Disappointed By 7D

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by green_photog, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. My main body and lens for wedding are the 1Ds2 + 24-70 f2.8. I have the 7D but I usually just use it with the 70-200 so I don't have any direct comparison with the 1Ds2+24-70 even after 2 years of owning both.
    Recently, I shot a wedding mostly with the 7D+17-55 f2.8 IS which is comparable to the 1Ds2 + 24-70 in specs and I was disappointed in the 7D combo. The colors seem to be a little wash out, not as saturated and the details are less sharp with the 7D combo. The wedding was held in high noon so noise is not an issue.
    It wasn't a disaster by any means but since my eyes are so used to the pictures from the 1Ds2 + 24-70, I immediately noticed the difference. I though that the 7D, albeit a cropper, is 4-5 years newer than the 1Ds2 in sensor technology, should be able to match up to the 1Ds2 especially in bright light scenarios but apparently it is not.
     
  2. Without comparison samples, this is difficult to address.
    First thoughts: Less sharp-could be a lens comparison issue. It could also be a focus issue (camera settings, technique re:individual camera, etc.). Shutter settings-I say the latter because I believe the 7D is more susceptible to subject/camera movement issues due to smaller, densely packed pixels. I've found that using a higher shutter often eliminates softness not seen using a lower MP camera. It could also be a front/back focus issue between camera and lens-again, need to see a sample.
    High noon eh? This alone will cause colors to wash out, but again- it could be the lens. It's been my experience that the 7D does have a tendency to meter about 1/3 of a stop lower (overexpose) than other bodies, in EV mode (including ETTL). Either way, these issues are easily adressed in post.
     
  3. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The colors seem to be a little wash out​
    Post an example, with the EXIF.
     
  4. At the default settings, 7D colors are on the bright and saturated side. However, you can setup the camera defaults to taste. Assuming you shoot RAW, you can start by trying different Picture Styles in DPP or set up a custom profile in Aperture or LR. The thing is, every camera is different and you need to learn the optimize processing to suit your vision. I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D and 5D2. All the different camera files required a relearning of post processing (and some camera technique and settings) to make images fit my vision. Once I figure that out--takes a couple weeks of testing--all my images look very similar in terms of color profiling. Thinking you can shoot and process 7D files exactly like 1Ds2 files and get the same results is like expecting your new girlfriend to look and behave exactly like your ex...
     
  5. It is well known that the 7D needs more sharpening compared to other Canon bodies. You also need to be careful with exposure - the 7D is very unforgiving with under-exposure.
     
  6. the 7D is very unforgiving with under-exposure.​
    An internet meme with little truth to it, usually quoted by people who don't own the camera.
    In fact, it's only slightly worse than the new "super" sensors being used by Nikon, Sony and Pentax now, and then only at base ISO. Above that, they're not that different at all.
    More to the point the 7D is actually better than some earlier Canon bodies at handling exposure recovery.
    This is from the 7D (deliberately) underexposed by 3 stops (exif is in there), and here's the same image recovered by 4 stops in total.
    And see how much shadow detail I've been able to pull from this to this?
     
  7. I agree with Keith, in general; however, at higher ISOs there's great danger of getting mosaic-like noise with the 7D vs. the 5D MkII. If I "expose right" I have no troubles with the 7D up to ISO 1600. If you get a mosaic look, then it can't be recovered. Still, it's easy enough to work around and avoid.
     
  8. Green,
    You opened up a whole can of hurt on yourself with that observation! Mind you I don't see why you are only noticing the difference with equivalent lenses, the comparative lack of file quality should always have been apparent. It was the couple of times I have borrowed 7D's, that is why I never got one as a back up body.
    And yes, I know the 7D files need to be developed differently but any which way you cut it something that is 2.6 times smaller than something else, needs to be 2.6 times better to be as good. The 7D sensor per area is outstandingly good, it is not 2.6 times 'better' than a 1Ds MkII or MkIII or 5D MkII, for my imaging, YMMV.
     
  9. My statement: "the 7D is very unforgiving with under-exposure."​
    Your answer: "An internet meme with little truth to it, usually quoted by people who don't own the camera."
    I have owned the 7D since the day it was released in the US. I also shoot a 5D and the 7D is way more sensitive to under exposure. Noise becomes a real issue when a shot is even slightly under-exposed, even at low ISO.
    I am happy with my 7D, but facts are facts.
     
  10. In any case, post-processing is necessary if you are shooting RAW.
    If you are comparing the .jpgs or the images in the LED 'monitor' on the camera, then you deserve a dope-slap since the settings in the camera (much less in Photoshop or whatever) need to be adjusted to the sort of image you like. If you are comparing the default jpg settings at 'standard' or whatever, you may need to change the settings a little to get comparable results. The jpgs are like a contact sheet -- you shouldn't judge the "negative" by them alone.
    When you work with RAW in Adobe Camera RAW, there are slider settings for sharpness, saturation, exposure, and many other elements.
     
  11. I found I spent alot more time processing my 7D images than my MKIII. Noise levels and color changes. I thought I'd love it for a back up, but found I grabbed my MKIII much more often. I noticed a huge difference in color also and did alot of processing as well. It's doable, and it's a great camera, but I sold mine. I think having the experience of the 1D cameras spoiled me.
     
  12. I posted this because I process RAW in LR and I can get the 1DS2 RAW to look pretty good with just a few adjustments most of the time. With the 7D, it takes a bit more adjustments but still I can't make the 7D pics look as good as the 1DS2 pics.
    I usually put the 70-200 or the 85 F1.2 on the 7D so I don't have any direct comparison. This time, with the 17-55, I used the 7D in mostly wider shots and the lack of sharpness was apparent to me.
    This and that I just shot a wedding again at the exact same venue and lighting condition with the 1Ds2 + 24-70 and it's just so evident to my eyes that the colors and sharpness of the 7D loss out to the vintage 1Ds2.
    The clients still love their pictures taken with the 7D so the difference is likely small and probably immaterial to most people other than photogs.
     
  13. Linda, your PP needs to be automated so that moving from body to body is a non-issue. I mix 5D MkII and 7D images together in the same Project in Optics Pro and the software reads the EXIF data and makes a different set of adjustments for each body. Not all softwares do that, but if you're going to work with two bodies, like I do, then you need something systematic to take care of the differing demands of each body. Certainly you could set up presets in LR, or whatever you use, to work with each body you use.
     
