That is quite a large difference. I hadn\'t looked at your first sample before now and so hadn\'t realized how bad the mazing could be. In fact I think that I\'ve been mischaracterizing my camera, as it seems to be much closer to your second copy than the first. There\'s no doubt that there\'s still something going on in your second copy (and mine), but the question is, how much (if at all) is image quality affected. After taking quite a lot of photos now, I\'m beginning to think that the answer is not very much.
if a copy is as good as his second copy it probably won\'t matter too much when actually going out and shooting, still likely not quite all it could have been, with ACR 5.6 or DPP etc. it would probably be a rare photo that was affected to the point anyone would easily notice it, but I haven\'t used such a better copy or acr 5.6, looked into it in detail, etc. just my guess. The whole problem just seems dumb to me, why is it there? I still have a hard time seeing how they gain more than they lose. I hope no future bodies are built this way.
the copies like mine though, of which there seem to be quite a few to say the least, I don\'t feel are really acceptable even with \'real\' images and processing.
even the best copies could\'ve been even better if they didn\'t have it, although hopefully it is to the point where it won\'t really matter too much, hard to say without having various raws from a good copy and really looking into things in detail
i don\'t know what shutter/aperture/etc. so all of it could be just down to that, but on the 7D vs 5D2 landscape thread someone posted some 100% crops and the low contrast dark hill details were a lot lower in the 7D image, looked more like 12MP or something, of course he did not apply CA and who knows what aperture he used.
That is quite a large difference. I hadn\'t looked at your first sample before now and so hadn\'t realized how bad the mazing could be. In fact I think that I\'ve been mischaracterizing my camera, as it seems to be much closer to your second copy than the first. There\'s no doubt that there\'s still something going on in your second copy (and mine), but the question is, how much (if at all) is image quality affected. After taking quite a lot of photos now, I\'m beginning to think that the answer is not very much.
if a copy is as good as his second copy it probably won\'t matter too much when actually going out and shooting, still likely not quite all it could have been, with ACR 5.6 or DPP etc. it would probably be a rare photo that was affected to the point anyone would easily notice it, but I haven\'t used such a better copy or acr 5.6, looked into it in detail, etc. just my guess. The whole problem just seems dumb to me, why is it there? I still have a hard time seeing how they gain more than they lose. I hope no future bodies are built this way.
the copies like mine though, of which there seem to be quite a few to say the least, I don\'t feel are really acceptable even with \'real\' images and processing.
even the best copies could\'ve been even better if they didn\'t have it, although hopefully it is to the point where it won\'t really matter too much
i don\'t know what shutter/aperture/etc. so all of it could be just down to that, but on the 7D vs 5D2 landscape thread someone posted some 100% crops and the low contrast dark hill details were a lot lower in the 7D image, looked more like 12MP or something, of course he did not apply CA and who knows what aperture he used.
That is quite a large difference. I hadn\'t looked at your first sample before now and so hadn\'t realized how bad the mazing could be. In fact I think that I\'ve been mischaracterizing my camera, as it seems to be much closer to your second copy than the first. There\'s no doubt that there\'s still something going on in your second copy (and mine), but the question is, how much (if at all) is image quality affected. After taking quite a lot of photos now, I\'m beginning to think that the answer is not very much.
if a copy is as good as his second copy it probably won\'t matter to much when actually going out and shooting, maybe it\'s not quite all it could have been but whatever, with ACR 5.6 or DPP etc. it would probably be a very rare photo that was affected to the point anyone would care at all. I haven\'t used such a copy or acr 5.6, looked into it in detail, etc. just my guess.
the copies like mine though, of which there seem to be quite a few to say the least, I don\'t feel are really acceptable even with real images.
Nov 15, 2009 at 02:48 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #7778925 « Canon EOS 7D Master thread »
