This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20097d for weddings?
p.3 #17d for weddings?
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Don't be so quick to judge based on only the manufacturers marketing .. we know little about this cameras' actual performance. Right now it looks to me like Canons' Christmas gift to their retailers.
On paper it looks great .. but in the real world of actually shooting weddings it has to focus well in low light, and offer good high ISO noise performance. Given it's specs that's something I seriously doubt.
When the 50D was first introduced I said no way would the noise performance match the 40D or 30D .. you simply cannot jam more and smaller pixels onto...Show more →
Mike, I guess you missed the part where I said this camera wasn't for wedding photographers
I'll never buy this camera. I've got no use for it. However I do think it is a very smart product with a very real place in Canon's lineup. Sports and wildlife shooters are going to love this camera.
And for those who whine about high ISO noise, there is always the 10MP sRAW format which cuts down on that.
deepbluejh wrote
Canon is offering a very compelling camera for the money here with the 7D.On paper it looks great .. but in the real world of actually shooting weddings it has to focus well in low light, and offer good high ISO noise performance. Given it's specs that's something I seriously doubt.
When the 50D was first introduced I said no way would the noise performance match the 40D or 30D .. you simply cannot jam more and smaller pixels onto...Show more →
Mike, I guess you missed the part where I said this camera wasn't for wedding photographers
I'll never buy this camera. I've got no use for it. However I do think it is a very smart product with a very real place in Canon's lineup. Sports and wildlife shooters are going to love this camera.
And for those who whine about high ISO noise, there is always the 10MP sRAW format which cuts down on that.
Sep 01, 2009 at 10:28 AM
p.3 #27d for weddings?
if 7D IQ is a step up from 50D........
5Dmkii w/ 35mm or 24mm (maybe 16-35mm)
and
7D w/ 85mm or 135mm (maybe 24-70mm or 70-200mm)
is a nice 1-2 combo IMH and noob Opinion.
Later....
Mark
Edited on Sep 01, 2009 at 11:21 AM · View previous versions
5Dmkii w/ 35mm or 24mm (maybe 16-35mm)
and
7D w/ 85mm or 135mm (maybe 24-70mm or 70-200mm)
is a nice 1-2 combo IMH and noob Opinion.
Later....
Mark
Edited on Sep 01, 2009 at 11:21 AM · View previous versions
Sep 01, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Chris Beaumont
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.3 #37d for weddings?
I'll be replacing my 30D with one, then when (not if 
) they put a full frame sensor into the 7D body, I'll be buying one of those too.
) they put a full frame sensor into the 7D body, I'll be buying one of those too.Sep 01, 2009 at 11:00 AM
p.3 #47d for weddings?
What's with all the hate with crop sensors? I love me some FF action, but I also show love to the crop sensors. On paper, this camera looks pretty solid. It has good ISO, better AF then the other crops, and the same screen as the 5D2, so I'm sold. I like the crop for my longer lenses, so I think I'm gonna pick one up to go with my 5D2. Plus it has a built in electronic level. I'm the type of guy who'll spend $1500 on something just for something as small and nerdy as that.
Sep 01, 2009 at 12:00 PM
p.3 #57d for weddings?
sidewa
388 wrote:
can someone explain why you guys choose full frame over crop?
That's an easy one. My 50mm is actually a 50mm. My 16-35 is actually wide. I don't have any crappy EF-S lenses that I can't use on EVERY Canon body I want to. The DOF is gravy. The quality of those larger pixels are sweetness. And the high-ISO capability with low-noise - yum!
388 wrote:can someone explain why you guys choose full frame over crop?
That's an easy one. My 50mm is actually a 50mm. My 16-35 is actually wide. I don't have any crappy EF-S lenses that I can't use on EVERY Canon body I want to. The DOF is gravy. The quality of those larger pixels are sweetness. And the high-ISO capability with low-noise - yum!
