brainiac wrote:
I think you would do better to choose a different lens.
Not always possible in birding, where one often has teleconverters on one's longest lens. But w;hen focal length limited, the point is that the 7D will still provde the same noise per image scale on the cropped subject than the other cameras mentioned, as well as resolve more image scales. How small one will allow the subject to get in the frame and still consider the image worthwhile is an individual decision.
ejmartin wrote:
Not always possible in birding, where one often has teleconverters on one's longest lens. But w;hen focal length limited, the point is that the 7D will still provde the same noise per image scale on the cropped subject than the other cameras mentioned, as well as resolve more image scales. How small one will allow the subject to get in the frame and still consider the image worthwhile is an individual decision.
It seems to me that the 7D is the obvious choice for that application. It has more pixels per duck than any other camera, and it appears to have better high iso performance than any other crop camera. Per frame, its high iso performance snaps at the heels, or possibly exceeds that of the 5D2, depending on whether banding or detail matter more to you.
garyvot:
you could do even better in both the 5D2 and 7D by shooting sRAW1 or MRAW respectively, and still obtain an image large enough to crop to your specified area.
This cropping is for "teleconverter effect". So are you saying that 7D is so much better than 40D that those small pixels would be less noisy?
Is it true that the noise in ISO 400-800 range is high? I saw quite a few conclusions like that (even liquidstone mentioned that). Many are saying that ISO 1600-3200 range is great but I am not interested in going higher than ISO 800.
I do not have 7D yet (returned my pre-ordered camera because of a three week trip I am on and trying to make up my mind)
That has been my VERY brief subjective observation with my particular copy.
I also noticed some higher than expected artifacting with JPEGs coming straight from the camera at default settings in that ISO range. And for many, who don't have time for lengthy workflows, that will be important.
I shot some yesterday at ISO 200, and the results were more in line with what I was expecting. I haven't done much at high ISO, but plenty of others have with generally good results.
Unfortunately, I'll be away from my 7D until October 19th (business trip). I will definitely need to spend MUCH MORE time with this camera to determine what works, and what doesn't.
mfurman wrote:
This cropping is for "teleconverter effect". So are you saying that 7D is so much better than 40D that those small pixels would be less noisy?
Forget the pixels and think of performance per square mm of image. The 40D has the same angle of view as the 7D, so with any given lens the 7D will net you BOTH more detail (higher density) AND less noise per duck (because it's a less noisy camera, per frame). At low isos you will mostly see the detail advantage of the 7D, and at higher isos you will mostly see the noise advantage of the 7D.
brainiac:
Per frame, its high iso performance snaps at the heels, or possibly exceeds that of the 5D2
I have to admit that I did not see a single test that would show noise of 7D less than 5D mkII. I saw some pictures that were almost as good as 5D but colors (especially yellow) were somehow washed out on 7D images.
If 18 MPixel crop sensor were to be better than 21 Mpixels FF, it would be a complete revolution and the end of the era.
Is it true that the noise in ISO 400-800 range is high? I saw quite a few conclusions like that (even liquidstone mentioned that). Many are saying that ISO 1600-3200 range is great but I am not interested in going higher than ISO 800.
I do not have 7D yet (returned my pre-ordered camera because of a three week trip I am on and trying to make up my mind)
No.
ISO 800 (in bad light), DPP, all NR at 0, 7D (left) vs. 50D (right) (with apologies for the unequal magnification comparisons at 100%):
At low isos you will mostly see the detail advantage of the 7D, and at higher isos you will mostly see the noise advantage of the 7D.
The question still remains how much more you can crop this better image to maintain the same quality one can get from 40D. ejmartin alluded to this as well. I guess the question has to be answered individually and the answer will be different depending on ISO used.
Lens is a given. No bigger (or more expensive) lenses would be considered.
mfurman wrote:
This cropping is for "teleconverter effect". So are you saying that 7D is so much better than 40D that those small pixels would be less noisy?
Yes. It has higher resolution and has less noise, both at the same time.
Sorry, I misunderstood your scenario. If you are cropping for "reach" there is no contest. (But I agree with Brainiac that using a different lens is best.)
garyvot:
ISO 800 (in bad light), DPP, all NR at 0, 7D (left) vs. 50D (right):
Just to confirm, is 50D image on the right?
To my eye, noise in the image on the left is less but I prefer the image on the right (seems to be sharper)
garyvot:
If you are cropping for "reach" there is no contest.
I have no doubt that 7D is a better camera than 40D!
I am still not certain that 10 Mpixels out of 18 mpixels of 7D would be better than 10 Mpixels of 40D image (giving a pretty nice TC effect)
mfurman wrote:
I have to admit that I did not see a single test that would show noise of 7D less than 5D mkII. I saw some pictures that were almost as good as 5D but colors (especially yellow) were somehow washed out on 7D images.
If 18 MPixel crop sensor were to be better than 21 Mpixels FF, it would be a complete revolution and the end of the era.
On another thread lisy78 kindly uploaded a comparison from 7D and 5D2 where you could see the trademark banding problem on the 5D2 shot but not on the 7D shot. The 5D2 shot is more detailed, and would be less noisy if it weren't for the large scale banding affecting the red and blue channels. It is my opinion that after the 5D2 was released Canon looked into how to fix the banding, and the result was the 500D, which suffers far less from typical banding than its predecessor, the 450D. That anti-banding development has clearly been applied to the new 7D. Banding is a deal breaker when handing pictures over to a client, and I think that it is one of the 5D2's Achilles heels. Since I first bought my 5D2 I have been whingeing about how banding can affect its files even at very low isos when contrast is set to minimum or shadow pushing is required.
