This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20107D: The bottom line
Canongarcon
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.4 #17D: The bottom line
PetKal wrote:
Please help me decide if I should get 7D now or I should wait until they get down to $1,000 or so.
Unfortunately I can not make head nor tail out of different feedbacks posted here and elsewhere.....there are conflicting and discrepant views and opinions.
So I'd like to get a brief bottom line from experienced 7D users.
You see, I don't need another fancy camera with tepid performance, however, I could always use a reasonably priced tool which will help me get my images, such as they are, in the following ways:
(1) Detail recorded and cropping depth. I think that one...Show more →
1a The camera will drop down to about $1000 when the 7D (aka 70D) Mark II is introduce. If you are willing to wait that long, then you will get a good deal plus many of the manufacturing bugs will be worked out by then. Perhaps you can sell more of your lenses for vaporware and have the money to buy for a 7D before that when you can't buy imaginary lenses.
1b. Yes, the cropping factor will be better on a 7D than a 1D Mark II since there is more than twice the resolution.
2. Varies depending upon various factors.
3. Better accuracy than the 40D/50D, but may not be as good as a 1D II.
4. Servo AF is much better than 40D/50D
5. You can't really expect top flight FPS performance in low light when compared to a 1D/ 1Ds series. You get what you pay for. Some people don't seem to get the what "up to" 8 FPS really means. The key word in upto.
Please help me decide if I should get 7D now or I should wait until they get down to $1,000 or so.
Unfortunately I can not make head nor tail out of different feedbacks posted here and elsewhere.....there are conflicting and discrepant views and opinions.
So I'd like to get a brief bottom line from experienced 7D users.
You see, I don't need another fancy camera with tepid performance, however, I could always use a reasonably priced tool which will help me get my images, such as they are, in the following ways:
(1) Detail recorded and cropping depth. I think that one...Show more →
1a The camera will drop down to about $1000 when the 7D (aka 70D) Mark II is introduce. If you are willing to wait that long, then you will get a good deal plus many of the manufacturing bugs will be worked out by then. Perhaps you can sell more of your lenses for vaporware and have the money to buy for a 7D before that when you can't buy imaginary lenses.
1b. Yes, the cropping factor will be better on a 7D than a 1D Mark II since there is more than twice the resolution.
2. Varies depending upon various factors.
3. Better accuracy than the 40D/50D, but may not be as good as a 1D II.
4. Servo AF is much better than 40D/50D
5. You can't really expect top flight FPS performance in low light when compared to a 1D/ 1Ds series. You get what you pay for. Some people don't seem to get the what "up to" 8 FPS really means. The key word in upto.
Apr 30, 2010 at 09:24 AM
p.4 #27D: The bottom line
I've had my 7D since November and use it mostly coupled with my 100-400 for shooting wildlife including birds and BIF. I have a 5D2 and 1D3 for other stuff. I would say that the camera has both disappointed me and delighted me, and I do blow hot and cold about it. However, I think the camera is not the problem. I think the problem is that shooting BIF is demanding enough and a lens like the 100-400, with its slow max aperture makes it tough to get sufficiently high shutter speeds to avoid shake/blur while still keeping ISO low and noise acceptable, at least when pixel peeping. It's also fair to say that I must also take responsibility for some of the blame since, quite frankly, I am not a very skilled BIF photographer. Unfortunately, pixel peeping poorly taken images at 100% is just going to embarrass the photographer. I do find my 1D3 to be far more forgiving of mistakes, and there are times when it is the more satisfying tool to use. When used with skill, and good glass, I think the 7D is a very rewarding camera, but it does punish the unskilled photographer, or poor glass, without mercy.
I guess the biggest failing of the 7D is that it does permit pixel peeping at levels which, quite frankly, are pretty absurd, and bear little relation to proper photography. I really don't think it does much to offer increased cropability when you are pushing the ISO or struggling to achieve high enough shutter speeds. There are only so many photons to go round and when you begin to push the envelope you can't expect to stretch them further with the 7D than with any other camera. The maths simply does not add up.
