corndog wrote:
Did you guys know these can be had for $1526.95 shipped from an authorized Canon dealer via eBay? They're brand new with US warranties, best deal I've seen thus far. I bet they're split from a kit, but I sure don't mind at that price.
I got mine for $1430 from Bestbuy after 10% discount, $50 rebate, rewardzone and selling the kit lens for $200.
Ok I have put in quite a bit of time with my 7D now and have to say it does not measure up to my expectations. Highly possible I got a body with issues but dont have time for a trip to the canon shop since my return period is coming up. The HD video quality on this camera impresses me more than the images it produces. The IQ is just not there. Some have said its because things need to be "just right". To me thats a poor explanation as conditions are seldom "just right". I also tried quality lenses to make sure the problem was not the lens. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and 24-70 2.8 L. After trying these under similar shooting conditions as the conditions used with my other bodies, the results did not change my feelings about this camera.
I will be back in Huntington Beach - Fountain Valley 1/14 thru 1/16 so if anyone is in that area an willing to snap a few shots from their 7D to my card I would appreciate it. I plan on going with my friend to the wetlands at Bolsa on Friday. I so much want to like this camera and if I see better results from another body I can return it to Canon rather that return it to the store and pay the %15 restocking fee.
M Vers wrote:
Keith, have you noticed a fall off in IQ with the 7D+100-400 combo in comparison to other bodies you've owned (30/40D)?
I'm finding the 100-400L + 7D combo much better overall than with the 40D. I'm getting far more keepers in AI servo than with the 40D and the IQ is super if you nail it. Like keith I've found in certain lighting situations, it can get a bit nasty with IQ, but those aren't common. Once case was with a grebe on the water which was strongly backlit. I needed flash in this case, but the shoits weren't great.
Very impressed with the high ISO too, better than the 40D for sure, nicer grain and less blotchiness on the chroma.
that continues to be my take too, Whayne - and I'm getting better at avoiding the odd nasty IQ problem by being more careful about my exposures: the 7D is very accurate, but it is different to the 40D in metering, and as I'm learning the differences, the results are getting better.
The backlit grebe would have been a pretty challenging exposure situation. I get the feeling that the 40D's metering is more forgiving than the 7D's (I'm not talking about DR, the 7D just feels more precise, and more demanding as a result) but when I get it right (and it's not hard, really) I'm really taken by the IQ.
The only disappointment or me at the moment is that above 800 ISO, conversions in Bibble 5 look pretty poor - but that's definitely the converter. In Cap One 5, they're excellent.
I've got some 6400 ISO shots of snow coming down on my street at night - 6400 ISO, 1/20, f/2, proper "available dark" shots - that just look great.
And at 800 or below, the amount of detail, sharpness and microcontrast Bibble 5 pulls out of 7D files is amazing - my 100-400mm (a good one anyway) has never been sharper.
pcvrz22g wrote:
The IQ is just not there. Some have said its because things need to be "just right". To me thats a poor explanation as conditions are seldom "just right". I also tried quality lenses to make sure the problem was not the lens. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and 24-70 2.8 L. After trying these under similar shooting conditions as the conditions used with my other bodies, the results did not change my feelings about this camera.
pcvrz22g wrote:
The IQ is just not there. Some have said its because things need to be "just right". To me thats a poor explanation as conditions are seldom "just right". I also tried quality lenses to make sure the problem was not the lens. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and 24-70 2.8 L. After trying these under similar shooting conditions as the conditions used with my other bodies, the results did not change my feelings about this camera.
keithreeder wrote:
How are you converting/processing the files?
Also, are you making your assessment based on print output or 100% (pixel for pixel) screen view?
Thanks for the replies. Im basing it off both 100% view and printed crops as well. I was expecting to be able to use 100% crops from this body and get prints as good or better than my 1dmkii. The crops I'm referring to are proportional to that of the 1dmkii, meaning they are not more demanding based on Megapixel. To me its almost like the 18 MP rating of this camera is mute point. Am I wrong in expecting to be able to crop in more?
Keith.. I have used the included DPP with raw images but Im also basing this off out of camera JPEG images. I understand processing makes a difference but it should not be necessary to get the results Im expecting. The DPP processing does improve the outcome but the images are still not what I expect.
I have till Saturday evening. Im hoping I get to hook up with someone at the Bolsa Wetlands that has a 7D as well and my views get turned around. It will put me on the right track. I prefer sending the camera to canon and ending up with the camera I expected rather than being out an almost $300 restocking fee
Let me ask this.. will setting my 7D image quality to Medium High (8mp setting) be a fair comparison to my 1kmkii images? What I mean is if I took a 1kmkii set to L HQ and 7D set as above (M HQ), same lens, same scene, same camera settings... should I expect to see similar results when viewed at 100% and printed crops at 100%?
pcvrz22g wrote:
I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and 24-70 2.8 L. After trying these under similar shooting conditions as the conditions used with my other bodies, the results did not change my feelings about this camera.
