Canon EOS 7D tested, retested and reretested

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by anders_carlsson, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. Also on photo sharing forums a lot of photographers think the file quality of the Canon 7D is awesome. Maybe our expectations were too high? We thought the 7D should give us files better than a Rebel or G11. Maybe we are just too anal?​
    Nothing surprising. I've said this many times. This is exactley what I've seen from every 7D photo out. At 100%, they just dont have the detail. These bird photographers out there that scream theirs is real sharp and perfect, I think they either dont know what sharp is, or they dont want to believe the results.
    Canon should have chose AA filter more wisely. I think the only people who really worry about Moire' is Canon. I've never had it ruin prints.
    Canon, recall.....remove this stinking filter so people can get the resolution they paid for.
     
  2. Perhaps the only fair way to compare images is to process them each as needed (not necessarily identically) and then compare the final results. After doing so, the images would likely look identical.
     
  3. Strange how this guy's results don't match mine at all, or those at the DP Review site's review. Mine had AF problems that have since been fixed and my results are much better than this.
     
  4. nonsense
    I am getting excellent detail at 100% in processed images.
    The darwinwiggett review is flawed in may ways
    -- he stops lenses into diffraction when testing
    -- uses ACR that has beta support for 7D (duh, it has noise - its a beta)
    -- he shoots the 300mm lens at 1/60 second for sharpness testing
    -- he uses liveview focus for testing
    LOL, give me a break.
    The 7D is new. The RAW converter software has not caught up yet. Yes, the higher megapixel camera require more processing. The same is true of the 5D II compared to the 5D. The 5D II has more noise at low ISO then the 5D. The 5D II requires more processing. The same for the 7D. If you want high megapixels you will need to process files more.
     
  5. I think it's like this test indicates failure of DPP to provide a sharp image. Not necessarily the 7D's fault. RAW conversion parameters are crucial for comparing sharpness at 100% magnification.
     
  6. At 100%, they just dont have the detail.​
    And herein lies the problem. Cameras are designed to produce prints at normal viewing distances, not pixel peep. If you view a 6, 10 and 18MP file at 100% you are respectively viewing a progressively smaller percentage of the frame. Lens defects and technique problems are much more readily apparent at 18MP than 6. Make a 13x19 print and that 18MP file looks amazing next to the 6MP file.
     
  7. There are a lot of technical things that were amiss in these tests, from what I can see and read. I don't know that I would see the comparisons as valid. Just as a note, I don't have a vested interest one way or the other.
    One thing I tested and doesn't appear to have been applied here, is that basic raw sharpening, which he did here, must be adjusted to the MP density of each camera to be equal. In other words, a 10mp camera might use a setting of 25 in the "Amount" category in Adobe Raw, but a 21MP camera is going to need around 50 to do the same job--you can also test this with any sharpening effect, the larger the file, the stronger the settings for the same effect. This is just straight forward physics.
    The other issue I see here is inconsistent contrast, color and exposure. And not to mention that a less magnified view will always be sharper than a closer view of the same thing. Anyway, I don't buy into what I read or saw here as I think the procedures are pretty flawed.
     
  8. Read the article seems like some one justifying the purchase of a Nikon. They own some excellent Canon lens and buy a Nikon? Must be nice being rich.
     
  9. To be fair they may live in countries where post-processing is illegal.
     
  10. The 7D is ?/ was? the camera that I want to love too. Yes, I do think the testing system used here could do with some scrutiny itself. I look forward to reading Bob Atkins review which he says will be available soon. Having said that, going by the image bank that he has showing on his portfolio there might be a lot of reference to the 40D..... Anyway, lets see what his review has to say.
     
  11. Another reason for me to keep my 8.2MP 30D.
     
  12. Reread the article the amateur (female) was considering switching from Nikon to Canon. They both seem to be from Canada. My experience thus far has not been the same with the 7D not necessarily better then some of my other cameras but at least as sharp and many other features that make it a much better camera. Have noticed that the setting have to be different then the 50D, I tend to have to expose more to the right. In fact I took some photos yesterday at 6400 ISO that would not be possible with any of the other cameras that I own. I have to admit I am not much of a pixel peeking.
     
  13. Like I said before. These are simply biased poor reviews done by random nobodies. When you read the standard, unbiased, neutral, legitamate and credible review like dpreview, you read oppositte of what these characters claim. Lets wait for Bob Atkins review and I am sure his findings will be close to what I have experienced personally with the 7D. Its an amazing camera.
     
  14. So i read through the article, and though it was asked numerous times, and yet he never says what version of the firmware the camera was running...
    Flawed at best, and if the original firmware was used then the tests are crap... IMO
    With the first version of the firmware my old XTi, did indeed look sharper, but after upgrading to the latest version of the firmware. I'll take the photos from the 7D over the 400D.
    But then again I don't put food on the table with my camera. I just love taking photos and using decent gear.
    Far too many people are viewing everything at 100% or better, like Puppy Face stated flaws are going to be evident, and technical flaws are going to be magnified. That applies to everything not just photos.
     
  15. I received my 7D on 10/1/09. At first I was apalled at the focus issues and noise. Then I learned how to use the camera, being a new focus system. One of the things I shoot are stunt hawks. I am consistently impressed with the focus tracking ( when it is set correctly for the job). I came from a 40D, so I am also impressed with the resolution. I was never able to get away with the extreme crops I have to do sometimes with these birds.
    Maybe everyone posting here just got a better 'copy' than Darwin?
     
  16. Not to mention 8FPS and higher usable ISO than 40D. My upgrade path has been
    20D 30D 40D 7D. I loved them all, but this is a quantum leap from the xxD's
     
  17. Quoth the “review”:
    Just for fun we interpolated the Rebel’s 12 MP files up to the size of the 7D’s sensor at 18 MP and downsized the 1Ds Mark III files from 21 MP to 18 MP. We used Photoshop’s bicubic interpolation for resizing. We left the 7D at its native 18 MP resolution. This is not really a fair test because upsizing and downsizing reduces image quality. So the 7D is really at an advantage here. No sharpening was added to any file.​
    That paragraph completely blew all semblance of credibility the “reviewer” might have had. The only fair test is to make same-sized prints with the various systems, which is exactly equivalent to resampling, and which we all know requires sharpening.
    Comparing cameras by unadulterated pixel peeping is like trying to determine which car will win a race based upon the number on the tachometer where the red line starts. It’s something the driver should be aware of, but it’s only vaguely related to actual performance.
    Cheers,
    b&
     
  18. This may sound moronish, but could the diff be due to the 7D sensor revealing the glass quality. Id est, the sensor needs higher quality glass to properly show its strength and ability. Got a hunch I'm all wet, but that's OK, I've guessed wrong before! Just seems that Canon wouldn't put out an 18MP DX sensor after the revelation that the 40D gave a little better pic that the later 50d with the MP increase to 15, at least as far as noise is considered.
     
  19. Image resource does have 7D images that look more like what youd expect.
    Maybe the 7D will just need a little more sharpening in post.
     
