mfurman wrote:
I actually think that the viewfinder of 7D is at least as good as the one of 5D mkII, if not better...
Yeah, I was actually going to say that, but then thought nobody would believe me.
Okay, a few more observations, and a picture.
5) The shutter/mirror noise is *very* quiet and smooth sounding, not \"clackety\" or \"thunky\" as in some other Canon models... nice. The feel is also very responsive.
6) AF is miscalibrated on my sample--it needs a +7 MA global correction to focus with the lenses I\'ve tried so far. I have not yet decided whether to return the camera or send it to CPS.
7) Image color and tone seems really lovely, closer to (if not a match for) the 5D Mark II, and--in less than ideal lighting at least--much better than the 50D which struggles with color and hue accuracy under very warm tungsten light. I definitely need to see more images, but I am thinking this camera may bridge at least part of the IQ gap between Canon\'s APS-C and full frame sensors.
8) Noise is definitely lower than the 50D, but in looking closely at the pixels, they seem to be a bit softened, as if Canon is cooking the bits a little, perhaps like Nikon does. However, it is nowhere near the destructive processing seen in the D5000.
9) At 100% RAW images look a bit overprocessed in DPP with High ISO Noise Reduction set to \'Standard\'. However, \'Low\' looks pretty good: the noise, particularly chroma noise, is visibly reduced yet the image still retains some structure. At 100% you can see some very modest processing artifacts at the default sharpening settings, but none that would be visible in a print, at least up to ISO 1600. Running it through Neat Image (using conservative settings) seems to gain very little.
For your perusal, here\'s a quick \"real world\" shot in very warm household incandescent lighting, handleld wide open with the EF 35mm f/2.0, ISO 1600, auto white balance, default sharpening (3):
Here is the shot at 100%. Top: DPP NR at \'Low\'; Bottom: No NR:
mfurman wrote:
I actually think that the viewfinder of 7D is at least as good as the one of 5D mkII, if not better...
Yeah, I was actually going to say that, but then thought nobody would believe me.
Okay, a few more observations, and a picture.
5) The shutter/mirror noise is *very* quiet and smooth sounding, not \"clackety\" or \"thunky\" as in some other Canon models... nice. The feel is also very responsive.
6) AF is miscalibrated on my sample--it needs a +7 MA global correction to focus with the lenses I\'ve tried so far. I have not yet decided whether to return the camera or send it to CPS.
7) Image color and tone seems really lovely, closer to (if not a match for) the 5D Mark II, and--in less than ideal lighting at least--much better than the 50D which struggles with color and hue accuracy under very warm tungsten light. I definitely need to see more images, but I am thinking this camera may bridge at least part of the IQ gap between Canon\'s APS-C and full frame sensors.
8) Noise is definitely lower than the 50D, but in looking closely at the pixels, they seem to be a bit softened, as if Canon is cooking the bits a little, perhaps like Nikon does. However, it is nowhere near the destructive processing seen in the D5000.
9) RAW images look a bit overprocessed in DPP with High ISO Noise Reduction set to \'Standard\'. However, \'Low\' looks pretty good: the noise, particularly chroma noise, is visibly reduced yet the image still retains some structure. At 100% you can see some very modest processing artifacts at the default sharpening settings, but none that would be visible in a print, at least up to ISO 1600. Running it through Neat Image (using conservative settings) seems to gain very little.
For your perusal, here\'s a quick \"real world\" shot in very warm household incandescent lighting, handleld wide open with the EF 35mm f/2.0, ISO 1600, auto white balance, default sharpening (3):
Here is the shot at 100%. Top: DPP NR at \'Low\'; Bottom: No NR:
mfurman wrote:
I actually think that the viewfinder of 7D is at least as good as the one of 5D mkII, if not better...
Yeah, I was actually going to say that, but then thought nobody would believe me.
Okay, a few more observations, and a picture.
5) The shutter/mirror noise is *very* quiet and smooth sounding, not \"clackety\" or \"thunky\" as in some other Canon models... nice. The feel is also very responsive.
6) AF is miscalibrated on my sample--it needs a +7 MA global correction to focus with the lenses I\'ve tried so far. I have not yet decided whether to return the camera or send it to CPS.
7) Image color and tone seems really lovely, closer to (if not a match for) the 5D Mark II, and--in less than ideal lighting at least--much better than the 50D which struggles with color and hue accuracy under very warm tungsten light. I definitely need to see more images, but I am thinking this camera may bridge at least part of the IQ gap between Canon\'s APS-C and full frame sensors.
8) Noise is definitely lower than the 50D, but in looking closely at the pixels, they seem to be a bit softened, as if Canon is cooking the bits a little, perhaps like Nikon does. However, it is nowhere near the destructive processing seen in the D5000.
9) RAW images look a bit overprocessed in DPP with High ISO Noise Reduction set to \'Standard\'. However, \'Low\' looks pretty good: the noise, particularly chroma noise, is visibly reduced yet the image still retains some structure. At 100% you can see some very modest processing artifacts at the default sharpening settings, but none that would be visible in a print, at least up to ISO 1600. Running it through Neat Image (using conservative settings) seems to gain very little.
For your perusal, here\'s a quick \"real world\" shot in very warm household incandescent lighting, handleld wide open with the EF 35mm f/2.0, ISO 1600, auto white balance, default sharpening (3):
Sep 29, 2009 at 09:28 PM
Previous versions of garyvot's message #7585004 « Canon EOS 7D Master thread »
