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
p.6 #17D: The bottom line
LR3 has new algorithm for RAW conversion plus some other nice new features.
Apr 30, 2010 at 07:07 PM
p.6 #27D: The bottom line
Both.
corndog wrote:
If you don't mind me asking a silly question, how is it you use LR3 to get the most out of the 7D files? Do the files just look better when converting from RAW, or are you using a noise removal feature within Lightroom?
corndog wrote:
If you don't mind me asking a silly question, how is it you use LR3 to get the most out of the 7D files? Do the files just look better when converting from RAW, or are you using a noise removal feature within Lightroom?
Apr 30, 2010 at 07:08 PM
p.6 #37D: The bottom line
Did a few test shots with a camera store's demo 7D, and while I could observe no major flaws with the camera, I must say the whole package has not turned me on, not to the tune of $1,700.
The store staff got a kick outta watching me photograph my standard test target "Gecko" which I brought along for the occasion.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:56 AM · View previous versions
The store staff got a kick outta watching me photograph my standard test target "Gecko" which I brought along for the occasion.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:56 AM · View previous versions
Apr 30, 2010 at 07:34 PM
p.6 #47D: The bottom line
5 pages on a "should I buy a 7D?" thread. A testament to your popularity Peter...But it looks like you have answered your own question. Stick with the N. I have no complaints.
But if you must have one I am sure Mike (Tanglefoot) can accommodate your every desire He has had his about a week now so its time to sell.......
But if you must have one I am sure Mike (Tanglefoot) can accommodate your every desire
He has had his about a week now so its time to sell.......Apr 30, 2010 at 09:26 PM
p.6 #57D: The bottom line
Lightroom 3 beta 2 has made me change my mind about the 7D......I'm not getting rid of the MK3 but I use the 7D more than ever now...
http://www.pbase.com/image/123225771/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123080929/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123743066/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123743067/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123225771/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123080929/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123743066/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/123743067/original.jpg
Apr 30, 2010 at 09:55 PM
p.6 #67D: The bottom line
Peter, try and find one that's a deal. I paid like 1900 or 1800 for mine after tax, but that was last year. I seen used if you try REALLLLY hard you can get them for 1300-1350.
This camera is the cat's pyjamas (whatever the frick that means)
This camera is the cat's pyjamas (whatever the frick that means)
Apr 30, 2010 at 10:04 PM
p.6 #77D: The bottom line
John Power wrote:
5 pages on a "should I buy a 7D?" thread. A testament to your popularity Peter...But it looks like you have answered your own question. Stick with the N. I have no complaints.
But if you must have one I am sure Mike (Tanglefoot) can accommodate your every desire He has had his about a week now so its time to sell.......
John, 7D looks to be a great enlargement crop machine, and I don't think low ISO noise should get in the way. Even when shot with default settings of "standard picture style", JPGs seem to be plenty sharp straight out of camera. (See a 100 % crop below).
Probably in a year's time 7D will replace my 40D as a vade mecum small format dSLR.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:56 AM · View previous versions
5 pages on a "should I buy a 7D?" thread. A testament to your popularity Peter...But it looks like you have answered your own question. Stick with the N. I have no complaints.
But if you must have one I am sure Mike (Tanglefoot) can accommodate your every desire
He has had his about a week now so its time to sell.......John, 7D looks to be a great enlargement crop machine, and I don't think low ISO noise should get in the way. Even when shot with default settings of "standard picture style", JPGs seem to be plenty sharp straight out of camera. (See a 100 % crop below).
Probably in a year's time 7D will replace my 40D as a vade mecum small format dSLR.
Edited on May 03, 2010 at 09:56 AM · View previous versions
Apr 30, 2010 at 10:14 PM
p.6 #97D: The bottom line
Cats wear pajamas and bees have knees?
erosebud wrote:
The cat's pajamas means the bee's knees.
erosebud wrote:
The cat's pajamas means the bee's knees.
May 01, 2010 at 02:06 PM
p.6 #117D: The bottom line
reggie747 wrote:
Yeah and dogs have bollocks too !!
Never understood this one 'til an English co-worker explained it to me... instantly became obvious before he had finished explaining..