  14. "Noise becomes a real issue when a shot is even slightly under-exposed, even at low ISO..."
    Really? I've NEVER seen this. You must have a defective 7D. Seriously.
    Another fact.
    Maybe it's an issue when printing at 60 inches wide and you are looking at the image from a foot away.... otherwise, really? I've shot 7D at ISO's 1600 and 3200, as have most people here.... sensor noise really isn't the issue. Most of those times I dial in -1/3 EC too.
     
  15. Well Ken the two I used via Canons CPS did, I think the real problem that causes the huge differences in opinion is that you Keith and Daniel Lee Taylor all have special 7D's, ones that don't behave like most other peoples do :)

    It comes down to what works for each individual, what they are doing with their images and what they are comparing the 7D file to. I found the 7D files to be a huge letdown when comparing them to my 1Ds MkIII files, it didn't work for me, but I know it works for many.

    Live and let live, my camera might not work for you, your camera might not work for me. But again, when all is said and done, the 7D sensor is 2.6 times smaller than a FF one, it has a huge catch up job to do to match the performance of its bigger brothers, it can't be any surprise that some people notice this difference sometimes while, at the same time, the results it gives are plenty high enough for most people, most of the time.
     
  16. Which color spaces are you using? sRGB? AdobeRGB? Maybe you were shooting using AdobeRGB but your remaining setup was set to using sRGB and not treating color spaces correctly. In this case you would see dull colors. So make sure that your whole workflow / tools handle color spaces correctly and make sure that your monitor is calibrated to it.
    If you are unsure what to do, the next best thing is to switch your camera to sRGB. This is the default used by most applications and closest to what most monitors will display. If things get better, then you have found the source of your color problems and can work on it.
     
  17. I posted this because I process RAW in LR and I can get the 1DS2 RAW to look pretty good with just a few adjustments most of the time. With the 7D, it takes a bit more adjustments but still I can't make the 7D pics look as good as the 1DS2 pics.​
    I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that such information might be of assistance to those reading your post, either.
    You still get your dope-slap. If only Click and Clacks' mother were available. ;)
     
  18. Mattias,
    Green clearly stated they were shooting RAW, camera colour space is not relevant to RAW processing software.
     
  19. The 7D's sensor has much finer pixel spacing, which might contribute to some visible softness depending on the aperture. f/16 and even f/11 will be noticeable in side by side comparison with a full frame sensor. The 7D is sharpest just wider than f/8, if DoF isn't an issue.
    I use ColorChecker Passport to generate DNG profiles for my camera. I'd be curious to know if anyone has tried an image comparison using appropriate profiles across cameras. My expectation is the color, tones, and contrast will be much more similar, allowing a more direct comparison.
     
  20. I don't have a 24-70, but I do use a 24-105 (similar "era" as 24-70) and the 17-55 on my T2i. While both are sharp, the 17-55 sometimes results in a harshness / washed out / slightly "cold" hues compared with the 24-105 which typically gives more rich and vibrant images.
     
  21. you Keith and Daniel Lee Taylor all have special 7D's, ones that don't behave like most other peoples do :)
    Hi Scott,
    given that this is improbable - and completely acknowledging your smiley! - I think it's more likely to be that we've simply worked out how to maximise the 7D's potential, and others haven't.
    I stand by the assertions I make about it: it's not a noisy camera, and indeed is spectacularly good at high ISO, especially for a cropper; it's not particularly (or even somewhat) unforgiving of underexposure; it's capable of stellar IQ compared with any other camera it might be judged against; but the user might have to raise his - or her - game to get the best out of it.
    Some people clearly aren't prepared to accept this last - it's always easier to blame the gear, isn't it?
     
  22. " especially for a cropper;"
    I agree and that really is my point. But surely you don't believe that you three musketeers really are the only three to know how to process a camera file? Whilst blaming the gear is too easy, so is saying you just don't know how to process it!
    It's funny, a couple of years ago I had this same style argument but I was on the smaller cameras side. I have a G10 P&S, a camera roundly beaten by most testers, but strangely liked by most that owned it, similar argument, just process the files optimally and you can get better results than you are seeing, and it was true, they certainly beat the G9 though few believed that and fewer still wrote it. But my G10 files, though more than good enough much of the time, would never best a 7D's. Even though blind tests showed in low DR images at base iso people couldn't tell the difference in 17" prints between that G10 and a medium format camera; well the same is true for the 7D and the various FF cameras, yes they are good enough most of the time, and in many reproduction applications they are indistinguishable, but it is a fact that 7D files break down sooner than FF ones. If, after learning optimal processing, it is soon enough for your images then get a FF, if it isn't get a 7D.
    P.S. Sincerely, thanks for keeping the thread cordial. Best wishes, Scott.
     
  23. I'm another who is dissapointed by the Canon 7D image sharpness, noise, mottling etc. I won't buy a "cropper" again.
     
  24. As someone who has owned the 7D since it came out and the 5DII (also a 1DIIN) I have to agree with Jurgen and
    Scott. I virtually always shoot RAW but I find my 7D much more susceptible to exposure issues than the 5DII and even
    the 1DIIN. I am not surprised that you find the 1DsII better. I find my 7D has IQ closer to the 1DIIN than the 5DII. It is
    still a good camera and I would buy one again but for me the bigger sensor still has it. With more experience and
    practice you can improve your post processing performance. I once posted here some horrible high ISO 7D crops but
    this was due to the first ACR convertor for the 7D. The new one is better and DPP is better still.
     
  25. Bottom line is... the people that moan about the 7D don't know how to use it. I bought a 7D after my 20D was stolen, at first I wanted my 20D back because the images from the 7D were IMO not as clear or as sharp as my 20D. Now I have used my 7D for over a year and know how to get the best out of it the image quality is amazing. With the 20D I never shot above ISO 200 because IMO the noise was shocking but with the 7D it has opened up a whole new side to photography for me being able to shoot comfortably at ISO 800.
     
