Here is my experience with the 7D. Recent shot some NR applied, but I have not "massaged" the shot very much nor did I try to reduce noise selectively in the blue channel.
As I have said in a previous post, I love the detail in the feathers but not the noise in the sky. It's not just the blue channel either. Anytime there is a smooth mono-color background my 7D has noise in that background. Sure I could work hard to remove this but I'm shooting at ISO 400 here, and it gets worse at higher ISO. I prefer to work diligently on reducing noise when I really need to - @ ISO 1600 or greater. The 7D does not deliver for me in that regard.
It has been recommended that I try DPP to circumvent the noise issue. However, I have not tried it yet.
I feel this really reduces the "cropability" of my shots.
Here we go...finger trouble=camera is flawed.
Where have I heard this before...mmmmmm...
If the camera was flawed considering it's been out for 3 years and they have sold truck loads I'd figure the 99.9 percent of users who manage to get brilliant results speak for how flawed it is.
Noise is a bit weird. Quite obvious and seemingly over the top at ISO 400 and 800 but I think quite good at 1600+. Its all fairly easily fixable though.
Steve, you'll hear some people saying great things things about the 7D and other people saying awful things about the 7D. It has nothing to do with operator errors.
The main problem with the 7D, IMHO, is related to Canon QC.
If you get a copy that delivers what it promises (which I believe is the majority of the cases) the 7D is a great camera for its price. If you get a bad copy you will hate the camera.
I own both the MkIV and the 7D (my second copy) and use them regularly for wildlife and shoot a lot of IF shots and I am very happy with the performance of both cameras. Can hardly tell the difference looking at their files after they are edited. Different story with my first 7D which I hated Clearly the MKIV gives me more keepers, especially with incoming moving subjects and its ISO performance is definitely better. You will get more noise than necessary with the 7D, especially in the Blue Channel, but it can be easily taken care of with any NR program.
So, if you heard people complaining about the 7D they are probably right.
However people saying the 7D is a great camera are right too, and I believe they are the majority. I can say that because I belong to both of those group of people
Socrate
dehowie wrote:
Here we go...finger trouble=camera is flawed.
Where have I heard this before...mmmmmm...
If the camera was flawed considering it's been out for 3 years and they have sold truck loads I'd figure the 99.9 percent of users who manage to get brilliant results speak for how flawed it is.
I don't think anyone has said the 7D has an AF design flaw, a la the 1D MkIII. Clearly, there are some photographers (skilled photographers, at that) who have had issues with the 7D's AF. Whether it is simply quality control or a silent upgrade to the production line, who knows? It is clearly a small percentage, but ignorantly assuming that everyone with an AF problem with their 7D doesn't know what their doing is silly, just as assuming the 7D has a design flaw would be (given the anecdotal evidence).
I certainly wouldn't warn anyone off buying a 7D for focusing issues, though I absolutely would qualify the characteristics of the files with the caveat that they might require some attention before printing above 12x18". Prior to the 7D I'd never, ever used NR of any sort, but I've now become accustomed to it after using the 7D for two years. And admittedly (and curiously, as noted above), I found 3200 to be a very useable ISO on the 7D, considering it was ISO 3200.
My first 7D was flawless focus-wise. Why did I sell it? Still hitting myself on the head. Recently bought another one and it was a huge disappointment. Could make it focusing consistently no matter how hard I was trying. Had to return it.
So, yes, there are some lemons around.
Shasoc wrote:
Steve, you'll hear some people saying great things things about the 7D and other people saying awful things about the 7D. It has nothing to do with operator errors.
The main problem with the 7D, IMHO, is related to Canon QC.
If you get a copy that delivers what it promises (which I believe is the majority of the cases) the 7D is a great camera for its price. If you get a bad copy you will hate the camera.
I own both the MkIV and the 7D (my second copy) and use them regularly for wildlife and shoot a lot of IF shots and I am very happy with the performance of both cameras. Can hardly tell the difference looking at their files after they are edited. Different story with my first 7D which I hated Clearly the MKIV gives me more keepers, especially with incoming moving subjects and its ISO performance is definitely better. You will get more noise than necessary with the 7D, especially in the Blue Channel, but it can be easily taken care of with any NR program.
So, if you heard people complaining about the 7D they are probably right.
However people saying the 7D is a great camera are right too, and I believe they are the majority. I can say that because I belong to both of those group of people
Socrate...Show more →
I can't believe hearing some people bitch about the 7D about a photo that's been processed.
Big deal, the owner found a processing that works for him and his wildlife photos look great from it.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. If you're unable to get his results from your lack of effort, don't take it out on him. Improve your technique. WmPat wrote:
I bought a 7D when they first came out. I had been using a MkIIn.
The 7D went back to Canon for AF issues twice and was twice found to be "within specification". I sold the 7D.
I now am convinced that the 7D is designed to focus less well than Canon models that sell for a higher price; and that it it is designed to focus better than the Canon models that sell for a lower price tag. That is an integral part of the Canon approach to marketing and pricing.
You can find tons of users who say the 7D focuses flawlessly. Most of them had only used less expensive models prior to getting their 7D.
You can also find many posters who claim their 7D has focus issues. Most of them have used 1D series bodies prior to getting their 7D.
Bottom line: regarding the focusing ability of Canon DSLR bodies - you get what you pay for. ...Show more →
I throw your theory right in the toilet.
I've owned more 1 series than 7 series, but I still own both and have no problems.
Dear Mr Imagemaster; I think you've got something there. Most of the people I talk to these days have no idea of what we went through. NO AF, 24 or 36 frames (or a couple more if you loaded in a darkroom) to get it done, a note pad to record your settings etc. After that many test strips & a lot of time wasted (plus chemicals & paper) to get that exact result you were looking for but couldn't see until it dried. Today's camera makers cater to the "now" generation and most of them think talent comes in the same box the camera came in.
Imagemaster wrote:
There certainly seem to be a lot of "noise whiners".
Allmost as many as there seem to be 7D noise apologists.
Nice luminance noise (like the 1Ds had) doesn't bother me in the least, and I've never tried--nor needed--to eliminate it, as I felt it sacrificed detail. But until the 7D, I never, ever noticed disagreeable noise from any of my cameras until about 800 to 1600 ISO. The 7D file certainly has a unique look to it from my experience; as long as you're OK with jumping through hoops to deal with its idiosyncratic low-ISO characteristics, I'm sure you'll continue to be very happy with one another. I'm not sure what your examples are supposed to illustrate. Were they taken with a D30?
galenapass wrote:
Here is my experience with the 7D. Recent shot some NR applied, but I have not "massaged" the shot very much nor did I try to reduce noise selectively in the blue channel.
...
As I have said in a previous post, I love the detail in the feathers but not the noise in the sky. It's not just the blue channel either. Anytime there is a smooth mono-color background my 7D has noise in that background. Sure I could work hard to remove this but I'm shooting at ISO 400 here, and it gets worse at higher ISO. I prefer to work diligently on reducing noise when I really need to - @ ISO 1600 or greater. The 7D does not deliver for me in that regard.
It has been recommended that I try DPP to circumvent the noise issue. However, I have not tried it yet.
I feel this really reduces the "cropability" of my shots....Show more →
Hmmm. I think this is an example of a problem that really isn't there, in my opinion.
Your full frame shot is great. I love it. Your crop (100% ?) shows noise in the sky. But, the crop is not a picture that anyone would publish or print. If you actually wanted a picture with that framing, you'd be closer, right?
So you're taking a picture that is great as it is, magnifying the heck out of it, and saying it's not good... but the crop is not the picture you want to share or print, so why is that an issue, exactly?
Know what I mean? If I took an old film shot that I liked, but then magnified just a corner of it and said the corner was crappy, why does that make the whole photo or camera "bad"? If you took the picture with a 40D would you say that's more croppable because there is less noise?
I just think many folks just can't get past the pixel density of the 7D. I've stopped obsessing over it, and I'm a happier man.
dwweiche wrote:
Hmmm. I think this is an example of a problem that really isn't there, in my opinion.
Your full frame shot is great. I love it. Your crop (100% ?) shows noise in the sky. But, the crop is not a picture that anyone would publish or print. If you actually wanted a picture with that framing, you'd be closer, right?
So you're taking a picture that is great as it is, magnifying the heck out of it, and saying it's not good... but the crop is not the picture you want to share or print, so why is that an issue, exactly?
Know what I mean? If I took an old film shot that I liked, but then magnified just a corner of it and said the corner was crappy, why does that make the whole photo or camera "bad"? If you took the picture with a 40D would you say that's more croppable because there is less noise?
I just think many folks just can't get past the pixel density of the 7D. I've stopped obsessing over it, and I'm a happier man.
Damn it, someone get Brainiac on the phone ...Show more →
First, if you are going to discuss noise I don't see any point in presenting downsized shots for the web. In that case everything looks good including my G11 at ISO 1600. I do understand where you are coming from and there is probably no perfect solution but certainly web sized shots really only mask any noise issues. Second, this shot was at ISO 400. I generally can't even shoot at an ISO that low. Third, as I go up in ISO AND need to crop, the noise in 7D files escalates and the files tend to fall apart. It's great that your 7D does everything that you want it to; but, don't presume to have it all figured out for everyone else. Some people have needs and acceptance criteria that may differ from yours. This is an issue for me in the prints that I make and as consequence every time I take a trip to Ecuador (shooting in the cloud forest or jungle) I need to bring something else along like a MKIV or D7000. The locations that I shoot in do not typically have enough light and the 7D is just not the right tool for me. I find the MKIV, D7000 or even the MKIII to be much more croppable at higher ISO settings.
galenapass wrote:
I find the MKIV, D7000 or even the MKIII to be much more croppable at higher ISO settings.
Agreed. I went from the 7d to the mkIII and the latter has much more malleable files - especially at higher ISOs. The amount of overexposure needed to come away with decent files at high ISO on the 7d (+2/3 - +1 1/3) means that the 7d is really a native iso3200 camera. I also did a little experimentation with the 7d at iso6400 & iso12800 and came to the conclusion that the 18mp 7d RAW file is no better than its own 10.1mp mRAW file when it comes to noise and sharpness. I shoot quite a bit at those ISOs (iso3200 - iso6400 on the mkIII), so this is important to me...
@Imagemaster
There certainly seem to be a lot of "noise whiners". My criteria for a good photo is what the final image looks like, not what the camera delivers to my computer.
Amen brother. I've even seen noise I like fer chrissakes. I like noise on Friday nights, city streets, dim lights; it can even get interesting abt f2 sometimes.
Most people I know with a 7D are extremely happy and from my own perspective have seen some amazing product from it on the nature and wildlife forum.
I dont know why any one feels they need to be defensive about it, and I shoot Nikon. Like most cameras these days, it the right hands it will produce and produce well.
Clearly the MKIV gives me more keepers, especially with incoming moving subjects and its ISO performance is definitely better. You will get more noise than necessary with the 7D, especially in the Blue Channel, but it can be easily taken care of with any NR program.
.