If you are going to complain about noise at ISO 100 then there is little hope for you. You will have to buy a Leica S2 or Hasselblad H series and be done with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He took the camera with him because it was the only camera he had, William. Do you feel better now, that you have put the man even further down? I can't believe what I am reading here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aside –<br />Ann Overland you should re-read the <strong><em>exact words</em></strong> as written in the OP and my <strong><em>exact</em></strong> response to it:<br>

In synopsis the OP acquired a 7D not more than 10 days before what was to him a very important holiday during which he wanted to make several high quality photographs.<br>

He stated that he prepared for that holiday.<br>

I responded that he did not make adequate preparations for that assignment at all.<br>

The OP stated he is very experienced in the uses functionalities and outcomes of the 30D – if the travel shots were so important then the OP should have used a camera which was suitably known to him.<br>

Moreover, primarily on the basis of the results of the images made on that journey, made under the pressure of time and by the OP’s own admission during periods of lack of sleep and physical duress: the OP the criticises the TOOL in-toto as the responsible element for the shortcomings in the imagery.</p>

<p>The same comment I would make about your response: make critique all you wish, but if you require critique to be recognised as credible, then do your homework first: in this case read the words written and understand what they mean.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are going to complain about noise at ISO 100...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To defend Kamran, David's excellent image was taken at ISO 800. That's what Flickr's EXIF data states. So, there should be a dramatic difference in noise in the blue sky between ISO 100 and 800.</p>

<p>I think that's part of his complaint. Past sensors had a strongly linear relation with apparent noise, often, there is NO visible noise (@100%) as high as ISO400 (on my 5D for example), but the last few generations of sensors show visible noise (when viewed at 100%) even at ISOs as low as 1-200. However the noise (even though it is visible starting at a lower level) does increases at a much lower rate, yielding the improved high ISO performance. </p>

<p>For example, I was <em>shocked</em> the first time I pixelpeeped RAWs from my 5D2. I was like WTF? Noise? at ISO400? How is this an improvement over my 5D!?! I compared images from the 5D <em>side by side</em>, selecting images at the same ISO, nearly identical exposure, viewed at 100%. Results? in images where the 5D showed <em>ZERO</em> visible noise, at the same ISO & exposure, the 5D2 images showed a low level of <em>visible</em> noise. Now of course I understand the benefits, and how to process to eliminate that problem, but I was quite rudely surprised. I would expect that the 7D vs. 30D is much the same.</p>

<p>However, this means that for optimal post processing, a completely different process is required. And If Kamran had learned the tool properly, <em>before</em> relying on it for a 'once in a decade' photo trip, these issues would have been apparent and addressed before hand. WW is perfectly, exactly, '+1' right. The 7D is a completely <em>different</em> tool from the 30D, and has a steep learning curve. The OP did not plan appropriately, and teach himself to use the new equipment adequately prior to this huge photo trip. Lesson learned I hope. Hopefully you got something out of the trip other than pictures!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"For example, I was <em>shocked</em> the first time I pixelpeeped RAWs from my 5D2. I was like WTF? Noise? at ISO400? How is this an improvement over my 5D!?!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Irrespective of whether (or not) MI agreed with my analysis apropos the OP's <em>preparation: </em>this example Marcus provides is akin to my experiences and another reason what I didn't use my 5DMkII during my travel, mentioned above . . . (goes to 'preparation')</p>

<p>HOWEVER MI's comments leads us to another possibility:<br>

The <em><strong>raw </strong></em>files made during Kamran's vacation <strong><em>l</em></strong><strong><em>ikely will be more than adequate to make a final, with which he is happy.</em></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

(Based upon an assumption of more than basic technical camera and metering skills and the possibility a few brackets were shot), I'd suggest the effort be redirected to learning and applying the appropriate nuances of PP to the 7D <strong><em>raw</em></strong> files on the holiday: rather than berating and defending the berating of the 7D, per se.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1498311">Kamran Efendiev</a> , Dec 01, 2012; 08:51 p.m.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Kindly asked:<br /> Dear David, did you notice that the sky is grainy in that photo? might be due to higher iso but still it is... or am I really nitpicking here?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, to be sure what you're looking at, click on the image and observe it full screen over in Flickr.</p>

<p>Yes, there is grain in the sky. That doesn't bother me and it's a function of the ISO 800 and me not applying luminescence correction in order to maintain detail in the bird. If it worried me, then I'd Mask the sky and apply luminescence only there, where I could crush it if I cared, because there's no detail there. Chrominance (colored noise) does bother me and I would normally fix that.</p>

<p>Are you being really nitpicky is up to you really. I think of luminescence as similar to grain on fast films and something that I'm accustomed to and don't find unattractive. However, these days, some people see only highly processed images with every spec of noise crushed into submission and their norm is no noise at all. I lean toward a "natural" presentation, but others would prefer to crush that noise in the sky or apply a gaussian blur to everything other than the subject bird, etc. Those are personal choices.</p>

