Disappointed By 7D

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"the people that moan about the 7D don't know how to use it"</em> 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. </p>

<p>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 :-)</p>

<p>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.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>7D ISO 1600 +1EV:</p>

<p><a title="Young buck jumps fence by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6178/6134276162_9b554e255e_b.jpg" alt="Young buck jumps fence" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

[h_._jm]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>To the OP: Why not post some examples so it is clear what you are talking about.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Here's a 200% crop of a 7D image at ISO 800:<br>

<a title="200% crop using Velvia 50 emulation by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6149068830_448bb34bfa_o.jpg" alt="200% crop using Velvia 50 emulation" width="636" height="424" /></a></p>

[thomasly]

<p>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?</p>

<p>Best</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>T.P.</p>

<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. </p>

<p>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. :-)</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Green, my suggestion would be some better glass. From what I've seen and heard, the 7D is up to the job. </p>

[philip_wilson]

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.

[hjoseph7]

<p>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...</p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>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.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Crop cameras do have advantages for tripod based ISO 100 work of stationary subjects.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>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!).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies? I just don't see the point.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies?</em></p>

<p>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).</p>

[mjc photographic images]

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Why pretend that crop bodies deliver as good IQ as full frame bodies</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't see anybody in this thread who is saying that, I rest my case. Ha Ha Ha. </p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>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. </p>

<p>Claiming Keith, Daniel, or myself have special 7D bodies is really not helping your case any....rather, it makes you look a bit foolish.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ah d'Artagnan arrives. :-)</p>

<p>Whatever, the thread was going along quite nicely but has obviously deteriorated to name calling, manic laughter and insults. </p>

<p>Not interested........</p>

[mjc photographic images]

<blockquote>

<p>Not only is that exceedingly crass, but I have already dealt with that kind of uniformed fallacy J C</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> 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.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>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.<br>

And any specific solutions are appreciated.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>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.</p>

[mjc photographic images]

<p>Calm down Scott, geez.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

I apologise if I have upset you and promise to refrain from entering into any more of these 7D bashing threads. ;)</p>

 

[matthijs]

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.

[scott_ferris]

<p>J C,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>True jeff. Maybe the OP could post some examples, and provide us with the Raw files to see what issues we can identify.</p>