Not much love here
I’m a big fan of Darwin’s work. He’s one of those photographers that makes landscape images I can stare at for long periods of time. I was pretty eager to read his take on the 7D.
I was quite surprised by the results….
From Darwin
“Of all the cameras we have ever used, we loved the handling of the Canon 7D the best. What a little sports car of a camera! We so much wanted to love this camera. But in test after test we constantly were disappointed in the quality of the files. For our purposes, landscape and nature photography shot using RAW images, the 7D just does not cut it. Darwin is definitely keeping his Rebel (a great camera for the money) for backpacking. We were so impressed with the Canon G11 that we plan to add it to our camera bags as an everyday walk around camera.”
Read More: http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/
CR’s Take
I’m super curious now if I’d get the same results. I’m going to give it a whirl if I get some time.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Looks like a classic case of diffraction limits of the sensor being exceeded by shooting primarily at f11 and higher. The pixel density of this camera is the highest ever for a Canon DSLR so there needs to be awareness of that fact when shooting at high f-stops.
For landscape photographers used to stopping down, this may not be the best camera given those constraints. But if you shoot wide open or around f2.8-5.6, this camera can turn in stunningly sharp images for its sensor size.
DPReview shows this diffraction effect in the review of the new Canon EF 100mm f2.8L MACRO lens on page 3:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page3.asp
Darwin’s review is concentrating on the landscape aspect of the camera only, but the problem is without using it in other situations (such as portraits) it’s not really a review one should point to as a definitive yes/no purchasing decision type review.
I own the 7D and can tell you for my purposes, it’s a stunning achievement and upgrade from my 40D! I’m very happy with the purchase….
HTH
Paul Leeming
Director/CEO
Visceral Psyche Films
I agree with Pauls comments.
It seems a bit of an odd choice to think a 7D will be suited to landscape work in the first place but I think its good to get specific reviews tailored to specific activities.
Diffraction limited aperture at its finest. The trouble with the 7D is that Canon markets it as a multi-purpose camera when in reality it’s a terrible choice for landscape photos.
A landscape photographer would be better off buying a cheaper Rebel with fewer pixels or splurging for a 5D with a full frame sensor.
5DII you mean. :-)
From 7D tests by Darwin Wiggett :
“Just for fun we interpolated the Rebel’s 12 MP files up to the size of the 7D’s sensor at 18 MP and downsized the 1Ds Mark III files from 21 MP to 18 MP. We used Photoshop’s bicubic interpolation for resizing. We left the 7D at its native 18 MP resolution. This is not really a fair test because upsizing and downsizing reduces image quality.”
At this point I’ve stopped reading. To many logical and technical errors:
1. “Just for fun..” what’s so funny about testing so serious camera?
2. Comparison of pro FF and semi-pro APS-C cameras is not apple-to-apple. It’s apple-to-pumpkin.
3. TS-E lens is not proper for 18Mp APS-C. It’s weird kind of lens to any comparisons.
4. 18Mp should be downsized to 12 Mp. Who said that “downsizing reduces image quality”? Wrong!
They could compare 7D to D300S. That would be ok but still not apple-to-apple. I think that such “tests” are harmful.
I would not buy this camera for landscapes. I have found my 7D at lower ISO’s and wide open the pictures I’m getting are stunning. I have a 5D MII and would suggest this for some one who wants to shoot wide shots if you can afford two cameras.
As I write this a Canon 7D commercial comes on the tube and shows a guy walking out of his cabin and shoots a landscape, lol. I bought this camera to compliment my 5D MII as a sports action shooter. What I do find though is that it does stunning portrait shot’s but definately does not handle noise like the 5D.
I think you all should read my take on the 7D:
http://www.kareldonk.com/karel/2009/11/08/canon-eos-7d-review-noisier-than-40d/
I agree with the above – this is diffraction. I had the same results with my macros until I learned about it. My Live View was tack sharp because it’s at f/2.8. The macros at f/32 looked like mush. You’ll start seeing diffraction at f/5.6 when pixel-peeping on a 7D. It’s just another one of the trade-offs. If you’re planning on pixel-peeping, then decide which is more important to ya – depth of field or sharpness where in focus.
As Fremen said – don’t buy this for landscape shooting. This camera is optimized to get a shot quickly, not for the highest possible image quality on tripod with manual focus.
Test of this camera capturing a kid running around in a poorly-lit room against a 5dmk2 and it’ll win. The mk2 will win for stuff that doesn’t need the quick rapid-fire rate and quick and customizable focusing abilities.
Every camera has its best use cases. The 7D is a great tool to add to your bag, or a primary one if you mainly shoot birds and sports.
5D might outperform the 5dmk2 at ISO100 landscape. Its diffraction limit is lower than the mk2’s.
exit_level Says:
1. “Just for fun..” what’s so funny about testing so serious camera?
it´s “fun” not “funny” they said, those are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. for example ,you being so serious without no sense of humour is “fun” to read ,and it makes you a “funny” guy . got it ? :-) .
2. Comparison of pro FF and semi-pro APS-C cameras is not apple-to-apple. It’s apple-to-pumpkin.
yes and even compared to a “lemon” rebel xt the apple disappoints :-).looks like that´s why you lost the “fun” reading the review:-)
3. TS-E lens is not proper for 18Mp APS-C. It’s weird kind of lens to any comparisons.
care to explain that in detail?.i bet it´ll be “fun” to read it.
4. 18Mp should be downsized to 12 Mp. Who said that “downsizing reduces image quality”? Wrong!
we are talking about a 18 Mp cam and how other low MP cams compares to it,by upsampling the XT and D300 files both are being handicaped and still beats the native res files from you apple,it´s really “funny” :-).
