RubenZamora wrote:
You make no sense. You say your 7D is good yet because you read that 7D's may not be good your taking it in? Do you know your equipment?
for all you know they fiddle with it and turn something in perfect condition into something with an issue
saturos wrote:
In low light and action sequences I'll give it to the 7D for it's low light ability and new AF, but honestly I don't think the IQ is as good for what it is supposed to be. My 40D and even my 20D get consistently sharper "better" looking photos.
I hear people keep saying it's not fair to compare the IQ of an 8mp camera to an 18 mp camera, and that you'd have to downsample the 7D image to "fairly" compare. They keep saying that the 7D image will appear sharper after downsampling/downsizing or some such nonesense. So if the 18 mp isn't sharp at 18mp why make the camera? Especially if you have to reduce it's size to trick it into looking as good or close to as good as a smaller mp camera is producing.
Is canon in some sort of collusion with digital storage makers to get the consumer to have to buy more storage devices by having 25 meg raw files that are effectively no better than my, almost half the size files from the 40D?
I don't care about the science of pixels and sensor size and all the charts graphs etc that I see here trying to explain my camera to me. I do care about what my eye should be able to see; is the photo right? So far I'm not getting what I paid for.
If I get better results or even the same from a 40D and by better I mean the stuff that clients will pay me for. Then the 7D has not been worth it to me.
Maybe if I was a BIF photographer and making money that way I'd be thrilled as all hell at how nicely it can track a falcon on a cloudy day. But then again I've never actually met someone who makes money on BIF photography.
*rant not scientifically backed up but based on how I feel about this camera after, what 3 months or so since it came out....Show more →
if you use high enough shutter and nail focus it does capture more detail than a 20D or 40D eevn if it might be a trace less crisp 'at the pixel' level, you don't resize it or anything just look at the total detail captured
saturos wrote:
I don't care about the science of pixels and sensor size and all the charts graphs etc that I see here trying to explain my camera to me. I do care about what my eye should be able to see; is the photo right? So far I'm not getting what I paid for.
If I get better results or even the same from a 40D and by better I mean the stuff that clients will pay me for. Then the 7D has not been worth it to me.
*rant not scientifically backed up but based on how I feel about this camera after, what 3 months or so since it came out....Show more →
alundeb wrote:
Time to revive an old horse, imaging-resource.com
Processed in CaptureOne v5, NR OFF, sharpening 180/0.8
100% crops, no resizing to make the 7D appear sharper.
Both files are the same size...how's it a 100% crop? Did they change the focal length? This isn't a good comparison either.
Tom Rouse wrote:
I have the 7D and the 1D3 and access to the 5D1 when I want FF.. As for sports they both work great for me. For studio work I prefer the 1D3 over the 7D and 5D1.
I only used the 7D a couple of times in the studio. I used it on a Santa shoot the other day and it did well. I am just used to the 1D3 and I'm very happy with my images. I have a shoot of the marching band at a local high school at noon today and I'm debating on which camera to use. My 7D seems to be good, but after reading all the arguments that it is not so good. I may just send mine to canon to get it checked out. I take a lot of pictures because I have the contracts for 2 high schools and 1 middle school. They keep me busy. We did over 180 seniors in the last 5 months.
saturos wrote:
In low light and action sequences I'll give it to the 7D for it's low light ability and new AF, but honestly I don't think the IQ is as good for what it is supposed to be. My 40D and even my 20D get consistently sharper "better" looking photos.
I hear people keep saying it's not fair to compare the IQ of an 8mp camera to an 18 mp camera, and that you'd have to downsample the 7D image to "fairly" compare. They keep saying that the 7D image will appear sharper after downsampling/downsizing or some such nonesense. So if the 18 mp isn't sharp at 18mp why make the camera? Especially if you have to reduce it's size to trick it into looking as good or close to as good as a smaller mp camera is producing.
Is canon in some sort of collusion with digital storage makers to get the consumer to have to buy more storage devices by having 25 meg raw files that are effectively no better than my, almost half the size files from the 40D?
I don't care about the science of pixels and sensor size and all the charts graphs etc that I see here trying to explain my camera to me. I do care about what my eye should be able to see; is the photo right? So far I'm not getting what I paid for.
If I get better results or even the same from a 40D and by better I mean the stuff that clients will pay me for. Then the 7D has not been worth it to me.
Maybe if I was a BIF photographer and making money that way I'd be thrilled as all hell at how nicely it can track a falcon on a cloudy day. But then again I've never actually met someone who makes money on BIF photography.
