Comments on: EOS 7D Review – Darwin Wiggett

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 06:51:58 +0000

I wish I had read more review before making my 7D purchase. Having owned many Canon bodies, I felt completely let down at the IQ of 7D images. Now this was prior to reading all the reviews that complained of soft images. I googled 7D soft images after I noticed them on mine and thats when I found all the complaints. With all my previous bodies I could go out and get sharp and consistent results. With the 7D I have yet to produce 1 single image that matches the IQ of previous Canon bodies. This is also using L glass with more than holdable shutter speeds in addition to using and not using IS. Now either there are some bad 7D bodies out there, one of which is in my hands, or the 7D just has a very narrow sweet spot that some have found. If that is the case then that makes the 7D a very poor camera body choice in my opinion. I strongly urge anyone considering this body… take a CF card to a good photography shop that will let you try the camera out. They should let you use a lens.. request an L. Take some shots in the store and check them out on your computer. Base your decision off those results.

By: Kernuak

Kernuak — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:33:02 +0000

Whatever the subject, opinions will always differ. Yes, the 7D is more prone to diffraction limitations, but as many have said, photography is all about compromises. I probably shoot more landscapes than wildlife, but I prefer to shoot wildlife on the whole, even if I probably get better results in my landscapes. In an ideal world, I would get the 5d MkII for the landscapes, but at the time I was looking for improved AF accuracy and improved noise control in comparison to my 40D to try to improve my chances with wildlife. I was also looking for larger output files to avoid having to interpolate for certain sites.
A while back, I wrote a mini-review of sorts. It wasn’t an attempt to make any scientific comparisons, but more of a report of my experiences at that point, using the 40D as a reference point. I also tried out a few things with different AF settings after reading about AF problems.

http://avalonlightphotoart.blogspot.com/2009/10/canon-eos-7d-hands-on-mini-review.html

The conclusion I can draw from use so far, is that while it isn’t perfect, it is suitable for the purpose I intended and is more than capable of producing good results for landscapes too, even though it is never going to match the 5D MkII. I did however make one odd discovery tonight though and it is something I need to look into more. I was planning on trying out switching off noise reduction (I’d read one comment that noise reduction may still affect RAW files even when switched off) and comparing files with the standard noise reduction setting at ISO 6400. My eventual aim was to see if I could get better results by processing the files with NR off than with it set to standard. What I discovered though, was that the autofocus was less accurate with noise reduction set at standard, than when it was switched off. I tried it more than once using a 50mm f/1.4 wide open with similar results. It was full night in heavy rain, so AF accuracy was never going to be the best, but I thought it produced interesting results that others might want to investigate too.

By: Paul Smith Shoes

Paul Smith Shoes — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:08:48 +0000

Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:52:53 +0000

Can you blame him?

By: Paul

Paul — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:51:13 +0000

Or maybe, since they’re “professionals”, they know what they (and their clients) need in a photo?

By: jb

jb — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:03:39 +0000

LOL too XD
But Karel is using 40D, which is a great camera.

Having said that, my experience with my friend 5D II opened my eyes regarding pic quality between FF and APS-C sized sensor…it blows my 450D and the 40D so bad in terms of IQ.
Sure the 5DII doesn’t have the fps, but hey, that’s what 2 bodies are for lol, they serve different purposes and were designed differently. I would recommend Karel 5D II just because the sheer IQ differences and no camera or any equipment is perfect.

people who are not happy with their purchase talks louder than people who are happy with their products… remember, not so long ago people were shooting primarily at ISO 100 or 200.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:30:23 +0000

Well said, all the enjoyment seems to be knocked out of photography these days by over analysis.

It’s time we looked at photos from a decent distance and not drill down into the murky depths looking for problems.

No camera is perfect, but nearly all of them now take wonderful photo’s with decent glass.

By: 7DIsAwesome

7DIsAwesome — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:26:10 +0000

I love my 7D. All this pixel peeping needs to stop. Just take photos. Done.

By: CPS_Guy08

CPS_Guy08 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:44:48 +0000

Oh man its really not that big of a deal. Really. By the time color correction, touch up, unsharp mask etc. are done, it really doesn’t matter anymore.

That article was just another example of somebody zooming in all the way and looking at pixels.

And yes stopping down too much can cause issues with the image. I find that (depending on the lens) f-stops between f/3.5 and f/8 are as sharp as you can get it. I’ve shot in the 11s and 16s and at that point it starts to look softer.

About 7 years ago I went to do a photoshoot for a magazine. Model, makeup, lighting, hair…the works. We were shooting with a Canon 20D and I had a backup my Sony F707. We ended up using a mix of images from both cameras. The F707 was a CCD 5.25Mp semi-pro. In a lot of instances all this stressing out over how an image looks pixel by pixel is needless.

When I got my 5DmII and my friend got his D700 he spent most of his time saying negative things about my camera. I don’t know, I love this thing. If prop. taxes weren’t coming up and I had more money I wish I could have a 7D as well.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:46:54 +0000

I think the problem is the RAW processing I had a 5d MKII (for a year) and a 7D for 2 Weeks ended with the 7D. did hundred of test all of them in JPG and MOV, Mostly With L and Sigma EX lens. only time I saw some really difference was after ISO 1600. my opinion was IQ and sharppnes was same.

I think trying to Compare the 7D with the G11 is stupid. lot of people I know with Canon DSLR also own a G9 or G10 and the Quality of the G models are no way near any DSLR I had ever own even the 300D

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:57:48 +0000

Over and above the diffraction issues, and the upscale/downscale debate, what first tweaked my interest was comparing photos without SHARPENING them.

Who delivers a photo that is not sharpened?

If one camera need X amount of sharpening and another needs X + 2 amounts, then you reach a conclusion about who’s best part way through post processing.

Any reason a tester wouldn’t/shouldn’t comparison test the shot after sharpening the picture using whatever it needed to look at its best?

To me, it makes sense to compare the finished product – a sharpened photo.

By: Name

Name — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:00:09 +0000

I lol’d

By: exit_level

exit_level — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:23:25 +0000

Thanks Michal, I like this review most. It’s matter-of-fact, not boring, not misguiding, reader friendly, not conceited and many, many more. I give it 6 stars.

By: Michal

Michal — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:06:50 +0000

And for something completely different – a competent review – http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx