Zenon Char wrote:
So I have been going through the manual for C.Fn 4.1 to come up with a "back focus" set up that will work for me. The manual is poorly written regarding this IMO .
The shutter button can be switched to Metering Start. The AF-ON does not have a stand alone focus start so the choice here is Metering and AF Start.
For example I am in AI Servo. I am assuming based on what the manual says that when I press the AF-ON both Metering and AF start and then when I press the shutter button the metering is overwritten from the AF-ON function I pressed earlier. Am I on the right track? ...Show more →
Yes, you are. If, for example, you set the shutter button to AE Lock, then it will override the Metering Start set on the AF-ON button.
Now that Adobe seems to have solved the mazing problem with raw conversions from the 7D, can we spend a few minutes on another obsession? How do iso 1600 and 3200 on the 7D compare to the 40D? With a properly functioning raw converter, is the 7D possibly better than the 40D at high iso's? That would be enough to get me to replace the 40D.
I'd love to be able to use the 17-55/2.8 IS, which works a treat in low-light music performance situations where I can't get the shutter speed to trust hand holding the 24-70/2.8L on a 5D2 or 1D3. Those two cameras do produce nicer looking files at high iso's.
As you can tell, I'm one of those hoping for a 24-70/2.8L IS in the reasonably near future.
Jim Levitt wrote:
Now that Adobe seems to have solved the mazing problem with raw conversions from the 7D, can we spend a few minutes on another obsession? How do iso 1600 and 3200 on the 7D compare to the 40D? With a properly functioning raw converter, is the 7D possibly better than the 40D at high iso's? That would be enough to get me to replace the 40D.
I don't shoot RAW or nightclubs, but I did replace my 40D with a 7D for high ISO shooting. Although I haven't done much pixel-peeping between the two, my feeling is that I can get results with the 7D at ISO3200 that are as good or maybe better than the 40D at ISO1600. Not sure if 7D ISO6400 is as good as the 40D at 3200, but I think so. Plus you have intermediate ISOs between 3200 and 6400.
With the 7D, I can shoot when I would have left the 40D in the bag, and overall I think the image quality is better. Plus way more keepers with the 7D AF.
These examples are all shot jpg, standard noise reduction, Neat Image in post:
7D corrected for imbalance compared to D300s using ACR 5.6
test file was the DPR ISO 100 test scene
NOTE: this is not meant to be a Nikon vs. Canon war posting, it's just that DPR has not posted the 50D or XSi test etc. scene RAW and since many say the D300s delivers all a 12.3MP sensor can it was the only point of reference I had available
The D300s scene appeared to have been shot from a touch closer in giving the D300s a minor advantage, probably not enough to make any real difference though.
assuming i didn't do anything dumb (which is possible ) using ACR 5.6:
The D300s is undoubtably sharper and crisper than the green balance corrected 7D from ACR 5.6. The green balance issue does seem to lose a trace of crispness and micro-contrast.
HOWEVER, the 18MP are easily more than enough to make up for it and it very definitely outresolves the 12.3MP D300s.
AND not only does it outresolve the D300s, the smoothing effect of the balancing delivers a very natural, film-like detail with none of the stair-stepping and such the D300s file gets. So even despite going to jaggy inducing crispness the D300s still delivers less detail, less reach and more moire and jaggies and looks less natural.
Preliminary conclusion:
1. the 7D either maintains full pixel level crispness and suffers from nasty artifacts or gives up hair of crispness and looks normal
and yet....
2. despite having to deal with the imbalance it still handily outresolves and outreaches any 12.3 MP or less camera and does so while maintaing a more natural and pleasing (in some cases noticeably so) looking image
3. how does it compare to a 15MP camera in terms of reach and detail? don't know, DPR hasn't posted the 50D RAW file for access and I sold my 50D. My guess would be anywhere from a little less detail (but perhaps more filmlike look) to a little more detail (plus more filmlike look) if forced to I'd guess that it delivers about the detail that a 15MP camera with balanced greens could do (but with a very natural smoothness and probably more pleasing image than such a 15MP cam)
conclusion, despite the fact that it does appears as if it might actually lose some RAW crispness (as found at some other review sites) and maybe could be outresolved by an 18MP of a different design (not that any exist), in the end it still delivers more detail AND in a more natural looking form than any other APS-C DSLR on the planet aside (only perhaps) from a 50D (and even there it probably at least matches the detail and maybe delivers in more natural looking form but i can't really say for sure)
so yeah the design/qc just may compromise the ultimate in pixel-peeping crispness of it but it still delivers the most natural and detailed low iso of any APS-C camera out there, maybe think of it like a slightly-supersampled 15MP cam of sorts?
although if you use DPP instead of ACR 5.6 the image is a bit compromised IMO with artifacting especially with many, if not all, 7D copies
The sites saying the raw is a bit less sharp a probably correct (when using converters that correct for artifacts) but the ones saying the end the result is worse than a D300s or XSi and that it is like a 10MP camera appear to be wrong.
