Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D
- Thread starter friedmud
- Start date
- Status
Michael7 said:
Indeed, and it is also sharper than the 50D shots. The 50D and 5D are close...the 50D seems ever so slightly sharper than the 5D. The 7D, however, is noticeably sharper than both. As I said...the sharpness should be equivalent visually, not according to arbitrarily chosen numeric sharpening levels applied in post. The noise if the 7D in those samples is greater because the shots were oversharpened relative to the other two cameras.
Upvote
0
Just want to stress those photos are not mine, just examples of what the 7D can do with the requisite skill.
Upvote
0
Friedmud,
If you are truly as disappointed with your 7D as you claim you are, and you fall outside your warranty window, drop me a line via private message. I have a direct phone number and extension for a customer service rep at Canon who will replace your body - if you hold your ground and don't take no for an answer. I also have a direct email and cell phone number for one of Canon's regional reps - who can step in if the CS person doesn't give you the answer you need.
I'm not going to get into the flame war of "user error" vs "faulty camera" that creep into the discussion when it comes to AF and IQ issues with the 7D. Clearly, some people have repeatable issues regardless of settings, experience level, or history with the 7D.
If, in the end, you really are unhappy with the body - let me know and hopefully I can put you in touch with some one who will get the ball rolling with the replacement process. Just be warned - the replacement will be a factory refurbished unit - not new. And there's no guarantee the the replacement body will give you any better results. Some people have glowing reports after receiving a replacement, while others have been just as unhappy with the body they were given.
If you are truly as disappointed with your 7D as you claim you are, and you fall outside your warranty window, drop me a line via private message. I have a direct phone number and extension for a customer service rep at Canon who will replace your body - if you hold your ground and don't take no for an answer. I also have a direct email and cell phone number for one of Canon's regional reps - who can step in if the CS person doesn't give you the answer you need.
I'm not going to get into the flame war of "user error" vs "faulty camera" that creep into the discussion when it comes to AF and IQ issues with the 7D. Clearly, some people have repeatable issues regardless of settings, experience level, or history with the 7D.
If, in the end, you really are unhappy with the body - let me know and hopefully I can put you in touch with some one who will get the ball rolling with the replacement process. Just be warned - the replacement will be a factory refurbished unit - not new. And there's no guarantee the the replacement body will give you any better results. Some people have glowing reports after receiving a replacement, while others have been just as unhappy with the body they were given.
Upvote
0
M
Michael7
Guest
awinphoto said:
I may do just that (or go to 5D II). I found the 50D superior in low ISO IQ, same with the 40D, and numerous results back that up. There's also considerable griping across the web about the 7D's nasty low ISO noise. Here's another comparison that proves the low ISO issue (post #8):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338
Again, I think it's awesome that you enjoy your camera. Some folks have posted neat pics. But those things don't refute the low noise issue of the thread topic.
Upvote
0
Michael7 said:
DPReview noise measurements show the 7D to have less noise across the board. They are also one of the most consistent, reliable, and trust worthy sources. It's easy to screw up these kinds of tests, and I would not take a single cameralabs.com photo test over a DPReview lab test.
The 7D and 50D are close enough at low ISO that a tiny mistake will throw the test. As for the 40D and 7D, the MP difference is great enough that most complaints stem from a failure to equalize scale or a failure to scale properly (scaling method is important). I kept my first DSLR, the 10D, all these years. It's cleaner then the 7D at first glance. Scale the 10D file up to 7D dimensions, or the 7D file down to 10D dimensions, and the difference between them is very large and quite clearly in the 7D's favor.
Pixel peeping can be misleading even when it's done correctly. When done incorrectly, it's a joke.
Upvote
0
Michael7 said:
Sure, I never denied the 7D is a bit soft. But I also said that most OBJECTIVE reviewers only seem to need to bump up sharpness by about 2 in DPP, at most 3. That comparison bumped up sharpness in DPP by 5!! Thats an unnecessary amount of sharpening, even for the 7D. I would be willing to bet that if that comparison was redone without changing the 5D sharpness, bumping the 50D by 5, and the 7D by 2, the results would have been pretty consistent across the board. My point is, the review is either biased, or simply shoddy, and the resulting comparison is not the best example of 7D IQ.
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
Those are the same results that i've came up with when comparing even the old 30D files I have with the 7d... also keep in mind DPR has always in the past been very critical of Canon cameras and very pro nikon... when the 7d came out, they gushed over it and even declared it the temporary king of APS-C cameras... That's got to say something...
All that aside, it is a tool... michael and derek, if you dont like this certain tool, canon has 4 other current semi pro and pro cameras (1dx, 1d4, 5d2, 60D) to choose from as well as other consumer rebels not to mention nikons offerings, sony offerings, etc... There's a heavy saturation of cameras in the market to find that perfect camera you need. yeah if i underexpose an image, even at iso 100, i could see noise, but when I have my photos printed and mounted and or printed in magazines, periodicals, flyers, etc... it just isn't an issue. Find a tool to help you and your photography grow, just dont whine and gripe because all you do is start unneeded debates such as this...