I never find 70-200 2.8 IS to be sharp (on a crop sensor) wide open @ 200mm to begin with
Also, I highly doubt 24-70L can offer the resolution that 7D demand (7D's pixel density is eqv to ~46mps FF density)
My 24-70 was sharp wide open with my Rebel XS/1000D, but is no longer critical sharp with the 7D at pixel level, but this result was kind of expected.
One lens I find it critically sharp at pixel level with 7D sensor even wide open is 70-200 f4 IS, that lens is just really scarily sharp.
Try the 7D on the sharpest lens you can get hold on, test with a tripod to eliminate the potential hand shake, use live view 10x magnification manual focus to eliminate the potential AF problem, mirror lock up and other mumbo jumbo. If the images get sharper, it means it is not the camera problem.
Also I believe denser sensor require higher shutter speed, which mean the shutter speed you believe you can get sharp result with a 1Dmk2 may no longer the case with 7D
Thanks for your input. I'm not doubting any of what you said but if true. In fact based on other comments it fits right in. Based on those comments its apparent the 7D has quite a few limitations that make it less than an ideal choice. Sounds like a body that requires the sharpest of L lenses with optimal lighting in order to produce the images Im looking for.
Thanks again for all the input. Im still waiting till Saturday to see if anyone takes me up on the Bolsa Wetlands meet up, otherwise I will just take the restock fee hit for mine return and my friends, see as I suggested he get this body.
I took mine back today. The work flow slow down of the large files is one reason. Sheesh!
I shoot RAW and open all my files at 100% and then sort and batch.
I have a fast PC but the load is felt with the big files.
I liked it. It was sharp enough. It a really nice body. But after a few days of shooting it and then going back to my 50D and enjoying the faster work flow I decided to hand it back to Costco.
After shooting my 50D again I realized I did not dislike the camera enough to move on. As a matter of fact I do not dislike it at all. But for the nose prints on the rear display.
If I had a 20D or 40D it would have kept it but there is the work load of the larger files and the space they take up on the cards.
therock wrote:
I took mine back today. The work flow slow down of the large files is one reason. Sheesh!
I shoot RAW and open all my files at 100% and then sort and batch.
I have a fast PC but the load is felt with the big files.
I liked it. It was sharp enough. It a really nice body. But after a few days of shooting it and then going back to my 50D and enjoying the faster work flow I decided to hand it back to Costco.
After shooting my 50D again I realized I did not dislike the camera enough to move on. As a matter of fact I do not dislike it at all. But for the nose prints on the rear display.
If I had a 20D or 40D it would have kept it but there is the work load of the larger files and the space they take up on the cards.
that continues to be my take too, Whayne - and I'm getting better at avoiding the odd nasty IQ problem by being more careful about my exposures: the 7D is very accurate, but it is different to the 40D in metering, and as I'm learning the differences, the results are getting better.
The backlit grebe would have been a pretty challenging exposure situation. I get the feeling that the 40D's metering is more forgiving than the 7D's (I'm not talking about DR, the 7D just feels more precise, and more demanding as a result) but when I get it right (and it's not hard, really) I'm really taken by the IQ.
Keith if this is not DR then please explain?
WHY should we have to be more careful with exposure with a 7D than a 50 or 40D?
Seems similar to what I been saying from day one?
timpdx wrote:
personally, file size would be about the last reason I would take back a camera. Are the 15mp RAWs really that much smaller than 18mp RAWs?
I would agree, and my 50d raw files are over 20mb. Still, I have the same concern about file size, but all the other features will outweigh it. What's funny is that I used to poke fun at the sraw crowd, but I can really see a use for it now. You get all the features of a modern camera, but can retain your small file size to speed up work flow. If the 7d files are significantly slower for me to work with, I might just try out the 10mp setting.
danrhiggins wrote:
Zenon Char, I saw your football pictures from a couple of weeks ago. I am currently wrestling with whether or not to keep a 7D or Mark IV. (I have both in hand but no opportunity at the moment to check performance in late afternoon or just after sunset light.) I have seen a lot of wonderful bird pics. But my interest/need is in prep field sports and probably not under the lights (as I don't think even the Mark IV will get me what I need.) I am trying to determine if the focus performance as well as IQ will be sufficient on the 7D. I have take a few images (road cyclists riding down my street, a coyote in the fields behind our house, etc.) But these are in daylight. Highest ISO was 1600. And to be honest there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference. If I know the Mark IV would give me clean images at 25,600 I would go for that as I could do night games at a local stadium. But I don't think it quite gets there. So if I can't do that and must rely on daylight anyway then will the 7D do the trick for action/sports? What was your experience with football? Have you ever used a 1-series camera and if so do you sense a big difference?
(I am going to post this question on other FM forums as well.)...Show more →
Sorry, I have never held a 1D series body. I pushed my 7D to the max at ISO 12,800 and both lenses I used were F4. Most images I could not get the shutter faster than 1/320. I had a few at 1/500. Could have used another stop or a faster lens. That was my first night time game. I have shot about 3 or 4 daytime games but with my 50D which I no longer have.
that continues to be my take too, Whayne - and I'm getting better at avoiding the odd nasty IQ problem by being more careful about my exposures: the 7D is very accurate, but it is different to the 40D in metering, and as I'm learning the differences, the results are getting better.
The backlit grebe would have been a pretty challenging exposure situation. I get the feeling that the 40D's metering is more forgiving than the 7D's (I'm not talking about DR, the 7D just feels more precise, and more demanding as a result) but when I get it right (and it's not hard, really) I'm really taken by the IQ.
Keith if this is not DR then please explain?
WHY should we have to be more careful with exposure with a 7D than a 50 or 40D?
Seems similar to what I been saying from day one?
I've seen nothing to indicate the 40D's DR is better than the 7D and I think the 7D's metering is smarter and gives better results. It may handle gross underexposure less well than the 40D, but that wasn't a great camera for that IMO either. I don't know how my 40D would have done with that lighting either, but I'd be surprised if it were better. There just seem to be a few situations where the 7D's IQ falls down, unexpecredly, but this is the exception not the norm. I still haven't used it enough to see if there's a pattern emerging.
Stumped wrote:
Keith if this is not DR then please explain?
I thought I'd explained pretty well already, in anticipation of just this turn of events..!
It has a different metering system and I don't expect it and the 40D's to behave in the same way. My early (and untested) impression is that in certain circumstances it meters darker than the 40D would in the same situation. There's nothing wrong with that though - there's no "right" exposure - and it's not hard to address.
Overall I agree with Whayne that the 7D's meter is more accurate and "better" and while it has produced an occasional less than perfect result, I've also noticed how many images it has done an excellent job with, in exposure situations where the 40D would really have struggled.
WHY should we have to be more careful with exposure with a 7D than a 50 or 40D?
Because it's not a 40D or 50D.
Personally I find it perfectly reasonable that a more functionally advanced camera might demand a little more of the photographer - if you want easy, or something that'll hold your hand, get a P&S.
I suppose the analogy with performance cars is appropriate: as performance increases, cars get a bit harder to drive, and our abilities are supposed to have improved to deal with the extra performance: why should it be different for cameras?
Seems similar to what I been saying from day one?
Not from what I can see: IIRC you've insisted that it is noisy, has limited DR, and has crappy colours (did I miss anything?), and none of those are remotely the case in my experience so far. It's sharp, IQ is excellent across the ISO range I use and I've had no DR issues (and DR matters to me).
The simple fact is that it's a different camera to what went before, and there's an adjustment period while I learn the characteristics of the camera.
I'm fine with that and accept that I might have to modify my behaviour here and there to get the best out of it (which in the case of the "different metering" situations we're discussing means little more than adding a bit of EC or using a different metering mode).
I actually expect that the 7D will make a better photographer of me because there will be situations where I've got to think a bit more in order to maximise its potential: and I really like that prospect.
Much as I appreciate my 40D there's not a shadow of a doubt that the 7D is the best APS-C money can buy, and the results it can provide are commensurate with that positioning.
As it happens, I understand that testing has indicated that the 7D's DR is slightly less than the 40D's.
Not a surprise really, the 40D has (or certainly had - I don't know if any, more recent, cameras have improved on it) the best DR in the APS-C class, so it's a hard act to follow.
But the DR difference between it and the 7D is simply too small to worry about. We're talking about fractions of a stop, amounts that simply aren't observable or relevant in the Real World - and I can say that with confidence because I own and use 'em both in situations where DR matters.
WHY should we have to be more careful with exposure with a 7D than a 50 or 40D?
Because it's not a 40D or 50D.
Personally I find it perfectly reasonable that a more functionally advanced camera might demand a little more of the photographer - if you want easy, or something that'll hold your hand, get a P&S.
Your personal insults are getting old.
The 7D seems to meter about 1/3 stop darker than the 40 & 50D.
I agree that the meter is more accurate but WHY do we have to be more careful-
You did not answer the question-Your statement does not make sense.
