I am puzzled after reading Darwin Wiggett post on the 7D...I was ready to purchase it based on other reviews. My main purpose is landsacpe then wildlife...it seems that the 7D is wildlife then "maybe" landscape.
Any others people experiencing the same thing? if not please post some pics.
That review is so poorly done I would not pay any attention to it.
examples,
he shoots a 300mm lens at 1/60 for sharpness testing
he uses a beta RAW converter (ACR v5.5)
he uses live view for focusing
etc, etc
I would have to work hard to produce such poor 7D shots.
But, yeah, sorry to say the consensus is Darwin is a quack. However, after reading so many positive reviews and viewing a zillion samples, what makes you think this lone wolf is right?
Gochugogi wrote: "what makes you think this lone wolf is right?"
THe fact that he is a fine landscape photographer...one of the rare one who I purchased a book from (with Ansel Addams and Art Wolfe). CHeck his work here and book here
Darwin Wiggett, is a excellent landscape photographer, extensivly published in many magazines, before you dis him at least look at his work, Canadian Rockies by Darwin are probably the best done. What I think he is saying here is a FF camera is better for landscape and I agree totaly with him on that, that doesn't mean the 7D is bad.
Ross
The notion that only FF is for landscape is misguided. Landscape photogrophy is not all about wide angle if that's what you're concerned with. If you want to go wide on 1.6x, at least you can get a EF-s 10-22.
rossmurphy wrote:
Darwin Wiggett, is a excellent landscape photographer, extensivly published in many magazines, before you dis him at least look at his work, Canadian Rockies by Darwin are probably the best done. What I think he is saying here is a FF camera is better for landscape and I agree totaly with him on that, that doesn't mean the 7D is bad.
Ross
Actually, he is totally dissing the 7D in that review. In fact, he shows that the XSi, even upsized to 18mp, is still better than the 7D!!
I don't think you can blame his shooting/lens technique, because he used the same methods for all the cameras that were compared and the 7D was the worse of the lot.
I do wonder if some of his comparatively bad 7D results were due to processing/conversion software issues, however.
I'm still not sure what to make of this review myself.
And by the way, 1.6X crop cameras are fine for landscapes, just get yourself a good wide angle lens, like the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24.
The notion that only FF is for landscape is misguided. Landscape photogrophy is not all about wide angle if that's what you're concerned with
I agree. I own a 40D+numerous lenses including the 10-22 but I use 70-200 or even 100-400 for some compressed/patern shots.
My question is more relevant to IQ/diffractions...
I am thinking that even if the sensor resolution is better than the lens at least the 18mpix image scale down to 10/12Mpix taken in similar situation/lenses/settings should look the same for the same size print....the gain on going to 7D is then viewfinder, video, AF...However, based on Darwin review, it seems that the 7D files are worse (surprise) than his XSi!!!
Be a good photographer (like Darwin) does not mean be a good tester (like Dpreview) so my question is: is there anyone here that have experienced the 7D for landscape work and can provide a different view?
Actually, he is totally dissing the 7D in that review. In fact, he shows that the XSi, even upsized to 18mp, is still better than the 7D!!
.....
I'm still not sure what to make of this review myself.
Since I am planning to upgrade from my 40D (which is fne for landscape but limited in AF for wildlife) I thought that the 7D will be better or at least equivalent to it for landscape work (again my main subject). AS you I am puzzled now and don't know if I should pursue with my purchase (it will be my birthday/christmas gift this year and the only photo equipment purchase of 2010!) for better wildlife or should I just stay with my 40D (even if I know that the AF tracking is the current limiting factor on some "rare" shots)
The 450D still rocks
And the 40D too! Don't get me wrong, I have some $ to spend (birthday, christmas and some Canon $ following a contest) and I always want to have a second boddy "just in case"...I can not afford the 5DII and do not want to go to 5D original (don't ask), I thought the 7D will be the perfect toy: good as 40D for landscape but better AF and weather sealing...If the files are poorer than 40D (or XSi), it doesn't worth it IMHO...I would like to hear a second tought on that since I do not know what to do with Darwin review...
cohenxa wrote:
Since I am planning to upgrade from my 40D (which is fne for landscape but limited in AF for wildlife) I thought that the 7D will be better or at least equivalent to it for landscape work (again my main subject). AS you I am puzzled now and don't know if I should pursue with my purchase (it will be my birthday/christmas gift this year and the only photo equipment purchase of 2010!) for better wildlife or should I just stay with my 40D (even if I know that the AF tracking is the current limiting factor on some "rare" shots)...Show more →
The 7D should be "at least" as good as your 40D for landscape photography, and most likely somewhat better.
The 7D would be "much better" for wildlife photography than your 40D.
Jayem1 wrote:
The notion that only FF is for landscape is misguided. Landscape photogrophy is not all about wide angle if that's what you're concerned with. If you want to go wide on 1.6x, at least you can get a EF-s 10-22.
The 7D should be "at least" as good as your 40D for landscape photography, and most likely somewhat better.
The 7D would be "much better" for wildlife photography than your 40D.
That is my reasoning...now I just need to be convinced as Darwin's review throw a BIG doubt as I do not know what did he do "wrong" to reach such a result?
I do remember that when I did upgrade from Rebel to 40D, I found my 40D file softer (at that time I was not using a tripod). I end up thinking that the larger sensor photosites are less sensible to micro vibration...Maybe the 18Mpix is more "vulnerable" in tiny vibration...In the 10Mpix sensor the details stay in the photosite whereas for the 18 due to the density it goes to another site and start to blur everything??
Jayem1 wrote:
The notion that only FF is for landscape is misguided. Landscape photogrophy is not all about wide angle if that's what you're concerned with. If you want to go wide on 1.6x, at least you can get a EF-s 10-22.
Maybe so, but if the OP's primary use is landscape photography, he might well be better off getting a 5DII. The merits of individual reviewers aside, a number of recent reviews have concluded that the IQ of the 5D is noticeably better than that of the 7D. The 7D may indeed be a great camera but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.
??