Upvote
0
@friedmud:
One last suggestion, before you send your 7D back. One of the things I like about Canon DSLR's is the fact that they have mRAW and sRAW. These two raw formats make better use of the bayer sensor pixel information to produce higher quality images, albeit at lower resolution. In the same vein as Foveon sensors, where they have stacked photodiodes of differing color sensitivity, an mRAW photo from a Canon makes full use of 1R, 1B, 2G bayer pixels per RGB pixel...meaning you should be able to upscale an mRAW to the original 7D RAW image size, and still have STELLAR results.
If you do some quick searches for Foveon vs. Bayer, and read the results and look at some of the upscaling comparisons, you should get an idea of how an upscaled mRAW image from the 7D might look. Since I got my 7D, I've been mostly experimenting with it...I have yet to do any truly serious photography with it yet. One of the things I've been playing with is mRAW, and I am TRULY impressed with it. So impressed, even, that I would happily take a 32mp 5D III and only use mRAW for everything, and never look back!
One last suggestion, before you send your 7D back. One of the things I like about Canon DSLR's is the fact that they have mRAW and sRAW. These two raw formats make better use of the bayer sensor pixel information to produce higher quality images, albeit at lower resolution. In the same vein as Foveon sensors, where they have stacked photodiodes of differing color sensitivity, an mRAW photo from a Canon makes full use of 1R, 1B, 2G bayer pixels per RGB pixel...meaning you should be able to upscale an mRAW to the original 7D RAW image size, and still have STELLAR results.
If you do some quick searches for Foveon vs. Bayer, and read the results and look at some of the upscaling comparisons, you should get an idea of how an upscaled mRAW image from the 7D might look. Since I got my 7D, I've been mostly experimenting with it...I have yet to do any truly serious photography with it yet. One of the things I've been playing with is mRAW, and I am TRULY impressed with it. So impressed, even, that I would happily take a 32mp 5D III and only use mRAW for everything, and never look back!
Upvote
0
I'm shooting with the 7D myself and while I'm not "earthshatteringly disappointed" with the low ISO performance, it still is an issue with this camera.
What I mean by that is that it's a good camera for what I do, but I'm not too impressed with the ISO performance and actually I'd like to step the AF-system up a notch as well.
Low ISO noise is not a huge problem anymore for me, but you have to learn ETTR (which I would do with any given camera) and to use the sharpening properly in Lightroom (if that's what you're using). Especially masking will save your day.
AF-system is a bigger problem for me, since it has good features, but it's inconsistent. I have to MA my lenses properly when I get the time, but it could be better.
One possible solution is to go with a second hand 1Ds MkII, since they are now cheaper than the 7D, the IQ and the AF-system are magnificent. Just a thought...
What I mean by that is that it's a good camera for what I do, but I'm not too impressed with the ISO performance and actually I'd like to step the AF-system up a notch as well.
Low ISO noise is not a huge problem anymore for me, but you have to learn ETTR (which I would do with any given camera) and to use the sharpening properly in Lightroom (if that's what you're using). Especially masking will save your day.
AF-system is a bigger problem for me, since it has good features, but it's inconsistent. I have to MA my lenses properly when I get the time, but it could be better.
One possible solution is to go with a second hand 1Ds MkII, since they are now cheaper than the 7D, the IQ and the AF-system are magnificent. Just a thought...
Upvote
0
I don't see anything alarming in the samples. The noise that is there won't show up in prints until you make them rather extreme. They might be a tad underexposed, but that is no surprise with lots of snow around.
When I moved from the 20D to the 50D, I thought I'd made a mistake. Over time, what I found was... the 50D requires more care and precision, and different processing than the 20D. I think the XSi to the 7D is probably going to be a similar experience.
I avoided anything over 400 on the 50D for awhile, then bought noise ninja and found 1600 suddenly wasn't bad on the 50D.
More recently, I bought CS5 and found that I can make ISO 1600 look really really close to ISO 100... and it does a good job with extreme darkness pattern noise at 3200 as well. I'll have to post a sample at some point, I don't have one handy. I'm totally sold on CS5 though.
All I'm getting at is there may be a learning curve. Maybe steeper than you expected. One thing that I've noticed, not sure if it is really true as I have not the money to test it, is bigger pixels need less processing. You might be happier with a 5D2 in that sense.
Now, having had the experience with the 50D, when a friend of mine tested out a 7D and showed me the results, I was able to add some tweaks and make it look nearly identical to the results from his 5D. A little more care in processing, but perfectly doable.
When I moved from the 20D to the 50D, I thought I'd made a mistake. Over time, what I found was... the 50D requires more care and precision, and different processing than the 20D. I think the XSi to the 7D is probably going to be a similar experience.
I avoided anything over 400 on the 50D for awhile, then bought noise ninja and found 1600 suddenly wasn't bad on the 50D.
