Scale your 7D photos DOWN to your 40D size, or scale a 40D photo UP to 7D size, and the superiority of the 7D in the real world, even WITH additional noise, will be clear.
If by some fluke they are not, then the problem is not the camera...its the way the camera is used. Find ways to eliminate camera shake, make sure your using an "ideal" aperture (i.e. an aperture within that band between a little wider than f/3 to about f/6.2), or anything else that can improve your technique.
My other posts in this thread more than address these statements.
You'll have to provide some quotes. I've read all of your other answers, and at most you seem to allude that the 40D and 50D are "better", without much explanation as to how or why. I don't see any sample photos you have taken with either the 40D or 50D and the 7D that can be compared apples to apples (larger scaled down or smaller scaled up to normalize size). If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to get a bit more serious in your arguments.
You're arguing a truism...boredom isn't evading your comments, its saying they're unnecessary as we're arguing different things. I will state again, I would like to see a much better system of APS-C image production from Canon. I don't care what has to change(AA filter, sensor, processor/s etc etc) but the next APS-C sensor should produce RAW files which require far less work to be made optimal.
I dispute the notion that we are arguing different things. You "argued" that using a macro lens allowed you to "far outresolve the sensor". That is a falsehood, and your argument a fallacy...easily falsifiable. I believe your understanding of the points you are trying to argue is flawed and incomplete. For your own benefit, I am trying to encourage you to argue your points more thoroughly with more evidence to back up your otherwise anecdotal claims.
You have mentioned a variety of things in your previous posts that, to me (and I believe a number of other participants in this thread), seem to indicate a problem with camera usage, rather than the camera itself. Your arguments are also often vauge or incomplete, which leaves them open to attack and falsification without further shoring up, however the arguments you make to shore up prior ones have the same flaw. A small narrative of selected quotes, to demonstrate: * "the current 18MP sensor is terrible. Not event my best resolving lens produces sharp photos on my 7d, whether it is the AA filter or the sensor itself, Sony, pentax and Nikon have been killing Canon in this regard for years." - Anecdotal.
Exactly what about Canon's 18mp sensors are terrible? I don't necessarily disagree
that there are some
things about it that are less than great, but I do disagree the sensor in general is just flat out terrible. More explanation about what and why is required here to make it a valid argument. As it is, it is antagonistic but a little evasive.What
is your best
lens? This statement about your lenses is very vague. If your best lenses are consumer grade or off-brand, outside of a very few cases, then this statement is anecdotal at best. Have you micro focus adjusted all of your lenses? If you have, HOW did you micro-adjust them? There are good tools and BAD tools to use to tune your lenses and camera bodies to idealistically match. More information is really necessary to make your argument sound.
* "My sharpness testing was done using macro lenses, far outresolving the sensor, MF, tripod mounted etc... I have tweaked every single setting of the camera to my specifications." - Falshood.
Plain and simple, use of a macro lens does nothing intrinsic to increase spatial resolution. Use of a macro lens can allow you to magnify
something to a significant degree, and with specialized tools, you can go well beyond 1:1 magnification. From a physics standpoint, at high magnification the effects of diffraction also tend to increase, as with greater extension (required to achieve 1:1 or greater magnification), you increase the focal length, and therefor reduce the aperture. Given that, its more likely that a macro lens at its maximum magnification will have LESS spatial resolution than at an ideal aperture and greater focus distance. Fallacy and simple falshood.
What about manual focus makes your results better than if you used any form and configuration of autofocus? Very anecdotal argument.
Regarding your settings...what have you changed, why did you change it, and how? Vauge, very vauge.
* "I think its funny that you 100% assume user error, God forbid a person doesn't have the same standards as you and actually isn't happy with what you're happy with. I sold my 7d because i gave it enough time but i can repeatedly get better results with much cheaper options." - EVASIVE!