  20. He is implying that the g11 is sharper than the 7d, moron.
     
  21. Every DSLR I've owned required different post production. Some needed a little magenta removed, others more sharpening and levels tweaks, some more NR, etc. In other words, you must adapt to the idiosyncrasies of individual cameras and thus make the most of what they can do. You can't force a camera to follow the same post production that happens to work for another. Processing RAW files from all cameras exactly the same with no sharpening, NR, etc., merely demonstrates your poor processing skills. It's easy to make a good camera look bad if you don't know what you're doing. If you're unwilling to optimize RAW post production for each camera, shooting at JPEG defaults would be a better comparison. At least you'll have basic NR, levels and sharpening optimized for the camera's characteristics.
     
  22. I have to say that if I tested a product and obtained results below those obtained by other testers, particularly professional testers like imaging-resource and dpreview, I would not publish my results until I had isolated and resolved the problem. Darwin's review is a reflection of his issues and mistakes in testing, not a reflection of the performance of the 7D.
     
  23. What a perfect way to generate hits to a website. Come up with a testing method that isn't quite right, yet shows a controversial result, then post the results and wait for the tidal wave of responses.
    Brilliant.
     
  24. "What a perfect way to generate hits to a website. Come up with a testing method that isn't quite right, yet shows a controversial result, then post the results and wait for the tidal wave of responses.
    Brilliant."
    Isn't this the Ken Rockwell method?
    Oh and. Please send money.
     
  25. At least Rockwell makes no bones about his site, and says flat out that it's total BS and not based in fact or reality. This guy does not and presents results that are, well, questionable, in the very least.
     
  26. Darwin wiggett is a well respected landscape photographer, if your going to bash some one know who you are bashing.
    Ross
     
  27. Pointing out errors isn't bashing.
    There is no way, a lens will perform the same on every body.. its just not possible.
    No two things can be made exactly the same.
    Because someone can take photos doesn't mean s/he can perform a valid test.
     
  28. This wiggett joker, judging by his biased review and unfair approach to minimize the 7D, he doesn't get my respect as a reviewer no matter how good his pictures are.
     
  29. Darwin Wiggett is a top class photographer - if you doubt this read one of his books. I am uncertain of the 7D image sharpness and did my own test. The camera does appear to have a different image quality to other Canon DSLRs. I was surprised that mine was much closer to my 5DII than I expected. I am not sure what conslusions to draw from all this. I suspect that the 7D is very sensitive to post processing and also that the may be considerable sample variation. My conclusion from my tests is that the 7D is clearly nosier than the 5DII, that the difference in sharpness when I pixel peep is less than I thought as the printed 5DII images clearly look better than the 7D images. Finally I think my 5DII is sharper than Darwins examples but it does tend to the same type of "flat" images that his test examples produced.
     
  30. I don't doubt that Darwin is a top class photog, but going all the way to say that the g11 is actually sharper than the 7D? First you cant compare SLR with a point and shoot with a fixed lens. Could it be that Canada got a bad batch of 7D's? Its weird how all three 7D'd tested came out flawed. I must admit I had to exchange one, but now I am absolutely pleased with my new toy.
     
  31. I got one of the first 7D's in Canada and mine has been great.
    Darwin takes great photos no doubt about that. But I do think his review is based on getting hits to his site, in the hope more people will sign up for his workshops.
    It was another marketing ploy, nothing more.
    As Angel said, comparing the G11 to a dSLR is ridiculous, whats next comparing detail between the 7D and LF camera...
     
  32. Angel, Peter, he is not the first to do so. Though I think Darwin did a pretty poor job I don't think Michael Reichmann did.
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
    Incidentally whilst I am a big believer in bigger sensors better, always, at smaller sized prints I have some pretty amazing G10 images that do compare well with my 1Ds MkIII, but only in optimum conditions with the right type of subject and at base iso, not where one usually uses a P&S!
     
  33. Scott,
    Thanks for the link, very good read.
    As you said if everything is right, then they compare. But how often is everything right or optimal?
    I don't put food on the table taking pictures, and never will. Some of the things Darwin said in his review are ridiculous. Example I know where my lens are the best... That made me laugh and he lost all credibility at that point.
    I work in manufacturing, (MET) and one of the first things you learn is nothing is perfect and no 2 things are exactly the same. Its simply not possible...
    Its why we have tolerances and sample size etc
     
  34. Sheesh there's a lot of people who lay blame and see mythical problems with this test. Any test is tricky to conduct but the ones that count are those that reasonably accurately predict what you are likely to find in real-life shooting. This test is a good attempt at that by a competent photographer who knows what he is doing.
    Just look at the side by side examples and you'll see reasonable facsimiles of what you well get in real life, and a reasonable idea of how much you might be able to tweak each camera for sharpness etc.
    First post David Amberson is exactly right - I too have looked at one 7D and hundreds of photos from 7Ds and none of them is as sharp as it should be, and none of them is sharp enough to justify 18MP. You simply don't gain anything from the extra pixels in this camera. Some examples are awfully soft.
    I agree too as a theory that Canon's AA filter seems to be the cause. In fact I'd suggest it may be deliberately so to ensure that 7D photo IQ doesn't impinge too much on 1D's and 5D's. This might be fair enough by Canon if it had no cost (though I don't think it is fair) but even if so, then they should not burden photographers with extra MP's that are essentially unusable -- Canon should be honest and say "we have detuned this and made it a 12MP camera (or whatever)".
    There is some support for this from the-digital-picture.com 's interesting comparison page.
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0&Lens=458&Camera=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=460
    In my view the 7d is worse at a pixel level than every other camera shown. That is, on a pixel to pixel basis and not allowing for how many pixels. What this shows is that the machine has been de-tuned from maximum possible sharpness, or some other limitation is preventing the advantages of more pixels being utilised, or there is a problem with the test images being compared.
    If you look at the images from each camera with a given lens and f-stop, you'll see that the 7D is softer per pixel. The diagonal lines show what seems to be stronger AA filtering than others. This SHOULD be changed by Canon.
    The softening shown there seems a lot less than Darwin found so more investigation needs to be done.
    Ben Goren says " The only fair test is to make same-sized prints with the various systems, which is exactly equivalent to resampling, and which we all know requires sharpening." I disagree - an equally fair test is to render the same FOV onto an equal screen area and view it on screen. Resizing to show same FOV is identical to printing to same size. The screen is where many images are viewed these days. It is relevant only if your image on screen is heavily cropped because reducing a full size image from any old camera to screen size will give reasonable apparent sharpness so nothing would be learned. But heavily cropped photos will demonstrate true camera performance, the same as you might learn from a large print.
    I do think Darwin has buggered up some of the comparisons by comparing images not re-sized which I would argue don't tell you much, but the equal or nearly equal FOV samples are powerful evidence and tell you nicely what one camera is capable of compared to another. The weakest point of any comparison is removing the misleading effects of unequal sharpening, but this applies to any comparison and if you look carefully you can usually see how much detail is actually in the image regardless of sharpening.
    THe other thing we need to remember is that Canon are NOT good at production control and QA of critical performance aspects of consumer grade cameras. Well, any cameras at the moment. The variable results found in reviews and tests can often be attributed to the reviewer getting a surprisingly good copy, or a surprisingly bad one (or two or three). Don't shoot the messenger!
    In summary - Darwins is a good test that agrees with the general thrust of many other analyses of the 7D's critical performance. Canon should address this test and assist Darwin (and us) to find out what's wrong.
     