More recently, I bought CS5 and found that I can make ISO 1600 look really really close to ISO 100... and it does a good job with extreme darkness pattern noise at 3200 as well. I'll have to post a sample at some point, I don't have one handy. I'm totally sold on CS5 though.
All I'm getting at is there may be a learning curve. Maybe steeper than you expected. One thing that I've noticed, not sure if it is really true as I have not the money to test it, is bigger pixels need less processing. You might be happier with a 5D2 in that sense.
Now, having had the experience with the 50D, when a friend of mine tested out a 7D and showed me the results, I was able to add some tweaks and make it look nearly identical to the results from his 5D. A little more care in processing, but perfectly doable.
Upvote
0
M
Michael7
Guest
A couple things:
No one here is "whining". People are actually concerned about the IQ of the 7D at low ISO's. We are simply having a nice discussion about the 7D IQ. For some reason, people get defensive about gear. I don't. I own a 7D. I had it next to a 50D, and a 40D before that.
It's far too easy to accuse other of whining, and then to suggest they buy another camera or brand. That's the easiest solution to anything. The more difficult solution is to analyze data and have meaningful discussion, not "if you don’t like it, go home".
Here you'll see (on DPreview, no less) that the 7D has much more noise at low ISO than the 50D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp
Here's you'll see the 7D losing out to the 40D at ISO 800, (DP review again):
http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-7d-review-noisier-than-40d/
Here you'll see the 50D showing much less noise at low ISO:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_RAW.shtml
At post #8 you'll see the 40D defeating the 7D in low ISO noise:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/849338
Upvote
0
J
Jettatore
Guest
I went outside and shot some pictures of the sky just now. This is a test only, I really didn't pay any attention to composition and the in camera exposure I pulled off isn't even close to perfect. I did various tests at ISO 100, 160 and 200 in RAW. I only shoot in RAW and don't know if my results have any application to .jpg only shooters. With all 3 of those ISO's there is noise if you use the default RAW values, but I really couldn't say any of the ISO's were more or less noisy than the other, they preformed practically the same for me. Below I will post a single shot from these tests at ISO 200 (it was significantly bright enough to have shot at ISO 100, which I did, but the noise was the same, and the OP is concerning ISO 200 so I proceeded with an ISO 200 file).
http://minus.com/mbmGfU9Wuj#1
The first image, is a 100% crop of the default RAW values you get when you use Photoshop's RAW importer (+lens profile correction enabled) and you can see noise of 7D RAW file at default Adobe settings. The second image is the same as above but I used the sliders to completely remove all traces of the noise without losing detail. The last image isn't even needed but it shows the details of the shadows and highlights/HDRI recovery ability of shooting with RAW, it's also entirely noise free like the second image, but displays the range of RAW exposure manipulation the editor has access too. Each file was only processed in Photoshop RAW, the set was cropped and then saved to highest quality JPG, no other processing/filters/tricks etc. were involved.
I liken the idea of not processing RAW images properly and taking the idea of seriously considering data arrived when doing that, to be entirely non-real world and entirely impractical and nonsensical. To me it's the equivalent of not properly developing your negatives and being upset with the film you purchased.
100% Crop Image from 7D and a 24-70L lens @42mm, ISO200, f/6.3 1/2000sec. You are going to have to view close up to see noise, and then to see how the noise disappears by changing a few RAW settings. If you would like me to make another test of a different subject, I will gladly do that, just ask.
http://minus.com/mbmGfU9Wuj#1
The first image, is a 100% crop of the default RAW values you get when you use Photoshop's RAW importer (+lens profile correction enabled) and you can see noise of 7D RAW file at default Adobe settings. The second image is the same as above but I used the sliders to completely remove all traces of the noise without losing detail. The last image isn't even needed but it shows the details of the shadows and highlights/HDRI recovery ability of shooting with RAW, it's also entirely noise free like the second image, but displays the range of RAW exposure manipulation the editor has access too. Each file was only processed in Photoshop RAW, the set was cropped and then saved to highest quality JPG, no other processing/filters/tricks etc. were involved.
I liken the idea of not processing RAW images properly and taking the idea of seriously considering data arrived when doing that, to be entirely non-real world and entirely impractical and nonsensical. To me it's the equivalent of not properly developing your negatives and being upset with the film you purchased.
100% Crop Image from 7D and a 24-70L lens @42mm, ISO200, f/6.3 1/2000sec. You are going to have to view close up to see noise, and then to see how the noise disappears by changing a few RAW settings. If you would like me to make another test of a different subject, I will gladly do that, just ask.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I've decided to try to turn this conversation into a positive benefit for all forum participants.
I've started a thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2390.new.html#new
It's titled "Your Personal 7-Point" System and the purpose is to give participants a chance to share some of their favorite tips and techniques for dealing with noise reduction, sharpening, expanding range, etc. etc. I hope folks will consider playing.
I've started a thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2390.new.html#new
It's titled "Your Personal 7-Point" System and the purpose is to give participants a chance to share some of their favorite tips and techniques for dealing with noise reduction, sharpening, expanding range, etc. etc. I hope folks will consider playing.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
