I would question his methods and if he is being realistic. Anyone who expects a non-professional camera to perform like a professional camera is not realistic. The 7D costs $1699 and the 1D Mark III new was $4500. So his expectations are unlrealistic in the review. He wants the 7D to focus like a camera that cost $2800 more. You could buy two 7D's and an $800 lens for what the 1D mark III cost new. He also compares the 7D to a D700 costing $2700, a D3 costing $5000, and a 1D mark IV costing $5000.
The Nikon D300 would be a fair comparison. Or another manufacturer camera of similar cost ($1699).
He also seems to have more problems with focus then others on this webiste, on the net, and from my experience.
Yes, part of the equation is he's compared it with a Nikon D700 in his earlier "tests", enough said, already. I guess, everyone wants to become a Rob Galbraith these days :-)
I would question his methods and if he is being realistic. Anyone who expects a non-professional camera to perform like a professional camera is not realistic. The 7D costs $1699 and the 1D Mark III new was $4500. So his expectations are unlrealistic in the review. He wants the 7D to focus like a camera that cost $2800 more. You could buy two 7D's and an $800 lens for what the 1D mark III cost new. He also compares the 7D to a D700 costing $2700, a D3 costing $5000, and a 1D mark IV costing $5000.
The Nikon D300 would be a fair comparison. Or another manufacturer camera of similar cost ($1699).
He also seems to have more problems with focus then others on this webiste, on the net, and from my experience. ...Show more →
but a lot of the D700 extra cost should be in the FF sensor
if it will be worth it for tracking, over say a 50D for many hundreds less it should track close to a D700.
if not it would also mean no top tracking from canon under $5000 which is a lot more than $2700 (and does the D300S now fully match the D700 AF?)
anyway i can't comment myself since i haven't gotten to test ai servo on the 7D yet
I saw a post somewhere where a ghost image was reported. The photo of a bird contained a faint copy of the bird, slightly shifted. I wander if that was it.
gfiksel wrote:
I saw a post somewhere where a host image was reported. The photo of a bird contained a faint copy of the bird, slightly shifted. I wander if that was it.
It was a bird against a blue sky in a DPReview post. As with many things over there, it was a "sky is falling" problem that was being discussed as if it was a widespread issue.
I kind of took it with a grain of salt, just a quirky thing. I hadn't seen anyone describe the problem here on FM.
There was some mention of it and I did see an image posted. The claim is if the shutter is 1/500 or more. Out of 20 images similar to this one I could not find one.
msalvetti wrote:
It was a bird against a blue sky in a DPReview post. As with many things over there, it was a "sky is falling" problem that was being discussed as if it was a widespread issue.
I kind of took it with a grain of salt, just a quirky thing. I hadn't seen anyone describe the problem here on FM.
ejmartin wrote:
4) load both images into Photoshop and overlay one on top of the other; set the blending mode to difference. Make a levels adjustment layer and bring the difference image up a few stops to look for any patterns (it's the difference image, so it should have been black if the two conversions agreed with one another). You'll want to try both layer orderings (4-color either above or below 3-color) since a priori one doesn't know which if either might be brighter if there's a channel imbalance.
The mazing is directly the result of the green channel imbalance; with 3-color mode, dcraw does its standard interpolation, while with 4-color mode it averages the two green channels from diagonally adjacent pixels before interpolating. Since in the OOF image there is no texture, the difference image shows only artifacts that are generated by the mismatch in greens.
I've done as you indicated. All I get is a completely black image both when i overlay three-color on four or four-color on three. Does this indicate that there is no green channel imbalance?
ejmartin wrote:
4) load both images into Photoshop and overlay one on top of the other; set the blending mode to difference. Make a levels adjustment layer and bring the difference image up a few stops to look for any patterns (it's the difference image, so it should have been black if the two conversions agreed with one another). You'll want to try both layer orderings (4-color either above or below 3-color) since a priori one doesn't know which if either might be brighter if there's a channel imbalance.
The mazing is directly the result of the green channel imbalance; with 3-color mode, dcraw does its standard interpolation, while with 4-color mode it averages the two green channels from diagonally adjacent pixels before interpolating. Since in the OOF image there is no texture, the difference image shows only artifacts that are generated by the mismatch in greens. ...Show more → Fred Tedsen wrote:
Emil,
I've done as you indicated. All I get is a completely black image both when i overlay three-color on four or four-color on three. Does this indicate that there is no green channel imbalance?
Sounds like you might be OK; did you lift the difference image several stops?
If you don't mind, could you send me the RAW file?
