This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Canon EOS 7D Master thread
p.81 #1Canon EOS 7D Master thread
tommose wrote:
For most of what you do the crop body would be an advantage for the reach. OTOH if you are shooting portraits FF really makes one happier.
At bottom, the ultimate image quality of the 7d may not equal the 5dII but at the print level your post processing skills will fall short well before the files of either camera do.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...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!
markd61 wrote
The 7D will not be a huge change in terms of FOV. It will have a number of improvements that will make you happy compared to the 1Dmk2. I have a mk2 and I hate the tiny LCD and the endless button pushing. I understand the feel of the 7D is closer to 1 series without the bulk. Another plus IMO. The controls are much better and navigation is better.For most of what you do the crop body would be an advantage for the reach. OTOH if you are shooting portraits FF really makes one happier.
At bottom, the ultimate image quality of the 7d may not equal the 5dII but at the print level your post processing skills will fall short well before the files of either camera do.
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...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!
Sep 27, 2009 at 11:57 AM
p.81 #2Canon EOS 7D Master thread
Some full sized high ISO test shots here:
http://chanandrew.com/trips.htm
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.
Cheers!
http://chanandrew.com/trips.htm
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.
Cheers!
Sep 27, 2009 at 01:17 PM
p.81 #3Canon EOS 7D Master thread
akclimber wrote:
I'm still not sold. The ISO1600 shots are troubling to me. YMMV.
What's even more troubling (for me) is that there's visible noise in the shadows in this ISO-100 shot.
http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
I'm still not sold. The ISO1600 shots are troubling to me. YMMV.
What's even more troubling (for me) is that there's visible noise in the shadows in this ISO-100 shot.
http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:02 PM
p.81 #4Canon EOS 7D Master thread
Some sample...you can download original jpg size
http://www.arsen.ca/p438495646
http://www.arsen.ca/p438495646
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:21 PM
p.81 #5Canon EOS 7D Master thread
jorkata wrote:
What's even more troubling (for me) is that there's visible noise in the shadows in this ISO-100 shot.
http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
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.
akclimber wrote
I'm still not sold. The ISO1600 shots are troubling to me. YMMV.http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:32 PM
p.81 #6Canon EOS 7D Master thread
I can't believe that is ISO100.
jorkata wrote:
What's even more troubling (for me) is that there's visible noise in the shadows in this ISO-100 shot.
http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
jorkata wrote:
akclimber wrote
I'm still not sold. The ISO1600 shots are troubling to me. YMMV.http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:37 PM
p.81 #7Canon EOS 7D Master thread
snooked123 wrote:
I can't believe that is ISO100.
What's even more troubling (for me) is that there's visible noise in the shadows in this ISO-100 shot.
http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
What's even harder to believe, is that he has taken 9678 images with his brand new 7D already
I can't believe that is ISO100.
jorkata wrote
akclimber wrote
I'm still not sold. The ISO1600 shots are troubling to me. YMMV.http://chanandrew.com/reviews/canon/canoneos7d/canoneos7d_samples/orginal/IMG_9678.jpg
What's even harder to believe, is that he has taken 9678 images with his brand new 7D already
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:40 PM
p.81 #8Canon EOS 7D Master thread
I'm afraid to say but it seems the guy doesn't how to PP 
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:41 PM
p.81 #9Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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...
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...
Sep 27, 2009 at 02:50 PM
p.81 #10Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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.
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 03:03 PM
p.81 #11Canon EOS 7D Master thread
kewlcanon wrote:
Many people have taken amazing shots with it....and you say it's a piece of what ?
Don't you know? You're only a serious photographer if you use full frame...
Many people have taken amazing shots with it....and you say it's a piece of what ?
Don't you know? You're only a serious photographer if you use full frame...
Sep 27, 2009 at 03:09 PM
p.81 #12Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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.
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 03:52 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.81 #13Canon EOS 7D Master thread
snooked123 wrote:
I can't believe that is ISO100.
The posterisation in the wall on the right looks more like JPEG tonal loss rather than anything sinister in camera.
I can't believe that is ISO100.
The posterisation in the wall on the right looks more like JPEG tonal loss rather than anything sinister in camera.
Sep 27, 2009 at 03:55 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.81 #14Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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.
keithreeder wrote
Added to which, he's either using DPP (not very good)...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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 03:57 PM
p.81 #15Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 05:39 PM
p.81 #16Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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.
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 07:20 PM
p.81 #17Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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.
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 07:29 PM
p.81 #18Canon EOS 7D Master thread
mfurman wrote:
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.
+1
Earlier quote
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...
By the way, I am very surprised that Canon's own converter would not give the best possible results.
+1
Sep 27, 2009 at 08:00 PM
p.81 #19Canon EOS 7D Master thread
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 Lightroom converted ISO3200 Nikon D700/D5000 Canon 7D/5D2 is here:
http://pici.se/pictures/FXouHqbQV.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... (?)
A Lightroom converted ISO800-comparison Canon 7D/50D/5D2 Nikon D700 is here:
http://pici.se/pictures/JjSRPMuUn.jpg
As far as I can tell, the 7D is a good step forward from the 50D - picture quality wise.
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 Lightroom converted ISO3200 Nikon D700/D5000 Canon 7D/5D2 is here:
http://pici.se/pictures/FXouHqbQV.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... (?)
A Lightroom converted ISO800-comparison Canon 7D/50D/5D2 Nikon D700 is here:
http://pici.se/pictures/JjSRPMuUn.jpg
As far as I can tell, the 7D is a good step forward from the 50D - picture quality wise.
Sep 27, 2009 at 08:04 PM
p.81 #20Canon EOS 7D Master thread
OOPS!
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.
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.
Sep 27, 2009 at 08:06 PM