Sharp photo by 7D?

[keith reeder]

<p>I'm entirely impartial, Francisco - you are again ignoring what has gone before in order to score a point.</p>

<p>You say for example that:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Husain, there are others in this forum who are giving you valuable advice. Read their comments and if you need to have your camera checked, do so.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have said to Husain several times that he needs to just that, and yet he has ignored that advice in favour of a clearly "flamebait" posting, making ridiculous (and that's the word) accusations about the 7D being flawed by design.</p>

<p>That's <em>precisely</em> what trolls do: repeatedly ignore well-meant and well-informed advice (of which I have provided a goodly amount on this subject already), in favour of pushing an agenda.</p>

<p>Far from "throwing my weight around", what I'm doing is committing myself to the ethos of this board, which we're reminded of whenever we post (I've emphasised the most relevant section):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Please take a moment to ask yourself if what you're about to post is going to be useful to the person who asked the question.<em> Then ask yourself if, when someone stumbles upon this exchange four years from now via a Google search, they are going to say 'that was worth my time to read</em>'.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I will <em>always</em> challenge - as robustly as needs be - anything posted on here which I know to be utter nonsense, which is exactly how I would describe the premise of Husain's initial post, because I'm <em>extremely</em> conscious of the need to do so if Photo.net is to be a useful resource for subsequent visitors.</p>

<p>Now you can choose to ignore the question being asked in favour of being seen to sympathise with a "victim", but the fact is that doing so adds nothing to the discussion; and tacitly encourages the continuation of repeated posts by individuals with an agenda, on subjects that have already been asked and answered <em>ad nauseam. </em></p>

<p>To be blunt; you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.</p>

<p>And as to showing a lack of respect for Husain, you're wrong there too - please look at my early posts to Husain on this subject. What you mistake for a lack of respect is simply a lack of patience for someone repeatedly posting the same thing in different ways while actively and repeatedly ignoring the excellent advice on the subject of his concerns that he has already been given.</p>

<p><em>Again</em>: inform yourself before you presume to judge, Francisco.</p>

[hakhtar]

I'm only interested to hear comments regarding the image below and also above (feb ...) - image cropped and re-sized - hand held using inbuilt flash and 17-55mm f2.8 IS on - manual mode - ISO200 4.5/250<div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Husain, that looks good to me.</p>

<p>Have turned AI Servo off for single-shot shooting? I think that the AI Servo on the 7D is the root of most AF problems with that body.</p>

[jo7hs2]

Husain, absent knowing precisely what part of the lens case you were focusing on, that image you just posted today looks

fine to me. The earlier image had a little fuzziness to my eye, but it is resolved in this image. Whatever you did worked.

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Husain, the looks good to me. Very sharp. Looks like a 100-400L Lens bag case.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I am curious if people who believe there are focusing/sharpness issues with the 7D have seen this after the firmware upgrade. I am not saying there is a problem, just looking for 7D shooters thoughts and experience if there is any perceived decline in IQ since the firmware update.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>My 7D takes sharp images with my lenses except for one. I think the lens is the determining factor.</p>

<p>Shot taken with 7D and SIGMA 50mm f/1.4 - always sharp. <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16618853-lg.jpg">Link</a><br>

I believe my old Canon Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 EF IS USM has some issues. Some time I will play around with back focus adjustments. <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16618693-lg.jpg">Link</a> This is a lens issue not the camera.</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>One of the most fundamental basic difference when using a high density pixel cropped camera like the 7d is to ensure your Tv is at least 1/FLx1.6. If you employ the same technique that of film or FF camera, you may end up with shake which can be mistaken as soft images.<br>

Note that the AA filter on the 7d is a bit heavy handed. So its files requires more sharpening than the 5d2.</p>

[scott_a]

The 7D does have focusing problems or at least some of them do. The first one I had was sent back to Canon 4 times to get fixed they finally replaced it with a refurbished 7D which had the same problems, soft images and some terribly out of focus. I sent that camera back another 3 times and they sent me a new 7D which again had focus issues, on this one I notice right as the shutter released it would change focus I sent it back after writing letters to Mr. Yuichi Ishizuka Executive Vice President Consumer Imaging Group Canon U.S.A., Inc. and a Mr. Eliott Peck Senior Vice President Consumer Imaging Group Canon U.S.A., Inc. they had Rick Berk contact me, he sent me another 7D which was worse than the first three, I had that camera checked by two different camera stores which both said the same thing, it’s bad. That 7D Canon had in service for over 8 months in which time I didn’t have a camera, long story short they finally sent me a refurbished 1D Mark IV and this works perfectly. Canon never admitted there was a problem with the 7D to me but after talking with many people at Canon that’s what I got out of it. I am not new to Canon I have been using Canons since the AE-1, which I still do use once in awhile.

