well, much of the discussion was helpful to me. I thank Robert for posting his experiences & trying to eke truth/experience out of others. It can be challenging...
RobertLynn wrote:
I'm definitely not a nerd, as I don't really understand all of the technical aspects of sensels, pixels, sensors and density.
I know 1 thing, and that's the end product.
What he said.
I am a technophile, and I enjoy reading white papers and technical journals. I used to subscribe to PopPhoto among other magazines. I like their camera tests, as far as they go.
That said, one thing trumps all the tests in the world, and that's whether a print looks good to me.
When it comes time to actually buy a new body I'm going to borrow or rent the top contenders on my list, make some test shots with each body, and then make equal-sized prints (8X10) of the test shots.
The best looking print will determine which body I buy, because my clients and I won't be looking at test charts, we'll be looking at prints.
roberto1979 wrote:
The fact that you've been arguing on the same topic for 7 days is pretty nerdy. I have both cameras. The both take great pictures. End of story.
Cop out. Don't attack, it doesn't add to the discussion.
There is no doubt the 40D is cleaner at the pixel level than the 7D. But the 7D's files are likely to be more robust and more detailed. At a given output size, the 7D will win.
I'm no expert, but I was curious if one aspect of the 7D was that you might be able to downrez and have near IQ at high iso's to my 1d3. Not quite but the 5d2 shows promise. Too bad it doesn't focus like the 1d3 or even the 7D.
stan_g wrote:
I'm no expert, but I was curious if one aspect of the 7D was that you might be able to downrez and have near IQ at high iso's to my 1d3. Not quite but the 5d2 shows promise. Too bad it doesn't focus like the 1d3 or even the 7D.
I took a look, and it was an interesting find. It was something that I wanted to do (which is see how the 7D held up).
If you don't mind, could you please UPsize a file to the full 7D size, and see what the 1d3 does then? (shouldn't be a problem if you still have the files).
Also, with all camera NR settings at zero, and shooting in raw, do you yield different results?
One last thing, it looks like your metering was different for the 7D and 1d3 shots. They look close, but not 100% the same.
To be able to make a better comparison, lightness to lightness. As it is just an unnatural manipulation to compare noise, banding, etc.
Unmitigated Pixel Peeping
I should mention that this test was to judge the sensors only at iso6400. Without the noise occluding detail in the iso6400 7D file, like at a lower iso, it would show more detail (if the lens used was up to it).
Up to now the 7D has the smallest photosites of any aps-c, h, or FF sensor. Let's see what Canon does with a 1Ds4.
A lot of this is over my head but all that really matters is if I print a file of the same subject taken at ISO 800 on 40D and 7D to a 12 by 16 would I be able to see an improvement or difference ?
as it happens I'm happy with the 40D but the 7D would be the next logical upgrade
Pete
LCPete wrote:
A lot of this is over my head but all that really matters is if I print a file of the same subject taken at ISO 800 on 40D and 7D to a 12 by 16 would I be able to see an improvement or difference ?
as it happens I'm happy with the 40D but the 7D would be the next logical upgrade
Pete
When you shoot stock photography, the image inspectors are simply looking at 100% view, not downsizing the images or considering the uprezzing of an image in respects to noise. At a pixel peeping level I'm not all that impressed by what I've seen thus far in the 7D. Sure, they might look great when downsized to 10-12mp but why buy an 18mp camera just to have to downsize every shot? That's just a waste, to me - I might as well spend the extra $600 on a 5d2 and be happy with what I see at 100% view.
I'm just saying; not everyone cares about prints... noise is not really a major issue unless you're selling stock. Right now with my old 20D I can't even really shoot over ISO 200, unless I want tons of post work, noise removal and downsizing before I submit my final image to the stock agencies. I've used ISO 1600 ISO 3200 images that were grainy as all heck, even scans of film, full page on magazine covers back when I was a full time graphic designer - and the noise wasn't even there, in print at 8 x 10. Poster/billboard sizes, forget it - you're not standing 2 inches when viewing those. They look fine no matter what.
I'm sure the 7D is a great camera, but I've opted to pick up a 40D to replace my 20D for now, and then move on to the 5d2. If you care about sports and action, definitely get the 7D for the awesome AF. Or, maybe consider a used 1ds-mk2