  26. "the people that moan about the 7D don't know how to use it" Not only is that exceedingly crass, but I have already dealt with that kind of uniformed fallacy J C. Sure there were a lot of new users, like yourself, who couldn't use it properly, but have you noticed the overwhelming majority of people who say the 7D does have flaws are the ones that also own 5D MkII's.
    Believe me, if you end up buying one, or even just using one for a reasonable amount of time, the 7D files will feel like your 20D files and the 5D MkII files will be even better. The AF is a different matter :)
    Of course we could flip the oft opined point around, rather than non 5D MkII owning 7D owners telling everybody that we don't know how to develop a 7D file, we could say that if you can't see a difference those 7D owners don't know how to work the 5D MkII files. It all adds up to the same thing. Invariably those that own both can and do see a difference. The 7D is a superb camera, but it is a crop camera and it does not break the laws of physics. If the laws of physics for a crop camera are all you want or need, the 7D is unmatched, if not there are other options.
     
  27. I own the 7D and the 5D MkII and find that the 7D has greater detail but the 5D2 has better high-ISO performance above ISO 1600. They're different tools for different purposes. You definitely do not process their images the same, but that's what software presets are for.
    I DO think there is something to the idea that people finding the 7D unsatisfactory are processing the images as if they were processing images from a 1D or 5D2. Each camera demands its own processing settings.
    7D ISO 1600 +1EV:
    [​IMG]
     
  28. I moved from a T2I to a 5D MK I and found 'some' difference in IQ initially; talking about 50 1.4 & 85 1.8 on 5D VS having before the 85 1.8 and 17-55 on T2i.
    Then I upgraded my lenses: 24-70, 35L, 135L and 70-200F4IS. and wanted video so bought T3i just recently. And Definitely the cropper is lower quality for me, the colours, being softer and the bokeh are the noticeable differences things.
    the 70-200 F4 IS bokeh @ F4 on 5D SHINES for me! I would never think of the F2.8 version anymore, thus keeping my 135L
     
  29. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    To the OP: Why not post some examples so it is clear what you are talking about.
     
  30. Here's a 200% crop of a 7D image at ISO 800:
    [​IMG]
     
  31. I have been reading this thread all day and while I thought it was getting to be funny/comical it is now becoming a Battle " the Larger Full Frames vs. the Crop sensors" I do NOT own a 7D or 1Ds or 1D markIV or 5D, I am a rebel user..but some of guys are getting a little mean on crop camera's / 1.6 fovcf. Play nice and share the knowledge, info, tips & tidbits that is what make this forum so great... there are usually good things, nice compliments being posted... not this thread...BTW @ Scott, with your last post ~ I can't tell if you Like the 7D or not?
    Best
     
  32. T.P.
    I think the 7D is a fantastic camera, but I don't want one. For me, personally, in too many situations, it did not deliver the results I am used to.
    To be told, after 33 years of paid photography, the reason I found it a let down is because I don't know what I am doing is a little annoying. :)
    If a crop camera results work for you, you will not find a better camera than the 7D, if a crop camera results don't work for you your only option is to get a bigger sensor sized camera. To suggest there is no difference between crop camera files properly processed, and larger sensored camera files, also properly processed, is ridiculous. If that were true Canon would never sell another 1D MkIV or 1Ds MkIII and the 5D MkII would disappear overnight. If you want, or need, that difference and are prepared to pay for it then fine by me, if you don't or aren't, well that is also fine by me, but don't try and tell me there is no difference. How often those differences affect our images too much is a question each of us can only answer for ourselves.
     
  33. Green, my suggestion would be some better glass. From what I've seen and heard, the 7D is up to the job.
     
  34. David as another 5DII and 7D user I am surprised you find the 7D offers more detail. I find the opposite as do all of
    the tests I have ever seen. The 7D has higher resolution per mm of sensor but the larger 5DII sensor gives more
    resolution on the picture. I am constantly surprised by the 5DII vs 7D debate. Since the two cameras share almost
    identical bodies and the 7D body has better functionality (AF, fps etc...) and costs almost $1000 less why do people
    expeect they have the same IQ. If the IQ was the same then who would buy the 5DII.

    While I am sure the OP will improve her 7D images as she has more practice processing them she is comparing a
    $6000 camera to a $1600 one.

    I do not think anyone is suggesting the 7D is not fit for purpose. The fact I bought onee and have probably put
    25,000+ shots through it says that I think it is a good camera. All I (and some others) are saying is that a more
    expensive camera (the 5DII and 1DsIII) has higher IQ. To me the fact that the significantly more expensive camera
    from the same manufacturer takes high IQ images is not a surprise - any more than the idea that a $2700 PC is better
    than a $1700 PC or a $54000 car is better than a $34000 car.
     
  35. If you didn't make a direct comparison between both cameras you would probably never know the difference. The 7D is a great camera however it took me a while to appreciate it and I'm talking about upgrading from the 30D ! When I first got it, there were so many bells and whistles that it was hard to keep up, although now I don't mind having some of them. Some of the buttons actually got in the way. At first I found the playback LCD totally unforgiving and even a little weird. The battery life was another issue, despite the outrageously expensive new battery it came with, I could not crank out as many pictures as I did with the 30D, or even my 5D but that issue has been somewhat resolved. I wasn't too particular about the big-black focusing points either, but now with my failing eyes I can actually see them better. If you are going to compare an $1800 camera to a $7000 camera, guess which one is going to win ? I run into these comparisons on the field all the time and usually the guy using the 1Ds is the happiest camper. It's hard to explain, but the colors on the 1Ds are more accurate, have more contrast, depth and dynamic range. Also the focusing is more spot on. I'm not saying there are huge difference, at least not with the 7D, but "consistently" the 1ds wins hands down and I don't care what the peep-charts say, this is from experience. Nevertheless, the 7D is a great semi-pro, every day camera that you can lug with you to different locations and occasions and still remain relatively inconspicious . It is tough, weather proof, compact and takes very good pictures in comparison to other cameras in its class. Most owners are quietely "very satisfied" with this camera, but it certainly has not received the outpouring of LOVE that other cameras have in the past(i.e. 5D classic). Who knows, maybe we are just spoiled...
     