Sep 01, 2009 at 12:44 PM
p.3 #67d for weddings?
If the photos from Rob Galbraith's site are real and a realistic representation of what you can expect from the 7d then wait for it... it's coming... I'll make it bold for you guys:
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high ISO images is primarily that ABOMINATION OF BANDING that has plagued pretty much every Canon DSLR I can think of. Detail is great, and more detail is greater still... but nothing ruins a pushed 6400 shot like noticeable pattern noise.
Look at the 7D files. Compared to the 5DII the noise is SIGNIFICANTLY more pattern-less ... in fact I don't see a pattern at all in the full size files, these shrunk down copies are showing a minor amount of pattern probably due to the sampling that went on when I shrunk them. The 5DII files' channels are a MESS both in their full size and in this shrunk down example.
Oh and by the way... the channels view is only to really show you what's going on... if you're not blind and your monitor doesn't suxxers you should see the banding in the 5D2 shot in the RGB composite (which is what we're obviously concerned about)
It's great news if you think about it. Whatever they did they will do to the 5DIII and then we'll have better detail AND NO PATTERN NOISE!!!
*REAL WORLD = when a real human being who is taking a real photo in terrible lighting conditions uses a High ISO setting to cope with the lack of light and often ends up having to then even PUSH the results. Not when someone takes an ISO 6400 shot in broad daylight 'cause they want to use F45... in that case I wouldn't be surprised if the 5D2 does better.
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high ISO images is primarily that ABOMINATION OF BANDING that has plagued pretty much every Canon DSLR I can think of. Detail is great, and more detail is greater still... but nothing ruins a pushed 6400 shot like noticeable pattern noise.
Look at the 7D files. Compared to the 5DII the noise is SIGNIFICANTLY more pattern-less ... in fact I don't see a pattern at all in the full size files, these shrunk down copies are showing a minor amount of pattern probably due to the sampling that went on when I shrunk them. The 5DII files' channels are a MESS both in their full size and in this shrunk down example.
Oh and by the way... the channels view is only to really show you what's going on... if you're not blind and your monitor doesn't suxxers you should see the banding in the 5D2 shot in the RGB composite (which is what we're obviously concerned about)
It's great news if you think about it. Whatever they did they will do to the 5DIII and then we'll have better detail AND NO PATTERN NOISE!!!
*REAL WORLD = when a real human being who is taking a real photo in terrible lighting conditions uses a High ISO setting to cope with the lack of light and often ends up having to then even PUSH the results. Not when someone takes an ISO 6400 shot in broad daylight 'cause they want to use F45... in that case I wouldn't be surprised if the 5D2 does better.
Sep 01, 2009 at 12:44 PM
p.3 #77d for weddings?
I should point out that the same is true at ISO6400 though it's less of a problem for the 5D2 there than at 12800... however a push WILL show banding unless you're very lucky
Sep 01, 2009 at 12:51 PM
p.3 #97d for weddings?
You miss the point. The 5DII being full frame is just as (if not more so) important than the exception high ISO noise performance.
Besides, all you're getting from a high pixel density crop camera is "crop and magnify" style "resolution". ALL of your lenses will be softer on a 7D than a 5DII (and certainly 5D).
As for the crops you posted, ISO 12800 is a non-standard sensitivity that is so bad that its not even worth using, IMO. 6400 is even sketchy on the 5DII.
Besides, all you're getting from a high pixel density crop camera is "crop and magnify" style "resolution". ALL of your lenses will be softer on a 7D than a 5DII (and certainly 5D).
As for the crops you posted, ISO 12800 is a non-standard sensitivity that is so bad that its not even worth using, IMO. 6400 is even sketchy on the 5DII.
Sep 01, 2009 at 12:57 PM
p.3 #107d for weddings?
and lisy, to my eyes, looking at the full-res files: the 5DII blows the 7D away in terms of detail. absolutely no contest. I like the noise better on the 5DII, also.
but then again I'm not in the habit of looking at my 2000+ image take individually, by color channel
in the end - crop sensors are for nooblets.
