skibum5 wrote:
yeah it is better up there but then again it seems pretty clear that the 5D2 also handily beats the 7D and since the 5D2 was measured, at the RAW level, to have only around 1.6 stops better SNR at ISO3200 (normalized, not pixel level) how can the 7D have 1.5 stops better SNR than the 40D?
1.6 stops better than a 40D would mean astonishingly better photon capture which doesn't seem possible, i'm not sure everyone realizes how radical of an improvement 1.6 stops would entail
the lesser banding in the high iso shots might help make it seem better than the better it is
i'm sure it is better, but no way do i believe 1.5 stops better
i also noticed that some places like IR shot 1/3 stop longer exposure to get what seemed to be at best the same light as with a D300s, but that was judging with acr and who knows if that really knows the cutoffs properly sometimes it has not in the past ...Show more →
You are quite right: I misread this somehow. I thought the claim was that the 7D was one stop better than the 40D...
However, I think what often triggers these impressions is the affect of the in-camera JPEG procesing (also replicated by DPP). As you know, the 40D output receives little or no chroma NR at high ISO, whereas the 7D output (as a Digic IV camera) gets lots. So the subjective impression may very well be of a 2-stop advantage, particularly after resampling or if you don't look carefully at fine detail.
mfurman wrote:
Impossible. 5D mkII is barely 1.5 stop better than 40D. You are overly enthusiastic, Yakim.
It's possible. I didn't do any controlled tests. I just took a few high ISO shots and looked at them. For my "defense" I'll say that I know my 40D well. I love it till ISO 800 but ISO 1600 is borderline IMHO. I loved the pictures I took with the 7D until ISO 3200 while ISO 6400 looked borderline. It's a general impression, nothing more.
well, with noise reduction and good post process, I can get better pictures than my old 30D but with the full 30D size. In my own point of view, the 7D is a lot better in term of everything (even the noise can be kept because it's fine grained and so much more detail were retained)
mfurman wrote:
You are right - the difference can be seen but it very minimal and I did not even notice it.
The question then remains (you did address it, to some extend in the previous post):
If 5D mkII is a 21 Mpixel camera, is EOS 7D a 18 Mpixel camera?
1) I think the difference between 500D and 7D is surprisingly noticeable.
2) Despite the fact that diffraction is less of a limit at f4, there is no guarantee that the lens is not choking the performance of the 7D in these tests.
3) the 7D is an 18 Mpixel camera in exactly the same way that the 5D2 is a 21 Mpixel camera AS LONG AS NOISE, CAMERA SHAKE, LENS PERFORMANCE ARE NOT LIMITING detail at a scale between the absolute resolutions of the two cameras.
4) we will see lenses limiting performance on the 7D more often than on the 5D2.
5) DPReview's test of the 7D's detail can be ignored because it is pretty clear that DPR did not ensure that the lens was adequate to exhaust 7D performance.
6) if you want to use the full 18 Mpixels of the 7D, you need plenty of light, superb lenses, and wide apertures.
5) if you only need as much detail as a 40D then keep using your existing lenses happily and stop grumbling about sharp pixels.
garyvot wrote:
You are quite right: I misread this somehow. I thought the claim was that the 7D was one stop better than the 40D...
However, I think what often triggers these impressions is the affect of the in-camera JPEG procesing (also replicated by DPP). As you know, the 40D output receives little or no chroma NR at high ISO, whereas the 7D output (as a Digic IV camera) gets lots. So the subjective impression may very well be of a 2-stop advantage, particularly after resampling or if you don't look carefully at fine detail.
well comparing in-cam jpgs is an entirely different beast and isn't what you use to compare sensors (Actually doesn't the 40D get chroma NR if you set the special CR NR switch? I think it slows it down a lot though)
for RAW i don't believe it can be even be quite as much as 1 stop better, although i'm sure it is better than the 20D-50D (although i haven't tested SNR at all)
brainiac wrote:
1) I think the difference between 500D and 7D is surprisingly noticeable.
2) Despite the fact that diffraction is less of a limit at f4, there is no guarantee that the lens is not choking the performance of the 7D in these tests.
3) the 7D is an 18 Mpixel camera in exactly the same way that the 5D2 is a 21 Mpixel camera AS LONG AS NOISE, CAMERA SHAKE, LENS PERFORMANCE ARE NOT LIMITING detail at a scale between the absolute resolutions of the two cameras.
4) we will see lenses limiting performance on the 7D more often than on the 5D2.
5) DPReview's test of the 7D's detail can be ignored because it is pretty clear that DPR did not ensure that the lens was adequate to exhaust 7D performance.
6) if you want to use the full 18 Mpixels of the 7D, you need plenty of light, superb lenses, and wide apertures.