  35. Marc Bergman [​IMG], Nov 12, 2009; 12:17 p.m.
    "To be fair they may live in countries where post-processing is illegal".
    WHAAAAAAAAT?
     
  36. Julian,
    I don't think the link to the-digital-picture.com shows anything in your favor.
    Compare the results to the tests in DPReview for the Canon 7D and the Canon XSi.
    Canon 7D
    ----------------Absolute Resolution-------------Extinction Resolution
    Horizontal -------- 2500--------------------------------3100*
    Vertical-------------2450--------------------------------3050*
    Canon XSi
    ---------------Absolute Resolution--------------Extinction Resolution
    Horizontal - ------2300--------------------------------2500*
    Vertical------------2200--------------------------------2500*
    * Moire visable
    Now compare to the examples on the-digital-picture.com. Look at the actual chart values. Look for clear lines. With the 7D I am seeing good data up to around 30 on the chart. With the XSi I am seeing good data just past 24 on the chart. Both tests show comparable data. They clearly show the 7D has higher resolution. The tests from Image Resource also show comparable data.
    Now to show the effects of diffraction make both cameras the 7D. Set one side for f /4.0 and the other to f /16. Note how the resolution is better at f /4.0. You can also see how the contrast is lower at f /16.
    The Canon 7D clearly shows higher resolution than the XSi and the 50D. Canon has been able to provide this resolution while keeping the noise in check. I look forward to seeing examples once Adobe Camera RAW is beyond the beta stage and the files are properly prepared.
     
  37. Walter,
    That is what we, in my country, call a joke. They aren't always funny, if you know what I mean.
     
  38. First post David Amberson is exactly right - I too have looked at one 7D and hundreds of photos from 7Ds and none of them is as sharp as it should be, and none of them is sharp enough to justify 18MP.​
    He really isn't. Both you - and he - need to put your prejudices aside take a proper look. There's a wealth of evidence and opinion out there that clearly and convincingly contradicts your comment (including many of the examples at The Digital Picture - and it's pretty obvious too that the ones that look less sharp are focused differently).
    The fact that you choose to ignore the existence of that evidence is telling...
    You simply don't gain anything from the extra pixels in this camera. Some examples are awfully soft.​
    In which it differs from any other camera you care to mention how exactly? I've seen "soft" from every camera out there - it doesn't mean they're soft cameras, and to imply that it does absolutely screams bias and hidden agenda.
    Even in this thread there are comments like this:
    I received my 7D on 10/1/09. At first I was apalled at the focus issues and noise. Then I learned how to use the camera, being a new focus system. One of the things I shoot are stunt hawks. I am consistently impressed with the focus tracking ( when it is set correctly for the job). I came from a 40D, so I am also impressed with the resolution. I was never able to get away with the extreme crops I have to do sometimes with these birds.​
    Which unequivocally undermines any validity the review in question has.
    Of course, the most important thing in that quote is:
    Then I learned how to use the camera.​
    Some of the bashers here might take note...
     
  39. Sheesh there's a lot of people who lay blame and see mythical problems with this test.​
    Nothing mythical about diffraction - Wiggett complains about softness at f/16, despite the fact that at that aperture the airy disc will be two pixels wide!
    It's just a bad review, where the camera is simply not being used properly given its specification and design characteristics.
     
  40. As an aside, I've just read the 7D review in the UK's PhotoPlus magazine.
    It is awarded 97%.
    I've never seen a higher score in that magazine.
    The reviewer raves about its image quality across the ISO range (the "harshest" thing they have to say there is that above 6400 ISO you lose some detail!); the AF is as good as anything out there and better than most (a UK bird 'tog who contributes to the review says she is "at last" able to keep up with Peregrine falcons at speed); metering and exposure are "pretty faultless"...
    And it goes on in the same tack throughout the review.
    It also makes a point of acknowledging that it's very clearly a camera best suited to sport, action and wildlife photography - it's not a "low cost alternative to the 5D Mk II, it's different kind of camera... better suited to subjects that need long telephoto lenses ".
    In other words, while it will shoot landscapes, it is not a landscape camera.
    This is utterly obvious, yet Wiggett et al complain when it doesn't work like a 5D Mk II!
     
  41. As a prospective buyer of the 7D, I read the extremely, lengthy Wiggett review, plus all of the comments to date. I have also read several other reviews of this camera, most of them were very positive. It should be noted that almost at the very end, Wiggett responded to the firmware question, that he did not have the latest update when he tested the camera, but nothing further.
    I would hope that this review will not be a reason for not purchasing the camera. If the camera were as defective as Mr. Wiggett's review indicates, I doubt that Canon would have marketed the camera. I shoot all my shots in RAW and JPEG and am totally addicted to post processing. I will upgrade from my 30D to the 7 D shortly.
     
  42. JULIAN ROBINSON wrote;
    Sheesh there's a lot of people who lay blame and see mythical problems with this test. Any test is tricky to conduct but the ones that count are those that reasonably accurately predict what you are likely to find in real-life shooting. This test is a good attempt at that by a competent photographer who knows what he is doing.
    Just look at the side by side examples and you'll see reasonable facsimiles of what you well get in real life, and a reasonable idea of how much you might be able to tweak each camera for sharpness etc.
    First post David Amberson is exactly right - I too have looked at one 7D and hundreds of photos from 7Ds and none of them is as sharp as it should be, and none of them is sharp enough to justify 18MP. You simply don't gain anything from the extra pixels in this camera. Some examples are awfully soft.
    I agree too as a theory that Canon's AA filter seems to be the cause. In fact I'd suggest it may be deliberately so to ensure that 7D photo IQ doesn't impinge too much on 1D's and 5D's. This might be fair enough by Canon if it had no cost (though I don't think it is fair) but even if so, then they should not burden photographers with extra MP's that are essentially unusable -- Canon should be honest and say "we have detuned this and made it a 12MP camera (or whatever)".
    There is some support for this from the-digital-picture.com 's interesting comparison page.
    (link)
    In my view the 7d is worse at a pixel level than every other camera shown. That is, on a pixel to pixel basis and not allowing for how many pixels. What this shows is that the machine has been de-tuned from maximum possible sharpness, or some other limitation is preventing the advantages of more pixels being utilised, or there is a problem with the test images being compared.
    If you look at the images from each camera with a given lens and f-stop, you'll see that the 7D is softer per pixel. The diagonal lines show what seems to be stronger AA filtering than others. This SHOULD be changed by Canon.
    The softening shown there seems a lot less than Darwin found so more investigation needs to be done.
    Ben Goren says " The only fair test is to make same-sized prints with the various systems, which is exactly equivalent to resampling, and which we all know requires sharpening." I disagree - an equally fair test is to render the same FOV onto an equal screen area and view it on screen. Resizing to show same FOV is identical to printing to same size. The screen is where many images are viewed these days. It is relevant only if your image on screen is heavily cropped because reducing a full size image from any old camera to screen size will give reasonable apparent sharpness so nothing would be learned. But heavily cropped photos will demonstrate true camera performance, the same as you might learn from a large print.
    I do think Darwin has buggered up some of the comparisons by comparing images not re-sized which I would argue don't tell you much, but the equal or nearly equal FOV samples are powerful evidence and tell you nicely what one camera is capable of compared to another. The weakest point of any comparison is removing the misleading effects of unequal sharpening, but this applies to any comparison and if you look carefully you can usually see how much detail is actually in the image regardless of sharpening.
    THe other thing we need to remember is that Canon are NOT good at production control and QA of critical performance aspects of consumer grade cameras. Well, any cameras at the moment. The variable results found in reviews and tests can often be attributed to the reviewer getting a surprisingly good copy, or a surprisingly bad one (or two or three). Don't shoot the messenger!
    In summary - Darwins is a good test that agrees with the general thrust of many other analyses of the 7D's critical performance. Canon should address this test and assist Darwin (and us) to find out what's wrong.​
    Don't you guys find it weird that this particular character joined pnet the same date "she" posted?
     
