GeneO wrote:
Now there is the pot calling the kettle black. You don't need time, time is already against you so I will be the first to say I told you so
And Conrad's and others examples I linked have much more detail than those 30D shots. That is for sure.
Gene
His examples are pretty good but I feel that the "white" is a bit overexposed. I couldn't see the finer details of the white feathers. The shots are too contrasty and I am having problem feeling the mood in the shots. Like he was just taking snap shots of birds.
GeneO wrote:
Now there is the pot calling the kettle black. You don't need time, time is already against you so I will be the first to say I told you so
And Conrad's and others examples I linked have much more detail than those 30D shots. That is for sure.
Gene
Here is a shot of a plover with little cropping. Shot with a 1dmarkIII and 500L. Notice that the outline of the subject is somewhat blended in well with the lighting of the environment. Conrad's shots show a glow or highlight on the edge of the subject versus the background. The shots were also suffered from the effect of extreme cropping. Some of the feather details are mushy looking. Look closely.
TooManyShots wrote:
Here is a shot of a plover with little cropping. Shot with a 1dmarkIII and 500L. Notice that the outline of the subject is somewhat blended in well with the lighting of the environment. Conrad's shots show a glow or highlight on the edge of the subject versus the background. The shots were also suffered from the effect of extreme cropping. Some of the feather details are mushy looking. Look closely.
That's not a very fair comparison, the 500L is obviously a step above the 400 f/5.6 in every way, and chromatic aberration, ghosting, glowy edges,etc. sounds like a lens issue and less about the sensor. ...Show more →
JoeLeBlanc wrote:
I think the glowing edge is the result of sharpening too much. It has little to do with the lens. The subject just feels like it is completely separated from the background. Many of the shots the white is overexposed. See the standing still Black Crowned night heron. Whilte around the neck is overexposed so much that it looks very odd.
PhotogDave wrote:
The soft images are in focus, I'm sayig nothing in the image is superior in terms of sharpness and detail.
Conrads images are good, but again, none are showing 100% crops, all were croped asthetically for composition, hardley showing full image.
I'm not arguing the point any more. Its pointless, people are gonna say what they want, believe what they want, the images will speak for themselves. And when a bunch of people buy the 7D and start complaining about how they were not impressed(as many already have) I'll be thinking, "Told ya so."
I'm done.
PhotogDave, you have a point in asking, "Where's the beef?" But it's early days yet and let's see what people can product with this camera once they've optimized settings, post-process workflow, etc. From what I've seen of the 7D I have my reservations, but for me it's way too early to come to a conclusion just yet.
On the topic of resolution normalization and image-level noise/quality, I think you'd benefit from reading up on the subject. Not at all trying to be ugly about it, but your current grasp of the subject leaves a lot to be desired, and being so adamant about it makes it worse. Normalizing resolution (downsampling/upsampling as appropriate) is not giving the higher resolution camera an unfair advantage. Given the same technology, you always trade per pixel performance for pixel count, so it's not unfair to downsample a higher resolution image or upsample the lower resolution image so that both are on equal resolution footing. In fact, that's the only fair way to compare images from 2 cameras with such vastly different resolutions.
If you're interested in learning more from people you might find more credible than forum members you hardly know, here's a link to start out with. There's some math there, but you should be able to skim past it and still get the gist of it.
Here is a better example. The OP was using a 7d and 500L combo... I would like the OP applys a bit more black point and increasing the saturation of the shadow. The shots are a bit too bright. It would better more from some sharpening too. The details are there.
TooManyShots wrote:
Here is a better example. The OP was using a 7d and 500L combo... I would like the OP applys a bit more black point and increasing the saturation of the shadow. The shots are a bit too bright. It would better more from some sharpening too. The details are there.
I still don't see how the problems you mentioned have anything to do with the camera, rather the lens or technique. Are you trying to imply that the glowing edges, softness, brightness, black point, or shadow problems are because of the camera, and the 1D would have somehow handled all that better?
Just for clarity, my D70 shots - which are pretty naff - were not posted to suggest that the D70 is as good as the 7D (a preposterous premise) but simply to suggest that you can't judge or choose a body by the birds someone has been able to shoot with it...
