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
142 Comments
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%