  36. I'm actively using a 7D and a 1DMk3 on a virtually daily basis, with the occasional use of the 1DsMk2. Its a specific project, in changeable and sometimes difficult lighting conditions, with highly unpredictable subjects, needing high shutter speeds, pushing ISO's a bit, but not excessively so, and shooting RAW.
    Verdict? The 7D files are excellent, but need a different processing approach to the 1D files. The 1D files are less noisy and 'apparently' sharper out of the camera. The 7D files need a bit more noise reduction and sharpening, but when its done they really 'pop' and look very good indeed. If you're of the one-size-fits-all approach to processing and using multiple cameras, or applying a 'standard' process to all your images you'll be disappointed. Use some good judgement and you'll be happy.
     
  37. I though that the 7D, albeit a cropper, is 4-5 years newer than the 1Ds2 in sensor technology, should be able to match up to the 1Ds2 especially in bright light scenarios but apparently it is not.
    My experience with the Nikon D7000 (modern 1.5x crop) vs. D700 (3-year old full-frame) is similar - the D7000 seems to be best in cloudy bright outdoor lighting. If the light is weak, the images get to be noisy (due to higher ISO used) and lacking in dynamic range. In direct sunlight even at ISO 100 the images appear weak in tones and a bit like that from point-and-shoot cameras. The very narrow window of lighting where the D7000 gives optimal results, together with low rate of in-focus shots in practical shooting at wide apertures led me to sell the D7000.
    There is a lot of talk on online forums about how significnat technology development is ... but it's not really as significant as sensor size. Even old full-frame cameras produce more wholesome images (in terms of richer tones and colours) and also the focus results are not so good - basically to give comparable results, the autofocus system would of the crop camera would have to be much more accurate in terms of absolute details on the sensor plane .... Small focusing errors are magnified by 1.5x/1.6x when the print is made compared to the situation with full frame.
    Finally, to achieve good sharpness on a 1.5x/1.6x crop camera, only the optimal aperture and +-1 stop can be used basically. With a full frame camera, good results are typically obtained from wide open to f/11.
    Crop cameras do have advantages for tripod based ISO 100 work of stationary subjects.
     
  38. A few months ago I picked up a used 50D as a crop frame complement to my 5DII. I wanted a body that I could "beat around" at bit, and wouldn't have to worry about too much about if, for example, a wave were to wash over it (the attached lens would, of course, be a different matter!).
    While I have been quite delighted with the 50D's output, I don't pretend that it's anywhere close to what my 5DII delivers, particularly at higher ISO's or larger print sizes. I consider them to be different tools for different photographic purposes, and this would apply if I had a 7D instead of a 50D.
    Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies? I just don't see the point.
     
  39. Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies?
    1) People who photograph subjects that they cannot get close to want to save money on lenses and don't want to feel they're making a compromise. They will not see the difference because they desperately want there not to be a difference and can condition themselves into believing it. 2) People who want to switch cameras often (they want the feeling of newness and believe technology is more important than physics) find that it's too expensive to do that with full-frame cameras and of course full-frames are updated less frequently so they want to say crop cameras are better (because they can own a new one more of the time than if they used full-frame cameras).
     
  40. It is funny how no 7D owners say their camera is better then a 5D mkll but a fair majority of 5D mkll owners have to say there camera is better than a 7D. I think the 7D owners are happy with their choice and just like to go out and take photographs, whereas most of the 5D mkll owners would sooner bury their head in forums just waiting for a thread like this to come along so they can get a hard on and slag off another camera to justify their purchase. Pretty sad really.
    Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies
    I can't see anybody in this thread who is saying that, I rest my case. Ha Ha Ha.
     
  41. Scott, I don't have a special 7D, and I have no problems with using the 7D at 1600 and 3200. In fact, I deliberately underexpose outdoors on the skin tones with backlighting to maintain the background highlights. Normally at iso 400, I underexpose by about 2/3 stop. I have no problem recovering shadows that are even 3 stops under. If you are having issues, I'd say it is because of your understandsing of exposure and post processing technique.
    Claiming Keith, Daniel, or myself have special 7D bodies is really not helping your case any....rather, it makes you look a bit foolish.
     
  42. Ah d'Artagnan arrives. :)
    Whatever, the thread was going along quite nicely but has obviously deteriorated to name calling, manic laughter and insults.
    Not interested........
     
  43. Not only is that exceedingly crass, but I have already dealt with that kind of uniformed fallacy J C​
    It deteriorated a long time ago, these threads are the reason I stopped frequenting this forum for over 12 months, I start to visit again to get some insight from knowledgeable people and we end up with this drivel yet again.
    See you in another 12 months when hopefully this kind of thread will be removed or locked as soon as it starts to get this ridiculous.
     
  44. Ok J C, if you really want to add something useful, why not tell us the exact steps that took you from disappointment in the 7D to your new found nirvana.
    Post us one of your pictures you took early on and tell us the way you processed it, then process it how you do now and let us see this difference, rather than petulantly demanding to be taught, teach us. Show us how to use your 7D. Teach me what I am doing wrong. If you won't post one of your own files use one of the multitude of full res test images on the net, don't post it, just tell me the processing steps to get your results and a link to the file. I have LightRoom, PS4 and 5, DPP, and Aperture loaded waiting.
     
  45. I believe there is alot of experience here with the 7D in this post. Information is worth reading, and all you have to do is ignore the adverse comments. Hopefully they will come back and contribute a short tutorial how they DO achieve such perfection with the 7D. Thats what people are looking for. Most who have the camera love it, but are unhappy with the processing time. Batch processing doesn't always work because what some of us shoot are constant light challenges, so each photo is different. I believe, based on my year experience with the 7D and comparing to my MK III, that one should not expect the 7D to measure up to the 1D series.
    And any specific solutions are appreciated.
     
  46. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    What would make this thread useful would be photos from the OP that show what the issue is. Without that, it's just a lot of pointless speculation.
     
  47. Calm down Scott, geez.
    First.... where in any of my posts have I mentioned Post processing, I think you will find I said, after using my 7D for over a year I now know how to get the best out of it, that means actually learning the camera settings to enable me to take better images with the camera, not post processing my images so they look better.
    Second....petulantly demanding to be taught, WTF does that mean,lol, I frequent these forums for information on glass, to admire other peoples images and hopefully once in a while to be able to help someone with a problem they are having, not on how to use my 7D.
    I apologise if I have upset you and promise to refrain from entering into any more of these 7D bashing threads. ;)
     
  48. The short of it (to me) is: it's easier to create a good looking picture on a 5D-ii than on a 50D. But both cameras are
    capable of creating great looking pictures.

