teppy1 wrote:
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.
+1. In my limited experience, I've found the 7D behaves more like a 5D/5D2 in this regard (meaning, it's good) than it does a 50D. Highlight detail retention seems quite good and color accuracy is much improved over the 50D in poor light.
What I didn't show in the comparison above is what I had to do to equalize the 50D colors for the scene. Using the exact same in-camera WB setting (3000 K), the 50D image needed a +2 Color Tone correction in DPP to restore proper green channel balance, whereas the 7D color balance is correct for the scene as shot. I shoot in warm light a lot, and find this to be a common issue with the 50D; I'm kind of surprised it doesn't get more discussion here. (My 50D has the latest firmware with the "magenta fix"; this issue doesn't show up so much in daylight-balance scenes, mostly in warm light.)
Here is the image again, first corrected, then at the 50D default setting (7D image can be seen in the top thumbnail):
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.
...but aren't you getting completely different angles of view?
mfurman wrote:
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.
If you want to compare cameras, then you should look at the same image from each one. It makes little sense to compare different fractions of the image. If you're saying you want to use a higher MP camera for its greater "reach" (greater ability to crop while retaining sufficient detail), then fine, the higher MP camera can do things the lower MP camera cannot. It is not the case that the lower MP camera can do things the higher MP cannot.
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.
The 10MP mRAW images are nothing more than the camera downsampling the 18MP to 10MP. This is about the crudest form of NR one can do, as it throws out image detail at the same rate it throws out noise. Better is to use one of the good NR filters (NI, NN, etc) to filter out the noise while retaining more detail.
However, if 10MP is what your heart is set on, the 7D should provide a cleaner 10MP image than the 40D -- the 40D at the pixel level will have more demosaic artifacts and the effect of the AA filter will cause the image to be somewhat softer than the downsampled 18MP image, whose demosaic artifacts and AA filter blurring are at scales that will be smoothed away by the downsampling. As far as noise, the cameras are collecting about the same number of photons per unit area, and read noise per unit area seems to be about the same (though as has been noted by many, pattern noise is much reduced in the 7D). Thus, when resampled to 10MP, noise will be about the same (unless one considers digital artifacts of demosaicing error a form of "noise", in which case the 7D will have less for a good converter)
brainiac:
...but aren't you getting completely different angles of view
Do you mean when cropping 18 Mpixels image? Yes, I will but it is the main reason for me to have more pixels. Remember, I do not need more pixels for better quality but "more reach" at the same quality.
About the latest examples shown by everyone (thank you for your work btw!) I have to add a little something for the LR/ACR-users: Until Adobe fixes the profile for the 7D, it will seem a little bit more noisy than it "should" when used with those converters.
One of the green channels is more sensitive than the other (it has a higher spectral transmissivity - it lets more wavelengths through). It's also expanded towards the red channel by quite a lot.
So to get maximum colour accuracy, you need to demosaic the 7D as "four different colours", it's not R+G+G+B.... It's more like Red+Yellowgreen+Green+Blue. I'm not sure that LR/ACR can do this unless specifically told that the camera needs another demosaic scheme (like the Fuji's and some others)
I've added an example of how this effects colours that are somewhere between yellowish green and warm red. This is the EXACT same raw, with EXACTLY the same settings of sharpening, converted in EXACTLY the same raw engine (my own MatLab development). The only thing that differs is that one is de-mosaiced with an algorithm that supposes that all four colours are totally different from eachother, normal demosaicing usually supposes that the two greens in each RGGB-group are the same colour.
I hope ACR gets that update soon, I shot mountain bikes all day yesterday with 7D and converting them in the beta ACR makes me want to sell the 7d. Then I drop in DPP and they are much nicer, which has been said a million times, but I just cringe modifying my workflow in DPP.
theSuede:
So to get maximum colour accuracy, you need to demosaic the 7D as "four different colours", it's not R+G+G+B.... It's more like Red+Yellowgreen+Green+Blue.
Interesting. Does Canon document it anywhere?
If we are going to include the type of RAW converter used, for any S/N or colour accuracy comparisons - we will never agree on anything. I noticed that yellow looked different in some 7D images (comparing with other cameras) but I thought that it was just different light.
I can already here people saying the the reviewers should use different converters to compare cameras.
theSuede wrote:
One of the green channels is more sensitive than the other (it has a higher spectral transmissivity - it lets more wavelengths through). It's also expanded towards the red channel by quite a lot.
So to get maximum colour accuracy, you need to demosaic the 7D as "four different colours", it's not R+G+G+B.... It's more like Red+Yellowgreen+Green+Blue.