<p>Would your 30D or a 5D MkIII or a Nikon D800 (if it could focus in time) have had noise in the sky at ISO 800? The answer is hell yes for the 30D and yes to the other two at varying degrees. You seemed, to me, unrealistically unhappy with your 7D and implying that your 30D is superior. I'm thinking that, if that's truly the case, then there's something wrong with your Raw conversion. You have to get that right or PS cannot really do its trick. In PS, you want to work with a tiff or a DNG that's been competently converted from Raw, not a jpeg.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another thing about the 7D, it's more important to Expose To The Right than with prior generations. If you look at the EXIF data, you'll see that the shot was at +1EV, even in relatively bright morning light. The Raw file looks a bit washed out, but the colors and details on the bird are superior than when shot at 0EV. I did this with my 5D MkII and now with my MkIII.</p>

<p>I converted to the 7D six months ago. I have learned some simple things about the 7D. I think the 18MP sensor is very sensitive to recording visible camera shake at least more than the earlier XXDs. I generally try to use shutter speeds above 1/200 generally and over 1/500 for sports to eliminate the effects of shake along with IS. Also having been used to full frame in a 5D I now routinely use some noise correction in lightroom for any ISo above 200 on the 7D whereas I could get away with higher ISOs on a 5D. Underexposure produces noise and I try to stay on the right side of the histogram though not to any extreme. I will shoot a very a large swim meet in a week. This body produces more keepers than any other body that I have shot action with and I have been doing sports since 1997. It focuses rapidly, tracks effectively in AI, and does a great job of capturing rapid swimming arm motion on a consistent basis. I have no quarrel with the final prdoduct either in print or on the web. On top of that it is partially weather proof with L lenses (I shoot on pool decks and occasionally get wet), it has a rugged frame and more features than I can describe. It fires my old 550 EX flash remotely. There is a lot to learn about this body and I am still doing so; but I have no quarrel about the quality of pictures I get. I do most of my processing with Lightroom. Go to your metadata and check your shutter speeds and aperture settings. If you are shooting around 1/100 that may be too slow for a lot of pictures. Check your apertures for narrow depth of field. Learn how to select your focus point. Shoot raw. Raw pictures are dull and need a little help. With Lightroom I can do that with a couple of hundred images at a time in seconds. There is a very good forum for 7Ds on DP Review where I got a lot of invaluable help from some very knowledgable photographers who routinely very effectively use the 7D. Like many other cameras it takes some learning, use and study to be used effectively. This needs to be accompanied with some fundamental understanding of basic photography principles. I have a Sony NEX 5N that took me quite awhile to get comfortable with. This is not your point and shoot. Don't give up. Take a lot of pictures and find out what works. I am going to do a swim workout in the morning I am up past my bedtime. Good night.</p>

<p>" I think the 18MP sensor is very sensitive to recording visible camera shake at least more than the earlier XXDs."<br>

<br>

Of course. It's magnifying shake vs. earlier 8-10MP sensors if you pixel-peep at 100%.<br>

<br>

Equally of course, if you print it at a given print size vs. printing an earlier 8MP file at the same print size, that magnifiacation of camera shake disappears.<br>

<br>

This all seems mostly a combination of lack of skill and pixel peeping on the part of the OP.<br>

<br>

Meanwhile, I just shoot, and print, and love my 7D (and I've owned the 10D, 20D, and 50D before upgrading to the current 7D).<br>

</p>

<p>"I think the 18MP sensor is very sensitive to recording visible camera shake"<br>

<br>

I mean ... just what to people think higher resolution means if they're surprised by this<br>

<br>

My mind boggles.<br>

</p>

<p>You made a typical error that many amateurs make and true professional photographers don't tend to make although some do. You didn't fully test and calibrate your equipment prior to use on a serious project. You need to run rigorous tests before using any device for a serious project. I continue to use older and familiar equipment until the new device is tested. <br>

As for the 7D, I would hazard a guess and suggest your parameter settings need to be more finely tuned so that results require less post processing. For example, on one camera I own I have the sharpen setting on maximum so I don't have to use unsharp mask all the time. I would also recommend you run tests mounted on a tripod in order to eliminate user failure such as camera shake when doing tests.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thought that in 5 years (release of 7D) there must have been serious improvements in image quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 7D was released in Sept 2009. As I recall the 30D debuted in Spring 2006, so these cameras are only 3 years and a few months apart in age.</p>

<p>I've not owned a 30D but spent a few years with the very similar 20D before buying a 7D in 2009. Over three years have passed but I still recall how amazed I was at the improvements in IQ, ergonomics and performance. I still process images from my old 10D and 20D RAW files and can say they require a lot more PP than the 7D. The other thing burned into my memory is how different 7D AF, exposure and flash were from my prior APS-C cameras. It seriously took me a month to get used to the differences and longer to master all the AF modes. And, yes, although the 7D needs less PP than my old 20D, it does need different PP. So you can't expect to use exactly the same settings and workflow and be a happy camper.</p>