(i kid, i kid).
but then again I'm not in the habit of looking at my 2000+ image take individually, by color channel
in the end - crop sensors are for nooblets.
(i kid, i kid).
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:06 PM
p.3 #117d for weddings?
deepbluejh wrote:
You miss the point. The 5DII being full frame is just as (if not more so) important than the exception high ISO noise performance.
Besides, all you're getting from a high pixel density crop camera is "crop and magnify" style "resolution". ALL of your lenses will be softer on a 7D than a 5DII (and certainly 5D).
As for the crops you posted, ISO 12800 is a non-standard sensitivity that is so bad that its not even worth using, IMO. 6400 is even sketchy on the 5DII.
Actually I'm afraid it's you who missed the point. I didn't say I prefer a crop camera, or that I would switch my 5D out for a 7D.
As far as the "softer" comment... that may be true for some lenses and not true for others. Certainly the 7D should be less "softer" than the 5D2 than the 5D2 was softer than the 5D ... and I don't hear people crying left and right about soft 5D2s. Lenses with much better center area may perform better with a 7D than a 5D2.
I agree that ISO 12800 is marginal. My point wasn't that we should all shoot 12800 rather than ISO200. My point was simply that at ISO 12800 (and ISO 6400) the POSTED 7D files will respond MUCH MUCH better to typical SHADOW PUSH than 5D2 files would. And that they appear to exibit NONE of the HORRENDOUS pattern noise shown by the 5D2, 5D, 50D, 40D ... etc.
Canon must have done SOMETHING to resolve the pattern noise and let me tell you it's a HUGE development. HUGE. It means you can shoot at 12800 push to 25600 and create an "artistic" B/W shot in a situation where you could NOT do so with any previous Canon camera that I know about (ok I never checked 1DS III files at those ISO levels)
You miss the point. The 5DII being full frame is just as (if not more so) important than the exception high ISO noise performance.
Besides, all you're getting from a high pixel density crop camera is "crop and magnify" style "resolution". ALL of your lenses will be softer on a 7D than a 5DII (and certainly 5D).
As for the crops you posted, ISO 12800 is a non-standard sensitivity that is so bad that its not even worth using, IMO. 6400 is even sketchy on the 5DII.
Actually I'm afraid it's you who missed the point. I didn't say I prefer a crop camera, or that I would switch my 5D out for a 7D.
As far as the "softer" comment... that may be true for some lenses and not true for others. Certainly the 7D should be less "softer" than the 5D2 than the 5D2 was softer than the 5D ... and I don't hear people crying left and right about soft 5D2s. Lenses with much better center area may perform better with a 7D than a 5D2.
I agree that ISO 12800 is marginal. My point wasn't that we should all shoot 12800 rather than ISO200. My point was simply that at ISO 12800 (and ISO 6400) the POSTED 7D files will respond MUCH MUCH better to typical SHADOW PUSH than 5D2 files would. And that they appear to exibit NONE of the HORRENDOUS pattern noise shown by the 5D2, 5D, 50D, 40D ... etc.
Canon must have done SOMETHING to resolve the pattern noise and let me tell you it's a HUGE development. HUGE. It means you can shoot at 12800 push to 25600 and create an "artistic" B/W shot in a situation where you could NOT do so with any previous Canon camera that I know about (ok I never checked 1DS III files at those ISO levels)
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:06 PM
p.3 #127d for weddings?
deepbluejh wrote:
Y ISO 12800 is a non-standard sensitivity that is so bad that its not even worth using, IMO. 6400 is even sketchy on the 5DII.
seriously?! i push to 6400 on the 5D mk. oldascrap. 6400 on the mk. II is straight up dreamy. 12800 is completely useable. especially when you view it as your clients will: in print sizes below 8x12, and web sized.
