My reasons to hate my 7D

[robert_turner5]

<p>Don Baccus...<br>

If you want to play the role of grammar cop, why not do it precisely, as an engineer should?<br>

"Anal" though Freud may disagree, hardly has a place in this context. Why not use a word that works, such as pedantic?<br>

Worst thread ever, in my opinion. Trolls win. Hang in there WW, you deserve better.</p>

<p>rt</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_duncan3]

<p>I do not see Jeff's comments as 'anal' or 'pedantic.' I think they go to the heart of the matter. Other posters have cautioned against the tendency of some photographers to look at a RAW file straight from camera as the camera's ultimate image quality capability. Jeff's comment is a succinct and eloquent illustration of the flaw in that practice, that the RAW file has already been processed from the image sensor output, by the time we are able to view it, and that if we are not happy with the processing at that stage, as we know, it can be processed further.<br>

Of course the camera and lens factor heavily in the final image quality -- processing software has its limitations. Were it otherwise, we could all buy the cheapest point-and-shoot we can find, and good processing software, and forget about Zeiss or Canon L lenses, and 5DMkIIIs and Hasselblad H5Ds, for example.<br>

But I understand Jeff's point as an illustration that a RAW file from camera is not so much analogous to a transparency from slide film, in film photography, but more closely analogous to a negative, in that it is a step in the image production work flow, and not the finished product.<br>

And so we should judge a camera on the quality of the finished image it is capable of producing, and not on how well we like the resuls at the RAW file upload stage.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I agree Eric, Jeff's point was well made, and - especially in the context of earlier exchanges - perfectly justified.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And so we should judge a camera on the quality of the finished image it is capable of producing, and not on how well we like the results at the RAW file upload stage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I especially agree with this: the idea that <em>what comes off the camera</em> <em>is what matters</em>, is asinine.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Here's - I think - a telling example of that point.</p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/greylag_marden_unprocessed.jpg">This</a></strong>, off the camera, would have probably been deleted as too soft <em>if I didn't understand my camera's characteristics. </em>Dwell on it for a moment. </p>

<p><strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/greylag_marden_3.jpg">This</a></strong> is the file properly processed, though - looks sharp as you like, but real, and not <em>oversharpened</em>.</p>

<p>(600mm handheld, incidentally: 7D + Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS + 2x TC, "wide open").</p>

<p><em>Again</em>: you can't conjure up sharpness and detail that hasn't been there all along, but you have to know how to get to it...</p>

[eric_duncan3]

<p>Excellent example, Keith. It is a pleasure to see those posts which are constructive, and topical. </p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<p>I always back my views up with images that make my point, Eric - yet it's still not enough, for the most part.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Today was the first time I looked into this thread. I had seen it in the top posts area near the upper part of the list before, but when I saw 150+ posts in the thread I figured there might be something interesting going on.</p>

<p>Began by looking at the original post. Oh, boy! Where to start? This was nothing I was going to touch - I've seen this stuff before, and unless the OP "gets it" by the first few response, nothing good will come of it. Clicked to the final page of the thread... and my suspicions were immediately confirmed.</p>

<p>Seems like a thread that might simply be allowed to die quietly...</p>

<p>"Please step away from the poisonous thread, sir!"</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Any sensible reader of this thread or of other similar threads on the internet would come to a rationale conclusion that 7D has a focus problem irrespective of what any highly sharpened 700 px duck images look like or self claimed teachers preach.<br>

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the experienced photographers who had no similar problems with other Canon cameras have to sit in a classroom situation to learn about 7D.<br>

Based on my experience, my advice is to go nowhere near 7D – perhaps any 500 series Canon camera would give more joy to a down to earth user!</p><div></div>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Any sensible reader of this thread or of other similar threads on the internet would come to a rationale conclusion that 7D has a focus problem irrespective of what any highly sharpened 700 px duck images look like or self claimed teachers preach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're being infantile and irrational now, Husain - it was boring before, now it's just ridiculous.</p>

<p>The simple facts are these:</p>

<p><strong>The 7D <em>does not</em> have a focus problem.</strong><br /> <strong><em>Yours</em> might have a focus problem. </strong></p>

<p>If you'd expended as much effort in actually working through your problems as you've expended flaming this forum with your petulant tantrums, you'd probably be a happy 7D user by now. I suspect that the real problem is that you've done nothing to configure the AF menu settings properly, or have set them up wrongly.</p>

<p>Here's the thing, and you won't like it: it's easy to see how an inept photographer could make a good camera work badly, but it's <em>practically impossible</em> that if the 7D was as inherently flawed as you insist, so many users could get the <em>consistently excellent </em>results out of it that we've seen so many times on this forum and elsewhere.</p>

<p>The only logical conclusion? <em>It isn't the camera. </em>But you go ahead and ignore all that incontrovertable evidence if it makes you feel better.</p>

<p>You're still wrong though.</p>

<p><strong>Mods, close this car-crash of a thread will you, please?</strong></p>

[museebfoto]