Is there a reason the 1D4 has a pixel density only equivalent to a 40D rather than a 7D? I think there is, and it has less to do with processing power and throughput than the shear irrelevance of having too many tiny pixels that do nothing but record blur more faithfully and throw in extra per pixel noise as a bonus. IMHO I really think there is little point in a camera with a high pixel density when it comes to shooting action, especially in poor light. The real value of a camera like the 7D is realised when you have good light, a stable shooting platform (tripod) and a relatively static subject. Then the camera will pull out every last drop of detail you can wish for, for any given focal length. When conditions are sub-optimal it is not that the 7D suddenly performs worse than other cameras, but that you can't squeeze more out of the 7D than the lens and your own skills were able to deliver to the sensor.
With all that said, I took my 7D and 100-400 to the zoo yesterday and shot a variety of subjects including many frames of BIF. I've uploaded some of the images to an online album here....
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/1600?authkey=Gv1sRgCO-zsJ3YrIXnfQ#
The photos were shot raw and processed to JPEG in Lightroom beta 3.2. There is a good mix of ISOs from 100-1600. The first orangutan shot is at 6400 ISO, shot through coloured glass. The last five images in the album are all at 3200 ISO. I applied tweaks to WB and other basic controls but I did not touch sharpening or noise reduction controls at all for any of the images. All are uncropped so that you can see the focusing challenge presented to the camera for the BIF. I did not use IS at all, shooting all birds hand held and everything else with the aid of a monopod. For best results I recommend viewing the images "fullscreen" as the album will resize the images to fit your available viewing space in your browser.
Given the modest degree of editing performed I am pretty pleased with the results. Here is an example from the album....
I guess the biggest failing of the 7D is that it does permit pixel peeping at levels which, quite frankly, are pretty absurd, and bear little relation to proper photography. I really don't think it does much to offer increased cropability when you are pushing the ISO or struggling to achieve high enough shutter speeds. There are only so many photons to go round and when you begin to push the envelope you can't expect to stretch them further with the 7D than with any other camera. The maths simply does not add up.
Is there a reason the 1D4 has a pixel density only equivalent to a 40D rather than a 7D? I think there is, and it has less to do with processing power and throughput than the shear irrelevance of having too many tiny pixels that do nothing but record blur more faithfully and throw in extra per pixel noise as a bonus. IMHO I really think there is little point in a camera with a high pixel density when it comes to shooting action, especially in poor light. The real value of a camera like the 7D is realised when you have good light, a stable shooting platform (tripod) and a relatively static subject. Then the camera will pull out every last drop of detail you can wish for, for any given focal length. When conditions are sub-optimal it is not that the 7D suddenly performs worse than other cameras, but that you can't squeeze more out of the 7D than the lens and your own skills were able to deliver to the sensor.
With all that said, I took my 7D and 100-400 to the zoo yesterday and shot a variety of subjects including many frames of BIF. I've uploaded some of the images to an online album here....
http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/1600?authkey=Gv1sRgCO-zsJ3YrIXnfQ#
The photos were shot raw and processed to JPEG in Lightroom beta 3.2. There is a good mix of ISOs from 100-1600. The first orangutan shot is at 6400 ISO, shot through coloured glass. The last five images in the album are all at 3200 ISO. I applied tweaks to WB and other basic controls but I did not touch sharpening or noise reduction controls at all for any of the images. All are uncropped so that you can see the focusing challenge presented to the camera for the BIF. I did not use IS at all, shooting all birds hand held and everything else with the aid of a monopod. For best results I recommend viewing the images "fullscreen" as the album will resize the images to fit your available viewing space in your browser.
Given the modest degree of editing performed I am pretty pleased with the results. Here is an example from the album....
Apr 30, 2010 at 09:27 AM
p.4 #37D: The bottom line
I think the biggest problem that people have is with noise. For some, seeing ANY at 100% is an issue. The fact that it is equivalent to viewing a 4 foot print from a foot away doesn't seem to matter, and I'm not sure what people want an 18meg camera for , if they have no intention of printing. If you are one of the very noise concerned, then you should pass on the 7D, if not, then a little bit of post processing will take care of it.
I've used most of the cameras that Canon has tossed out in the past several years, from 10D's to Mark3's. I've always liked to have a cropped sensor for the situations where I'm not able to get closer.
