Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

[friedmud]

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.

I may just need to drop you a line. I just went a looked... and the return policy of the online retailer I used (Newegg... I had some gift certificates... don't ask) SAYS THAT I CANNOT RETURN THIS CAMERA!

OMG - I thought it would be no problem to return it. Boy was I wrong. Now I'm in for a crazy struggle. What a nightmare.

I suppose I might have a 7D for sale now....

I will surely pay more attention to return policies when ordering camera gear from now on! Honestly, I didn't pay attention because I thought this camera was a slam dunk.

Sigh.

 

[RayS2121]

There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.

Comparing 5d2's noise levels to 7D is probably the lamest of comparisons ever because to any unbiased person 5D2 is miles ahead in ISO performance. Most people agree 7D can be a bit noisey (not inviting vitriol or trying to be snarky, but the 5D2 comparison makes me laugh!). Lets give credit where credit's due and talk about where 7D is better than 5D2 in real terms, such as AF just to name one feature. But lets not bring down 5D2 to the level of 7D just so you can champion your higher MP horse.

Not quite, I'm on the camp that wants better ISO performance (in particular while in low-light situations) on the 5DIII as a priority over more MP. But at low ISO, there is no native noise I can't entirely remove and without perceivable quality loss on my 7D. And because of that, I find this entire discussion fairly ridiculous. It has no effect on my work, and I would need to see actual RAW/work files that aren't completely un-usable images to begin with, from someone claiming the contrary as I suspect I could easily edit my way around their complaints and automate the process to boot.

If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable.

If it requires these many explanations, excuses, and reasoning to understand and appraise a picture, which should speak for itself, with no words, I am sorry, its not there yet... ultimately it seems "I have it, therefore I am gonna support it" also seems to be a good enough camp to belong to.

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed

 

[jrista]

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed

Very true. However, I did try to put a picture to it, demonstrating the points I and several others have been trying to make. Sadly, no one has really commented on it, for or against. See:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2375.msg50850.html#msg50850

I'm all for providing physical evidence, however there are clearly two hardcore camps, and physical evidence doesn't really seem to matter to either. Kind of a sad outcome.

 

[Jettatore]

I don't see it that way Ray. Plus it's not work if it's automated. You can come up with a profile that gets applied by default that will work for the majority of images shot at low ISO quite perfectly and I don't really shoot any pictures that simply don't get edited to some degree and the better the image the more care I tend to put into it's development, so I'm processing everything anyways. I can't imagine working without editing in post as part of the image creation process. This issue, regarding 7D noise on low ISO settings is completely null for me.

And honestly you simply just changed the subject entirely. As you were talking about two camps being one in the same before, and I responded to that, and now you have simply just changed the subject.....

 

[Loswr]

Great conversation, everyone. Like the original poster, I'm selling/returning my 7D and looking at other options. Just too much noise at lower ISO's, and the RAW files are soft. This is not the kind of image quality I was expecting for $1550. Far from it, actually.

I joined the CR forum today specifically because of this thread. Glad I found it, because numerous posts confirmed what I already knew. I have no further time to discuss this, as I have numerous social requirements to attend to, and other activities with a much higher priority.

I'm looking at the 5D II, or possibly switching to Nikon. Not sure yet as I have a heavy lens investment with Canon. I'd probably be better off working into that slowly and keeping my Canon gear for comparisons.

If you're unhappy, return it or sell it. Simple as that. No need to tell us all how full and important a life you have...I'm sure we all do, too.

If it requires these many explanations, excuses, and reasoning to understand and appraise a picture, which should speak for itself, with no words, I am sorry, its not there yet... ultimately it seems "I have it, therefore I am gonna support it" also seems to be a good enough camp to belong to.

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed

The 7D generates wonderful pictures. That's the whole point. Yes, the IQ of the 5DII is better. But the 7D captures pictures which the 5DII cannot - fast-moving subjects like birds in flight, complex focus situations like birds in thickets with Spot AF, etc. Horses for courses.

 

[RayS2121]

@Jettatore Not sure what you mean... I think I added some emphasis such as what's in bold in this line "a picture which should speak for itself" and "there fore" changed to "therefore" etc.... from my point of view no change in the theme or content or what my views are about 7D IQ could be any clearly stated, before or after...I was pretty clear that a picture should require no major explanation... it is either acceptable or not for the user concerned. Emphasis or idioms or bad spelling all counted, corrections or no corrections, this is what I feel on the general quality of the 7D pictures:

If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable.

If it requires these many explanations, excuses, and reasoning to understand and appraise a picture, which should speak for itself, with no words, I am sorry, its not there yet... ultimately it seems "I have it, therefore I am gonna support it" also seems to be a good enough camp to belong to.

