Thank you very much for the RAW files. I appreciate this very much. I am on a trip to Europe so I do not have all my tools with me but I will check the files soon.
As Jeff Nolten said, the noise levels look surprisingly similar between the two cameras at ISO 800. I was not ready for it after so much entusiasm about 7D's S/N.
I find 40D not worse than 7D at ISO 800 or even higher (7D 300 f/4.0 ISO 1600 image seems to be corrupted) and I liked images from 40D better. I had to checked labels twice because I thought that I was looking at 7D image instead of 40D. I am, as I said, totally surprised that 7D images show no real advantage over 40D images (noise).
Can others comment on it as well? Am I not seeing things right?
jorkata wrote:
Deal.
From now on I'm going to call it better SNR for cleaner images at any ISO.
You are still talking about snr per pixel and saying that it gives you "cleaner images". You need to decide whether you want to quantify properly and talk about snr in a square mm of output print, or snr per pixel. When you talk about wells you are talking about pixel snr, but the snr per area of print depends not only on pixel snr but also on how many pixels there are in that area of print. You need to be very careful not to confuse SNR(pixel) and SNR(print). It's the very same mistake that DPR, DxO, and all the armchair engineer-photographers make: thinking that what is true for the pixel is true for the print, regardless of quantity.
brainiac wrote:
You are still talking about snr per pixel and saying that it gives you "cleaner images". You need to decide whether you want to quantify properly and talk about snr in a square mm of output print, or snr per pixel. When you talk about wells you are talking about pixel snr, but the snr per area of print depends not only on pixel snr but also on how many pixels there are in that area of print. You need to be very careful not to confuse SNR(pixel) and SNR(print). It's the very same mistake that DPR, DxO, and all the armchair engineer-photographers make: thinking that what is true for the pixel is true for the print, regardless of quantity....Show more →
I'm curious, how does the manufacturer-listed "circle of confusion" sensor metric come into play here when mapping from pixel-level SNR to print-level-DPI SNR? If at all?
theSuede wrote:
Camera Raw 5.5 and Lightroom 2.5 include a correction to the demosaic algorithms for Bayer sensor cameras with unequal green response. Olympus, Panasonic and Sony are among the more popular camera manufacturers affected by this change.
Interesting that this is as pervasive - not just a 7D thing then.
And if it affects Sony sensors, presumably Nikon will be vulnerable too..?
"The 7D produces images that have a different feel to them than my other Canon bodies. Can't put my finger on it (yet) but it's a very nice effect. I shoot RAW only."
when you can put your finger on it, let me know too. i had the very same thought the first time i opened a 7D image up in PS. I found the image quality to be very different, sort of a 'richness' to it. i have a 5D too, and those images that the 5D produce are just plain beautiful, no doubt. But, the 7D images are just really pleasant to look at. they seem to have a different balance of color and overall image quality i guess is the best way to describe it.
i am totally lost in all the graphs and charts even though i am following this thread. I am simply a person who uses their camera to take photos. i am not into how sensors work, or pixels counts, or any of that tech stuff. My eyes can spot quality images though. i love my 7D.
skibum5 wrote:
at least we know not to bother wasting anytime processing RAW files yet (unless you are a DPP user), assuming the different green filters proves to be true, until new versions of third party converters are released. and guess what.... that ultimately leaves MORE time for taking pictures than struggling to get decent processing or having to re-process everything again.
That's why we don't buy cameras when they are just released, the software has to mature so we don't have to be saddled with DPP.
mfurman wrote:
Thank you very much for the RAW files. I appreciate this very much. I am on a trip to Europe so I do not have all my tools with me but I will check the files soon.
As Jeff Nolten said, the noise levels look surprisingly similar between the two cameras at ISO 800. I was not ready for it after so much entusiasm about 7D's S/N.
I find 40D not worse than 7D at ISO 800 or even higher (7D 300 f/4.0 ISO 1600 image seems to be corrupted) and I liked images from 40D better. I had to checked labels twice because I thought that I was looking at 7D image instead of 40D. I am, as I said, totally surprised that 7D images show no real advantage over 40D images (noise).