I've had two 7D's, the first one was a stinker(first batch) and I took it back and got the second one two months ago. IMO, the AF is far better than any prior cropper. It's not at the level of a Mark2(which I considered better than mark3 gen), but it's pretty good. It does like to jump to contrasty/busy BG's though. But then again, every camera model has it's own unique characteristics that require some field use to figure out. The 7D is no different, and all the stuff about reading and understanding the new AF system is not really an issue IMO. The same reasons to use expanded points or single point apply the same to this camera as they did to every other model with that capability. Sure the 7D has a couple of other options, but it's not rocket science.
IMO, it's pretty simple decision to make, if you have to have 1D series AF, then buy a 1D, the 7D is close but not there. If noise when viewing at 100%(and not printing) is a bother, and you will be shooting at ISO's above 800, then isn't the camera for you.
For birds and focal length limited situations it's a great camera IMO. The IQ is very good and the files are sharp, if you aren't seeing that then it is likely there is some other cause like MA or some other non-camera issue.
My 2 cents !
I've used most of the cameras that Canon has tossed out in the past several years, from 10D's to Mark3's. I've always liked to have a cropped sensor for the situations where I'm not able to get closer.
I've had two 7D's, the first one was a stinker(first batch) and I took it back and got the second one two months ago. IMO, the AF is far better than any prior cropper. It's not at the level of a Mark2(which I considered better than mark3 gen), but it's pretty good. It does like to jump to contrasty/busy BG's though. But then again, every camera model has it's own unique characteristics that require some field use to figure out. The 7D is no different, and all the stuff about reading and understanding the new AF system is not really an issue IMO. The same reasons to use expanded points or single point apply the same to this camera as they did to every other model with that capability. Sure the 7D has a couple of other options, but it's not rocket science.
IMO, it's pretty simple decision to make, if you have to have 1D series AF, then buy a 1D, the 7D is close but not there. If noise when viewing at 100%(and not printing) is a bother, and you will be shooting at ISO's above 800, then isn't the camera for you.
For birds and focal length limited situations it's a great camera IMO. The IQ is very good and the files are sharp, if you aren't seeing that then it is likely there is some other cause like MA or some other non-camera issue.
My 2 cents !
Apr 30, 2010 at 09:45 AM
p.4 #47D: The bottom line
Some things not mentioned here (or at least I haven't seen at a quick glance) that are worth thinking about:
1) You'll need fast memory cards. 133X won't cut it for 8 fps RAW shooting. I ended up buying a 64GB Sandisk Extreme Pro (600x - 90 mb/s) which at the time cost about a third of the price of the camera.
2) To get really good IQ you need top quality glass. Extenders push the resolving requirements beyond what I consider acceptable IQ. The only zoom that I've tried on the 7D that produces excellent results is the 70-200/II (without extenders). My 16-35 for instance produces great images on my 5DII but the 7D demands too much of it and even the center resolution becomes mediocre.
Now for your specific questions. Just a quick background on my camera experiences. In recent history: 1DsIII (sold, had it for about six months), 7D, 5DII and 1DIV (a two week Canon loan).
(1) Detail recorded and cropping depth. I think that one is pretty much a a gimme. I suspect 7D might be even better than my 1DsMkII in that regard.
(2) Low ISO noise. When I view an image on my 19" screen, and crop a bit, say 30%, I'd like to see no objectionable noise at ISO 100, 200 and 400.
High image croppability does little for me if I end up having to do NR on low ISO captures.
(3) Peripheral AF sensor sensitivity and accuracy. Is it better than 40/50D ?
(4) Servo AF. Is it more like 40/50D or closer to 1DMkII(N)...Show more →
1) Not quite as good as the 5DII, but with good glass often nearly indistinguishable.
2) Low ISO noise is very good. Nowhere near Nikon's low ISO, but unfortunately no Canon manages that today. Similar to the 1DIV - very different from the 5DII. Nominally the 5DII has less low ISO noise but if you increase the exposure with as little as 1/2 stop you often see obvious noise banding. The 7D has more noise at first but tolerates exposure incrementation much better - no or very little noise banding. NR software works far better with 7D files than with 5DII files.
