On the images above, it appears you are sending the 7D back due to focus problems (obvious). The images on the prior page appear to be in focus to is there a problem with consistency or is the 7D now acting up?
Consistency. Entirely too many frames look like this. I am going to give an exchange a shot rather than dealing with Canon at this point. I really don't want to get into my 1D3 experience with them. If the next body results are like this as well, I'll probably just get a refund. I am sincerely hoping that is not the case as I like the camera....but I bought it as a backup sports body. Time will tell. I'll report back next week hopefully.
Apdeib you nailed it. Exactly the kind of things I was getting. Inconsistent focus. Front Focus, Back focus or just plain blurry. No rhyme or reason to it either. I sent it to Canon. Hopefully they'll get it back to me right the first time. Actually if it's not right I'll have to decide to return or exchange. Not looking forward to that potential, I really want this camera, and for it to work.
I just went through some images I shot at an event I shot this weekend for the Pomo Indians. Besides user error, the tracking (dancing outside light) and general movement, were tracked. I need more time with the camera. I use the 5D, 5DII and the 7D (now) and with all three different menus, I get confused as I am not really used to the 5D II or the 7D.
The 5D's often have the problem of slight back focus {back lock on}- not a real surprize 7D does also.
Dont think wise men will buy a 1D Mk IV {about to be annouced ...} until a great time after its release.
Center point lock, single shot with good lighting and less than wide open apertures is the wise way to shoot. Also use double clutch focus w front or back.
AI kinda stinks ...
apdieb wrote:
Consistency. Entirely too many frames look like this. I am going to give an exchange a shot rather than dealing with Canon at this point. I really don't want to get into my 1D3 experience with them. If the next body results are like this as well, I'll probably just get a refund. I am sincerely hoping that is not the case as I like the camera....but I bought it as a backup sports body. Time will tell. I'll report back next week hopefully.
Oh no. here we go again Canon. I'm afraid to get a 7D even though I really want one. I just don't want to go through all these problems. Again.
While my first images were much like apdieb's and I found that I had to use quite a bit of micro adjustment on every lens, my concern now is that the microadjustments tend to bounce around quite a bit from day to day.
I am sure mine really should just go to Canon. This has been too much a hassle.
However, looking around at all the forums I don't think it is that many cameras affected with the focus problem.
As I asked last night, whats the verdict on this body? My results have been dismal, seems to be in focus (on camera lcd) but in the computer...crap! JEPG not RAW I don't use DPP so I'm viewing JEPG in LR or Windows. Also am seeing washed out colors nothing crisp. Camera set to Standard, sRGB. Any thoughts?
This is puzzling. I have been following all the threads on this. You were using expansion points. Maybe the processor is just too slow or something like that and to put it simply cannot make up it's mind which point to lock on. The subject moves while it is bouncing around and you press the shutter before it locks on. In the first 7D shot it may have decided to pick the player behind the one you were shooting. The second shot maybe it locked on somewhere else like the boards then while you pressed the shutter it was headed back to the player during the exposure. It looks like anything beyond single point may not working on your unit. Or maybe if you shoot anything past single point all the points have to within the target area at all times. Kinda would defeat the purpose of the new system features.
Again I'm not a rocket scientist with this. Just thinking out loud.
RAF09 wrote:
As I asked last night, whats the verdict on this body?
Hmm.
How could there be a consensus if some think that 18mp is great and others (like me) think that Canon went ahead of themselves by cramming so many pixels on the sensor.
I certainly wouldn't expect the 7D to match pro bodies in AF accuracy and speed.
Image quality, though, could definitely be better with an 1.6x sensor.
Mine won't replace a pro body, I almost wish I had my 50D back. I really like this body the fit in your hand is good and the change in the battery door does away with that creaking noise. But the fast locking focus is of no use when it's so "random".
jorkata wrote:
Hmm.
How could there be a consensus if some think that 18mp is great and others (like me) think that Canon went ahead of themselves by cramming so many pixels on the sensor.
I certainly wouldn't expect the 7D to match pro bodies in AF accuracy and speed.
Image quality, though, could definitely be better with an 1.6x sensor.
You are correct-o-mungo !!!
The best "pixel" size is around 7 um for current CMOS designs.
That's photon physics and not marketing ad jingo.
That's also sound Semiconductor Engineering from a Semiconductor Eng Mgr.
Too many 21st Century Photogs buy the manufactures marketing new improved lingo. They have GOO GOO GAAH GAAH got to have it mentality and dont even know how best to use AF settings {see above post} or be wise and wait until a release is proven.
Yes there are way too many pixels crammed in and Canon just keeps uping the MP race at the cost of Image Quality and Noise. Because the GOO GOO GAAH GAAHS want and must have it. Canon laffs all the way to the bank and makes revisions galore. Can't really blame them ... Its really the mentality of the market.
Small pixels are not Hardy pixels.
Focus and Exposure are seperate events that many cant realize.
AF is best used as I stated above but its still not absolute.
Once upon a time before AF lenes people made sharp images...
elfanucchi wrote:
.....
The best "pixel" size is around 7 um for current CMOS designs.
That's photon physics and not marketing ad jingo.
Small pixels are not Hardy pixels.
May I ask you, did you take the statement "Small pixels are not Hardy pixels" from a textbook on "photon physics"? If yes, can you give me the link, please?
quote]gfiksel wrote:
May I ask you, did you take the statement "Small pixels are not Hardy pixels" from a textbook on "photon physics"? If yes, can you give me the link, please?
You can check any number of current textbooks on Semiconductor engineering design - warning they are college and quatum math level.
Its basicly signal vs noise and leakage currents.
I have been out of college for over 30 years so dont think you want you want the few I have left.
Actually you should check current or take some optics and engineering courses.
Thats where folks learn this kinda stuff. Not Photo forums.
There would be way too many pages to scan and dont think many could understand the formulas.
elfanucchi wrote:
You can check any number of current textbooks on Semiconductor engineering design - warning they are college and quatum math level.
Its basicly signal vs noise and leakage currents.
Yep, that's what I thought. Gonna hit on that 'quatum math' books.
elfanucchi wrote:
.....
The best "pixel" size is around 7 um for current CMOS designs.
That's photon physics and not marketing ad jingo.
Small pixels are not Hardy pixels.
The article is circa 1DII/20D. The question: Is the CMOS sensor technology circa 1DII/20D the same as current CMOS sensor technology?
The article provides qualitative discussion but is there any scientific quantitative analysis to conclude the 7 microns is the optimal size?
No, because there isn't any definite "best" size. Mr quatum math engineering manager picked a url that doesn't even address the subject matter. Sensor size has more to do with image noise than pixel size. A little knowledge is dangerous. Please bring sources before making definitive statements.
