OO7MIKE wrote:
...Yes, you can resize a 7d file to 40d size. In doing so you are changing things. You are making the noise smaller and less noticeable. This is not an accurate method of measuring camera noise. Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels must remain the same size (meaning no resampling) in order to compare apples to apples, pixels to pixels, noise to noise.....
By resizing to match resolution, you are doing exactly the same thing that is done when identically-sized prints are compared. It wouldn't make sense to compare a 26 X 17.25 inch print from one camera with a 19.5 X 13 inch print from another of the same format. And yet, that is exactly what is being done if the images of the 7D are compared with those of the 40D at the pixel level (100% screen view).
It is sensible in most cases to compare on the basis of equal output, and outside of printing, that can only be done if the pixel dimensions are matched. Comparing 100% view only makes sense if one intends to crop more intensely on the higher-pixel camera, or if they intend to print larger output.
Stumped wrote:
Yep you are the master of light - look how good the 7D is-
color sucks + blown highlights-
Why not fix your stuff before trying to teach your betters- lol
Firstly, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't link my photos. I'd gladly have done that for you. My photobucket bandwidth is almost up, and I could have provided a direct link via my website.
Secondly
apparently there's no teaching the Einstein in you. I've already discussed this with you, and so have a few other forum members. For one, the highlights are not "blown". Blown means beyond recovery, they are well in the range of recovery. On top of that, you know the lighting conditions these were shot under, Compact Fluorescent. By my shutter speed, I was shooting and not catching the whole cycle, so some shots would be a little brighter than others. I did not run a color profile on that arena. However, you don't get to pick and choose which photos are the ones that are in the right cycle of the light. Parents like a photo of their child playing basketball and I can provide something much better than the casual shooter can.
If you would like, I'll show you plenty of photos from any camera I own where the color is spot on, and the highlights look wonderful.
You take one photo that was shot under one of the worst lights to shoot under, and blame it on the camera.
I guess I shouldn't even read into what you say, you think that soft light is based upon shutter speed and f/stop, and you think bright highlights are the camera's fault. Never said I was the master of light, but I think it's evident I have a better understanding of it than you do.
The expression is, buy them the books, they will eat the pages.
I know that I've already told you that in that shot the colour is a few seconds' work (a simple WB tweak) and the highlights aren't blown. By regurgitating what is demonstrably incorrect you're making yourself look ridiculous, and confirming what I imagine many of us suspect: that your 7D's "problem" was located primarily in the large organic component that presses the shutter.
Why not fix your stuff before trying to teach your betters- lol
Have you actually posted any of your images to show us where we're going wrong?
Oh - and if there's harsher light than bright sunshine at around midday - especially when it's coming right over my shoulder and hitting the subjects straight on, and is being bounced around and amplified by snow - I'll bare my backside in the shop window of your choice.
That I know how to work with/around bright midday Sun and can process files shot in it reasonably well doesn't make it less harsh
Robert
This is your photo showing how good the 7D is & it sucks!
I read 255 on shoes -shirts & other areas- 255 ="s blown.
I see the same in many of your photos.
I will say it again - get your stuff right before trying to teach others-
keithreeder wrote:
I know that I've already told you that in that shot the colour is a few seconds' work (a simple WB tweak) and the highlights aren't blown. By regurgitating what is demonstrably incorrect you're making yourself look ridiculous, and confirming what I imagine many of us suspect: that your 7D's "problem" was located primarily in the large organic component that presses the shutter.
Have you actually posted any of your images to show us where we're going wrong?
Oh - and if there's harsher light than bright sunshine at around midday - especially when it's coming right over my shoulder and hitting the subjects straight on, and is being bounced around and amplified by snow - I'll bare my backside in the shop window of your choice.
That I know how to work with/around bright midday Sun and can process files shot in it reasonably well doesn't make it less harsh...Show more →
Yep & I ask Robert to show us an improved version & nada- nothing.
I also said that shot will never be a good photograph.
Iso 400 @6.3 = 1/500 is not what I consider bright so our definitions differ- lol
I checked your camera settings & you shoot similar as I for those type shots.
