Looks sharp to me through f/11 (Comparable with other hi rez cams). These are unprocessed jpg's. No capture or output sharpening applied. f/4-f/22
double click the image to get the full size 100% crops @ 1300 pixels. http://gallery.rennlist.com/gallery/album817
python2000 wrote:
Darwin: The 40D/50D is better for landscapes
The Digital Picture: "best APS-C sensor-sized DSLR Canon has ever produced"
The reviews are different.
The findings are basically the same--Bryan from the digital picture addresses the softer image files, just as Darwin had, and even states in the first paragraph
"The Canon EOS 7D is without question, the best APS-C sensor-sized DSLR Canon has ever produced (as of this review date of course). And of course, "best" is a vague word. Let me use seven or eight thousand words to clarify that sentence."
In short Bryan found that the 7D is/was the best OVERALL (focusing on complete performance) APS-C camera ever produced by Canon while Darwin focused on one genre of photography (landscape) and found it wasn't the best suited body for this type of work (because of less detailed RAW files).
Due to its high MP count, the 7D needs a relatively stronger AA filter to suppres the moire effect. As such, the RAW files can use more sharpening. It is similar to the 1Ds Mark III, which also has also a strong AA filter. Canon was able to change/tweak the sensor of the 5D Mark II, which also has 21MP as that of the 1Ds Mark III but with a weaker AA filter. It doesn't bother me a bit to increase the sharpness setting of the files to have similar sharpness level to those coming, let's say, from the 5D Mark II.
I guess as diffraction limitation effects take their toll on the 1.6x crop, then eventually it will effect teh full frame sensors of the future that use the same pixel pitch. I guess in the future, landscapers will be using f8 as a smallest aperture, but employing TS-e lenses to maximise their DOF....it's just a thought....but I can see it happening.
A tough question to be facing with a new camera. The extent to which tweaking the in-camera sharpening will affect noise levels is going to be a key question. Judging from the posts here on FM it does seem that some camera's are more affected than others, so, if it's a possibility, you might consider exchanging your copy for another?
Princeli wrote:
It's interesting to see this post after I spent an hour testing my new 7D and wondering if it needed to be exchanged due to the soft images I was getting right out of the camera. They were seriously, super soft, and I was very concerned. Upon calling Canon Tech Support, they told me that "all cameras come out of the factory slightly different from one another, and "my copy" might need to have the in camera sharpness raised a notch or two. They didn't, however, tell me how that would adversely affect the Noise levels.... hmmmm.
I just sold my 40D for this camera and see a huge improvement as far as auto focus settings and capabilities, but am torn by the softness. Am I spoiled by my 5D and fast primes? This is my camera for action photography... I guess the 5D II can't do action very well, can it? What to do, what to do?...Show more →
Princeli wrote: Am I spoiled by my 5D and fast primes? This is my camera for action photography... I guess the 5D II can't do action very well, can it? What to do, what to do?
The 5D has one of the weakest AA filters of all Canon bodies. What do you normally do in camera and in post as far as sharpness?
globalkiwi wrote:
A tough question to be facing with a new camera. The extent to which tweaking the in-camera sharpening will affect noise levels is going to be a key question. Judging from the posts here on FM it does seem that some camera's are more affected than others, so, if it's a possibility, you might consider exchanging your copy for another?
Thanks for this, Globalkiwi... You just prompted me to contact Chris, at Canoga Camera, and see if I could exchange it. You're right, there have been better copies out there, and this one is clearly, super soft and I really am not happy increasing my sharpness by two stops, and adding Noise at higher ISO's...
It's difficult to weight out the pro's and con's, as I really like how the camera handles. I LOVE the option that allows it to automatically change focus points when you go from landscape to portrait... reminds me of an iPhone! No, seriously, I do love so many things about this camera.. but at the same time, I am obsessed with image sharpness...
M Vers wrote:
The 5D has one of the weakest AA filters of all Canon bodies. What do you normally do in camera and in post as far as sharpness?
I don't do anything in camera, and sometimes sharpen a little in Lightroom or Photoshop but seriously, not much, if at all. My 5D produces super sharp images and my 40D wasn't that bad either. Leaps and bounds above what I get from the 7D... !
Princeli wrote:
I don't do anything in camera, and sometimes sharpen a little in Lightroom or Photoshop but seriously, not much, if at all. My 5D produces super sharp images and my 40D wasn't that bad either. Leaps and bounds above what I get from the 7D... !
*L
Exchange it for another copy and see what happens...but before you do you may want to shoot a staged scene with the body you have now, using both RAW+Jpeg formats. Shoot at several different settings (aperture+ISO). When you get your new camera in run it through the same paces. If the results are the same there is a good probability what you're seeing is likely a characteristic of the camera. And just for ha-ha's try adjusting your current 7D's sharpness level to around 4 and see if it makes a difference.
Princeli wrote:
Thanks for this, Globalkiwi... You just prompted me to contact Chris, at Canoga Camera, and see if I could exchange it. You're right, there have been better copies out there, and this one is clearly, super soft and I really am not happy increasing my sharpness by two stops, and adding Noise at higher ISO's...
It's difficult to weight out the pro's and con's, as I really like how the camera handles. I LOVE the option that allows it to automatically change focus points when you go from landscape to portrait... reminds me of an iPhone! No, seriously, I do love so many things about this camera.. but at the same time, I am obsessed with image sharpness...
