uz2work wrote:
....As a long lens shooter, the 7D has opened up new possibilities for my shooting by giving me the opportunity to put lots of pixels on the subject with a very mobile, light weight rig, and that rig has allowed me to get shots that I would not have been able to get with other equipment.
Les
Agree on this point, Les.
Just to illustrate, I was birding yesterday along a mountain road in northern Philippines. I had the 1D4 mounted on the 500 f4 IS + 1.4x II when I saw this seldomly photographed raptor perched near the road. I immediately shot some "insurance shots" with the combo readily available, using a bean bag as support.
Oriental Honeybuzzard (Pernis ptilorhynchus philippensis)
Shooting Info - Canon 1D MIV + EF 500 f4 IS + 1.4x TC II, 700 mm, f/7.1, ISO 400, 1/1000 sec, bean bag, manual exposure in available light.
After a dozen or so insurance shots, I was glad the raptor didn't fly away immediately. I carefully set up my rig on a tripod, this time with a 2x II and a 7D on the 500 f4 IS, to capture more detail.
Shooting Info - Canon 7D + EF 500 f4 IS + 2x TC II, 1000 mm, f/10, ISO 400, 1/250 sec, 475B/516 support, manual exposure in available light.
While the increased detail in the 7D shots might not be apparent in these web-sized images, it is easily discernable when looking at the full-res RAWs.
My main point is: while my 1D4 is an awesome camera in many respects, my 7D is a better tool in a situation like this (when longer reach is required).
Give me a chance to respond guys!! I'll send my files when I get though this 3 day weekend I promise!! I do believe I might have the noisyest 7D ever. But I still have it, and love it, in good light.
Liquidstone wrote:
My main point is: while my 1D4 is an awesome camera in many respects, my 7D is a better tool in a situation like this (when longer reach is required).
7D is the best TC money can buy
Great shots Romy.
BTW is that bulge in the neck normal. It is the "crop"
Blimey, what a patronising lot these 7D adherents are, almost like a religious sect. They seem to not be able to accept that some of us have a very different experience concerning OUR OWN 7Ds, not THEIRS. They cannot accept that we who have criticisms are just as experienced and knowledgable as some of them. I for one have been doing photography since 1970, have owned all sorts of film cameras and printed the results in my own darkroom. I have been doing digital imaging since 1992 and have owned and scanned film with some fine Nikon scanners and messed about with processing them for some time. I do know bad image quality when I see it and so do others of us who are not very devout 7D believers.
Mike Engles...Show more →
I have also shot with film and the things that you can do now with modern digital crop cameras like the 7d is amazing i am trying things and shooting subjects that I would not have dreamed of with my film gear
For wildlife shooters like me on a limited budget , my longest lens is 400 mm , the 7D is a brilliant tool
Not perfect but you work with what you have
Pixel Perfect wrote:
7D is the best TC money can buy
Great shots Romy.
BTW is that bulge in the neck normal. It is the "crop"
Thanks, Whayne! This species has one of the longest necks I've seen among raptors. That "crop" is actually its folded neck. Its main diet is bees which it obtains from nests in tree hollows. Evolution must have lengthened its neck to give it more reach to get its food.
LCPete wrote:
I have also shot with film and the things that you can do now with modern digital crop cameras like the 7d is amazing i am trying things and shooting subjects that I would not have dreamed of with my film gear
For wildlife shooters like me on a limited budget , my longest lens is 400 mm , the 7D is a brilliant tool
Not perfect but you work with what you have
I agree completely, but I will add that the 7D is a wonderful tool even in situations where the budget is not limited.
From the day that I bought my 400 DO lens 5 years ago to use with my 500/4, its size and weight and the portability that it gave me made it my favorite lens, but there were many times when I just needed more focal length than it could give. When I got the 7D 3 years ago, the pixel density of the camera expanded the range of situations when I would be able to use the DO and when 400 mm was now "enough".
I've spent almost every day during the last 2 months following an eagle fledgling since it left the nest. To do so, I've had to walk miles each day and trudge through the marsh and brush and along the banks of the Mississippi River. I would have loved to have done so with my 1D Mark IV and 500/4....IF the 500/4 weighed a little over 4 pounds and was the size of my 400 DO. I would have also loved to have been using a 1D X and a 600/4...IF the 600/4 weighed a little over 4 pounds and was the size of my 400 DO. The bottom line is that, even if I was a fit 25 year old (and 25 has been in the rear view mirror for decades now), I would not have had a chance to take the pictures I have been taking almost every day for 2 months if I had been using any camera other than the 7D because the lenses that I would have needed to use would not have given me the portability and mobility that I needed. Further, while I acknowledge that there are image quality differences between my 7D and my 1D Mark IV, those image quality differences are not nearly as great as one might be led to believe from reading threads on internet forums. When I look at the prints of the pictures that I've taken with the 7D and the 400 DO for the last two months and compare them to those that I took with the 1D Mark IV and 500/4 for several months before the baby eagle left the nest, if I didn't know which ones were taken with which camera and lens, I wouldn't be able to make an accurate guess without looking at the file information.