Your camera seems to meter a little different than the one I had. Could be I had a bad camera but I see the same stuff on the web?
I have posted a few 7D photos if you care to search.
I know that I've already told you that in that shot the colour is a few seconds' work (a simple WB tweak) and the highlights aren't blown. By regurgitating what is demonstrably incorrect you're making yourself look ridiculous, and confirming what I imagine many of us suspect: that your 7D's "problem" was located primarily in the large organic component that presses the shutter.
Why is it impossible for canon apologist to have a conversion
without stooping to personal attacks? When you don’t like the message
you attack the messenger.
For the record I do like the photos you posted but some have blown
HIGHLIGHTS- check the snow?
Now let the excuses begin- tell me how stupid I am & explain why your photo
has that problem & why I should know that-
Stumped wrote:
Iso 400 @6.3 = 1/500 is not what I consider bright so our definitions differ- lol
Bright light isn't the same thing as hard light. A direct flash is often hard, while a bounced flash can be just as bright but not hard due to a larger, more diffuse source.
Stumped wrote:
Yep & I ask Robert to show us an improved version & nada- nothing.
I also said that shot will never be a good photograph.
Iso 400 @6.3 = 1/500 is not what I consider bright so our definitions differ- lol
I checked your camera settings & you shoot similar as I for those type shots.
Your camera seems to meter a little different than the one I had. Could be I had a bad camera but I see the same stuff on the web?
I have posted a few 7D photos if you care to search.
255X3 is white, it's when there's no detail to recover that it equals blown.
See now you're calling ISO 400 6.3 1/500 not bright, confusing bright, dark, soft and hard? Come on!
Sports photos aren't always about the best composition and lighting. Sometimes it's about a parent having a picture of their kid with a ball. I don't need to post an improved version of it. I don't dodge/burn all of my sports photos, especially youth basketball.
The thing is, I can post the same style images from another camera, actually 3 other cameras...are they all pieces of crap too?
I don't need to post my work, click my link. Some of my recent work is up there (i admit, I am lazy when it comes to uploading new items though).
Stumped, when you get pull your head out of your butt-hole, and get the facts in order come back and talk to me.
Like a politician you're only hearing what you want to hear (or read in this case). I can get the same results from that place in any camera, so you take one example under horrible conditions and say it's the cameras fault.
Did you even look at the comparisons I posted on my website? I doubt it...it's a shame too, because maybe it'd open your eyes...then again I have a feeling...
M Vers wrote:
How can anyone judge a cameras performance, in its entirety, by viewing ONE photographers field work shot in poor lighting conditions?
Thanks M Vers.
Apparently in the world Stumped lives in, there's no such thing as compact fluorescents...oh the life that would be.
RobertLynn wrote:
Thanks M Vers.
Apparently in the world Stumped lives in, there's no such thing as compact fluorescents...oh the life that would be.
M Vers- I agree
I base my judgment on the photos I shot with my 7D & looking at stuff on the web that is similar to what I do - mostly birds & bugs-
For me the 7D is lacking. I may try the it again & or try a MIV- I hate to lose
the 1.6 crop. I shoot all long glass. Bug work is done at 420mm - some with tubes.
Stumped wrote:
M Vers- I agree
I base my judgment on the photos I shot with my 7D & looking at stuff on the web that is similar to what I do - mostly birds & bugs-
For me the 7D is lacking. I may try the it again & or try a MIV- I hate to lose
the 1.6 crop. I shoot all long glass. Bug work is done at 420mm - some with tubes
Just out of curiosity, what insects are you shooting at 420mm? I'm assuming butterflies and or dragonflies?
kakomu wrote:
Noise at a per-pixel level is misleading as few people view images at a per-pixel level. Even the largest sized monitors on the regular market (QSXGA, 2560x2048) have less pixels than photographs from a Digital Rebel, let alone a 5D2 or D3X. Most people will either:
A) Resize the image to a web-friendly image
B) Print the image
Some people will crop, but even then, a pretty heavy crop would be necessary to view the entire image at 100% on all but the largest monitors.