    By the way, to me this is more true when pixel peeping than for entire photographs but it's true for both cases.

    M.
     
  49. J C,
    I'm totally calm and there is no way on earth you could upset me through any of this, seriously. I am not pulling my hair out or crying, I may talk a bit too loudly for some in these threads but that is the kind of person I am, I mean no offence by it and likewise apologise if I have upset anybody. I can be the annoying loud table at the bar on Saturday night, that is all :) But if there is a conversation to be had I'm in.
    However! So now my inability to get as good files from a 7D as from a ff camera is not down to my processing skills, as has been claimed many times before, even in this thread, now it is down to the fact that I don't know how to use a camera? I have always found the incredible number of options on modern cameras amusing, and the demands by users for ever more combinations and complications. But the truth is we are dealing with iso, shutter speed and aperture, which one of those three have I not be able to get my head around in the last 33 years? Because I am truly at a loss by your answer.
    Look I know the 7D is capable of outstanding images, I have never said otherwise, I know the 7D is comfortably better than the 20D, a camera I used a fair bit. But the 7D images break down sooner than FF images, where ever that line of IQ comes in your imaging is up to each of us. If I shot regular stuff with no responsibility to anybody but myself, or if I could control the lighting and dynamic range every time, or if I never printed over ?x? (I don't want to start another fight on print sizes), if I could do all these I would far rather have a 7D and a 17-55 f2.8 IS and several thousand dollars in my bank. But I can't, so for me a 7D didn't work out, for many it does.
    Lastly, don't forget the thread was started by a 7D owner, 'he' said 'he' couldn't get the two to match and was disappointed, I agreed I couldn't either, and a few who own both also agreed, some of the owners of just 7D's didn't, they just said things like "you don't know how to use it" or "you just don't know how to process it" no indications of what they do to get their claimed superior (to our 7D) results. But that useful information aside, does it not strike you as strange that everybody that uses both says they see a difference? The 7D is a great camera, its sensor does not break the laws of physics, it is not 2.6 times better than the current ff sensors on a per area basis. If you want or need higher quality than the 7D can supply on occasions your only option is a bigger sensor and a lot of money.
     
  50. True jeff. Maybe the OP could post some examples, and provide us with the Raw files to see what issues we can identify.
     
  51. The problem with doing that is peoples opinions vary, then we end up with, I can print critically sharp 60" prints from my 7D, or equally stupid, I get unacceptable noise in 7D files at 100 iso. Both are equally wrong.
    Then we get the "you just don't know how to use it"/"you just don't know how to develop it" nonsense. A few calm owners of both say, "uh yes of course there is a difference, how could there not be?", then frustration and fatigue set in on both sides.
    Both myself and Philip Wilson have, in the past, posted direct comparisons, every time we have both been told we don't know what we are doing, or "I can do better than that". Keith has posted high iso images from his 7D but never comparison shots, we know the 7D takes great photos darn it! David posted a well illuminated narrow DR 200% crop from a 7D at 800iso, again no comparison image and I don't follow his point, other than the noise removal killed all sharpness in the image, again, we know the 7D takes great photos. Dave claims to use 1600 with impunity and recover -3 stops of under exposure, I'd like to see those effective 12,800 iso images! But if he posted them there would be issues, either they are not at the same time, the 1600 iso images are in good lighting, the -3 underexposure isn't really three stops under exposed etc etc and again, no comparison. For sure I wouldn't claim to be able to do that with my ff camera and even if I technically could I know I would consider the result unusable, but some might not.
    It all boils down to what works for each of us. I don't understand why some owners of 7D's insist on telling owners of both that there is no difference. I could effectively use a 7D for most of my work, but then I'd need another camera and equivalent lens set, for me a 7D made no sense.
     
  52. This thread seems kind of ridiculous in it's comparisons. Yeah, ok, a full frame sensor can outperform a crop in many instances, but I can also pick up a used/refurb 7D for $1100.
    I think this article I read long ago on photo.net is still really relevant today. The lens you use is going to make the most difference in your images, that's why I'm still shooting with a 6 year old Rebel:
    http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/fullframe/
     
  53. I'm the OP and I don't understand what special techniques you'll need to develop 7D RAW over a FF RAW file.
    I process all RAW in LR by adjusting highlights/shadows/recovery/contrast etc by sight on a IPS monitor calibrated by Spyder. I will also play with the curve or colors if I have too. I do this for pretty much every picture and when I do post. I don't usually pay attention to whether the file is from my 1Ds2 or 7D, I keep doing adjustments until the result is satisfactory to me like keep sharpening until I like the result.
    So I process 1Ds2 and 7D RAW the same way. Is there some special post techniques you'll need to process 7D RAWs?
     
  54. Wow...6 pages all because OP didn't select the right settings on his 7D, and then blamed the sensor. And most of those 6 pages come from Scott Ferris, who doesn't own a 7D and whose time holding one is questionable at best.
    Do I need to re-post the unlabeled, 100% 5D2 vs 7D crops, the ones that no FF fan, particularly Scott, can label because they can't tell which was taken by which?
    The sharpness issue is well known. Crop sensors need more sharpening. Indeed, your sharpening should be tailored to each sensor / lens / subject / print size combination. Meaning you should preview different values and select the best per image rather than blindly applying one value. But if you're going to blindly apply one value, use a higher value on the 7D then you would on a FF sensor of comparable resolution.
    As to the color / saturation claims: many things can affect this, including exposure variance by even 1/3 stop. In tests where all parameters are tightly controlled the colors appear identical between the 7D and modern Canon FF bodies at low to mid ISO. High noon is a great time to wash out colors. Whatever color issue Green observed, it had nothing to do with sensors and probably everything to do with light and exposure, though we can't rule out settings and post work.
     
