cameron12x wrote:
I'm heading outside to shoot with my 7D, so only a couple of minutes to write. Will write more at a later time.
Nearly everything on Earth ever engineered or made by humans is subject to design parameters and, ultimately, compromises. I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion about that here, and I'll leave it at that. And of course I don't have any inside information about the design criteria which Canon designers and engineers have used with respect to this sensor, and I doubt if anyone on this forum has such information, either. If I did have such knowledge, a NDA would be in place I would not be able to comment. Probably not a realistic question ask.
I'm not positing that the 7D is a bad camera (and never have). If I considered it such, I would have returned mine long ago. My observations and "disappointment" only centers around certain aspects of IQ.
In your last post you mentioned yourself that "it takes getting used to moving from 13 to 21mp." Please elucidate in more specific detail? That could be helpful.
Well, I've just made an even larger jump, from 8 to 18mp. And I must admit that I'm not liking everything that I "see." And the body of evidence is mounting that other people (and reviewers) are "seeing" some of the same things (most notably, higher perceived noise than expected at LOW ISO). And for the masses, perception can often times be interpreted as reality.
Maybe we all should have expected that. If not, Canon has some educating to do? I don't intend to turn a blind eye. That being said, there still is MUCH to like about this body. I don't need to say that again.
Please note that I've been shooting Canon bodies since the late 90s, and have no intention of switching to another vendor at this point.
Have you made any prints or have you seen any prints made with the 7D? If so, what size? I believe that is the next step for me. Making large prints with the 7D....Show more →
It would be really great if you could post equal areas from iso 100 images taken with 20D and 7D so that we can see how much noisier the 7D really is. Otherwise I just have to assume that you got an impression of greater noise by viewing both files at 100%. An 18 Mpixel file can LOOK noisier at 100% than an 8 Mpixel file at 100%, but BE less noisy when printed to a given size. So far I've seen no evidence that the 7D at 100 iso is actually noisier per square inch of print than your 20D. Personally I always found that my 5D benefitted slightly from a little added noise at low isos because it could look a bit plastic. There is a difference between fine even textural noise and noise that damages the image. For that reason I am not yet convinced that the 7D produces worse pictures at iso 100 than your 20D. Please show us.
I can't keep up with all this, but Skibum, Cameron, and others documenting this supposed "mazing" - have you contacted Canon tech support directly? A lot of energy has gone into identifying what might be "QC" problems or firmware needs...Canon should benefit from your analysis too...
ejmartin wrote:
Did a little more analysis of UCSB's colorchecker RAW file. Here is the fractional difference (G2-G1)/(G2+G1), after median filtering both channels to reduce the column gain fluctuations:
The deviation from pure gray is an indication of channel imbalance. The patches that seem to be different are the black patches, where we are dividing by a small number which amplifies fluctuations; but the rest is remarkably uniform, spot checking indicates the fractional difference of the two greens is a few tenths of a percent, which would not be enough to cause serious nastiness.
This is quite different from skibum's first copy, which showed a substantial difference in yellow in one direction, and a difference in cyan in the opposite direction. I'll have to go back and dig up my data on that one, but I seem to recollect the difference was several percent. Here, UCSB's copy doesn't show any dramatic difference between yellow and cyan patches.
Tentative conclusion would be a bad batch among the first run of cameras which afflicted skibum's copy but not UCSB's....Show more →
what do you make of even his copy showing 8-20% greater StdDev for the Green2 channel than the Green1 channel though? On mine I notice 15-20% while on all my other canon bodies it was mostly about 3% difference or so.
brainiac wrote:
Likewise. It's pretty clear that most of the complaints about the camera here are due to one of the following errors:
- comparing 100% crops with much lower resolution cameras, i.e. unequal magnification
- misfocus
- camera shake
- using an incompatible raw convertor
- paranoia about noise levels which will not survive the printing process
- unrealistic expectations
People just don't understand why comparing 100% crops favours the lower resolution camera, so they go on doing it and making misleading pronouncements on the forums.
I have to disagree at least as to what I see- I see problems with web sized images-
I returned a 7D for IQ problems after shooting it about a week- After 2 days & not liking what I was seeing & took my 50D & 7D & shot wildlife – same lens – same subject- from the same spot- 50D images were sharper – had better color & required less work-
This is viewing photos at screen size on my 24 inch monitor. I see the same harshness in many photos on the web. I prefer the 50D images. I really like many of the features on the 7D so it sucks. I need another crop camera & if things don’t improve I guess I will get another 50D but I wish for a 7D with better IQ-
rego wrote:
Hi,
I have it since 2 weeks this Eos 7D and I can easily say it is HORRIBLE!! after thousands of picture.
if you concern about image quality awfullt bad .no matter raw or jpeg format.jpg picture is of course softer than raw which is usual but raw picture is also as bad as jpegs!!.
Please don't tell about high iso or etc.if you can't make sharp and clear picture at iso 100,so where you will use iso thousands?