They could compare 7D to D300S. That would be ok but still not apple-to-apple. I think that such “tests” are harmful.
they did and you can see the results,which says, the proof is in the pudding , “funny” the pudding is in someone else´s plate:-)
by the way thanks for the “fun”, you are really “funny”.
If the mushy images are due to diffraction, then why is it that the interpolated 12MP (APS-C) images shot with identical aperture look sharper? I think there is something besides diffraction going on – maybe a stronger AA filter as is suggested.
What’s clear, in any case, is that the high pixel density APS-C sensors require an increasing amount of post-processing in order to get sharp-looking results.
Also, in looking at the DPR samples for the 7D, which were all shot with zooms, it’s easy to see how the extra MP aren’t getting you much more detail, even in the center. At the edges things can look pretty rotten at 100% (look at the 17-55mm shots). Hopefully with primes things would look better.
A lot of people would prefer an improved 12MP sensor, but I doubt Canon will respond to this.
BTW, lots of people who can’t afford a full frame camera WILL be using the 7D or another APS-C cam for landscapes, so this is not as absurd as people may think.
Give me a break about this 12mp stuff.
Why does it have to be 12 mp? In where in the photography bible does it state that 12 mp sensors are the end all. It’s ridiculous and I’m so tired of everyone referencing it as such. It’s these statements and the pixel pitch statements that really get to me.
I would NEVER believe someone who shoots all the time at f8 or f16.
f1.8 is the way to go!
Karel – did you even use the 7D? When you summarize a camera by saying that it is noisier than another camera, it sounds like you’ve lost some perspective. Many people in their REAL LIFE shooting are saying precisely the opposite – that the 7D produces slightly superior high ISO files than the 40D. But you can keep looking at other people’s studio tests and make your own judgment.
** CR – you might wanna include a note that there’s discussion that the results could be completely wrong due to diffraction. If we’re right, then the article, and your post, are going to mislead people.
For most people in their everyday shooting (especially consumers using zooms), it is unlikely that detail beyond what you can get with a 12MP sensor is actually being captured. You could probably make the same argument in favor of smaller resolution sensors as well – 12MP is not a magic number. To really get the extra detail from a higher res sensor you have to use excellent lenses and shoot very carefully at optimum apertures. Even then the additional detail is lower in contrast due to the limitations of the lens. I just think that most people (consumers especially) don’t benefit from the really high resolution sensors.
Am I missing something? I thought diffraction is a lens characteristic – why should this depend on the sensor? with a higher density sensor you are simply capturing the same diffraction blur with more pixels – it doesn’t make the picture blurrier than the one shot with the lower density sensor.
You’re missing something. Diffraction is caused by the lens, increasing for smaller apertures. At very small apertures (f/11->f/32), a diffraction pattern called an “airy disk” appears on the sensor. This looks like a bunch of concentric circles.
That’s fine, so long as the circles all still fit inside a single sensor element. When the sensor elements get smaller and smaller, that airy disk now bleeds across different pixels, giving us fuzziness.
Comparing the 7D to the 5dmk2, let’s just crop off the full-framiness (yep, I’m making up words) of the 5dmk2. That leaves an 8mpx 1.6X sensor. Those pixels are a lot bigger, giving you an extra stop or two (I’d have to check) of aperture to play with before diffraction becomes apparent.
Here’s the best resource I’ve found on the topic:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
So, diffraction is caused by the lens, but the sensor sets the limit as to when that diffraction becomes apparent. That’s the lens’s diffraction-limited aperture, or DLA.
The review of DPReview is much more accurated, and tested with diferent raw conversors, is clear that DPP is bad (at this version) to convert 7D raw files.
Just look at same on LR 3 beta…
7D is very sharp and clear with correct (not bad DPP conversion)
Just look at crops of landscape photos of 7D on various sites. it, just, sharp and well balanced tones! Google it…
I think it was a bit of a dodjy beta… my rebel is much worse
They all seem like pretty legit tests and comparisons to me. Open your eyes, man, it’s not an ideal landscape camera.
And to say that it’s “harmful” to compare a pro camera to a consumer camera is asinine. If anything it’d make the consumer model look bad, not the other way around.
You’re a jackass. They didn’t say they downsized the 7D photo, they “interpolated the Rebel’s 12 MP files up to the size of the 7D’s sensor at 18 MP”. That is handicapping the Rebel’s photo, and it still looks better. DUH!
Blakem
The article is very specific about their needs- Landspace. For such a case, it is an excellent review. And the authors also state that they loved everything else about the camera, but it was just not for them- which I find pretty brave of them to admit.
True, I would also expect that some software fine-tuning in the coming months helps out with some of these issues, but there’s nothing inherently misleading or dishonest about it. After all… diffraction is diffraction. The results they got are going to be replicated if someone else is doing landscape too.
It probably is diffraction, but the guys testing the camera shoot landscapes. It seems to be more of a review for landscape shooters.
But, yeah, maybe a disclosure couldn’t hurt. Some people like to read half an article and then cry foul.
Of course, then we might miss out on some more humorous angry posts. =]
He mentioned diffraction as an afterthought, and he didn’t mention the aperture used in every sample. He compared different cameras at different apertures. I’m not familiar with the reviewer, but it seems that he learned about diffraction-limiting after writing the review.
You’re correct – he does say “not for me”, but the article isn’t really themed that way. If he was responsible and knew about DLA, he would have said “and again, this is due to refraction”. Refraction was mentioned at the very end of the post as an update.
