Disappointed By 7D

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Without comparison samples, this is difficult to address.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The colors seem to be a little wash out</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Post an example, with the EXIF.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 7D is very unforgiving with under-exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An internet meme with little truth to it, usually quoted by people who don't own the camera.</p>

<p>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 <em>that</em> different at all.</p>

<p>More to the point the 7D is actually <em>better</em> than some earlier Canon bodies at handling exposure recovery.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg">This</a> is from the 7D (deliberately) underexposed by 3 stops (exif is in there), and <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg">here</a>'s the same image recovered by 4 stops in total.</p>

<p>And see how much shadow detail I've been able to pull from <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg">this</a> to<a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg"> this</a>?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Green,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My statement: "the 7D is very unforgiving with under-exposure."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your answer: "An internet meme with little truth to it, usually quoted by people who don't own the camera."<br>

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.</p>

<p>I am happy with my 7D, but facts are facts.</p>

<p>In any case, post-processing is necessary if you are shooting RAW.<br /> 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.<br /> When you work with RAW in Adobe Camera RAW, there are slider settings for sharpness, saturation, exposure, and many other elements.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>"Noise becomes a real issue when a shot is even slightly under-exposed, even at low ISO..."</em></p>

<p>Really? I've NEVER seen this. You must have a defective 7D. Seriously.<br>

Another fact.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 :-)<br>

 <br>

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. <br>

 <br>

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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that such information might be of assistance to those reading your post, either.<br>

You still get your dope-slap. If only Click and Clacks' mother were available. ;)</p>

<p>Mattias,</p>

<p>Green clearly stated they were shooting RAW, camera colour space is not relevant to RAW processing software.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you Keith and Daniel Lee Taylor all have special 7D's, ones that don't behave like most other peoples do :-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Scott,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Some people clearly aren't prepared to accept this last - it's always easier to blame the gear, isn't it?</p>

<p><em>" especially for a cropper;"</em></p>

<p>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!</p>

<p>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>

<p>P.S. Sincerely, thanks for keeping the thread cordial. Best wishes, Scott.</p>

<p>I'm another who is dissapointed by the Canon 7D image sharpness, noise, mottling etc. I won't buy a "cropper" again.</p>

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.

<p>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.</p>