  55. So I process 1Ds2 and 7D RAW the same way. Is there some special post techniques you'll need to process 7D RAWs?
    Nobody can tell you specifically why your 7D shots are different without examples. We can only confirm, for the nth time, that carefully controlled tests reveal no significant difference between the sensors in question at low to mid ISO. The FF fans in this thread can post 1,000,000 words claiming the opposite, and probably will, but they themselves cannot tell which came from which given 100% unlabeled crops. So their words are literally meaningless.
    The only thing the 18 MP sensor needs is a bit more sharpening. Color is not an issue, all other things being equal. If you're seeing a difference in color then some variable is not equal. Since you're not shooting side by side in a controlled manner every single thing is in play. How is anyone to magically know the answer to your question with all those variables? You assume it's in post. How do you know it wasn't an issue at the time of the shoot? Right off the bat even small changes in exposure and lighting (venue) can produce very different color and saturation.
    Until there are some examples it's impossible to even guess.
     
  56. I think the real problem that causes the huge differences in opinion is that you Keith and Daniel Lee Taylor all have special 7D's, ones that don't behave like most other peoples do :)
    Well Scott, I guess you better add DP Review, Imaging Resource, and Amateur Photographer UK to that list since their tests and sample images confirm our claims and shred yours. Amateur Photographer UK, in their March 6, 2010 issue, pretty much said exactly what I've been saying since DP Review made the first test images available and I, on the verge of buying a 5D mkII, made my first comparison prints (scan attached so I don't have to retype the quote).
    To Ken, Keith, and Dave: I thought Canon was only sending the 7D Special Edition to us? Why do these companies also have 7D SE models?
    00ZKxo-398785684.jpg
     
  57. There has been a lot of back and fro about "how to develop the 7D RAW". To me 90% of post is in white balancing/exposure adjusting/sharpening/color correcting. You do them in various degrees to different camera RAW.
    So if I know can develop 1Ds2 RAW, why should there be extra techniques to learn in developing 7D RAW?
     
  58. To Ken, Keith, and Dave: I thought Canon was only sending the 7D Special Edition to us?
    We're sorta special I think.
    In any case, ACR for CS5 is 7D aware and processing 7D raws in CS5 is a joy!
    And true -- there is not one person on the face of the earth that could pick ISO 400 image samples, posted at 100% crops, and be 85% accurate or better of whether that crop is a 7D or 5D2.
    LOL.
     
  59. "Until there are some examples it's impossible to even guess"
    "Nobody can tell you specifically why your 7D shots are different without examples"

    But you are happy to declare "6 pages all because OP didn't select the right settings on his 7D"
    God if you could step back and listen to yourself. My use of 7D questionable? I could be using one tomorrow if I chose. You as far as your posting history has shown Daniel, have never touched a ff camera, you just say you downloaded test images from test sites to draw your conclusions about prints. As for not getting your crops right, well I did get four out of six right, and to me just one would have been sufficient, but I was mislead into thinking you were presenting two columns one for each camera, I did not realise I was choosing six individuals. I wasn't happy with the two columns but went with what i thought averaged out.
    So to all these mystically capable 7D owners, what are " the right settings on his 7D" that so elude other, experienced, camera users.
     
  60. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    These are digital files. It should be easy to post some examples. Then we can do without all the bickering and actually have some idea what this is about. Otherwise, the bickering and pointless conjecture is all one can get. Where are the samples?
     
  61. But you are happy to declare "6 pages all because OP didn't select the right settings on his 7D"
    Are you really this obtuse? Do I really have to spell out every little detail that most readers can gather from the context of a sentence? Until there are examples it's impossible to even guess what settings caused the difference. Nobody can tell you specifically why your 7D shots are different without examples so we can evaluate the settings. Though I will concede that lighting issues might be beyond the range of settings to adjust to equality in terms of color/saturation. That's why tests to evaluate sensors and lenses are performed under controlled conditions.
    My use of 7D questionable? I could be using one tomorrow if I chose.
    And I could be using a 5D mkII tomorrow if I chose.
    You as far as your posting history has shown Daniel, have never touched a ff camera,
    As far as your posting history has shown you have never touched a 7D.
    you just say you downloaded test images from test sites to draw your conclusions about prints.
    I've said, repeatedly, that I borrowed and tested the bodies side by side before making my final decision and purchasing a 7D. But misquoting and misrepresenting others is to be expected from you. You've got to do something to divert attention from the facts that you can't tell which image comes from which, and that the major testing sites all disagree with you.
    As for not getting your crops right, well I did get four out of six right,
    LOL! There were only 3 pairs, yet you got "4 out of 6 right"?
    but I was mislead into thinking you were presenting two columns one for each camera, I did not realise I was choosing six individuals.
    You were "misled." Wow...did I ever say choose the column? Nope. I said tell me which image came from which. When you chose a column I told you they were mixed and to choose per pair (i.e. per row). You didn't bother trying again. So you got 0 out of 3.
    Each pair had one from each, so you weren't judging individually, but by pair. Given the vast superiority of FF sensors it should have been easy. You should have gotten 3 for 3 with confidence. If you couldn't do that with 100% crops what makes you think you could with 24" prints?
    So to all these mystically capable 7D owners, what are " the right settings on his 7D" that so elude other, experienced, camera users.
    I'll take a guess once I see examples. General rules of thumb:
    * Sharpen for the sensor. Crop sensors usually require more.
    * Sometimes you might need more local contrast enhancement on crop.
    * Sometimes you might need stronger NR on crop.
    * Don't stop down too far. Diffraction sets in earlier on crop, and you don't have to stop down as much because of greater DoF. On any format using the optimum aperture, i.e. using hyperfocal techniques, will give you sharper detail.
     
  62. The only thing the 18 MP sensor needs is a bit more sharpening.
    Increased sharpening increases the amplitude of artifacts and noise at the spatial frequencies affected.
    Color is not an issue
    Color is very much an issue. Larger area => more light recorded => greater fidelity of tones and colour. Post-processing? You can reduce noise only by sacrificing detail. The RAW file with more information (i.e. captured by recording a greater number of photons) still wins. You can make a liter of liquid by combining 0.5 liters of milk and 0.5 liters of water. To some 7D users here (and D7000 users on the Nikon forum) it might taste the same as a liter of milk as long as it is shaken (post-processed) properly. The rest of the world think the taste and nutrition value are not the same.
     