Are you saying that if you print two files, one 10MP and the other 18MP, shot of the same subject and at the same aperture, to the same output size (say 11×14) the one from the higher res sensor is inferior? I don’t care about how the file looks at 100%
Addition: the shot is at a small aperture, say f/16.
The building pictures are taken at f8 (with a 45TSE). So diffraction isn’t the only explanation.
In this case, it may be the default processing in DPP and the absence of sharpening.
IMHO, applying capture sharpening and trying to produce the best possible files makes more sense to compare cameras.
Of course, they may be right, but so many testers show the opposite… I’m curious what Reichmann will say, he also found the beta 7D very soft.
I agree. At such a high pixel density it seems the files are very sensitive to how they are processed.
Seems to me Reichmann is too enamored of Leica to spend any more time with the 7d… ;-)
You hit the nail on the head. It’s DPP, not the 7D or diffraction effects.
I’m not 100% sure about this, but I believe they’ll look the same at the same print resolution. When you use a DLA calculator, they always as the print size.
Yeah, but what’s the point of the review if all he’s going to tell us is that the camera has refraction at small apertures? You can know that before opening the box or reading a single review based on the sensor pixel size.
The review is flawed – diffraction seems to have entered the reviewer’s mind after the fact. That renders every test invalid – no additional information is added by this review if diffraction mushed up the results.
I’ve been reading a lot of reviews on the 7D myself from a variety of places, and I’ve seen some images that were land-and-cityscapes that were very sharp and I’m wondering if these folks had lens calibration issues?
For example, in initial use of my 7D with the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (which is a fantastic lens; I’ve used it on my XTi with great success), I was getting some soft images and some focus/blur issues, so I did some digging about lens calibration and micro-adjustment; I’ve heard a few shooters say they’ve had to micro-adjust their lenses in the camera. After I micro-adjusted my Tamron F2.8, I got images that were far and away sharper than they were previously, especially at the center of the image. This was only a first run micro-adjustment test (using a 430EX II flash as well) and a more strenuous and in depth test is planned. I absolutely love my 7D, and I will soon be testing it with the Canon 24-70mm L F2.8, and I fully expect to need to micro-adjust it to get the sharpest images possible.
You wouldn’t think that would be a necessity, but I spent a lot of money on the 7D/28-135mm kit, and there ain’t no -way- I’m going to send it back to Canon if I can fix whatever issues there are with the camera myself. And this camera is has more customizable features than I ever knew existed on a DSLR, meaning that in my opinion, I think any issue that a photographer might come across (that isn’t an obvious factory defect or camera/lens fault) can be addressed by the photographer in question with a little consultation of the manual and some trial and error.
You may be right, but Darwin performed his tests using manual focus with the LCD viewfinder. So lens calibration isn’t the issue here.
I have a 7D too and my initial impressions were: great for video, handles lovely, but picture quality is lacking for a camera in this price range. Noise as ISO 100 and the overall lack of sharpness (yes, even with JPG). Images don’t pop.
Perhaps when ACR 5.6 is out things will change a little, but as Darwin argues this isn’t really compensation. I’ll keep testing however.
+1
I bought it for the same reason. Just did 2 weddings with the 5DMKII and 7D combo… the result is not bad at all. You can’t really compare both camera, but working with them together make sense for me.
yep way too much noise at ISO 100.
Check Morten Vine’s comment below about noise at ISO 100.
Many people in their REAL LIFE shooting might not be as demanding as us who use it for professional purposes.
Yes. IF by inferior, you mean the sharpness.
The effect is huge. The Digital Picture has a tool where you can compare different cameras and apertures. Here’s the 5D mark II at f/11 compared to the 7D at f/11. Move your mouse over the image to see the 5D vs. the 7D.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=479&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6&LensComp=458&CameraComp=673&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=6
Here is the same comparison at f/16.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=479&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=7&LensComp=458&CameraComp=673&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7
See the problem?
What I find fascinating is that folks moving up to DSLR from P&S are probably thinking this means it is better for everything. It is sort of cruel of the laws of optics and pixels to force us to buy different cameras for different uses. So compromise is in order if we can’t afford both and then we just LIVE WITH IT.
I’d have preferred the 7D have say 13-14 megapixel, especially since I don’t have a lot of L glass and can’t match the res of the camera. So with that limitation, I’d prefer less noise. But perhaps that is where the 60D kicks in. I’ll wait and see what innovation of the 7D makes it into the 60D….
Has anyone tried the 7D for macro work ? Like landscapes mostly done at small apertures. I would be interested to hear.Pete
Of course it makes sense when comparing different sensor formats; I’m talking about the same sensor size, different pixel density, same print size. Will the high pixel density print look less sharp than the low density print.
Two points:
All the images are taken at small aperatures, which will favor larger pixels. This gives the appearance that the rebel takes better pictures when small aperatures are used, if the raw file is also not processed further.
Upsizing the image likely induces a sharpening effect, so I don’t think this is a legitimate test. Can anyone confirm this?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to discount this camera on the basis of small aperature testing.
I’m still considering the 7D, but I am not an early adopter, so I’ll wait a few months and see how the use experience works out. It it dissapointing to see a negative review, because like everyone else, I’m hoping to find the perfect camera. DP Review is still the best source for overall camera info, so I’m not going to overly swayed by the landscape specialist.
Too much noise at ISO 100. I assume then that you’ve never shot with film… too much grain at ISO 50?
Regarding diffraction, well you just know Canon is going to more MP’s in all their cameras…..1Ds4 30 to 40mp, the 5D3….probably high 20’s, the 1D4 is 16mp and iso 102000.
So is Nikon’s fewer MP the holly grail.
