I somehow do not believe that anyone would be testing this way. Most people do not use multiple converters either.
I understand your points of view though.
Okay, there's no need to get overly ridiculous when making this analysis. I've been making large prints from every brand of camera on the market for years and I know exactly what to do. Does a baseball pitcher have to throw 20 pitches for an average fastball speed? No. I can load an image, put it through it's paces and the results are likely to be exactly what I want. I could tweek an image here or there and maybe etch out some minor change, but all that's not necessary.
The bottom line is the print. There's no question in my mind, given best effort on any crop sensor camera (not counting the 1DMKIV as I haven't seen images from it), I can give you a better print from a 7D than the D300s on anything larger than 11x14.
Stick a bad lens on any camera or give it to a dud photographer or somebody who doesn't know how to post-process, you'll never see the difference.
It's all about potential. The 7D has more potential image quality in the raw image.
Just like a raw fillet mignon has more potential over raw ground beef. Cook either one poorly, you end up with dog food.
How good a cook are you?
+1 Cameron. Extra credit goes to Gary for comparing both samples in print I do have to wonder though, did both files undergo optimal processing? Usually one camera will take processing differently from one case to the next using different software and technique. For instance using multiple processing techniques/steps/software and printing each to compare against each other--narrowing down three or four prints to the best of the batch for each camera AND THEN comparing the best of each to each other. Am I making sense here? ...Show more →
Oh, this is very much a wish list thing, Michael, but in every other walk of life we test things in a way which allows them to perform at their best (off-road tires on a Ferrari, anyone?) but - for some reason - we blindly accept camera tests using conversion software which (speaking personally) I have never, ever rated at all.
I've been thoroughly dissatisfied with ACR conversions from my old Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Canon 30D, 40D, and - particularly - the 7D, yet it's seen as the "fair" way to test cameras, even though everybody knows it doesn't treat all files equally.
Gary Gray wrote:
Okay, there's no need to get overly ridiculous when making this analysis.
Using different processing technique and or conversions will yield different results. To put two files from two separate cameras through identical processing does not represent optimal processing per file. The two may react differently to separate processing. If you have done this before and haven't noticed differences than I'd have to take your word for it. And FWIW I am not trying to take anything away from your comparison, just presenting another possible factor.
mfurman wrote:
I somehow do not believe that anyone would be testing this way. Most people do not use multiple converters either.
I understand your points of view though.
I think you are right and few if any will go into that level of detail but the real issue to me is how much stock we put into reviews and how we use them. At best they are guides and yet many here and elsewhere get frantic if it doesn't mirror their experience and expectations. To a degree that is the fault of the readers and to a degree that is the fault of the reviewers.
The reviewer said (basically) that the 7D did not perform to his expectations when he did X in Y manner using Z software. There is a good chance he is right. That doesn't mean that it would not have performed very differently under other circumstances and he should either state that or test those varying conditions. It certainly doesn't mean that the 7D is a bad camera, it just means that it doesn't do well under those conditions.
If those are the conditions you operate under then you have a bit of warning to look out for a potential issue. If you operate under different conditions then it might be wise to give a cursory look to see if the problem extends into other condition sets but other than that I wouldn't get to bent out of shape over his comments.
I do like the prints even landscape better from my 7D than my mark3 which has been my go to camera for 2 1/2 years. I don't have the 5D2 but my friend has the 5D and we agree that the 7D produces better images when printed. We do most of or work in studio,outside portraits, and sports. We have several school contracts. I will probably end up with the 5D2 and the 7D and sell my mark3 down the road. We have shot many football and soccer games, homecoming, school groups and individuals, and about 175 senior sessions to date. Only shot 3 football games and several seniors with the 7D, but we like what we are seeing. The more I use the 7D, the better my images seem to get. Most of out prints are 16X20 or lower and printed at WHCC or HH Color. There may be a bunch of defective 7Ds out, if so, I feel very lucky. Mind works great and I will use it a lot. I'm looking forward to ACR5.6 and if my 7D images gets even better(Wow)
You didn't read my post. I processed each file according to the needs of the individual file. I never use a cookie-cutter on my images. Both files were "Best Effort" processing.
Different results? Two different cameras will give two different results, which I explained. The 7D is different from the Nikon. It's also better. I would have to sabotage the 7D file to make it look worse than the D300s in print.
M Vers wrote:
Using different processing technique and or conversions will yield different results. To put two files from two separate cameras through identical processing does not represent optimal processing per file. The two may react differently to separate processing. If you have done this before and haven't noticed differences than I'd have to take your word for it. And FWIW I am not trying to take anything away from your comparison, just presenting another possible factor.
Personally, I find reviews really useful - especially when I haven't had the chance to try the camera myself - it gives me an early indication of whether I am going to be seriously interested in the camera or not. I do recognize that it's one person's experience & may be limited by a variety of factors. I tend to find reviews work best in multiples, it's in the accumulation of opinion & experience that patterns (positive & negative) emerge. I don't understand the tendency that exists here amongst some to try & discredit any review or reviewer that doesn't support their own opinion.
Gary Gray wrote:
You didn't read my post. I processed each file according to the needs of the individual file. I never use a cookie-cutter on my images. Both files were "Best Effort" processing.
