tommose wrote:
Is it possible, with wider angle lenses, to get close to the FOV of FF before the shortness of the lens caused a real drop in IQ? IOW, to get a similar FOV to 17mm on a 1.6 crop, you'd need 10mm. Using that on a crop sensor, is the IQ even close to the 17 on a FF?
That's my problem, really. I like doing portrait and landscape work, but don't do a lot of it. I obviously do more distance work, and enjoy that too (working at KSC, I rarely get close to the action). If I can do adequate portrait AND landscape/architecture work with the 7D, that seems like a no brainer....Show more →
well before the 17mm TS_E came out it was since 17mm never used to be anything to write home about on FF!
I'm still not sold. The ISO1600 shots are troubling to me. YMMV. Wish he had some ISO 800 available. Looking forward to some RAWs to play with. My criteria for this camera is to be able to print 16x24 from ISO 800 and below. We'll see. I might have to hold out for a 1D4 but was hoping to save some money.
ISO 100 shadow noise is important to me as well. In this sample I see, more than anything, poor JPG compression, struggling with tonal gradients. I don't judge IQ based on JPG, with "softness" from NR, "digital artifacts" from sharpening, and now poor compression on top of that.
kewlcanon wrote:
I'm afraid to say but it seems the guy doesn't how to PP
That I must admit: is so true. He posted an example of the 7D with the new 100mm macro - in strong back light and then zombied the shadows in PP which of course resulted in false colors and even more noise in areas that were probably almost black before his superior editing skills were applied...
kewlcanon wrote:
I'm afraid to say but it seems the guy doesn't how to PP
Added to which, he's either using DPP (not very good), Lr/ACR (which don't support the 7D yet); or he's shooting in jpeg, which we all know isn't the best way to high IQ.
And yet it's still "oh no - there's noise at 100 ISO..." without any apparent effort to figure out why - and despite the fact that these points have been made time and time again.
keithreeder wrote:
Added to which, he's either using DPP (not very good)...
I'm a little puzzled by this comment, because DPP easily gives the best image quality from Canon cameras in my experience. It may have other workflow-related challenges, but image quality is not one of them.
garyvot wrote:
I'm a little puzzled by this comment, because DPP easily gives the best image quality from Canon cameras in my experience. It may have other workflow-related challenges, but image quality is not one of them.
Yeah - this comment mystifies me too. Any convertor can be used to make an image look crap. In my experience if you want to get the very best result possible, DPP is the right first step.
I've tried many of the converters available for Canon raw files. I can see the improvement DPP gives in color and detail in prints as small as 8" x 10" vs.the others. It's difficult to judge differences in screen images, but convert a few images in what ever you are using and do them in DPP and then make prints and you will see how much better DPP is.
brainiac wrote:
Yeah - this comment mystifies me too. Any convertor can be used to make an image look crap. In my experience if you want to get the very best result possible, DPP is the right first step.
I've comparison-tested RAW converters to death. DPP isn't anywhere near as good as either Raw Therapee or Cap One 4 in IQ terms, and my recent testing of Bibble 5 puts DPP even further behind.
Hell, I even prefer Lr to DPP - and I'm no fan of Lr.
And for clarity, I'm talking about tests where I try to make every image look as good as it can possibly be. I've got no reason not to want DPP to be the best, but - objectively - it just isn't.
Simply put, the "digital dandruff" that the likes of RG has mentioned is a function of DPP conversion, and it's no coincidence IMHO that comments about "digital artifacting" as raised by MR - and pretty much all the other IQ complaints I've seen so far about the 7D - relate to files that have been converted in DPP...
I'm not saying that DPP is a "bad" converter, but - in the pixel peeping world these discussions inhabit - it's not a great one either.
keithreeder:
Simply put, the "digital dandruff" that the likes of RG has mentioned is a function of DPP conversion, and it's no coincidence IMHO that comments about "digital artifacting" as raised by MR - and pretty much all the other IQ complaints I've seen so far about the 7D - relate to files that have been converted in DPP...
Which RAW converter should be then used to properly judge IQ of 7D? I hope that it is not suggested to use jpeg out of the camera.
By the way, I am very surprised that Canon's own converter would not give the best possible results.
mfurman wrote:
Which RAW converter should be then used to properly judge IQ of 7D? I hope that it is not suggested to use jpeg out of the camera.
By the way, I am very surprised that Canon's own converter would not give the best possible results.
Any converter that suits the 5D2 should be fine for the 7D. Their colour filters are not so different as I had hoped from the beginning. 7D will need quite a bit of "puffering" if you want accurate colour. RT or CO4 seems to be good bets, but I'm a bit concerned about colour handling in RT. The "variance of colour differences" modified DCraw also seems to work well.
The camera profile changes as you increase ISO also, so a certain profile does not match all ISO's/WB-settings... :-/
I still think that this is probably the most interesting Canon camera to emerge in a while, and my initial statements about noise still stands. Less noise per pixel than the 40D/50D and more pixels to boot. No banding, but not "excellent" read-noise either, so DR at base ISO suffers a bit - but gets better as ISO increases.
A jpg-comparison ISO3200 Canon 40-50-7D and Nikon D5000 (scaled to 50D size I think - don't remember) is here: http://pici.se/pictures/JZYAvkiqA.jpg
A DCraw-converted ISO3200 Nikon D700/D5000 Canon 7D/5D2 is here: http://pici.se/pictures/CJmETBEhV.jpg
NOTE! - chrominance noise higher in D5000 than in 7D in the DCraw-conversion, but not in the LR-conversion! This may be due to the fact that I didn't have an ICC-profile to correct the 7D file with directly in the DCraw-conversion at the time... (?)
Thought I'd post links in stead of pictures, but something went wrong. That's 4Megs of pictures right there - anybody want me to deep-link in stead, just post a note.
