Checking the pics and the EXIF, I noticed something:
1. ISO 100 looks a little overexposed compared to ISO 200 (it is normal, since ISO 100 is 1/60s and ISO 200 is 1/125).
2. ISO 800 and above looks a little overexposed compared to ISO 400; i don't know if there is a calibration problem or something "normal" for digital cameras
keithreeder wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I don't want to sound skeptical, but I have seen opinions like yours uttered many times during discussions on FM, but whenever actual samples and crops were posted, I didn't find the evidence very convincing. Obviously there could be issues of taste involved in choosing a convertor. For instance, many people seem to throw their toys out of their prams when they see single pixel white specks in their conversions. They seem to be unaware that (1) normal print sizes will not reveal these specks and (2) if you need to print really big, a very strict dust & scratches (i.e. with a high threshold) will remove the specks while doing virtually no damage whatsoever to the image detail. I also see people complaining about levels of luminance noise (grain) which are perfectly acceptable, and which will contribute to the texture in a print. Often people nuke this grain in favour of a plasticky noise-reduced look, presumably because they don't realise that a 100% crop can and even _should_ look very different to a 10:1 pixel-to-screen-dot ratio. Consequently I take with a pinch of salt opinions about which raw convertor is best. It seems to me that if you want to argue that there is a really significant difference between the quality of raw conversions, it would be a minimum requirement to post or link to images and crops which illustrate the differences clearly. Then others are in a position to consider your opinions more objectively.
In other words, I'm not saying you're wrong, but show me what you're talking about, and understand that I still may not agree.
That luminous landscape article on the 7D was even worse than anything Ken Rockwell has written. Introduces it as something awesome and then floods it with personal grudges. That's not how reviewers should work.
Yes, I did the low ISO comparisons too, and here LR does a very much better job (when less "disturbed" by chroma noise). Unfortunately the 40D doesn't have the raws archived at ImagingResource, so that comparison is a little unfair.
I actually don't feel that there's too much in the low-ISO-comparison except than to say that the 7D AA-filter is about the same strength as the 50D - PER PIXEL - which means a better resolving capability per picture width. The low ISO 7D is quite easy to colour-correct, but as I mentioned the camera seems to be slightly non-linear in its response - the profile changes with ISO and WB...
No sign of the infamous banding problem - as far as I can see at least, of course there is some banding, at a measurable but not immediately visible level.
Fair comparison is quite impossible to do until I get my hands on a production 7D, as the ISO's are overstated by the same margin as in the 5D2. Measured at raw clipping level, the 7D/5D2 are 1/3Ev below industry average, and often at least 2/3Ev below Olympus/Sony/Pentax, who all keep to another standard of ISO-measurements.
So if you want to do side-by-side comparisons with a O/S/P camera, it's actually more fair to use the other camera at say ISO800 and the 7D at ISO1600, those two settings are a lot closer than using both cameras at "in camera stated" ISO1600.
I have had the camera since saturday and received error 01 twice. supposedly communication between the camera and the lens is faulty. clean the lens contacts.
the 17-55 is like new condition and the contacts look shinny as ever. I have not tried any other glass on it yet as I have been really busy at home.
both times was very low shutter speeds (less than 1/4 second) but has not happed again yet. I will monitor and hopefully this is not an issue with all the cameras.
Anyone had this problem with other models?
brainiac wrote:
I don't want to sound skeptical, but I have seen opinions like yours uttered many times during discussions on FM, but whenever actual samples and crops were posted, I didn't find the evidence very convincing. Obviously there could be issues of taste involved in choosing a convertor. For instance, many people seem to throw their toys out of their prams when they see single pixel white specks in their conversions. They seem to be unaware that (1) normal print sizes will not reveal these specks and (2) if you need to print really big, a very strict dust & scratches (i.e. with a high threshold) will remove the specks while doing virtually no damage whatsoever to the image detail. I also see people complaining about levels of luminance noise (grain) which are perfectly acceptable, and which will contribute to the texture in a print. Often people nuke this grain in favour of a plasticky noise-reduced look, presumably because they don't realise that a 100% crop can and even _should_ look very different to a 10:1 pixel-to-screen-dot ratio. Consequently I take with a pinch of salt opinions about which raw convertor is best. It seems to me that if you want to argue that there is a really significant difference between the quality of raw conversions, it would be a minimum requirement to post or link to images and crops which illustrate the differences clearly. Then others are in a position to consider your opinions more objectively.