*rant not scientifically backed up but based on how I feel about this camera after, what 3 months or so since it came out....Show more →
You see no benefit from having more pixels? You really think that the 7D's files aren't any better than the 40D?
Have you ever even shot a 7D and compared it to a 40D? I'll tell you what, I've got the files to prove it. To be honest, if you really cannot get an idea of the bonus of the extra resolution, then I guess I can't expect you to see the difference in IQ.
The AF alone is worth a price increase over the 40D. The micro adjust is just another added bonus. If you shoot video (I don't), then there's one. The added resolution, and being able to print larger files without uprezzing the file... There's no "downsizing" to "trick" you into thinking that the file is better.
That argument is like saying the 1dsmk3 files aren't really an upgrade, because when you downsize them to the 40D's size, you have tricked it...
thw2 wrote:
Both my XTi and XSi are deadly accurate. So was a 50D body I rented. Looks like the 50D is really the most reliable APS-C camera ever built by Canon. Too bad about its image quality.
The 7D is just one crazy toy I cannot fathom. It was at the service center for more than a month due to AF inconsistencies.. I made 5 visits there. Outcome? Much better than when I first got it. More consistent.
HOWEVER, it (a) back-focuses for objects near MFD (b) won't perform reliably in area AF mode unlike my XSi (c) some peripheral AF points still exhibit unstable AF.
droopy1592 wrote:
Hmm, I think I have the same random OOF shot issue that my XSi had, even shooting at the same target on a tripod. I refocus in on another object that I put in between the camera and the flat perpendicular high contrast target, and at least 20-25% of shots are out of focus with all lenses. The OOF shot isn't even close (single point spot or regular, doesn't matter) Yes, my 50D is deadly accurate. My XTi and 50D never missed, but my XSi and now 7D have the random OOF bug. It's going back.
I want to love this camera. I'd have babies with it if I could, but it's not cooperating. ...Show more →
If you're having an OOF problem, I'm wondering if some of the early models of this camera had an issue, that is more software than anything else. Like something that Canon just calibrates at the factory.
RobertLynn wrote:
If you're having an OOF problem, I'm wondering if some of the early models of this camera had an issue, that is more software than anything else. Like something that Canon just calibrates at the factory.
The photos look so much better than my 50D, but they aren't in focus 1/4th of the time. I'm even swapping them out with all of lenses on the same tripod spot and the 50D is always in focus. DAmn I wish the 50D didn't have the stupid horizontal banding. I wouldn't let it go if it didn't.
I might see benefit of having more MP if it actually improved my photos and they remained just as sharp as my lower MP camera. See that was my expectation when I plopped down almost 2k for a new Canon. My issue however is I'm not seeing the improvement I paid for. I don't care if it's a 50 megapixel camera if the photo I get looks like A$$ it's not worth it to me. I'm not compensating here it doesn't need to be bigger it needs to work perfectly for what it is.
Yes I have compared my 40D to my 7D which is why my 40D is still in the bag and not for sale as redundant hardware.
I grant that AF is cool, and the 'catching back up to Nikon' options they packed it with makes me very happy.
However the end result is where I'm having my doubts. If I'm shooting an event I know I can trust the 40D to have a certain result and that result is a sharp nice image. The 7D will focus better, faster and with a higher usable ISO. But the end result for a lot of my applications is a softer "just something not quite right about it" photo.
As someone else stated and I concur, I really WANT to love this camera, but I think they ultimately sacrificed IQ to some degree. And in that I'm very disappointed.
If you love it, I'm happy for you. Doesn't make you right any more than it makes me wrong, it's just a matter of opinions. Respect that.
RobertLynn wrote:
You see no benefit from having more pixels? You really think that the 7D's files aren't any better than the 40D?
Have you ever even shot a 7D and compared it to a 40D? I'll tell you what, I've got the files to prove it. To be honest, if you really cannot get an idea of the bonus of the extra resolution, then I guess I can't expect you to see the difference in IQ.
The AF alone is worth a price increase over the 40D. The micro adjust is just another added bonus. If you shoot video (I don't), then there's one. The added resolution, and being able to print larger files without uprezzing the file... There's no "downsizing" to "trick" you into thinking that the file is better.
That argument is like saying the 1dsmk3 files aren't really an upgrade, because when you downsize them to the 40D's size, you have tricked it...
RobertLynn wrote:
Both files are the same size...how's it a 100% crop? Did they change the focal length? This isn't a good comparison either.
how about this:
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):
RobertLynn wrote:
Both files are the same size...how's it a 100% crop? Did they change the focal length? This isn't a good comparison either.
