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 →
I've also found that the 7D just needs more sharpening than the 5D & 5D2. I don't consider it to be soft really, but it does need a little extra bump. I'm still getting a feel for the level of sharpening I need though. It'll come with time.
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.
It's what I read. Bryan stated if the 7D's in camera sharpening was pushed one point above the others it was close to matching it, while Darwin compared files at the same levels of sharpness. Both reviewers made comments about the 7D being less sharp than other APS-C bodies...I'm not sure how that doesn't equate to similar findings.
M Vers wrote:
No, not necessarily. The problem is 7D RAW files are softer than other camera RAW's.
this has to be the funniest reply Ive seen..I am no mean an expert on the quantum mechanics of how the damn sensor gathers the light and what it does with it to give a quantative argument...but RAW is an undeveloped negative right like in old film days so it needs to be sharpened no matter how soft it looks compared to OTHER cameras..for now on unsharpened RAW files mean as much to me as a 300 percent crop...
so in DPP if I have to raise the sharpness level to 4 instaed of 3 the 7D
now sucks?
M Vers wrote:
.....It's what I read. Bryan stated if the 7D's in camera sharpening was pushed one point above the others it was close to matching it, while Darwin compared files at the same levels of sharpness. Both reviewers made comments about the 7D being less sharp than other APS-C bodies...I'm not sure how that doesn't equate to similar findings.
His review goes way beyond just criticizing the softness of the 7D images...
From Darwin's review....
"We were continually dismayed at the soft, muddy files we were getting from the 7D. In test after test, the 7D files were especially poor when using telephoto or wide angle lenses with distant scenes. "
"In the next test we interpolated the Nikon D300s file up to 18MP. Then we tried to match the colours and contrast of the two files for a ‘finished’ image.....Even at a disadvantage the interpolated Nikon file simply trumps the Canon file. In our opinion there is no contest, the Nikon D300s produces better files than the Canon 7D. "
Conclusions
"Of all the cameras we have ever used, we loved the handling of the Canon 7D the best. What a little sports car of a camera! We so much wanted to love this camera. But in test after test we constantly were disappointed in the quality of the files. For our purposes, landscape and nature photography shot using RAW images, the 7D just does not cut it. Darwin is definitely keeping his Rebel (a great camera for the money) for backpacking."
digitalbug30d wrote:
this has to be the funniest reply Ive seen..I am no mean an expert on the quantum mechanics of how the damn sensor gathers the light and what it does with it to give a quantative argument...but RAW is an undeveloped negative right like in old film days so it needs to be sharpened no matter how soft it looks compared to OTHER cameras..for now on unsharpened RAW files mean as much to me as a 300 percent crop...
so in DPP if I have to raise the sharpness level to 4 instaed of 3 the 7D
now sucks?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean...How, exactly, is it funny? When two cameras (i.e. 50D and 7D) RAW files are compared (via DPP), at equal levels of sharpness, the 7D file looks less sharp. You can set in camera sharpening to where ever you would like, when you open it in DPP it will show up at the level of sharpness you set in camera and you can view it at that sharpness level and adjust it to your liking. I wasn't speaking of "unsharpened RAW files" in fact nowhere did I mention it.
michael49 wrote:
His review goes way beyond just criticizing the softness of the 7D images...
I understand that, but his samples look similar to those posted at the digital picture...Darwin just decided to get wordy with his description. Both reviewers found the 7D's files to be less sharp, one called it "soft" the other called it "less-sharp" but at the end of the day they are saying essentially same thing--its not as sharp as other APS-C bodies. At least that is what I got from them.
digitalbug30d wrote:
this has to be the funniest reply Ive seen..I am no mean an expert on the quantum mechanics of how the damn sensor gathers the light and what it does with it to give a quantative argument...but RAW is an undeveloped negative right like in old film days so it needs to be sharpened no matter how soft it looks compared to OTHER cameras..for now on unsharpened RAW files mean as much to me as a 300 percent crop...
so in DPP if I have to raise the sharpness level to 4 instaed of 3 the 7D
now sucks?
I do get what M Vers is driving at. It means more work doing post... Just curious how it does when the 7d is spitting out JPEGs.
dolina wrote:
I do get what M Vers is driving at. It means more work doing post... Just curious how it does when the 7d is spitting out JPEGs.
Well, that's not really what I'm saying I meant that two RAW files, set to the same sharpness level either in camera or adjusted in DPP, one from the 50D and one from the 7D will look different when viewing in DPP--the 7D looking less-sharp at equal sharpness. This doesn't equate to more PP, just that the 7D may require more sharpening to get results similar to other cameras.
I always set the picture style to neutral (zero sharpening and everything) and realized that the raw files of the pictures of an event I took last week are soft. But I thought it was caused by operator error or camera shake cause it's more difficult for me to steady my hands recently or caused by the burst I used (my Image Stabilizer ). When post processing, I set the sharpness (with DPP) at level 3 and it helps. The jpeg file is good.
After that post processing, I set the picture style in the camera to Standard, and last sunday I walked around and took some pictures on the street. The results (unprocessed raw files) were much better, but I thought it was caused by the lighting (stage lighting at night at the event with high ISO vs sunlight on the street with low ISO) and the drive mode (8fps vs single shoot).
Thanks for the thread guys, it's been really helpful.
Bob
digitalbug30d wrote:
this has to be the funniest reply Ive seen..I am no mean an expert on the quantum mechanics of how the damn sensor gathers the light and what it does with it to give a quantative argument...but RAW is an undeveloped negative right like in old film days so it needs to be sharpened no matter how soft it looks compared to OTHER cameras..for now on unsharpened RAW files mean as much to me as a 300 percent crop...
so in DPP if I have to raise the sharpness level to 4 instaed of 3 the 7D
now sucks?
no, but perhaps it means they did a little averaging to even things out and then maybe the supposed superb low iso noise performance isn't really there if you also wanted full 18MP detail. or maybe not. or maybe yes, but it still gives a better 14MP than anything else, etc.
i can say that my first copy appeared to have maybe 80% worse noise than a 50D at ISO100 (NOT a careful calculation didn't want to bother wasting time on it) which brings it back to the level of camera technology from like nearing towards a decade ago perhaps (otoh some copies maybe only deliver a trace more noise and in the end with everything else better maybe it is a whatever)
EDIT: although ACR 5.6 does much better with it, artifacting and such are gone, it does seem to lower micro-contrast and detail a tad though so you might need to do some 0.1-0.2 radius sharpening up to get it back; hard to say but it is probably more like a 15MP camera than an 18MP if you get rid of the artifacting/noise, that said nothing else is higher than 14-15MP anyway.
If you process the files from different cameras in exactly the same way you are going to get different results. The cameras have differing characteristics and will need differing post processing techniques to reach optimal results. Many of the reviews published to date have used a pp workflow optimized for cameras other than the 7D, such as the 50D or the 5D2, or whatever the reviewer was using prior to the new 7D. Same applies to the results users have reported in addition to what the reviewers are saying. Give it some more time, maybe six months, and users will have learned how to get the best results from the 7D, and then you will likely find that it's overall image quality lies somewhere between all earlier models that sell for less (the 50D) and newer models that sell for more (the 1D Mk4). But you can use the 7D's improved features (AF, video, hi-ISO, etc.) right away without waiting for the internet postings to catch up with it's advances.
AGeoJO wrote:
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.
Joshua, I see absolutely no difference in sharpness between 1Ds3 and 5D/5D2 files. However, I do see that 7D files appear noticebly softer. They remind me a bit of my D200 files. They also needed a lot of PP/sharpening.
I guess I could have just posted the link to Canoga's policies instead....