3) No idea, I only notice bad peripheral point tracking on my 5DII, but the AF system of that camera is for the most part a joke so being better than it is no feat. I have not experienced any difference between the central and the peripheral points on the 7D.
4) The AF tracking is brilliant when the camera is coupled with a fast focusing lens. The 1DIV has more AF points and is slightly better but the 7D is not far behind. For BIF tracking I would say that it is superior to my old 1DsIII - despite the latter having more AF points. Birds that fly behind trees etc are no problem. Tracking sensitivity is adjustable.
I would like to stress again though that the AF of the lens is critical. For instance the 70-200/II works wonders with the 7D and AF tracking is a dream. Add a 1.4X extender and the AF becomes if not slow at least slow enough to be annoying.
5) FPS is great. It blows away anything I've tried with the exception of the 1DIV. Low light slowdowns are really in situations where your shutter speed would be way longer than 1/8 s anyway. It's odd but of no real consequence. Beyond that the camera is responsive - although not as responsive as a 1D series. The difference may be minor but noticeable. The difference in responsiveness between the 5DII and 7D (with the 7D being the superior) is much larger than the difference between the 7D and the 1DMkIV, but it is still there.
One word of caution about high FPS: You'll typically end up with a huge number of perfectly focused well exposed images and most of them very similar to each other. It takes a huge amount of time to go through them all.
Overall, if you want a modern camera for action photography you can't go wrong with a 7D. I love mine and use it to shoot anything that moves. For things that don't move or that move very very slowly I use the 5DII as I prefer the look it produces and how it fits with certain focal lengths. For birds, the 7D is really the camera.
1) You'll need fast memory cards. 133X won't cut it for 8 fps RAW shooting. I ended up buying a 64GB Sandisk Extreme Pro (600x - 90 mb/s) which at the time cost about a third of the price of the camera.
2) To get really good IQ you need top quality glass. Extenders push the resolving requirements beyond what I consider acceptable IQ. The only zoom that I've tried on the 7D that produces excellent results is the 70-200/II (without extenders). My 16-35 for instance produces great images on my 5DII but the 7D demands too much of it and even the center resolution becomes mediocre.
Now for your specific questions. Just a quick background on my camera experiences. In recent history: 1DsIII (sold, had it for about six months), 7D, 5DII and 1DIV (a two week Canon loan).
(1) Detail recorded and cropping depth. I think that one is pretty much a a gimme. I suspect 7D might be even better than my 1DsMkII in that regard.
(2) Low ISO noise. When I view an image on my 19" screen, and crop a bit, say 30%, I'd like to see no objectionable noise at ISO 100, 200 and 400.
High image croppability does little for me if I end up having to do NR on low ISO captures.
(3) Peripheral AF sensor sensitivity and accuracy. Is it better than 40/50D ?
(4) Servo AF. Is it more like 40/50D or closer to 1DMkII(N)...Show more →
1) Not quite as good as the 5DII, but with good glass often nearly indistinguishable.
2) Low ISO noise is very good. Nowhere near Nikon's low ISO, but unfortunately no Canon manages that today. Similar to the 1DIV - very different from the 5DII. Nominally the 5DII has less low ISO noise but if you increase the exposure with as little as 1/2 stop you often see obvious noise banding. The 7D has more noise at first but tolerates exposure incrementation much better - no or very little noise banding. NR software works far better with 7D files than with 5DII files.
3) No idea, I only notice bad peripheral point tracking on my 5DII, but the AF system of that camera is for the most part a joke so being better than it is no feat. I have not experienced any difference between the central and the peripheral points on the 7D.
4) The AF tracking is brilliant when the camera is coupled with a fast focusing lens. The 1DIV has more AF points and is slightly better but the 7D is not far behind. For BIF tracking I would say that it is superior to my old 1DsIII - despite the latter having more AF points. Birds that fly behind trees etc are no problem. Tracking sensitivity is adjustable.
I would like to stress again though that the AF of the lens is critical. For instance the 70-200/II works wonders with the 7D and AF tracking is a dream. Add a 1.4X extender and the AF becomes if not slow at least slow enough to be annoying.