Y ISO 12800 is a non-standard sensitivity that is so bad that its not even worth using, IMO. 6400 is even sketchy on the 5DII.
seriously?! i push to 6400 on the 5D mk. oldascrap. 6400 on the mk. II is straight up dreamy. 12800 is completely useable. especially when you view it as your clients will: in print sizes below 8x12, and web sized.
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:07 PM
p.3 #137d for weddings?
lisy78 wrote:
If the photos from Rob Galbraith's site are real and a realistic representation of what you can expect from the 7d then wait for it... it's coming... I'll make it bold for you guys:
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high...Show more →
This is very interesting...
If the photos from Rob Galbraith's site are real and a realistic representation of what you can expect from the 7d then wait for it... it's coming... I'll make it bold for you guys:
THE 7D HAS BETTER REAL WORLD* HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE THAN THE....
CANON 5D MARK II
And that's a fact.
But don't listen to me, and certainly don't listen to Galbraith's BULL$#IT about the 5D2 resolving more detail. Look at the CHANNELS.
here you go: 5D2 in color followed by R,G,B and next to it 7d in color followed by R,G,B channels (both cams at ISO 12800)
http://www.manymanymoments.com/misc/fm/5d2vs7d.jpg
What causes the unworkability of high...Show more →
This is very interesting...
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:09 PM
p.3 #147d for weddings?
People this is business.... why would anyone expect a full frame camera with all the bells and whistle for $1,700
Let alone 1 year after the 5Dmk2 which is still hard to get brand new. The only FF camera Canon might release right now will be the 1Ds mk4, quit complaining. If you ran a business would you sell a product for $1,700 that you know you can sell out at a price point of $2,800? A FF cam with the feature set of the 7D would be awesome true, but it's not coming right now. Canon is not stupid and they know what they are doing....
Let alone 1 year after the 5Dmk2 which is still hard to get brand new. The only FF camera Canon might release right now will be the 1Ds mk4, quit complaining. If you ran a business would you sell a product for $1,700 that you know you can sell out at a price point of $2,800? A FF cam with the feature set of the 7D would be awesome true, but it's not coming right now. Canon is not stupid and they know what they are doing....Sep 01, 2009 at 01:10 PM
p.3 #157d for weddings?
PhotoDude79 wrote:
Canon is not stupid and they know what they are doing....
i cordially disagree on both points. canon went full retard a long time ago (except for lenses)
Canon is not stupid and they know what they are doing....
i cordially disagree on both points. canon went full retard a long time ago (except for lenses)
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:13 PM
p.3 #167d for weddings?
RyanFlynn wrote:
i cordially disagree on both points. canon went full retard a long time ago (except for lenses)
LMAO... That full retard was hilarious...
The reason I say that is because a year after being released the 5Dmk2 is still almost sold out. And this new 7D will mostly likely follow suit. Come on... a new AF from Canon who has been using the same AF since 10D/20D. Canon shooters will eat that up because they've waited so long for it.
PhotoDude79 wrote
Canon is not stupid and they know what they are doing....LMAO... That full retard was hilarious...
The reason I say that is because a year after being released the 5Dmk2 is still almost sold out. And this new 7D will mostly likely follow suit. Come on... a new AF from Canon who has been using the same AF since 10D/20D. Canon shooters will eat that up because they've waited so long for it.
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:15 PM
p.3 #177d for weddings?
that's the problem. people will buy it because "zomg, it has a reasonably decent (on paper) AF! and it's weather sealed! and 18 MILLION PIXELS!11!".
they don't sit down and realize that Nikon has better cameras for the same, or less, money. and have had them for a year or two now. imaging if canon actually put a pro-level AF in the 5DII, and priced it $400 higher, and made more of them. i can all but guarantee they'd be sold out month after month after month.