<p>My 7D review and galleries:<br /> http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_eos7d.htm</p>

<blockquote>

<p> And, yes, although the 7D needs less PP than my old 20D, it does need different PP. So you can't expect to use exactly the same settings and workflow and be a happy camper.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This.</p>

<p>I actually still own a 30D, and can say without any shadow of a doubt that the 7D is head-and-shoulders superior in image quality terms - better detail, better dynamic range, and <em>much</em> better (2 stops plus) high ISO capabilities.</p>

<p>But as PF says, getting there is a different journey; and <em>critically</em>, comparisons have to be done <em>at the image level</em>, not by pixel peeping. </p>

I'm curious, can anybody recommend a good guide/article with advice for shooting with the 7D and then post-processing

7D RAW files? I did a quick search but didn't find anything earth shatteringly good.

<p>If your 30D is so much better than the 7D then there is a very easy and cost effective solution to your "problem".</p>

<p>Just one comment. I don't think it necessary to demean the OP to pass on what one knows to him. If you research other forums and this one, you find that learning the 7D has exasperated quite few new users. Over the years I certainly have had my frustrations based upon my own ignorance of one thing or another. This is a very complex endeavor. Having said that please be kind to the unwashed as they just need some education. As I said, I am not above getting caught up in my own ignorance. I think the job is to enlighten not to belittle someone who is frustrated with a lack of initial success. It can maddening as I know from experience. I avoided that on the 7D because I initially got and took some good advice which included a detailed check list with explanations on how to set up the camera. </p>

<p>William, his former Canon camera died on him. What was the man supposed to do? Postspone his holiday by 6 months because he had bought a newer version of a Canon DSLR? Do you really have to go into a 6 months training camp when you buy a Canon 7D? If that is what it takes to upgrade in the Canon line, I'd say something is wrong somewhere.</p>

<p>Since you think this man is so folish that you had to 'scream' to him in this forum, what would you have done in his place, William?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What was the man supposed to do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Not</em> buy a camera that any diligent research would have told him was <em>night-and-day</em> different to the 30D...</p>

<p>This is very simple, Ann: the failings the OP alleges for the 7D <em>do not exist - </em>again, research will confirm this (just because there are odd bits and pieces out there from dissatisfied 7D owners, that doesn't change the <em>vast</em> amount of evidence for its effectiveness, and for its superiority <em>in every regard</em> over what has gone before) - so unless <em>he </em>has a "broken" camera (and it's his <em>responsibility</em> to rule that out before spouting the sweeping statements in the original post) the fault lies with him.</p>

<p>Sorry, but there's no other logical conclusion. Now, you go ahead and feel free to continuing to "defend" him, but you're not helping <em>anyone</em> by doing so.</p>

<p>If there wasn't a problem with the 7D, this thread would not exist.</p>

<p>And, users blaming users in every forum about these issues would not give Canon any incentive to adress these issues for future cameras, now would it?</p>

<p> If your only criteria for judging quality is going to be 100% views then you need to have a better understanding of what you're actually looking at. </p>

<p>http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/05/01/why-your-21mp-file-looks-softer-than-your-12mp-image-at-100</p>

 

<p>Deleted.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If there wasn't a problem with the 7D, this thread would not exist.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's a truly ridiculous thing to say, Ann. This thread exists <em>only </em>because <em>a</em> user <em>says</em> he has a "problem" with <em>a</em> 7D, and - so far - we have<em> no reason whatsoever</em> to believe that the problem is actually with the camera, and - for what seems like the millionth time lately - the 7D <em>as a camera </em>has no problems whatsoever.</p>

<p>All that anyone can say is that <em>odd examples</em> might have an issue. But it's for the user to rule himself out as the problem, and Kamran has done no such thing.</p>

<p>Broad sweeping statements like his - and yours - on the basis of short experience a single example of the camera (or no experience whatsoever) - generalisation which includes no indication that the OP has done any of the expected and necessary analysis of his "problems" - is little better than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)">flamebait</a>. </p>

<p>This thread sums up everything that's wrong with the internet: unfounded, unsupported and unproven complaints about a camera for which there's <em>no end</em> of easily-found evidence for its quality; and posts like yours that support these complaints even though you have absolutely no objective basis for supporting them.</p>

<p>Indeed, you've also chosen actively to ignore all the positive evidence out there about the 7D, in favour of - seems to me - sucking up to the poor, unfortunate OP, apparently for no better reason than that you've objected to the tone of other peoples' (objective, intelligent and well-informed) comments on the matter.</p>

<p>I'll make the point again: this complete lack of objectivity in favour of pandering to whining (which I can only assume people do so that they can feel good about themselves as being "nice"?) <em>helps nobody.</em></p>

<p>There is something I don't get about that article, Rob. Why is the guy talking about what is fitted to the screen when you are viewing images in 100%?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the two images are equally sharp to begin with, the one that has to be magnified more to fill the screen will lose more of its original resolution because <em>you are looking more closely at a smaller portion of the image</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Lose original resolution? Heh?</p>