[hakhtar]

Very reassuring, Scott! When I said that in view of the countless negative comments about the focus on 7D on the Internet, the logical conclusion is that 7D focus problem could be a design fault, some loyal to 7D jumped on my throat!

[scott_a]

<p>I've also delt with people saying the exact same thing and jumping on my throat and that's why I said some of the 7D's have the problem, the people that don't have the soft focus issue don't see the problem so they right away assume there is nothing wrong with the camera and that it's the person using the camera that creates the problem and that's not the case. There is an issue with some of the 7D's and I would say a large number of them as I had 4 or 5 that were bad. I did however have one that was good, one of the loaners that Canon sent me worked great and I even asked if I could just keep that one but they said no, so I know there are good ones out there somewhere. If you have a 7D with issues and it's still in warranty I suggest calling Canon and to keep going up the corporate ladder with letters and phone calls and doing it until they fix it. It took me from around January of 2010 until January 2012 to finally put my 7D nightmare to sleep for good, good luck. </p>

[Brad_]

My 7D focusing was error prone out of the box. But I had a NYC trip quickly coming up and needed a sure

solution, so I exchanged for a 5DII. Better decision overall...

[museebfoto]

<p>Yes, I have the same feeling with my 7D at least compared with my 5D.<br>

Very interesting links.<br>

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

<a href="http://www.michaelmiles.com/2010/03/06/answer-fixing-canon-7d-focus-issue/">http://www.michaelmiles.com/2010/03/06/answer-fixing-canon-7d-focus-issue/ </a><br>

<a href="http://adunnphotography.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=14">http://adunnphotography.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=14 </a><br>

read canon-7d-review-focusing-on-focus</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>The 7D does have focusing problems or at least some of them do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only part of that sentence that's true is "some of them do" - <em>just like any other camera, </em>and fundamentally <em>not</em> what the OP alleges, which is the the 7D is inherently and fundamentally flawed at the design level, which is unalloyed nonsense.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>people that don't have the soft focus issue don't see the problem so they right away assume there is nothing wrong with the camera</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Nobody denies that <em>some </em>7Ds might have a problem, but - again - the notion that the camera itself is flawed is unmitigated tripe.</p>

<p>It is therefore <em>absolutely</em> true to say that "there is nothing wrong with <em>the </em>camera" - all that can ever be said with any degres of certainty is that "there might be something wrong with <em>that </em>camera".</p>

<p>Seriously - do you people <em>really</em> not see the gulf between these two statements?</p>

<p>I'll put <em>my</em> 7D against any camera you care to name for sharpness - even after three years of ownership, I'm amazed every time I use it by just how good it is.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Museem,<br /> <br /> I doubt that there's a more badly-done and more thoroughly discredited review on the internet that ridiculous Darwin Wiggett car-crash - it's a <em>tour de force</em> of incompetence and ignorance, and you should be embarrassed to reference it - you do your case no favours whatsoever by pointing to such a fundamentally inept and wrong-headed "review".</p>

<p>Want a counter to it? <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk">My own website</a> is <em>full</em> of silly-sharp 7D images.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I should add that all my pictures are with "long" lenses (100-400mm out to 400mm and more recently Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS + converters out to 600mm) <em>hand held in every case</em>.</p>

<p>The 7D can't focus or do sharp, huh?</p>

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

<p>http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/caterham_croft_PN_1400_1a.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/grey_seal_farnes_PN_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/stonechat_flambrough_PN_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/gannet_bempton_PN_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/greylag_goose_marden_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/rugby_blyth_PN_1400_2.jpg</p>

<p>As we're wont to say in the UK, <em>bollocks</em>.</p>

<p>And I've got thousands...</p>

<p>And thousands...</p>

<p>And <em>thousands</em>...<br>

<br /> More where they came from.</p>

[hakhtar]

Keith, there is no problem in producing sharp images by sharpening them up using the software as seems to be the case in some of your links!

 

If you really want to plead for 7D focus, why don't you upload unprocessed crops from 100% enlargement!

 

As I said before, I have every right to be highly critical of the promoters of and promotional comments about 7D which influenced me to buy it.

 

I can't understand why you are so aggressive in your responses?

[Brad_]

>>> I'll put my 7D against any camera you care to name for sharpness ... My own website is full of silly-

sharp 7D images ... And I've got thousands...And thousands... And thousands...

 

Relax, Keith. Nobody is attacking your camera, or your thousands and thousands of silly-sharp images.

 

>>> As we're wont to say in the UK, bollocks.

 

As we're wont to say in the US, take a chill pill...