i get the distinct impression that canon is one of those dinosaur companies that has been on, or near, the top of the market for so long, that they don't innovate anymore. they don't see the need to. they make so much money selling the latest Rebel 600D XT3r that the cameras that pro's need/want are simply an afterthought, or a flagship statue to get the wannabe masses to flock to canon's brand.
i maintain that the ONLY reason I shoot canon is because of their L primes.
they don't sit down and realize that Nikon has better cameras for the same, or less, money. and have had them for a year or two now. imaging if canon actually put a pro-level AF in the 5DII, and priced it $400 higher, and made more of them. i can all but guarantee they'd be sold out month after month after month.
i get the distinct impression that canon is one of those dinosaur companies that has been on, or near, the top of the market for so long, that they don't innovate anymore. they don't see the need to. they make so much money selling the latest Rebel 600D XT3r that the cameras that pro's need/want are simply an afterthought, or a flagship statue to get the wannabe masses to flock to canon's brand.
i maintain that the ONLY reason I shoot canon is because of their L primes.
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:21 PM
p.3 #187d for weddings?
RyanFlynn wrote:
and lisy, to my eyes, looking at the full-res files: the 5DII blows the 7D away in terms of detail. absolutely no contest. I like the noise better on the 5DII, also.
but then again I'm not in the habit of looking at my 2000+ image take individually, by color channel
in the end - crop sensors are for nooblets.
(i kid, i kid).
Ryan,
stop looking at the files full size. Are you REALLY going to use ISO 12800 for a gigantoprint? Didn't think so. It may end up as a 4x4 in the album, and you only use it in an emergency and you probably turn it B/W 'cause underexposed one stop at 12800 the colors are just crap.
Now here's the thing... take the files from Galbraith's site and open the 5d2's ISO 6400 file and the 7D's ISO 12800 file. Push the 5D2's exposure up 2 stops. Push the 7D's exposure 3 stops.
Which file shows awful pattern noise on the guitarist's arm? The 5d2 6400 pushed 2 stops or the 7D's 12800 pushed 3 stops?
My overarching point however is that it appeared that Canon has figured out how to fix their biggest high iso problem. So the 5DMk3 will likely have the DETAIL you like PLUS the ability to push the $#it out of these files without getting annyong artificial patterns.
That's all.
Oh and also the point that the 7D will be TOWERING over the 50D due to this alone.
and lisy, to my eyes, looking at the full-res files: the 5DII blows the 7D away in terms of detail. absolutely no contest. I like the noise better on the 5DII, also.
but then again I'm not in the habit of looking at my 2000+ image take individually, by color channel
in the end - crop sensors are for nooblets.
(i kid, i kid).
Ryan,
stop looking at the files full size. Are you REALLY going to use ISO 12800 for a gigantoprint? Didn't think so. It may end up as a 4x4 in the album, and you only use it in an emergency and you probably turn it B/W 'cause underexposed one stop at 12800 the colors are just crap.
Now here's the thing... take the files from Galbraith's site and open the 5d2's ISO 6400 file and the 7D's ISO 12800 file. Push the 5D2's exposure up 2 stops. Push the 7D's exposure 3 stops.
Which file shows awful pattern noise on the guitarist's arm? The 5d2 6400 pushed 2 stops or the 7D's 12800 pushed 3 stops?
My overarching point however is that it appeared that Canon has figured out how to fix their biggest high iso problem. So the 5DMk3 will likely have the DETAIL you like PLUS the ability to push the $#it out of these files without getting annyong artificial patterns.
That's all.
Oh and also the point that the 7D will be TOWERING over the 50D due to this alone.
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:25 PM
p.3 #197d for weddings?
I'm pretty sure they are going to put pro AF in a full frame cam with the body of the 5D/7D but not this year.
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:25 PM
p.3 #207d for weddings?
Where are you finding these low prices for the 7d? On the bestbuy website they have it listed for almost $4,000 !!!
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9491944&type=product&id=1218115078883
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9491944&type=product&id=1218115078883
Sep 01, 2009 at 01:26 PM