My 7D is the camera of choice when either I'm in an extreme focal length-limited situation or when I need/want to maximize portability and mobility. When neither of those situations is the case, I use the 1D Mark IV, and neither camera has let me down in any way, including image quality, auto focus, etc.
Hello guys! I got a chance to dig around for a slightly noisier image than my last Ibis shot. EXIF data is all intact. And I can upload this file to whoever wants to have a crack at it. I've included all my most basic PP stuff to illustrate IMHO, the limits of the 7D. I think with a little bit of NR, the images can come out acceptable for most good light conditions. Either that or I just have a particularly noisy 7D
Here is the original RAW file if you want to try out your PP skills!
As you can see, nothing look smudged the way your bird does.
I think I have a dud 7D. I don't think my in-camera NR settings have anything to do with RAW files. I could be wrong but I thought only JPG files out of cam are affected by in-cam NR settings. I see your examples, and they do seem much cleaner than my 7D files. I really do think I have a dud
But really the settings can't be compared this way. We need to shoot side by side at the same subject with the same settings. This is not apples to apples.
n0b0 wrote:
Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that it may not their camera that is the problem, despite the evidence?
Conrad pretty much stopped responding now, even though I'd REALLY like to know what he thinks regarding his ISO400 100% crop compared to my ISO1600 100% crop. Or if he has uploaded his RAW for us to see.
Your 100% crop is much better than mine! Damn I do have a dud, but we really can't make this comparison this manner. Its not apples to apples. Any chance you'll be in the Bay Area to do a side by side comparison sometime? I'd love to shoot with ya man!
TeamSpeed wrote:
Conrad, did you get a chance to store your raw on a fileshare somewhere? If you haven't found a place yet, you could try wetransfer.com, very easy to upload and get a link to share. I would love to pull your raw up in DPP and see either what is going on with the raw, or perhaps there is an issue with your 7D. I can email or PM you my email if that helps.
If you wouldn't mind uploading a couple of your raws to wetransfer.com, and then share the link that you get on the resulting email, I would love to look at them. One thing I can say up front is to not sharpen the raw before processing the raw.
I actually turn sharpening down in the raw, do all the noise, contrast, etc, and sharpening is last.
TeamSpeed wrote:
If you wouldn't mind uploading a couple of your raws to wetransfer.com, and then share the link that you get on the resulting email, I would love to look at them. One thing I can say up front is to not sharpen the raw before processing the raw.
I actually turn sharpening down in the raw, do all the noise, contrast, etc, and sharpening is last.
TeamSpeed wrote:
If you wouldn't mind uploading a couple of your raws to wetransfer.com, and then share the link that you get on the resulting email, I would love to look at them. One thing I can say up front is to not sharpen the raw before processing the raw.
I actually turn sharpening down in the raw, do all the noise, contrast, etc, and sharpening is last.
PM me your email if you would like more RAW files.
I would say that far from being a dud your 7D is pretty good. It has very few of the bright pixels that are mainly red or blue or white. The image is soft,possibly focus and does not really respond to sharpening. NR kills detail and there is very little. I made a crop to 2100 by 1400 pixels and looked at my doings at life size. Downsized to 1200 pixels it would look fine, but viewed at 100%, ?
Your previous image is more promising.You are correct in thinking that the other images that have been put up as examples, really are not comparing apples to apples, more like apples to Canonballs!
PS if anyone is going to put up examples of their processing prowess, please let us see only 100% crops, no 1200 pixel downsizing and oversharpening.
I would say that far from being a dud your 7D is pretty good. It has very few of the bright pixels that are mainly red or blue or white. The image is soft,possibly focus and does not really respond to sharpening. NR kills detail and there is very little. I made a crop to 2100 by 1400 pixels and looked at my doings at life size. Downsized to 1200 pixels it would look fine, but viewed at 100%, ?
Your previous image is more promising.You are correct in thinking that the other images that have been put up as examples, really are not comparing apples to apples, more like apples to Canonballs!
Conrad Tan wrote:
Hello guys! I got a chance to dig around for a slightly noisier image than my last Ibis shot. EXIF data is all intact. And I can upload this file to whoever wants to have a crack at it. I've included all my most basic PP stuff to illustrate IMHO, the limits of the 7D. I think with a little bit of NR, the images can come out acceptable for most good light conditions. Either that or I just have a particularly noisy 7D
Here is the original RAW file if you want to try out your PP skills!
I'm sure that Romy can comment more, but I immediately see a couple of very different settings from what he is doing.
His settings--
Sharpening = 0
Luminance NR = 25
Luminance Detail = 80
Luminance Contrast = 0
Color NR = 25
Color Detail = 50
First, notice that he is doing no sharpening via the raw converter. With your sharpening settings, I would think that you are sharpening the noise before converting. Also note that some of his noise reduction settings are significantly different from the settings your are using.
Also, it would appear that your shot started out about 1/2 stop under exposed, and boosting the exposure and brightness would also be enhancing the noise.
But I still have it, and love it, in good light. 
?