Messages

241

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

« on: December 10, 2011, 09:59:35 PM »

The TS-E lens is a pain to use on a crop body - the popup flash gets in the way. Canon provides a smaller knob you use in that case, but it's still a really tight fit and the little knob is hard to turn.  Great lens on FF, though!

Agreed. If you have the money and are going to get T/S lenses, they belong on a FF body. That is the one respect in which I think the 5D2 has a significant advantage over the 7D for landscapes. But that's assuming you can afford the T/S lenses in the first place.

242

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I need MPs

« on: December 10, 2011, 09:57:00 PM »

Guys, the only time you ever really NOTICE the resolution is when the photo is on your monitor and you are scrolling in to each and every pixel. Take a 8-10MP rebel and take a photo. Take the same photo with a 18MP 7D and have 8x 10's made. I doubt you would ever really be able to tell them apart.

I make 16x24" and 20x30" prints. The last two portfolios I made were 17x22. I guarantee you I could tell them apart.

243

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I need MPs

« on: December 10, 2011, 09:52:44 PM »

but in the real world we have to keep lens imperfections, noise etc. in mind.
so 21MP is not near the limit but with todays technology i question the usefulness of 36MP or even 45MP FF sensors.

People keep debating the maximum useful FF resolution without considering what we know from APS-C.

The 7D and 5D2 are pretty close in terms of MP (18 and 21). Having a smaller sensor, the 7D is like a crop from a 45 MP FF sensor.

If real world lenses and shooting conditions would render 45 MP of little or no benefit on FF, then they should impact the 7D to the same degree. In other words, even though the 7D and 5D2 are close in terms of MP, their actual performance on resolution charts should be much further apart if the 7D is hobbled by lenses and shooting conditions.

DPReview has tested the resolution of both bodies. They typically stop down to f/8 in these tests. They are:

7D Absolute Extinction (JPEG test)
H 2500 3100
V 2450 3050

5D2 Absolute Extinction (JPEG test)
H 2800 3300
V 2700 3300

Note: I'm using the JPEG test numbers because DPReview didn't do a RAW resolution test on the 5D2. RAW numbers would be a bit higher because ACR is better at resolving fine detail then Canon's JPEG engine / DPP, but the relative difference would remain the same.

The difference in measured resolution is actually a bit less (<12%) then we would expect based on the MP difference (16%). This is real, hard, observed data. If your theory conflicts with it, your theory is wrong, not the real world experience.

The 7D sensor is not limited by the 50mm f/1.4 @ f/8. That's a very good lens at f/8, but it's hardly the only lens that can resolve that much detail, and f/8 is actually just touching on diffraction effects for the 7D's pixel density. This tells us that a 45 MP FF sensor would be quite useful.

How useful? Stitch three 7D frames together overlapped so that you end up with roughly 45 MP. The resulting image will out resolve 6x7 film on an Imacon, and resembles the 645D sample images I've seen in terms of sheer detail and clarity.

Not everyone needs this. Many people would love it. That's why Canon needs a fast shooting/low light FF sensor (1Dx) and a high resolution FF sensor.

244

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

« on: December 10, 2011, 09:29:57 PM »

Why didn't you get the 5d2 for your 16-35? For landscape you really cant't beat the 5d2, 1d X would be the only better option, and as I understand, a tad over budget.

Having actually done this test (7D v 5D2, 24" landscape prints) I can tell you that nobody can tell the difference or tell which print comes from which at low to mid ISO. Out of camera there are some small differences between the two at low ISO, but those differences do not survive post work or printing. I've even challenged people with 100% unlabeled crops, after post processing, only to have them completely fail to say which came from where.

Both make excellent 24" landscape prints, and very good 30" prints, and that's about the limit for critically reviewed landscape prints (i.e. close viewing; judging on fine detail). I highly doubt the 1Dx will change this for landscapes since the limiting factor here is the resolution of fine detail like distant foliage.

I'm basically in the same boat as jrista. The 5D2 is a great camera, but for my uses offers me nothing over the 7D. Until Canon breaks 30 MP in FF I can't see any reason for spending the money.

245

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

« on: December 10, 2011, 09:19:50 PM »

The 10-22 is a very good lens. But in terms of corner to corner sharpness, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is better. Landscape work is typically stopped down and you can honestly produce great prints using either. But if you're after every last bit of sharpness and fine detail, the Tokina can't be beat right now.

I would say the 10-22 is a close match, in terms of IQ, for the 17-40L on FF. The Tokina is an easy match for the 16-35L II on FF.

246

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 10, 2011, 12:12:18 AM »

If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable.

