This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Official 7D Thread
p.18 #1Official 7D Thread
Pixel Perfect wrote:
...the imaging resources shots look much better IMO. ISO 800 was very clean and ISO 1600 good. This is better than I expected. If I only saw RG's shots I'd be disappointed.
I'd be a bit cautious about the Imaging Resource results. Their test workbench is shot under ideal conditions, using abundant full spectrum daylight-balanced lighting.
Most high-ISO shooting is done at much lower light levels, and the light is strongly shifted to one end of the color spectrum (usually red). This brings out the very worst in most sensors, and some Canon sensors in particular. In poor lighting, even ISO 400 images on the 50D can show huge gobs of chroma noise and coaseness in the shadows, along with magenta blotching. Yet, the 50D looks okay in their tests.
Their tests also all mostly in-camera JPEGs, so you're not seeing native noise in the file prior to NR.
...the imaging resources shots look much better IMO. ISO 800 was very clean and ISO 1600 good. This is better than I expected. If I only saw RG's shots I'd be disappointed.
I'd be a bit cautious about the Imaging Resource results. Their test workbench is shot under ideal conditions, using abundant full spectrum daylight-balanced lighting.
Most high-ISO shooting is done at much lower light levels, and the light is strongly shifted to one end of the color spectrum (usually red). This brings out the very worst in most sensors, and some Canon sensors in particular. In poor lighting, even ISO 400 images on the 50D can show huge gobs of chroma noise and coaseness in the shadows, along with magenta blotching. Yet, the 50D looks okay in their tests.
Their tests also all mostly in-camera JPEGs, so you're not seeing native noise in the file prior to NR.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:31 PM
p.18 #2Official 7D Thread
garyvot wrote:
They look bad, but the imaging resources shots look much better IMO. ISO 800 was very clean and ISO 1600 good. This is better than I expected. If I only saw RG's shots I'd be disappointed.he shot a band under weak natural lighting, what do you expect, the 5d2 looked worse there too and that is far from how bad things can look under really, really poor lightingI'm pretty sure RG used only chroma noise reduction in DPP, then converted the files with sharpening set to 0 and then did standard pre-sharpening in Photoshop. This means that little or no luminance channel noise reduction was done on those files.
Philosophically, some people avoid too much noise processing, and prefer the film-grain look with type of workflow. I can get less noisy (but still film-like) results than this from either the 5D2 or 50D using conservative settings in Neat Image.
If you take a look at RG's ISO 3200 and 6400 samples, you'll see some desaturation of colors:...Show more →
are you sure, it looked like it got a bit luma clumpy which seemed like some luma NR too
skibum5 wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
dgrinde wrote
A little disapointed with HIGH ISO NOISE on 7d based on RG pictures, ouch. They didn't look much better than my 40D.Philosophically, some people avoid too much noise processing, and prefer the film-grain look with type of workflow. I can get less noisy (but still film-like) results than this from either the 5D2 or 50D using conservative settings in Neat Image.
If you take a look at RG's ISO 3200 and 6400 samples, you'll see some desaturation of colors:...Show more →
are you sure, it looked like it got a bit luma clumpy which seemed like some luma NR too
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:33 PM
p.18 #3Official 7D Thread
Some pretty impressive examples here: http://gizmodo.com/5349830/canon-7d-images-gallery//gallery?selectedImage=1
The guitar set - particularly 7, 8, 12 and 13 when viewed at "full" size - look very clean for 3200 and 6400, even given that they're pretty small, but they look like real world/crappy light situations (1/16 at 6400 ISO, 18mm and f/5 is pretty dark).
Edited on Sep 01, 2009 at 06:42 PM · View previous versions
The guitar set - particularly 7, 8, 12 and 13 when viewed at "full" size - look very clean for 3200 and 6400, even given that they're pretty small, but they look like real world/crappy light situations (1/16 at 6400 ISO, 18mm and f/5 is pretty dark).
Edited on Sep 01, 2009 at 06:42 PM · View previous versions
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:37 PM
p.18 #4Official 7D Thread
garyvot wrote:
huge gobs of chroma noise and coaseness in the shadows, along with magenta blotching.
