The 7D ISO 400 shot looks like the 50D ISO 400 shot over at Imaging Resources, with just a hair more detail and noise to me. RG mentioned they looked a lot like 50D files also. I have no problem with that.
Still could be the leading 1.6/1.5 sensor camera. Not surprisingly I find the FF and 1.3 crop files have a better over all IQ.
Try comparing both at ISO 12800...you'll be wowed..
Rusty1 wrote:
The 7D ISO 400 shot looks like the 50D ISO 400 shot over at Imaging Resources, with just a hair more detail and noise to me. RG mentioned they looked a lot like 50D files also. I have no problem with that.
Still could be the leading 1.6/1.5 sensor camera. Not surprisingly I find the FF and 1.3 crop files have a better over all IQ.
thw2 wrote:
I'm quite wowed by side-by-side comparison of 7D vs 40D jpeg at ISO 3200 and NR=Off
Are these RAW images or JPEGs? If JPEG, then the comparison only provides some rough estimates on ultimate IQ?
Also, it is unlikely that we'll be shooting at ISO 3200 with the kind of lighting that these examples are shot with. For ISO 1600 and above, I'd posit that most of the real-world shooting will be done in low available light, where the dynamic noise response of the sensors will be different. That's where the NR option would make a real difference, too.
It's a bit subjective, but to me the 40D looks a little more contrasty with some image sharpening being applied (if JPEG)? The noise looks smoother and a bit less mottled in the 7D. Adding complexity to this comparison (and perhaps invalidating it a bit) are the different resolutions (10mp vs. 18mp) at 72dpi output to our monitors?
As an aside, the noise-level comparsion of the 7D to the 50D looks to be very similar (to me) at ISO 3200. But once again, we won't be shooting at ISO 3200 under bright lights (in most circumstances).
Damn, I can't wait for RAW file analysis and the real field-testing to begin on the 7D. Perhaps the single biggest selling point for me, though, will be how does the AF perform in the field with dynamic subjects. Let's hope Canon "got it right" with the new focusing features and performance.
I'm a 20D user who will likely upgrade to the 7D, once more detailed field reports come out and comfirm some things.
I'm curious, for those Canon bodies which support "live view," does the live view support DOF preview? (When you push the DOF preview button down, does the live view show how the image is focused with the selected aperture?)
If it supports "live view," does it also brighten the image appropriately? (For example, if you stop the lens down to F16, the resulting image is pretty dark, making it tough to know whether some parts of the image are actually in focus). Thanks!
M Vers wrote:
Right now it's just a high fly ball to center field...waiting for the wind to blow any which way. We'll see in a few weeks whether or not it makes it out.
Right on
The focus tracking was especially powerful. While standing in Times Square we were able to track onto quickly-diving pigeons instantly and have the system lock focus as the subject moved across the frame without any panning needed.
kim hill wrote:
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.
The lighting isn't that much different for both. The 1D image is about 1/200s at F2.8 and the 7D is 1/125s at F1.8. I see no difference in my 1D images at 1/30s at ISO1600 or 1/200s at ISO1600.
I can post up some ISO3200 shots from the 1D MkIII at 1/30s that look about 1 stop better than the 7D shot at 1/125s at ISO1600.
Here we go, the lighting is much worse on the 1D MkIII image.
Kim is right....if you want to compare they have to be in very similar playing field. Checkout samples from imagingresource.
musclepics wrote:
The lighting isn't that much different for both. The 1D image is about 1/200s at F2.8 and the 7D is 1/125s at F1.8. I see no difference in my 1D images at 1/30s at ISO1600 or 1/200s at ISO1600.
I can post up some ISO3200 shots from the 1D MkIII at 1/30s that look about 1 stop better than the 7D shot at 1/125s at ISO1600.
Here we go, the lighting is much worse on the 1D MkIII image.
mfurman wrote:
So, who is going to be a crazy, early adopter?
I will take my chances and get it (on the waiting list since the day of announcement)
If Canon would allow me (they won't of course), I'm willing to buy the pre-prod camera I'm testing next week. Would that have made me a crazier, earlier adopter?
Liquidstone wrote:
If Canon would allow me (they won't of course), I'm willing to buy the pre-prod camera I'm testing next week. Would that have made me a crazier, earlier adopter?
musclepics wrote:
The lighting isn't that much different for both. The 1D image is about 1/200s at F2.8 and the 7D is 1/125s at F1.8. I see no difference in my 1D images at 1/30s at ISO1600 or 1/200s at ISO1600.
I can post up some ISO3200 shots from the 1D MkIII at 1/30s that look about 1 stop better than the 7D shot at 1/125s at ISO1600.
Here we go, the lighting is much worse on the 1D MkIII image.
1D MkIII ISO3200 1/30s, F2.8, recovered 2/3 stop in Raw so it's closer to about ISO5,000
Didn't you cheat and use FlexNR on that shot? That's not a fair comparison! Plus RG's PP sucks. The choice of shots is bad too, where his subject is underexposed and your subject is exposed more correctly.
I don't shoot jpg, but this is of interest. A comparison of 7D jpg's to Pentax K-7 jpg's. Canon's approach of smearing detail for low noise continues unabated with jpg's. K-7 is very good on the detail front.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I don't shoot jpg, but this is of interest. A comparison of 7D jpg's to Pentax K-7 jpg's. Canon's approach of smearing detail for low noise continues unabated with jpg's. K-7 is very good on the detail front. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=32904182
But one has the option of disabling NR for jpeg and still achieve relatively low noise.
