Gochugogi wrote:
I prefer to shoot teddy bears, ducks, cats, pigeons and ugly-ass closeups of baby faces (shoe mount flash of course). Then I zoom in to 400% and it really tickles mah pickle! Yeee haaa!
skibum5 wrote:
i'm a little surprised they never mentioned mazing/artifacting at low ISO considering all the odd pixel peeping they did in the 50D review (which seemed unfair and off-base to me and perhaps Nikon biased), now they seem to have something to actually peep at and they ignore it, although i actually somewhat expected them to.
anyway the new LR3 beta process doesn't seem to help anything:
[url]http://skibum4.smugmug.com/photos/705294358_NPLCV-O.jpg[/url]
pretty ugly artifacting/extra noise that need not be there
the only thing that looked promising so far for the 7D at low ISO is the ACR 5.6->JPG they posted. maybe you need to set RAW sharpening slider to wider radius than I like too. or maybe 5.6 really does somehow fix things unlike LR 3 beta, ACR 5.5, DPP, C1.
I don't get how they can trash and bash the 50D for stuff it actually did fine with and then ignore this stuff. ...Show more →
skibum,
I'd be curious what DPP does to this studio shot; the ACR 5.6ß seems to do a good job suppressing the artifacting generated by channel imbalance and column gain fluctuations; I'm curious what they had to give up to achieve that.
DPR's team seems to like the camera a lot. They even muted their pixel density crusade from my cursory skimming of the review.
My copy is relatively free from mazing and low iso banding (as verified by Gabor). I do not think people should whine about their problems as though they are intrinsic design flaws. This is just another perennial Canon QC problem. I am also sure Canon will handpick the best copy for Phil's team to review.
digitalbug30d wrote:
Does anyone take pictures any more? Real ones not 100 percent crops which are meaningless to 99 percent of us that use our cameras to what? Take pictures with wow what a concept this is...
We do take photos, and when they don't look as good as we expect them to we want to know why. The fact of the matter is that at ISO 200, noise for things such as the sky on my 7D is significantly worse than my 20D. And I don't need to pixel peep to see the problem.
thw2 wrote:
My copy is relatively free from mazing and low iso banding (as verified by Gabor). I do not think people should whine about their problems as though they are intrinsic design flaws. This is just another perennial Canon QC problem. I am also sure Canon will handpick the best copy for Phil's team to review.
Emil and Gabor have looked at images from quite a few 7Ds by now, and if I'm not mistaken yours is the only one free of the problem. I'd call that a flaw, whether by design or poor QC.
Fred Tedsen wrote:
and if I'm not mistaken yours is the only one free of the problem.
For God's sake, how likely is that?
The folk who are throwing images Gabor and Emil's way are likely to the the ones who think they might have a problem in the first place - far more will simply be happily ramping up their shutter actuation count by taking photos and, if they're smart, converting in something that wasn't written by Adobe...
Seriously gents: are we talking about two different cameras? I would really like to understand that because after originally dismissing this camera, I have started to look at it again.
DPR mentioned several times that the 7D was better at noise than the 50D, but I was curious how it compared to my two bodies, 5D and 40D. I extracted these numbers by eye from their Gray Luminance noise graphs so I may not be quite accurate (+/- 0.1).
Edit: Sorry if these columns don't line up. How does one match edit box to display
Two things jump out at me. One is how well the 40D fares against its bigger brothers and second is the flatter slope of the 7D's noise curve. Canon have obviously designed the 7D for folks who are going to be mainly working in the higher ISOs. Yes, yes I know this is per pixel and I've been looking at the line pair resolution charts as well, but before I spend the $$ I want to know what the tradeoffs are and guestimate what improvement in my keeper rate there might be.
For those who are going to jump on DPR's not taking pixel density into account, answer this for me: If I average over enough pixels to get the 7D's 100 ISO noise level down to the 40D's, will the 7D image have any crop advantage left over the 40D?
