Here is my version of Conrad's bird. Edited in LR 4.1 mostly using Whayne's detail settings. Then brought into PS and reduced to 12 MP. This is a 100% crop of the 12 MP image. There is some motion blur in the head region and too much NR causes artifacts there that you can see in some of the copies above. I think that the 7D is a good 12 MP camera and conditions need to be near perfect to get much more out of it than that. That is still a pretty good TC however.
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.
After seeing your "I've got a closed mind and don't want to be confused with the facts" attitude on multiple threads, I'm confident that someone could post 100% crops of images taken with a 1DX or 5D Mark III, and if he/she lied and said that they were taken with a 7D, you would find fault with their image quality. On the other hand, If someone posted images taken with a 7D and lied and said that they were taken with a 1DX or 5D Mark III, I would expect that you would be praising their outstanding image quality. You have rejected multiple offers for help with your 7D files. You have flat out rejected every suggestion for how you might be able to get better results with your 7D, and you have completely ignored controlled comparisons done with the 7D and other cameras. While I'm confident that you will never get the results that you would like from the 7D, I'm also confident that it will not be because the camera is at fault.
Thanks for letting me play Conrad. ISO 800 noise looks equivalent to my 7D. Don't suppose my 7D will ever see through a lens like yours. I added the full image because I think the full image looks really nice even full screen on my iMac. Cheers.
Conrad Tan wrote:
Hahaha!!! Yeah I got rid of my old flying blue bird. My new FJ is getting me places I've never been able to go before! Well... not in my car anyway.
You should drive out to Utah. Head up to Boulder Tops from Bicknell. Then take Route 162 to Escalante. I did it in a Wrangler Unlimited Sahara. Can you do it in an FJ?
Jeff Nolten wrote:
Thanks for letting me play Conrad. ISO 800 noise looks equivalent to my 7D. Don't suppose my 7D will ever see through a lens like yours. I added the full image because I think the full image looks really nice even full screen on my iMac. Cheers.
Anytime man! Get a 500 dude!
Yes I agree. Since no one really posts 100% crops of anything (I could be wrong ) I think the full image versions of most folks will be just fine as long as they are properly exposed
jcolwell wrote:
You should drive out to Utah. Head up to Boulder Tops from Bicknell. Then take Route 162 to Escalante. I did it in a Wrangler Unlimited Sahara. Can you do it in an FJ?
Cheers, Jim
Haha! I hope I can Jim! I've taken the FJ to a couple of places, mostly rolling meadows though
Further to my previous post on the Oriental Honeybuzzard, let me post some thumbnails comparing the reach of the 500 f4 IS + the 7D, 1D4 and a combination of TCs. Like I said before, the more expensive camera might not be the better tool in some situations. These are posted to explain why I'm a 7D fanatic.
Clouds were moving quite fast when these were taken, hence the different lighting conditions. All were shot from the same distance.
1. My ready combo on hand (1D4 + 500 f4 IS + 1.4x II)
Habitat - Seen soaring above or near forest below 1500 m.
Shooting Info - Bacsil Ridge, San Fernando, La Union, Philippines, August 31, 2012, 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, uncropped full frame resized to 1500x1000.
A good amount of objectivity emerging now, rather than a huge amount of wishfull thinking, Jeff nails it on the head, but I would say that the 7D is nearer to a 10mp camera, except at ISO 200, when it is a reasonable 15MP.
PS I have not rejected offers of help out of hand, but because I could not reallistically see from my efforts or that of others that much improvement could br made to 7D images above ISO 640. The reason is that the RAW files themselves have had too much NR done in camera to actually record enough detail.
To put is crudely, it is what is known in another field as trying to 'polish a turd'
People are happy to just believe what they want to, be it for 1DXs or any other camera.
100% crops never lie, but up to this thread, almost no one would actually post them, hoping that showing downsampled and oversharpened images would be sufficient to show the qualities of any camera. I have been consistent in asking to see 100% crops and always when posting links to my own images showing 100% crops.
I have bben taken to task for making such a request. I also asked for 100% crops of unprocessed images and was told that no one wanted to see such images.
I don't need to know what camera has produced the image, I can tell if the IQ is good or bad if I see a 100% crop, as I judge each image on its individual merits.
I am not alone in this ability, anyone can do it.
Conrad has done us all a favour and been very honest, with his open mindedness and request for objectivity.
Romy has also done us a great favour by being brave enough to start such a thread.
All I know is that I wish I could take such good photographs as they do.