  63. Increased sharpening increases the amplitude of artifacts and noise at the spatial frequencies affected.
    And is irrelevant at low to mid ISO given the low level of noise and artifacts to begin with. I agree it is an issue at higher ISO.
    Color is very much an issue. Larger area => more light recorded => greater fidelity of tones and colour.
    Color fidelity is about S/N. And once again, at low to mid ISO, S is so high vs N that it's a non issue. Of all the comparison images I've ever seen, color has never varied by a significant amount between crop and FF except at higher ISOs. (Color is also subject to so many variables throughout the photographic chain that it's unlikely any sensor level color differences would survive to print.)
    The rest of the world think the taste and nutrition value are not the same.
    Don't make appeals to the rest of the world when multiple citations have been made to professional sources which disagree with you.
     
  64. I feel the need for another Pepsi challenge, but I can't assemble it tonight. I'm thinking we need a dozen crop pairs, including some Nikon pairs, as well as a few color patches. See if the FF club can tell us which is which.
    Or we could just wait for the FF club to provide some examples which are honestly shot and processed and which clearly show the vast and easily discerned superiority of FF at low to mid ISO. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
     
  65. Green, post a couple RAW or DNG files and we can get real specific. With each camera, shoot a color checker mostly filling the frame, and one of the subject. Use the same lenses as in your OP. f/8 or slightly wider would be best.
     
  66. "As far as your posting history has shown you have never touched a 7D."
    No, you have seen images I have taken with the 7D.
    "LOL! There were only 3 pairs, yet you got "4 out of 6 right"?
    Eh, yes, last time I counted 3 pairs was 6, I got two pairs or four out of six correct! But like I say, for me one out of six would be enough, the fact that I only got 67% correct is something you regularly boast about as a complete failure, I don't see that figure as failure myself, but there you go. But if you are going to make another Pepsi challenge, use your own images this time, as you well know posting others work is still forbidden.
    "And I could be using a 5D mkII tomorrow if I chose."
    The difference between you and I Daniel, I don't make it up.
    I just went and got a 7D, I have no tripod here at the moment but will endeavour to get one and post some images tomorrow. But I don't know how that is going to sort this out. Anyway, here is the 7D I borrowed and my 1Ds MkIII. I don't have many lenses with me so don't know what settings to use.
    I was thinking I'd use the 60mm macro on the 7D and the 100mm L macro on the 1Ds MkIII for equivalence, plus one stop less aperture on the 7D, but I am open to sensible thoughts. After all that isn't how I'd shoot in the real world but maybe that is why I am so bad :) Alternatively I could just use the 50 f1.4, or the 100 macro, or the 17 TS-E on both. I don't have my ColorChecker Passport with me this time either.
    00ZKzv-398809584.jpg
     
  67. Daniel and Scott
    As someone who has put 25000+ shots through the 7D and perhaps a similar number through my 5DII I want to intervene. From my experience (and I print my photos) a well exposed, low ISO, carefully processed 5DII and 7D image are very difficult / impossible to separate on 13x19 prints. At 20x30 you can separate them but you do need them side by side as they are both very good. Once you go to ISO 1600 or above there is no contest (and I am sure that you are not claiming this Daniel). With all that said I like my 5DII more than my 7D except for shooting sports where the 7D AF and fps are a big advantage. The 7D does require more careful exposure and processing and tends to be more sensitive to the RAW conversion software used.
    I actually don't think you are really disagreeing - by any objective measure the 5DII does have higher IQ (as an AP subscriber for over 20 years I generally value their opinion but in the test they did I suspect that they were using accurately exposed and well processed shots - in the real world I sometime miss the exposure by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop and at ISO 400+ on the 7D this is an issue) the question is does it matter to you. For my sports shots (and even for landscape use) I have good images from the 7D and good images from my 5DII as a pair the two cameras work very well together.
     
  68. "So what images do you want?"
    None, if you're going shoot them in that light. (What is that? With Halloween coming up... some ghoulish shots would be appropriate, even if not nice.)
     
  69. But, if you're going to do it in daylight, a ColorChecker Passport shot from each, so I can pull a DNG profile and eliminate ACR profile differences. And then a subject in open shade, with a sunlit far background with good tonal range. This should approximate normal shots. And then pick something that would challenge the two sensors, so you make your point.
     
  70. P.S.: just reread the part about no CC Passport. Would be pointless to approximate Green's problem shots. Just shoot whatever to make your point about the 7D's sensor.
     
  71. But what if that is the light I need to shoot in! Buy the way it is the inside of a sailing yacht.
    As I said, I don't have my colorchecker with me so that is a no go.
    The first four suggestions are relatively pointless too, nothing is tested in easy images like that. This is the recurring problem. Too easy and nothing is tested, too difficult and the crop camera users say we always said at high iso and big prints......... My point has always been my idea of a big print is not necessarily the same as yours and my idea of acceptable noise is certainly not the same, each user can only define those limits for themselves. My smallest print is now 16"x24" on 17"x26" paper. Many may never print that size, heck lots of people never print at all, for them they will very rarely see any IQ differences.
    Philip, being the more measured poster that he is, really nailed the point I have tried to make repeatedly throughout this thread
    "I actually don't think you are really disagreeing - by any objective measure the 5DII does have higher IQ ...........the question is does it matter to you"
    After I used both cameras freely for as long as I wanted, it did matter to me. I can very well accept that to many it doesn't.
     
  72. Philip, that is precisely what I've been claiming all along. At iso 100 to 800, on a 16x24, people couldn't tell the difference between the 5D2 and the 7D. I know Scott loves to argue this point, but like you found, and me, and Keith Reeder, and Daniel Taylor, and the Imaging Resource, DPReview, Amateur Photo, etc, etc, etc have found, the differences are minute and in the majority of cases, not discernible in print.
    I'm not even reading Scott's drivel any longer because even he himself couldn't tell the two apart....despite an amazing amount of posts trying to claim otherwise. I'm interested in seeing the 800 iso post I supposedly made, with NR that destroyed the sharpness and detail. I would love to see the link. His issue is not being able to read correctly either. I never said I underexpose 1600 iso shots by 3 stops.....but I do use 1600 and 3200 in weddings alongside a D700 and produce noise free 8x10 and 11x14 prints for for the final album. As a user of both FF an crop bodies, I know full well that his experience with the 7D is limited, and differs from many professionals and review sites. I'll leave it up to readers to figure out why.
     