What is the evidence for this (rather than, say, mismatched column gains on particular copies)? Do you for example see a difference between the spectral response of the two green channels in the IR test files (eg the one that includes a colorchecker chart)?
theSuede wrote:
About the latest examples shown by everyone (thank you for your work btw!) I have to add a little something for the LR/ACR-users: Until Adobe fixes the profile for the 7D, it will seem a little bit more noisy than it "should" when used with those converters.
One of the green channels is more sensitive than the other (it has a higher spectral transmissivity - it lets more wavelengths through). It's also expanded towards the red channel by quite a lot.
So to get maximum colour accuracy, you need to demosaic the 7D as "four different colours", it's not R+G+G+B.... It's more like Red+Yellowgreen+Green+Blue. I'm not sure that LR/ACR can do this unless specifically told that the camera needs another demosaic scheme (like the Fuji's and some others)
I've added an example of how this effects colours that are somewhere between yellowish green and warm red. This is the EXACT same raw, with EXACTLY the same settings of sharpening, converted in EXACTLY the same raw engine (my own MatLab development). The only thing that differs is that one is de-mosaiced with an algorithm that supposes that all four colours are totally different from eachother, normal demosaicing usually supposes that the two greens in each RGGB-group are the same colour. ...Show more →
theSuede: thank you, this is very good information.
mfurman wrote:
Interesting. Does Canon document it anywhere?
If we are going to include the type of RAW converter used, for any S/N or colour accuracy comparisons - we will never agree on anything. I noticed that yellow looked different in some 7D images (comparing with other cameras) but I thought that it was just different light.
I can already here people saying the the reviewers should use different converters to compare cameras.
Valid point, and one needs to know one's priorities.
I'm a firm believer that to judge a camera fairly one needs to at least include the camera vendor's own processing in the comparison mix. The onus is really on the 3rd party to match its software decoding to the vendor's hardware characteristics.
That said, it's valid to have a greater loyalty to a particular RAW workflow practice than to a particular camera model or brand I suppose. If I could never imagine using anything but Lightroom or ACR and some particular camera looks better or worse there, I would prefer the better one.
ejmartin wrote:
What is the evidence for this (rather than, say, mismatched column gains on particular copies)? Do you for example see a difference between the spectral response of the two green channels in the IR test files (eg the one that includes a colorchecker chart)?
Such a demosaic scheme gives up a huge amount in resolution -- if all four subarrays are assumed independent, then the resolution drops to half of Nyquist rather than the .7 of Nyquist that would pertain if the two Green subarrays are identical in response and treated as such.
I'm aware of this, and I seen raw-converters that DON'T lower resolution. The greens are sufficiently close together for the engine to work with chrominance-based luma correction per channel. This is quite easy to do.
And yes, I see a different spectral response. Since I'm not to be back at work until next week, I cant give you the exact response curves per channel, but this is the data from an X-Rite 24CC. Channels were extracted as "single channels", and were treated with matched blackpoints and amplification. This meant an offset of 2047 for green1 and 2049 for green2, and an amplification difference of 1.5% (x1.0 green1 and x1.015 green2).
What can't be sen in this chart is that green2 has a different Sdev at the same ADU-level, for roughly 50% ADU I got an Sdev of 78 for green1, and 61 for green2 - implicating a totally different sensitivity. The yellowish green channel has a 1.6x lower amplification per photon to reach the same ADU.
What's interesting in this chart is that all warmer hues have a negative coefficent and all colder hues have a positive coefficent when comparing the two green channel. This does with a very good certainty implicate different spectral sensitivities. The percentages show difference between channels as expressed in percent difference from green1 to green2
theSuede wrote:
I'm aware of this, and I seen raw-converters that DON'T lower resolution. The greens are sufficiently close together for the engine to work with chrominance-based luma correction per channel. This is quite easy to do.
Yes, I realized this not long after posting.
And yes, I see a different spectral response. Since I'm not to be back at work until next week, I cant give you the exact response curves per channel, but this is the data from an X-Rite 24CC. Channels were extracted as "single channels", and were treated with matched blackpoints and amplification. This meant an offset of 2047 for green1 and 2049 for green2, and an amplification difference of 1.5% (x1.0 green1 and x1.015 green2).
What can't be sen in this chart is that green2 has a different Sdev at the same ADU-level, for roughly 50% ADU I got an Sdev of 78 for green1, and 61 for green2 - implicating a totally different sensitivity. The yellowish green channel has a 1.6x lower amplification per photon to reach the same ADU.
What's interesting in this chart is that all warmer hues have a negative coefficent and all colder hues have a positive coefficent when comparing the two green channel. This does with a very good certainty implicate different spectral sensitivities. The percentages show difference between channels as expressed in percent difference from green1 to green2
What would be great is if you could plot the difference in responses against the nominal RGB values of the various squares on the CC chart (you can get those from BruceLindbloom.com). I think you would want to undo the gamma transform of the RGB values to compare to the linear raw data.