5) FPS is great. It blows away anything I've tried with the exception of the 1DIV. Low light slowdowns are really in situations where your shutter speed would be way longer than 1/8 s anyway. It's odd but of no real consequence. Beyond that the camera is responsive - although not as responsive as a 1D series. The difference may be minor but noticeable. The difference in responsiveness between the 5DII and 7D (with the 7D being the superior) is much larger than the difference between the 7D and the 1DMkIV, but it is still there.
One word of caution about high FPS: You'll typically end up with a huge number of perfectly focused well exposed images and most of them very similar to each other. It takes a huge amount of time to go through them all.
Overall, if you want a modern camera for action photography you can't go wrong with a 7D. I love mine and use it to shoot anything that moves. For things that don't move or that move very very slowly I use the 5DII as I prefer the look it produces and how it fits with certain focal lengths. For birds, the 7D is really the camera.
Apr 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM
p.4 #57D: The bottom line
saaketham wrote:
The fact that you don't own a 7D and don't know for yourself speaks volumes about your following comments.
Well
, pardon me for not owning a 7D and daring to comment on what I have read posted by others. I was under the impression that is what reviews are for.
How about a few volumes from actual 7D owners then. Go argue with them.
ISO - the image quality up to ISO 3200 is fantastic! Look at the pictures I took during the wedding ceremonies: http://www.haringphotography.com/blog
You can't take this with a 5D because of the lack of good AF even if the 5D can handle high ISO as well.
I love this camera and for me the high ISO is great for shooting indoor sports. I can use my 70-200 2.8 for wrestling matches and crank the ISO up to 4000 easy and get great shots. I could have never done this with my 40 or 50D.
Great camera, I use it for sports..NO PROBLEMS AT...Show more →
Imagemaster wrote
I don't own a 7DWell
, pardon me for not owning a 7D and daring to comment on what I have read posted by others. I was under the impression that is what reviews are for.How about a few volumes from actual 7D owners then. Go argue with them.
ISO - the image quality up to ISO 3200 is fantastic! Look at the pictures I took during the wedding ceremonies: http://www.haringphotography.com/blog
You can't take this with a 5D because of the lack of good AF even if the 5D can handle high ISO as well.
I love this camera and for me the high ISO is great for shooting indoor sports. I can use my 70-200 2.8 for wrestling matches and crank the ISO up to 4000 easy and get great shots. I could have never done this with my 40 or 50D.
Great camera, I use it for sports..NO PROBLEMS AT...Show more →
Apr 30, 2010 at 10:26 AM
p.4 #67D: The bottom line
Ahhhh noise... it just adds some texture to an image. Nothing to worry about
Apr 30, 2010 at 10:52 AM
p.4 #77D: The bottom line
Imagemaster wrote:
Well , pardon me for not owning a 7D and daring to comment on what I have read posted by others. I was under the impression that is what reviews are for.
I don't read reviews written by people who write reviews based on other folks' reviews.
How about a few volumes from actual 7D owners then. Go argue with them
How about I don't? How about I just believe my own eyes and my own copy of the 7D?
Like I said .. this is a topic that has been beaten to death. Some folks have good copies of 7D, I suppose. Just like some L lenses are very good, but there are not-as-great samples floating around of the same lens. Nothing personal .. but just like you seem to be annoyed at anyone complaining about a fact - that some 7D bodies seem to have way too much noise in shadow areas and even bright blue/green backgrounds than others ... I am annoyed at folks who keep saying we're just hallucinating. Back in college, that might have been true .. with all the booze and everything else. But .. now? Come on!
As usual .. let me add this disclaimer - I love the 7D and don't see any alternative in the Canon lineup that comes even close to the 7D, at this price range.
Well
, pardon me for not owning a 7D and daring to comment on what I have read posted by others. I was under the impression that is what reviews are for.I don't read reviews written by people who write reviews based on other folks' reviews.
How about a few volumes from actual 7D owners then. Go argue with them
How about I don't? How about I just believe my own eyes and my own copy of the 7D?
