globalkiwi wrote:
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
Actually, that's the specific point I'm making - I'm not "conceding" it: I'm arguing that simply quoting only negative reviews to make a point won't wash, because I can quote "bigger, better" positive reviews very easily.
And the message there is clear: a bad photographer can make a good camera perform badly, but a good photographer can't make a bad camera work well if it is simply incapable of doing so: you simply cannot rule user error out of a bad review - doesn't matter who reviews it - and user "error" can't make up for a bad camera to the extent that it scores 97%!
The only possible skew there is that the review is deliberately biased one way or another - but while that might happen in random guy's blog, you're not really going to see that in a commercially available magazine.
I believe the key is not to pin all of your assessment of a camera on a single review or reviewer. If many professional reviewers report the same issue, then it's likely a problem with the camera, or something profoundly new with processing which hasn't been seen before.
Build your assessment on a "body of opinions," rather than a single one. And if possible, use the camera extensively yourself in the intended shooting situations.
cameron12x:
And if possible, use the camera extensively yourself in the intended shooting situations.
I am not sure what you mean. I usually read reviews to decide if I should buy a camera. I stop reading them if I have already got the camera and can test it myself. I only once returned a camera because it was not working the way, I had expected (400D - C1 converter problem).
By the way, what I am really waiting for now is a DxOMark test. I got really tired of reading all the squabbles about low ISO noise (or mazing artifact).
Another opinion of a very good photographer, I trust, is the one of liquidstone (Romy) who recently said (after testing production camera):
"Question: are you planning to buy the 7D?
Maybe, sometime in the future. I'm waiting for the price to stabilize a bit, and I wish that some RAW converters and/or firmware will come out to mitigate the noise in the shadows at ISO 200-800. The noise at mid-ISOs for the 7D unit I tested is a bit more than what's acceptable to me (I actually passed up on the 50D for the same exact concern).
The AF performance of the production 7D was great specially at BIFs with busy BG, almost as good as or at par with my 1D2.
If the mid-ISO noise is what it is (due perhaps to the limitation imposed by the tiny pixels), I might still buy the 7D if the pricing softens a bit. I'll use it as an ISO 100 - 400 birding body, and just mount my 5D2 when light goes down.
mfurman wrote:
I am not sure what you mean. I usually read reviews to decide if I should buy a camera. I stop reading them if I have already got the camera and can test it myself.
I think what I meant is that the "ultimate test" is using the camera yourself in the shooting environment you intend to use it for. Of course, that implies that you've already purchased the camera, likely based on reviews and the opinions of others.
wow I can't believe some posters can't get over the fact that the 7D is not as sharp at the pixel level as a bunch of other lower pixel density cameras (sans G11). Just reading through the comments on the blog and forums, it's like someone's mother has been insulted and all sorts of obscure justifications have been brought up to defend the 7D.
I think it's fairly obvious there are diffraction and pixel density associated problems going on here...just look at the-digital-picture.com's 100% crops for the 200mm f/2L IS on the 7D. Canon's sharpest lens looks horrible at all apertures. Did TDP use "inappropriate testing methodology" too like Darwin Wigget
I really think Canon went too far at 18 megapixels. If they could have tweaked and worked on an excellent 12 megapixel sensor that would be a dream.
And do you really need 18 for cropping out an image What did photographers do before? Oh yeah, use a longer lens, move closer if you can, frame and focus in the viewfinder.
fotografur:
I really think Canon went too far at 18 megapixels. If they could have tweaked and worked on an excellent 12 megapixel sensor that would be a dream.
Be careful, I am certain that some would jump in saying that more Mpixels is better and they have re-sized images as a proof of that
I have been curious why, if this is the case, 1D mkIV is "only" 16 Mpixels (density of 10 Mpixel crop sensor or any FF camera up to 25 Mpixels)
keithreeder wrote:
Actually, that's the specific point I'm making - I'm not "conceding" it: I'm arguing that simply quoting only negative reviews to make a point won't wash, because I can quote "bigger, better" positive reviews very easily.
And the message there is clear: a bad photographer can make a good camera perform badly, but a good photographer can't make a bad camera work well if it is simply incapable of doing so: you simply cannot rule user error out of a bad review - doesn't matter who reviews it - and user "error" can't make up for a bad camera to the extent that it scores 97%!
The only possible skew there is that the review is deliberately biased one way or another - but while that might happen in random guy's blog, you're not really going to see that in a commercially available magazine....Show more →
You mean those magazines are never biased by the revenue they get from selling advertising space to the camera manufactures that are being reviewed. Naw...never happens. The magazines are straight as an arrow.
mfurman wrote:
Be careful, I am certain that some would jump in saying that more Mpixels is better and they have re-sized images as a proof of that
I have been curious why, if this is the case, 1D mkIV is "only" 16 Mpixels (density of 10 Mpixel crop sensor or any FF camera up to 25 Mpixels)
Thats an easy one and has everything to do with data transfer rates. The data transfer rate of the 1D4 seems to be about the same as the 7D both of which have 2 Digic4 processors. In order to increase the megapixels beyond 16 and keep the frame rate at 10 FPS, Canon would need a new generation of processor capable of the higher throughput.
mfurman wrote:
Be careful, I am certain that some would jump in saying that more Mpixels is better and they have re-sized images as a proof of that
I'm sure they will. So be it. If they want more megapixels then buy a bigger sensor. More is not always better. I would rather have quality pixels any day
fotografur wrote:
I really think Canon went too far at 18 megapixels. If they could have tweaked and worked on an excellent 12 megapixel sensor that would be a dream.
And what actual evidence do you have of this? The so-called "mazing" artifact is unrelated to pixel density and indications are that its a QC issue given the differences between bodies.
The 7D seems to have no worse read noise than lower density cameras and shot noise is something that diminishes with pixel average which will happen if you print images.
The 7D also seems to have no more fixed pattern noise than its lower density counterparts. So overall I see no factual basis for your claim that Canon went too far other.
And do you really need 18 for cropping out an image What did photographers do before? Oh yeah, use a longer lens, move closer if you can, frame and focus in the viewfinder.
just my 2c
d~
Thats a pretty spurious argument. Do you need 12 for cropping an image? Or 10? Or 8? Do you really need digital or AF or metering? Photographers were taking pictures before all of these things. The question of asking what photographers did before is the classic argument of a luddite. Technology marches on and as a result photographers get more options.
keithreeder wrote:
Actually, that's the specific point I'm making - I'm not "conceding" it: I'm arguing that simply quoting only negative reviews to make a point won't wash, because I can quote "bigger, better" positive reviews very easily.
And the message there is clear: a bad photographer can make a good camera perform badly, but a good photographer can't make a bad camera work well if it is simply incapable of doing so: you simply cannot rule user error out of a bad review - doesn't matter who reviews it - and user "error" can't make up for a bad camera to the extent that it scores 97%!
The only possible skew there is that the review is deliberately biased one way or another - but while that might happen in random guy's blog, you're not really going to see that in a commercially available magazine....Show more →
Well, the question of what constitutes a "bigger better" review is surely a matter of opinion. You denigrate some "random guy's blog" but there are some very good reviews published online - just as you earlier asserted that some "random guys" here on FM produce some very useful feedback on gear. This goes back to my earlier point about these threads devolving into a war of assertions - with people invoking their review of choice to support their position. This one is a case on point.
As far as the topic of this thread, I've now read three reviews that compare the 7D's IQ unfavorably to the 5DII (which is not surprising) & suggest that the 7D's strengths lie in areas other than landscape photography. So, if the OP's primary intention is landscape a 5D or 5DII might be a better choice - which is not to say that the 7D can't take perfectly good landcscape images in the right hands, just that it's not it's forte.
thedigitalbean wrote:
And what actual evidence do you have of this? The so-called "mazing" artifact is unrelated to pixel density and indications are that its a QC issue given the differences between bodies.
The 7D seems to have no worse read noise than lower density cameras and shot noise is something that diminishes with pixel average which will happen if you print images.
The 7D also seems to have no more fixed pattern noise than its lower density counterparts. So overall I see no factual basis for your claim that Canon went too far other.
Thats a pretty spurious argument. Do you need 12 for cropping an image? Or 10? Or 8? Do you really need digital or AF or metering? Photographers were taking pictures before all of these things. The question of asking what photographers did before is the classic argument of a luddite. Technology marches on and as a result photographers get more options. ...Show more →
spurious / classic argument of a luddite
Whatever.
I only mention good photographers use most all of the frame
thedigitalbean:
And what actual evidence do you have of this?
There is no evidence yet - just comments from photographers. Have you read liquidstone's conclusion, I have quoted on a previous page? He noticed that already with a pre-production copy.
I am just waiting for DxOMark test. Then we will see.
thedigitalbean wrote:
The so-called "mazing" artifact is unrelated to pixel density and indications are that its a QC issue given the differences between bodies.
Well, if the folks on the 7D master thread are to be believed, there is certainly something going on - something that's apparently inconsistent. I'm not sure about the QC argument but in some ways that would be a "best case" explanation. Remember, there were many 1DIII owners who didn't experience problems with the AF on their cameras ...
fotografur wrote:
I really think Canon went too far at 18 megapixels. If they could have tweaked and worked on an excellent 12 megapixel sensor that would be a dream.
And do you really need 18 for cropping out an image What did photographers do before? Oh yeah, use a longer lens, move closer if you can, frame and focus in the viewfinder.
just my 2c
d~
Hey, Dennis. Personally, I don't think Canon went too far with 18mp on APS-C...in fact its right about where I think they should be. The body was designed to excel when shooting sports and wildlife, key being wildlife. The argument of "use a longer lens" or "move closer" doesn't really hold much water when shooting wildlife. Sure I could spend 11K on an 800mm lens--if I had it...and sure I could move closer, if I were invisible. These are not feasible options for a lot of photographers and so those who have limits turn towards a camera with a sensor that can make up for their handicap(s). In wildlife photography there is no such thing as a lens being too long, at least for the most part, so the additional pixel count is a welcomed feature...even if you can afford an 800L.
They where both processed identically. They are both HDRs, I used RAW files for the 5D2 and JPG from the 7D to make the HDRs. I shot both RAW and JPG on the 7D, but used the JPG from camera due to the lack of conversion ability of the 7D's RAW files yet.
I have the 5DII and the 7D. The 7D is surprising. To be honest the best landscape is a 4X5 or 8X10 view camera, which I used to shoot or at least a 6X7, which I also used to shoot but we aren't talking about those. What I am getting at is that for landscape I prefer the largest format I have, which in my case would be the 35mm and preferably on a tripod. Sure the 7D will do it fine but what is the end need? Print size or web viewing? For reach with my 200 f2 and the 2XTC II, which gives up little image quality to a stock 200 f2, gets out there real nice but if I have the need for detail and color (holding together on larger images) I would go with the 5DII or even the 5D for landscape, again if detail in color and color contrast is a goal, with reservation to the final size of the image.
What did photographers do before? Oh yeah, use a longer lens, move closer if you can, frame and focus in the viewfinder.