What might make the most sense is to plot the observed green channel differences Gr-Gb against say (Gi-R)(Gi+R) and (Gi-B)(Gi+B) ie the saturation levels of the color differences, where Gi is the average of Gr and Gb; perhaps plotting against (R-B)/(R+B) would be useful too. This would show the trend more clearly I think (especially since I don't recall offhand the RGB values of the CC chart).
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)
I am also interested in an answer to mfurman's question. I have a 40D/100-400 which I use for travel nature photography. I am not willing to carry and deal with a 600 mm lens even if I could afford it. So, without considering other features the 7D offers, will we get better reach and/or noise out of it? The 7D offers two ways of looking at this. It has the 10MP SRAW mode which seems, in essence, to be the comparison brainiac and garyvot are suggesting. OK, how many stops of improvement do you think we might see? Would an ISO 1600 or 3200 7D image look as good as an ISO 800 40D image?
Next, what advantage is the 7D's 18MP compared to the 40D's 10? Mfurman's 10MP crop question is the ideal maximum improvement which probably isn't achievable unless Canon's engineers achieved a miracle. So how much can you crop a 7D image and still have the IQ comparable to the 40D?
I don't think anyone is expecting hard numbers here but a sense of how much improvement there might be. The better autofocus should let me get a faster duck, but will I also be able to display a bigger duck?
Thanks everyone. This has been an interesting and broadly informative thread. Cheers.
Mr Zoom wrote:
So, 97 pages later, is there a consensus as to whether this camera is worth owning or not? I'm interested but for every yes there appears to be a no. Humans sure are a fickle bunch
Ken
Well, based on skimming through and skipping a lot of the argumentation, it sure looks like a worthwhile upgrade for this 30D owner. I had planned on upgrading to the 5D2, but the $1000 difference in cost, plus the 8fps, what looks like a pretty good ISO capability even at 3200 and 6400 (incredible improvement over my 30D, on which ISO 800 is really marginal without noiseware).......those are the big things I was wanting. I had debated between a 5D2 and a used 1DMk2 because I wanted better ISO capability and better focusing for sports......the 7D seems to be quite a good compromise between the 2. Most of the capabilities of each, and more affordable than both.
In addition, I think I'm much more likely to talk my wife into letting me get a camera at $1700 than $2700. And THAT makes it a really great camera!
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I am also interested in an answer to mfurman's question. I have a 40D/100-400 which I use for travel nature photography. I am not willing to carry and deal with a 600 mm lens even if I could afford it. So, without considering other features the 7D offers, will we get better reach and/or noise out of it? The 7D offers two ways of looking at this. It has the 10MP SRAW mode which seems, in essence, to be the comparison brainiac and garyvot are suggesting. OK, how many stops of improvement do you think we might see? Would an ISO 1600 or 3200 7D image look as good as an ISO 800 40D image?
Next, what advantage is the 7D's 18MP compared to the 40D's 10? Mfurman's 10MP crop question is the ideal maximum improvement which probably isn't achievable unless Canon's engineers achieved a miracle. So how much can you crop a 7D image and still have the IQ comparable to the 40D?
I don't think anyone is expecting hard numbers here but a sense of how much improvement there might be. The better autofocus should let me get a faster duck, but will I also be able to display a bigger duck?
Thanks everyone. This has been an interesting and broadly informative thread. Cheers.
The simple answer is: Somewhere in between.
With the 7D you can crop into a 20% narrower Angle of View and maintain the same noise level in the resulting image. You will still have more detail, as you now have a 14 MP image.
Error margin +/- 10 %.
alundeb:
The simple answer is: Somewhere in between...You will still have more detail, as you now have a 14 MP image.
It makes sense. Thank you. Of course, I know that these are not reference numbers.
My problem with this avoidance to compare sensors at 100% view is that it implies that the increase from 10 to 18 Mpixels would allow for identical increase of resolution at a given ISO. Some prefer not to think about resolution at all but focus on quality of a printed image (of desired size).
mfurman wrote:
My problem with this avoidance to compare sensors at 100% view is that it implies that the increase from 10 to 18 Mpixels would allow for identical increase of resolution at a given ISO. Some prefer not to think about resolution at all but focus on quality of a printed image (of desired size).
Quite the reverse. Avoiding 100% comparison until images are resized to a common pixel number allows you to compare the cameras without having to take into account the different numbers of pixels, and is the best way to approximate a comparison of printed image at a particular size.
the obsession on this forum with pixelology is amuzing
brainiac:
It allows you to compare the cameras without having to take into account the different numbers of pixels
Would you prefer that manufactures stopped listing the number of pixels in camera specifications? Would you like to use subjective comparisons similar to what is common for High End audio reviews?
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.