Obviously, those who are worried about diffraction have no other option than to move to Nikon, because Canon will only put in more MP’s.
I’m new to this, diffraction stuff. What’s the limit I shouldn’t break on my T1i?
who is karel dong ding dong? why we should read his post, he is just a p&s shooter?,
Google is your friend…
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T1i-500D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx specifies THEORETICAL DLA for your camera as 7.6 but you have to read the fine print “DLA does not mean that narrower apertures cannot be used. And in fact, higher resolution sensors generally continue to deliver more detail well beyond the DLA – until the “Diffraction Cutoff Frequency” is reached (a much narrower aperture).”
See for example http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d?start=1 which shows very slight degradation from f8 to f11 to f16 and a huge on at f22, other lenses show similar pattern.
You are basically safe from this “effect” until f16 on all lenses.
“For landscape photographers used to stopping down, this may not be the best camera given those constraints. But if you shoot wide open or around f2.8-5.6, this camera can turn in stunningly sharp images for its sensor size.”
With a good lens at f16 sensor’s MTF is still almost 2000 (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/461-canon_100_28is_50d?start=1) , it obviously now sensor limited rather than lens limited but there it’s safe to shoot at this aperture without fearing the diffraction bogeyman.
don’t ever shoot past f/8, it will ruin all your photos… or so some people would have you think.
It depends on what size you’re printing, or what size you prefer to view them on your monitor. Also it depends on whether you really need pixel-level detail, an oft-neglected consideration. It seems the main method of appreciating photos these days is by looking at 1/5th of the photo at a time at 100% on a monitor. If you’re like that you should never go smaller than f/8.
If current trends continue it seems no one will shoot smaller than f/4 in a few years due to diffraction effects. Because everyone knows the ultimate goal in photography is to have an ultra sharp (portion of the) image when viewing at 100%, right?
because karel’s opinion is the ULTIMATE opinion. And he can opine on things he’s never used like no one else.
I’m not sure you understand man. No one should ever use an aperture smaller than the DLA – it ruins the pixel-level sharpness when viewing at 100% on your monitor. If you need more DOF than f/5.6 then you better get a medium format camera. ;-)
yes, finally someone who understands how to do photography. Thank you.
I think that upsizing an image induces a sharpening effect.
Can anyone confirm or refute this?
“It depends on what size you’re printing”.
gwac makes an important point. Put your camera on a tripod and take a few pictures from say f8 to as low as you like. Print the pictures at the size that you usually print them and asks an impartial judge (or just a family member..) to review them, see how many complain about DLA on standard size photographs.
Is diffraction as issues? Theoretically it is. Does it matter to most people not printing poster-sized photographs? No, it doesn’t.
BTW … I also know someone who swears that the Canon PowerShot SX1 IS has made DLSR’s obsolete. And he can prove it by comparing the best shot he has taken under ideal conditions on his SX1 with action shots taken by my 40D with a bad lense in a poorly lit indoor pool.
So there!
;)
You can use digital-pic website with the comparison shots — T1i is available from the drop down on the page as one of the cameras available for comparison.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=4&Lens=458&Camera=479&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=458&CameraComp=488
Let’s not forget that the 5DmkII is about a thousand dollars more than the 7D. It’s not surprising that you’re getting something for that extra money!
The review, flawed or not, is still educational. I shoot mostly landscapes and scenery, and even knowing about diffraction beforehand I wouldn’t have thought that my 450D would produce better results than the 7D(I understand at larger apertures, this doesn’t apply). It just never occurred to me that the 18mp sensor made that much difference. It makes me wonder if buying a 50D would be worth it to me for what I shoot.
It does however, stand to reason that a professional landscape photographer should have known about diffraction limitations beforehand, so in a way it doesn’t make complete sense.
Maybe he did learn about diffraction after writing the review. I can see that.
What are you basing these assumptions off? I would say 99% of people just throw out 12 mp because Nikon has practically stopped at 12mp. Do you all honestly think if Nikon had the flexibility of making their own sensors they wouldn’t come out with a high mp one?
Of course downsizing reduces image quality. How could it not?
Why do you think that? Resizing images generally makes them LESS sharp.
bad review, thats all … user error or faulty piece …
No, all else being equal, it wont.
Noise at 100 ISO was never a problem and is a completely moot point. No one cares that 99.5% of optimal performance is worse than 99.7% of optimal performance.
explain to me why it is ok for a newer camera model (7D) to have more noise (worse image quality) than an older model (40D).
Hmm, yes, professionals in real life shooting are less demanding than those who sit with their nose to the screen and quibble about ISO 100. So true.
Nikon is like the AMD of the CPU industry. Remember when people used to think that computers with CPUs that have more gigahertz were faster? Then AMD came along with 2Ghz CPUs that beat Intel’s 3Ghz CPU’s with a great margin while running cooler and using less power.
Nikon is showing everyone now that more megapixels does not mean better image quality.
Wow, you’re angry. I’m pretty sure I’m not the cause of whatever you’re pissed about.
Like I said there’s nothing magical about 12MP, but based on what I’ve seen the 12MP Xsi shows very good per-pixel detail compared to subsequent releases.
I think it’s just a fact – most people don’t print huge and on a monitor there’s just no purpose for a full-size image unless you want to view one quarter of it. And most lenses people use (esp. kit lenses) don’t even come close to satisfying sensor resolutions across the frame. Even the EF-S 17-55mm looks pretty rough at 100% on the 7d.
