So, for as long as I've had my 7D, I've reviewed my shots at normal, and at 100%, and more often than not grumbled a lot about the noise level and perceived IQ. I've read many many threads on the 7D AF and detail extraction and finally took one of the suggestions to heart. I went back through my LR library and started looking at my 7D shots at 50% rather than 100%, and actually worked through one shot that I wasn't happy with at 100% and low and behold, the printout was very very nice!
So, just a suggestion to those of you who continue to be pixel peepers with the 7D, STOP IT. It will continue to drive you crazy and it's not worth it! Yes, the 7D DOES require a wee bit more post processing than other cameras, but once you figure out the right combination, the pictures are well worth it.
100% view is only good for one thing: Checking for focus accuracy and motion blur. Ignore everything else. Noise and other artifacts are greatly exaggerated compared to what you will see in a print.... Obsessing about this stuff will drive you nuts.
I've sold 24x36 prints from my 7D shot up to ISO800. Noone complained about noise.... yet at 100% it was very visible even after proper post processing.
It's a catch 22, people, myself included, were afraid to make prints because of the IQ at 100%, yet priinting would have shown the issues were blown out of proportion. Now that I know to look at them at 50% and actually print some, I'm happier!
As others have said, use 100% view for assessing critical focus and 50% for assessing what a decent size (A3) print looks like. Note if you want to make larger prints you will want to ensure it looks great at 100%.
I am not one who believes a 7D shot can never look good at 100%, IMO that's total BS and I do my culling based on 100% views in most cases. Mail the shot with a 7D and it will look great at 100%.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
As others have said, use 100% view for assessing critical focus and 50% for assessing what a decent size (A3) print looks like. Note if you want to make larger prints you will want to ensure it looks great at 100%.
I am not one who believes a 7D shot can never look good at 100%, IMO that's total BS and I do my culling based on 100% views in most cases. Mail the shot with a 7D and it will look great at 100%.
I agree with you. But your technique is probably impeccable
When I get frustrated by looking at 100% crops from the 7D (or D800E), it is because I see faults in my own technique. Motion blur beacuse I forgot MLU, wrong focus point, too lazy to microadjust AF for that lens, too high ISO for the light, the list goes on. Still those images may be usable in smaller presentation sizes. So I think it is fully possible to advice against looking at 100% crops without saying that it is bad to have too many pixels. As always, you gotta know what you're doing.
alundeb wrote:
I agree with you. But your technique is probably impeccable
When I get frustrated by looking at 100% crops from the 7D (or D800E), it is because I see faults in my own technique. Motion blur beacuse I forgot MLU, wrong focus point, too lazy to microadjust AF for that lens, too high ISO for the light, the list goes on. Still those images may be usable in smaller presentation sizes. So I think it is fully possible to advice against looking at 100% crops without saying that it is bad to have too many pixels. As always, you gotta know what you're doing. ...Show more →
My technique is far from perfect, but my point is that many people claim even a good 7D shot won't look good at 100%. I know if it looks very good at 50% that's usually good enough, but I am always a bit disappointed if said shot doesn't look great at 100% also. I'm not saying it's easy to get this to occur, just that it is possible.
cordellwillis wrote:
...; unfortunately people don't make prints these days.
Well then 100% is even less relevant. How many people post 100% size online? Most people only post 1024 pixels, some post 2048px, very few post larger than that. If you take the 2048px as average, that's only around 4MP, not even close to 50% of the 7D resolution.
n0b0 wrote:
Well then 100% is even less relevant. How many people post 100% size online? Most people only post 1024 pixels, some post 2048px, very few post larger than that. If you take the 2048px as average, that's only around 4MP, not even close to 50% of the 7D resolution.
If two images of the same subjct with the 7D are compared at 100% and you see a difference (one is sharp and the other not), there will also be a difference when downsized to 2048 px. It is not like the blur of 1 px width or whatever disappears when downsized to 1/4 size. The blur is still there as less sharpness in the downsized image.
alundeb wrote:
If two images of the same subjct with the 7D are compared at 100% and you see a difference (one is sharp and the other not), there will also be a difference when downsized to 2048 px. It is not like the blur of 1 px width or whatever disappears when downsized to 1/4 size. The blur is still there as less sharpness in the downsized image.
Unless the purpose is specifically for comparison, who's going to post two of the same image? And as I said in that post, only some people post 2048px image, most people post 1024px. Can you tell how sharp the original 18MP image is after it's sized down to 1024px? I highly doubt it.
Besides, it's not like you just size them down as is. A little USM, use Bicubic Sharpen algorithm when sizing the image down and you won't know the original is a little bit blurry.
I'll agree that the 7D (and I am one of the folks who says it is noisy) is FINE at ISO800 - my complaints were only when you went above that, and went to print big (A3 etc). As much as I complained, at 8x10, or ISO LESS than 800, 11x16, I NEVER had any issues (and issues even then were only when you had the 'right' (read wrong) background - like really smooth green). My issues were always the "it's AFTER sunset, I'm shooting soccer, trying to blur the sideline so shooting wide open" type of shot - aka the kind of shot where ISO 800 isn't going to cut it, and you are north of there
n0b0 wrote:
[Unless the purpose is specifically for comparison, who's going to post two of the same image?
Ahem, how difficult can it be to understand that 100% view is the easiest way to pick the sharpest one for publishing, and it does matter, and that is what I meant?
alundeb wrote:
Ahem, how difficult can it be to understand that 100% view is the easiest way to pick the sharpest one for publishing, and it does matter, and that is what I meant?
Ugh... Who's talking about publishing? I was talking about viewing photos online at mostly 1024px and sometimes 2048px. How difficult is THAT to understand?
n0b0 wrote:
Ugh... Who's talking about publishing? I was talking about viewing photos online at mostly 1024px and sometimes 2048px. How difficult is THAT to understand?
Publishing = make public. Online galleries are public.
I love these threads A 5D2 is sharp at 100% which means you can crop in. A 7D image that is not sharp at 100% means you have to reduce sharper to get your final image. I have 7D images that are sharp at 100% but they are harder to achieve than with my 5D. Also I tend to use the 7D when I'm reach limited so these tend to be more difficult images to capture well in the first place. The consensus certainly is that the 7D still wins in ultimate resolution over the 5D2 but its not a straight 18 MP at 1.6x vs 21 MP calculation.
I find the 7D makes a great 12 MP camera so if I reduce a well captured/processed 7D image to 12 MP then friends can zoom my 264 ppi iPad to 100% and the image looks good. Actually it usually looks good on my 109 ppi 27" iMac. I rarely print.