I tend to associate that look with conversions in ACR or Lr, rather than with any particular camera...
huge gobs of chroma noise and coaseness in the shadows, along with magenta blotching.
I tend to associate that look with conversions in ACR or Lr, rather than with any particular camera...
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:39 PM
p.18 #5Official 7D Thread
If you take a look at RG's ISO 3200 and 6400 samples, you'll see some desaturation of colors: this is a signature characteristic of Canon's chroma noise reduction, and you'll see this from in-camera JPEGs or in DPP conversions.
Bear in mind that Canon has explicitly said that the 7D is set up to provide less saturated images out of the box, to separate it from the saturated "P&S look" that some lower-end DSLRs are set up to to produce.
Bear in mind that Canon has explicitly said that the 7D is set up to provide less saturated images out of the box, to separate it from the saturated "P&S look" that some lower-end DSLRs are set up to to produce.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:41 PM
p.18 #7Official 7D Thread
He is a crude Nikon troll. I'd bet he "jerks and squirts" at new Nikon releases.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:47 PM
p.18 #8Official 7D Thread
keithreeder wrote:
Bear in mind that Canon has explicitly said that the 7D is set up to provide less saturated images out of the box, to separate it from the saturated "P&S look" that some lower-end DSLRs are set up to to produce.
My high end 1D3 doesn't seem to be too unsaturated.
Earlier quote
If you take a look at RG's ISO 3200 and 6400 samples, you'll see some desaturation of colors: this is a signature characteristic of Canon's chroma noise reduction, and you'll see this from in-camera JPEGs or in DPP conversions.My high end 1D3 doesn't seem to be too unsaturated.
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:50 PM
p.18 #9Official 7D Thread
GeneO wrote:
He is a crude Nikon troll. I'd bet he "jerks and squirts" at new Nikon releases.
oh boy...
He is a crude Nikon troll. I'd bet he "jerks and squirts" at new Nikon releases.
oh boy...
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:51 PM
p.18 #10Official 7D Thread
canonical wrote:
THIS is amusing.
All these "photographers" jerkin' and squirtin' when they haven't even touched, let alone used, the camera in their real world scenarios. Is business really that bad?
Actually, what's really sad is the lack of maturity spewed forth in this thread. Canon finally listens and puts a lot of great features in a ridiculously cheap-for-what-it-has camera, and the most intelligent response is "F**K canon" and this sophomoric garbage.
Seriously, why don't you guys read a coloring book or something?
THIS is amusing.
All these "photographers" jerkin' and squirtin' when they haven't even touched, let alone used, the camera in their real world scenarios. Is business really that bad?
Actually, what's really sad is the lack of maturity spewed forth in this thread. Canon finally listens and puts a lot of great features in a ridiculously cheap-for-what-it-has camera, and the most intelligent response is "F**K canon" and this sophomoric garbage.
Seriously, why don't you guys read a coloring book or something?
Sep 01, 2009 at 06:52 PM
p.18 #11Official 7D Thread
timbop wrote:
All these "photographers" jerkin' and squirtin' when they haven't even touched, let alone used, the camera in their real world scenarios. Is business really that bad?Actually, what's really sad is the lack of maturity spewed forth in this thread. Canon finally listens and puts a lot of great features in a ridiculously cheap-for-what-it-has camera, and the most intelligent response is "F**K canon" and this sophomoric garbage.
Seriously, why don't you guys read a coloring book or something?
If you see his profile, he's actually gone over to Nikon and you know how these unsatisfied-Canon-customers-come-Nikon trolls are, I think they want revenge because Canon couldn't satisfy them and now they're not happy that Canon released this 7D because then they can't really come here and brag about the D300 anymore.
I wish Canon would announce a D700 killer just so these trolls would stay out.
canonical wrote
THIS is amusing.All these "photographers" jerkin' and squirtin' when they haven't even touched, let alone used, the camera in their real world scenarios. Is business really that bad?
Seriously, why don't you guys read a coloring book or something?
