n0b0 wrote:
I'm a bit confused with RG's PP workflow for his samples. If he sharpened his samples in PS, why did he use DPP for noise reduction? I would've thought that Noise Ninja, Noiseware Pro and Nik Software's Dfine 2.0 would work much better than DPP's slider.
After brainac's revealing stunt, I've even got renewed faith in "Dust and Scratches" in Photoshop
this is an honest question: do you really move between metering modes so much that you might not be able to remember at any given time which one you're in?
I had the D200, and being able to see the metering mode in the VF always struck me as a typical Nikon "solution looking for a problem to fix" - I can honestly say that I never once felt the need to check the metering mode in the VF
While of course everyone's different,I can't really see that ability as something anyone would need: Certainly I always know which metering mode I've got my camera in.
In fact, I have more difficulty remembering what each of the metering mode symbols means, than remembering which one I'm using!
I do sometimes, particularly while shooting people in a work (mainly industrial) environment, changing between portraits, technical shots and a combination of the two. In situations like that, particularly when changing between two bodies, I don't always remember which metering mode I left the "other" body in. Before I had the S5, I missed some potentially great portraits simply because I was in the wrong mode and (mostly) underexposed.
This may be nitpicking, but I clearly wouldn't use the 7D as my primary body for that kind of work. I'm simply too dependent on a workflow that suits my way of working. Still, even as a Nikon user, I don't rule out the 7D. Image quality and resolution look very promising, and video implementation seems to be the best so far by any manufacturer. I might buy one with one lens only; the 70-200 f/4, a lens that sadly lacks in Nikon's assortment. But I'm drawn towards three camera bodies at the moment, the 7D, the K-7 and the D300s. All of them have advantages... difficult choice.
Workflow is all important to any photographer and his specific workflow is almost always going to be irellevant to another photographer. For example the horrible blotchy colour noise reduction in ACR/LR with certain cameras at very high iso's in non existent in C1 which is far superior with colour noise reduction. However C1 doesn't work for me as a workflow tool for various reasons. Therefore those iso's are not available to me as a tool (in my case iso 3200 on my 5D's)*. May sound crazy to many but I'll buy the camera to fit the software and not the other way round and I know many other pro's who agree.
Upgrades nowadays are rarely for necessity but rather for ease of working life and if upgrading will make your life harder through some aspect of having to change your working methods, either when shooting or in post - that is very relevant. Not a full stop, but relevant. Some people adapt to significant (for them) changes better than others.
* Unlike Braniac I have no inclination whatsoever to be forced to apply noise reduction out of the RAW converter on all my high iso images, I have a life. Either the camera can do it or it can't. Having to use specialist tools to somehow match what another camera provides straight out is not my idea of a workflow. Not when I'm a busy wedding shooter who would prefer to spend the minimum possible time infront of the computer editing. It might make for bragging rights, this file when noise reduced and downrezzed and, and, and... may match X camera. I'd just buy the camera that didn't need the extra work to be honest...
Beni wrote: * Unlike Braniac I have no inclination whatsoever to be forced to apply noise reduction out of the RAW converter on all my high iso images, I have a life. Either the camera can do it or it can't. Having to use specialist tools to somehow match what another camera provides straight out is not my idea of a workflow. Not when I'm a busy wedding shooter who would prefer to spend the minimum possible time infront of the computer editing. It might make for bragging rights, this file when noise reduced and downrezzed and, and, and... may match X camera. I'd just buy the camera that didn't need the extra work to be honest......Show more →
At 3200 I just enable chroma NR in DPP and forget about it. Digic 4 can do it to jpegs too. DPP's noise reduction produces roughly the same effect as the dust & scratches method I used. You can set it to adjust NR strength as suggested by the camera, i.e. in proportion to the iso used, which seems to be equivalent to what Nikon does, mandatorily. I only used dust and scratches since I was dealing with a jpeg off the web. While it's true that many Nikon raw files seem to have had chroma NR applied in the camera, applying it in post isn't any more time consuming, unless you want to spend the time to get a better result than the Nikon one-size-fits-all approach can give you. Either way seems good to me. I do like the detail hidden under the chroma noise in Canon's files though, and that's one of the few areas where the old 5D still scores a win over the D700.
Anyway, there are so many ways to do appropriate NR by default with Canon, that this needn't take up any extra time at all.
brainiac wrote:
At 3200 I just enable chroma NR in DPP and forget about it. Digic 4 can do it to jpegs too. DPP's noise reduction produces roughly the same effect as the dust & scratches method I used. You can set it to adjust NR strength as suggested by the camera, i.e. in proportion to the iso used, which seems to be equivalent to what Nikon does, mandatorily. I only used dust and scratches since I was dealing with a jpeg off the web. While it's true that many Nikon raw files seem to have had chroma NR applied in the camera, applying it in post isn't any more time consuming, unless you want to spend the time to get a better result than the Nikon one-size-fits-all approach can give you. Either way seems good to me. I do like the detail hidden under the chroma noise in Canon's files though, and that's one of the few areas where the old 5D still scores a win over the D700.
