rather than editing the above post so many tiems i chopped it and reposted it here:
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, it seem that in the end the QC differences seem to be FAR more crucial than nay design differences. If they were all like Paul\'s second copy the issue might not even have been raised, or at the least put aside as a modest compromise.
my impression, which could EASILY be entirely wrong, is that a good 75% of the 7Ds out there so far look more like my copy than his second copy.
if ACR 5.6 tries to avg the columns a bit and does a trace of local adaptive averaging then with a copy like his second or better things should be pretty good i\'d guess (likely better than any other APS-C DSLR at ISO800 and above and slightly worse to slightly better than a 50D at ISO100 and slightly to largely better than the rest at ISO400). I\'d imagine that with a copy like mine though, even with ACR 5.6 it might still be a bit less than ideal performance.
anyway, the question is how hard is it to a copy like his second one currently? are most the latest batch like his second one? Paul, do you want to swap? I will even pay postage.
Nov 14, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #7775689 « Canon EOS 7D Master thread »
:
) 7D copy is in the character of the image than a 50D though.
