ppeh wrote:
Bear in mind we talking about quality of DSLR as a package and NOT THE POST PROCESSING TOOLS THAT MAKE THIS CAMERA WORKS!
Nonsense - of course your conversion and PP choices are part of the equation. It's ridiculous to expect any given camera to be at its best across the board, regardless of how the files are converted and processed.
You don't need PP to remove the noise - you can avoid it in the first place if you choose the right converter: and basing your decisions on a very unfinished beta is just mental.
Ironically - and amusingly, given that you've picked up a D700 - it has always been Nikon users that have made this point loudest of all (myself included, back in the day): they've always argued that any comments about Nikon IQ are inherently unfair unless the files have been converted in Nikon Capture or Capture NX because they maximise the files.
And just for completeness, Nikon isn't a noise/maze free zone either: these are both from D300s (different cameras, different photographers) - click on the little "+" sign under the image for a large view:
I've just started using a 7D and I am pleasantly surprised by it's IQ. Theres noise at 100% at >1600ISO but for small bird photography it retains detail well and in small to medium prints even cropped images look great with a little PP. I't doesn't stand up to the 5D(original) or 1DIII at 100% view and I'd prefer these if I'm not FL limited but I've never had such a usable camera with my 100-400L for birds. The 400DO + TC makes a killer hand held combo with the 7D's 'extra reach' (I dont want the 'extra reach' lecture again, thanks in advance ).
My bottom line is that the extra pixels and crop factor (depite any extra noise) do give me more usable image detail for prints. No complaints about the AF yet either though it's early days.
And just for completeness, Nikon isn't a noise/maze free zone either: these are both from D300s (different cameras, different photographers) - click on the little "+" sign under the image for a large view:
And just for completeness, Nikon isn't a noise/maze free zone either: these are both from D300s (different cameras, different photographers) - click on the little "+" sign under the image for a large view:
Yup. Apparently our resident Canon apologist (well, probably there's more than one) doesn't know jpeg compression artifacts when he sees them. Indeed any camera can produce those if you set the jpeg quality too low when saving the image after editing.
Without doubt - PP decisions made by the photographers have played a huge part in the nastiness.
Has nothing to do with the RAW conversion, however, or the quality (or lack thereof) of the RAW data.
Oh, so not making a career of trolling every forum that'll have me so that I can whine and bitch about every last thing that I'm a little bit unhappy about, is enough to make me an apologist?
I'll take that as a compliment, given what I think of the alternative.
Of course it's mazing - the jpeg/sharpening artifacts are just adding to them.
Are you also going to try and convince me (or yourself) that the DPR low ISO sky pics don't containing mazing? No chance of "artifacts" explaining that away...
keithreeder wrote:
AP doesn't say anything about the 7D at 100-400 ISO, but they do provide a graph of their noise analysis and - although I wouldn't usually do this (this is a quick handheld snapshot, as my scanner's kaput) - you can find it here.
keithreeder wrote:
Oh, so not making a career of trolling every forum that'll have me so that I can whine and bitch about every last thing that I'm a little bit unhappy about, is enough to make me an apologist?
And you call me an apologist..!
" A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution."
Some spend their time trolling every forum defending the faith against
all who would dare say I think we might have a problem with this-
When they can’t deal with the message they attack the messenger-
They run in pairs-
The 7D, perhaps uniquely for a DSLR, requires special compensation in conversion and LR 3 Beta does not do it so it makes a mess out of the 7D, just what you found nasty artifacts and noise even in upper tones at low ISO.
It also tends to have a bit of a weird repititious column gain alternation which also puts it closer to the threshold of converters making a mess of things.
Using ACR 5.6 it would've looked a lot better (although it won't have the SNR of a FF D700 of course) since that converter does seem to be able to manage the files pretty well.
ppeh wrote:
Running Lightroom 3 Beta for all Canon PP.
I just got a Nikon D700 (used) + a 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 VR from my regular shop to try out. Running a Trial NX2 for Nikon PP
I still like the 7D Body, the Industrial Design of this Body is 10/10. Take the sensor out and replace with a Mk4 Sensor and you have a Nikon Slayer. And will probably put SONY range of FF DSLR to RIP.
I think there is too much marketing decision that screw all these products up.
keithreeder wrote:
Nonsense - of course your conversion and PP choices are part of the equation. It's ridiculous to expect any given camera to be at its best across the board, regardless of how the files are converted and processed.
You don't need PP to remove the noise - you can avoid it in the first place if you choose the right converter: and basing your decisions on a very unfinished beta is just mental.
Ironically - and amusingly, given that you've picked up a D700 - it has always been Nikon users that have made this point loudest of all (myself included, back in the day): they've always argued that any comments about Nikon IQ are inherently unfair unless the files have been converted in Nikon Capture or Capture NX because they maximise the files.
And just for completeness, Nikon isn't a noise/maze free zone either: these are both from D300s (different cameras, different photographers) - click on the little "+" sign under the image for a large view:
skibum5:
The 7D, perhaps uniquely for a DSLR, requires special compensation
I do appreciate your interesting and quite measured posting but I must say that even you comment about EOS 7D as if it is a prima donna that requires much more attention that is normally justified.
mfurman wrote:
I do appreciate your interesting and quite measured posting but I must say that even you comment about EOS 7D as if it is a prima donna that requires much more attention that is normally justified.
true, but since I bought CS4 and like ACR and ACR 5.6 does process it pretty well, in the end it doesn't really matter too much for me- my particular case
i still don't at all get the cyclic column to column differences since there is no way that could be of any sort of benefit at all, kind of weird they radically cleaned up the other banding and then came up with this new sort but whatever
the green differences still seem a little odd to me although again ACR 5.6 both handles that AND still provides at least a trace more detail resolved than from any other APS-C camera so you still end up with more than you'd get out of any other (APS-C) choice.
When have PP been market for removing noise and ISO100.
When U remove noise at ISO 100 to 400, you remove details.
Nice picture, I spend more time shooting than running over night PP and I expect a difference in style. I'm no a pro, But I design Image Sensor for the last decades and shooting to evaluate Sensor performance is part of the job. -> Can't go on beyond with NDA......
U should join the Canon Marketing Team,Free PP S/W to remove noise at ISO 100, I think this will kill the 7D instantly
=>
Nonsense - of course your conversion and PP choices are part of the equation. It's ridiculous to expect any given camera to be at its best across the board, regardless of how the files are converted and processed.
keithreeder wrote:
Nonsense - of course your conversion and PP choices are part of the equation. It's ridiculous to expect any given camera to be at its best across the board, regardless of how the files are converted and processed.
You don't need PP to remove the noise - you can avoid it in the first place if you choose the right converter: and basing your decisions on a very unfinished beta is just mental.
Ironically - and amusingly, given that you've picked up a D700 - it has always been Nikon users that have made this point loudest of all (myself included, back in the day): they've always argued that any comments about Nikon IQ are inherently unfair unless the files have been converted in Nikon Capture or Capture NX because they maximise the files.
And just for completeness, Nikon isn't a noise/maze free zone either: these are both from D300s (different cameras, different photographers) - click on the little "+" sign under the image for a large view:
Do you really design sensors for a living? Cause you don't talk like the technical people I know. Heck I spent the last 3 years learning about and designing FPGAs and no one claims anything like you do.
).
( I normally shoot with a 1Ds-II