Hey Lisa, Let's hope they will exchange it - I suspect they will (I doubt you'll be the first with that request). I would second M Vers suggestion about taking some test shots with the current camera before you turn it in, that will give you a bench mark to check a new copy against.
M Vers wrote:
The findings are basically the same--Bryan from the digital picture addresses the softer image files, just as Darwin had, and even states in the first paragraph
"The Canon EOS 7D is without question, the best APS-C sensor-sized DSLR Canon has ever produced (as of this review date of course). And of course, "best" is a vague word. Let me use seven or eight thousand words to clarify that sentence."
In short Bryan found that the 7D is/was the best OVERALL (focusing on complete performance) APS-C camera ever produced by Canon while Darwin focused on one genre of photography (landscape) and found it wasn't the best suited body for this type of work (because of less detailed RAW files). ...Show more →
The reviews are quite different in their conclusions.
Darwin's review of the 7D is quite negative as he seems to think this goes way beyond a sharpness issue. He even shows that the 450D image upsized to 18mp was still sharper than the 7D!
He makes it sound like its way more than something a little sharpening can fix; he calls the 7D files "mushy" - "The detailed file has the characteristic ‘mushy’ look we grew accustomed to seeing from the 7D."
The Digital Picture's review on the other hand concludes that although the 7D files are not as sharp as other Canon 1.6X crop cams, but this can easily be overcome with a little sharpening.
michael49 wrote:
The reviews are quite different in their conclusions.
I was referring to the sharpness issue. Both Bryan and Darwin saw the same thing, except one judged the camera solely on this 'issue' while the other judged the camera in its entirety.
M Vers wrote:
I was referring to the sharpness issue. Both Bryan and Darwin saw the same thing, except one judged the camera solely on this 'issue' while the other judged the camera in its entirety.
That's not what I read.
Bryan showed in his tests that a little sharpening seems to even the score between the 7D vs the others.
Whereas Darwin's review showed the images to be "mushy" to a degree that sharpening wasn't going to remedy.
M Vers wrote:
Exchange it for another copy and see what happens...but before you do you may want to shoot a staged scene with the body you have now, using both RAW+Jpeg formats. Shoot at several different settings (aperture+ISO). When you get your new camera in run it through the same paces. If the results are the same there is a good probability what you're seeing is likely a characteristic of the camera. And just for ha-ha's try adjusting your current 7D's sharpness level to around 4 and see if it makes a difference.
Thanks -- I did take a ton of test shots today with cans on a table, and I will do the same with the next... If they let me exchange it, that is. It arrived to me last Thursday... do you think it's okay?
Whereas Darwin's review showed the images to be "mushy" to a degree that sharpening wasn't going to remedy.
As I recall Darwin didn't use any sharpening in his RAW conversions. So none of the files were individually optimized and were compared at pixel view. Not exactly a useful or telling comparison as most of us optimize our image files according to target size and use. Although they all look a little different at pixel view, the only thing that counts is how good the end product is, e.g., a 12x18 or 16x20 print. I can say the 12x18 landscape prints I've made from my 7D are outstanding, although I can't see any significant difference--positive or negative--from my 50D prints, at least at ISO 100-400. Of course I adjusted levels and tweaked sharpness to taste. But, yep, my 5D and 5DII files need less USM for the same print size.
M Vers wrote:
The 5D has one of the weakest AA filters of all Canon bodies. What do you normally do in camera and in post as far as sharpness?
I love my 5D - big pixels, FF; both factors make the image look great.
The statement about its AA filter being weak is made often but I've never seen any experimental evaluation of that single parameter to support the assertion. Can anyone trace this back to a reliable source where AA filters were actually compared? Or is it the case that someone concluded "It must be the weakest AA filter!" and that's been perpetuated as a result? Canon doesn't provide much detail (no pun intended ) on their AA filters but the 1dIII's is described as "optimized for sensor pitch" consistent with their description of a 1 pixel shift in vert and horz direction.
The thicknesses of the 20D and 5D LPFs are consistent with sensor pitch driving the "strength" of the AA filter. Is there any other real information out there? Techie question I know, but optics and spectroscopy are part of my "other" life
jorkata wrote:
Well, what happens if you sharpen the other cameras as well - the score will get uneven again, no?
Isn't the point of these comparisons to use identical settings?
Sort of. But different cameras require different amounts of sharpening.
Gochugogi wrote:
As I recall Darwin didn't use any sharpening in his RAW conversions. So none of the files were individually optimized and were compared at pixel view. Not exactly a useful or telling comparison as most of us optimize our image files according to target size and use. Although they all look a little different at pixel view, the only thing that counts is how good the end product is, e.g., a 12x18 or 16x20 print. I can say the 12x18 landscape prints I've made from my 7D are outstanding, although I can't see any significant difference--positive or negative--from my 50D prints, at least at ISO 100-400. Of course I adjusted levels and tweaked sharpness to taste. But, yep, my 5D and 5DII files need less USM for the same print size....Show more →
No, I agree with you. The majority of the "properly processed" 7D files I've seen look fantastic to me.
Good to hear of your positive printing experience with 7D files.
It would be interesting though to make some very large prints with say the 7D, 50D, 5D, and 5DII to see how they compare.
No, seriously, I do love so many things about this camera.. but at the same time, I am obsessed with image sharpness... 