I have to totally agree with previous posts on the issue of post processing. Don\'t have a 7D, but I do have a 50D and a D300 (amongst others). A common theme I\'m hearing so far is the 7D is producing raw files similar to the 50D, with perhaps a tad more resolution. I downloaded the ISO 400 raw files from Imaging Resource web site for the 7D and D300s, put them through their paces in photoshop and lightroom.
As I already knew from my experience with the 50D, it is all a matter of post processing technique. Make your best effort post processing pass at either camera and you\'ll find that the same techniques do not apply to either camera, but the end result is that the 7D will post process with a better result. Better meaning equal or better noise, equal or better color rendition, equal or better sharpness and MORE resolution.
With all due respect to Mr. Darwin Wiggett\'s testing, he missed the boat completely with his analysis. The D300s is NOT resolving more detail, nor will any of the other lower resolution bodies he compared to the 7D. What he appears to be doing is comparing identical bad post processing techniques, neither of which appear to be optimized for the cameras he\'s comparing. His test is nothing more than proof of a failed knowledge of how to do a proper RAW file post process on different camera models.
A simple method of local contrast enhancement bring out any perceived difference in lack of contrast in the higher resolution files. The same amount of local contrast enhancement applied to any two different cameras will give two different results.
The only issue I see in the 7D files at extreme magnification is a tendency to artifact slightly, which also appears in the 50D, but which also will never be evident in anything other than a 500% zoom on a computer monitor. The resulting image from the 7D will make a better print than any crop sensor body out there, including the D300s.
Nov 13, 2009 at 08:33 PM
Previous versions of Gary Gray's message #7773040 « 7D not good for landscape? »
