musclepics wrote
I would say from image examples, the 5D2 is at LEAST 1 stop better than the 7D for high ISO noise. My 1DMkIII is about about 1-2 stops better than the 7D, and about 1/2 stop better than the 5D2. I've posted a few comparisons, and can post more. ISO3200 coming from my MkIII is much cleaner than ISO1600 from the 7D (even when the 7D has be resized to 10MP). The 5D2 is much closer to the MkIII than the 7D.
There is no effin way! When total sensor size and the complete image is considered there is no way! I've seen some really clean ISO 3200 shots from the 1D mkiii from flex NR but that's mainly down to creative PP. Same PP for each cam I don't see the 1dmkiii being the equal of the 5D2 let alone being a stop better than a full frame camera. Stop drinking whatever it is you are drinking. It seems lately the 1dmkiii folks are screaming that their camera is better than everything since the 7D announcement.
For me, the combination of resolution and usable dynamic range, at an affordable price, makes it anyway.
The IR samples at ISO100 are very close to the 5DII in terms of resolution, and a bigger step ahead of both the 50D and the 500D.
If you look closely, the 7D JPG is actually sharper and has more detail than the 5DII JPG in many parts of the still life scene. Not that I think it is better, but clearly an indication that none of those 18 MP are wasted. The 50D and 500D both measured to about 13.5 effective MP at photozone, and that was for sure not the end of possible crop camera resolution.
alundeb wrote:
If you look closely, the 7D JPG is actually sharper and has more detail than the 5DII JPG in many parts of the still life scene. Not that I think it is better, but clearly an indication that none of those 18 MP are wasted. The 50D and 500D both measured to about 13.5 effective MP at photozone, and that was for sure not the end of possible crop camera resolution.
I do not understand how Canon can bungle the strength of the AA filter in the 50D/500D so badly. Previously, on the 1000D, it was too weak and Imaging Resource complained about moire. Sigh...
I hope the 7D does not have lower ISO sensitivity as Imaging Resource experienced. Maybe it's just THEIR pre-production copy?
droopy1592 wrote:
There is no effin way! When total sensor size and the complete image is considered there is no way! I've seen some really clean ISO 3200 shots from the 1D mkiii from flex NR but that's mainly down to creative PP. Same PP for each cam I don't see the 1dmkiii being the equal of the 5D2 let alone being a stop better than a full frame camera. Stop drinking whatever it is you are drinking. It seems lately the 1dmkiii folks are screaming that their camera is better than everything since the 7D announcement.
I agree- the 5D2 trumps the 1D3 when it comes to high ISO image quality. It is at best one stop better than the original 5D.
skibum5 wrote:
I think the AF is really the make or break as to whether it would be a fine buy or second body or pointless.
Presumably the AF will be competent--that's one major new feature in the camera--and one has to assume Canon will not risk a repeat the 1D3 experience, so it should work more or less as advertised.
But I wouldn't expect the AF to exceed or necessarily even match that of a (working) 1D3 or D3. I think expectations have gotten a bit high on this front. There will still be some daylignt between this model and the 1-series I think (though I could be wrong).
I strikes me that this model is a proving ground for Canon's new AF system much like the EOS-3 was 11 years ago. That experiment turned out rather well; maybe this one will too.
keithreeder wrote:
I'm just waiting for good things about the AF.
Pretty much all the examples images I've seen so far haven't really impressed from an AF point of view, but Romy Ocon is doing some birding tests (as we speak, I think) and they'll be influential (Romy, stick a taped-pins 1.4x TC and a 100-400mm on there at some point, please!!)
Assuming that Romy's testing is as surprising - and in the same way! - as the IQ tests the guys here have been sharing, then it's going to be a hard camera to resist.
Thanks for the information. Please keep us posted and/or provide a link to his blog/website if/when you see Romy post any of his impressions of the 7D.
It might represent the first true field-test of the 7D AF system, and that has many of us very intrigued. I'm hopeful that Canon has really executed on this one. If they haven't, I'm going to be very disappointed.
garyvot wrote:
Presumably the AF will be competent--that's one major new feature in the camera--and one has to assume Canon will not risk a repeat the 1D3 experience, so it should work more or less as advertised.
But I wouldn't expect the AF to exceed or necessarily even match that of a (working) 1D3 or D3. I think expectations have gotten a bit high on this front. There will still be some daylignt between this model and the 1-series I think (though I could be wrong).