What this boils down to is that high iso 7D files may be noisier (on the small random scale) and less detailed than 5D2 images, but still better for handing over to clients because they have no sign of banding, which is unfixable in post.
I hope it's OK for me to quote lisy's samples from another thread: 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)
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....Show more →
mfurman wrote:
I have no doubt that 7D is a better camera than 40D!
I am still not certain that 10 Mpixels out of 18 mpixels of 7D would be better than 10 Mpixels of 40D image (giving a pretty nice TC effect)
But what about the 300 yard walk??? You don't seem to be thinking clearly: if you need to crop 10/18 of the 7D frame, then you also need to crop 10/18 of the 40D frame, given any particular lens and shooting distance. It isn't a meaningful comparison to compare 10/18 of the 7D frame against the whole 40D frame. After all, why not compare a 6 Mpixel crop from the 40D frame to the full 18 Mpixels of the 7D. That's no less fair.
mfurman wrote:
Just to confirm, is 50D image on the right?
To my eye, noise in the image on the left is less but I prefer the image on the right (seems to be sharper)
Well, the luminance noise pattern is sharper for sure; that's one of the major differences in character between these cameras.
This is pure speculation, but from looking at higher ISO images at 100% I believe with the 7D that Canon is taking a page from Nikon's book and is applying some technique at the de-Bayer stage to reduce luminance channel noise. The 7D grain pattern is slightly softened and rounded in a way that Canon's other cameras are not. This seems to allow the files take NR well without loosing too much image detail.
Believe me, I have extensive experience in (trying to) use the 50D at higher ISOs. Above ISO 1250 or so, the luminance noise becomes so coarse, particularly in the shadows, that all fine detail starts to break up and the required NR techniques become more and more intrusive. At higher ISOs, the 50D can make usable images only for use at reduced magnification.
Owning both, there is NO WAY I would prefer the camera on the right to the camera on the left for high ISO work.
mfurman wrote:
I have no doubt that 7D is a better camera than 40D!
I am still not certain that 10 Mpixels out of 18 mpixels of 7D would be better than 10 Mpixels of 40D image (giving a pretty nice TC effect)
Well, in your "reach" scenario you don't need to do any actual cropping to judge noise; just download the RAW files from ImagingResource and compare them at 100% on screen.
Do remember, however, that by cropping any image you are effectively "sub-sampling" the maximum resolution of the lens in use, and any other lens aberations will be magnified. In most cases using a longer lens on the lower-resolution body will result in better IQ.
brainiac:
You don't seem to be thinking clearly: if you need to crop 10/18 of the 7D frame, then you also need to crop 10/18 of the 40D frame, given any particular lens and shooting distance.
I do not mean to prolong this discussion, taking too much time from you and others but I have to clarify the lack of my "clear thinking".
The comparison that I am trying to make is nothing else than comparing "pixel noise". I do know that this term does not really exist for you because you want to look at the whole image and capabilities of a camera in this respect.
I wanted to look at the same number of pixels images to see if 10 Mpixel images taken out of 18 Mpixels will give a better image than 10 Mpixels of 40D. If that is the case, everything is completely clear to me as far as the progress Canon has made. If not, I will have to find out what size of 7D full image crop is equal to 40D's image.
If I know that, I would be able to see if the increase of "cropability" is worth $1700 for me. I know, as I have already said, that you do not want to think about "pixel quality" and that is the closest, I can come to in my quest to understanding how good 7D is (for me).
garyvot:
just download the RAW files from ImagingResource and compare them at 100% on screen.
I know but is it allowed to look at images 100% on the screen? I thought that this is the first deadly sin in certain circles. What I mean to say is that there is some justification to compare cameras on a "pixel level". It all depends what one is buying higher pixel density camera for.
in the comparison that garyvot made above of the 7D compared to the 50D at iso 800, i could not see the noise difference until i looked at the cropped versions below. the 7D is definitely better as far as noise. What i did notice though about the uncropped versions was the better shadow detail of the 7D. i can see it in the paper tray and where the ceiling slopes above.
my own observations in shooting HS football at night with each of these cameras, is that the 50D can blow out highlights easily, whereas the 7D retains detail in highlight areas and shadows. The image quality and colors are better in my opinion. I do not ever let the camera do my sharpening, coloring, or anything. I have always preferred to only count on a camera to properly expose and focus. i shoot 'neutral' and take control of color saturation and sharpness in post processing, so there were no in camera settings that make one better or the other for me.
garyvot wrote:
Do remember, however, that by cropping any image you are effectively "sub-sampling" the maximum resolution of the lens in use, and any other lens aberations will be magnified. In most cases using a longer lens on the lower-resolution body will result in better IQ.
Indeed.
However, a very few lenses are so insanely well designed for digital zoom. The 300/2.8 IS is effectively a 300/2.8 - 600/5.6 - 1200/11, not too shabby at the long end:
mfurman wrote:
I know but is it allowed to look at images 100% on the screen? I thought that this is the first deadly sin in certain circles. What I mean to say is that there is some justification to compare cameras on a "pixel level". It all depends what one is buying higher pixel density camera for.
I understand both your point and Brainiac's; they're okay by me.
I thought that this is the first deadly sin in certain circles. What I mean to say is that there is some justification to compare cameras on a "pixel level". It all depends what one is buying higher pixel density camera for.