When I've worked on 5D2 files alongside 7D files the workflow has been nearly identical except for different inputs, i.e. I sharpen both but the values are different in the dialog. I'm more likely to do a NR pass on a 7D file then on a 5D2 file, but that's only one extra step, and only sometimes. (Sometimes the 7D file doesn't need it; sometimes the 5D2 file needs it as well.) Not exactly a major work around.

One of my most recent "lucky to live in this age of photography" moments was printing a 16x20" informal portrait of a relative's baby made with my 7D at ISO 800. If I had seen that print 10 years ago I would have guessed that it had been made with MF and portrait film with an ISO no higher than 160. I would have never believed it came from 35mm much less APS-C. My 20-24" landscape prints can stand next to landscape prints from 6x7. At larger sizes 6x7 will show its advantage, but not through 24".

This image quality is not enviable? Really?

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed

The only explanation anyone has offered is "duh...scale the images for comparison to the same size."

247

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 11:58:06 PM »

There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.

I see two camps. One camp understands that more MP = greater real magnification when pixel peeping in Photoshop, Light Room, etc. That camp knows how to equalize view/print sizes when comparing sensors, and how noise seen while pixel peeping affects (or rather does not affect) prints. They also know how to NR that noise away if desired without losing fine detail.

The other camp foolishly zooms into every image 100%. Then they compare 100% images from lower resolution sensors to 100% images from higher resolution sensors and complain that they see more softness, noise, CA, motion blur, whatever. It never seems to dawn on them that there really isn't more of these things, they're just making those things more apparent with their 60" print equivalent pixel peeping. You would think it would dawn on them since some things like motion blur and CA are independent of the sensor, but it doesn't.

Comparing 5d2's noise levels to 7D is probably the lamest of comparisons ever because to any unbiased person 5D2 is miles ahead in ISO performance.

I don't think anyone has compared these two bodies in this thread and said the 7D was better. I will say that after post processing and printing to 24" and 30", I see no noise in prints from either at low ISO. At high ISO the 5D2's advantage starts to show in actual prints, and it's both a lower noise and finer detail advantage due to less NR. But even at high ISO it's really only an issue in larger prints, not 8x10's or 11x14's.

And let me state again for the record that I own a 17" wide printer, I regularly make 20-24" long prints, I send out for 30" prints, and I've made prints from both bodies. If the 5D2 were "miles ahead" I would pay cash for one tomorrow morning.

(The hyperbole amazes me. Didn't anyone ever shoot film? The noise differences between DSLRs are split hairs compared to digital vs. 35mm, or the differences between the various emulsions.)

248

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 11:43:29 PM »

If you look at the crops, they seem to mirror the results at Camera Labs. I see a significant difference in IQ at lower ISO's in those clips.

The crops are not equalized in size. I've always wondered why DPReview uses crops of varying view sizes. But it doesn't matter because DPReview graphs the results for you and their descriptions do not match yours. The 7D has less low ISO noise.

This is absolutely consistent with the many samples at IR once you equalize the viewing size.

If you can't grasp that different percent magnifications applied to MP (i.e. 50%, 100%) result in different physical magnifications from APS-C, resulting in different final view/print sizes, and you refuse to take the time to equalize this variable, then you shouldn't be offering an opinion on IQ.

I see a PopPhoto chart. How about some full size images so I can analyze the test? Without those I'm not impressed.

That's because you  already have a predetermined answer you want to believe, and won't acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary.  I guess we'll just take your word over DPreview, Camera Labs, and PopPhoto.

This from the person telling us DPReview proves X when DPReview themselves say they proved Y. Talk about failing to acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary....

249

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 05:11:49 PM »

DPReview noise measurements show the 7D to have less noise across the board. They are also one of the most consistent, reliable, and trust worthy sources.

DPReview relies on ACR's 'black box' conversion.

With the exception of open source software, all RAW converters are 'black boxes.' Are you saying 0 NR in ACR is not 0 NR? Or that another converter should be used? And if so, why?

I use ACR because in tests against DPP I found ACR yielded greater resolution and fine detail, without noticeably more noise.

250

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 05:07:28 PM »

I agree with you about the AF. I get much less keepers with my L primes compared t othe 50D and 40D. I also notice I need to keep shutter speeds higher.

The shutter speed comment tells me right there you are viewing the 7D at higher magnification and complaining.

Come on people, this is camera comparison 101: you have to scale the images to the same dimensions 

251

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 05:02:53 PM »

Here you'll see (on DPreview, no less) that the 7D has much more noise at low ISO than the 50D:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

What I see is that the 50D applies more NR in JPEG than the 7D. Even so, "Up to ISO 800 the differences between the competitors are pretty marginal. The only camera that is visibly noisier than the rest is the Pentax K-7." This does not support your claim of "much more".