Romy, I am really enjoying seeing your spectacular Honeybuzzard shots. All the arguments fade away for me when I see images like that. Pretty amazing shutter speed with that much lens, too!
Conrad Tan wrote:
...
Haha! I hope I can Jim! I've taken the FJ to a couple of places, mostly rolling meadows though
Sorry for the OT pics They are for Jim here
Thanks for posting the FJ photos, Conrad. Here's a few of and/or near my Rugged Rentals jeepster. First photo is sunrise over "The Ancestors" at Torrey UT. Second is on the Burr Trail. That was crazy hot! 109 deg F. I would perish if I wandered 10m from the road, maybe 3m. Last two are from Boulder Tops.
Sorry, these photos are definitely OT, as I sold my 7D last year. OTOH, the 1DsIII I used was very quiet.
Nice Romy, my results come out to be very close to yours as well on the one raw. Here is a really quick run though, nothing very elaborate, no masks, etc. I think I tried to hard to bring the detail out, but we are really only looking at the noise for this example, i believe. The image is indeed a bit underexposed, and this will produce undesirable effects on the 7D. If there is one shortcoming with the 7D, it is that it does not like being underexposed by 2/3 or more, if you do, you have quite a bit of work on your hands.
Here are 4 of my raws from recent shoots at ISOs > 800 (a couple at 1250 and a couple at 3200), since it seems nobody ever posts unadulterated raw images and just processed websized images (even though through the years, I have posted many 100% cropped untouched images, then the post processed images, especially in the tutorial thread over on POTN).
See what you think compared to what others have posted, and let's see your handiwork on polishing these turds.
My turn. Just wanted to see what can be done with mostly blur tool and a little sharpening... Well, a lot of sharpening actually, maybe too much, but the original RAW is a bit soft IMO.
100% crops never lie, but up to this thread, almost no one would actually post them, hoping that showing downsampled and oversharpened images would be sufficient to show the qualities of any camera.
...
Mike Engles
I agree 100% crop never lie but then again it's not important unless you intend to print large poster size, ESPECIALLY unedited 100% crop. What for? Who doesn't edit their photos? Only the pretentious elitist snobs.
Romy's and others here have proven then when you've got yourself a great shot, what camera you used to take it is irrelevant.
I personally prefer to check how my photos look at 50% crop. If it looks good, I'm a happy camper.
mikeengles wrote:
100% crops never lie, but up to this thread, almost no one would actually post them, hoping that showing downsampled and oversharpened images would be sufficient to show the qualities of any camera. I have been consistent in asking to see 100% crops and always when posting links to my own images showing 100% crops.
I have bben taken to task for making such a request. I also asked for 100% crops of unprocessed images and was told that no one wanted to see such images.
I could care less what a 100% crop looks like. A 100% crop can look like hell, but the uncropped image can still make a great-looking 30x40 print, so what do I care what the 100% crop looks like
It is the final image that matters, not some 100% crop.
Imagemaster wrote:
I could care less what a 100% crop looks like. A 100% crop can look like hell, but the uncropped image can still make a great-looking 30x40 print, so what do I care what the 100% crop looks like
It is the final image that matters, not some 100% crop.
I have a love/hate relationship with 100% crops...
This RAW file was a little underexposed and it was not tack sharp but even with a little noise reduction, it would look terrific in a large print.
Below is a Lightroom conversion showing a 50% crop and the full frame reduced. Then focal length limited, the Canon 7D is a great choice.
This has been a great thread, thank you everyone. I posted the ISO4000 ice hockey jpg's on the first page.
I'm probably headed off-topic here, but I've been following some of the discussions on the 7D vs 1D4 that started in the last couple of pages. With the price of used 1D4's getting closer to $3K, I've been thinking about picking one up. Reasons include better AF (to increase my keepers), and better ISO performance at ISO3200 and above. My daughter has two years of HS sports (primarily hockey) left, helping me with my justification.
I think a lot of the comparisons in this thread were probably taken in One-Shot. I do shoot some wildlife, but not with the frequency of Conrad and Les. Most of my images are in AI Servo: ice hockey, soccer, auto racing, and aviation. I primarily use a 70-200II and a 100-400.
Those of you that shoot both cameras, am I correct that as ISO's climb and the light gets dimmer, the 1D4 should significantly out-perform the 7D? I've always wanted a 1-Series, but $3K is a lot of money for me, and I need to start talking myself out of this if this isn't a good idea.
(I realize I should rent a 1D4 and see for myself - I will probably do that later this fall).
?
