skibum5 Offline Image Upload: Off
|
p.1 #24 · DPR has their 7D review up | |
200% to make it easy to see that the noise is caused by a mazing affect, you can see the noise easily enough at 100% view. Why is it NOT considered silly when some review says it has like 20% better performance for so and so and yet demonstrations like below where it is producing worse noise than any major DSLR in over half a decade are suddenly silly? I mean maybe ACR 5.6 and some new DPP version will fix it, but if not....
try the same with a 20D and it looks smooth as silk
and again, if this is considered silly, then looking at any reviews talking about noise or DR or whatnot that doesn't have to do with general camera body functionality are silly and yet the people questioning posts like below have no trouble shouting the praises about reviews demonstrating great very high iso performance
gotak wrote:
Is that a 200% view? 300%? 400%?
skibum5 wrote:
musclepics wrote:
The high ISO samples still look to be about 1+ stop behind what I'm getting with the 1D3, but for a 1.6x cropper it's more than acceptable, and better than any other camera in it's class (ie, D300s).
The "noise" is quite different from what I'm used to.
For example this was a 7D sample at only ISO3200, and the artifacting is pretty bad
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos7d_samples/originals/img_9144_dpp.jpg
But it's no worse than the D300s, and all around the 7D is definitely a better camera than the D300s (much the same way the 1D4 is a better all around camera than the D3s).
low iso is where my 7D worries lie:

iso100, LR3 beta conversion
their ACR 5.6 beta conversion maybe looked ok, remains to be seen
so far i think the 7D has a harsh, ugly look at low ISO using DPP and a little bit with C1 5 and especially using ACR 5.5 beta, acr 5.6 seems to be the only real hope at this point
|