Now let's look at the RAW graphs where NR is completely off. Across the board the 7D has lower noise, and we read this: "...but it also becomes clear that the 7D produces a cleaner image than the 50D and, at very high ISOs, also than the D300S. This explains to a degree the 50D's slightly softer JPEG output at high ISOs. Its JPEG engine has to apply more chroma noise reduction than on the 7D in order to get noise onto the same level."

NR is a choice that's entirely up to you. If you want cleaner JPEGs out of camera than the 50D, increase the NR.

Here's you'll see the 7D losing out to the 40D at ISO 800, (DP review again):

http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-7d-review-noisier-than-40d/

No. I see a blog poster who spent too much time writing and not enough time thinking about what he was doing. His comparisons are not presented at the same size. Granted, those little DPReview squares are not size equalized in the first place, and I think they're worthless for that reason. But the graphs are accurate.

Check the DPReview graphs and you'll find, at 800, that the 7D measures about the same for all three types of measurements. Scaled to the same size there should be no visible difference.

If I go to the Imaging Resource samples and compare their ISO 800 studio scenes from the 40D and 7D, they are close but the 7D is cleaner. If I view them at 100% with the 40D scaled to the 7D's dimensions, the 7D is also sharper and clearly has more fine detail. If I sharpen the 40D to the same level the noise difference becomes significant, and of course sharpening can't restore fine detail. The 40D was a fine camera and the image is very good, but there's no question which is better, even on noise.

I'm not going to address cameralabs.com further. Their results are not consistent with DPReview or IR, and I know who I trust.

At post #8 you'll see the 40D defeating the 7D in low ISO noise:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338

I see a PopPhoto chart. How about some full size images so I can analyze the test? Without those I'm not impressed.

252

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 03:23:55 PM »

This test clearly shows the 50D is superior in low ISO noise to the 7D in RAW. I shoot RAW, and agree with these results:

DPReview noise measurements show the 7D to have less noise across the board. They are also one of the most consistent, reliable, and trust worthy sources. It's easy to screw up these kinds of tests, and I would not take a single cameralabs.com photo test over a DPReview lab test.

The 7D and 50D are close enough at low ISO that a tiny mistake will throw the test. As for the 40D and 7D, the MP difference is great enough that most complaints stem from a failure to equalize scale or a failure to scale properly (scaling method is important). I kept my first DSLR, the 10D, all these years. It's cleaner then the 7D at first glance. Scale the 10D file up to 7D dimensions, or the 7D file down to 10D dimensions, and the difference between them is very large and quite clearly in the 7D's favor.

Pixel peeping can be misleading even when it's done correctly. When done incorrectly, it's a joke.

253

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 02:25:11 PM »

Read again... I wasn't blowing these "up to 200%".  I am looking at the whole photo on my screen.  Not zooming at all (ie I can see the edges of the photo).  I am _not_ "pixel peeping" (I am _not_ looking at the photos at 1:1 with my screen.  Just viewing the photo like anyone would.

But you've also said you're cropping, and the mix of terminology and lack of details leaves people confused as to what the final magnification is.

The screenshot you posted that I took a look at showed roughly the same view I see at 100% (1:1, i.e. pixel peeping) on my screen. The noise looks the same as well, and while it's there, it's certainly not Earth shattering. I know that noise looks worse on a typical Apple screen with typical settings. But, again, this is 100%, roughly equivalent to a 50-60" print. No small format DSLR is noise free at that size.

Everyone: Print is only one final avenue for my prints.  Most often they are enjoyed on high resolution monitors.

Viewing the entire original jpeg on my screen is 50% magnification. I see no noise at that scale.

The point is that I paid $1500 and am receiving _inferior_ quality at ISO 100-200 to the camera I bought 3 years ago for $700.  THAT IS NOT GOOD.

No you're not. You're not viewing them at the same scale, and you're viewing images that, due to other issues, are not exhibiting the fine detail the 7D is capable of.

For my purposes (and for others who are interested in landscape photography) this body does not work.

I've got a couple 22" portfolios that say differently. And I know a landscape photographer who shoots DSLRs, MF, and 4x5. He has said that through 24" it's extremely hard for him to tell the difference between his 7D shots and his 4x5 shots, and that he will grab his 7D before grabbing his FF (12 MP) for landscape work.

I can't even believe how far some people go to justify this stuff.

Nobody is justifying it. We're simply pointing out that people do not expect 60" views out of small format cameras. Not any currently shipping small format camera. Not the 5D2 or D3x, and I wouldn't expect it out of the 1Dx either. If you actually make 60" prints, you need a larger format or stitching.

