jorkata wrote:
These colors are certainly closer to the D300 colors than to the 40D/50D colors.
That's excellent, hope this observation is in fact correct, I'm competing with the new look Nikons on my editors screens, I've been losing out a bit in sales.
These colors are certainly closer to the D300 colors than to the 40D/50D colors.
As a Nikon/Fuji user, I can confirm this. Absolutely colours after my taste, and the best I've seen from Canon in a long time. It will be very interesting to see how this turns out in "real world" use.
Another interesting thing - the 7D renders colors differently from Canon's recent cameras (or maybe just the default 7D settings are different?).
In the 7D Canon seems to have gone back to the 30D colors. Don't know what the reason is for that.
Canon has said something to the effect that that they've gone for a less saturated "out of the box" image because it is a more professional starting point than the more saturated P & S look of other bodies.
I quite like the richness of the colours of my 40D (it's more than "just" saturation) so I actually hope I'll be able to recreate it to some extent...
The "read noise" on pixel level is equal to or slightly lower than the 40D and 50D with ISO 100 and 200. From ISO 400 the 7D is somewhat better, and ISO 3200 (the top useful ISO of the 7D with raw) is quite better than the 40D.
All that is with 80% more pixels.
That's an encouraging endorsement given its source and the fact that it is based on RAWs from a pre-production body.
(With apologies for the cross-post on the "No MF focusing screen option" thread).
gbee wrote:
That's excellent, hope this observation is in fact correct, I'm competing with the new look Nikons on my editors screens, I've been losing out a bit in sales.
Have you tried color calibrating your specific camera? Sometimes that can make shots look just right.
Nikon certainly has better software people than Canon. But I doubt their imagers are more accurate. In fact I would bet that Nikons have a less accurate reading off the chip.
brainiac wrote:
Don't worry - DPReview and DXO will do a great job of showing everyone how the 7D's 18mp noise is worse than other cameras even though it won't be.
Actually DXOMark takes the opposite stand of DPReview with regards to pixel density. You can read it here:
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise"
"Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise"
In that more pixels = finer, less obtrusive noise (other things being equal) there's some truth there - I saw exactly that comparing my 40D to my 30D, with the 40D being very obviously better as far as the appearance of noise is concerned.
skibum5 wrote:
DVD doesn't have a set aspect ratio so that can't be ansered.
vga mode on the 7D is 4:3 though
it's other modes are 16:9
SD TV is 4:3
HDTV and EDTV are 16:9
movies are usually 1.85:1 or 2.35-2.40:1 but some have been 2.20:1 and 4:3 and so on I think some european movies use some weird ratio that i dont recall.
computer monitors for some odd reason are usually 4:3 or 16:10 (not 16:9 like HDTVs, somewhat annoying for the ones that don't letterbox but forceably stretch external inputs)
OK, maybe I asked the question poorly. I though standard def TV was in the 300 line range, so I was wondering how a 640x480 image would be rendered on a standard def TV. That is, would it get compressed or clipped? I assume on an HDTV it would be fine because the hdtv could insert the letterbox around the image.
Yakim Peled wrote:
While the 50D didn't seem to me like a worthy upgrade to my 40D, the 7D does. And while Canon hasn't addressed any of the shortcomings I found in my 40D, it's hard to resist. I've became a gearhead.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Ok Yakim, you have me intrigued... what are the shortcomings you found in your 40D, none of which Canon has addressed? (Lest there be any uncertainty, this is meant as a friendly question.)
As for my perspective, as a 50D (and former 40D owner; and 30D, 20D, and 10D, yikes) - I am very happy that they appear to have addressed banding noise, and the addition of on-board command of off-camera flash is big too - for those of us who use the feature, that alone goes a long way toward justifying the price increase over the 50D (or at least it takes away some of the sting).
One of my biggest gripes about the 40D & 50D (& prior X0D bodies?) is focus inaccuracy in certain cases, such as strongly backlit situations (e.g., a backlit bird in flight). I will be interested to see how the new AF handles that.
1) there is always some kind of NR applied to the RAW data - even if you switch in-camera NR off totally? Like with the Nikon D90, and IIRC also the D300.
2) It seems there are different steps of NR that you can apply in-camera. Can this NR be applied to the RAW data too (besides appliying it to JPEG's)?
1) there is always some kind of NR applied to the RAW data - even if you switch in-camera NR off totally? Like with the Nikon D90, and IIRC also the D300.
2) It seems there are different steps of NR that you can apply in-camera. Can this NR be applied to the RAW data too (besides appliying it to JPEG's)?
Thanks
I have seen no conclusive evidence what so ever that apart from the fixed pattern noise elimination done before the ADC stage, that either Nikon or Canon are doing any type of "random noise" reduction on RAW data.
1) No clear indications yet. But assuming that Canon isn't "doing a Nikon" (allegedly! ) and frigging with the RAW file itself - and I'm going to stick my neck out and say they won't be - then NR will not be applied if you convert using something other than DPP (same as now).
2) As above: certainly on the 40D and 50D the in-camera NR settings are just metadata tags that DPP reads, applying the NR level associated with the selected in-camera NR value.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I have seen no conclusive evidence what so ever that apart from the fixed pattern noise elimination done before the ADC stage, that either Nikon or Canon are doing any type of "random noise" reduction on RAW data.
On Nikon detail goes away with higher ISO without a large increase in apparent noise. If they were simply processing fixed pattern noise I would expect less damage. They don't want people to look at a truly unprocessed file. That seems to be a good marketing decision.
It may also be why Nikon can't do very high megapixel per second in a relatively small and inexpensive camera - too much data processing.