I'm still having a 7D the second I've got a few spare quid, confident that it will be significantly better for what I do than my current (and damn' good) 40D.
Re: the plover and sandpiper shots above - not that struck on them: they look sharpened rather than sharp (no offence to Victor - just personal taste).
I'd call this as sharp as anything on this thread so far from any body:
40D, 100-400mm
And this is a heavy crop - same modest camera and lens.
Gene, in the same way that there's more to IQ than sharpness, there's more to it than extraordinary detail too - I'd rather see a well composed image lacking a bit in the finest detail, than - as Victor describes - "snapshots" that only speak to the resolution potential of a given camera/lens combo.
GeneO wrote:
I am sure the 7D will be producing images with better detail then these 1D3 shots once you get it in the hands of more than just a few experienced photographers.
I agree completely with this - it can't be any other way, and I'm honestly excited about how my 100-400mm is going to work on my 7D when I get it.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
PhotogDave, you have a point in asking, "Where's the beef?" But it's early days yet and let's see what people can product with this camera once they've optimized settings, post-process workflow, etc. From what I've seen of the 7D I have my reservations, but for me it's way too early to come to a conclusion just yet.
On the topic of resolution normalization and image-level noise/quality, I think you'd benefit from reading up on the subject. Not at all trying to be ugly about it, but your current grasp of the subject leaves a lot to be desired, and being so adamant about it makes it worse. Normalizing resolution (downsampling/upsampling as appropriate) is not giving the higher resolution camera an unfair advantage. Given the same technology, you always trade per pixel performance for pixel count, so it's not unfair to downsample a higher resolution image or upsample the lower resolution image so that both are on equal resolution footing. In fact, that's the only fair way to compare images from 2 cameras with such vastly different resolutions.
If you're interested in learning more from people you might find more credible than forum members you hardly know, here's a link to start out with. There's some math there, but you should be able to skim past it and still get the gist of it....Show more →
No, I dont need o read up on it. Its simple and doesnt require a science degree. See I look at an image closely and the one that has the most detail, least noiuse and most sharpness....thats the one I pick. Its real simple. And no one has shown and 7D images yet that have more or even the same as the 1D3.
My god, you people need to take more pictures instead of being worried about being up on all the techno garbage such as SNR and sampling and all the BS that you all keep spouting out. It doesnt matter....how do the images look. Plain and simple, post some images that match the 1D3 or shut up. I dont give a rip about all the techno garbage side of the sensor design and inner workings. I'm a GD photographer, not a camera engineer. I am interested in how the images look and nothign more. The 7D images look soft, noisy and lack detail and none of you have proven otherwise.
And post something with 100% crops too. Any downsized image for the web can be MADE to look good.
PhotogDave wrote:
No, I dont need o read up on it. Its simple and doesnt require a science degree. See I look at an image closely and the one that has the most detail, least noiuse and most sharpness....thats the one I pick. Its real simple. And no one has shown and 7D images yet that have more or even the same as the 1D3.
My god, you people need to take more pictures instead of being worried about being up on all the techno garbage such as SNR and sampling and all the BS that you all keep spouting out. It doesnt matter....how do the images look. Plain and simple, post some images that match the 1D3 or shut up. I dont give a rip about all the techno garbage side of the sensor design and inner workings. I'm a GD photographer, not a camera engineer. I am interested in how the images look and nothign more. The 7D images look soft, noisy and lack detail and none of you have proven otherwise.
And post something with 100% crops too. Any downsized image for the web can be MADE to look good....Show more →
This sounds angry and pathetic. Who are you trying to prove that the 1DIII is better than the 7d to other than yourself?
This sounds angry and pathetic. Who are you trying to prove that the 1DIII is better than the 7d to other than yourself?
Nobody. The OP asked a question, but its like trying to explain something to a 5yr old.
Knock yourselves out. The 7D is miles better than the 1D3 at anything it does. Its the best camera Canon has ever made to date. Its image quality even beats the 1DsIII.
The 100% crops dont mean anything to the sharpness/detail it produces. Ignore the results at 100%, because detail at that level is irrelevant.
Now you 7D owners dont need to spend $$$$ on 1 Series anymore, you can now get the 7D for a fraction of that.