  73. Dave,
    Your problems are adequately illustrated by your inability to read, even your own name. Yes that is the distortion that you, and some other 7D fanboys, read into my posts. There is quite a large difference between Dave and David, but why let what I actually write get in the way of a good rant?
    "because even he himself couldn't tell the two apart"
    Actually I could, to the tune of 67% on one test, and that was with optimum processing only done to the 7D not the 5D MkII files. But as always, you just repeat inaccurate jingoistic phrases. Tell me, do you consider a 67% correct test, 4 out of 6, a fail?
    So the line you have now drawn is in an ever moving arc downwards, your claim now is that 800 iso images at 16"x24" (smaller than my stated smallest print size unless full bleed) are indistinguishable between the two cameras?
    P.S. Haven't rounded up a tripod yet but hope to today or tomorrow.
     
  74. Where are the samples?​
    Jeff, we've posted umpteen bloody samples to prove the merits (or more accurately, to disprove the demerits) of the 7D.
    I'm sick to death of doing so, because - invariably - these samples are are either ignored, or dismissed by the likes of Scott as somehow not proving the point they clearly prove.
    But - against my better judgement...
    Have a look at this. Handheld at 600mm (7D, 100-400mm, Kenko 1.5x), 1/800, 1600 ISO, -0.3 EC. Slight crop.
    What, exactly, is so bad about the IQ of this image? Is a 5D Mk II really going to be so much better?
    No, it's damn' well not. And Scott's incessant clamouring to the contrary doesn't change that. But - no doubt - it'll be "too small" to prove anything, because "at web sizes, everything looks good".
    But we all know better, don't we?
     
  75. Kieth,
    I have the same problem, and I said so earlier, anything I post is summarily discounted. How do I ignore your latest post? Easy, it is not the kind of shot either camera finds difficult, even the focus on the 5D MkII could shoot that :). But even at that size the detail lacks the crispness I would expect, but that is almost certainly down to jpeg compression. For the record what were the post processing settings for it and what software? Actual noise and sharpness settings and the unworked file would be very helpful. To be honest Keith, your images are the best processed images I have seen from the 7D in any of these threads. I remember your toy lion and the toy horse I did as a reply to show differences, but I was told I was wrong (not by you)!
    No, for that image a 5D MkII would look exactly the same until you printed it to a size that you were unhappy with, some would be unhappy at 16x24, some would happily take it to 24x36. I can take countless pictures both cameras can shoot effortlessly, and I have said that time and time again. Similarly, the levels that we are happy to print to is very different, i am not anal about colour, I am about noise and sharpness.
     
  76. multiple citations have been made to professional sources which disagree with you.
    First of all the measurements show a clear difference even at low ISO (e.g. DXOMark). This is true of Canon and Nikon crop and full-frame cameras across the board. As to whether you see it in the print, it depends on how the print is made, and what the tone curve and saturation settings are. If you send a print to a lab, they'll usually chop off much of the data out of the file and print from a 8-bit jpg. If you post it on the web, the conversion to 8 bits occurs again. And finally if you like really low contrast images then it can be difficult to see the differences. But if you take a low contrast overcast weather shot, and boost the saturation and contrast to make the image look vivid, then the noise will show up. It's not necessary to go to ISO 1600 to see it in a very obvious way. As to base ISO results, it can be that there is little difference especially if the crop camera allows a lower ISO than the full-frame camera, or if the signal processing pathway chops off dynamic range at these settings. IMO the low ISO results (at equal ISO) do show up if you go for a high contrast conversion. And the difference in colour at least for Nikons shows up even in the smallest of reproductions if the medium is high quality. I make my own prints so perhaps that's why I see it; I've never found commercial printing that would give the kind of blacks I want from my images.
    And I couldn't care less what your "professional sources" claim: most people are blind to the finer points of image quality, be they professionals or not. I cannot help it if the people don't have an eye for it.
     
  77. The samples being asked for are from the OP.
    I use a 40D and 5D to shoot weddings. I use the 40D's crop advantage for tele shots mostly, although I sometimes use it with primes for low light shooting, even in dim churches. I like both, and would have no problem using the 40D with my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens to shoot an entire wedding. In fact, I've done so when my 5D was in the shop.
    With both cameras, images well exposed up to ISO 1600 require no noise treatment. Even ISO 3200 shots are usually fine, if not underexposed. I do not find color differences between the two cameras. I agree that at low and mid ISOs, with well exposed files, I would not be able to tell which one was which. I am sure both cameras can produce files which are printable to 'quite large'.
    The above general guidelines by Daniel Lee Taylor are exactly what I've found to be true.
    * Sharpen for the sensor. Crop sensors usually require more.
    * Sometimes you might need more local contrast enhancement on crop.
    * Sometimes you might need stronger NR on crop.
    * Don't stop down too far. Diffraction sets in earlier on crop, and you don't have to stop down as much because of greater DoF. On any format using the optimum aperture, i.e. using hyperfocal techniques, will give you sharper detail.​
    I apply a different set of sharpening parameters on the 40D files, and add a touch more of contrast and clarity, but not always. I don't treat color differently between the two, including skin tone, which I am most critical of. I find that color saturation, etc. more a result of the lighting than anything else.
     
  78. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    The samples being asked for are from the OP.​
    Exactly. I've seen that people mean very different things when they say something about how colors look. The only way to tell what the OP is asking about is not to produce random samples, but to see some from the OP to understand exactly what the problem is.
     
  79. Wow, on it goes.
    All I can say Scott is, if
    I'm totally calm and there is no way on earth you could upset me through any of this, seriously. I am not pulling my hair out or crying​
    you seriously need to read a newspaper or watch the news channels.
    [yes, I'm voting in the "laughter" category. The OP is clearly an agent provocateur :)]
     
  80. Have a look at this. Handheld at 600mm (7D, 100-400mm, Kenko 1.5x), 1/800, 1600 ISO, -0.3 EC. Slight crop.
    What, exactly, is so bad about the IQ of this image? Is a 5D Mk II really going to be so much better?​
    Keith, is this a 100% crop?
     
  81. "Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies? I just don't see the point."
    Why all the hate for cropped sensor cameras? Is this some new camera snobbery? My 30D produces amazing images.
    We can''t all afford full frame cameras.
     
  82. Enough said (actually more than enough). Time to cool off and take some pictures. This thread is now far too long for anyone to read through the whole thing and provide a reasoned respose. From here we'd just go around in circles.
     

Share This Page

1111