gman1339 wrote:
All Canon is saying in the manual is that Zone AF has the tendancy to track the closest subject over all of the points in the group. So it could be a problem if you were shooting say soccer and the ref ran between you and the player you are trying to shoot. Autofocus may lock onto the ref and lose tracking of the player. The samples RG had problems with were not because of this. He was tracking a running dog with nothing coming between him and the dog. Nikon had implemented this same Zone Autofocus back in the D2H (they called it group dynamic) and it also worked by tracking the closest subject. This was later modified via firmware with new options to change how it behaved....Show more →
But maybe it picked up the grassy lawn in front of the dog??
From those samples, the 7D looks to be about 1 stop nosier than what I get from my 1D MkIII at higher ISOs. In fact the ISO800 sample pic looks like what I get at ISO3200 from the 1D MkIII, so about 2 stops behind there (yes even when resized to the same resolution).
musclepics wrote:
From those samples, the 7D looks to be about 1 stop nosier than what I get from my 1D MkIII at higher ISOs. In fact the ISO800 sample pic looks like what I get at ISO3200 from the 1D MkIII, so about 2 stops behind there (yes even when resized to the same resolution).
From which samples, RG's? I don't think Rob's RAW workflow is tuned to minimize noise, as I get better results with my 5D2s. A better comparison may be the Imaging-Resource samples. While it's hard to judge definitively from in-camera JPEGs, it seems that the 7D is an improvement over the 50D. When you factor in the high resolution vs. cameras like the 1D3, noise control seems surprisingly good.
I don't think anyone should expect this camera to be a noise king in absolute terms, but within the range of APS-C cameras, it looks promising. If these samples hold up, good real-world performance up to ISO 1600 looks quite possible, with 3200 doable in a pinch, which is astonishing for an 18Mp APS-C sensor.
Downsides -
it's heavy. At 53, your back will soon tell you that! I'm keeping my 450d 17-85mm combination for walking (I might look at the 15-85 if the reviews are good) and my G10 for cycling - actually my 40d/17-55 stays at home a lot for that reason. It really needs a car to lug it all around, especially with the 100-400mm which is BLOODY HEAVY!!
I don't think a couple hundred extra grams of camera will make much difference, well at least for me, and I'm afraid I'm even older. I can't tell much diff from my 50D and 5DII, so I don't think I'll notice the extra weight of the 7D (weighs about the same as a 5DII). I do draw the line at the 1D class. Feels like a friggen brick.
timbop wrote:
No, you can program the m-fn button to display it in the vf. What I am unsure of is how close to a 4:3 ratio the gridlines are. It's hard to tell, and they don't tell you line dimensions, I originally hoped that if you set an aspect ratio in the custom functions it would only show those lines, but of course that is not at all how it works. The aspect ratio is just metadata that DPP reads... makes you wonder sometimes....
From the manual, you can show the LEVEL in the viewfinder pressing the m-fn button; no mention of aspect ratios.
On aspect ratios it specifically does say: http://www.danielechiesa.com/photo/ratios.jpg
Granted they are completely different cameras, and crops but I'm astounded by the amount of shadow noise and "white speckles" in the 7D image. I can post lots of ISO3200 shots from the 1D MkIII that still look significantly better than the 7D at ISO1600.
Sure but was the exposure really on or is it underexposed to begin with. I sure don't know. I don't know how you can really compare the two, too many variables.
1699 quid is a lot of money. No doubt about it, and with the pound being low I'm not sure whether it will really come down in price by much after the launch. But I might buy before the end of the year when Gordon Brown's minion sticks VAT up to 17.5%.
Camera World are throwing in a free 580 exII if you reserve now. Makes me want to order one ..
jamato8 wrote:
Sure but was the exposure really on or is it underexposed to begin with. I sure don't know. I don't know how you can really compare the two, too many variables.
Well, I looked at a lot of the 7D samples, and I've taken thousands of images in all sorts of crazy lighting, underexposed and over, with the MkIII, and there is no comparison. I give the MkIII a good 2 stop noise advantage. I can post an underexposed ISO3200 shoot from the MkIII that looks a good 1 stop better than that ISO1600 shot from the 7D.
