kirry007 wrote:
Thx to all those who liked the JRIF, appreciate the comments ! :-)
To show the image quality and cropping ability of the 7D,here's a few crops at different % from images taken today with a 300 2.8 and 2x tele. All were hand held, exif is intact(in the jpeg's attached). (ISO 400, AI-Servo, Manual point mode). I can routinely crop an image to 50% with this camera and maintain enough detail to make a huge print. Settings applied to both the images are shown in screenshots. I usually sharpen in CS3, but for this test, I used DPP all the way.
This camera does demand the highest quality lenses you have, that's my opinion. :-). I've thrown everything I could imagine (humans, airplanes,mammals, birds, cars, BIF,fast action) at this camera so far, and it hasn't burped, yet.
A 300 2.8 IS is one of the best lenses that can take a 2x, I won't recommend it on your 300 f/4. Btw, the cropping ability of the 7D should give you pretty high quality images with a bare 300 too (one factor being your subject size, of course). Yes, 7D will only autofocus till 5.6....Show more →
I had a 50D so I'm used to the great cropping power it has. I have always wanted a 500L but based on your images I'm getting second thoughts. SLR Gear gives your lens a 10 out 10 for IQ. So does the 500. The 300 is a few thousand dollars less, 100 more mm (with the 2X) and plus you have a faster lens (without 2X) when you need it. I certainly could have used one at a night time football game.
7D, 12,800, 300L F4 wide open and 1/500 was the best shutter speed I could get. Most were between 1/320 and 1/500. Still had motion blur at the feet and hands. Cleaned up with Dfine and a little selected sharpening around the face.
I prefer not to use an extender but I have done OK with it. You are getting great images so I'm starting to think differently about it now. I'll be closer getting a 300 2.8 over the 500.
50D, 300L F4 and Canon 1.4 II. MTF50 charts at photozone show that this lens sharpens up at 5.6 with both extender on and off.
The 300 is a few thousand dollars less, 100 more mm (with the 2X) and plus you have a faster lens (without 2X) when you need it. I certainly could have used one at a night time football game.
I prefer not to use an extender but I have done OK with it. You are getting great images so I'm starting to think differently about it now. I'll be closer getting a 300 2.8 over the 500.
That ISO 12800 image is pretty darn good...nice shots !
I've always obtained great results with the 300 and 2x on my 40D (and 1DMk2- sold) and I print a lot of my photos which shows the high quality of the images. I don't hesitate to use it at 5.6 @600mm when the subject is not a bird. As you can see from the JR images, tracking jack rabbits on the 7D wasn't a problem even with a 2x on the lens. This lens is magical with or without a tele...go for it, you won't repent it. I always try to stay mobile and travel light, this lens was the answer, besides, it's easily hand-holdable for prolonged periods, if required.
When I'm out there in the jungles, I take off the tele in the evening and enjoy/get a kick out of the amazing shutter speeds this lens offers even when there is literally no light, I don't even have to bump up the ISO that high....keeps the image quality in check.
7D image, although that is not the important part, GAME 6!!!! is the important part, actually what the photo signifies is the important part, 7D+70-200 f/4 IS+major cropping:
abqnmusa wrote:
call me crazy, but I would be OK with a firmware option that re-mapped the 18mp into RAW of 12 MP, mRAW of 10 MP, and sRAW of 8 MP
Even just using mRAW of 10 MP. You still get output of 40D or 1D Mark III
What I wanted most was a camera that could focus coming from 5D.
I would like to see Canon produce a firmware update which addresses this specific issue (maze artifacting and overall image harshness). This "new class" of noise and image degradation is very disturbing, IMHO.
I've read in various places that the best 35mm films provide about 12-40mp of "image data," but the amount of data available for "usable resolution" is more likely in the 6-12mp range. Is Canon trying to emulate film with the noise characteristics of this sensor?
I too would be happier with (relatively) noise-free 12mp images at low ISO rather than noisy 18mp images which require LOTS of work in post in order to improve them to digital standards which have already existed in the past. I realize this may not be possible, due to sensor design tradeoffs which Canon is obviously making.
I re-posit the million dollar question:Can this issue be addressed with a firmware update or is it a fundamental design limitation of this sensor and the internal image processing?
If the issue can't be addressed with a firmware update (or by better QC and a camera body exchange for a newer one) then we'll just have to live with it and adjust our shooting accordingly. That would be very disappointing.
Other than this IQ issue, it's a wonderful body. Almost behaves like a hot Italian girlfriend with baggage.
Are you a pro? In the L.A. area consumers are limited in the length of the lens allowed. The 70-200 definitely would not pass.
skibum5 wrote:
7D image, although that is not the important part, GAME 6!!!! is the important part, actually what the photo signifies is the important part, 7D+70-200 f/4 IS+major cropping:
mogur2 wrote:
Are you a pro? In the L.A. area consumers are limited in the length of the lens allowed. The 70-200 definitely would not pass.
i have shot college world series games with a press pass, but never MLB
actually the 70-200 is SHORT compared to some stuff fans brought in to the stadium
that stinks that LMB in LA teams actually limits lenses, i was hopeful to be able to shoot out there. I've never heard of MLB being restrictive anywhere else.
For those wanting to use Lightroom/ACR with their 7D, I highly recommend just making your own profile. I used the new XRite Colorchecker Passport to quickly make one and the colors are a LOT better than the Beta profile in LR 2.5/ACR 5.5. I quickly shot the chart under controlled flash and didn't even bother creating the dual illuminant profile.
Here's the difference using my profile for an image I took under mostly tungsten lighting, same WB, all other settings the same.
. Settings applied to both the images are shown in screenshots. I usually sharpen in CS3, but for this test, I used DPP all the