There is no way I could keep this camera with this output for landscape photography.  The first time I wanted to do a 25% crop (by which I mean crop down to a piece of the photo that is taking up approximately 25% of the original space) of a once in a lifetime photo SHOT AT ISO 100 I would want to blow my brains out.

Do I understand you to mean that you would take a 1296x864 crop out of the full file? That's a 1.1 MP image. You can't expect to view or print a 1.1 MP image at 27". 5x7 would be about the limit if there's any fine detail.

Do you mean a 4.5 MP image? 8x10 or maybe 11x17, depending on subject and shot quality.

Do you really shoot, crop out 25% of your images, and view/print at 27"? How could you be satisfied with any small format DSLR doing this? Why not just frame the photo the way you want it to appear?

When shooting at low ISO you should NEVER have to apply NR (or at least not much depending on how much you've cropped) and you should feel free to crank up the sharpness.  Anything less is unacceptable.

Whether or not I apply NR at low ISO depends on the subject, exposure, and how hard I've pushed the RAW file. As for sharpening, well, I'm careful about it, but definitely fall on the sharp side. Nothing I print goes without both LCE and some sharpening.

254

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 01:48:28 PM »

I think that "catz" post is the most relevant to my situation.  I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them.

So am I. Noise is simply not an issue in my prints.

As for "pixel peeping".  I don't think that's what I'm doing.

It's exactly what you're doing. But I think there is an issue beyond that and it might be this:

If I try to crop this photo down _at all_ I can see the noise with the full photo being displayed (ie not zooming in) on my 27" iMac. And that's doing a pretty small amount cropping (like only including the whole church).  If I go any further, like just the front half of the church... it looks like I took this photo at ISO 800+!

Your description is confusing. I don't know if you are viewing at 50%, 100%, 500%? What are you doing when you say cropping but not zooming in? It sounds like the more you crop, the more noise you see, which implies you are cutting up the photo and viewing those cuts at increasing magnification. But from your description I can't tell what that magnification might be. For all I can tell you're looking at the equivalent of 200" prints.

But even if you don't touch the photo at all and just view at 100% (pixel peeping), you are viewing on a 27" iMac. I love Apple's products, but I *** hate *** their screens for photography work because you cannot tone down the contrast and saturation no matter how hard you try. They look beautiful for anything else, but I think they suck for photography. Even after color calibration they do not give an accurate preview of prints. That's why I have a 3rd party monitor. Out of the box it had the over-the-top-candy-world brightness, contrast, and saturation that is the fad right now, but I could tone it down to match real prints.

So at 100% it's like looking at a 50" or 60" print but with the brightness, contrast, and saturation shoved up. I'm sorry, but you will see noise in a 60" print even from a 5D2, especially if you push those three variables over the top.

How anyone shooting landscapes would think that is acceptable is beyond me.  I've cropped ISO 100-200 photos from my XSi _way_ down and been satisfied with the results (and I didn't have to apply any NR at all!).

Here is a screenshot of what I'm seeing on my screen: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7166/6482020907_8689f39356_o.jpg

Again, I'm confused as to whether you are actually cropping, or just viewing at 100%. That sample looks comparable in size to what I see viewing the image at 100% in PS on my monitor, so let's go with that. You're looking at the equivalent of a roughly 60" print. Do you make 60" prints? If so, you will not be happy with any small format DSLR and couldn't possibly be happy with the XSi which would be mush at 60". You need either the MF 645D, or a pano head to stitch 3 frames from a DSLR.

You made the comment that other people will see the same on their screens. Do you often crop out 1/3rd to 1/4th of your landscape photos for viewing on 27" screens? Or do you frame the scene properly, maybe do a bit of cropping, but otherwise show people complete photos? Because even on an iMac screen a complete photo looks fine. (Except occasionally in Apple's Preview. At some magnifications it just wrecks photos. And it's particular scales to, because I've played with zooming and showing full screen and a difference of just 20% might result in the preview looking fine.)

255

EOS Bodies / Re: Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

« on: December 09, 2011, 01:16:54 PM »

Reportedly, the 7D has a pretty strong AA filter, meaning it's require more sharpening in post, which affects noise.

Nope. The AA filter is actually weak compared to older bodies. But it's APS-C, and APS-C does require a bit more sharpening in post.

I find that with a lot of work, I can manage to get 7D files post-processed to the point where the IQ is close to those from my 5DII...but that's straight out of the camera from the 5DII.

I find 3 things are needed: possibly a NR pass, a bit more LCE, and a bit more sharpening. That's not a lot of work and is at most 1 additional step.