As a group, in general (however obviously with some exceptions), I believe photographers tend to be a rather perfectionist bunch. My experience online in general, and with some of my photographer friends in real life, is that photographers generally want perfect results, regardless of what gear they use. The more technically oriented tend to blame the gear...however the more naturally artistic often tend to either blame circumstances or, in fewer cases, blame their own skill! (Personally, I love it when I meet an introspective photographer who is constantly challenging THEMSELVES to improve THEIR OWN TECHNIQUE! They tend to be the most phenomenal photographers of all, with talent that floors most other photographers, and they still seem to continue gaining more skill and more knowledge...how ironic is that! ;P)
Your notion that someone else, especially on THIS forum, is not as interested in eeking out every last ounce of technological capability from their gear as you are is extremely naive, and the whole statement in general is rather evasive....avoiding the requirement that others have placed on you to back up your claims with more facts and less talk.
* "If you ever try a reasonable copy of the sigma 150 macro you will know what i am talking about when it comes to sharpness. The 7d did not render as much detail as the 50D despite having the same crop factor and more MPs." - Anecdotal.
Even a reasonable copy of the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro is generally inferior to either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro or the Canon 180mm f/3.5mm L Macro. Both Canon lenses, one of which runs for about $500 or so and the other for about $1400 or so, are far superior to the Sigma 150. For what it is, its not necessarily unsharp, given it's priced at about a 20% discount to the Canon 180, but it is definitely NOT as sharp as either the Canon 100mm f/2.8 nor the 180mm f/3.5. Comparisons can be seen at the links below...no contest, both Canon lenses are sharper, and this reviewer is known for being particularly meticulous about his lens samples...he returns them until he gets as ideal a copy as possible before writing a review (try f/4 to eliminate optical aberrations and ensure a normalized comparison):
Sigma is able to produce cheaper lenses because they use cheaper materials, cheaper fabrication techniques, and cheaper processes. One area in particular where Sigma falls well behind Canon would be lens coatings. Sigma uses a basic form of multicoating, nothing special, but definitely more limiting to overall transmission (potentially by as much as 30% in worst conditions) than Canon's SWC (SubWavelength Coating), which is a nanotech particle based coating that pretty much ensures at least 99.95% transmission even when flare and ghosting do occur (I can attest to the astounding superiority of SWC myself as a couple of my lenses have it, and even with the sun right in the corner of a frame, ghosting across the rest of the frame is barely noticeable, if noticeable at all.)
Sigma's skill at reducing optical aberrations is certainly not as great as Canon's, or for that matter Nikon's, Zeiss', etc. The difference in resolution in the above two examples has less to do with improper micro focus adjustment or a bad sample, and more to do with the fact that Sigma's lens manufacturing industry is simply not as large and advanced as their brand-name competitors'./
Claiming the 7D did not render as much detail as the 50D is just flat out false. The 7D has a 10% resolution benefit (nearly 20% pixel count benefit) over the 50D. No matter how *sharp* the 50D results may appear, none of the deficiencies of the 7D are likely to cause it to take a solid 10% hit to IQ in general, let alone a 10% hit to its ability to resolve detail specifically. The 50D, with larger pixels, will generally appear sharper for what it records
, but what it records will have LESS
detail than the 7D in all cases that do not involve user error. You might be able to account for a 3% margin-of-error loss in IQ due to electronic noise in the 7D's sensor at low ISO settings, but claiming a 10% drop in IQ solely due to "the sensor" (which is an extremely vague statement in and of itself) is almost laughable and demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of what spatial resolution is, or for that matter how and why the 7D is able to continue producing high quality images with competitive noise characteristics DESPITE offering 20% more pixels than the 50D.
As a very simple test, just hunt around a site like 500px.com for photos taken with the 7D. You'll be hard pressed to find any that look like crap, and when they do, I would be willing to bet good money EVERY SINGLE ONE of them is due to a lack of skill, a lack of artistic vision or capability, or any other of a number of USER related issues, and not a single hardware factor. You'll also find that photos taken with the 7D are just as good or better than similar photos taken by the same photographer with older gear that might have much larger pixels...such as a 50D, or a 350D, etc.