Thus, a per-pixel noise test is inherently flawed and belies the final outcome of someone's photographs. It also obfuscates other positive qualities of an image that make image noise irrelevant. The 50D was criticized as having more noise at the pixel level as the 40D at similar ISO sensitivities by the "professional" camera review sites, but ignores that the greater resolution of the 50D means that the noise is finer and interferes less with the image as a whole.
In my opinion, measuring noise at the pixel level makes it difficult to compare image noise from image to image. Thus, the best way to represent image noise of a digital sensor is to utilize a ratio of x noise to y area, so that you can scale the amount of noise accordingly.
Then again, I don't care too much. I've shot plenty of photos in the worst possible conditions (5D at ISO 3200 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4) and still manage to get a bunch of images that are just fine. Even ISO 1600 on my Rebel XT is good enough....Show more →
An excellent argument. You have some good points.
I shoot a lot of dance and theater professionally. I deal with low light and harsh light conditions which means noise is a regular part of my work. I also deal with fast and unpredictable dancers whom require me to shoot a little loosely with my composition. I am a pixel peeper and i spend a lot of time working at the pixel level to remove noise and artifacts for my demanding clients.
There are some times when my clients see one dancer in the very side of a photograph and want to make that subject (1/4 the size of my frame) an whole new photo. I have no problems making a 2mp image into an 8x10 but when the print is made based on a crop... those pixels better be clean!
I do more than just pixel peep, I edit most of my photos at the pixel level. (100 - 400%) Stray hairs, random dust specks on a shirt or floor.. the closer you are the more accurate your edits can be.
If all you ever do with your photos is downscale them to 8x10 / 8x12 sizes then these review websites may not be of any help to you. How do you make your purchasing decisions? If noise levels are important to you, what review sites do you look to for an accurate representation of what you will get?
Tom_W wrote:
What is the unit of measure in PopPhoto's noise tests?
I do not have an answer for you as I do not know. I do know what the noise on the 40d and D300 looks like at various ISO settings. Based on that, I can compare there noise numbers to other cameras such as the 1dsmk3, D700 and so on. Popphoto.com uses DxO Analyzer software.
M Vers wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what insects are you shooting at 420mm? I'm assuming butterflies and or dragonflies?
I shoot dragonflies & damselflies mostly. I like the working distance I get at that FL
These are low quality jpg’s but something I had up.
Nice work--have yet to locate a rubyspot for myself . Would you mind posting examples of what you didn't like about your 7D? Perhaps doing so may help us understand where your coming from a bit better.
Stumped, those photos look great to me. The 7D ones aren't showing me anything that would make you dislike it. As M Vers said, mind posting some that are giving you grief?
You must be close to those dragonflies...forget that! My luck they would fly up my nose.
007Mike, I understand wanting to crop a photo and make an enlargement out of something that is there. The question I have for you is this.
Say you and I are both at the same dance event. We're both shooting at ISO 1600. You're shooting a 40D, and I'm shooting a 7D. We both shoot the same subject, with the same shutter speed, and f/stop and magically out focus is spot on on the exact same eyelash that we want it on.
Your client comes up to you, and wants something from an extreme corner of the image.
So we crop the same image from each file. Wouldn't the 7D's advantage in resolution help even more there?
Truthfully I've read of some folks who had to send their cameras in (early adopters) and they came back wonderful Perhaps you had one that wasn't as sexy as the current ones. I can tell you though from my personal experience with both cameras, the 7D wins out.
To give you an example, that would be similar to yours. A forum member took a photo of mine, shot with both cameras, and cropped both, then enlarged them to 16x20. The 7D held the detail, and the 40D lost detail (we're talking extreme crops).
That could be the difference between a photo sale for you, or the lack of sale.
OO7MIKE wrote:
If all you ever do with your photos is downscale them to 8x10 / 8x12 sizes then these review websites may not be of any help to you. How do you make your purchasing decisions? If noise levels are important to you, what review sites do you look to for an accurate representation of what you will get?
You'll note that the last thing I wrote is that I don't tend to care too much about noise levels.
. Would you mind posting examples of what you didn't like about your 7D? Perhaps doing so may help us understand where your coming from a bit better.