In other words, I'm not saying you're wrong, but show me what you're talking about, and understand that I still may not agree....Show more →
I agree.
An unintended consequence of nitpicking is that it encourages the company making the converters to include functions that can't be turned off. Is a converter better if it deletes a white dot that should be present? Or would you rather turn noise reduction on to eliminate that dot?
I convert with ARC. For really good images I will try other converters to see if I like these results better. While a different converter with a particular pic. may please me, the difference is meaningless as far as what it takes to make a great photo.
canon pants wrote:
I have had the camera since saturday and received error 01 twice. supposedly communication between the camera and the lens is faulty. clean the lens contacts.
the 17-55 is like new condition and the contacts look shinny as ever. I have not tried any other glass on it yet as I have been really busy at home.
both times was very low shutter speeds (less than 1/4 second) but has not happed again yet. I will monitor and hopefully this is not an issue with all the cameras.
Anyone had this problem with other models?
Canon does seem to issue a small percentage of new cameras with that problem. Eventually you may need to send it in. But for now I suggest you enjoy the new camera and see if the problem continues.
I have just got my hands on the 7D, I couldn.t decide on 5D mk2 or 7d,. I did intend going for the 5d mk2 but looking at the image samples they seemed quite good. I think the 7d body is what the 5D should have been. A 5D with 7d body would be a no brainer. I feel Canon missed a trick here, but they are probably selling enough 5d mk 2 's not to worry too much. If I don't like it I can take it back and exchange for a 5d.
I have tried just a couple of shots, and have to say I like what I see at the moment.
It will take a while to get used to the layout, especially the new on/off switch.
I like the idea of remotely firing flashes.
Unfortunatley I am not an upload member, so cannot post samples yet, but a raw file with no processing comes out as a 12 mb jpeg file when saved.
I used a 28 - 70 F2.8 for my first couple of shots and I am pleased with the detail held.
I took one shot a 3200 and liked the initial result.
I hope others enjoy this camera.
dcmiller wrote:
Canon does seem to issue a small percentage of new cameras with that problem. Eventually you may need to send it in. But for now I suggest you enjoy the new camera and see if the problem continues.
thankyou for the response. I hope it goes away as I would like to play with it before I have to send it in for repair.
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
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but why does the 7D require 1/400 to achieve the same exposure as the 50D at 1/500? Wouldn't this "undo" some or all of the high ISO advantage of the 7D?
michael49 wrote:
Sorry if this has been brought up before, but why does the 7D require 1/400 to achieve the same exposure as the 50D at 1/500? Wouldn't this "undo" some or all of the high ISO advantage of the 7D?
Because Imaging Resource needs to replace their studio light bulbs. There are other examples on the web which show the 7D sensitivity is the same as the 5D2 etc. I was once worried like you, so how I know you feel.
theSuede wrote:
No sign of the infamous banding problem - as far as I can see at least, of course there is some banding, at a measurable but not immediately visible level.
Thanks for taking the trouble with all the various RAW converters.
I have read some disturbing news about maze artifacts in the Imaging Resource 7D samples. But I seem to have a hard time finding them. Can you spot them easily? Or is that some converter issue?
thw2 wrote:
Because Imaging Resource needs to replace their studio light bulbs. There are other examples on the web which show the 7D sensitivity is the same as the 5D2 etc. I was once worried like you, so how I know you feel.
