The mazing skibum5 is talking about is probably caused by the halftone dots in the printed picture of the lady, along with color samples. So it's not a valid complaint...







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:

be interesting to see if they ignore the 1dmkIV like they did with the 1dmkIII

bluefox9er wrote:
be interesting to see if they ignore the 1dmkIV like they did with the 1dmkIII

i doubt it

it was pretty bizarre they skipped over the 1D3 though

The forums are full of whiners and people love to bash Canon

The RAW converters are not ready yet for 7D

Basic RAW conversion in DPP (no sharpening I no noise reduction) - Photoshop CS4, neat image for NR, smart sharpen in CS4

DRreview got it right
The 7D is a nice camera

Best nature pics ever with the 7D and 400 F5.6 / 300 F4

Viewing images at greater then 100% only creates artifacts that are not in the image

Viewing images at greater then 100% only creates artifacts that are not in the image

Viewing images at greater then 100% only creates artifacts that are not in the image

Elisha82 wrote:
It is currently the best CROP camera out at the moment bar none.


Perhaps so, actually even with the G1/G2 thing and however you deal with that, at worst, you still end up with something more than 10MP detail for sure and better noise and it does do better at high ISO so that would make it better than the 40D and most likely any other 10-12MP or under crop camera, of which pretty much all but the 50D are, regardless of whether the G1/G2 thing remains an issue or not (hopefully not though because it would be awesome to get max reach/detail at ISO100 while maintaining silky smooth flat areas) or you can live with the artifacts and pull in 18MP.

Maybe the 50D, at least for now, gives a smoother ISO100 at maximum reach though (if otherwise inferior in all ways)?

Still not sure why G1 and G2 are not balanced though since if they just balanced them as they had with all the previous canons you could flat out say it was the best crop bar none without any possible conditions at all.

Anyway gotta run.

to skibum5

Very good points. I have been trying to understand, from the day when 7D was introduced, why the high ISO images are so much better than any other crop camera and why low ISO images are not that great. I also wanted to know if 18 Mpixel, 7D image, cropped to 10 Mpixels is better that the original 40D image. In other words, do we have 18 Mpixels (as good as those from lower resolution cameras) to crop or not

abqnmusa wrote:
The forums are full of whiners and people love to bash Canon
DRreview got it right
The 7D is a nice camera


None more so here where the bashing is done by Canon users.
There is a level of insecurity amongst Canon users that researched would be worthy of a Nobel prize winning Phd.
My advice? Get out and enjoy what you have
Tim

sorry about the multi-postig. was not on PC

abqnmusa wrote:

Viewing images at greater then 100% only creates artifacts that are not in the image


You have stated this or similar observations a few times. I don't agree with it. It is useful to be able to get greater than 100% magnification if you are trying to understand what is going on a given part of the an image. It is often very useful if you are retouching or post processing an image. In Photoshop, you can zoom in on your image and what you are seeing are the actual pixels. In fact, if you keep zooming in at some point Photoshop switches to what they call the pixel grid. This is where each pixel is shown in a grid with horizontal and vertical lines surrounding it.

I feel that using 100% or greater magnification is useful in trying to understand this artifacting problem with the 7D.

Elisha82 wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Well some of us have both 5D2 and 7D


No arguments there.
Most bashers either only tried it for a brief moment or don't even own one.
It is currently the best CROP camera out at the moment bar none.
And I'm impressed how Canon is on the ball with firmware updates.

actually messing around with the ACR 5.6 beta samples, it's actually looking like that just might largely fix the issue i was going on about, so maybe so.

UCSB wrote:
It is one of the fastest reviews I have seen posted there. One nice thing in the review is the ACR 5.6 (beta) full sized samples in the performance section. The conversions can be downloaded and reviewed. They look very nice to me. Erased my doubts out the camera's performance. Hopefully we won't have to wait much longer for the actual release of ACR 5.6. Very high ratings on the conclusions page.

I feel the same. Previously I had some issues with the various samples floating around, but Im now convinced that the performance of the sensor is first rate.

