Thats just it. You dont equalize the image. The 7D makes an 18mp image...NOT a 10MP image. And at that size, it doesnt even come close to the 1D3. Still waiting on some examples.
If you were to make an 8x10 from both cameras, you wouldnt downzide the 7D for the 8x10 in total pixels, you just chop off a small portion of the image....leaving still roughly 15mp\'s. No one completely downsizes images for print...at least they shouldnt. Just clip the ends that need to go for the particular aspect ratio you are using.
To evaluate in print, it would be easier to just use the whole file. Use a print that doesnt need cropping like 8x12 or 12x18. Then use what each file produces, not downsampled images.
and yeah view both prints from the same distance and the noise WON\'T compared as it would at 100% view
come on, how the hell is it fair to compare noise at 100% view? Sure the 7D is not an 18MP camera, it has the advantage that given enough lighting it can pull in more detail or deliver more reach. A 10MP can never act like an 18MP camera. If you care about noise you can apply more NR or downsize or print both as is at the same size, that is the fair and reasonable way to compare for noise! It\'s like saying that some car that can get 2mpg at 180mph and 40mpg at 65mph and under burns more fuel than a car that gets 20mpg at 65mph and under and can\'t go over 80mph just because the fast car only gets 2mpg at 180mph! (and yes I know those #\'s are not likely for cars)
that said I do agree with you in that i seriously doubt the 7D can match the 1D3 for SNR even at the image level. From tentative measurements it seems to have less DR than the 1D3 at lower ISO (especially at ISO100 where the 1D3 has perhaps the most of any canon release) and similar at highest ISOs (but quite a lot less than the 5D2 which seems to have the greatest high ISO DR of any canon release). It also appears to collect light a bit better per surface area than the 1D3 but not enough to make up for the much larger APS-H sensor size. DOn\'t forget how much more light the 1D3 can collect at the image level.
Of course if you are doing reach limited stuff, the 7D provides equal to much greater detail with less noise at all ISO than the 1D3.
more worrisome is that it appears, at the least, quite a few early copies have horribly out of whack calibration of the sensor channel gains which contributes extra noise (even in the upper mid-tones as much as the entire shot noise component) and produces artifacts which can also cut a little into detail too, at least when processed with any third party converters. Hopefully most copies won\'t have this in the end or a fix arrives. SOme copies, at the very least and I get the feeling it may even be many copies, have some ugly business going on with the read electronic calibration.
Thats just it. You dont equalize the image. The 7D makes an 18mp image...NOT a 10MP image. And at that size, it doesnt even come close to the 1D3. Still waiting on some examples.
If you were to make an 8x10 from both cameras, you wouldnt downzide the 7D for the 8x10 in total pixels, you just chop off a small portion of the image....leaving still roughly 15mp\'s. No one completely downsizes images for print...at least they shouldnt. Just clip the ends that need to go for the particular aspect ratio you are using.
To evaluate in print, it would be easier to just use the whole file. Use a print that doesnt need cropping like 8x12 or 12x18. Then use what each file produces, not downsampled images.
and yeah view both prints from the same distance and the noise WON\'T compared as it would at 100% view
come on, how the hell is it fair to compare noise at 100% view? Sure the 7D is not an 18MP camera, it has the advantage that given enough lighting it can pull in more detail or deliver more reach. A 10MP can never act like an 18MP camera. If you care about noise you can apply more NR or downsize or print both as is at the same size, that is the fair and reasonable way to compare for noise! It\'s like saying that some car that can get 2mpg at 180mph and 40mpg at 65mph and under burns more fuel than a car that gets 20mpg at 65mph and under and can\'t go over 80mph just because the fast car only gets 2mpg at 180mph! (and yes I know those #\'s are not likely for cars)
that said I do agree with you in that i seriously doubt the 7D can match the 1D3 for SNR even at the image level. From tentative measurements it seems to have less DR than the 1D3 at lower ISO (especially at ISO100 where the 1D3 has perhaps the most of any canon release) and similar at highest ISOs (but quite a lot less than the 5D2 which seems to have the greatest high ISO DR of any canon release). It also appears to collect light a bit better per surface area than the 1D3 but not enough to make up for the much larger APS-H sensor size. DOn\'t forget how much more light the 1D3 can collect at the image level.
Of course if you are doing reach limited stuff, the 7D provides equal to much greater detail with less noise at all ISO than the 1D3.
more worrisome is that it appears, at the least, quite a few early copies have horribly out of whack calibration of the sensor channel gains which contributes extra noise (even in the upper mid-tones as much as the entire shot noise component) and produces artifacts, at least when processed with any third party converters. Hopefully most copies won\'t have this in the end or a fix arrives.
Oct 16, 2009 at 01:46 AM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #7647355 « Image Quality: 7D vs 1D Mark III? »