Like I said .. this is a topic that has been beaten to death. Some folks have good copies of 7D, I suppose. Just like some L lenses are very good, but there are not-as-great samples floating around of the same lens. Nothing personal .. but just like you seem to be annoyed at anyone complaining about a fact - that some 7D bodies seem to have way too much noise in shadow areas and even bright blue/green backgrounds than others ... I am annoyed at folks who keep saying we're just hallucinating. Back in college, that might have been true .. with all the booze and everything else. But .. now? Come on!
As usual .. let me add this disclaimer - I love the 7D and don't see any alternative in the Canon lineup that comes even close to the 7D, at this price range.
Apr 30, 2010 at 11:19 AM
p.4 #87D: The bottom line
saaketham wrote:
I can post RAW samples at ISO 100 that have lots of noise.
That would be helpful, if you could please do that.
After reading all these great inputs, that is the major dilemma I am left with.
I'll show you something here.
This is kind of a routine BIF shot I get with 1DMkIIN + 400mm lens, either 100-400 or 400 f/5.6. This one is at ISO 200, crop 33%. The file is clean enough. I can even go to 50% crop, normally without a problem related to image integrity and ISO noise.
That is all good. However, there are two issues that I am hoping a camera like 7D could help with:
(1) Allow me to use lenses shorter than 400mm while cropping larger than 50%.
(2) Lets me use at least ISO 400, if not 800, without having to do NR.
1DMkIIN starts to stumble on those two requirements. 1DsMkII is better but often I can't get the required FPS/burst duration with it.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:57 AM · View previous versions
I can post RAW samples at ISO 100 that have lots of noise.
That would be helpful, if you could please do that.
After reading all these great inputs, that is the major dilemma I am left with.
I'll show you something here.
This is kind of a routine BIF shot I get with 1DMkIIN + 400mm lens, either 100-400 or 400 f/5.6. This one is at ISO 200, crop 33%. The file is clean enough. I can even go to 50% crop, normally without a problem related to image integrity and ISO noise.
That is all good. However, there are two issues that I am hoping a camera like 7D could help with:
(1) Allow me to use lenses shorter than 400mm while cropping larger than 50%.
(2) Lets me use at least ISO 400, if not 800, without having to do NR.
1DMkIIN starts to stumble on those two requirements. 1DsMkII is better but often I can't get the required FPS/burst duration with it.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:57 AM · View previous versions
Apr 30, 2010 at 11:26 AM
p.4 #97D: The bottom line
The 7D will give you want you want then, the only variable that others can't answer for you is noise. You'll have to determine that for yourself unfortunately.
Apr 30, 2010 at 11:37 AM
p.4 #107D: The bottom line
PetKal wrote:
That would be helpful, if you could please do that.
SNIP
To me this does not make a lot of sense. I can post RAW files at ISO 100 with noise and with out noise. The amount of noise in the images is a function of how well you nailed the exposure; not something inherent to the 7d. Not only can I post 7d ISO 100 RAW files with noise, I can do the same thing with 1d4 RAW files if I monkey up the exposure.
The real question is how consistent is noise in ISO 100 files from a 7d.
I have seen you post enough nice pix to say you can nail the exposure and produce clean files with a 7d consistently. My 1d2 produces more clean 100 ISO files than my 7d, and my 1d4 blows them both away. It is the nature of the beast, if you cram lots of detectors on a sensor it will have more noise than a sparse detector array.
Before I got my first DSLR (a Sigma sd10) I spent way too much time looking at pix from that body on pbase. Same thing before I got my 1d2. In both cases it soon became clear that lots of peeps were producing nice pix using those bodies. It also became clear that some peeps were producing low IQ images with the same bodies.
You have seen enough nice pix from the 7d to know what it is capable of in the right hands.
Bottom line is the 7d is a better camera for birds on a stick and the 1d2 is a better camera for BIF. My advice is to get one and start shooting. If price is an issue look for a good used copy.
saaketham wrote
I can post RAW samples at ISO 100 that have lots of noise.SNIP
To me this does not make a lot of sense. I can post RAW files at ISO 100 with noise and with out noise. The amount of noise in the images is a function of how well you nailed the exposure; not something inherent to the 7d. Not only can I post 7d ISO 100 RAW files with noise, I can do the same thing with 1d4 RAW files if I monkey up the exposure.
The real question is how consistent is noise in ISO 100 files from a 7d.