  43. Angel Bocanegra - Conspiracies rule! I am a he, not a she. I read this and other forums often. Sometimes I want to comment. To comment I had to join. Simple as that. Possibly I've posted before but I often lose track of which forums I am a member of, or lose the multiple different usernames they insist on, so I start again.
    I am a Canon user who is disappointed with SOME ASPECTS of all my cameras since the 20D.
    I shoot wildlife. I often have to crop heavily. What happens at pixel level counts in this situation, and I see no improvement in general in my experience from the 40D and 50D over the 30D. Focus of the 40D and 50D in my experience is considerably worse than 30D which is worse than 20D, in some circumstances that are important to my kind of photography. True, in many situations focus is wonderful, but in distant shots and/or on small targets and/or using AI servo and/or against bright light and/or in some other situation I can't identify, I get predictably soft shots, much softer than I used to get with the 20D and same lens. I can't explain it except to say that either there is some problem with the newer camera focus systems under some conditions (which would agree with much other evidence and which does not seem to be improving as new models come out) or the QA is so bad that I and other people end up with cameras that don't perform as they should. I read and commment occasionally on articles like this becaue I am more than keen to get a solution, and to date Canon have not helped me one bit. Though I am hopeful that Canon are about to at least listen to what I have experienced. If that happens I'll report.
    One of my theories is that Canon are detuning cameras like the 7D so they don't make life uncomfortable for the higher end models. This is a natural result of producing so many different models in an attempt to split the market and sell more cameras. For evidence see the number of dopes who say "this is not a landscape camera, go and buy a landscape camera". Such comments prove the success of Canon's "divide and sell more" strategy.
    There is some support for my theory from two facts: a) the 7D has very heavy anti-aliasing which makes a mockery of the increased resolution, and b) the noise performance is no better at ISO 100 - 400 than ISO 800. Or more exactly the noise at low ISO's hasn't improved at all over earlier models. Why is this so? Surely if a camera is designed so it gives amazingly better noise performance at high ISO's than previous models, then this MUST flow through to better noise performance at low ISO's? If it doesn't, why not?
    So - No conspiracy, no excitement ... you can go back to bed now. Be comfortable.
     
  44. I have a 7D as well as a 1D3 and a 1Ds3.
    I've done reviews on my blog (http://blog.michaelwillems.ca and search for 7D or gear category). Test shots there too.
    Basically: great camera, better focus and other features, and 2 stops more noise - but not so you'd normally notice. Look at a few of the test shots at high ISOs. And look at low ISO too: amazingly sharp.
    So it's no 1D but in many ways has better features. In low light I'll use the 1-series bodies; else the 7D.
     
  45. There is some support for my theory from two facts:
    a) the 7D has very heavy anti-aliasing which makes a mockery of the increased resolution​
    There is absolutely no convincing evidence whatsoever for that, and any amount to suggest that the AA filter in the 7D isn't causing any sharpness problems at all - again, just look at the comments on this thread, or just click on the link at the end of this post.
    b) the noise performance is no better at ISO 100 - 400 than ISO 800. Or more exactly the noise at low ISO's hasn't improved at all over earlier models. Why is this so?​
    Who says it's no better at lower ISOs? And - given that there's very little to improve on anyway - why should it be "better" at lower ISOs than previous bodies?
    Surely if a camera is designed so it gives amazingly better noise performance at high ISO's than previous models, then this MUST flow through to better noise performance at low ISO's? If it doesn't, why not?​
    Why should it?

    What you choose to interpret as "noise" at lower ISOs is far more likely to be the result of an additional level of detail we haven't previously encountered in an APS-C camera. It seems perfectly logical to me that the increase in resolution provided by the 7D might manifest itself in this way: maybe there's a little bit of a trade-off there - its a bit of a drag (albeit easily managed) in say, the sky - but its not a problem in any way, shape or form.

    On release, the Nikon D300 had exactly the same "noisier at low ISOs than its predecessors" accusation thrown at it - and yes, close scrutiny did show more low ISO noise than other bodies (and more than the Canon 40D), especially in skies. But very soon it stopped mattering - it was a complete non-issue in any Real World terms.

    It'll be the same for the 7D.

    Go on - tell me this isn't sharp, is noisy, or has IQ problems of any kind: http://jkingston.smugmug.com/Other/Watches09/DPP00100/710365471_uPRg3-X3.jpg
     
  46. EXACTLY. My point too. Look at THIS post for an example:
    http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/11/10/a-recent-cat/
    And tell me THAT isn't sharp. Yes, it's low ISO but that's the point.
     
  47. Oh and then look at a 3200 ISO version of a cat:
    http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/10/29/3200-on-a-7d/
    Now, can we stop obsessing about ISO? :)
     
  48. (Do click on both to see the larger version of course)
     
  49. EXACTLY. My point too. Look at THIS post for an example:
    http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/11/10/a-recent-cat/
    And tell me THAT isn't sharp. Yes, it's low ISO but that's the point.​
    But... but...
    How can this be? A 7D shot that's really sharp and noise free?
    Witchcraft..!
     
  50. How do you know how noisy these are? These shots are tiny, resized about 1/16 or less of the original size by area. If that's all you photograph, and at that size (about 4 inches wide when printed) then yes, it's got no noise. Wonderful.
    Same with sharpness. How do you know from these images? We're talking about completely different things, please read what's written. I wonder what drives such an emotional defense?
     
  51. "I wonder what drives such an emotional defense?"
    I wonder what drives such an emotional offense?
     
  52. Julian:
    • If you click through you see them at much larger sizes.
    • I am not defending anything or anyone (let alone emotionally).
    Julian et al: I am a working photographer and am not interested in politics - just in cameras. I'll use what I can as long as it works. Only interested in results. Own a 1D3, 1Ds3, and 7D, and much "L"-glass.
    Happy to send you RAW images if your email service and mine can handle 15 MB files. Which mine can't.
    I think you know very well that this (practical limitations), not "emotion" is the reason for smaller images online. God knows I am annoyed anough at Canon 's autofocus wide open to be even more annoyed to be misinterpreted the way you are apparently doing.
     
