For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise?
Pressing the shutter button.
Are you consistently underexposing by 4 stops or something? Are you just completely mismanaging your RAW converter settings? What?
Well - I just so happen to have a full res jpg that shows the phenomenon well: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8038/8061766184_b8b02fc089_o.jpg
Just look at the sky. But it's not just in the sky... it's everywhere. If you do any sharpening you can see it on any surface that is fairly uniform. If you try to remove some you lose detail.
I am NOT mismanaging anything. This camera leads to a direct tradeoff between noise and detail. I'm not the only person on the planet to see it. The above image is perfectly exposed (possibly ever so slightly over exposed). Very little postprocessing has been done to it.
And please don't come at me with "but it won't show up in a 24" print!". I can clearly see the noise on my 30" monitor (2560x1600) at work where I use my photos as my desktop background... it _does_ show up in at least one use case that is important to me ;-)
According to the DPReview noise graphs the 7D at 100 is as clean or cleaner than a D4 at 400.
What are you trying to prove with that statement? Why do you think ~ISO 400 noise is acceptable at 100? This is actually making my point that ISO 100 is not good on a 7D.
The RAW graphs pretty much overlap for the 7D and 5D3 at 100. I suppose a 5D3 is noisy and not worth the money to?
Ummm... that's exactly what I'm saying. I've been linking to this review quite a bit but I'll do it again: http://gizmodo.com/5946258/nikon-d600-review-images-this-spectacular-have-never-come-so-cheap
Look at the shot with the buildings (click on it to get a zoomed view). Compare the skys. Look at uniform surfaces and look at the amount of noise.
I went over to the Imaging Resource and compared the Still Life scene for the 7D at ISO 100 and tried to find the ISO setting for the D600 that most closely matched. To me, it was in-between 400 and 800... just like I said a bit ago.
This is a systemic problem with Canon. They simply do not care about LOW ISO performance. That's ok, I realize that a lot of people care more about high ISO performance... but Nikon does seem to be putting a lot of effort into good low ISO and at a more affordable price.
Canon is not recycling and selling you old tech. They are not sitting on their rear ends. But Sony has a patent on how they read data off the sensor, and Canon cannot work around that patent at this time. From what I've read, Canon actually has superior tech across other aspects of the sensor, i.e. if the patent didn't exist they would have less total noise.
Really? The 7D was introduced in mid 2009. That exact same sensor has also been used in:
2010: 550D and 60D
2012: 650D and 60Da (with slightly different filtering)
How is that not "recycling and selling of old tech"?
On the patent issue:
1. If this is really THE problem and Canon really cared they would license that patent from Sony.
2. If this is really the problem and Canon really cared they would have put the R&D effort in and come up with the advancement first.
3. Why, in 3 years has Canon not come up with a better idea?
Also, I love how you first say "there is no problem" and then simultaneously blame a Sony patent for the problem. You can't have it both ways. Do Canon sensors have more noise or not?
But it can't be. The noise values are practically the same with a 7D at 100. So it must just be a horrible camera
How did anyone ever make photographs with a 1Ds? Or the original 5D? Or...film???
Apologist at work. Yes, great images can be made with any modern DSLR (we've been over that before). But what I'm concerned with is: all other things being equal (which we know they're not, but we have to start somewhere to come to conclusions) which machine will generate the best image? Even better, which machine generates the best image per dollar I put into buying it?
On that second measure Canon is not even close (at least at low ISO).