chez:
You can also add that if someone tests the camera and comes out with a glowing review...they are king.
EOS 7D cannot do wrong and if it does it is:
"
1 lens
2 diffraction
3 AA filter
4 shutter speed
5 processing
Jeff Donald wrote:
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.
Serious question: will we be able to compare cameras any more? I hear so many restrictions put on any comparisons (some say that you can compare only the same sensor size, others put all the restrictions on processing) that I doubt anyone can even comment about a new DSLR. It was so easy 2-3 years ago.
cameron12x wrote:
Here are some recent "landscape" images that I've made with the 7D.
The first one was taken with my Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens, the second with my Canon 10-22mm f/3.5 zoom. There are a number of things to consider when comparing the 7D to the 5D2 for landscape photography: DOF, pixel pitch, resolution, noise, aperture, diffraction, final print size, viewing distance, etc. It's not a simple "yes/no" answer. It's dependent on your subject matter, lens selection, and available light, among other things.
Like so many things in life, "it depends..."
I LOVE that second shot. When I get my 7D I will have to get that 10-22. Too bad it won't fit on my 5D.
Again..anyone can confirm that "landscape" XSi will be sharper/better than 7D image?
Can someone with the 7D try during the week end and post here the results? Best would be to compare with an other APS-C camera (xxD or xxxD)
mfurman wrote:
Serious question: will we be able to compare cameras any more? I hear so many restrictions put on any comparisons (some say that you can compare only the same sensor size, others put all the restrictions on processing) that I doubt anyone can even comment about a new DSLR. It was so easy 2-3 years ago.
Sure you can: use optimal processing on every file--just like you normally do--and squeeze every bit of quality out of it possible. Why handicap one camera by processing it poorly? Every camera's output needs different post processing to look its best.
Looking at DpReviews latest http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/, the typical IQ & resolution tests are clearly are at odds with the review the OP is perplexed by. So what does his in-field testing tell us? I suspect some technique & tools differences here. But to be fair, I think we have have someone else do a similar comparison before we condemn the 7D and restrict it from being a good landscape camera. I am still considering the 7D as a replacement for my 40D and I still consider that an upgrade. But I have a few months to ruminate about it.
With the 7D you need to:
1) Shoot raw with all NR , ALO, anti-vignetting stuff OFF in camera
2) Process in DPP and be sure all the stuff is OFF in DPP, DPP NR is on by default even if off in the camera.
3) Set DPP sharpening to 3
4) Use a high resolution lens, 400 5.6, 135 f/2, etc. (This step is KEY)
5) Use live view 10x manual focus on a tripod with a 2 second delay
If you do that you'll see the
most detailed sharpest images ever
compared to any Canon camera
taken from a fixed location at a fixed focal length.
I have to totally agree with previous posts on the issue of post processing. Don't have a 7D, but I do have a 50D and a D300 (amongst others). A common theme I'm hearing so far is the 7D is producing raw files similar to the 50D, with perhaps a tad more resolution. I downloaded the ISO 400 raw files from Imaging Resource web site for the 7D and D300s, put them through their paces in photoshop and lightroom.
As I already knew from my experience with the 50D, it is all a matter of post processing technique. Make your best effort post processing pass at either camera and you'll find that the same techniques do not apply to either camera, but the end result is that the 7D will post process with a better result. Better meaning equal or better noise, equal or better color rendition, equal or better sharpness and MORE resolution.
With all due respect to Mr. Darwin Wiggett's testing, he missed the boat completely with his analysis. The D300s is NOT resolving more detail, nor will any of the other lower resolution bodies he compared to the 7D. What he appears to be doing is comparing identical bad post processing techniques, neither of which appear to be optimized for the cameras he's comparing. His test is nothing more than proof of a failed knowledge of how to do a proper RAW file post process on different camera models.
A simple method of local contrast enhancement will bring out any perceived lack of contrast at a pixel level in the higher resolution files. DP review harps on this as "Pixel Level Sharpness."