Anyway enough of the peeping the 7D, with ACR 5.6 I think it most likely that it gets done what it needs to.
ejmartin wrote:
These are ACR 5.5 vs 5.6 with the 7D? The second of each pair clearly has much less artifacting, though there is some still left, which is intrinsic to ACR's demosaic method.
I'd be interested to see ACR 5.6 with the 7D vs the 50D.
still don't have any suitable 50D/7D sets of images to compare but I did find the DPR D300s ISO 100 test scene RAW
safe to say it can outresolve 12.3MP even with mazing fixed (of course one should certainly hope that 18MP could so it's no amazing feat). Since the D300s is said to be pretty sharp I think it is safe to say it can outresolve any 12.3MP or lower APS-C DSLR. By my eye I'm thinking it could match a 15MP cam that had even response and fall around 15MP class?
the D300s was actually a tiny bit closer than the 7D it appears, so if anything the D300s had a trace of an unfair advantage here:
The 7D also has a smoother look to it than the D300s which gets moire or jaggies at times.
7D downsampled to 12.3MP definitely shows more detail than the D300s image although less than the original 18MP 7D image
7D downsampled to 15MP seems to not really lose any detail compared to the 18MP original
sample pairs (7D over D300s) with ACR 5.6
(not meant to be a nikon vs. canon war just needed a good, sharp 12.3MP reference to compare the 7D against that was taken under the same conditions, they don't have the 50D or XTi files available for download; the D300s even has a trace advantage here by having been a trace closer):
I agree the 7D outresoves the D300s which skibum5's crops show; based on my tests, it also beats it for noise when image magnification is equalized.
The DPReview.com review of the D300s is up and they almost entirely dismiss the resolution difference between these cameras. The Nikon is without question a great camera, but I get the feeling that if these specifications were reversed, more would be made out of the resolution (dis)advantage.
garyvot wrote:
I agree the 7D outresoves the D300s which skibum5's crops show; based on my tests, it also beats it for noise when image magnification is equalized.
The DPReview.com review of the D300s is up and they almost entirely dismiss the resolution difference between these cameras. The Nikon is without question a great camera, but I get the feeling that if these specifications were reversed, more would be made out of the resolution (dis)advantage.
I don't think they dismissed the resolution difference, it's just not that much that could be expected.
The theoretical resolution improvement from the pixel count is only 20% (square root of the pixel ratio). Their own tests show 10% improvement, that what could be expected considering the final lens resolution, etc..
RobDickinson wrote:
Well just ordered a 7D and 17-55.
A very, very, very good combination ... two pictures below at 17 and 55 from a recent polar bear trip. The constant F/2.8 is wonderful for low light in combination with the 7D's high ISO capabilities.
skibum5 wrote:
still don't have any suitable 50D/7D sets of images to compare but I did find the DPR D300s ISO 100 test scene RAW
Interesting results.
On my 24" monitor, I can hardly see any difference in detail at 100% crops.
At 200%, there's some difference in the fine prints.
Translated to print sizes, it seems that any differences between the 7D and D300 might be visible in 24×36 and larger prints but not in smaller ones (say 13x19).
Maybe it’s the quality of these megapixels that matters – perhaps it would have been a different story if they were of 5DII quality .
Right now, though, it seems that putting 18mp on the 7D was about playing a numbers game rather than anything else.
jorkata wrote:
Interesting results.
On my 24" monitor, I can hardly see any difference in detail at 100% crops.
At 200%, there's some difference in the fine prints.
Translated to print sizes, it seems that any differences between the 7D and D300 might be visible in 24×36 and larger prints but not in smaller ones (say 13x19).
Maybe it’s the quality of these megapixels that matters – perhaps it would have been a different story if they were of 5DII quality .
Right now, though, it seems that putting 18mp on the 7D was about playing a numbers game rather than anything else.
perhaps it was a bit of a numbers game compard to having just put 15MP on it again liek the 50D (then again maybe having the few extra, even if they get slightly avgeraged to avoid mazing, makes a slightly better, more film-like product in the end? hard to say where the tradeoffs in file size and so on lie)
but i think it was surely worth it (the 18MP) over the 12.3MP of the D300s. When reach is the game you really need every little extra bit you can get. A 7D will definitely bring you more reach than a 5D2 and tons more than a 5D or D700 and more than a D300s. OTOH, is the D300s reach enough to be worth it over a 5D2? That start getting more debatable. I mean I'm sure it does still havemore reach but enough to be worth $1700 extra? not sure, at least with the 7D the answer is a lot more clear. For reach to be worth it, since the linear difference takes a LOT more MP to increase much you really need all you can get for it to be noticeably worth it. Anything less than the 15-18MP of the last two canon aps-c and i'm not sure the extra reach would be worth it.
for birds you can be really, REALLY reach limited, the other day i took some quick shots in the backyard and had to crop away 2/3 of the image even with 300+1.4x T just to get something that looked half-way reasonable. That difference starts coming into play even on HDTV screens and modest print sizes.
look at the moire on the last two comparisons with the D300s on the red stripes at the upper right and the checker-boxing at the bottom of the last one or on the first imge at the upper left you can see the full curl of the vine thingy on the 7D while on the D300s you don't see the final part of the curl of the vine at all
alundeb:
The 18MP vs 15 MP is not a "numbers game". The improvement is real.
