Earthshatteringly Disappointed With 7D

[KeithR]

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

What an infantile argument...

If you want examples of what the 7D is easily capable of - without any tugging and puling in PP, just a well-sorted conversion/pp routine (and one which I've been essentially using since my 30D days) - have a browse around my site:

www.capture-the-moment.co.uk

I don't need "so many words" to "prop up" the 7D, I just know how to use it - and the images speak for themselves, don't they?

And yes, they look great printed large, on the odd occasion when I do so.

 

[infared]

This whole ten pages of discussion is just a bunch of silliness. ....but I guess just anybody can start a thread.
My question is ...why did anyone even respond to Friedmud,(perfect)...in the first place???

 

[Loswr]

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?

It's all relative, though. We're not comparing today's camera with one from 10 years ago or 25 years ago. I bought my first Mac 25 years ago, and paid hundreds extra for the optional internal HDD. At the time, 20 MB was 'huge'. Today, one RAW file from my 5DII is bigger. Technology moves fast, and that impacts photography.

@OP, sorry you got stuck. Newegg's 7D listing states, "Return Policy: Limited Replacement Only Return Policy." So, if you think you got a lemon you can exchange it. Else, you're likely looking at a 20-25% loss to sell it used. Or you could play Santa and give someone a really nice gift...

 

[clank72]

Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.

http://500px.com/alwaysbj182

That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.

These don't impress me. Anyone can take a good shot and size it down to 600px 72dpi and sharpen the crap out of it- to "fake it". There is no proof in these photos and I've seen comparable shots from much lesser cameras. Anyway...

Know-one wants to talk trash about where they live, or think something is wrong with an item they own and paid big bucks for. Same with a new car.

There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise. There are literly thousands of posts online about it. The grain does not compliment your work. Some users suck it up and some are a bunch of anal sons of bitches (like Me) that only demand the absolute best image quality. And they expect it from a brand like Canon and they are not getting it.

Regarding the 7D vs 50D vs 5D test:

Grain can give the "illusion" that the image is sharper. Especially around edges of objects. When post-sharpening is applied the grain is enhanced even more. Grain takes away detail and the ability to sharpen what is actually in the photo. How do you sharpen the subject without sharpening the noise too? Easy, just resize it down to 1000 pixels and then sharpen. Give me a break.

Bottom line, viewing the 7D at 100% is SAND PAPER. Always has been, always will be. It's not you, it's the camera. Sell it and buy a 5D or 1D. Read reviews online, look at the comparisons. The proof is in the pudding.

But yeah, in the end it's just a tool.

 

[Hillsilly]

Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.

http://500px.com/alwaysbj182

That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.

I'm impressed.

 

[whatta]

Here are some landscape photos taken with this "unacceptable" camera.

http://500px.com/alwaysbj182

That I can't do this with my 7D, or that you can't do this with yours, is not the fault of the camera.

I'm impressed.

me too, but I wonder how much postprocessing..

 

[KeithR]

Bottom line, viewing the 7D at 100% is SAND PAPER. Always has been, always will be. It's not you, it's the camera. Sell it and buy a 5D or 1D. Read reviews online, look at the comparisons. The proof is in the pudding.

Which proves two things:

one, that you don't have a clue about how to get the best out of the camera - mine's not "sandpaper" at 100% view; and

two, you're a muppet for worrying about how it looks at 100% anyway.

 

[markIVantony]

...
There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise. There are literly thousands of posts online about it.
...

If this is true, wouldn't it support the idea that you and friedmud would know about the noise before purchasing the 7D?

 

[sawsedge]

In another thread, the OP, Friedmud, indicates he is making friends with his 7D, learning his way around it.

I've seen too many great images from the 7D to believe the camera has a problem. Lemons can exist, but most problems are user error. The 50D went through this sort of nonsense too.

Years ago I read a quote from George Lepp, which I will paraphrase: "all it takes is one good image to know who or what is at fault." Yep.

 

[clank72]

...
There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise. There are literly thousands of posts online about it.
...

If this is true, wouldn't it support the idea that you and friedmud would know about the noise before purchasing the 7D?

I bought one a year ago.

Like others, we saw the Youtube films shot with the 7D, saw the resized pics online, figured we were good to go. The problem was unexpected. This takes "Doing your research before you buy" to a whole new level my myself and others.

As for "How you use the camera determines...".

DSLR's do not have a noise setting (besides ND). There is no way to control the noise. You can't turn it off or on. You can't select the type of noise you want. There is no control over it. Your shots have noise that is "Burned in". Even with the right light, right place, right time, regardless. The solution is to grab the NR tool in Lightroom and live with it. Or, upgrade to a 5D to have less noise, and soak up your loss.


Nikon wins in the noise area but I probably won't be switching soon

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/

 

[Trovador]

Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)

http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino

 

[awinphoto]

Nikon wins in the noise area but I probably won't be switching soon

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/

Uhhh you do realize what you are comparing the 7d to right? The closest camera to it competition wise (especially at the time of release) was the nikon D300(s)... according to your test, the 12MP at 100% is getting owned by the 7D... yes, compared to the 1.3 APC-H sensor (bigger sensor) and the D3s (full frame) the 7D will struggle, but come one... apples and oranges... the best comparison is the nikon D300s, Sony's 24MP monster... ehh... that's it.. well for the most part... but in your own link you posted... the 7D in High ISO is superior hands down to nikon.

Is the 7D perfect, no, but for where it sits in it's class, it's still one of the best competitors in the APS-C arena. As far as noise, you can add in camera NR, but really, you're bitching about ISO noise 1600 and above at 100%? Really? Seriously? Are you printing ISO 3200 at 20x30? Plus as neuro suggested many times, it's easy to fix noise in post however if you miss the shot with the 5d2, it's not nearly as easy to fix.