Yeah and dogs have bollocks too !!
Never understood this one 'til an English co-worker explained it to me... instantly became obvious before he had finished explaining..
May 02, 2010 at 12:07 AM
p.6 #127D: The bottom line
Not to hijack this thread, but would anyone be willing to post some samples from the different raw conversion programs vs. Adobe light room 3 beta. I would love to see how much of a difference it actually makes in noise management.
May 02, 2010 at 05:22 PM
p.6 #137D: The bottom line
scott f wrote:
Ok, first image is via CS5 raw converter, the second is from Aperture, the third is Capture one ....assuming of course that I do this right, either way the file name should do it.
Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.
Weird! Looks like Aperture has the best noise, but capture one the best color. So no light room 3 beta huh?
Thanks so much for this comparison!
Also is the 1dmkIII only marginally better or dramatically better in terms of noise? I am talking about if all fields are equal (like if the 18mp is reduced to a similar sized 12mp mkIII file so there is a fair comparison).
The reason I ask is because I live in a temperate location with a lot of gloom and doom and having excellent ISO performance is important as well as the best AI Servo. This is of course to a point, if selling my 7d and spending another $400 on a 1dmkIII only gets me a little better ISO and AI Servo Performance then it might not be worth it and Ill stick with the 7d.
Ok, first image is via CS5 raw converter, the second is from Aperture, the third is Capture one ....assuming of course that I do this right, either way the file name should do it.
Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.
Weird! Looks like Aperture has the best noise, but capture one the best color. So no light room 3 beta huh?
Thanks so much for this comparison!
Also is the 1dmkIII only marginally better or dramatically better in terms of noise? I am talking about if all fields are equal (like if the 18mp is reduced to a similar sized 12mp mkIII file so there is a fair comparison).
The reason I ask is because I live in a temperate location with a lot of gloom and doom and having excellent ISO performance is important as well as the best AI Servo. This is of course to a point, if selling my 7d and spending another $400 on a 1dmkIII only gets me a little better ISO and AI Servo Performance then it might not be worth it and Ill stick with the 7d.
May 02, 2010 at 06:27 PM
p.6 #147D: The bottom line
PetKal wrote:
I must say the whole package has not turned me on, not to the tune of $1,700.
Is that because only ducks and pigeons turn you on?
I must say the whole package has not turned me on, not to the tune of $1,700.
Is that because only ducks and pigeons turn you on?
May 02, 2010 at 06:30 PM
p.6 #157D: The bottom line
chupacabra31 wrote:
Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.Weird! Looks like Aperture has the best noise, but capture one the best color. So no light room 3 beta huh?
Thanks so much for this comparison!
Or it could just mean that Aperture applies the strongest NR at default setting and as for the Colour, while the C1 does display the most pleasing colour, you have to ask scott which one is the most accurate.
scott f wrote
Ok, first image is via CS5 raw converter, the second is from Aperture, the third is Capture one ....assuming of course that I do this right, either way the file name should do it.Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.
Thanks so much for this comparison!
Or it could just mean that Aperture applies the strongest NR at default setting and as for the Colour, while the C1 does display the most pleasing colour, you have to ask scott which one is the most accurate.
May 02, 2010 at 07:02 PM
p.6 #167D: The bottom line
n0b0 wrote:
Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.Weird! Looks like Aperture has the best noise, but capture one the best color. So no light room 3 beta huh?
Thanks so much for this comparison!Or it could just mean that Aperture applies the strongest NR at default setting and as for the Colour, while the C1 does display the most pleasing colour, you have to ask scott which one is the most accurate.
True, I did not think about that. So Scott...Which is the most accurate color?
chupacabra31 wrote
scott f wrote
Ok, first image is via CS5 raw converter, the second is from Aperture, the third is Capture one ....assuming of course that I do this right, either way the file name should do it.Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.
Thanks so much for this comparison!
True, I did not think about that. So Scott...Which is the most accurate color?