In my view, the ever-increasing resolution is at least partly motivated by marketing concerns – the most recognizable measure of IQ to consumers is number of MP. Sure Nikon will increase MP in their next releases, but not necessarily because people need it. They have to compete. Professionals may have some use for really hi-res files, but I doubt that most consumers actually utilize all 15-18MP (or even less).
This is the way the market is working right now. Unless consumers come to value something besides number of MP, we will continue to see an increase in MP. That’s the bottom line.
Oh dear, that analogy could only have been worse if it was a car analogy.
You can do this yourself with the dropdowns on the links above. No need to compare different sensor sizes. Here’s the 10.1MP 1000D compared to the 7D at f/16:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=465&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=7&LensComp=458&CameraComp=673&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7
There’s a difference, although it’s not as pronounced.
However, given that we’re talking about landscape photos here, my recommendation stays the same. Buy a 5D or 5D mark ii.
Thanks for the link. As far as I can tell the resolution is determined by diffraction, which is identical between both models regardless of the nominal resolution. This makes sense.
You mean like the professionals mentioned in this post who are experiencing the wonderfulness of the soft mushy 7D images?
I don’t know but I thought the algorithm would accentuate the edges. Perhaps losing fine detail, but harder edges?
As the kiddies say “pwned”.
Typical fanboi response.
Apparently not even professionals are immune to measurbation.
The reviewer tried 3 separate 7D’s before writing the review.
I agree that DPP might be to blame, although I wouldn’t write off diffraction – we could be seeing compounding effects.
I just took my 7D out for a shoot last evening (birds, not landscapes!), shooting at ISO 3200 the whole time because of the fading light.
I processed the pictures later that night in Adobe Lightroom 3 beta (with Camera Raw 6.0), and the results were stunning. I love the grain effect of the 7D, very film-like. The grain looks better than my 5DII at high ISO’s – no pattern noise. My only complaint is the bright flecks, probably the consequence of getting rid of the pattern noise. You can crank those down with noise reduction, but go to very far and you pay in sharpness.
I haven’t looked at any 5DII shots with LR3beta yet, can’t wait!
Your conclusions are not universally shared, many disagree with you. In any case, if there are deficiencies in IQ compared to previous models Canon should indeed be chastised for it (not that it would make much of a difference).
Your problem is that you make what MIGHT be a 1/3 stop difference in noise performance that has little to no bearing on how a PRINT actually looks (what matters for a professional after all, no?) and make it into the centerpiece of a “review” of a product you haven’t even used.
Have you read the comments here? The reviewer didn’t control for diffraction – that’s a complete rookie mistake. Most of his results were almost certainly entirely due to diffraction. At the end, he updates with “well… diffraction might have kicked in… I’ll be careful next time” or so.
I did not try using mine for ultra wide landscapes, but it certainly was not in the same league as the 5D MK II for regular wide angle. I expected that.
For telephoto use, though, it shines.
Also, professionals who have this camera would know to use lower aperatures and hyper focal distance focusing to make the most of this camera and differaction. Being professional doesn’t mean always shooting with the biggest and newest and best equipment, it’s about making the most with what equipment you have to get the job done
“a diffraction pattern called an “airy disk” appears on the sensor. This looks like a bunch of concentric circles.”
Not “airy disk” but “Airy disk” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk
gwac, you are my hero.
I made the same point in another article on canon rumors.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2009/11/7d-review-dpreview/
Some fanboys – are you out there Carey Photography? — refused to even have an intelligent debate about this. Glad some one else saw the same thing I was seeing. And I can’t believe dpreview made such a glowing review of this camera.
The tests (at least the two first pictures) are done at F13 and F16. This sensor is diffraction limited beyond F5.6. Thus, it has no sense the comparison. Yes, for shooting at F16, a 10MP APS sensor has nearly the same results as a 18 MP one. And landscapes don’t need F16, specially taking into account that F10 achieves the same depth of field of F16 in full frame.
I don’t like the 7D, but this test is essentially a wrong nonsense by somebody with good skills but too old school.
5DmII is only for weddings
7D is only for apertures > f5.6
how much is rationalization and how much is overspecialization?
+1
i got to agree with you on this. when i first used my 7D, pixel peeping gave me a scare. what normally was decent with my lenses came out to be soft and blurred. upon doing the AF micro adjustments, everything else then came out fine. :)
i somehow have a huge uneasiness when reading this part because this method of focusing has a huge rate of mistake on the side of the human aspect.
>> “I processed the pictures later that night in Adobe Lightroom 3 beta (with Camera Raw 6.0)…”
You’ll have to share with us all where to get Camera Raw 6.0.
agreed, that was a horrible analogy.
“Also, professionals who have this camera would know to use lower aperatures and hyper focal distance focusing to make the most of this camera and differaction.”
Another good point, I was a little surprised when I read the review to read about the focusing method used. When shooting landscape the general idea is to increase the field of depth by the means of using the hyperfocal focusing, for a 70mm lens like used in some tests the hyperfocal distance is a little over 30 meters which gives sharp DOF extending from 15 or so meters to infinity. Not quite sure why would anyone want to use manual focusing on a distant subject.
Some other shots were taken with a 20mm lens at f11(!) – come on, with f11 focused at 2 meters or so everything from one meter to infinity is in focus – why waste perfectly good DOF by focusing on something more distant?
To be fair, looking at those 100% crops that camera has some issues (kinda hard to believe that random 3 bodies could be bad but stranger things have happened) but the testing methodology of this review seems to have been quite wrong.
As Craig already said, resizing makes images softer. Comparing a picture resized from 12MP to 18MP give the native image from 7D an advantage as stated in the test.