Am I missing something here? I do not see any difference in sharpness between 18 and 15 Mpixel cameras. What is the improvement, you are talking about?
alundeb wrote:
I have found the 7D to give the same "pixel sharpness" as my 500D, which is known to resolve essentially equally to the 50D. The 18MP vs 15 MP is not a "numbers game". The improvement is real.
At f8, the advantage of the 7D is muted because of diffraction. When will it ever be accepted that we cannot test the resolution of crop cameras at f8?
ok, but if I use ACR 5.5 then it drawns lines as crisply as the others, but also makes horrible artifacts and if I use ACR 5.6 then it appears as if though it may very slightly soften the microcontrast, again this is one the same file....
could be wrong, but I think compensating for the G1/G2 knocks a trace off the crispness, but again the end result is certainly noticeably better than 12.3MP, likely, if not certainly, equal to at least 15MP if not more although probbaly not quite up to 17.9MP from a more standar design, but again since nothing else has more than 15MP and it produces a very smooth filmlike 15MP it's not like you are losing anything compared to any other APS-C camera (unless it does fall below the 50D, but it is hard to imagine it could be more than a meaningless trace worse at worst and it may well do better).
The extra pixels of the 7D are very important when you crop the images. I can crop 2/3 of the frame and still have an excellent 6 MP imge. That is a big advantage when birding for example.
alundeb wrote:
I have found the 7D to give the same "pixel sharpness" as my 500D, which is known to resolve essentially equally to the 50D. The 18MP vs 15 MP is not a "numbers game". The improvement is real.
At f8, the advantage of the 7D is muted because of diffraction. When will it ever be accepted that we cannot test the resolution of crop cameras at f8?
These are processed in C1v5, default sharpening. Note that I have not applied any extra sharpening of the 7D image to match the 500D image. Manual focus, unchanged between exposures. The test was repeated 3 times to ensure that the focus was always dead on.
I can't use ACR since I only have Elements 4.
Both 100% crops and equal magnification images are presented, for your convenience. 500D images resized with bicubic sharper. ...Show more →
i thought c1v5 still had a few artifacts left over, so is it 100% fully correcting?
anyway it probably does still just barely beat the 15MP cameras, maybe it gives like 16.5MP?
anyway wherever it exactly falls between 15.1 and 17.9MP, it does seem to be able to pull in more detail, even after full mazing correction, than any other APS-C camera
and left as is it already looks more natural and smoother than the 12.3MP D300s and if you were to scale it down to D300s size then it looks both sharper and smoother and perhaps less noisy than the D300s
Alek Komarnits wrote:
A very, very, very good combination ... two pictures below at 17 and 55 from a recent polar bear trip. The constant F/2.8 is wonderful for low light in combination with the 7D's high ISO capabilities.
Sounds like you had a great trip. Hope you liked our province, eh!.
I just showed my wife the shot of that puppy and she loved it. What a cutie. We're from Manitoba but we have never been up there yet. Seems like the closer you are to a destination the longer it takes you to get there. We do have a cottage in the Canadian Boreal forest and have witnessed spectacular northern light shows, especially in the winter. Driving up we have see Moose, Woodland Caribou, Lynx, Wolf, a lot of Black Bears and an assortment of common critters like fox and coyote.
skibum5 wrote:
i thought c1v5 still had a few artifacts left over, so is it 100% fully correcting?
anyway it probably does still just barely beat the 15MP cameras, maybe it gives like 16.5MP?
anyway wherever it exactly falls between 15.1 and 17.9MP, it does seem to be able to pull in more detail, even after full mazing correction, than any other APS-C camera
and left as is it already looks more natural and smoother than the 12.3MP D300s and if you were to scale it down to D300s size then it looks both sharper and smoother and perhaps less noisy than the D300s
I agree that it's not fully up to 17.99 MP by the "old standards", I would say somewhere around 16.5. Remember, the 50D and 500D were only measured to around 13.5 by photozone. There was quite some fuzz about it then, but people seem to have forgotten already, that the apparent pixel sharpness was altered already with the 50D.
With my copy of the 7D, I don't have problems with mazing in C1, and I don't see any smoothing compared to my 500D either.
If I recall correctly, you mentioned that you found ACR 5.6 was able to pull out at least as much detail as C1, so the results could only be better with ACR 5.6 compared to my compilation here?
) using ACR 5.6:
.