May 02, 2010 at 07:07 PM
p.6 #177D: The bottom line
One little trap in all this is that these are all at default settings which ignores personal preferences such as saturation and sharpness, and I never just convert at the default. Soooo, I'm not sure basing a decision on default settings alone is wise or representative, but it does provide a reproducible baseline. Each of these converters are biased in their own way, Aperture tends to provide a relatively neutral file in terms of sharpness and colour, whereas Capture one is quite aggressive with sharpness at a default level(you can see some artifacts in my post).
Comparing cameras of differing resolutions is risky if you don't equalize the images carefully as a stop of noise advantage can be erased pretty quickly by higher resolution cameras.
Comparing cameras of differing resolutions is risky if you don't equalize the images carefully as a stop of noise advantage can be erased pretty quickly by higher resolution cameras.
May 02, 2010 at 07:10 PM
p.6 #187D: The bottom line
chupacabra31 wrote:
Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.Weird! Looks like Aperture has the best noise, but capture one the best color. So no light room 3 beta huh?
Thanks so much for this comparison!Or it could just mean that Aperture applies the strongest NR at default setting and as for the Colour, while the C1 does display the most pleasing colour, you have to ask scott which one is the most accurate.True, I did not think about that. So Scott...Which is the most accurate color?
Don't forget in ACR you choose a profile for the conversion such as Adobe standard, or Camera neutral etc. C1 has a generic profile for each camera. For LR I use the profile that looks best. I usually try all of them to see what they do. You used to be able to buy third party profiles such as Magne Nilsen's for C1 and I had a 1D II profile. Not sure if he makes them still. He did have profiles for several Canon cameras.
CS5 uses ACR 6 and I thought this has the LR3 engine, but could be wrong.
n0b0 wrote
chupacabra31 wrote
scott f wrote
Ok, first image is via CS5 raw converter, the second is from Aperture, the third is Capture one ....assuming of course that I do this right, either way the file name should do it.Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.
Thanks so much for this comparison!
Don't forget in ACR you choose a profile for the conversion such as Adobe standard, or Camera neutral etc. C1 has a generic profile for each camera. For LR I use the profile that looks best. I usually try all of them to see what they do. You used to be able to buy third party profiles such as Magne Nilsen's for C1 and I had a 1D II profile. Not sure if he makes them still. He did have profiles for several Canon cameras.
CS5 uses ACR 6 and I thought this has the LR3 engine, but could be wrong.
May 02, 2010 at 07:14 PM
p.6 #197D: The bottom line
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.Weird! Looks like Aperture has the best noise, but capture one the best color. So no light room 3 beta huh?
Thanks so much for this comparison!Or it could just mean that Aperture applies the strongest NR at default setting and as for the Colour, while the C1 does display the most pleasing colour, you have to ask scott which one is the most accurate.True, I did not think about that. So Scott...Which is the most accurate color?Don't forget in ACR you choose a profile for the conversion such as Adobe standard, or Camera neutral etc. C1 has a generic profile for each camera. For LR I use the profile that looks best. I usually try all of them to see what they do. You used to be able to buy third party profiles such as Magne Nilsen's for C1 and I had a 1D II profile. Not sure if he makes them still. He did have profiles for several Canon cameras.
CS5 uses ACR 6 and I thought this has the LR3 engine, but could be...Show more →
Thanks pixel will look at this!
chupacabra31 wrote
n0b0 wrote
chupacabra31 wrote
scott f wrote
Ok, first image is via CS5 raw converter, the second is from Aperture, the third is Capture one ....assuming of course that I do this right, either way the file name should do it.Do realize that these are 100% 200x200 pixel crops from DEFAULT settings so YMMV. The files were opened in each program at their default settings, then the 200x200 pixel 100% rez crops were copied and pasted to a new file, hence the lack of exif. I left everything at default settings. The default colour differences are interesting.
Thanks so much for this comparison!
CS5 uses ACR 6 and I thought this has the LR3 engine, but could be...Show more →
Thanks pixel will look at this!
May 02, 2010 at 07:26 PM
p.6 #207D: The bottom line
True, I did not think about that. So Scott...Which is the most accurate color?
The original is shot in the final minutes prior to sunset so the original is very yellow, C1 pumps it up a bit much for my tastes at default settings. The adjusted image of course can be very very different depending on settings that are chosen so in the end it's just personal preferences in this case.
May 03, 2010 at 05:51 AM