Comparing pictures taken at F8.0 you’re fairly close to where you’ll start seeing diffraction on a 7D, but F8 should still be pretty good. The effect seen in the test taken on pictures taken af F8 clearly isn’t a diffraction.
However, comparing pictures at F11, F16 or smaller might be interesting, but not suited to evaluating general image quality as there will be too much diffraction.
IMO the test show there are problems, but from the images and text you simply can’t pinpoint what’s wrong. It could be the 7D in general, but it could also be some flaw in the technique. Bad RAW conversion have been mentioned and is a possibility, focus error seem unlikely as they state that they focus manually in Live View mode.
As it stands the test seem incomplete and a bit simplistic. When you hit a problem and want to publish the resulta on the net you should at least do some basic research (and documnet it in the report) to eliminate the possibility of user/procedure error. Samples of the same scene with at least two lenses, different apertures, JPG, RAW and a couple of RAW converters would be the minimum they should have tested.
The more reviews I read the more confused I get !!!!
Most of this is a bit ridiculous – as I understand it diffraction places a resolution LIMIT on photography. Therefore, if you step down so diffraction is limiting you won’t be able to get full 18 MP resolution from a 7D because diffraction, rather than the sensor, becomes limiting. Much the same happens when you use a lens which isn’t as sharp – the extra MP is just ‘wasted’. Of course you don’t actual lose any more information than you would compared to, say, a 12 MP sensor. But if pixel-peep at 100% resolution, of course each pixel appears less sharp for 18 vs 12 MP, but the image as a whole won’t be.
And you can’t compare the images after simply oversampling/undersampling the images to the same resolution – the algorithms used could easily result in different apparent sharpness. What you want to compare the images from 18 and 12 MP after the best possible post-processing (increasing sharpness etc.) to see if the 7D really is giving inferior results (and I doubt it would).
I bought the 7d in early oct, not for anyother reason and a situation popped up where I couldn’t turn it down. I just shot the fall portraits for a local school with it and a 17-40 L and 50mm prime… Pictures were so sharp you could see the small tiny clear facial hair on the kids faces. I will admit the camera has a heck of a learning curve to get the most out of it, but if you learn it, it’s an awesome tools. You just have to play to it’s strengths. It may not be as user friendly as the 50d or even the 30’s and 10d’s but can produce stunning results.
I also have to say this camera begs to have it’s pictures printed… Yeah at the pics printed for my clients, anything smaller than let’s say 8×10 and the 18 mp won’t produce anything better than any other camera but at 11×14-16×20’s no smaller mp camera could come close to the details. I make 100% of my living on my photos and a soft focus camera would kill my income, luckily this is not the case with the 7d.
So that’s exactly what I mean. It’s completely arbitrary. People get 12mp cameras (like the Nikons) and decide since it works well. It’s what should be put in all cameras.
BTW if your theoretical consumer is using a 17-55 on a 7d. By the time that said consumer sizes it to what you say is something they will use. They will see a better picture than any previous 1.6x crop camera.
And there are many uses for higher resolution cameras. If you base your judgment just on the average consumer we should all just get cameras that shoot no bigger than the average web pic.
Well put!
I have updated to firmware 1.1.0, AF seemingly improves, but still a lot of noise in the pictures. I hope that Canon can do something on it, also a friend says that he got a lot of heat warning signal while shooting video. Is it possible to lower CMOS sensor’s voltage?
There are many limits in photography. The diffraction isn’t the worst one because you can control it. You can use better optics as well — it is some form of control. The list is pretty long. But there are many factors that we cannot skip over. One of them is Bayer array vs Airy disk limitation. All above speculations could be right for Foveon sensor, where one pixel is a stack of three basic colors. In Bayer array a quartet of pixels is necessary (2G+R+B). From these four pixels and adjacent ones a set of RGB pixels have to be generated so the final color was as natural looking as possible. Besides the Airy disk diameter depends on wave length what makes things more complicated. My point is where is the limit with increasing pixel pitch? Maybe 7D sensor is the one bridge too far?
am not sure but maybe professionals should avoid diffraction by learning to appreciate the beauty of bokeh in situations where they would initially think it is undesirable.
how poor are the people who buy kit lenses, they are at least 2 stops away from where photography should be!
* if there is anything wrong with DPP this is as bad as something wrong with the 7D.
* i don’t buy that because of diffraction limit landscapers should retreat to wider than f8-f11.
* i don’t buy the hyperfocal focusing argument, that because the reviewer didn’t use it he got soft results, provided that when he did the x10 LV manual focus, he focused on the same elements that he later cropped and showed us, hyperfocal focusing maximizes the range of distances that will be in focus in a landscape shot, if you only care about a specific building, tree or graffito wall being in focus, you focused on it by x10 LV MF and you get these bad results then it is not your mistake.
Roland Lim’s original 7D review may have come out an hour before that of DPR’s.
In his 2009/11/10 update, he added some new sections on the effect of aperture values (although not of landscapes) and also compares few different RAW converters.
Whoops, forgot to add the link to Roland Lim…
http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/
i really hope you two are being sarcastic.
sure i was. was gwac as well?
would you describe that noise as more or less than the noise created by Darwin’s review?
yes, every time a manufacturer increase the MP count like Canon did, we ask landscapers to use wider and wider apertures until their photos have a soft bokeh to them, we should never ever think about asking mfr’s to stop increasing the pixel density.
When I see some of the words in the title, I haven’t looked closely to the article.
Not a very scientific test and certainly not representative of my results. For a well lit image at ISO’s there should be barely any discernable differences in IQ between a cropper or FF. See this post as another comparison between IQ on a 7D and 5D2 which shows little to no difference:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809801/136#7765183
I feel the same way. I am hoping that some of the new tech-specs make their way into the new 60D, but with a lower MP count…say 13-15.