  53. Michael - I'd really like to obtain your raw of the low-ISO cat. Could you send it via one of the big-file services like CuteSendit? (I did click through to larger size, that's what I based my comment on. I was disappointed that the sizes offered did not address what is (for me) the question).
    I'd also love to find things better than I've seen reported, since despite all I'm probably going to buy the 7D. I'm cranky I guess that Canon choose to split the line to such an extent that to get good clean photos <i>at high crops</i> AND good autofocus I need to buy two cameras, and still can't take a photo with the advantages of each. I want the 5D2 with accurate moving target and small target focus.
    "I am annoyed anough at Canon 's autofocus wide open" - can you explain this pls?
    Thanks in advance for the cat.
     
  54. Julian,
    You why bother buying it?
    You've already decided that its crap... Soft and noisy...
     
  55. Julian: Certainly will be delighted to do on all that. I'll put the large cat on an FTP site for you tomorrow. Ditto re focus.. but now I need to sleep - close friend died today... in touch with old school friends... one of those "big chill" days. :)
     
  56. Julian, you are all talk and don't even own the 7D? Go with Nikon. You'll be much happier over there. Walk the Walk to Nikon.
     
  57. DPReview just posted their test of the Nikon 300S.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/
    Here is the section where they compare RAW resolution.
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page29.asp
     
  58. Peter - I haven't decided it's crap, I've decided that on the evidence so far it's no better than the 50D I currently have in some aspects that are important to me -- but I hope the evidence changes. There's a couple of reasons I may buy one despite my criticism...
    a) if it turns out that the negative assessments like Darwin's are a result of bad copies (i.e. it's another quality control problem)
    b) or if it turns out that his and other evaluations are flawed. Despite the near-hysteria I don't think this has been demonstrated. I'm not sure why such evaluations get such shrill criticism, surely it's just a matter of following the matter through until we ALL discover why there is such a disparity in good-quality assessments? I can only read what's available and assess the author and methods on the basis of what is presented or available in support. From what I can tell, Darwin is a good photographer who knows what he's doing and his methods seem good enough to me to make his results worth considering. It's true there are things which could be re-investigated and hopefully some of the problems he saw will turn out to be due to firmware version or some other correctable reason. But his conclusion that the 7D is flawed for critical use is supported by my own very limited experience with the 7D (10 minutes shooting to check noise at lower ISO's) and by other reported tests. I repeat that neither he nor I nor anyone I've read have issues with this camera in terms of features or performance on 'ordinary' subject matter. But if you think that pixel-peeping should be illegal or is a sign of moral weakness, then you are discounting ALL the owners of 5D's and many 1D owners, who pay considerably more for their camera entirely because of what can be revealed by pixel peeping. The 4" images that are given above as examples of the 7D's magnificence tell us absolutely nothing about the issues being discussed here and are not relevant or useful. The watch is a beautiful photo, but is nothing the same as me struggling to get a focused, sharp and not excessively grainy photo of a small bird hidden in the branches. I would guess that if the same photo (the watch) was taken with a 50D under identical (excellent) lighting etc, then the photo presented above would be indistinguishable from the 7D's.
    c) mainly, I'd get the 7D because it is supposed to be able to focus in difficult situations, which my 50D can not (nor can the 1D3, nor the 5D2). I might not get better image quality, but if it focuses the way I would expect a sophisticated camera to focus, then I'll pay the price just for that. It doesn't stop me being completely p*****d off that I don't get lower noise at ISO400 than the already excessively noisy 50D, or that images are softer and give less plumage detail, for example, than many people think would be justified by an xD camera.
    Angel - Of course I would definitely do that if I weren't tied to Canon like many photographers without limitless resources -- I can not afford to take a hit on $18,000 worth of Canon lenses to move to Nikon or Sony. And of course there's always the chance that Canon will eventually get back on track, in which case I'd regret a precipitous change of brand. Of course that is what I was hoping would happen, which is why my disappointment at the 7D is so great.
    I have no proof of it, but many people agree that Canon are deliberately splitting the market in order to sell more cameras, rather than providing the best cameras possible at their price point. The introduction of a new line (the 7D) between the xxDs and the 1D doesn't please me at all - in my view the 7D is nothing more than should have been expected of the 60D. The very fact that people on this thread and many other places screech "well if you want a landscape camera get the 5D" proves my point, that features are being deliberately withheld in each camera line, not because of necessary price reasons, but to maintain the superiority of another artificially segregated model. Why is it not possible to produce a 5D that focuses in difficult circumstances? Why is it not possible to get improved noise/resolution in the 7D (cf the 50D) and closer to a FF? Of course there's technical limitations of the smaller sensor, but that's not the whole story as anyone (like Darwin) who compares different models and sensor size can determine.
    In summary, if the 5D2 could focus for the work I do, I'd buy it. If the 7D was a reasonable improvement over the poor 50D in noise and resolution, I'd be happy with that. But they can't and aren't. Meanwhile other manufacturers seem to have less trouble just producing cameras that work pretty well and include well-matched performance features, and they don't see the need to have 8 different DSLR models on the market. So it IS possible.
    If you or anyone has great success with the 7D doing your kind of photogrpahy then terrific, get on and use it. But please don't waste your time and other people's in personal criticism of those who take different photos in circumstances that may be more challenging for the camera.
     
  59. Julian,
    You are 100% correct in the fact I should just go and use my 7D and I will use it and enjoy it I certainly will.
    However a little rant before I move on...
    You have given the impression that Darwin's review is the end all be all of the 7D. Yet many replies in this thread say the opposite, yet you still say the same thing over and over..Soft more noise... etc
    His review is worthless, for the following reasons.
    No lens will perform the same on every camera.. First strike for his review..It simply isn't possible every body is going to be different. Can you say every lens you own performs the same on every body? I think not
    Focusing with live view another great idea, lets heat up the electronics and then blame the camera. Live view is a tool to be used, it was never intended to replace the view finder.
    Note Canon addresses this problem in the manual he couldn't be bothered to read, or chose to ignore this little fact. Second strike.. Not to mention the fact live view has only been on EOS dSLR's since the 40D if memory serves.
    Firmware was the original, not the current version... Third and final strike..
    Strike four would be the fact, the 7D isn't designed to be a landscape camera....
    There is an old saying, Garbage in is garbage out, and that is what his review is garbage.
    These are facts. Not mythical errors. His review was to do only one thing, generate hits to his blog.. ie increase traffic
    Perhaps I'm wrong and he is just a idiot.
    However I stand by first guess, which is to increase traffic and web visibility. With everyone and their dog having access to a decent camera and the ability to create above average photos. More and photographers are looking at ways to stand out.
    He did just that. Don't you think?
    I will never make a living with my camera, I take photos, because I love photograpy, simple as that.
    I chose the Engineering field for a reason, that being I like to eat. ;)
    End of my rant.
    Give Bob Aktins review a read...
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/eos-7d/review/
    Up to this point the good reviews far out number the bad ones.
     