You have control of "Pixel Level Sharpness" in post processing. Failure to not exercise that control is not a failing of the camera, but instead a failure of the person doing the post processing.
The same amount of local contrast enhancement applied to any two different cameras will give two different results.
The only issue I see in the 7D files at extreme magnification is a tendency to artifact slightly, which also appears in the 50D, but which also will never be evident in anything other than a 500% zoom on a computer monitor. The resulting image from the 7D will make a better print than any crop sensor body out there, including the D300s.
JackCnd:
4) Use a high resolution lens, 400 5.6, 135 f/2, etc. (This step is KEY)
135 f/2.0 L may be one of the sharpest Canon lenses but 400 f/5.6 L is not.
Do you mean that 7D images are sharper than the ones taken with 5D mk II (using 135 f/2.0 L or 70-200 f/4.0 L IS)?
cohenxa wrote:
Again..anyone can confirm that "landscape" XSi will be sharper/better than 7D image?
Can someone with the 7D try during the week end and post here the results? Best would be to compare with an other APS-C camera (xxD or xxxD)
+1
I would love to see this as well. Closest I can get is to compare the samples on dpreview.
Gary Gray wrote:
The only issue I see in the 7D files at extreme magnification is a tendency to artifact slightly, which also appears in the 50D, but which also will never be evident in anything other than a 500% zoom on a computer monitor. The resulting image from the 7D will make a better print than any crop sensor body out there, including the D300s.
on the copies i've tried it artifacts to the point it can give you double the noise of a 50D at low ISO and even replace fine detail with fake fine artifacts; as of now ACR and DPP produce the harshest files of any canon body i have ever tried
hopefully acr 5.6 will work some magic and fix this though
I agree. The 7D rocks and the 5D/5D II sucks for tracking fast moving subjects like birds in flight, but for landscape, studio work and portraits, etc. the 7D is no match. I am getting the 7D strictly for bird and insect photography. Horses for courses.
If you want a compact FF body with the AF system of the 7D, wait for the release of the 5D Mk III. It will come!
rossmurphy wrote:
I have shot 20,30,40,50D,5D and 5D2 extensivly with good L glass on all and the 5D and 5D2 have consistently blown away the crop cameras for landscape work, that does not mean you can't use a 7D for landscape. I believe the 7D is great for some things and not as good for others.
Ross
mfurman wrote:
135 f/2.0 L may be one of the sharpest Canon lenses but 400 f/5.6 L is not.
Do you mean that 7D images are sharper than the ones taken with 5D mk II (using 135 f/2.0 L or 70-200 f/4.0 L IS)?
Taken from the same distance using the 135 or 400 5.6
the 7D results in images with more detail as
it has a higher density sensor
with a lens that can deliver the needed resolution.
If you more forward with the 5D II to match the 7D's FOV
the 5D II comes out ahead,
as you are closer to the subject with more pixels on it.
If you use a lower resolution wide lens example
24-105 or 16-35 and zoom to match FOV from a given distance
as many do in error when 'comparing the bodies'
the 7D results in softer looking images at the pixel level
as the lens resolution and wider focal length becomes the limiting factor.
So, the 7D is best when focal length limited using a high resolution lens.
There is a HUGE difference that results from post processing and each camera and software combo is different. That said, this creates a real problem for anyone reviewing cameras and doing side-by-sides. If they use the same settings on all cameras then they are fools. If they don't use the same settings then they are skewing the results.
The best we can hope for from reviews these days is to learn whether a camera meets our basic requirements and whether there are problem areas that we might want to look more carefully at ourselves. Darwin's review tells me that I'll want to do a bit of testing before plunking down my money. He may be right, he may be wrong. In either case, it may not matter to me, but in the end, that's for me to decide.
Hrow:
If they use the same settings on all cameras then they are fools. If they don't use the same settings then they are skewing the results.
Who would do a review that may satisfy everyone these days? What has changed in the last year? Does it mean that everything is subjective and left to interpretation now?
