chez wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
andyjaggy82 wrote:
Well yeah, Sony. I was comparing noise to the 7D based on Dxo testing results.

Frankly if I was starting over from scratch I would buy the new full frame Sony and be done with it. Killer sensor, IS built into the body, and Zeiss lenses. Can't beat that.

Sure if you are a landscape/portrait shooter. Otherwise the Sony lens lineup is pretty crapulent. You're not going to be shooting the sort of stuff most users of the 7D are shooting.

What is it that most 7d shooters are shooting? I've seen this camera used as a one shoe fits all camera for all types of photographs.

Well for me it's 99% action/birding when I need reach. Not many landscape shots in this 23 page thread. I do also use it for macro. Either way Sony lens line-up is crap for the most part if you don't do landscape/portrait.

Imagemaster wrote:


Not a single complaint about noise in this image, even when printed to 20" x 30".

Very nice work, Tony...... almost like a painting to my eyes.

Pixel Perfect wrote:

Well for me it's 99% action/birding when I need reach. Not many landscape shots in this 23 page thread. I do also use it for macro. Either way Sony lens line-up is crap for the most part if you don't do landscape/portrait.

+1.

Sony has interesting (and affordable) bodies, but long glass selection is very limited.

I was quite taken with the idea of the 7d, a nice light camera with the 1.6 crop and weather sealing, it sounded like the perfect bird camera so I got one to go on a 500 f4 which I had just purchased. I didn't like the image quality though, so I got rid of it. It was obviously noisy at 400 iso, even on a bright sunny day with decent exposure, and not just at 100% either. I know they can be cleaned up, and I am happy to clean things up if its a really good shot of a difficult bird in the forest or such like, but it shouldn't be necessary for a gull on a beach in broad daylight.

I know under ideal circumstances the level of detail captured is amazing, but I have decided I can live without ultimate resolution in favour of a robust, nice looking file which can take some pulling around in pp without cracking up, so I got a 1D3 instead, a used one of which is about the same price as a 7D. 1d4 would have been better, but funds were already low and I couldnt justify an extra £1000-1500 just for an extra 6mp.

I would definitely go for a 7D type again if it maybe had a few less mp, or was able to control the noise a bit better. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly high mp count and be no better on noise.

Based on the posts here, I am surprised that the 7D didn't rank higher in this poll:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1142908/2#10907237

alundeb wrote:
Based on the posts here, I am surprised that the 7D didn't rank higher in this poll:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1142908/2#10907237


I am not. 1DMkIII shall always monopolize the scorn by its owners and non-owners alike, and thereby syphon those votes that 7D might have gotten.
After all, 7D is a good and relatively innovative prosumer camera with one major factor tarnishing its reputation perhaps unfairly: some of its users attempt to elevate it to a camera grade where 7D doesn't belong.

alundeb wrote:
Based on the posts here, I am surprised that the 7D didn't rank higher in this poll:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1142908/2#10907237

PetKal wrote:
I am not. 1DMkIII shall always monopolize the scorn by its owners and non-owners alike, and thereby syphon those votes that 7D might have gotten.
After all, 7D is a good and relatively innovative prosumer camera with one major factor tarnishing its reputation perhaps unfairly: some of its users attempt to elevate it to a camera grade where 7D doesn't belong.


This wisdom is undisputable, but come on, the 5DIII ( a camera that was ONLY a perfect general purpose camera with world-class AF and High ISO performance) got twice as many votes as the 7D

Anders, I can't find 5DIII in that poll ??

PetKal wrote:
Anders, I can't find 5DIII in that poll ??

OMG I got double vision. I can swear I saw 3 'i' letters in there, right on top. Can I go home from work now?

alundeb wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Anders, I can't find 5DIII in that poll ??

OMG I got double vision. I can swear I saw 3 'i' letters in there, right on top. Can I go home from work now?

Of course not, you need to rest, Anders........and what can possibly be a better place to do that than your workplace.

Robert_SS wrote:

I would definitely go for a 7D type again if it maybe had a few less mp, or was able to control the noise a bit better. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly high mp count and be no better on noise.

I have a slightly different view.

I would definitely go for a new 7D type again if it maybe had much more mp (say 36 mp or more), even if control of noise stays the same on the image level. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly low mp count and be better at pixel level noise at the expense of "reach"..

Liquidstone wrote:
Robert_SS wrote:

I would definitely go for a 7D type again if it maybe had a few less mp, or was able to control the noise a bit better. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly high mp count and be no better on noise.

I have a slightly different view.

I would definitely go for a new 7D type again if it maybe had much more mp (say 36 mp or more), even if control of noise stays the same on the image level. I fear though that the next incarnation will have a silly low mp count and be better at pixel level noise at the expense of "reach"..

+1

A problem with threads like this is that there are very few people, I suspect, who follow the entire thread, and, thus, if there are things to be learned from the thread in its entirety, many will will never learn them. Instead, when people only read the first couple of posts, they maintain whatever incorrect notions with which they may have started.

