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.
There is also the question: are all ISO's equal. Probably not which was discussed with the 5DmkII..
Those examples of 100-6400 are amazing... REAL WORLD shots, but Im sure you will get a few guys pixel peeping... I could careless, looks good to me!! Glad I ordered two now!!
srhmoto wrote:
A couple of my motorsport images have already found their way on to here, but here's another after tuning the AF a little bit more.
So far I am very impressed with the 7D and its AF system.
Simon.
Simon, I think your 7D has big color problems! That car is PINK in your picture! That can't be. Better send it in or better yet send it to me and I'll check it out.
anyone try a aftermarket 5d Mark II battery on a 7D? just wondering if it registers as some of the other canon equipment does not work with aftermarket batterys.
srhmoto wrote:
A couple of my motorsport images have already found their way on to here, but here's another after tuning the AF a little bit more.
So far I am very impressed with the 7D and its AF system.
Simon.
Simon,
Thanks for the real-world images and impressions. It's much appreciated, despite all the mental masturbation occupying the bulk of this thread and yours on POTN
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.
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the 5D2 does the same thing. It over-inflates it's ISO-ratings, maybe for marketing reasons - we don't know.
In fact the Imaging Resource test-setup is controlled by an old-fashioned light-meter before use, so the "it has to be right - it's just like the 5D2"-argument falls on that the 5D2 cheats too. I've actually confirmed this in real-world testing compared to the D3, using the same lens on both cameras. ISO1600 on the 5D2/7D is like ISO1100 on a strict setup, where the D3 is at 1300 and the Pentax/olympus/Sony cameras all average at 1500-1700. So - if you're comparing the 7D to a Pentax camera. use ISO800 on the Pentax and ISO1600 on the 7D - that's actually more fair. It's a closer match than using "1600" on both cameras anyway - that will give the 7D 2/3Ev of a cheating advantage..
I started to get a bit curious as to why the D3+85F/1.4 gave me the same, sometimes shorter shuttertimes than the 5D2+85F/1.2 on the same constant-light setup, that's where my own testing started. With the same (manual aperture) lens on both cameras, and the same shutter-times, the 5D2 gave me 20 linear percent lower fill in the raw.
theSuede wrote:
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the 5D2 does the same thing. It over-inflates it's ISO-ratings, maybe for marketing reasons - we don't know.
In fact the Imaging Resource test-setup is controlled by an old-fashioned light-meter before use, so the "it has to be right - it's just like the 5D2"-argument falls on that the 5D2 cheats too. I've actually confirmed this in real-world testing compared to the D3, using the same lens on both cameras. ISO1600 on the 5D2/7D is like ISO1100 on a strict setup, where the D3 is at 1300 and the Pentax/olympus/Sony cameras all average at 1500-1700. So - if you're comparing the 7D to a Pentax camera. use ISO800 on the Pentax and ISO1600 on the 7D - that's actually more fair. It's a closer match than using "1600" on both cameras anyway - that will give the 7D 2/3Ev of a cheating advantage..
I started to get a bit curious as to why the D3+85F/1.4 gave me the same, sometimes shorter shuttertimes than the 5D2+85F/1.2 on the same constant-light setup, that's where my own testing started. With the same (manual aperture) lens on both cameras, and the same shutter-times, the 5D2 gave me 20 linear percent lower fill in the raw....Show more →
This is a feature, designed to protect you from blown highlights.
theSuede wrote:
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the 5D2 does the same thing. It over-inflates it's ISO-ratings, maybe for marketing reasons - we don't know.
In fact the Imaging Resource test-setup is controlled by an old-fashioned light-meter before use, so the "it has to be right - it's just like the 5D2"-argument falls on that the 5D2 cheats too. I've actually confirmed this in real-world testing compared to the D3, using the same lens on both cameras. ISO1600 on the 5D2/7D is like ISO1100 on a strict setup, where the D3 is at 1300 and the Pentax/olympus/Sony cameras all average at 1500-1700. So - if you're comparing the 7D to a Pentax camera. use ISO800 on the Pentax and ISO1600 on the 7D - that's actually more fair. It's a closer match than using "1600" on both cameras anyway - that will give the 7D 2/3Ev of a cheating advantage..
