M Vers wrote:
Oh God...here we go. It's been proven sensors like the 7D, 1DsIII and the 5DII will demand more out of a lens than bodies with lower MP counts. This doesn't mean you cant use lenses that cant out resolve an 18mp APS-C sensor or that the results of such combination will be unusable. It just means you may see a difference in resolution when pixel peeping at 100-200% on your computer monitor. Print the images and you're not likely to see much of a difference if at all. In regard to Darwin's thoughts, perhaps he shouldn't be shooting at 1/60 with a 300mm lens with an 18mp APS-C sensor at the receiving end. I don't care how stable your tripod is it wont make up for movement in the scene, which will be exaggerated by the high pixel density. Sensors like the 7D are going to demand the best glass and good technique to get the best results. I wont even comment on processing RAW's using a beta converter. As for your processing issues, have you thought about sRAW? You know you don't need to shoot at 18mp...right?...Show more →
Well he actually also used a 45 TS-E lens and the 70-200 f4 lens. All cameras was tested under the same conditions using exact same lenses and processes, so I think you can rule out bad process as being the problem. He also tested 3 separate 7D cameras giving exactly the same results.
chez wrote:
Well he actually also used a 45 TS-E lens and the 70-200 f4 lens. All cameras was tested under the same conditions using exact same lenses and processes, so I think you can rule out bad process as being the problem. He also tested 3 separate 7D cameras giving exactly the same results.
I believe what we may be finding out or discovering is that the 7D, because of its extremely high pixel density, DOES require a slightly different process from what many of us have been accustomed to in the past. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it very well may differ from other cameras in that regard.
I think that could be ONE of the key takeaways here.
chez wrote:
Well he actually also used a 45 TS-E lens and the 70-200 f4 lens. All cameras was tested under the same conditions using exact same lenses and processes, so I think you can rule out bad process as being the problem. He also tested 3 separate 7D cameras giving exactly the same results.
I understand that but a 300/4 at 1/60th? Until he uses a non-beta RAW converter I don't think he has enough ground to stand. Darwin is a well respected photographer and his images are a testament to that, but I have to question his review. BTW I'm not blindly defending the camera rather pointing out possible weaknesses in the testing method at hand.
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?
He's an incredibly well respected landscape photographer. I'd listen to what he says above gear heads on forums, that's for sure
JackCnd wrote:
I tested the 16-35 on the 5D classic and 7D
at the pixel level the 5D shots look better
but use a 400 5.6 prime and compare and the 7D
is far far ahead.
...
99% of users should go with a 5D classic or 5D II
as it just offers better IQ over a variety of common uses.
...
Two things..."the pixel level" on both of these cameras is equivalent to printing at a very large size. I haven't seen any evidence that up to say 20" on the long side you'd be able to see IQ differences.
The 99% of users comment... Is that based on "landscape" users, or all. I've got the 7D, and the AF, FPS, and pixel density (i.e. zoomability) are beneficial to more than 1% of users over the 5D2 which is $1k more.
With the 7d your getting about all the resolution you can from a lens.
If the lens can not deliver then you see pixel level softness just downsize and it cleans up.
That was my reasoning but for some reasons, it seems it is not that simple...Why the XSi pictures are really better than the 7D downsized?
I wouldn't form your entire opinion based on one review. Use it as ONE of your references, and build on a body of opinions. Have you tried creating a new thread and referencing this one in the Landscape forum?
I would think that some folks would have posted some landscape photos shot with the 7D there. I'd also imagine posters there would also have an opinion about this body with respect to landscape photography.
My main point is you have a better selection and choices on the wide-end for lenses with the 5D2 than you will with the 7D. That's not to say that you can't do landscape photography with the 7D. You can.
After seeing some really beautiful photos taken with the 7D on the Wildlife forum, I feel embarassed about all my whining. I need to read the manual properly and go out and shoot, and stop reading posts in the gear forum.
I wouldn't form your entire opinion based on one review. Use it as ONE of your references, and build on a body of opinions. Have you tried creating a new thread and referencing this one in the Landscape forum?
Definitively a great idea!...will do immediately
My main point is you have a better selection and choices on the wide-end for lenses with the 5D2 than you will with the 7D. That's not to say that you can't do landscape photography with the 7D. You can.
Agreed...but again, I own the 10-22 and I did not find myself limited by it...yet!
It seems that it is confirmed that for wildlife 7D > 40D...I just need some to confirme that for landscape 7D = 40D (at least)...and I all sold!
saaketham wrote:
After seeing some really beautiful photos taken with the 7D on the Wildlife forum, I feel embarassed about all my whining. I need to read the manual properly and go out and shoot, and stop reading posts in the gear forum.
The big mistake in the review was treating each file the same in regard to post processing settings. Each model camera will produce its own unique digital file that must be optimized to get the maximum performance. What he achieved was various mediocre results and then he was surprised when one set of mediocre results was better than the another set of mediocre results.
Adam L wrote:
He's an incredibly well respected landscape photographer. I'd listen to what he says above gear heads on forums, that's for sure
Darwin's notoriety arose out of his over-use of colour enhancing filters and excessive manipulation of images in Photoshop. Love him or hate him, but I'm not sure how the image quality of any particular camera or lens would have much impact on the resulting look of his photographs...
cohenxa wrote:
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.
Xavier
First of all a crop sensor or even a Canon G10 is fine for landscape photography. I just purchased a Rebel XSi this week before I even saw this review. I used a 30D and 10-22efs lens before that.
I would take Darwins review seriously. He makes goods sense. This is the first time I ever heard of him and his methods are more realistic (and controlled) then many you see here. I also respect the reviews at dpreview.com. They use a more balanced and even controlled analysis.
But remember, photography is more then pixel sharpness.
M Vers wrote:
....Until he uses a non-beta RAW converter I don't think he has enough ground to stand. Darwin is a well respected photographer and his images are a testament to that, but I have to question his review......
That's the only issue I have is the possibility of issues in the RAW conversion......and that might be a big one.
I still don't know what to think of this review.
.....but he tested 3 different 7D's.
And it bugs me that the XSi images upsized to 18mp were still better than the 7D's??!
If someone who has some background in research criticizes EOS 7D, he is a pixel peeper
If a good photographer does it - he does not know how to test the camera.
mfurman wrote:
If someone who has some background in research criticizes EOS 7D, he is a pixel peeper
If a good photographer does it - he does not know how to test the camera.
You can also add that if someone tests the camera and comes out with a glowing review...they are king.
?