Can others comment on it as well? Am I not seeing things right?
I will also say 'thanks' to ExxWhy. I downloaded the RAW versions of ISO 1600 from each body at 300 and 420 mm. Opened both in DPP, equalized the settings (Standard Picture Style, equal noise reduction, sharpness, etc.) and then converted both to JPG. At 100%, both are pretty similar, which is a plus for the 7D given its higher pixel density.
Then, I downrezzed the 7D shot to the same pixel dimensions as the 40D - 3888 X 2592 and saw a significant difference in preserved detail when compared at 100% afterwards. Plus, the noise grain was finer. It is apparent that if the final image size is going to be the same, the 7D will retain more detail than the 40D, and you will be able to hit it harder with noise reduction while still maintianing greater detail.
EDIT: I will note that the 7D shot at 420 mm was exposed 1/3 of a stop lower than the 40D shot at the same focal length (1/800 vs 1/500) so I pulled it up 1/3 stop before converting to JPG. It still had a significant detail advantage over the 40D although the noise grain was more visible after pulling exposure up one stop.
Perhaps it's important to note how important exposure is in higher-ISO shots.
I found that a lot if not all of my earlier inaccurate focus problems with the 7D were caused by the lenses front focusing. I don't have this problem with other bodies I own and so it appears to be caused by the camera.
I have seen posts on photonet, DPR and sportsshooter where some people were having lens softness and inaccurate focusing issues and I wonder if this may be caused by the same issue.
I'm seeing needed corrections in the +10 to +15 range.
keithreeder wrote:
Bobby, the 40D is the best part of a stop better than the 1D2n at high ISO and from what I can see the 7D approaches another stop over the 40D - plenty of posts to that effect, and posts like this tend to support it:
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I own and really like the 40D, and have used a 1D2n a fair bit, and have a pal who has provided me with a good few high ISO 1D2n files from when I was looking to buy one.
And I will be having a 7D: high ISO performance is a big part of the reason why....Show more →
Thanks Keith. I am going to keep my 1dmk2. 7D will be used mainly for high ISO stuff. I would have liked the new 5Dmk2 to have better AF then it wouldn't be any question as to which camera I would have bought but for some reason canon wants us to spring up for quite expensive 1dsmk3.
Edited - Thanks to ExxWhy also for providing comparison files from 40d and 7d.
Anyone got a suggestion for a replacement rubber eye cup for the 7D? The one I've been using doesn't fit the 7D due to bigger size of the eye cap so I need to look for a replacement.
100% crops at 6400 for center and edge of frame for this shot, please!
Can anyone with a 7D take a look inside the mirror box and see if one could access the focusing screen? Or has this been covered? I know canon did not say they are going to provide matte focusing screens for this camera, but it would be interesting to see if the user could access this screen and replace it with one that is custom made.
Thanks, and apologies if we've gone over this already.
EOS20 wrote:
Anyone got a suggestion for a replacement rubber eye cup for the 7D? The one I've been using doesn't fit the 7D due to bigger size of the eye cap so I need to look for a replacement.
check the system map in the back of the manual - it'll list what Canon has available to fit the 7D. Based on that, you might be able to find an aftermarket replacement. The manual lists the eyecup piece as Eg, which appears to be the same eyepiece as the 1D Mk III.
Yeah I'm looking at getting another aftermarket rubber eye cup, but I wasn't sure what the viewfinder size is on the 7D. Looks like it's the same size as the 1 series cameras.
Some low light shots: Post Sunset
DPP converted with camera NR setting at low (I just used the chroma/luma setting done by the camera), cropped and resized (about 50% of the original).
brainiac wrote:
You are still talking about snr per pixel and saying that it gives you "cleaner images". You need to decide whether you want to quantify properly and talk about snr in a square mm of output print, or snr per pixel. When you talk about wells you are talking about pixel snr, but the snr per area of print depends not only on pixel snr but also on how many pixels there are in that area of print. You need to be very careful not to confuse SNR(pixel) and SNR(print). It's the very same mistake that DPR, DxO, and all the armchair engineer-photographers make: thinking that what is true for the pixel is true for the print, regardless of quantity....Show more →