 

[Jettatore]

Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)

http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino

Really good photographs Trovador. What lenses and extras do you have in your kit if you don't mind me asking?

 

[dtaylor]

There are WAY too many 7D users complaining about the noise.

There are also way too many people who spend all day studying mundane snapshots at 100% so they can fight about equipment in online forums. Personally I'm far more interested in the opinion of photographers making prints and online galleries, i.e. producing and viewing photographs at normal sizes for the purpose of enjoying photography.

How do you sharpen the subject without sharpening the noise too?

One technique I occasionally use is to apply sharpening from within Noise Ninja, apart from any separate NR step. I turn down the noise sliders so that they just balance out the sharpening. As long as I balance the two correctly it ends up working pretty well and sharpens detail without enhancing grain or excessively smoothing anything out.

Bottom line, viewing the 7D at 100% is SAND PAPER.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos7d/downloads/001.jpg

Bottom line is you don't know what you're talking about.

The proof is in the pudding.

Agreed. Which is why nobody talks about noise while looking at my 17x22" portfolio. I make prints. I don't spend hours obsessing over 100% views. You would be shocked at how much noise is literally invisible even at larger print sizes. As my post processing has improved I have reworked some images to further reduce noise, only to see no difference in a 24" print.

Obsessing over 100% views is the height of ignorance. A 100% view means nothing outside of the context of the total resolution and maximum possible print size. It's like looking at 35mm and 4x5 film under a microscope and saying 4x5 has just as much grain and softer details. Then spending all day arguing in forums that 4x5 is no good and people should just use 35mm. A person who did this would be laughed out of the forum for failing to realize the context of the microscopic view, and the fact that 4x5 can make much larger prints which will be sharper and cleaner than any 35mm print.

Yeah, these arguments about noise at 100% look that stupid.

 

[dtaylor]

Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)

http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino

Nice work!

(sarcasm on) But you better zoom in to 300% because I think there's noise and you need a D3s ;D (sarcasm off)

 

[unfocused]

Huh? I shoot everything with my 7D and never do any noise reduction in post process, I mainly shoot raw and have never had any problems with noise on ISOs up to 1600... I've printed my pictures on sizes up to 40''x56''...here's a gallery of some of my pics (landscapes, portraits, action, macro, you name it...)

http://www.500px.com/ruddyflorentino

Nice work!

(sarcasm on) But you better zoom in to 300% because I think there's noise and you need a D3s ;D (sarcasm off)

Hah! That's good.

I would just add, Trovador, [sarcasm] the difference is that you are trying to take pictures that people will find interesting. You should know better than that on this forum. [/sarcasm]

 

[Jettatore]

Also I'm staring at this noise test page someone posted: http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2010/01/23/high-iso-comparison-canon-1d-mark-iv-nikon-d3s-canon-7d-nikon-d300s/. The D3s is a $5,200 camera so you can just ignore that one along with the ID Mark IV for this comparison, although it is obvious that the D3s has built in noise removal as well. The D300s, just like the D3s has built in noise removal processing, which is really not ideal as the process is permanent when the camera is doing it. Better to have full manual control over noise removal in post than to have the camera do a potentially sloppy job, or at least make sure that whatever the camera does do, can be un-done and redone losslessly in post. Just look at the resolved detail of the D300s compared to the 7D, it's not capturing nearly as much information and is no where near as crisp, you aren't even getting usable information out of the D300s in these examples. By the time you get those D300s pictures through post you still have nothing to work with if you plan on using the shots that close up like this, yet all the shots of the 7D, at least below 6400 would clean up quite nicely. The 7D is hands down kicking the noise on the D300's ass and then some simply because that data under that noise is actually usable and you can manually clean the noise in post, those D300s shots that 'appear' to have less noise are useless. If you couldn't see that the first time, then look again.

 

[wickidwombat]

wow that D3s is amazing, totally kicking the 1D4's ass

 

[Cfunkexplosion]

I went to the Newseum in DC recently, and viewed the small but quite excellent Pulitzer photo exhibit. Strange that it did not occur to me to bring a jeweler's loupe to give the images a proper examination. Now that I think about it, how did I ever enjoy photos by Cartier-Bresson or Adams? Such noisy rubbish!

Everyone needs a hobby, and I support the gearheads' right to obsess over the minutiae of technical details. Technical details of course matter, but when they become the entirety of the interest, those individuals are gearheads alone. That the machinery is a camera is of no real importance, and I feel little compulsion to call them photographers.

 

[unfocused]

I went to the Newseum in DC recently, and viewed the small but quite excellent Pulitzer photo exhibit. Strange that it did not occur to me to bring a jeweler's loupe to give the images a proper examination. Now that I think about it, how did I ever enjoy photos by Cartier-Bresson or Adams? Such noisy rubbish!

Everyone needs a hobby, and I support the gearheads' right to obsess over the minutiae of technical details. Technical details of course matter, but when they become the entirety of the interest, those individuals are gearheads alone. That the machinery is a camera is of no real importance, and I feel little compulsion to call them photographers.

+1

I went to a Cartier-Bresson exhibit in Chicago a little over a year ago. It included some early work that he printed (before he got to the point where he left the printing to others) My conclusion: the guy couldn't print worth crap! Muddy tones. Dust spots everywhere. But did it matter? Hell no.

Take a good look at Robert Frank's The Americans. Even in print you can see the massive amounts of grain and lots and lots of less than crisp focus. But, that doesn't stop it from being the most important book of photographs of the last 50 years.