  60. "Up to this point the good reviews far out number the bad ones."
    I think it is more important that established sites with proven track records are pretty consistent in their evaluations of this camera. This extends beyond personal observations to their measurement data.
    I want to see reviews that provide me with useful information. A flawed test offers nothing, whether positive or negative. There is a popular site, whose name I wont provide, that likes to evaluate sharpness based on images of faraway trees whose limbs and leaves are swaying in the breeze.
    If your object is to provide your reader with information they can use to make purchase decisions then I would think you should be willing to learn about proper testing methods. Why would anyone be reluctant to make this effort?
     
  61. Julian, if you can afford 18k+ worth of canon junk, you can afford a nikon d300s or d700 with the wonderful nikkor 14-24 f2.8. How does canon have you tied up? Why not just buy into both systems and don't buy the 7D.
     
  62. Julian Robinson wrote, “I am a Canon user who is disappointed with SOME ASPECTS of all my cameras since the 20D.”
    Julian, if you’re so disappointed with Canon, why do you stick with Canon?
     
  63. I was thinking. Julian mentions that he's been disappointed with every canon dslr he has ever owned. But yet when the 7D comes, he suddenly joins pnet the day he posted comment here to complaint about the quality of the 7D he does not even own? I smell something fishy here.
     
  64. I've never said I was disappointed with every Canon dslr I've owned. How do you get your kicks writing such abusive fictional rubbish? I loved my 300D, I loved my 20D and was on the fence with the 30D. I have not loved the 40D or the 50D.
    I have explained why I joined photo.net to post. You can smell fish all you like but you are simply wrong. The only person who has universally dumped on Canon is the person who writes about "...Canon junk...". i.e. you.
    I've not said the 7D is rubbish since clearly it isn't, but in some aspects it does not appear to meet expectations. These are in areas that will not be noticed by many photographers, and I am a little tired of those people being the ones to be so abusive about photographers with a different experience on matters that don't concern them.
    Why do I stick with Canon? As I tried unsuccessfully to explain to Angel who appears to enjoy trolling for the sake of it, because I have what is for me a very large investment in Canon lenses. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The fact that I can afford some expensive lenses does not mean I have the money to do it a second time, not to mention purchase new bodies. If I was luxuriously wealthy, I would indeed be using Nikon now. If you - Cornell and Angel - are so worried about my mental health in sticking with Canon, feel free to send money.
    Peter - I disagree with your view that Darwin's review is useless, as much as I disagree with your assessment that he concocted the review for any purpose other than he meant it. I think it's dangerous to go around making arguably slanderous statements about someone's intentions without any evidence, and I've seen no evidence from you or anyone else. Without such evidence, I would assume that he is just stating what he found. The same as I think Bob has made an unbiased assessment in his review. Doesn't mean either or both of them are correct in all they say, but I don't perceive the desire to deceive that you do.
    As for Bob's review - I'd read it before and actually thought it was a good review but not good news. Without writing a volume, his conclusions are, I believe, disappointing in the areas which we have been discussing - noise, resolution and focus.
    Resolution: (when comparing against the 40D, a two generations old 10MP camera) "What was a little surprising was that in the case of real world images, the difference was much less obvious, even when using good lenses at optimum aperture and the the camera mounted on a sturdy tripod. In fact in a number of cases it was hard to tell the difference between the 7D and 40D images in terms of resolved detail. "
    Which is what I've been saying exactly. I would have wanted and expected better than that - the 7D is two generations newer, it has nearly twice the number of pixels, and it is a class above the xxD series - remember it's a 7D not a 70D. Resolution should be way better than the poor old 10MP 40D. That's one of the things that disappoints.
    Noise: "Looking at the images it’s evident that the 7D doesn’t show more noise than the 40D. In fact it seems to show a little less ".
    Ditto to above, I would certainly EXPECT it to have clearly better noise performance than the cheaper, much older 40D, but it only seems to 'just make it' in the view of this otherwise very positive reviewer.
    Focus: "my subjective opinion is that the EOS 7D has the best autofocus of any Canon APS -C DSLR . Since I did not have a 1D series body or EOS 5D MkII for a side by side comparison it’s hard for me to qualitatively or quantitatively compare them, but I suspect that the EOS 7D will hold its own against any current Canon DSLR . How it will compare with the new EOS 1D MkIV is unknown right now. "
    Exactly. To say that the 7D seems to perform better than other current Canon cameras is not positive or informative. It absolutely MUST perform better against the very low benchmark offered by the current xxDs and 1D3. What would have been more interesting and informative is to quantitatively compare focus in critical situations against other brands. This is hard, as Bob rightly says, so ... he didn't do it.
    It's well known that Canon have dropped the ball on focus in recent models. The whole point of the 7D was to completely redesign focus and fix an accumulating evidence of worsening focus performance with those recent models. This is not just related to the 1D3 debacle, but the xxD's as well. As I have stated many, many times, my personal experience is that the 20D was the last Canon camera I've used that focused accurately IN MY KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHY. The flaws in later models and 1D have been admitted by Canon and the 7D was supposed to be the first of the new cameras to rectify the situation by focusing properly in critical situations. If focus wasn't a problem, why has Canon gone to such enormous lengths to publically re-design the totality of their DSLR focus systems?
    You pick on what you see are flaws in unrelated areas of Darwin's test. Personally, I don't think that Darwin understands the science of diffraction limitations but that wouldn't render everything he says as wrong. Equally I don't think Bob understands dynamic range and how it affects cameras, but that doesn't mean his review doesn't help me. (Bob measures dynamic range of jpeg images. This is an entirely pointless exercise, since the jpeg dynamic range is a matter of TASTE and is set by the manufacturer to reflect what they believe is a pleasing result. Anybody can increase the dynamic range of their DSLR by selecting a lower contrast rendition to jpeg (Picture Styles or equivalent). Measuring dynamic range of jpegs tells you absolutely nothing about the camera's goodness, quality or capability. All it tells you is something about the taste of the people designing the in-camera raw converter. Measuring dynamic range of RAW on the other hand would be useful and informative, but that's not what Bob or most other reviewers do).
     
  65. If focus wasn't a problem, why has Canon gone to such enormous lengths to publically re-design the totality of their DSLR focus systems?​
    "publically re-design"? I don't recall seeing anything from Canon during the design/engineering phase of the focus system on the 7D until its introduction. And at that point it was made "publically" known.
    So, you complain that for your "KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHY" your 20D was the "last Canon camera that focused accurately". And in nearly the same figurative breath, you complain about the focus system of a camera you don't own. As the owner of a 7D, and a former owner of a 20D, I can tell you the 7D is leaps and bounds better. I'm not sure what your motivation is here, Julian, but you sure don't seem too concerned with your own credibility.
     
  66. Heh!

    I've read some nonsense in my time, but the 20D characterised as the last such Canon that AFd properly is going some...