I can tell about my lens,Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM ,Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM ,Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM ....so which one is bad ones? if you use it at eos7D body all of them is giving very soft picturesYou have to edit them hours and hours photoshop or etc...I have also 5D MK2 and Eos 10D... do you know two of them much better than eos 7D picture. at least sharper.of course 5Dmk 2 sharper.But what about 10D?,This is a maybe 6 years old Dslr it is like a joke..
But if your piority is how handsome the camera, of course 7D will easily take a lead.feeling it at your hand you will feel more powerfull like a brick .All the button at the place where it has to be.Easy to use.Just connect with your full hd lcd tv via mini hdmi jack and look your soft!! picture at your sharp HD television screen this is what I am doing now.
I have to tell you this is my second copy of eos 7d,with latest firmware.Also you have to read some major camera review site.They cannot say very soft images but they were always telling about beta production model is problem maybe,but I didn't have beta production or early adopt one.
Before purchase please try it or rent it or borrow from friends 7D and put your best of the best L glass on it ,use tripod with the shutter release and mirror lock .Try to make sharpest picture with that brick!and don't be sorry about soft result ;this is not your fault it is because 7D!!
Ps.Forget about Af Micro adjustment .Because it is not at all for general settings for specific lens.you have to make all focal length!!! if you make at 70mm adjust ment,it will not working at 24 or 50mm.Trust me I tried hours and hours. ...Show more →
Mr. Darwin Wiggett. It's so nice to meet you. Welcome to FM.
abqnmusa wrote:
My 7D birding images clearly beat anything I shot with 40D / 20D / 5D.
DPP > CS4 & neat image
RAW converters have room for improvement.
I checked your photos in the Bosque Trail thread & they are very nice.
They compare well with the better 7D photos posted on the web but to
my eyes I see a harshness- The highlights are brighter & the shadows
are darker than what I prefer. My 20D -30D & 50D photos require far
less processing time- Noise is another problem , I need clean ISO 400-
abqnmusa wrote:
I see "mazing" in 5D original photos and 20D photos. ACR processed images. Even in Nikon images from web. Only visible well past 200% or greater.
I think it is all processing related.
You can add the 1Ds3, 1D3 and 5D2 to that list. I pulled up 7D and 1Ds3 images taken with the same glass of the same subject and in the same RAW processor and I see absolutely no difference in the "mazing" between these two bodies.
ejmartin wrote:
Did a little more analysis of UCSB's colorchecker RAW file. Here is the fractional difference (G2-G1)/(G2+G1), after median filtering both channels to reduce the column gain fluctuations:
The deviation from pure gray is an indication of channel imbalance. The patches that seem to be different are the black patches, where we are dividing by a small number which amplifies fluctuations; but the rest is remarkably uniform, spot checking indicates the fractional difference of the two greens is a few tenths of a percent, which would not be enough to cause serious nastiness.
This is quite different from skibum's first copy, which showed a substantial difference in yellow in one direction, and a difference in cyan in the opposite direction. I'll have to go back and dig up my data on that one, but I seem to recollect the difference was several percent. Here, UCSB's copy doesn't show any dramatic difference between yellow and cyan patches.
Tentative conclusion would be a bad batch among the first run of cameras which afflicted skibum's copy but not UCSB's. ...Show more → skibum5 wrote:
what do you make of even his copy showing 8-20% greater StdDev for the Green2 channel than the Green1 channel though? On mine I notice 15-20% while on all my other canon bodies it was mostly about 3% difference or so.
I dunno. Is the difference in std dev correlated with anything? For instance is it greater when there is a larger difference of G-R and/or G-B? I seem to recall someone having a theory that the column readout swinging back and forth between color channels could affect the noise.
Actually, reading that Darwin Wigget article made me wonder whether Darwin wouldn't be better off spending his money on some good lenses. If I saw an 18 Mpixel APS-C produce no more detail than a 12 Mpixel APS-C my first question would be 'is the lens resolving enough to make the extra 6 Mpixels count?' That doesn't seem to occur to Darwin. He also notices that infinity detail is worse than close-up detail. Why doesn't he stick a Zeiss 21 on it and see whether it's possible to get more detail out of a 7D rather than just writing it off?
brainiac wrote:
Actually, reading that Darwin Wigget article made me wonder whether Darwin wouldn't be better off spending his money on some good lenses. If I saw an 18 Mpixel APS-C produce no more detail than a 12 Mpixel APS-C my first question would be 'is the lens resolving enough to make the extra 6 Mpixels count?' That doesn't seem to occur to Darwin. He also notices that infinity detail is worse than close-up detail. Why doesn't he stick a Zeiss 21 on it and see whether it's possible to get more detail out of a 7D rather than just writing it off?...Show more →
My tests above show he killed his images with his DPP conversion settings. At least, DPP conversions did not look at all sharp with his settings. He should have stopped and thought about his post processing and done a few tests. It also leads me to believe that DPP might not be fully up to speed on 7D support yet.
The pixelologists are in this thread
Pictures are posted in Nature and Wildlife, and other forums. I posted some nice 7D bird pictures there. Mazing did not ruin those photos.
it is like a joke..