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed

Again, if it works for you, perfect and I totally understand. I know several 7D users who love their cam and I am a tad envious of the AF myself, not the image quality. Cheers!

 

[Jettatore]

Because what I was originally responding to was your theory that the people who wanted high mega-pixels on the upcoming 5D were the same people who are ok with the 7D in low ISO. I for one, prefer improved ISO performance for the upcoming 5D even if it means a decrease in MP and I am fine with the low ISO on my 7D. You did not respond to my rejection of your theory, you responded only to my beings of OKness with the 7D low ISO.

 

[Loswr]

Again, if it works for you, perfect and I totally understand. I know several 7D users who love their cam and I am a tad envious of the AF myself, not the image quality. Cheers!

So, if you're shooting fast moving action - a sporting event, for example, would you prefer the much better IQ of the 5DII, and 95% of your 'pixel-perfect' shots unusably OOF because of the inadequate (for that situation) AF on the 5DII?

I'm a big fan of the 7D, mainly for its AF. I want at least that level of performance from a FF camera with better IQ. Unlike many, I sincerely doubt Canon will deliver excellent AF in FF body short of the 1-series. This, I intend to replace my 5DII with a 1D X once they're available. I'll be keeping the 7D for situations where I'm focal length-limited, though - I want more than The ~7 MP I'd have after cropping down an 18 MP FF image.

 

[RayS2121]

@Jettatore, In that case, sorry, the original comment was not directed at you and it was not my intent to lump every supporter of 7D image quality as high MP supporter (especially those who argue 7d being par with 5d2, cuz you know we have had that argument made here)... it was however a general and fairly accurate trend in reading the posts.

As neuro notes 7D in and of itself has several advantages, so much so I will not upgrade to 5d3 unless the AF is equal to if not better than the 7D. My comment was a follow up to the "5d2 has noises issues too" thread. Best!


@Neuro, sadly the 1'series caveat you suggest is possible with canon marketing strategy, I can only hope they don't "cripple" the AF just to knock it a peg below. Although I am hoping they will deliver at least 7D level performance for AF. I don't see any point in upgrading to 5d3 from 5d2 if the AF remains the same, or remains "fairly" the same.

 

[Jettatore]

Understood Ray. cheers

 

[mrjimmy]

I have taken many pictures with my 7D. I find that having the Highlight Tone Priority Disable help's
But if your unhappy you need to try a new camera because you will never be happy now that your mind is made up that the camera is junk. Also your pictures lack color that pops out at you. Just look around at the thousands of pictures on the wed that where made by people using the canon 7D and you can see its a good camera. But it needs light and a good lens. I also have a 50D and it takes gerat pictures. I am a truck driver not a photo guy. for 20 years I have been driving all over the country taken pictures. Day in and day out the 50D cant match the detail in my photos with the 7D. lately I have been going to places I have shot before just to re-do with the 7D. Either I am getting better or the 7D is just better. Its a good, very good camera. I also dont go 100% crop when looking a my pictures. Whats the point of that. My main lens is a 17-40L and I have a 70-200 f4 IS and 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 No matter what camera you have someone will say its junk for one reason or another. As far as people saying that the 30D and 40D take just as good of pictures well yes there right, Up to a point.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Hey, cheap 7Ds? Gimme.

They're pretty stereotyped adjustments, in the sense that the 5DII's images are generally sharper (for the same magnification),

You don't get the same magnification from the 5D as from the 7D, though. I'm aware you are probably not using the term in a technical sense, but it ought to be said.

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.

This is worth highlighting.

A while back I found a post on the "super sharpness" of one of the very early Canon Powershots (at Photograhy-On-The-Net) and as it turned out it was horrible, with too-sharp value shifts from pixel to pixel. Some of this "softness" may just be the lenses.

To be sure, that's not noise. But on the noise front, the T1i (and the 50D, by extension, I am quite sure) had more chroma noise than the 450D - according to DPR. The camera makes up for it in some ways, I think, but there's still some noise, especially when you try to get away with underexposing the photo. If you have enough light, things clear up great.

 

[jrista]

My comment was a follow up to the "5d2 has noises issues too" thread.

I think you misunderstood the point of my post. I never said the 7D was on par with the 5DII in noise across the board, I simply said that it had the same functional issues as the 7D (and, for that matter, probably all current Canon DSLR's). That issue being the +1/3 EV ISO settings are digitally pulled, and look a lot worse than the +1EV and -1/3EV ISO settings. Michael7 seems to think the 7D is a truly horrid and unworthy camera, and I was trying to demonstrate that its not "horrid" but simply on par (functionally) with the rest of Canon's current gear, that the 5D II isn't a magic bullet that will bring true low-ISO bliss to his work...but that it will be, like the 7D vs. 50D, marginally better.