    I own two 30Ds (same AF as the 20D to all intents and purposes) and the AF of the 40D I use now is a country mile better - for birds, which is my thing too - than that of the 30Ds.

    Crucially, people who I know and whose opinions I trust, tell me that the 7D's AF is in another league again compared to the 40D.
     
  67. Having own the 7D and other xxD cameras, definitely 7D is at different class. Image quality is similar compare to previous bodies and that's fine for me but..the AF is way superior. It gives me critical shots that I need. It's truly the most fun Canon camera I've ever had.
     
  68. Not to want to sound controversial, but focus is a problem with Canon. I teach photography, and use and know all manner of cameras. I shoot with a 1Ds MkIII, a 1D MkIII, an a 7D. I;ve owned many others (Nikon too).
    The Canon system is inconsistent when shooting wide open at faster than 2.8. I see this with my 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses wide open: focus accurately, click five times: one or two will be out of focus (and yes I know how to focus). I've blogged about that too. A few tips on how to optimise focus here:
    http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/10/16/focus-on-focus/
    Anyway... the 7d is not perfect, but it is better, helped by the new modes like spot focus.
     
  69. Julian, LMAO...x2
    My points of his review are valid not slander.
    Sorry that you think canon has let YOU , let down...Canon never promised said or implied that IQ was going to be leaps and bounds better then any other body.
    Darwin's review is nothing more then bait for the fish of the world...
    Have a great time, with your lens($18K worth) and no body...
    I've now moved on...
     
  70. Julian,
    Some of the stuff you are writing is so silly. How much have you used 1D MkIII? An awful lot of people do and don't have focus issues, a very few do, any of those that do but have not done micro AF adjustment on an LCD screen can't be relied on. Anyway if you want a 5D MkII that focuses then get a 1Ds MkII for a lot less money and no video, it is as easy as that.
    Anybody that needs specific features from a camera just needs to look across the whole range, prioritise what is most important and get the closest model, from your rants the 1Ds MkII makes most sense and there are millions of fantastic images out there that were taken with that model camera. Work out what tool will work for you best and get it. Or spend your life on forums bemoaning how you could take the best images ever if Canon only did something slightly different. You are a photographer either way, one way comes with respect the other derision.
    Take care, Scott.
     
  71. Scott.. I'll not want to fuel the fire, but as said, Canon focus IS inconsistent... I challenge you to take your 1Ds MkIII or 1D MkIII and take 10 pictures of something nice and contrasty, on a tripod, at a shutter speed of 10x lens length, at an aperture of f/1.4, focusing carefully each time with one focus spot , and to NOT get a few that are WAY out of focus. Not talking about adjustment - talking about randomly WAY out. For a full time pro like me that's not acceptable.. I buy $2,000 lenses to use them wide open!
    Anyway, enough said. The 7D is better andanyway if you take each shot a couple of times you will be OK. I agree with you, it's about using the tools you have!
     
  72. Michael,
    I had some concerns about my 1Ds MkIII and when I bought it I got a 30 day money back guarantee. I did that because of the internet AF opinion. When I got my camera I was quite pleased with the focus but like most people at 100% on a screen could see differences. I did some searching and found this page http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html it has far and away the best methodology for adjusting AF, indeed it is the same way that lenses are tested when hand polished because machines are not accurate enough.
    All my lenses (mostly Ls) were out by varying degrees. Focus is now totally consistent. I have only used 1 series cameras since going AF and the 1Ds MkIII is the best I have had. I have used Nikons, though not much, and whilst there is a different feel to the AF it is no more consistent, in my experience. When I shot film with manual focus (since 1980 as a pro, semi now) I was happy with a 20/80 critical sharpness return rate on action, that is 2 shots in 10 very sharp. Now I get 90/95% critical sharp for action, for static it is basically 100%. I don't see that as an AF failure.
    So in answer to your challenge, I have taken it, my camera passed. As you dial in the micro adjustments the inconsistencies become fewer and the out of focusness of the bad shots is greatly diminished. Take a few hours to do the linked setup and tell me your AF did not improve, maybe I am lucky, but I won't be selling my 1Ds MkIII.
    Take care, Scott.
     
  73. Scott - you are right and I need to do this again. But note:
    1. It's different at varying apertures. My 50mm is spot on at f/4 but front focuses at f/1.4
    2. More importantly, the effect I am talking about is not this. It is random extreme deviations from proper focus. Take 5 pics: most sharp, but 1 or 2 out of 5 will be front-or back focused by 20cm, not half an inch - for no good reason.
    Still, I'll go recalibrate all my lenses. I;ve also had Canon CPS do it.
    Also I want to re-emphasise this is not the biggest issue in the world. I'm happy to be a pro Canon shooter and assuming the 1Ds MkIV next year (?) will be better still, I'll get one.:)
    And the 7D - see my blog: I love it, and even more since last week a drop from almost 2ft to hard concrete did not even damage it, amazingly. Hard enough drop to bend the front my 16-35 2.8L lens, but even that survived and is still in alignment...
    Yes, the 7D is not a 1Ds, and that is why I have both. When I want small size, convenience, more focus features, better previews, video, more button customisability, auto ISO and more (see my review on my blog) I take the 7D. And yeah, when I want 16mm wide angle or optimal noise at 3200 ISO I take the 1Ds3. Usually, I carry both on every shoot, with the 1D3 in the car.
     
  74. What kind of photographer buys 18k worth of lenses to use them on bodies that are disappointing(to Julian) and lower end models? one-the luxuriously wealthy and two- someone full of BS . Julian, you already ruled out one of those two. You have Zero credibility with a big Z, just like this Widgett joker(comparing 7D to a g11 and saying the g11 is better, WTF?). You two probably have Nikon affiliation of some kind and what you are doing is wrong and shameful, yet funny(your lengthy comments gave some of my most memorable laughs from reading post here on photo.net). I already posted sample pictures(previous posts) comparing for sharpness and noise from a 7D and 5dii. What will you post next?
     
  75. One thing, is the 7D has got emotions going on both sides, its had good reviews and not so good, looks like some sample variation going on. I do believe that Canon have so many DSLR's now that they are having trouble keeping the lower end cameras from being as good at IQ as the top end cameras, and by adding more MP or a stronger filter, may be there way of avoiding this, just speculation of course. I wanted the 7D to be a very good camera to go with my 5D2, I believe Canon could have done this, but chose not to, they want me to buy a 1D4, well thats not going to happen (dont have that kind of cash) so I will have to explore other options. I am not trying to bash Canon, they are after all, a big company that must show profits to the share holders.
    Ross
     
  76. I wanted the 7D to be a very good camera to go with my 5D2, I believe Canon could have done this, but chose not to​
    I really haven't got a clue what that's supposed to mean - by what possible measure can the 7D be described as anything other than excellent? It is clearly and without question the best APS-C camera available today.
    And that's not emotion speaking - it's an objective reaction to the evidence.
     
