skibum5
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Canon EOS 7D Master thread | |
paulfeng wrote:
Ok, so it\'s possible that in my self-induced sleep deprived state, I am making a silly mistake, but I don\'t believe this is the case. Each OOF color checker CR2 file was opened in DPP, and I just cranked the contrast and sharpness up to the max. Here are some results:
First received 7D body (need to click on links for png images)
(link to flickr page, per flickr rules)
Second received 7D body
(link to flickr page)
(Yes, these are viewed at 200% to make seeing the effect easier. It certainly is visible at 100% on the screen as well.)
(As noted above, I realized after taking the shot w/the second body that it had the 1.0.9 firmware, while the first body was running 1.1.0 firmware. So I did redo the second body shot w/1.1.0 firmware, but the results were essentially the same as seen here.)
wow, that is interesting, both of my copies are worse than your first copy and your second copy actually looks like it is usable and that is the interesting thing there is a huge difference (at least in post demosaic output) from my first copy to your second copy, so large that one begins to doubt it really was entirely a design decision....
hmmm maybe it is down to QC then? at least in large part?
but wow this would be an unprecedented level of poor QC from Canon.
after all the other release disasters (1d3 af) it seems shocking they would get so sloppy so hmmm.....
there seem to be so few copies that manage to come in under the threshold where it starts wreaking too much havoc
so how many copies do I need to go through to get one like your second copy??
if everyone demands a good copy how many copies does canon need to chuck in the garbage?
EDIT: let me check it with ACR 5.5, maybe it will still show that there is quite a bit of mazing there, maybe it only just falls under the threshold for certain types of converters
EDIT EDIT:
well, with ACR 5.5 you can still see it even with just slightly aggressive but still reasonable real world sharpening although it is getting weaker now; if you sharpen it by extreme amounts it is very obvious (and for comaprison, extreme, extreme oversharpening of a 50D file still shows nothing in the way of this mazing noise)
maybe it is a mix of QC and design?
maybe they wanted to let a little more light through so they \'cheated\' on one of the greens and that is why that green channel has less noise as it collect a little bit more light?
maybe if things are absolutely 100% to their design spec, a perfect body, it pretty much brings it under the cutoff for DPP and internal camera processing and smooth areas will pretty much stay smooth? and detailed areas will generally have just enough detail to swamp out the mazing from causing false detail
but since things are already a little unbalanced to begin with, perhaps even very tiny variations in QC can make it go from barely any mazing in DPP to producing a lot more artifacts? Maybe they didn\'t tighten the QC constraints any and left them at the same level as they had with previous bodies which doesn\'t work so well with this design?
I noticed that DPP tended to make images look smoother and smoother compared to ACR 5.5 the less detail there appeared to be in the area so perhaps it is using a bit of an adaptive algo as I had surmised.
Unless care is taken, it can actually mess up even detailed areas a bit, unless you WAY WAY oversharpen you may not notice it as artifacts, but if you do way way way oversharpen you can see that what appeared to be amazing and fine detail is really just traces of mazing (look at the ACR 5.6 sample and then process it with ACR 5.5 and DPP, 5.5\'s detail on some objects is fake and even with DPP although to a much lesser extent where with ACR 5.6 you can see where what actual detail there is to be had really goes).
since QC needs to be sooo tight and since even so, some algorithms still leave a lot more artifacts and since the gain in extra light would seem to be so relatively minor I really wonder how much sense it makes for them to have designed it this way, if indeed they did design it this way
with one of the better bodies and a slightly adaptive RAW converter I would guess you won\'t lose in any way compared to a 20D/40D/D300s, I wonder about compared to a 50D though at ISO100 and going for maximum reach? can you really get the same amount of TRUE detail while delivering no more noise? maybe (and hopefully) so?
EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT  :
here is a screen cap that shows extreme oversharpening applied to, starting from top left and going clockwise, paul\'s first 7D, his second 7D, my 50D, my 5D2:
You can see that there is a difference even in ACR between the two 7D copies.
With normal sharpening the difference is not as extreme between the two copies as it is with DPP (where it goes from bad to perfectly fine instead of bad to quite a bit less bad) but it is still there.
It is still of a worse character than the 50D and 5D2 but at least his second copy is within some striking distance in terms of the nature of the noise.
You can see just how much worse a poorer (typical) 7D copy is in the character of the image than a 50D though.
His second copy gives hope that you can get something reasonable if you are lucky or keep exchanging a few/many times, it might still fall a trace shy of a 50D for pure reach photography at ISO100/200 but at least it might be pretty close and there will be a lot less banding at high ISO and the AF and everything else should be a lot better, if you get a copy like his second one. Still not sure it is ideal, but maybe good enough to move on.
And here is a reduction showing that the poorer copies, even when downscaled to a low MP camera size still leave so many artifacts behind it would still probably do worse:
To see the QC difference here is my copy vs. his second copy (do note unfortunately lighting temp is not the same between all of our samples):
mine:
his second:
And to perhaps see design difference, his second vs. 50D:
his second:
50D:
while i don\'t think i like the design, the QC differences seem more crucial.
my impression, which could EASILY be entirely wrong, is that a good 75% of the 7Ds out there look more like my copy than his second copy.
|