I have seen you post enough nice pix to say you can nail the exposure and produce clean files with a 7d consistently. My 1d2 produces more clean 100 ISO files than my 7d, and my 1d4 blows them both away. It is the nature of the beast, if you cram lots of detectors on a sensor it will have more noise than a sparse detector array.
Before I got my first DSLR (a Sigma sd10) I spent way too much time looking at pix from that body on pbase. Same thing before I got my 1d2. In both cases it soon became clear that lots of peeps were producing nice pix using those bodies. It also became clear that some peeps were producing low IQ images with the same bodies.
You have seen enough nice pix from the 7d to know what it is capable of in the right hands.
Bottom line is the 7d is a better camera for birds on a stick and the 1d2 is a better camera for BIF. My advice is to get one and start shooting. If price is an issue look for a good used copy.
Apr 30, 2010 at 12:05 PM
p.4 #117D: The bottom line
PetKal wrote:
That would be helpful, if you could please do that.
After reading all these great inputs, that is the major dilemma I am left with.
This is a routine 7D shot that I picked more or less at random (with the criteria in lightroom of not being rated high). I have not bothered with it at all as I had better shots, but it's probably a good candidate for cropping and it's a nice demonstration of the servo AF.
The lens used was the 70-200/II, 200mm, f/4 and 1/1000s. ISO 100
RAW File
I'll throw in a higher ISO (ISO 800) image as well. Again a picture chosen for its mediocre rating:
RAW File
saaketham wrote
I can post RAW samples at ISO 100 that have lots of noise.After reading all these great inputs, that is the major dilemma I am left with.
This is a routine 7D shot that I picked more or less at random (with the criteria in lightroom of not being rated high). I have not bothered with it at all as I had better shots, but it's probably a good candidate for cropping and it's a nice demonstration of the servo AF.
The lens used was the 70-200/II, 200mm, f/4 and 1/1000s. ISO 100
RAW File
I'll throw in a higher ISO (ISO 800) image as well. Again a picture chosen for its mediocre rating:
RAW File
Apr 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM
p.4 #127D: The bottom line
I don't know anything about 7D but this might be useful: http://www.flickriver.com/search/eos+7d/
Apr 30, 2010 at 01:00 PM
p.4 #147D: The bottom line
I struggled with the 7D until I discovered LR3b2.
With LR3b2's luminance NR this camera is just fantastic, holds sharp details, silky smooth tones, even to ISO 3200...
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/892416/0
With LR3b2's luminance NR this camera is just fantastic, holds sharp details, silky smooth tones, even to ISO 3200...
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/892416/0
Apr 30, 2010 at 01:10 PM
p.4 #157D: The bottom line
300L F4 IS. F5, ISO 200, shutter 1/400
Here is another on the same day with that lens but ISO 400 is the only change. It was cropped as well but not 100%
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d74/Zenon1/3.jpg
Here is another on the same day with that lens but ISO 400 is the only change. It was cropped as well but not 100%
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d74/Zenon1/3.jpg
Apr 30, 2010 at 01:30 PM
p.4 #167D: The bottom line
Daan B wrote:
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d74/Zenon1/DPP.jpgNow THIS is sharp
What lens/aperture was used?
Sorry the reply to your question is further down this thread.
Zenon Char wrote
100% crophttp://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d74/Zenon1/DPP.jpg
What lens/aperture was used?
Sorry the reply to your question is further down this thread.
Apr 30, 2010 at 01:32 PM
p.4 #177D: The bottom line
Let me also show you where 1DMkIIN ISO performance falls off the cliff for me:
Two very similar and recent shots, same camera/lens/aperture, shot as JPG and no pp to speak of, no NR.
They are both close to 50% crops.
However, No#1 is ISO 400, No.#2 is ISO 800.
To my eyes, the image No.1 doesn't show any noise at 50% enlargement. However, the image No.#2 would have to be NRd if I wanted to keep it as about 50% enlargement crop.
Mind you, a NR step in pp is not the end of the world, but everything is better without it, if it can be avoided.