While I've enjoyed looking at some outstanding 1D3 photographs on this thread, nothing the 7D detractors have said here is convincing, because most of it is based on wishful thinking, conjecture, or faulty logic. (Showing examples of the quality of one product does not prove anything about the quality of another product.)
It is demonstrable that the additional resolution of the 7D and the significant strides Canon has made in sensor technology offsets much of the noise advantage offered by the 1D3's larger sensor. (Examples were given eariler in the thread.) Given good workflow, there is just not that much difference to be seen *in terms of noise* in the images I've examined at common magnifications (though other difference may remain).
I'm not sure why this seems to be so threatening to folks; after all, this new sensor tech will presumably make its way into the 1D4, and proper balance will be restored to the universe again.
The 7D may or may not live up to all of Canon's aspirations for it, and the 1D3 still has many benefits, tangible and intangible, to recommend it. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the 7D incorporates easily the lowest noise APS-C sensor yet available that delivers a high amount of detail even in higher ISO shots.
PhotogDave wrote:
Nobody. The OP asked a question, but its like trying to explain something to a 5yr old.
Knock yourselves out. The 7D is miles better than the 1D3 at anything it does. Its the best camera Canon has ever made to date. Its image quality even beats the 1DsIII.
The 100% crops dont mean anything to the sharpness/detail it produces. Ignore the results at 100%, because detail at that level is irrelevant.
Now you 7D owners dont need to spend $$$$ on 1 Series anymore, you can now get the 7D for a fraction of that.
Congratulations. I've got real photo work to do....Show more →
Go do it then, you said you were through with this, twice now.
You know nobody said the IQ of a 7D was superior AFAIK. they only said it would produce more detail. And you are the one arguing about detail and not overall IQ.
You say downsampled images from a 7D don't count yet for downsampled 1D3 shots of Kinglets, you say "NOW thats detail. Look at these images,there isnt a 7D out there that has shown this. These images are sharp, the feathers look like feathers and they look like you can just touch them". In fact, I don't think those Kinglet shots show any great detail, and I don;t think the Night Heron shows any detail. Perhaps it is just because they are downsampled. You are just betraying your bias.
And for the downsampled, oversharpened (and with little real detail) 30D images you say "These 30D images IMO still look better than what I have seen so far from 7D". You can't have it both ways.
You say its like explaining something to a 5 year old but you haven;t explained anything. You just made unfounded statements.
And I am not a 7D owner, but a 1D3 owner btw, but I don;t feel threatened. They are two different kinds of camera.
the reason why you don;t see many 100% crops from 7D owners is 1) there are hardly any 7D owners yet and 2) They are probably out shooting their camera as you suggest. Though there are some pretty sharp shots in the master 7D thread.
musclepics wrote:
Even downsampled to 10MP, I can get the 1D MkIII shots to be about 1-2 stops cleaner than the 7D at ISO's 800+. (1 stop out of camera, 2 stops with MkIII FlexNR). Adding in camera NR on the 7D improves the amount of noise, but the details take a beating (which doesn't happen on the MkIII with Flex).
Also, the colours on the MkIII are nicer too, but the 7D does have the resolution advantage.
1D MkIII ISO 25,600 ec (ISO 6400 -2 stops ec... equivalent to F3.2, ISO 25,600 at 1/125s)
7d Vs 1dmkIII makes me laugh. just because the 7d is 'newer' all of a sudden it's ' better ' than a 1dmkIII!! it's like saying because the latest ford has a nicer cup holder it becomes more desirable than a mercedes gull wing.
there is not a single image I have seen from a 7d that suggests it's in the same hemisphere as a 1dmkIII, let alone the same ball park.
allnak wrote:
This sounds angry and pathetic. Who are you trying to prove that the 1DIII is better than the 7d to other than yourself?
he dosn't need to prove it to anyone as it's a material fact.
but getting folks like you to undersand the rational behind it is like teaching a pig to dance..it frustrtates the pig and wastes your time...go enjoy your 7d.
!
I've got real photo work to do.
!! it's like saying because the latest ford has a nicer cup holder it becomes more desirable than a mercedes gull wing.