If you see his profile, he's actually gone over to Nikon and you know how these unsatisfied-Canon-customers-come-Nikon trolls are, I think they want revenge because Canon couldn't satisfy them and now they're not happy that Canon released this 7D because then they can't really come here and brag about the D300 anymore.
I wish Canon would announce a D700 killer just so these trolls would stay out.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:02 PM
p.18 #12Official 7D Thread
I hope canonical is in his teens or that is one obnoxious middle aged person
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:02 PM
p.18 #13Official 7D Thread
while I seriously disagree with the banter here, there is something to be said about the rampant speculation and point-counterpoint offered here when most is based on rumor.....use the body in your real world situations and then offer some real insight. 
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:04 PM
p.18 #14Official 7D Thread
hoagie wrote:
while I seriously disagree with the banter here, there is something to be said about the rampant speculation and point-counterpoint offered here when most is based on rumor.....use the body in your real world situations and then offer some real insight.
People are just excited about this 7D, give them a break. The whinging and moaning will come soon enough anyway.
while I seriously disagree with the banter here, there is something to be said about the rampant speculation and point-counterpoint offered here when most is based on rumor.....use the body in your real world situations and then offer some real insight.
People are just excited about this 7D, give them a break. The whinging and moaning will come soon enough anyway.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:11 PM
p.18 #15Official 7D Thread
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I shot in a dark dinghy pub at ISO 1600 on the 5D and it was no where this bad. Ok 5D has giant pixels, but in 3 years of ownership I only used NR a few times.
Anyway I'm waiting for controlled testing of 7D vs 40D vs 50D vs 5D II. So far it seems the 7D is better than the 50D at the pixel level and not just at the print level.
Pixel Perfect, check out http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Use the "Compare Sample Images" in left side bar to down load full sizes images of the same shots from the 7D and other cameras. Then down size 7D image to matching size and you really see what the images can do. I found them superior to 40D, 50D, D300 and not as far behind 5D and 1D3 as I would have guessed.
Once down sized the noise is cleaned up and the resolution stays.
Now how well the AF and AI work remains to be seen.
I shot in a dark dinghy pub at ISO 1600 on the 5D and it was no where this bad. Ok 5D has giant pixels, but in 3 years of ownership I only used NR a few times.
Anyway I'm waiting for controlled testing of 7D vs 40D vs 50D vs 5D II. So far it seems the 7D is better than the 50D at the pixel level and not just at the print level.
Pixel Perfect, check out http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Use the "Compare Sample Images" in left side bar to down load full sizes images of the same shots from the 7D and other cameras. Then down size 7D image to matching size and you really see what the images can do. I found them superior to 40D, 50D, D300 and not as far behind 5D and 1D3 as I would have guessed.
Once down sized the noise is cleaned up and the resolution stays.
Now how well the AF and AI work remains to be seen.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:16 PM
p.18 #16Official 7D Thread
Rusty1 wrote:
Anyway I'm waiting for controlled testing of 7D vs 40D vs 50D vs 5D II. So far it seems the 7D is better than the 50D at the pixel level and not just at the print level.Pixel Perfect, check out http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Use the "Compare Sample Images" in left side bar to down load full sizes images of the same shots from the 7D and other cameras. Then down size 7D image to matching size and you really see what the images can do. I found them superior to 40D, 50D, D300 and not as far behind 5D and 1D3 as I would have guessed.
Once down sized the noise is cleaned up and the resolution stays.
Now how well the AF and AI work remains to be seen.
Yes but, downsizing an image negates any resolution advantage that you have from the higher rez sensor. At any rate, I hope the per pixel noise performance of the 7D is as good as the 1D3, if not better.
Pixel Perfect wrote
I shot in a dark dinghy pub at ISO 1600 on the 5D and it was no where this bad. Ok 5D has giant pixels, but in 3 years of ownership I only used NR a few times.Anyway I'm waiting for controlled testing of 7D vs 40D vs 50D vs 5D II. So far it seems the 7D is better than the 50D at the pixel level and not just at the print level.
Once down sized the noise is cleaned up and the resolution stays.
Now how well the AF and AI work remains to be seen.