Granted they are completely different cameras, and crops but I'm astounded by the amount of shadow noise and "white speckles" in the 7D image. I can post lots of ISO3200 shots from the 1D MkIII that still look significantly better than the 7D at ISO1600.
Once again, please stop using Rob Galbraith's 7D sample shots in a vacuum. If you want to use them, compare them to his 5DII shots from the same shoot. His 5DII shots have a lot of white specks too, so I'm assuming it's a result of his processing. His 5DII shots are noisier than I would expect from a 5DII, so it stands to reason that his 7D shots are noisier than we can expect as well.
As a point of comparison, Imaging Resource has a full suite of sample shots up already, which can be easily compared to sample shots from other cameras using the same lighting and scene.
garyvot wrote:
From which samples, RG's? I don't think Rob's RAW workflow is tuned to minimize noise, as I get better results with my 5D2s.
At the risk of crudity, that's some piss-poor processing going on there.
We can see that the 5D MK II shots look nearly as bad, so - whatever's going on with his 7D examples - it seems that he's the weak link because he's managed to get the 5D Mk II to look almost as bad
And of course, because we know the Mk II isn't]i] "bad", the obvious conclusion is that the 7D isn't as nearly as mediocre as those samples suggest.
The pics comparing the 7d with the 1d , lol the lighting in the 1d pic is far better than the lighting in the 7d pic, so not even a half fair comparison and besides that of course the 1d will be cleaner, larger sensor eqauls better iso.
jamato8 wrote:
Sure but was the exposure really on or is it underexposed to begin with. I sure don't know. I don't know how you can really compare the two, too many variables.
Far too many - and I realised a long time back that DPP isn't necessarily the best converter, especially with files from a pre-production camera with Beta software, processed by someone who made as big a mess of his 5D MK II files...
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
As a point of comparison, Imaging Resource has a full suite of sample shots up already, which can be easily compared to sample shots from other cameras using the same lighting and scene.
Muscle is trying very hard to convince us the 7D's a dud, isn't he?
I've posted these before (from Gizmodo) but they warrant another showing:
Aye I know, they could be bigger, and I don't know how they've been processed: but you can still get a pretty good impression from them of what the 7D can do They look pretty clean to me, and don't look heavily NRd, they look natural.
Download them and muck about with the Levels too - they can take a lot of abuse and there's no sign of banding or excessive noise.
Aye I know, they could be bigger, and I don't know how they've been processed: but you can still get a pretty good impression from them of what the 7D can do They look pretty clean to me, and don't look heavily NRd, they look natural.
Download them and muck about with the Levels too - they can take a lot of abuse and there's no sign of banding or excessive noise.
Keith- thanks for posting again. There are a lot of shadows in the image, and yet I do not see any banding or patterned noise in the picture, unlike the noise from the 5D mark II.
Noise is easy to remove these days. What is difficult at high ISO, and interesting about those shots is that they still retain a lot of "punch" and tonal range- like you said, they look natural- and this is pretty convincing for those interested in the 7D. People need to stop pixel peeping for noise and look at the detail, dynamic range, and overall quality- if the production model can be improved upon- this will be one heck of a cropper.
Here's a decent sized 3200 ISO 7D file from IR for a bit more balance: - again, not too shabby, although it's not heavily shadowed, but over to the right there's a plant with shadow areas - it's worth a poke around that section with the image at full size, it still looks good.
There's some in-camera/DPP HR going on here, but as I say, I don't really rate DPP that highly as a converter anyway, and I'm in no doubt that Cap One 4 will do a better job of dealing with noise while retaining good detail.
Interesting snippet from the IR page - no secret, but worth repeating:
Because these images are shot under household incandescent lighting, the camera has to boost its blue-channel signal quite a bit to get back to a neutral color balance. Since the blue channel is generally the one with the most noise, this makes this shot a real acid test of noise performance. Noise levels in high-ISO shots taken under daylight conditions usually won't show as much noise.
)