The only problem I have is with the banding at low ISO, but that seems to be caused by the use ACR beta - the same samples processed with DPP or Capture one are almost banding free.

skibum5 wrote:

low iso is where my 7D worries lie:

Timothy OConn wrote:

Im certain those artifacts are caused by the beta nature of ACR/LR...Are they also present on the C1 or DPP conversions of this image?

They're not even present in ACR 5.6:



or Raw Therapee:



Cap One isn't quite as smooth:



but at 100% view and less (these are all 200%) Cap One looks fine too.

mfurman wrote:

I am still not certain why you would look at crop at FF cameras as separate entities.

Very simple - wide lenses and depth of field.
1st - show me a lens giving me the quality and field of view of the Zeiss 21 ZE on my 5D II...
2nd - show me a lens giving me the same results 50 f1.2L gives me on my 5D II...

abqnmusa wrote:
The forums are full of whiners and people love to bash Canon

The RAW converters are not ready yet for 7D

Basic RAW conversion in DPP (no sharpening I no noise reduction) - Photoshop CS4, neat image for NR, smart sharpen in CS4

DRreview got it right
The 7D is a nice camera

Best nature pics ever with the 7D and 400 F5.6 / 300 F4

Sorry if you got the impression that we are bashing Canon, at least I am not.

This is more complex than you may think of.
You suggested that everyone stick to DPP, and all will be fine.

We now have a number of tests out there suggesting that files from the 7D are soft and lack microcontrast. They are all based on DPP or ACR as RAW converters. Even DPreview get the result that the 7D does not have more absolute resolution than the 50D at RAW level. Roland Lim shows images that look dull and lack microcontrast. The-digital-image.com show fuzzy crops with the 200/2 lens.

All these reviews confuse the public, suggesting that the 7D is a soft camera not suited for detailed imaging like landscapes. This is a faulty conclusion based on RAW converters that soften the image to avoid the mazing.

Here is something everyone can do to verify what I'm saying:
Download the Still life scene RAW images from imaging-resource.com at ISO 100 for the 1Ds3, the 5D2 and the 7D. Note that the 5DII is a bit front focused, so it is best to compare with the 1Ds3, but the effect I'm after is still there.

Convert the images with the same settings (like what the-digital-picture does) with NR off and sharpening 1 with DPP.
You will be in for a shock. The 7D image looks dull and soft, while the others are OK. This is nothing like what you see at the comparometer online. There things do look fine and in proportion.
Convert the images with the same settings in CaptureOne. Hey, the 7D looks fine again, with sharpness and microcontrast OK.

So I'm not bashing Canon or the 7D, I think it is a great camera, but because people did stick to DPP (as you suggested was the final solution to the mazing problem) people are now sending their 7D's back after reading faulty reviews. I think that is pretty bad.

snowboarder wrote:

Very simple - wide lenses and depth of field.
1st - show me a lens giving me the quality and field of view of the Zeiss 21 ZE on my 5D II...
2nd - show me a lens giving me the same results 50 f1.2L gives me on my 5D II...



You misunderstood my intentions: I am not questioning the value (superiority) of FF. I was asking why people do not want compare IQ of 1.6 crop and FF, saying that these are different cameras. I am certain that the "right tool for a job" line of reasoning will come up but I am just curious how people managed with film SLRs in the past. I do not think they were using different type of cameras (SLR) for different jobs - one (or two) EOS 1V should have been enough. I am guilty myself - I have both the crop and FF but not for long.

n0b0 wrote:
Thing is, if Canon really felt threatened by that D700, we would've had a 3D now, not a 7D.


A Canon rep told me a PDN that the reason they didn't release a 5DII with an updated AF system was because of the MKIII fiasco, something I along with many others believed since day one. It's not that they won't do it, it's just that they didn't want to risk it at the time. I'd expect the next FF body released by Canon, apart from the 1DsIV, to have a similar AF system to that of the 7D. As for the not having a 7D it is my belief it was planned all along--Canon needed to compete with the D300/300s.