When I look at 100% crops of 7D images on the screen, I might be inclined to be concerned about the noise, even at relatively low ISO. However, when I look at the image level or at prints, I shake my head in disbelief at those concerns about noise.

If 7D images, at the image level, are comparable to, say, 40D images at the image level with regard to noise, but the 7D images have clearly better ability to show detail, that is a step up for the 7D that I consider valuable. And, thus, if a 7D Mark II could take advantage of improvements in technology that would allow it to have significantly more pixels and show even more detail but still be comparable to the 40D or 7D at the image level with regard to noise, I would welcome such a camera. While others would, I'm sure, complain about noise at the pixel level, that noise will be irrelevant to me if it is comparable to that of the 7D at the image level, and I, too, would be disappointed if a 7D Mark II had fewer pixels or a similar number of pixels as the 7D.

Les

Yeah perhaps Sony doesn't have the best long glass, but as a landscape shooter they have more than adequate options, especially considering that you can get the Zeiss lenses for them.

As a landscape shooter I almost always shoot my 7D at ISO100. Even at 100 there is visible noise, and it becomes obviously apparent after a bit of sharpening, which is necessary because the 7D files are so bloody soft.. even with my sharpest prime, mirror lockup, f8, tripod, etc.......

So while I have been a bit disappointed with the 7D image quality, I agree, when I do prints they look fantastic and I can't see the noise. I've been doing a series of 24X24 prints (2 stitched vertical shots), which gives me a final file that is about 5000X5000. the shots look fantastic, tons of detail and no visible noise in the prints... So it's a bit of a love hate relationship with this camera.

My hope for the 7D II is a bump to 20/22 mp, and better pixel level sharpness, if they can do that and keep the noise the same I will be happy. Perhaps a tall order to fill.

andyjaggy82 wrote:
Yeah perhaps Sony doesn't have the best long glass, but as a landscape shooter they have more than adequate options, especially considering that you can get the Zeiss lenses for them.

As a landscape shooter I almost always shoot my 7D at ISO100. Even at 100 there is visible noise, and it becomes obviously apparent after a bit of sharpening, which is necessary because the 7D files are so bloody soft.. even with my sharpest prime, mirror lockup, f8, tripod, etc.......

So while I have been a bit disappointed with the 7D image quality, I agree, when I do prints they look fantastic and I can't see the noise. I've been doing a series of 24X24 prints (2 stitched vertical shots), which gives me a final file that is about 5000X5000. the shots look fantastic, tons of detail and no visible noise in the prints... So it's a bit of a love hate relationship with this camera.

My hope for the 7D II is a bump to 20/22 mp, and better pixel level sharpness, if they can do that and keep the noise the same I will be happy. Perhaps a tall order to fill.

The 7D loves great glass that resolves to the density of the that sensor. I have ISO 800 and 1600 shots that are crazy sharp at 100%, but then other cases where they are not, even at lower ISO. Hard to explain, but if I get even one sharp 100% image, then it is not sensor the other times, but instead missed focus, slow shutter speed, or poor glass is to blame.

andyjaggy82 wrote:

My hope for the 7D II is a bump to 20/22 mp, and better pixel level sharpness, if they can do that and keep the noise the same I will be happy. Perhaps a tall order to fill.

I'm hoping that if Canon bumps the 7D Mk_ to say 36 MP or higher, they can do away with the AA filter. Then pixel level sharpness at lower ISOs will improve.

Hello

If the7D mk? is say 36mp as a cropped camera, then that would be as a full frame equivalent to 92mp. Very unlikely as at present a 7D at 18mp is equivalent to a 46mp full frame and there are more than enough noise problems with the 7D especially at higher ISOs .
36mp full frame would equate to about 14mp at present, which is being generous to the current 7D.

Mike Engles

Liquidstone, if they make a 36MP crop sensor, you're going to hear the noise inside the camera it's going to be so bad.

eskimochaos wrote:
Liquidstone, if they make a 36MP crop sensor, you're going to hear the noise inside the camera it's going to be so bad.

Lol...... actually, 36 MP on APS-C are still "too fat pixels" for me.

How about a 210 MP on FF or 82 MP on APS-C? This is the pixel density of the G12 released in 2010. Have a look at pixel level crops courtesy of DPR:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG12/6

mikeengles wrote:
Hello

If the7D mk? is say 36mp as a cropped camera, then that would be as a full frame equivalent to 92mp. Very unlikely as at present a 7D at 18mp is equivalent to a 46mp full frame and there are more than enough noise problems with the 7D especially at higher ISOs .

Mike Engles

Mike, for me there is no noise problem with the 7D. I do realize that others would prefer larger pixels, so I wish Canon will offer two sensor flavors down the line - high pixel density for us reach and detail lovers, and low pixel density for others.

Amazing to see this man works on his 7D: http://www.adragunov.com/ where is the noise