<blockquote>

<p dir="LTR"><em>I'm curious. After six days of discussion and 117 responses did you get your question answered?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p dir="LTR"> </p>

<p dir="LTR">Yes, my conclusion is: 7D just like a PhD thesis, it has ( Theory + Results ), the theory must be read in depth and mastery to get a good results. Besides that and after three yeas of a hard working and reading, not surprised that there is a quite mistakes in some of them!.</p>

[museebfoto]

<p>For me, I have got one very sharp capture by 7D, it was happened by mistake!.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Husain, I'm still waiting for you to e-mail me for my postal address so you can send me your 7D.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Here you go, Husain - some more "highly sharpened 700 px duck images" from my 7D for you to mock...<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/arctic_tern_farnes_c17_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/rugby_blyth_PN_1400_2.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/puffin_farnes_c17_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/grey_seal_farnes_PN_1400_3.jpg<br /> (I was bouncing around on a small boat in the North Sea in a 2m swell when I took that one) <br /> 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/gannet_bempton_c17_1400_2.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/tree_sparrow_bempton_1400_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/1400/gannet_bempton_PN_1400_1.jpg<br /> <br>

"7D focus problem" my foot.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>Any <strong><em>sensible reader</em></strong> of this thread or of other similar threads on the internet would come to a rationale conclusion that 7D has a focus problem irrespective of what any highly sharpened 700 px duck images look like or self claimed teachers preach.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sensible readers will come to their own conclusions.<br>

It is suspect, that is exactly what you are worried about: and hence the necessity for more of these nonsensical comments.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Nice Photos, Keith.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jo7hs2]

Wonderful photography Keith! I thoroughly enjoy the Caterham image.

[keith reeder]

<p>Thanks gents - the point here is that they're <em>nothing special: </em>I can do this all day long, and have done for three years.</p>

<p>It's worth reiterating too that these are all "<em>long</em>"<em> lens, handheld</em> images, some with the "soft" 100-400mm, which implies the possible need for more sharpening than would be necessary with a short lens, especially on a tripod.</p>

<p>But they <em>do not</em> indicate an inherent AF problem with the 7D, that's for sure...</p>

[hakhtar]

Seriously, Keith, please tell me how exactly to 'configure the AF menu settings properly' - being so perfect in using 7D and capturing these lovely birds in flight, the answer must be on your finger tips!

[Nick D.]

<p>"Seriously, Keith, please tell me how exactly to 'configure the AF menu settings properly' - being so perfect in using 7D and capturing these lovely birds in flight, the answer must be on your finger tips!"<br>

RTFM.</p>

[hakhtar]

<p>So the pack is getting nasty!</p>

[dennisgg]

I have the 7d and love it. I use mine at medium raw 10 megapixel because I wanted to save storage space plus 10 can still be blown up

large. What I found is It has less noise at the reduced resolution. Give that a try.

[keith reeder]

<p>I've done the mRaw vs Raw comparison, and I have to say that at equal image size, I don't see any benefit from mRaw.</p>

<p>Others have reported findings similar to yours though Dennis, so I'm not dismissing it. Maybe it's a converter-specific benefit?</p>

<p>As an aside, I've found out the hard way that mRaw doesn't retain highlights and highlight detail nearly as well as full Raw, and it responds very badly to heavy highlight recovery, unlike full Raw - this is much more important to me than any (possible) slight noise advantage, given that I have no problem at high ISO with my 7D anyway.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/cap_one_1000.jpg">3200 ISO</a><br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/_sigma/front_focus_test_2.jpg">5000 ISO</a><br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Lr-2047_6400.jpg">6400 ISO</a><br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Lr-2379_NR_900.jpg">6400 ISO</a><br /> <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/Lr-2201_denoise_8500_ISO_2.jpg">8500 ISO</a></p>

<p>(Yes, I know, "<em>at small web sizes, everything's clean...", </em>blah blah. Except we all know that's not true; and - trust me - even the higher ISO ones would print very well up to about A3 - and probably bigger, with a little bit of work).</p>

<p> </p>

[hakhtar]

<p>Interesting, Keith! there are many posts on the Internet suggesting not to go above ISO 1600 because of the noise levels! BTW,  your ISO 8500 image is actually ISO 6400 according to the photo details. I have not checked others for their true ISOs! I don't know how much software processing you have done for the image - we would never know, would we?</p><div></div>

[hakhtar]

Crop from 100% enlargement!

[William Michael]

<p>Those five examples provide an 'perspective', Keith: and also good samples of varous High ISO.<br />I really like the Fender and the Air Shock; I've not tried that Red; goes without saying I drooled over the 17 . . . and the Lion . . . we of us has to be loyal, I understand that.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[dennisgg]

Here is a medium raw 100%. I use a lot of adapted 35mm lenses. It's was with the Lester Dine 105mm macro.

 

 

 

http://tinyurl.com/cgohchr