I did read your post. You never said you processed the files in more than one way to figure the best formula (i.e. utilizing different converters etc). It seems to me that you based your processing methods off of what you have done in the past, which doesn't necessarily represent the best method for the cameras at hand.
ChrisDM wrote:
What's sorely lacking here, as it is in most of these types of discussions, is perspective. We're basically talking about amateur equipment used to make small to medium sized prints, right? I hope so, because professionals who REALLY need to examine their work under microscopes for issues like diffraction etc, BECAUSE THEY MAKE VERY LARGE PRINTS, don't shoot with amateur cameras anyways, for the most part. In other words, at the print sizes typically produced by those who use this line of camera, splitting hairs over these technical irrelevancies (for most practical purposes) are nothing more than mental maturbation for the gearheads. I could show you a bunch of 16x20 landscape prints, some made with my XSi and others made with my 1Ds3 and you would have exact odds of 50/50 to tell me which camera took which. Now if you're regularly displaying gallery work at larger sizes then I hope you're not seriously considering the 7D, or any other amateur camera for that matter. Otherwise you should be very happy with it.
Excellent point, Chris!!! If making large professional prints where the ultimate in resolution is concerned, the photographer should seriously be using a Phase One, Imacon or Leaf digital back and then the petty nuances that are often discussed will quickly disappear. Of course, this kind of discussion will continue as long as Canon/Nikon/Others keep cramming more photosites in 35mm format (or cropped sensor) bodies. The 35mm lenses from C/N in their current design form are at their resolving limits.
globalkiwi wrote:
Personally, I find reviews really useful - especially when I haven't had the chance to try the camera myself - it gives me an early indication of whether I am going to be seriously interested in the camera or not. I do recognize that it's one person's experience & may be limited by a variety of factors. I tend to find reviews work best in multiples, it's in the accumulation of opinion & experience that patterns (positive & negative) emerge. I don't understand the tendency that exists here amongst some to try & discredit any review or reviewer that doesn't support their own opinion. ...Show more →
Excellent points !
I also never base my opinion on a single review and instead 'shop around' for different perspectives.
What I'm noticing is that the 50D last year and now the 7D are getting so many inconsistent reviews wrt image quality.
The 1D3 AF performance caused similar inconsistencies but the 1D3 image quality was never questioned.
This year with the 7D we are seeing the same story unfolding as with the 50D last year - some reviewers are liking its image quality and others are not.
In contrast, the 5DII, for example, is universally praised by all reviewers.
I think jorkata was referring to reviews, rather than threads on FM. It's difficult to form a clear impression (at least initially) of a camera from posts here. While some people invest in a new camera very quickly, other people tend to be unbelievably exacting (sometimes to the extent of *looking* for faults) & discussions get polarized very quickly. That's just one of the reasons reviews are helpful for getting some sense of the strengths & weaknesses of a new camera.
Yeah I realise that, but a review is just an opinion, same as any expressed here - and you see quite a few forum posts that are reviews in all but name.
Given the number of just bad reviews out there - of all sorts of cameras - there's nothing inherently "better" about an opinion expressed as a review than an opinion expressed in a thread on a forum like this, especially when expressed by the likes of Daan and Brainiac, whose abilities and knowledge I have far clearer awareness of than I do of some some random bloke with a blog...
But I'm really just bringing out how transparently biased Jorkata is in his reading: he talks as if there are loads of negative reviews of the 7D and 50D compared to the 5D Mk II, and there just aren't.
And as I post here the 7D has been given a 97% score in the UK's PhotoPlus magazine - the highest score that mag has ever given, as far as I am aware...
keithreeder wrote:
Yeah I realise that, but a review is just an opinion, same as any expressed here - and you see quite a few forum posts that are reviews in all but name.
Given the number of just bad reviews out there - of all sorts of cameras - there's nothing inherently "better" about an opinion expressed as a review than an opinion expressed in a thread on a forum like this, especially when expressed by the likes of Daan and Brainiac, whose abilities and knowledge I have far clearer awareness of than I do of some some random bloke with a blog...
But I'm really just bringing out how transparently biased Jorkata is in his reading:
he talks as if there are loads of negative reviews of the 7D and 50D compared to the 5D Mk II, and there just aren't.
And as I post here the 7D has been given a 97% score in the UK's PhotoPlus magazine - the highest score that mag has ever given, as far as I am aware......Show more →
Yeah, I read that in your post in the 7D master thread - also the conclusion that landscape shooting wasn't a strength of the 7D (which is kind of relevant to this thread!). I agee with your comments about the benefits of reviews from people you respect & some of them do surface here - but more often threads devolve into a war of contesting assertions. But you are also quoting an external reviewer to support your contention about the 7D so I guess you are kind of conceding the point that some opinions are worth more than others?
I do have to wonder though, did both files undergo optimal processing? Usually one camera will take processing differently from one case to the next using different software and technique. For instance using multiple processing techniques/steps/software and printing each to compare against each other--narrowing down three or four prints to the best of the batch for each camera AND THEN comparing the best of each to each other. Am I making sense here? 