Had a look at the 7D RAW files from Imaging Resource. I downloaded only the NR OFF files. iso 400 is not as good as my 5D, iso 800 and 1600 look remarkably similar though which is a shock (in a good way!). iso 3200 is as bad as my 5D which is again incredible for a crop camera with that pixel density. Detail is good, I haven\'t compared to the 5D mkII files but they look like they have a lighter AA filter, less digital look. I can\'t tell anything about DR from ACR 5.5 which only has the 7D as beta, I remember how awful the 5D files looked from the beta version of ACR which supported it at the time. I have no doubt that they will also get a better handle on the noise once it\'s properly supported in ACR, there seems to be inconsistency, I think iso 400 should be better than that given how good the next two iso\'s are and I hereby blame ACR totally .
The tonality and probably DR are always going to be better with the bigger pixels but the idea that a crop camera with so many megapixels can come head to head for noise with the benchmark 5D is truly astounding. That and a body worthy to be enough but all for the most demanding user makes this quite a camera (on paper, few have ever held one, hope it\'s less cheap feeling than the mkII).
If only it was FF....
Oh and to head off Braniac at the pass - I don\'t buy cameras to downrez the files and have to apply noise reduction. The above is my personal opinion based on looking at files the way that they are relevant to me.
Sep 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Previous versions of Beni's message #7536101 « Canon EOS 7D Master thread »
.