According to both DxO and DPReview's noise charts, the difference in ISO100 noise is indeed marginal. I think the DPReview charts show that the 5D II has a standard deviation of luminosity for ISO100 noise at about 1-1.2, while the DPReview charts show that the 7D has a standard deviation of luminosity for ISO100 noise at about 1.9. Thats on a scale of 0-20. Yes, the 5DII is better, but its not an ungodly difference of "miles", as I think someone put it. Now, talk about high ISO performance, and there is no question the 5DII outperforms the 7D by a healthy margin. But the discussion here was about ISO 100, not ISO 3200.



All that aside, I'm sorry that @freidmud purchased a camera he does not like, and cannot return. I don't think anyone anticipated that outcome when they recommended the camera. I hope you find a way to get your money back, and I hope you find a camera you do like. Given your need (you mentioned you photograph action sports or something like that), I don't know that there are a lot of options. The 7D was designed for that kind of work, and while it is not the king of the crop when it comes to AF, I think the only other options are the 1D IV, the 1D X, or jumping ship to Nikon (which seems to have pretty great AF in much more of their lower model DSLR's than Canon does, as well as excellent glass.)

 

[dtaylor]

If you look at the crops, they seem to mirror the results at Camera Labs. I see a significant difference in IQ at lower ISO's in those clips.

The crops are not equalized in size. I've always wondered why DPReview uses crops of varying view sizes. But it doesn't matter because DPReview graphs the results for you and their descriptions do not match yours. The 7D has less low ISO noise.

This is absolutely consistent with the many samples at IR once you equalize the viewing size.

If you can't grasp that different percent magnifications applied to MP (i.e. 50%, 100%) result in different physical magnifications from APS-C, resulting in different final view/print sizes, and you refuse to take the time to equalize this variable, then you shouldn't be offering an opinion on IQ.

I see a PopPhoto chart. How about some full size images so I can analyze the test? Without those I'm not impressed.

That's because you already have a predetermined answer you want to believe, and won't acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary. I guess we'll just take your word over DPreview, Camera Labs, and PopPhoto.

This from the person telling us DPReview proves X when DPReview themselves say they proved Y. Talk about failing to acknowledge clear evidence to the contrary....

 

[dtaylor]

There is a common theme in these threads ... those who want more megapixels in their sensors, blindly, or knowingly, or with misty eyes endorse, support, and build up the pixel denisity champ in the canon line up which is 7D and the like. This is pretty self serving. It could be a complete dog and they would claim it is a first rate runway model and that those who call it a dog need to get their eyes checked.

I see two camps. One camp understands that more MP = greater real magnification when pixel peeping in Photoshop, Light Room, etc. That camp knows how to equalize view/print sizes when comparing sensors, and how noise seen while pixel peeping affects (or rather does not affect) prints. They also know how to NR that noise away if desired without losing fine detail.

The other camp foolishly zooms into every image 100%. Then they compare 100% images from lower resolution sensors to 100% images from higher resolution sensors and complain that they see more softness, noise, CA, motion blur, whatever. It never seems to dawn on them that there really isn't more of these things, they're just making those things more apparent with their 60" print equivalent pixel peeping. You would think it would dawn on them since some things like motion blur and CA are independent of the sensor, but it doesn't.

Comparing 5d2's noise levels to 7D is probably the lamest of comparisons ever because to any unbiased person 5D2 is miles ahead in ISO performance.

I don't think anyone has compared these two bodies in this thread and said the 7D was better. I will say that after post processing and printing to 24" and 30", I see no noise in prints from either at low ISO. At high ISO the 5D2's advantage starts to show in actual prints, and it's both a lower noise and finer detail advantage due to less NR. But even at high ISO it's really only an issue in larger prints, not 8x10's or 11x14's.

And let me state again for the record that I own a 17" wide printer, I regularly make 20-24" long prints, I send out for 30" prints, and I've made prints from both bodies. If the 5D2 were "miles ahead" I would pay cash for one tomorrow morning.

(The hyperbole amazes me. Didn't anyone ever shoot film? The noise differences between DSLRs are split hairs compared to digital vs. 35mm, or the differences between the various emulsions.)

 

[jrista]

(The hyperbole amazes me. Didn't anyone ever shoot film? The noise differences between DSLRs are split hairs compared to digital vs. 35mm, or the differences between the various emulsions.)