Sorry… that should have read:
For a well lit image at LOW ISO’s there should be barely any discernable differences in IQ between a cropper or FF.
My thoughts exactly! If we keep it to 12 mp, then we can go to F11 or so. I was really surprised that the 7D wasn’t APS-H with 18mp. They packed too many on the aps-c size sensor. But that would have probably added $200 or more due to the increased sensor size.
I am all for wanting detail, but I would REALLY like being able to shoot at iso 1600 without evening thinking about image noise. That would mean a decent 3200 performance.
STOP the megapixel race and give us less noise and more dynamic range. They are MUCH bigger hassles to deal with….
You’re the rookie – Diffraction limited because of the higher pixel density, enables more scrutinisation at the pixel level. But the reviewer upped the 450d files to 18MP and it was still sharper than the 7D. The 7D is more
Ok, can we roll everything into a ball and put it in a nutshell ?
If this review is to be believed, if I want great image quality, should I buy a couple of 450s and forget the 7d ?
Help !!
No, don’t give up on 7D. I’ve got 350D, 400D and 450D. Every one is entry level, but still 350D gives the best IQ in 100% peep-pixel comparison due to its big pixels. In print test approach probably 450D wins, but I’m not a printing guy. Having 7D you should get what is promised and with a very good lens like 24-70/2.8 you can make use of its 18 Mp power. For inferior lens you can switch to mRAW and still make better pictures than 450D. I consider above review as misguiding and besides all 3 copies of 7D could have the same fault. As I said: in the end of January everything should be okay and you can save some money and invest in 24-70/2.8 and/or 70-200/2.8. Buy only body.
The most promising feature of 7D is its new AF system. Read White paper of 1DMkIV in AF section. The same system is used in this camera and therefore sooner or later it MUST work properly.
Thanks for that, I do take mostly action photos, ( airshows etc ), so autofocus is the priority, I will wait till early next year for the 7D I think.
cheers.
Don’t listen to Karel, he is an avid canon basher. This is the same guy that claims the 5d mkii, has bad iq and bad noise performance. He simply either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or just on a crusade to bash canon.
The best part is that he writes a “review” of a camera, says how auful it is, and he has NEVER TOUCHED OR TAKEN ONE PICTURE WITH THE CAMERA. He also bashes the autofocus sytem on the 7d, even though he’s never used it.
I had a 40d, sold it when I got the 7d and I can tell you the 7d is better in EVERY way including iq and noise performance. I have taken thousands of pics with each camera. Karel has taken NONE, probably with either. Jackass….
Plain and simple he’s an idiot, thowing out garbage to bash a great camera.
Yes, Karel we ALL know Nikon rules and Canon sucks, so why don’t you get off canon sites and quit bashing them with your BS. You are beyond biased, your camera reviews on canon cameras you have never touched or taken a picture are down right silly and just plain wrong. According to you iq and noise performance on the 5d mkii, sucks, so your opinion or analysis on the 7d doesn’t mean much to me, especially considering you’ve never even held one.
Leave canon alone and go back to your little nikon work and stair and your noiseless Nikon images and touch yourself.
I agree, real pro’s like Joe McNally and scott kelby start their days at ISO 200 with their Nikons, Carel Donkey is just a Canon Hater. when this people are gonna be able to understand that today the image composition is more important for print quality than for pixel pipping, any of todays DSLR’s produces noise that can be handle with any sharpening or NR reduction software and if you’re skillfull enough you should be able to post those images to making look good, so there’s gonna be some stuck in the 12mp barrier and limiting themselves to that, let them get a billboard job to see if they are gonna be able to pull the resolution with their 12mp cameras. some pro’s already making the switch from the D300 to the 7d because of the MP advantage. lens been the limiting factor on this particular camera and yes the 7D is way better camera than any of the XXD series below.
They’re just cheapo photogs that cannot afford big aperture lenses thats way they shoot f8 ! LOL
There you go, thats the kind of review i had always look for for my purchasing plans, real photographers making real situations, real people that knows how to play with their cameras, there’s a lot of photographers wanna be’s like karel that feel intimidated by their lack of skills and just want to make unprofessional judgements on professional tools which I’ll bet some don’t even read the manual, thats why based on this real reviews I will be adquiring a 7D in the next couple months. of course am coming from a Rebel XSI which is wonderfull camera but need more room to improve and make my photography even better than they are ! …tks !
it depends on the method you use for upsizing or downsizing, most people thinks that downsizing only takes your width and lenght down, there’s few factors that can help when doing this, theres a little trick in photoshop that will let you upsize a low res image to a bigger one in few steps without loosing to much details, playing with image size and resolution and tweeking those other sliders and choosing interpolation methods, try sharpen pro from NIK software and you’re gonna be amaze what this can do for manipulating soft images.
Don’t get me wrong but i have a Ps-sx10is and the color rendition of the jpegs of a portrait session i did with my studio strobes at ISO100 and the images are color rich and have pop like never before, i shoot with a rebel xsi too and the color styles dont handle the jpegs like that of the sx10is. from that point on i’ll take a few samples with my sx10 and then shoot raw with my rebel xsi and then in LR i do post-process in prophoto rgb 16 color space and then convert them to adobe rgb 8 bit for final jpeg output making sure it matches mi sx10 image colors. now you have to remember do that the powershot sx10is comes with L quality glass with dispersion filter on it and a 2.8 aperture, incredible but this little cam can go low as ISO80…why expensier cameras like the XXD series can’t go as low as that you may ask ! canon unknowns …who knows !
