Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

[neuroanatomist]

My 7D will beat the crap out of any 5D you care to pick, at the image level...

The 5D will have lower ISO noise across the board...and that's pretty relevent to the issue the OP describes. 

Looking back over friedmud's original thread, s/he stated something in this thread that was left out of the request for purchase advice, "I am mainly a landscape photographer..."  I suppose someone here should have asked that question previously (and there was a reference to shooting 'out in the Japanese countryside' in the original thread), but no one did, and the OP had EF-S lenses and stated having no interest in a 5DII/III. 

Still, armed with the info that the primary use was landscape photography, I would not have recommended the 7D.  Don't get me wrong - I think the 7D is a great camera.  But if I'm going out to shoot landscapes, I'll grab my 5DII every single time. 

[Gothmoth]

and now please let us hear the guys who want a 36MP 1Ds.....

what mircales do you expect from a new sensor when going to a photoside size near the 7D sensor....?

[CowGummy]

I too agree with those that are suggesting sending it back, or at least comparing to other 7D models. The noise on that first image looks too high for my liking. And given the kind of money you've spent on this camera I too feel you ought to be expecting excellent IQ, and the low iso noise is clearly getting in the way of your enjoyment.

However, I also agree with neuro - I thought the same thing when reading your initial post where you state you are mainly a landscape shooter. The 7D is a very good camera - no doubt. But landscape shooting was never going to be it's strongpoint. Full frame will usually handle landscapes more successfully.

[RayS2121]

I was never impressed with the 7D noise levels at whatever ISO. Both in landscape and in macro this would be very noticable if the performance is not bang-on. It is possible there is some unit to unit variation, I am not sure. I have seen terrible flickr images and counted them as those from a terrible photographer only to see most of their images are awful, even a horrible photographer is bound to take an occational clean shot . Other people's images seem ok on the other hand. Unless you can play with it at the shop with a few units in hand, this seems rather a toss up.  I will say however, I love the AF improvements.

[catz]

Ok - here's one that has just received minor sharpening (what I would do for any shot coming in at ISO 200)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7011/6480510009_df4a26af47_o.jpg

And here's another that I've tried my hardest to "fixup" with sharpening and NR:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7006/6480518429_3cd975c2a1_o.jpg

I'm with the others that suggest seeing if you can try out another 7D. 

I have a 60D and I just don't see noise like this in daylight pictures as you've seen here.

Me too. My 60D sucks in many ways compared to my 5D mark II.
In same lighting conditions one picture taken with 5D and another with 60D and the difference is huge when I edit it on Aperture. The 5D picture (in addition to video) is much better in terms of noise, detail and latitude. I can push the 5D RAW images much further than the 60D RAW images ever. And it is not about the lenses either, I can use the same L-lens in both and the results with 5D are just from another planet than with the 60D.

Many reviews were stating that 60D would have had identical video and comparable still image quality, but after purchasing the second body I saw the truth by myself. It is not about the picture styles either. The latitude simply can not be found from the 60D. 60D images may look at first sight more "shiny, vivid and saturated" at low resolution (not 1:1 resolution because 60D images at that resolution have lots of camera phone like noise on it which really annoys me) when taken out of the camera than the 5D images, but after processing, the truth is that 60D images are crap and the 5D images have so much information that it is almost unbelievable at times. And the 5D mk II is many years old camera.

And yeah, the video: 60D video is so crappy and aliasing and latitude and detail lacking (even in good lighting conditions, with studio lights and all) that it almost hurts my eye while I find the 5D mk II video usable.

When 5D mark III comes, I will probably sell my 60D and use the mk II as second body.

[RayS2121]

The noise problem in higher pixel density sensors is one reason why Canon has probably gone back to the drawing board as professional photographers will *never* put up with this, nor will they dole out $7000+ for that kind of performance. Regardelss of the vocal protestations from the enthusiasts wanting more and more MP, looking at the actual marketing strategy of Canon.... lower priced, higher pixel density, smaller sensors for enthsiasts, and all "1" series have been lower MP. I assume Canon, who is making the money and marketing this, knows something about who wants what.

[friedmud]

Very interesting to see all of the replies.  I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go.  On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package.  But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).

I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.