[keith reeder]

<p>Brad, I've had three years of debunking this nonsense - as I suggest, I take the idea of the likes of Photo.net as a useful resource of factual information seriously - and it sticks in my craw that we're still seeing the exact same same drivel regurgitated after those three years.</p>

<p>But I don't need to be told to "chill" - I actually could hardly care less if someone has supposed problems with their camera, especially if they're not prepared thoroughly to rule themselves out as the problem before complaining, and the tone of my comments above expresses nothing more than bored disappointment at the "Groundhog Day" nature of this thread, and the transparently selective nature of some of the "resources" people have linked to in support of their adendas.</p>

<p>Linking to some random blog by some random nonentity on the internet as "proof" of the 7D's supposed failings - especially when ample contrary evidence had been posted by the end of the first page of this thread - is biased, blinkered an wrong-headed and dishonest.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Oh, and Brad, your earlier comment - that replacing <em>a</em> 7D with <em>a</em> 5D Mk II was a "better overall decision" - is just as unhelpful and disingenuous.</p>

<p><em>Another 7D</em> might well have addressed the supposed focusing problems you were having; as might AFMA; as might just taking the time <em>to learn the camera properly</em> (this having been a "miracle" cure for an <em>awful lot</em> of whining about the 7D's AF - funny, that - and for the record, I'm in <em>no doubt whatsoever </em>that far and away the biggest problem with the 7D's AF is the person using it).</p>

<p>Your comment clearly indicates an implied agreement with the original premise - that the 7D is flawed <em>per se</em>; and aside from that, there are plenty of situations where a 5D Mk II would be dead in the water up against a 7D: focal length-limited wildlife/bird photography; fast sports; birds in flight; situations where accurate and fast outer AF points are needed.</p>

<p>"Better overall decision" is therefore not possibly true. <em>Maybe </em>"better for your specific circumstances", but to suggest anything else is to tell half the story and to twist the truth of what's left.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p><strong>Keith Reeder</strong><br /> I have seen your site and some of your good photos taken by 7D.<br /> I also respect your conclusion in 7D " <em>All in all, the Canon 7D delivers exceptional print quality, with phenomenal detail (especially when working from RAW) at low ISOs, and a very graceful trade-off between noise and subject detail as you go up the ISO scale.</em> "<br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/news/canon-7d">http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/news/canon-7d</a><br /> Anyhow, and from my point of view, I should mention that Darwin's review is rational and very helpful and your opinion about this review should be discuss in his site to show him what are " incompetence and ignorance ". Thanks</p>

[hakhtar]

Keith, please upload 7D unprocessed/ unsharpened crops from 100% enlargement, please show us how inadequate some of us are in using this super 7D!

[Brad_]

>>> Oh, and Brad, your earlier comment - that replacing a 7D with a 5D Mk II was a "better overall decision" - is just

as unhelpful and disingenuous.

 

Hardly. It's a true statement. It was the right decision at that moment when I needed a camera with dependable AF. And it

was absolutely the right decision going forward since then.

 

>>> Another 7D might well have addressed the supposed focusing problems you were having; ...

 

And another might have had the same AF out of the box, as well. I didn't have the time to experiment then.

 

>>> ... as might just taking the time to learn the camera properly (this having been a "miracle" cure for

an awful lot of whining about the 7D's AF - funny, that - and for the record, I'm in no doubt whatsoever that far and

away the biggest problem with the 7D's AF is the person using it).

 

And now you're just being nasty. To feel better?

 

>>> Your comment clearly indicates an implied agreement with the original premise - that the 7D is flawed per se;

and aside from that, there are plenty of situations where a 5D Mk II would be dead in the water up against a 7D:

 

You are really getting wound up now. All my statement said, is that I got a 7D whose AF was defective out of the

box. A week later I exchanged for a 5DII and its AF worked great. Then, and now.

 

>>> "Better overall decision" is therefore not possibly true.

 

Of course it's true. You can't possibly judge what's good for me and my photography. Or my circumstances at the

time.

 

You're letting your emotions turn this into a creepy competition. We're all very happy that you have thousands, and

thousands, and thousands of silly-sharp images. Calm down and be happy about that. Put the wasted energy you're expressing here into image making.

[hakhtar]

Upload the requested image(s), Keith please!

[jo7hs2]

"Keith, please upload 7D unprocessed/ unsharpened crops from 100% enlargement, please show us how inadequate

some of us are in using this super 7D!"

 

Short of focus stacking, which isn't a practical option for the type of images Keith has shared, no amount of sharpening or

other processing is responsible for the look of those images. Plain and simple, they are in proper focus. Posting

unprocessed images would serve no purpose, in my opinion.

 

Let's try and get back to sorting out what is going on with YOUR camera. Did you try the advice Phillip gave you in this

thread yet? http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ayyt?start=10