And for something completely different – a competent review – http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
Thanks Michal, I like this review most. It’s matter-of-fact, not boring, not misguiding, reader friendly, not conceited and many, many more. I give it 6 stars.
I lol’d
Over and above the diffraction issues, and the upscale/downscale debate, what first tweaked my interest was comparing photos without SHARPENING them.
Who delivers a photo that is not sharpened?
If one camera need X amount of sharpening and another needs X + 2 amounts, then you reach a conclusion about who’s best part way through post processing.
Any reason a tester wouldn’t/shouldn’t comparison test the shot after sharpening the picture using whatever it needed to look at its best?
To me, it makes sense to compare the finished product – a sharpened photo.
I think the problem is the RAW processing I had a 5d MKII (for a year) and a 7D for 2 Weeks ended with the 7D. did hundred of test all of them in JPG and MOV, Mostly With L and Sigma EX lens. only time I saw some really difference was after ISO 1600. my opinion was IQ and sharppnes was same.
I think trying to Compare the 7D with the G11 is stupid. lot of people I know with Canon DSLR also own a G9 or G10 and the Quality of the G models are no way near any DSLR I had ever own even the 300D
Oh man its really not that big of a deal. Really. By the time color correction, touch up, unsharp mask etc. are done, it really doesn’t matter anymore.
That article was just another example of somebody zooming in all the way and looking at pixels.
And yes stopping down too much can cause issues with the image. I find that (depending on the lens) f-stops between f/3.5 and f/8 are as sharp as you can get it. I’ve shot in the 11s and 16s and at that point it starts to look softer.
About 7 years ago I went to do a photoshoot for a magazine. Model, makeup, lighting, hair…the works. We were shooting with a Canon 20D and I had a backup my Sony F707. We ended up using a mix of images from both cameras. The F707 was a CCD 5.25Mp semi-pro. In a lot of instances all this stressing out over how an image looks pixel by pixel is needless.
When I got my 5DmII and my friend got his D700 he spent most of his time saying negative things about my camera. I don’t know, I love this thing. If prop. taxes weren’t coming up and I had more money I wish I could have a 7D as well.
I love my 7D. All this pixel peeping needs to stop. Just take photos. Done.
Well said, all the enjoyment seems to be knocked out of photography these days by over analysis.
It’s time we looked at photos from a decent distance and not drill down into the murky depths looking for problems.
No camera is perfect, but nearly all of them now take wonderful photo’s with decent glass.
LOL too XD
But Karel is using 40D, which is a great camera.
Having said that, my experience with my friend 5D II opened my eyes regarding pic quality between FF and APS-C sized sensor…it blows my 450D and the 40D so bad in terms of IQ.
Sure the 5DII doesn’t have the fps, but hey, that’s what 2 bodies are for lol, they serve different purposes and were designed differently. I would recommend Karel 5D II just because the sheer IQ differences and no camera or any equipment is perfect.
people who are not happy with their purchase talks louder than people who are happy with their products… remember, not so long ago people were shooting primarily at ISO 100 or 200.
Or maybe, since they’re “professionals”, they know what they (and their clients) need in a photo?
Can you blame him?
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.
Whatever the subject, opinions will always differ. Yes, the 7D is more prone to diffraction limitations, but as many have said, photography is all about compromises. I probably shoot more landscapes than wildlife, but I prefer to shoot wildlife on the whole, even if I probably get better results in my landscapes. In an ideal world, I would get the 5d MkII for the landscapes, but at the time I was looking for improved AF accuracy and improved noise control in comparison to my 40D to try to improve my chances with wildlife. I was also looking for larger output files to avoid having to interpolate for certain sites.
A while back, I wrote a mini-review of sorts. It wasn’t an attempt to make any scientific comparisons, but more of a report of my experiences at that point, using the 40D as a reference point. I also tried out a few things with different AF settings after reading about AF problems.
http://avalonlightphotoart.blogspot.com/2009/10/canon-eos-7d-hands-on-mini-review.html
The conclusion I can draw from use so far, is that while it isn’t perfect, it is suitable for the purpose I intended and is more than capable of producing good results for landscapes too, even though it is never going to match the 5D MkII. I did however make one odd discovery tonight though and it is something I need to look into more. I was planning on trying out switching off noise reduction (I’d read one comment that noise reduction may still affect RAW files even when switched off) and comparing files with the standard noise reduction setting at ISO 6400. My eventual aim was to see if I could get better results by processing the files with NR off than with it set to standard. What I discovered though, was that the autofocus was less accurate with noise reduction set at standard, than when it was switched off. I tried it more than once using a 50mm f/1.4 wide open with similar results. It was full night in heavy rain, so AF accuracy was never going to be the best, but I thought it produced interesting results that others might want to investigate too.
I wish I had read more review before making my 7D purchase. Having owned many Canon bodies, I felt completely let down at the IQ of 7D images. Now this was prior to reading all the reviews that complained of soft images. I googled 7D soft images after I noticed them on mine and thats when I found all the complaints. With all my previous bodies I could go out and get sharp and consistent results. With the 7D I have yet to produce 1 single image that matches the IQ of previous Canon bodies. This is also using L glass with more than holdable shutter speeds in addition to using and not using IS. Now either there are some bad 7D bodies out there, one of which is in my hands, or the 7D just has a very narrow sweet spot that some have found. If that is the case then that makes the 7D a very poor camera body choice in my opinion. I strongly urge anyone considering this body… take a CF card to a good photography shop that will let you try the camera out. They should let you use a lens.. request an L. Take some shots in the store and check them out on your computer. Base your decision off those results.