Yeah, the artifacting looks harsh at first glance on a computer monitor at extreme magnification.
Okay, so the 7D is supposed to be the D300s killer.
Is it? Does it (the 7D)resolve more detail than the Nikon and does it produce produce a better print?
I have no bias here. Like I said, I own both Canon and Nikon cameras. I\'m not trying to justify one camera over the other. I\'m simply trying to ascertain the print quality between the two cameras based on what I normally do to prepare one of my images for print using techniques I\'ve perfected over 30 years.
What I did here was to take the test shots from Image Resource and import them in to photoshop and did what I normally do to enhance a photo for a large format print. This involves running noise ninja on both files, individually adjusted to achieve what I consider to be a minimum of noise (luminance and chroma), relative to each image. Not the same formula for either image. I then went back and adjusted brightness and contrast and final sharpening for as close a comparison between the two. The noise characteristics are different between the two cameras. The 7D seems to have a slight cross-hatch artifacting pattern, mostly in the luminance channel. The chroma noise is easily removed with no loss of detail. The D300s seems to be a little more blotchy in both luminance and chroma noise. Again, the D300s noise can be reduced with no loss of detail.
I Converted the images to PSD format, Adobe RGB, 16 bit.
Loaded both images side-by-side into lightroom, configured the Z3100 to print both images side by side on a sheet of 36\" Epson Premium Lustre paper at highest possible quality setting for the printer.
Print resolution was set for 300 dpi, this results in a small amount of down-sampling for the 7D and a small amount of up-sampling for the D300s. Final print size is roughly 11.5 x 17.5 inches for both prints.
Side by side, to the naked eye, both prints look virtually identical. There is no hint of noise in either print. Na-daa.
When I look at both prints with a loupe, I can see that the Nikon is smearing details and losing resolution in the Proportional Scale guage in the right side of the frame, and losing a little bit of detail in the fine threads of the yarn hanging from the board. Also, the fine type on the bottles is not quite as well resolved on the D300s. It\'s obvious the 7D under mild magnification on a print is doing a better job holding fine details.
What is also obvious is that any perceived noise and/or artifacting from either camera when viewed on the monitor at high magnification is not reproducing in the prints. I\'d be happy with either print if I had to sell this quality.
My conclusion is that based on this test, the 7D is producing prints that exceed the capability of the D300s. There\'s nothing wrong with the 7D files, they simply look different and in fact the larger print you make the more obvious the benefit of using the 7D over the D300s will become evident.
The real question I\'m asking myself though is how good is it compared to the 50D? Did the same thing with the 50D and yep, just as I suspected. The 50D is also producing a better print than the D300s. The difference in detail between the 7D and 50D is less than the difference in detail between the 50D and the D300s. Truth be told, both Canon bodies are out-resolving the D300s and producing equal results in every other regard on large prints.
Resolution trumps noise, and analyzing noise at the monitor is inconclusive at best or even incomplete at worst...but I\'ve known this all along. If you don\'t believe me, try doing the same test yourself.
So, I\'ve decided based on my observations, I wouldn\'t see a need to upgrade to a 7D from the 50D is doing darn near as good a job holding resolution as the 7D. It\'s really a question of features, not a question of the difference between 12 or 15 or 18 megapixals. More megapixels mean more resolution and better control over the noise in post processing. The difference in other qualities of the image from camera to camera are not discernible in print.
skibum5 wrote: Gary Gray wrote:
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.
on the copies i\'ve tried it artifacts to the point it can give you double the noise of a 50D at low ISO and even replace fine detail with fake fine artifacts; as of now ACR and DPP produce the harshest files of any canon body i have ever tried
hopefully acr 5.6 will work some magic and fix this though
Nov 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Previous versions of Gary Gray's message #7774767 « 7D not good for landscape? »