I started to get a bit curious as to why the D3+85F/1.4 gave me the same, sometimes shorter shuttertimes than the 5D2+85F/1.2 on the same constant-light setup, that's where my own testing started. With the same (manual aperture) lens on both cameras, and the same shutter-times, the 5D2 gave me 20 linear percent lower fill in the raw....Show more →
I wonder why people don't pay more attention to this. ISO 3200 doesn't mean anything if it gives you the same exposure that you can get at the same aperature and SS with another camera at ISO 1600.
For example, I've seen many people directly compare ISO performance between the 40D and the 5D, yet the 40D requires a slower SS than the 5D for the same exposure; thus your not comparing apoles to apples.
Gary, the "feature" would protect you from blowing highlights - IF it meant that the camera gave you more room at "the top" by exposing more to the left. There isn't. It just isn't as sensitive. The maximum signal decreases just as the normal exposure decreases.
This is all moot, as even WITH this deficit in numerology, the 7D is hands down the best low-light crop-camera I've seen to date. Better resolution AND better (lower) noise. And I'm very happy to hear (from mr srhmoto and a few lucky others who already recieved their cameras) that the AF seems to be working just fine.
theSuede wrote:
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but the 5D2 does the same thing. It over-inflates it's ISO-ratings, maybe for marketing reasons - we don't know.
Can this be substantiated? I know that it's between 1/3 and 1/6 of a stop darker than the 5D classic at a given ISO, but the 5D was measured by DPReview to be approximately 1/3 stop more sensitive than the ISO setting indicated. Canon corrected this starting with, IIRC, the Rebel XT.
theSuede wrote:
....This is all moot, as even WITH this deficit in numerology, the 7D is hands down the best low-light crop-camera I've seen to date. Better resolution AND better (lower) noise. And I'm very happy to hear (from mr srhmoto and a few lucky others who already recieved their cameras) that the AF seems to be working just fine.
You may be right.
If the AF is as good as it looks this camera will have to be a serious contender for many photographers. The high ISO won't be as good as the 5DII, but even if the 7D is 1 stop better, if the AF is that much better then many may go for the 7D. You can fix a noisy shot, but not an out of focus shot.
This may turn out to be Canon's best "all around camera" to date. (The 1D3 loses this distinction based on pure size alone, in my view.)
These posted on DPR look great to me. Obviously I am not as discriminating as some, but I'm excited to get mine hopefully tomorrow. Nice to see some JPG's with NR on as that is how I would use it the majority of the time for youth sports events. Looks to me like at least a stop better than 40D and close to 2 stops better than a Mk2. Lousy gym light won't look as good, but I am confident it will shoot very nicely at 3200 for that purpose.
theSuede wrote:
Gary, the "feature" would protect you from blowing highlights - IF it meant that the camera gave you more room at "the top" by exposing more to the left. There isn't. It just isn't as sensitive. The maximum signal decreases just as the normal exposure decreases.
I'm joking BTW...
This is certainly a valid point of criticism but in actual use, accurate, consistent metering is much more important to me than whether the camera's ISO setting is accurate per ISO standards. I always match the ISO to give me the aperture and shutter speed I need for a given lighting situation anyway.
That said, I always shoot with two identical bodies, and never "mix and match" cameras with possibly different ISO sensitivities. If I did, it would indeed be a pain if they exposed differently at the same shutter speed/aperture combination.
In terms of metering, I've found the 5D2 (and 5D before it) seem much better to me than the 40D or 50D. The 5-series metering seems to average the exposures and better protect the highlights. The xxD models I've used seem more heavily center-weighted and also seem to frequently overexpose.
I do hope the fancy pants new metering system in the 7D trends toward the 5D2 in consistency rather than the other way around...
garyvot wrote:
I do hope the fancy pants new metering system in the 7D trends toward the 5D2 in consistency rather than the other way around...
From the specs, it sounds like the 7D basically has the same metering system in the current 1-series so we'll hopefully see similar if not even better performance.
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.
of course the 5D2 is also under-rated for ISO compared to the 50D too though
it seems to me they go 20D,50D,5D2,40D.
but according to my read noise even if it was only like a 40D it would still have less read noise than the 50D and a lot less banding, although the amount of read noise might only be marginally noticeably better then.
thedigitalbean wrote:
From the specs, it sounds like the 7D basically has the same metering system in the current 1-series so we'll hopefully see similar if not even better performance.
The new metering system isn't anything like anything Canon ever produced. IMHO probably the biggest thing in this regard is the matrix metering which takes it's hints where the subject lives within the frame from all autofocus points (whether active or not)...