  77. Okay time for a reality check. Here's a photo I took with my 7D last night.
    [​IMG]
    Canon 7D at 400 iso, Canon 17-55/2.8 IS at f/4. Shutterspeed about 1/8 s or so.
    Now, let's pixel-peep, shall we? Here's a collection of 100% crops:
    [​IMG]
    Bonus points if you can identify which part of the photo these crops came from.
    Some observations:
    - The detail is there . I see lines/dots that are 1.5 pixels wide. This is the best we can do with Bayer interpolation, and on par with any other DSLR I've owned. So, the AA filter is not super aggressive or anything like that.
    - Is there more information here than in a file from my 10 Mpix XTi? Yes, definitely, conclusively, without the slightest doubt. Is there more information here than in a file from a 12 Mpix XSi? I say, probably. Is there more information here than in a file from a 15 Mpix 50D? I say, who cares, there is no significant difference between 15 Mpix and 18 Mpix. We're talking sqrt(18/15) = 10% more pixels in each dimension.
    - I examined in-camera jpeg (standard picture style), RAW processed with DPP, and RAW converted to DNG and processed with ACR/PS. The DPP and in-camera jpeg were indistinguishable. The ACR result was slightly sharper and slightly noisier, but we're splitting hairs.
    - There is noise . At 400 iso the amount of noise is about the same as my 400D. At 100 iso (not shown) I think my 400D is slightly cleaner, on a pixel-by-pixel basis. At 1600 iso the 7D blows away the 400D.
    - The quality aspects of the noise are interesting. On my 400D, the shadows tend to be noisy, with bright specks (short-wavelength luminance noise) and blotches of chroma noise (e.g. dark blue sky has greenish blotches). The highlights tend to be pretty clean with the 400D. Shadows get really really noisy when you crank up the iso.
    - On the 7D at low iso, the noise levels look higher in the highlights, compared to low noise in the shadows. The highlights have some luminance noise (dark specks). At higher iso, the noise levels between shadow and highlight look very even. Some folks have commented that the noise on the 7D looks more "film-grain like" rather than some digital artifact. I wonder if it is because of these qualities.
    I have yet to make a large print from a 7D file. In the past, noisy shadows and blotchy chroma noise have been problematic but some lumina noise in highlights (e.g. sky) has not been as problematic - the dithering takes care of that. I do know that noisy highlights are problematic for screen dispays. My speculation is that more even noise levels between shadows and highlights will produce a nice looking print. Maybe this weekend I'll have time to give it a try. I'll keep you folks posted.
    ok enough procrastinating time to get back to work...
     
  78. I wanted the 7D to be a very good camera to go with my 5D2, I believe Canon could have done this, but chose not to​
    I really haven't got a clue what that's supposed to mean - by what possible measure can the 7D be described as anything other than excellent? It is clearly and without question the best APS-C camera available today.
    And that's not emotion speaking - it's an objective reaction to the evidence.​
    It means they could have done better but chose not to, think about it, they cant make there APS-C camera better in IQ than the 1Dmk4 or the 5Dmk2 for that matter, that would kill sales, its part of buisness. So I choose not to buy the 7D, I didn't say it was a bad camera, but I want IQ that is very close to my 5D2 and I have not seen that from the 7D, so maybe a used 1D3 will be in my future.
     
  79. Arie,
    which converson software did you use? There is significant variation in end results as far as noise is concerned, depending on how the files were converted, and neither ACR nor DPP are optimal.
     
  80. Thanks for the very interersting and informative photo Ariel.
    The lower right crop sample nicely demonstrates your point about the noise in shadows vs noise in highlights. I wonder whether the problem is actually not that the bright parts are noisier but that the blue channel is noisy, since it is the sky that is most noisy and the sky is most of the brighter parts of the image? I don't see much noise in the yellow bright parts.
    This amount of sky noise is similar to the 50D and a level I find unacceptable. As mentioned before, it's difficult to see how Canon have managed to improve high-ISO noise substantially - amazingly in fact - and not changed lower-ISO noise at all. The 7D should be a significant improvement over the 400D since it's at least 2 models newer AND is 2 levels up the range and price, yet it still has the same noise as the 400D. The maths would suggest that if high-ISO noise is improved this must be reflected in an equivalent improvement at low ISO's. The fact that this hasn't happened would seem to indicate that it's a deliberate policy by Canon for the reasons mentioned before and by Ross above. Not good reasons in my opinion.
    I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for the level of detail and resolution. It's certainly better than on some other web examples including Darwin's, but I don't think it demonstrates the ability to deliver good feather detail in often heavily cropped shots (which is my holy grail). The 5D does do that. But I'd agree it's hard to tell from this very different shot, and hard to separate the camera's abilities from the lens, especially in the presence of so many pixels.
    From which point of view is there any chance of a similar (comparative) photo at f5.6 and f8 which I believe would reassure the diffraction phobics who believe that anything shot at f8 with the 7D will look soft. (Alternatively, I might learn that this is true). Yours is the perfect lens for such a test because it should be as sharp as at f4 for comparison. It certainly looks the goods here.
    re the previous post, another illustration of Groob's law, that the ability to read and understand forum posts is inversely proportional to the desire by the member to post. If people comment without reading properly, it's no wonder we waste so much time on forums answering things that have already been answered. And engaging in aggressive personal abuse because we don't even know what the previous person has said, rather than trying to learn and share information.
    As for DPP, if it delivers results similar to in camera processing (as stated, and as you would imagine it should) I think it's very unlikely that a 3rd party converter could do significantly better. A 3rd party has to reverse-engineer and guess things that the manufacturer already knows so is not likely to do a better job of conversion than e.g. Canon. I'm happy to be proven wrong though so look forward to a demonstration. People have said the Capture One is better than DPP in some ways, though I don't know if this includes detail and noise, and I haven't seen an example to demonstrate.
     
  81. Julian,
    instead of regurgitating suitably supportive soundbites you've tripped over on the internet, you might - as I have done exhaustively - source a range of 7D files and convert them in a variety of programs.
    Do that and you'll find quite unequivocally that several converters are better than DPP, and pretty much all are better than ACR/Lr: Cap One is very obviously better than DPP, but not the best for 7D files.
    Interestingly, the free Raw Therapee is excellent, producing squeaky-clean files across the board at lower ISOs; and Bibble 5 is, if anything, better again.
    Why? Because their demosaicing algorithms suit the 7D's characteristics.
    Bibble 5 will actually automatically switch to the "best" algorithm based on the camera profile; and Raw Therapee gives the user a selectable choice of algorithms, and while its EAHD algorithm is very good, VNG-4 is even better - not a surprise, given the 7D sensor's RGGB CFA.
     
  82. Julian: the detail is there. Have a look at the 100% crops - blow them up to 400% or 800%. You'll see. I think the 5D2 is a better camera for you. It's got less noise. Sounds like you're passionate about low noise, and the extra cost of the FF system will be worth it for you.
    Keith: thanks for the tips on raw conversion. I'll evaluate Raw Therapee and Bibble this weekend.
     
  83. Keith, I'll second the thanks..
    I'll be giving themm both a look on the weekend as well.
     
  84. Release candidate lightroom 2.6 a try right now, I have some high ISO shots of my son playing indoor soccer...
     

Share This Page