Canon EOS 7D tested, retested and reretested

<p>Relevant pixel-peeping:<br>

<a href="http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/">http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Canon, recall.....remove this stinking filter so people can get the resolution they paid for.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>nonsense<br>

I am getting excellent detail at 100% in processed images.<br>

The darwinwiggett review is flawed in may ways<br>

-- he stops lenses into diffraction when testing<br>

-- uses ACR that has beta support for 7D (duh, it has noise - its a beta)<br>

-- he shoots the 300mm lens at 1/60 second for sharpness testing<br>

-- he uses liveview focus for testing<br>

LOL, give me a break.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At 100%, they just dont have the detail. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>To be fair they may live in countries where post-processing is illegal.</p>

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.

Another reason for me to keep my 8.2MP 30D.

<p>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.</p>

<p>I used the Imaging Resource site for 'fair and balanced' image comparisons:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

<p>The 7D images look excellent compared to other cameras with no sharpness issues.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...<br /> Flawed at best, and if the original firmware was used then the tests are crap... IMO<br /> 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.<br /> But then again I don't put food on the table with my camera. I just love taking photos and using decent gear.<br /> 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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.<br>

Maybe everyone posting here just got a better 'copy' than Darwin?</p>

<p>Not to mention 8FPS and higher usable ISO than 40D. My upgrade path has been<br>

20D 30D 40D 7D. I loved them all, but this is a quantum leap from the xxD's</p>

 

<p>Quoth the “review”:</p>

 

<blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote>

 

<p>That paragraph completely blew all semblance of credibility the “reviewer” might

have had. The <em>only</em> fair test is to make same-sized prints with the various systems,

which is <em>exactly equivalent</em> to resampling, and which we all know <em>requires</em>

sharpening.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Image resource does have 7D images that look more like what youd expect.</p>

<p>Maybe the 7D will just need a little more sharpening in post.</p>

<p>He is implying that the g11 is sharper than the 7d, moron.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Brilliant.</p>