Doesn't seem so. But be careful what you say...you might spark off the next great debate: Film Grain vs. Digital Noise! Oh My!

 

[dtaylor]

If you have to "edit" and "work" your "way around" and as some other users listed how to "work around" what 7D puts out... and what is "acceptable" and what can be "expected" from 7D image quality and all the rest of the litany of excuses ...then we concur this is not the image quality that's enviable.

When I've worked on 5D2 files alongside 7D files the workflow has been nearly identical except for different inputs, i.e. I sharpen both but the values are different in the dialog. I'm more likely to do a NR pass on a 7D file then on a 5D2 file, but that's only one extra step, and only sometimes. (Sometimes the 7D file doesn't need it; sometimes the 5D2 file needs it as well.) Not exactly a major work around.

One of my most recent "lucky to live in this age of photography" moments was printing a 16x20" informal portrait of a relative's baby made with my 7D at ISO 800. If I had seen that print 10 years ago I would have guessed that it had been made with MF and portrait film with an ISO no higher than 160. I would have never believed it came from 35mm much less APS-C. My 20-24" landscape prints can stand next to landscape prints from 6x7. At larger sizes 6x7 will show its advantage, but not through 24".

This image quality is not enviable? Really?

A picture is worth a 1000 words they say, and if you need these many words from 7D camp to prop up and "explain" the merits of the pictures 7D generates, it is high irony indeed

The only explanation anyone has offered is "duh...scale the images for comparison to the same size."

 

[awinphoto]

What it all boils down to is the 7d is a tool.. a very good tool... it's not a 5d2, never was intended to be a 5d2 nor marketed at such... it is a great camera for when you need that speed and responsiveness... There will never be that "perfect" camera... unless you have the top of the line hassy MF camera with carl ziess lenses and top of the line digital back, but then again, no AF... Or you could have the 1d series camera but oh wait, you cant get it past security without press credentials... The 7d is not the perfect camera, but i'm not making excuses or trying to make it out for something that it is not... If i'm out in the field and know i'm going to do cityscape or still life subjects or products, then by all means I'll grab my 5d2... If i'm out and about need speed, accuracy, and cant afford to miss the shot... the 7d gets used... heck i've used the 7d as my main workhorse for a while... It is what it is... Like we always suggest to those who question Nikon vs Canon, we always say it's a personal preference... test out the cameras, hold them, feel them, shoot them, find one that becomes an extension of them... Just like this, the 7d is a personal preference once again.. It's not for everyone but those who love it and can get those most of those files will get great shots... Once you make up your mind that you hate something, you will always be jaded and see through those glasses... Find that camera that suits you perfectly and enjoy your days shooting.

 

[CanonFanNum1]

The "extremist" on both sides are wrong.

I owned a 7D for 18 months and recently upgraded to the 1DmkIV, so I can also speak from experience.

Was I happy with low noise iso perf? No, I wasn't "happy" about it.

But there is a simple solution people, two words: topaz denoise. Boom. Seeing is believing. If your picture is THAT important, then spend ~1 min running it through a good denoise filter.

And everyone understands that shooting sports and wildlife with a 10mm lens is about as dumb as shooting a wedding with a 600mm f4 lens. And if you use the 18-200 lens, don't expect as good of IQ as a 24mm prime or a 70-200 f2.8, but 1 lens instead of 10 has its advantages too. Concepts to learn: tradeoffs and the difference between specialized and general purpose.

So, use your 7D for action & wildlife for the vastly superior AF and frame rate and use your 5DmkII for portraits and landscapes. Got even more money? Buy the 1DX (or 1DmkIV) and use it for both. Got less money? Then pick a body that handles the majority of your work and don't flame the one you didn't get.

But don't complain about the 7D not being good at landscapes or portraits. Its not AS GOOD as a 5DmkII, but its not BAD either.

Want my recommendation? If I had only 1 body under $3k and I didn't shoot exclusively portraits and or landscapes, I would take the 7D in a heartbeat. Why? Because if you want to shoot anything where your subject is moving (which occurs often on Earth) then the 7D is way better than the 5DmkII and the 7D can shoot subjects that don't move too. But if you are a "landscape photographer" then get a 5DmkII and don't complain about the 7D.

fin

 

[briansquibb]

But don't complain about the 7D not being good at landscapes or portraits. Its not AS GOOD as a 5DmkII, but its not BAD either.

Don't complain about the 7D not being good at landscapes or portraits. Its not AS GOOD as a 5DmkII, but its not BAD either.

also

Don't complain about the 5DII not being good at sport. Its not AS GOOD as a 7D, but its not BAD either.

Just choose whatever best meets your requirements but dont complain if you make the wrong choice.