As for not mentioning that I'm a landscape photographer... that was definitely an omission on my part.  After reading everything about this camera I don't fault the people that told me to snag it... there are _many_ happy customers with this camera.  I just think it's not right for me.

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.  If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me.  What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

As for "pixel peeping".  I don't think that's what I'm doing.  Anyone who looked at those photos I posted should be disgusted.  I didn't do _any_ exposure adjustment at all and just a tad bit of sharpening (not even close to as much as I typically would for a landscape shot).  The exposure is spot on... fully covering the range in every channel (yay evaluative exposure on 7D!  My XSi would have trouble doing that with even this shot ;-)

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+!  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

Bottom line: $1,500 for RAW files that you can't "push around" at all and having to apply NR at ISO 100-200 is completely unacceptable to me.

Like I mentioned, I'm still going to give it a go this weekend and see what the results are... but at this point I'm not expecting it to be good...

Thanks again for everyone taking the time to reply!  This has been extremely insightful!

[EYEONE]

Very interesting to see all of the replies.  I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me... but I'm left wondering where to go.  On paper the 7D looked like the ideal camera for me: it's got the "pro" features I want in an EFS package.  But now it seems like not only can I not upgrade to the 7D... but the 60D and T3i are out (same sensor).

I suppose I'm just going to have to continue with my XSi for now.

As for not mentioning that I'm a landscape photographer... that was definitely an omission on my part.  After reading everything about this camera I don't fault the people that told me to snag it... there are _many_ happy customers with this camera.  I just think it's not right for me.

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.  If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me.  What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

As for "pixel peeping".  I don't think that's what I'm doing.  Anyone who looked at those photos I posted should be disgusted.  I didn't do _any_ exposure adjustment at all and just a tad bit of sharpening (not even close to as much as I typically would for a landscape shot).  The exposure is spot on... fully covering the range in every channel (yay evaluative exposure on 7D!  My XSi would have trouble doing that with even this shot ;-)

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+!  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

Bottom line: $1,500 for RAW files that you can't "push around" at all and having to apply NR at ISO 100-200 is completely unacceptable to me.

Like I mentioned, I'm still going to give it a go this weekend and see what the results are... but at this point I'm not expecting it to be good...

Thanks again for everyone taking the time to reply!  This has been extremely insightful!

The 7D is a fine camera. I put my RAW files through quite a bit and they look great. I have a few issues with some of the things but I've learned to eliminate the issue or work around it. I think there could be something wrong with your 7D. But I wouldn't write off the entire 7D line for your use. It's the best crop body out right now. Period.

[neuroanatomist]

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

I am often pushing my RAW files to the edge to get more detail / color / contrast out of them.  If the 7D sensor is not making RAW files amenable to that then it's not for me.  What is a real travesty is that this camera has great features for a landscape photographer: multiple custom settings, built in level, awesome metering, etc.

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.

FWIW, the 5DII has the same C1-C3 custom settings.  A hotshoe bubble level works great, that's what I use with my 5DII. 

May I ask...why are you dead-set against the 5DII?  Is it your EF-S lens collection?  What lenses do you have?  I had the 10-22mm and the 17-55mm with my T1i, and then 7D.  When I got my 5DII, I sold the 10-22mm...for $50 less than I had paid for it (new from Amazon) after a year of use - and that was before the early 2011 price increases, if I sold it today I'd make a profit based on current used prices.  I kept the 17-55mm for us with my 7D, since that serves as a backup camera (as your XSi would, presumably).

[awinphoto]

Hey Derek... I've shot with the 7d professionally since it's release and still have it as my second shooter... I see your situation with the noise... A couple things that come to mind off hand... given the high MP and sensor density, things to consider is what in-camera sharpening do you have the camera set at and what in camera noise reduction do you have the camera set at... too high of a sharpening setting and too low of a NR will product higher noise than needed.  Secondly what do you normally output the files to?  Print?  Online?  Normally I almost always aim to have my photos printed (or judged based off of prints...).  I've had my 7d printed up to 16x20 and even  seen 7d's being printed at 20x30... typically in print, all that noise becomes detail and your prints look great...  I also warn that the base large file is for outputting at 300dpi a 11x17 print... I'd suggesting print a test print and check noise...  If it still bugs you at that time, check your settings and or send your camera in...

