Canon 7D for studio work

[thepancakeman]

My friend who shoots for GQ and FHM and other magazines uses a 7D and a 24-70mm. I used a 40D last year and got some work published in 944 magazine as well. But, like some of the previous posters have said, lighting is more important for studio work than the camera.

I can post some studio work I've done later and you can judge for yourself if you think the 7D is good enough.

I understood the OP to be asking about upgrading from the 40D to the 7D, which is different than "is the 7D good enough." I knew the issues with the 7D IQ before I bought it and for my non-studio uses it was still a worthwhile purchase, aka "good enough". But IMHO a 40D to 7D "upgrade" for the studio is probably not a good investment unless there are other non IQ features that are needed.

 

[Kernuak]

One thing that is often forgotten about higher resolution sensors, they are less forgiving. Not only do they magnify the detail, but they also magnify any imperfections, be it slight motion blur or lens quality. There are a number of higher grade lenses which outresolve the 40D sensor, but the 7D is able to outresolve those same lenses. I owned the 40D before the 7D, and there isn't really any comparison. Yes, the images appear softer in 7D RAW images, because as Neuro said, you're looking at a magnified view. 7D RAW images can accept high levels of sharpening in Adobe Camere RAW, often up to to 75 or more (I've even pushed it to 90 just to see what it looks like), if you shapren that much with the 40D, you are likely to hit problems. As a standard, I set the sharpening on the 7D at 40, instead of the default ACR of 25 and most files then look fine, although, even the slightest motion blur is visible. With a static subject on a tripod, the 7D is far superior to the 40D in my experience. Granted it doesn't match the 5D MkII in the same circumstances though. the other failing with the 7D is the increased diffraction limited aperture problem. You start to see softening from the effects of diffraction quite a bit earlier than you would with the 40D and it is easily visible to me by f/11 and by f/16 it is irritating (a bit like f/22 was on the 40D). This was my main reason for getting the 5D MkII, saving the 7D for fast moving wildlife or when I needed the reach. I tend to use the 5D MkII for macro too, both for use of narrow apertures and because of the better IQ. For studio work though, from my limited experience, you're often around f/8 anyway, which shouldn't be a problem.
I have only done one studio shoot, but unfortunately, I just double-checked and I used the 5D MkII, so I can't help with links. You're welcome to look on my website or Flickr account at any wildlife shots for examples of what the 7D can do in that setting. They're relatively low resolution on Flickr and you can't see the full size on my website, but I should be able to set something up if you really want to look. I send most of the images I feel are good enough for my website to stock sites and they've never had a problem with image quality (well, except for one 40D image that was described as soft or lacking definition, but it was a mist shot, so it was supposed to be ).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15522274@N04/

 

[awinphoto]

One thing that is often forgotten about higher resolution sensors, they are less forgiving. Not only do they magnify the detail, but they also magnify any imperfections, be it slight motion blur or lens quality. There are a number of higher grade lenses which outresolve the 40D sensor, but the 7D is able to outresolve those same lenses. I owned the 40D before the 7D, and there isn't really any comparison. Yes, the images appear softer in 7D RAW images, because as Neuro said, you're looking at a magnified view. 7D RAW images can accept high levels of sharpening in Adobe Camere RAW, often up to to 75 or more (I've even pushed it to 90 just to see what it looks like), if you shapren that much with the 40D, you are likely to hit problems. As a standard, I set the sharpening on the 7D at 40, instead of the default ACR of 25 and most files then look fine, although, even the slightest motion blur is visible. With a static subject on a tripod, the 7D is far superior to the 40D in my experience. Granted it doesn't match the 5D MkII in the same circumstances though. the other failing with the 7D is the increased diffraction limited aperture problem. You start to see softening from the effects of diffraction quite a bit earlier than you would with the 40D and it is easily visible to me by f/11 and by f/16 it is irritating (a bit like f/22 was on the 40D). This was my main reason for getting the 5D MkII, saving the 7D for fast moving wildlife or when I needed the reach. I tend to use the 5D MkII for macro too, both for use of narrow apertures and because of the better IQ. For studio work though, from my limited experience, you're often around f/8 anyway, which shouldn't be a problem.
I have only done one studio shoot, but unfortunately, I just double-checked and I used the 5D MkII, so I can't help with links. You're welcome to look on my website or Flickr account at any wildlife shots for examples of what the 7D can do in that setting. They're relatively low resolution on Flickr and you can't see the full size on my website, but I should be able to set something up if you really want to look. I send most of the images I feel are good enough for my website to stock sites and they've never had a problem with image quality (well, except for one 40D image that was described as soft or lacking definition, but it was a mist shot, so it was supposed to be ).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15522274@N04/

This is my experience with this camera. I know different people are going to look at cameras with their own needs and perspectives and wants... I remember when the 10D just came out... I was crushed for being a minor upgrade to the D60. Same when i was researching the 30D before I bought that... forums ripped apart that camera... Bottom line there is no one camera that will appease everyone... people are going to love the camera, others are going to hate it... It doesn't make it a good or bad camera, just a tool that will help a nice chunk of Canon's Photographers.

 

[gmrza]

This is my experience with this camera. I know different people are going to look at cameras with their own needs and perspectives and wants... I remember when the 10D just came out... I was crushed for being a minor upgrade to the D60. Same when i was researching the 30D before I bought that... forums ripped apart that camera... Bottom line there is no one camera that will appease everyone... people are going to love the camera, others are going to hate it... It doesn't make it a good or bad camera, just a tool that will help a nice chunk of Canon's Photographers.

What wasn't clear in the original post was the target market, and intended media in which the images would be displayed. While I would agree that the 5DII is way superior for studio work, the 7D can be used for studio work, provided you are not pushing it past its limitations.
In terms of prices, we are also at a point where the 5DII is not terribly much more expensive than the 7D now. That was not the case a couple years ago. Given that you are mainly concerned with studio work, which will mainly be shot at ISO100, you stand to benefit less from a potential 5DIII, which will probably mainly bring improvements in low light / high ISO and hopefully auto-focus - neither of which will impact your images a lot.

If your business will not be impacted by the fact that you are not using the latest body - i.e. you don't have clients who are gear-heads - now may be a very good time to buy while the 5DII is cheap(ish).

 

[mitchell3417]

I love my 7d and have never had a client complain about IQ. That being said I've shot a lot of children, sometimes in low light, and the autofocus has been awesome. It's hard to keep a 2 year-old in focus long enough to focus then reframe your shot. With the 7d I never have to worry about that.

 

[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]

7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...

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]

Re: 7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...

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]

Re: 7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...

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.