At first glance, they may look alike, but they really are of different magnification. Look again, the 7D pulls out significantly more detail, it actually resolves the fabric structure. Can't complain about sharpness at pixel level for the 7D here.
So, when you, me, this test, and many others manage to get excellent images out of the 7D, that really trump the 40D in resolution, that speaks for itself.
All the factors that may mask the resolution advantage of the 7D have been repeated numerous times:
1: Workflow: Raw converters make more of a difference with this camera. DPP produced soft images, I don't know about the latest version
2: Everything that generally affects image quality: Lens, diffraction, shutter speed, focus, atmospheric haze, quality of light,... One must understand that to get sharper iamges, all these factors must either be improved or carefully considered, and this has nothing to do with the camera.
3: Presentation: Should be done at equal magnification, and by upsampling the smaller image.
@skibum:
When using the EF-S 60 at f/4 - 5.6, I get even more detail and microcontrast from the 7D than the samples from DPR.
alundeb wrote:
At first glance, they may look alike, but they really are of different magnification. Look again, the 7D pulls out significantly more detail, it actually resolves the fabric structure. Can't complain about sharpness at pixel level for the 7D here.
So, when you, me, this test, and many others manage to get excellent images out of the 7D, that really trump the 40D in resolution, that speaks for itself.
All the factors that may mask the resolution advantage of the 7D have been repeated numerous times:
1: Workflow: Raw converters make more of a difference with this camera. DPP produced soft images, I don't know about the latest version
2: Everything that generally affects image quality: Lens, diffraction, shutter speed, focus, atmospheric haze, quality of light,... One must understand that to get sharper iamges, all these factors must either be improved or carefully considered, and this has nothing to do with the camera.
3: Presentation: Should be done at equal magnification, and by upsampling the smaller image.
@skibum:
When using the EF-S 60 at f/4 - 5.6, I get even more detail and microcontrast from the 7D than the samples from DPR. ...Show more →
+100
I really do think that the majority of reports of softness from the 7D aren't the camera at all. Of course smaller pixels demand better lenses and technique if you want 100% crops to look equally sharp. If people uprezzed their 40D images to 18 Mpixels AS THEY SHOULD when comparing against the 7D, this controversy wouldn't exist, and the 7D would almost never look softer than the 40D.
This issue arises every time we get a large bump in sensor resolution and people discover that their lenses aren't good enough, or their aperture choices weren't optimal, or their shutter speeds weren't fast enough to max out the camera's available detail. The camera gets blamed because they zoom into 100% and see 'softness'.
If you want to use the full 18 Mpixel resolution of the 7D you need to think carefully about lens selection. Some really excellent lenses won't give crisp pixels at 7D resolution with many aperture settings.
I predicted this controversy when the 5D2 was due, and with the 7D it's the same controversy with knobs on since the 7D is the reachiest DSLR ever:
This is yet another side-effect of the equal magnification problem that I am trying to turn into a religion. If people won't compare camera crops fairly, at equal physical image size, then they should just shut up, listen, and learn.
saturos wrote:
I might see benefit of having more MP if it actually improved my photos and they remained just as sharp as my lower MP camera. See that was my expectation when I plopped down almost 2k for a new Canon. My issue however is I'm not seeing the improvement I paid for. I don't care if it's a 50 megapixel camera if the photo I get looks like A$$ it's not worth it to me. I'm not compensating here it doesn't need to be bigger it needs to work perfectly for what it is.
Yes I have compared my 40D to my 7D which is why my 40D is still in the bag and not for sale as redundant hardware.
I grant that AF is cool, and the 'catching back up to Nikon' options they packed it with makes me very happy.
However the end result is where I'm having my doubts. If I'm shooting an event I know I can trust the 40D to have a certain result and that result is a sharp nice image. The 7D will focus better, faster and with a higher usable ISO. But the end result for a lot of my applications is a softer "just something not quite right about it" photo.
As someone else stated and I concur, I really WANT to love this camera, but I think they ultimately sacrificed IQ to some degree. And in that I'm very disappointed.
If you love it, I'm happy for you. Doesn't make you right any more than it makes me wrong, it's just a matter of opinions. Respect that.
You mustn't have performed tests in equal parameters with the 7D. If you had some evidence to support the claim that the 7D was bad, I could respect your opinion.
Right now, I just see that I've done a test in a controlled environment, and the 7D wins. That makes it fact.