Again, if I can not get a better combined (enlargement crop-ISO) performance from 7D, then its usefulness to me is severely curtailed.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:59 AM · View previous versions
Two very similar and recent shots, same camera/lens/aperture, shot as JPG and no pp to speak of, no NR.
They are both close to 50% crops.
However, No#1 is ISO 400, No.#2 is ISO 800.
To my eyes, the image No.1 doesn't show any noise at 50% enlargement. However, the image No.#2 would have to be NRd if I wanted to keep it as about 50% enlargement crop.
Mind you, a NR step in pp is not the end of the world, but everything is better without it, if it can be avoided.
Again, if I can not get a better combined (enlargement crop-ISO) performance from 7D, then its usefulness to me is severely curtailed.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:59 AM · View previous versions
Apr 30, 2010 at 02:02 PM
p.4 #187D: The bottom line
Peter - why don't you take a trip down to Chicago for a couple of days? I'll let you shoot the pigeons of the Windy City with my 7D and you can decide for yourself!
Honestly, I think you'd be very happy with the performance of the 7D. The two main cameras I've shot with are the 7D and the Mark II N, and I vastly prefer the files and the handling of the 7D. Low ISO noise isn't an issue in my book unless you really push your files. The LR3 beta makes things even better.
Justin
Honestly, I think you'd be very happy with the performance of the 7D. The two main cameras I've shot with are the 7D and the Mark II N, and I vastly prefer the files and the handling of the 7D. Low ISO noise isn't an issue in my book unless you really push your files. The LR3 beta makes things even better.
Justin
Apr 30, 2010 at 02:12 PM
p.4 #197D: The bottom line
jkhalifa wrote:
Peter - why don't you take a trip down to Chicago for a couple of days? I'll let you shoot the pigeons of the Windy City with my 7D and you can decide for yourself!
Justin
Thanx for the offer, Justin.
Tonite I'll be hopefully shooting some brick walls with a demo 7D and will let you know what I think of it.
Peter - why don't you take a trip down to Chicago for a couple of days? I'll let you shoot the pigeons of the Windy City with my 7D and you can decide for yourself!
Justin
Thanx for the offer, Justin.
Tonite I'll be hopefully shooting some brick walls with a demo 7D and will let you know what I think of it.
Apr 30, 2010 at 02:22 PM
p.4 #207D: The bottom line
Peter, for grins you may want to view this old thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/821682/
This was posted tongue-in-cheek at a time when several other active threads (from Photogdave and others) were claiming that the camera could not focus. These are just snapshots but it shows that a good copy of the 7D paired with good lenses can render nicely focused images at 100% (within the limits of handheld shots wide open).
WRT to sharpness all the comments about good glass apply. Also, the diffaction-limited aperture of this sensor is roughly f6.3 or so... (it's equivalent to about 45Mp on full frame). In practice that means that if you stop down past f/8 you will definitely see softening.
Re. noise: there is some low ISO noise. If you use the in-camera NR (or DPP) it is mostly dealt with, but you lose sharpness. For the sharpest results at ISO 100, I disable Canon NR and use Neat Image.
I've also found that enabling Canon's "color blur" filter can produce sharper per-pixel results with certain lenses, including the 17-55. See this thread for an example:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/880768/
Edited on Apr 30, 2010 at 02:27 PM · View previous versions
This was posted tongue-in-cheek at a time when several other active threads (from Photogdave and others) were claiming that the camera could not focus. These are just snapshots but it shows that a good copy of the 7D paired with good lenses can render nicely focused images at 100% (within the limits of handheld shots wide open).
WRT to sharpness all the comments about good glass apply. Also, the diffaction-limited aperture of this sensor is roughly f6.3 or so... (it's equivalent to about 45Mp on full frame). In practice that means that if you stop down past f/8 you will definitely see softening.
Re. noise: there is some low ISO noise. If you use the in-camera NR (or DPP) it is mostly dealt with, but you lose sharpness. For the sharpest results at ISO 100, I disable Canon NR and use Neat Image.
I've also found that enabling Canon's "color blur" filter can produce sharper per-pixel results with certain lenses, including the 17-55. See this thread for an example:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/880768/
Edited on Apr 30, 2010 at 02:27 PM · View previous versions
Apr 30, 2010 at 02:25 PM