Anyway, there are so many ways to do appropriate NR by default with Canon, that this needn't take up any extra time at all....Show more →
Agree with Brainiac this need not be a barrier to workflow. DPP NR is great, but if you do need to use a "specialist tool" outside of your RAW converter, even this can be automated. It takes a bit of work to set up, but I have profile-based actions using Neat Image Pro+ that can be run in batch from the Photoshop Image Processor (or in other ways); the correct profile and noise reduction presets are auto-selected based on the file Exif. It only adds a few extra minutes when batching out images.
DPP's noise reduction may be great, but the software is anything but a workflow tool. I would call it a specialist tool specifically because I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to use it day to day. Personally I believe that the 5D has noticeably more detail than the D700 anyway, much lighter AA filter and no high iso smearing in the RAW's, it's one of the main reasons I'm still using it and not Nikon.
In the review, he pretty much summed up my greatest fear about the 7D IQ. Quote:
What the pictures look like is perhaps easier to digest. So far, the photos we've taken with a beta 7D look a lot like they've come from a 50D, except with 2.9 million additional pixels of resolution. Canon appears to have done a masterful job of wringing out every ounce of quality from the 7D's little pixels (smaller than any Canon before), resulting in photos that are crisp, reasonably clean and eminently usable up to about ISO 1600. ...Show more →
My own experience in comparing RAW files from the 50D vs. the 7D tells me the 7D files are nothing like the 50Ds. To my eye the 7D is easily visibly much better than the 50D.
So who do I believe? Rob or my own eyes? Hmmm....
This is why people should make their own evaluation rather than relying on one person's opinion.
Daan B wrote:
Nikon IS cooking the RAW data. Not only the D5000, but the D90 too. And probably other crop cams as well.
I see this claim bandied about a lot, but never with a quantitative demonstration to back it up. Do you know of one (or better, several)?
I agree that the 5D2 sRAW1 files look pretty good. It also seems that Canon cooks it with some kind of NR applied, because the sRAW1 data is cleaner than when downsizing a 21MP to sRAW1 size. The negatives of sRAW1 are decreased sharpness (when compared to a downsized full RAW file) and they fall apart quickly in PP (highlights, colors).
IIRC, sRAW/mRAW use half of the storage for luminance info and the other half is split between the two chrominance channels, so there would be less info in these files than in a demosaic'd and downsampled image from a full RAW file. Roughly, chrominance data is split on average between two pixels.
Very impressive, same sensor technology as the 5D mkII (gapless thingymyjigs), dual digic 4 with 8 channel readout.
Finally 3D colour based metering, Sounds good (and clever)..
Metering doesn't stretch to the edge of the frame anymore unlike all the XXD or 5D type cameras but more like the 1 series. Can't see it being a problem in the real world.
Extra AF sensitivity only with center point and only with f2.8 lenses? They won't do that if they port this AF system over to the 1 series, it's a bit consumer still, still means that focus accuracy with moving subjects and f4 lenses won't be up to 1 series standards. Big shame that personally, it's a real issue for me when shooting dancing and the like, the f4 lenses just don't lock on anywhere near as accurately on a moving subject as the f2.8 and faster lenses do. If anything I can see this as a reason why the 1 series is what a pro sports photographer will still buy.
+/- 5 stops compensation. Very welcome. Try shooting a backlit bride and you'll see what I mean. Exposure bracketing of only +/- 3 stops, what would it have cost, the changes to one line of code? Bit obvious if you ask me.
Specifically mention that 'AI Servo II' had been designed "to account for rapid changes in direction while not being too sensitive causing it to jump from one subject to another", you think they perhaps had the mkIII in mind? I like the zones for servo, is that new to canon? Been jealous of Nikon having that..
Spot AF, ooooh I want that! AF point only as big as the actual square in the viewfinder, wow but people will like that! Should increase AF accuracy immensely (think shallow apertures) though I hope it doesn't slow it down too much, they do mention a reduction is speed.
Autofocus point orientation and ability to map a specific point to a custom button. I like a lot. A very very lot. Not only do we now get AF points that can be used off center but you can access them stupidly fast. Think changing from horizontal to vertical. This and the above should make a vast difference in the AF accuracy available with fast lenses.
Weather sealing like the 1N, they said that about the 5D mkII, I'm not selling my Op/Tech raincovers.
Just the things that jumped out at me personally. No I'm not in the market for a 7D, at all. But if this is what the 5D mkIII will look like then I'll be very very happy to finally upgrade from my 5D's. Hope it doesn't take too long.
Kudos to Canon for making an 18 megapixel D300 plus some extra bits and with unsurpassed IQ for an APC camera bar none.