5) if you only need as much detail as a 40D then keep using your existing lenses happily and stop grumbling about sharp pixels....Show more →
2 perhaps
3 not entirely sure about that, i think it would be possible for a different design to get a tiny bit more, but it's probably not a big deal
4 yes, certainly anywhere near the center
5 not sure about that, with acr 5.5 it seemed pretty crisp, thin contrasty single pixel lines in evidence; with acr 5.6 they were a touch less crisp (but artifacting went away) but even so it still does get more detail than anything (APS-C) else
6 probably
So many pages of mumbo jumble on here....I have just printed off an A3+ print from a 40D image and it is superb by any standard.....but then i get the same standard from 35mm film...must be me as I obviously use inferior kit.
Mind you...I spend my time taking photos not pixel peeping etc etc etc..and etc!
anthonygh wrote:
So many pages of mumbo jumble on here....I have just printed off an A3+ print from a 40D image and it is superb by any standard.....but then i get the same standard from 35mm film...must be me as I obviously use inferior kit.
Mind you...I spend my time taking photos not pixel peeping etc etc etc..and etc!
All the comparisons I've seen between the 7D and XXD/XXXD are positive, as long as the distance to the object is small/medium. Now I don't want to rehash everything what is said about Darwin's test, as I've seen enough evidence that what he says is at least partly hyperbole. But what he did show and what I have seen at work from others is that the 7D is having "trouble" with resolving details at longer range (trees in the background etc).
My questions:
1. Is Diffraction more pronounced at those distances?
2. Or is the AA filter more pronounced at those distances?
3. Finally, or is it just because it's often compared with 5D C/2? Is it comparable to a 40D?
If 3 is a positive it's a non issue imho, but It's a bit hard to find a clear answer.
tuschinski wrote:
I have a few questions about the IQ.
All the comparisons I've seen between the 7D and XXD/XXXD are positive, as long as the distance to the object is small/medium. Now I don't want to rehash everything what is said about Darwin's test, as I've seen enough evidence that what he says is at least partly hyperbole. But what he did show and what I have seen at work from others is that the 7D is having "trouble" with resolving details at longer range (trees in the background etc).
My questions:
1. Is Diffraction more pronounced at those distances?
2. Or is the AA filter more pronounced at those distances?
3. Finally, or is it just because it's often compared with 5D C/2? Is it comparable to a 40D?
If 3 is a positive it's a non issue imho, but It's a bit hard to find a clear answer....Show more →
I took a series of photos of the type you referred, trees at long distance, both with 100mm macro and 100-400, comparing to my 20D. The 7D had no trouble getting perfectly sharp images. The only kind of images that occasionally fool me, are close-ups at f16 to f22, where the 7D will look softer than the 20D at 100%, but when adjusted for equal magnification they are comparable.
tuschinski wrote:
I have a few questions about the IQ.
All the comparisons I've seen between the 7D and XXD/XXXD are positive, as long as the distance to the object is small/medium. Now I don't want to rehash everything what is said about Darwin's test, as I've seen enough evidence that what he says is at least partly hyperbole. But what he did show and what I have seen at work from others is that the 7D is having "trouble" with resolving details at longer range (trees in the background etc).
My questions:
1. Is Diffraction more pronounced at those distances?
2. Or is the AA filter more pronounced at those distances?
3. Finally, or is it just because it's often compared with 5D C/2? Is it comparable to a 40D?
If 3 is a positive it's a non issue imho, but It's a bit hard to find a clear answer....Show more →
i don't see how any of that has to do with "at distance", in fact, with the higher density sensor, the 7D should be able to provide more detail than the others, in particular, when stuff IS far away.
of course atmospheric hazing can certainly come into the mix and that could prevent one from making full use of higher density at times
I was afforded the oppurtunity to shoot a High School Playoff game a couple of weeks ago at Aloha Stadium ( same stadium as the past NFL Pro Bowls).
The Game started at 4:30 and ended around 7:00 pm when it is dark out here in Hawaii this time of year.
The series of 79 shots are in order of time taken and it shows the 7D from an ISO setting of 400 through 2500 increasing as the sun set. (the last 5 are at 2500)
My 40D or 50D would have never performed this well at 800 or 1600 ISO
I just opened the gallery so please comment. I know some of the photos could have been cropped a little tighter as has been suggested for sports action shots. I just have a lot of parents that want a "photo of Johnny" in action so sometimes I crop to include an extra player or two which can be cropped out when purchasing a photo.
For those who have used both the 7D and 50D, is there a big difference between the 2 camera? What's your take on the AF performance and image quality (up to ISO 1600) from the 2 cameras?
I'm a 5D2 user and was recently given a 50D to cover a sporting event. I've not tried the 50D yet. I'm thinking if the 7D would be a significantly better camera for the task.
For those who have used both the 7D and 50D, is there a big difference between the 2 camera? What's your take on the AF performance and image quality (up to ISO 1600) from the 2 cameras?
I'm a 5D2 user and was recently given a 50D to cover a sporting event. I've not tried the 50D yet. I'm thinking if the 7D would be a significantly better camera for the task.
I've shot youth soccer with both. If the 7D is otherwise focusing correctly, it is the better choice, as the center-point + assist points help keep the target in focus (much like the 5D2). The customizability of the AF algorithm is a bonus too. The center point AF tracking on the 50D is fine as far as it goes, but it is easier to lose track of an erratically moving subject.