Jeff Nolten:
If I average over enough pixels to get the 7D's 100 ISO noise level down to the 40D's, will the 7D image have any crop advantage left over the 40D?
Many (including me) asked this question but no one wants to answer it and some are very dismissive.
Surprising comparison results, as far as 40D is concerned
mfurman wrote:
Many (including me) asked this question but no one wants to answer it and some are very dismissive.
Surprising comparison results, as far as 40D is concerned
This is the million dollar question that many people are turning a blind eye towards. Did we buy a camera which was marketed as 18mp, but in reality only gives "good/clean" images at an effective 10-12mp at lower ISO settings, due to noise? My 7D copy is nowhere near as clean as my 20D at lower ISO settings.
I tend to agree with the premise that the camera was designed for high ISO shooters where it offers certain advantages over other bodies. I'm going to keep mine for that reason (and a few others), but I sure won't do serious landscape work with my copy.
For landscape work, I'm really looking forward to the successor to the 5Dmk2, whatever they call it (5Dmk3, 3D, etc.). Hopefully that body will arrive sometime later next year, and will be able to produce beautiful clean and SHARP images at LOW ISO.
cameron12x
Maybe that is the trend in cameras. More megapixels for detail, but more noise to try and process out.
The 5D II is not as clean as the 5D. It requires more noise processing.
The 50D was not as clean as the 40D, 30D, 20D
may 8 MP or 10 MP was max for a 1.6 crop sensor
maybe 12.8 or 16 (1DS mark II) was max quality for full frame
abqnmusa wrote:
cameron12x
Maybe that is the trend in cameras. More megapixels for detail, but more noise to try and process out.
The 5D II is not as clean as the 5D. It requires more noise processing.
The 50D was not as clean as the 40D, 30D, 20D
Have you done any testing with mRAW mode ?
I would say that it's a possible trend with Canon, but not with Nikon? Not sure. FWIW, I don't think that I like the trend. No one likes extra workflow; we'd rather be shooting without any doubt!
Testing in mRAW mode is going to be one of my next steps.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
DPR mentioned several times that the 7D was better at noise than the 50D, but I was curious how it compared to my two bodies, 5D and 40D. I extracted these numbers by eye from their Gray Luminance noise graphs so I may not be quite accurate (+/- 0.1).
Edit: Sorry if these columns don't line up. How does one match edit box to display
Two things jump out at me. One is how well the 40D fares against its bigger brothers and second is the flatter slope of the 7D's noise curve. Canon have obviously designed the 7D for folks who are going to be mainly working in the higher ISOs. Yes, yes I know this is per pixel and I've been looking at the line pair resolution charts as well, but before I spend the $$ I want to know what the tradeoffs are and guestimate what improvement in my keeper rate there might be.
For those who are going to jump on DPR's not taking pixel density into account, answer this for me: If I average over enough pixels to get the 7D's 100 ISO noise level down to the 40D's, will the 7D image have any crop advantage left over the 40D?...Show more →
Given those numbers, the 7D will have about 1/2 stop more noise at ISO 100 than the 40D at the image level. It is not clear if this is related to the mazing issue. In the case that those values reflect photon shot noise, it suggests that the 7D photosites have a nonlinear response. This again is not supported my some of ejmartin's analysis. So I think the jury is still out.
there is nothing to be learned viewing past 100%
that just creates artifacts that do not exist in the image
also not clear how much sharpening was applied
alundeb wrote:
I see your point, Keith, the converter.
I can only add that I see less mazing in skin tones and (yellow-red range as shown before) using C1. I am open to all explanations, and critique of any kind.
200% directly from C1. Not a comparison, just a typical example of what I get.
Your image looks very nice. I don't see anything wrong with it.
I have noticed that if I use C1 with NR off and sharpening off, I can get much cleaner results. Is that what you are doing here? It seems that NR especially is causing artifacts. I haven't spent enough time seeing what other processing affects the images negatively. Are you doing normal processing on your images (levels, curves, etc.)? Have you shot any ISO 400 images?
