Canon 7D for studio work

[vbi]

I cannot comment on "studio use" becuase I don't use a studio.  But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)  I love my 7D for the feel, the AF, and the FPS, and high ISO images, but if I accidentally wandered into a studio I would prefer to have my 40D.

I have to agree. The 40D produces a far cleaner image which appears sharper to me. The 7D seems a little "fuzzy" in comparison. So I also have mixed feelings about the 7D...the AF, the speed, the solidity is impressive, but the IQ is a little disappointing.

[danski0224]

Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?

[Kernuak]

Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?

It isn't something I've noticed, but I also haven't done any tests, I just use what I need to use to get the shot. Really that is what matters, rather than any technical testing that has been done in artificial conditions. The similar comments for other cameras at the full stop ISO setting don't seem to match what I've seen on other cameras either. One thing I do find with the 7D, it tends to underexpose by about 2/3rds stop compared to the 5D MkII, so ISO 1600 on the 7D matches ISO 1000 on the 5D MkII.

[marekjoz]

Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?

No it is not. It was explained somewhere very deeply (I can search for source if you wish). 80, 160, 320 etc. are not base ISO settings but artificially created. You could achieve same result in postprocessing. Setting these parameters you risk higher noise/narrower tonal range. It might have sense if shooting video for more accurate expo setting, which could allow to avoid more postproduction, which in case of video could bring more picture degradation than in case of still raw shooting.

[awinphoto]

Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?

No it is not. It was explained somewhere very deeply (I can search for source if you wish). 80, 160, 320 etc. are not base ISO settings but artificially created. You could achieve same result in postprocessing. Setting these parameters you risk higher noise/narrower tonal range. It might have sense if shooting video for more accurate expo setting, which could allow to avoid more postproduction, which in case of video could bring more picture degradation than in case of still raw shooting.

I think the 80, 160, etc argument is more theory vs practice... in theory the camera shoots at the higher ISO in those situations such as 100, 200 in this example than in camera under expose it 1/3 stop hence shooting to the left and then recovering the shadows...  In theory and to those who want to view it as an improvement can and will see it as such, but in practice, for me, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but then again i haven't done any scientific measurements to support or disprove this theory... perhaps neuro will set us all straight 

[szmigielDESIGN]

Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?

100/200/400/800/1600/3200/6400 - These are native ISO values achieved by hardware.

125/250/500/1000/2000/4000 - These are ISO values achieved by applying 1/3 EV gain to the closest, lower full ISO value which results in more noise and lowered dynamic range by 1/3 EV.

160/320/640/1250/2500/5000 - These are ISO values achieved by applying negative 1/3 EV gain to the closest, higher full ISO value which results in less noise and lowered dynamic range by 1/3 EV.

Long story short:
Photography in RAW - doesn't matter.
Photography in JPEG - avoid "base + 1/3".
Video filming - stick to "base - 1/3".

Source:
Own experience + link + link
EDIT: more links - link

[marekjoz]

...and some other link with good explanation http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/

[nicku]

I want to thank all for sharing your experience regarding the 7D. After a thorough research i came to a conclusion:

I will go for the 5Dmk2 - the Image quality is more important for me than the autofocus and other functions that 7d have over 5d.

I will keep my 40D for that 30% where 1.6 crop factor  and 6.5 fps is a huge advantage.

Thanks again for your support and sharing your experience. Very, very helpful,

BR,

Nik

[unruled]

I feel slightly less bad about my 4yr old 40d now... :-)

[marekjoz]

I feel slightly less bad about my 4yr old 40d now... :-)

Yes! I used 40d before 7d. 7d is much more responsive, better look and feel, excellent AF but quality of images not so much better that 40d if at all. 5d2 so widely appreciated has the same look and feel as 40d - it's like putting a better sensor into 40d alloy but makes a lot better looking pictures.

So 7d - nice toy but not a much progress torwads better quality. 5d2 - same toy as 40d but better image quality.

[vbi]

Don't feel alone...I still love my 40D.

I feel slightly less bad about my 4yr old 40d now... :-)

[revup67]

I am an owner of the 7D for almost 2 years now and like anything else you can sometimes find ways to work around its deficits.

My work has been published in the news paper and about twice a month on KABC-TV Channel 7 HD Los Angeles for weather broadcasts as well as Channel 5 KTLA in HD and on various web sites for our local county (yes I know web is 72dpi) and so I am told a few newsletters.  The pics look pretty darn good (not a one complaint from any source about noise).  I view the broadcasts on a 65" HD TV (no discernible noise that I can see).  I won't go the battle of the 5DMkii vs. the 7D noise comparison, OK fine the 7D loses - we all know that esp. beyond 400 ISO.  A lot can be done in post work to truly mitigate (not eliminate) the 7D's weaknesses you just need to know the ins and outs of post work and have the right software.  I avoided the 5D MKii due to its lack of features (no getting around this such as FPS..a dog) since its ideal primarily for portrait work and very limited outside this but if that's your bag then the 5D should be your choice.  I used to recompose but rarely if ever do I do this any longer.  Watching Canon's Rudy (forget his last name) training demos on the BandH web site has taught me much more about the 7D and also the Blue Crane DVD's so I can exploit its features to its limits and are now more keen of its weaknesses.  There are many features of the 7D I'd be pressed to be without.  Perhaps since we are on the helm of a 5D Mkiii release I'll go this route after seeing on this site what's to be expected but for the time being, I try and shoot 100 ISO to 200 ISO only unless I truly want the shot no matter and then post process until its done satisfactorily never expecting perfection from a noise standpoint.  I hope this helps you in your decision and quest.

It all depends on what you can live with and what are you priority needs.