I strikes me that this model is a proving ground for Canon's new AF system much like the EOS-3 was 11 years ago. That experiment turned out rather well; maybe this one will too....Show more →
if it will be worthwhile better than a 5D2's AF it needs to really match the 1 series AF (if maybe without quite as many little refinements)
Tom_W wrote:
I noticed similar when comparing the 5D2 to the original 5D - the 5D Classic exposes slightly brighter. Maybe 1/6 to 1/3 stop brighter for the same exact settings indicating that it is slightly more sensitive at a given ISO.
Yes because the old cameras prior to 40D were more sensitive than indicated, and ISO 100 was actually ISO 125 or so. Canon adopted the standard measure for ISO from the 40D on and ISO 100 is now about 1/3 stop less sensitive than before, but is the correct ISO.
garyvot wrote:
Presumably the AF will be competent--that's one major new feature in the camera--and one has to assume Canon will not risk a repeat the 1D3 experience, so it should work more or less as advertised.
But I wouldn't expect the AF to exceed or necessarily even match that of a (working) 1D3 or D3. I think expectations have gotten a bit high on this front. There will still be some daylignt between this model and the 1-series I think (though I could be wrong).
I strikes me that this model is a proving ground for Canon's new AF system much like the EOS-3 was 11 years ago. That experiment turned out rather well; maybe this one will too....Show more →
Maybe they have targeted the 1D AF peformance. That would be a huge step up from the 50D yet still leave it inferior to 1D III (when working properly)
musclepics wrote:
PowerPC's suck compare to the new intels, and the new intels suck compared to the new PC's with faster video cards for less money
Sucks is a nasty word for Slow? Sorry i am a native swiss german speaking man. Apple was expensive a long time ago and PC can be expensive too. Look for the Upgrade prices Windows 7, its crazy and you have to install everything from the scratch - good night. The hardware is cheaper yes, but when your system eats your time up to keep the PC alive, its not cheap anymore.
With H.264 its the processor that do the job. 10.6 Snow will do H.264 in some (expensiver than PC ) Apple Intel Promacs newer Video cards. And an upgrade is just a simple thing, just install 10.6 over the old 10.5.
Well, it can mean a general derogatory term, the drawing away of an substance or a pleasurable action. Suck is often modified for increased descriptive power. For example, major suckage dude indicates something is really bad. It is frequently spelled as "suk" by American youth, probably because they type with their thumbs all day...
And back to Apples and Oranges:
PC Vista & W7 is Lemon tasting bad cluttered interface ( reverse engeering the Interface Apple OS X)
non stringent to work with
And back to Apples and Oranges:
PC Vista & W7 is Lemon tasting bad cluttered interface ( reverse engeering the Interface Apple OS X)
non stringent to work with \
Then you haven't spent much time using windows 7. It's not anything like OSx, plus it's anything but cluttered. I find it refreshing and I've used macs since os 7. This is from a home with a macbook pro, two home built PCs and two iphones and an ipod. I think windows 7 is what vista should have been.
The reviews show that there are pluses and minuses to both, but if anything, they are both great operating systems. Yes, you may have to spend more time keeping windows clean, but there is far more software options also.
Tom_W wrote:
I noticed similar when comparing the 5D2 to the original 5D - the 5D Classic exposes slightly brighter. Maybe 1/6 to 1/3 stop brighter for the same exact settings indicating that it is slightly more sensitive at a given ISO.
This is true between the 40D and the original 5D as well. The 5D exposes "brighter" for a given aperature, SS and ISO setting.
michael49 wrote:
This is true between the 40D and the original 5D as well. The 5D exposes "brighter" for a given aperature, SS and ISO setting.
Yep,
again because the 40D (and the 7D) are aligned to the CIPA standard for rating camera (ISO) sensitivity - the 5D came out before Canon signed up to the standard.
I still think it's interesting that the 50D seems to have gone back to the "old ways".
Then you haven't spent much time using windows 7. It's not anything like OSx, plus it's anything but cluttered. I find it refreshing and I've used macs since os 7. This is from a home with a macbook pro, two home built PCs and two iphones and an ipod. I think windows 7 is what vista should have been.
The reviews show that there are pluses and minuses to both, but if anything, they are both great operating systems. Yes, you may have to spend more time keeping windows clean, but there is far more software options also.
I worked only a bit with Vista but I know that the Supportpeople are not happy. Because XP Win7 and Vista are complete different for System Setup. I treid once copy from USB stick to the Desktop Vista awas freezing instantly. You have moved your mouse please restart your Computer....
Question: Are all these shots jpegs from the camera? I remember people saying after the launch of 5dII "6400 ISO on 5d II is better than my 5d's ISO 400" and in the end it turned out that the difference was approximately one stop. So I am very interested in seeing RAW samples. Can anyone provide them?