Yes but, downsizing an image negates any resolution advantage that you have from the higher rez sensor. At any rate, I hope the per pixel noise performance of the 7D is as good as the 1D3, if not better.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:18 PM
p.18 #17Official 7D Thread
n0b0 wrote:
People are just excited about this 7D, give them a break. The whinging and moaning will come soon enough anyway.
I guess that's what I just don't understand. They are excited now and will MAYBE be whining soon enough.....all before most have even spent anytime shooting the body. It just doesn't make any sense to me, but to each their own! Even at a reasonably good price, I would still wait for some good data before investing that much money. Hey $1700 is still $1700 !
My 2 cents...
hoagie wrote
while I seriously disagree with the banter here, there is something to be said about the rampant speculation and point-counterpoint offered here when most is based on rumor.....use the body in your real world situations and then offer some real insight.I guess that's what I just don't understand. They are excited now and will MAYBE be whining soon enough.....all before most have even spent anytime shooting the body. It just doesn't make any sense to me, but to each their own! Even at a reasonably good price, I would still wait for some good data before investing that much money. Hey $1700 is still $1700 !
My 2 cents...
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:21 PM
p.18 #18Official 7D Thread
orangefirefish wrote:
....................
Yes but, downsizing an image negates any resolution advantage that you have from the higher rez sensor. ..................
yeah, it really doesn't work on screen. The test images should be printed at the same size. Since the reason for high res is print, screen comparisons don't make a lot of sense. If it must be screen, I think upresing is the way to do it.
....................
Yes but, downsizing an image negates any resolution advantage that you have from the higher rez sensor. ..................
yeah, it really doesn't work on screen. The test images should be printed at the same size. Since the reason for high res is print, screen comparisons don't make a lot of sense. If it must be screen, I think upresing is the way to do it.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:24 PM
p.18 #19Official 7D Thread
orangefirefish wrote:
yes but, downsizing an image negates any resolution advantage that you have from the higher rez sensor. At any rate, I hope the per pixel noise performance of the 7D is as good as the 1D3, if not better.
Actually the 7D images still show superior resolution. Try it.
yes but, downsizing an image negates any resolution advantage that you have from the higher rez sensor. At any rate, I hope the per pixel noise performance of the 7D is as good as the 1D3, if not better.
Actually the 7D images still show superior resolution. Try it.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:28 PM
p.18 #20Official 7D Thread
Rusty1 wrote:
Anyway I'm waiting for controlled testing of 7D vs 40D vs 50D vs 5D II. So far it seems the 7D is better than the 50D at the pixel level and not just at the print level.Pixel Perfect, check out http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Use the "Compare Sample Images" in left side bar to down load full sizes images of the same shots from the 7D and other cameras. Then down size 7D image to matching size and you really see what the images can do. I found them superior to 40D, 50D, D300 and not as far behind 5D and 1D3 as I would have guessed.
Once down sized the noise is cleaned up and the resolution stays.
Now how well the AF and AI work remains to be seen.
For all the talk about not-APSH, not APSH the funny thing is that the early results tentatively appear to show SNR awfully close, if not better than APS-H levels and the DR at ISO100 appears to be IDENTICAL to that of the 5D2 (only with less cross-hatching). It may end up giving more or less what we had been used to from APS-H. I mean it remains to be seen with more careful testing, but it is possible.
Pixel Perfect wrote
I shot in a dark dinghy pub at ISO 1600 on the 5D and it was no where this bad. Ok 5D has giant pixels, but in 3 years of ownership I only used NR a few times.Anyway I'm waiting for controlled testing of 7D vs 40D vs 50D vs 5D II. So far it seems the 7D is better than the 50D at the pixel level and not just at the print level.
Once down sized the noise is cleaned up and the resolution stays.
Now how well the AF and AI work remains to be seen.
For all the talk about not-APSH, not APSH the funny thing is that the early results tentatively appear to show SNR awfully close, if not better than APS-H levels and the DR at ISO100 appears to be IDENTICAL to that of the 5D2 (only with less cross-hatching). It may end up giving more or less what we had been used to from APS-H. I mean it remains to be seen with more careful testing, but it is possible.
Sep 01, 2009 at 07:29 PM