Canon EOS 7D tested, retested and reretested

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>EXACTLY. My point too. Look at THIS post for an example:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/11/10/a-recent-cat/" target="_blank">http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/11/10/a-recent-cat/</a><br />And tell me THAT isn't sharp. Yes, it's low ISO but that's the point.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>But... but...</p><p>How can this be? A 7D shot that's really sharp and noise free?</p><p><em>Witchcraft..!</em></p>

[julian_robinson4]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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? </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"I wonder what drives such an emotional defense?"</p>

<p>I wonder what drives such an emotional offense?</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Julian:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>If you click through you see them at much larger sizes. </li>

<li>I am not defending anything or anyone (let alone emotionally).</li>

</ul>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Happy to send you RAW images if your email service and mine can handle 15 MB files. Which mine can't.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[julian_robinson4]

<p>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). </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>"I am annoyed anough at Canon 's autofocus wide open" - can you explain this pls?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for the cat.</p>

[py-photography]

<p>Julian,<br>

You why bother buying it? <br>

You've already decided that its crap... Soft and noisy...</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>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. :-) </p>

 

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>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.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>DPReview just posted their test of the Nikon 300S.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/</p>

<p>Here is the section where they compare RAW resolution.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page29.asp</p>

 

[julian_robinson4]

<p>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...</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[py-photography]

<p>Julian,<br>

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.<br>

However a little rant before I move on...<br>

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<br>

His review is worthless, for the following reasons.<br>

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<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

Firmware was the original, not the current version... Third and final strike..<br>

Strike four would be the fact, the 7D isn't designed to be a landscape camera....<br>

There is an old saying, Garbage in is garbage out, and that is what his review is garbage.<br>

These are facts. Not mythical errors. His review was to do only one thing, generate hits to his blog.. ie increase traffic<br>

Perhaps I'm wrong and he is just a idiot.<br>

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.<br>

He did just that. Don't you think?<br>

I will never make a living with my camera, I take photos, because I love photograpy, simple as that.<br>

I chose the Engineering field for a reason, that being I like to eat. ;)<br>

End of my rant.<br>

Give Bob Aktins review a read...<br>

<a href="file:///C:/Users/PMP/Desktop/Image_Space_Lightroom_Tips_eBook.pdf">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/eos-7d/review/</a><br>

Up to this point the good reviews far out number the bad ones.</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>"Up to this point the good reviews far out number the bad ones."</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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?</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>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.</p>

[cornell_tramontana]

<p>Julian Robinson wrote, “I am a Canon user who is disappointed with SOME ASPECTS of all my cameras since the 20D.”</p>

<p > Julian, if you’re so disappointed with Canon, why do you stick with Canon?</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>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.</p>

[julian_robinson4]

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Resolution: (when comparing against the 40D, a two generations old 10MP camera) "<em>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.</em> " </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Noise: "<em>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</em> ". <br>

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. </p>

<p>Focus: "<em>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.</em> " <br>

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.<br>

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?</p>

<p>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).</p>

 

[mbkissel]

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Heh!<br>

 <br>

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

 <br>

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

 <br>

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.</p>

[madza_zulu]

<p>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.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>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).</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p><a href="http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/10/16/focus-on-focus/">http://blog.michaelwillems.ca/2009/10/16/focus-on-focus/</a></p>

<p>Anyway... the 7d is not perfect, but it is better, helped by the new modes like spot focus.</p>

<p> </p>

[py-photography]

<p>Julian, LMAO...x2<br>

My points of his review are valid not slander.<br>

Sorry that you think canon has let <strong>YOU</strong> , let down...Canon never promised said or implied that IQ was going to be leaps and bounds better then any other body.<br>

Darwin's review is nothing more then bait for the fish of the world...<br>

Have a great time, with your lens($18K worth) and no body...<br>

I've now moved on...</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Julian,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>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!</p>

<p>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!</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Scott - you are right and I need to do this again. But note:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>It's different at varying apertures. My 50mm is spot on at f/4 but front focuses at f/1.4</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ol>

<p>Still, I'll go recalibrate all my lenses. I;ve also had Canon CPS do it.</p>

<p>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.:-) </p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>