For what it's worth, I dont do a lot of landscapes but I do my fair share of architecture and I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8). 

[thepancakeman]

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'm reading this thread with great interest, as I also just snagged a 7D but have not opened it yet as I'm nervous about these types of issues and being a refurb from Canon I cannot return it once opened.  So anyway...

What is "a lot of work" exactly?  Again, my context is shooting athletes in a race, so I may have 500 nearly identical shots (500 different runners or cyclists)--can I do the "a lot of work" once and then copy and paste the develop settings to the other 499 (in Lightroom) or would it differ for each photo and I would have to do "a lot of work" 500 times?

[whatta]

I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8).

what about the Diffraction Limited Aperture = f/6.9 for the 7d 

[unfocused]

I am beginning to come to the conclusion that this camera isn't for me.

I'm guessing that's the right answer.

I'm one of those very satisfied 7D owners. Other than some fringing, I honestly didn't see much wrong with the files you posted (Certainly nothing I would consider earthshatteringly disappointing). I also can't see anything that makes me think the sensor is defective, so I suspect exchanging it won't make much difference.

I've never found noise to be an issue, but then again I don't spend a lot of time obsessing over electronic files (everything looks better in print) and as a former Tri-X shooter all of today's camera's blow me away with their quality.

I suppose it has to do in part with what your tolerances are and what you want to say with your photos. For me, content always trumps technique. Which is why I'd take Robert Frank over Ansel Adams any day of the week.

If you are sincerely disappointed in the 7D, then nothing others say here will convince you. You are probably better off looking for another camera.

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'm reading this thread with great interest, as I also just snagged a 7D but have not opened it yet as I'm nervous about these types of issues and being a refurb from Canon I cannot return it once opened.  So anyway...

What is "a lot of work" exactly?  Again, my context is shooting athletes in a race, so I may have 500 nearly identical shots (500 different runners or cyclists)--can I do the "a lot of work" once and then copy and paste the develop settings to the other 499 (in Lightroom) or would it differ for each photo and I would have to do "a lot of work" 500 times?

Pancakeman, don't worry. If you are shooting real people doing real things, you won't have any problem. Take a look at the samples posted with this thread and judge for yourself if you think there is something horribly wrong with them. (I don't)

The only time you'll run into issues is if you have to do a radical crop and that would be the same on almost any camera.  (And I mean really radical.)

To put things in perspective, have a look at the contest finalists in the various categories selected by CR Guy. Do you even notice or think about noise in those shots. Of course not, because the content is what is interesting and compelling.

[jrista]

1. The 7D, unlike other canon DSLR's, has ISO 80 as a base, making ISO 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 ideal.

Do you have a source for this?  It doesn't jive with what I've read:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=784514

Of course sensorgen.info shows the "marked" normal ISOs are quite different from the stated:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=784514

@ friedmud:  Have you tried auto ISO for a comparison?  ISO 400 in the same situations?  What you describe sounds a little bit like noise from underexposure.

Also, you should check the Highlight Tone Priority setting:  Turn it off, if it is on.

From some other forum threads, posts by people who have purportedly talked directly to Canon reps about the issue. Note, I guess I wasn't clear, but the two options were either/or, not both together. Its either that the sensor is BASE 80, rather than BASE 100, OR its that the sensor is just a bit noisy, and 160/320/640 are pulled from the previous ISO, which is why they look a bit better than the prior native ISO's. I don't know which case is true, but I'm not trying to state that both cases are true.

[awinphoto]

I find shooting around F8 gives more than enough DOF for this camera and also gives the sharpest results with my L lenses (well 5.6-8).

what about the Diffraction Limited Aperture = f/6.9 for the 7d 

I find that aperture to work great with my L lenses... I've mentioned prior in other threads diffraction is more based on the camera/lens combo rather than a hardline camera rule... for instance using the kit lens 28-135mm you may very well have a limit of 6.9 or even shallower but with the 24-105L, as example, would give you a little more leadway, hence F8... My last thing in my post your referring to, I did say F 5.6-8 works best but even at 5.6 for instance, shooting landscape scenes, you should have more than enough DOF unless you are shooting objects in the extreme foreground that you want sharp in tandem with the background, otherwise a city scape or whatever you, especially if you compensate a little for hyperfocal length, you should be golden.