I am going to buy the 7D for birds and nature
Backed up by the 5D
The 1D Mark III is a very nice pro rig, no doubt. But just too expensive for my budget, too heavy for my personal liking, and not enough pixels for cropping. If I could afford lenses longer then 400mm F5.6 it would be fine as I would not need to crop.
The images I have seen on the internet make me think the 7D will be a great wildlife cam. I think Canon made a sincere effort to listen to consumers, and offer an affordable nature and wildlife camera. For those of us who cannot afford the 1D/1DS.
abqnmusa wrote:
I think Canon made a sincere effort to listen to consumers, and offer an affordable nature and wildlife camera. For those of us who cannot afford the 1D/1DS.
Sorry, but that is very funny. I promise you if there hadn't been a camera called the D300 for the past couple of years you would never ever have seen a 7D however much the consumers would have begged.
thedigitalbean wrote:
My own experience in comparing RAW files from the 50D vs. the 7D tells me the 7D files are nothing like the 50Ds. To my eye the 7D is easily visibly much better than the 50D.
So who do I believe? Rob or my own eyes? Hmmm....
This is why people should make their own evaluation rather than relying on one person's opinion.
I think too many people see the forums as an outlet to complain, rant, rave, argue meaningless differences of opinion, feed their ego, and bash camera manufacturers.
Not share something useful information about photography and technique.
I wonder if these same people trash every other product in the lives.
The pro series is what I would prefer for my work But, and this is important to me, I do not want the grip with the extra size and weight it brings. It adds nothing but detracts from my type of work so I continue to use the non pro series. Why Canon can't design a body size in the same area as the 7D and 5DII, I don't know, but they work for me and most likely I will pick up the 7D.
abqnmusa wrote:
I think too many people see the forums as an outlet to complain, rant, rave, argue meaningless differences of opinion, feed their ego, and bash camera manufacturers.
Not share something useful about photography.
I wonder if these same people trash every other product in the lives.
There are plenty of things to like. I also work with a number of manufactures in audio on product design and the final sound. It is by the natures of "constructive" criticism that we get improvements but I agree sometimes we can snipe and gripe more than needed in some cases.
abqnmusa wrote:
I think too many people see the forums as an outlet to complain, rant, rave, argue meaningless differences of opinion, feed their ego, and bash camera manufacturers.
Not share something useful about photography.
I wonder if these same people trash every other product in the lives.
Your post was way way off base in its assumption about the assumed 'generosity' of canon and I replied to that. If you've been following this thread including the post above yours I have a lot of respect for the 7D. I don't bow down to the almighty manufacturer though with a blinkered view to their intentions. Nikon users have had a '7D' minus a few megapixels for the past couple of years already and as such when canon finally condesends to providing their users with the ability to have that level of camera body without paying for a 1D mkIII I do not laud them for 'listening to their customers'.
Re your rant above, mirror it and you're thowing stones in glass houses my friend. I don't remember anything useful to photography in what was IMO some rather misguided praise.
That said, I repeat, I think that the 7D is an incredible camera and from what I've seen of the RAW files using beta software, it is very close to my 5D's for noise which is just mindblowing.
I agree with you. I find the 5D/400mm F5.6 just fine with out a grip. The extra weight of the grip and 2 batteries is too heavy to carry hiking. So I like that the 7D does not have the grip. The 7D is a first step towards the more pro features in a non-1 series body (smaller, lighter).
If someone prefers a grip it is available. Or there is always the 1D/1DS with built in grip.
As I approach retirement, I thank Canon for being able to capture truly magnificent images. I thank Apple, Adobe and Sony for being able to easily process and display these images. (I also thank Apple for allowing me to carry my entire record collection on a 1.5 oz Nano.) None of these manufacturers are either altruistic or callous. They are in the business of providing us products. I'm sure they use both competition and feedback (and anything else at their disposal) to design products. Nikon wouldn't produce their excellent cameras without Canon and vice-versa. They have marketing strategies, we have buying strategies. I am happy to be a beneficiary. Canon must also be happy with the general tone of this thread. They are going to sell a lot of these.
Beni wrote:
DPP's noise reduction may be great, but the software is anything but a workflow tool.
I disagree.
I find DPP quite good for batch-oriented workflow, and typically I have to spend less time on the images to get the look I want than I have to in LR or C1 (and I own both). Applying batch adjustments or personal white balance changes to multiple images is incredibly fast, and the auto corrections for CA, vignetting and other problems save me a lot of time. And it never suffers from the annoying "out of memory" bugs that plague Adobe's tools.
There are a few things that DPP cannot do, chiefly: tagging RAW images with IPTC/XMP metadata; arbitrary image rotation; and local adjustments. The metadata tagging is easily accomplished in Bridge, and for the few images that benefit from the other things I can do quickly enough in Photoshop.
There are also a few things I would change in the UI (though you get used to it), but all in all, DPP is one reason I shoot Canon and not some other brand.
As the old saying goes, "one man's junk is another man's treasure".
