Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF

[YuengLinger]

The 7D produces grainy, rough images with drab colors. The slab of margarine known as the AA filter doesn't help, either. Blue channel noise at low ISOs is especially disturbing for landscapes or bird backgrounds.

You really need to learn how to use it, and how to convert and process the files from it properly, then.

Your interminable bashing just makes those of us who know how to get the best out of the 7D, realise how much it must suck to be you.

Obviously at high ISOs (say, over 6400 ISO), crop sensors give ground to FF, but that's true of all crop sensors.

The 7D's sensor is, even today, broadly comparable with any other crop sensor out there at high (for crop) ISO, converted and processed intelligently.

I've long said the 7D's biggest problem is some of the people that bought it...

Wow. Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

Think before you type.

 

[MichaelHodges]

You really need to learn how to use it, and how to convert and process the files from it properly, then.

Your interminable bashing just makes those of us who know how to get the best out of the 7D, realise how much it must suck to be you.

Keith, you seem pretty angry.

I know how to use the 7D. I've used it for years. I chose not to for the image that was featured in Outside magazine last month. For that image, I chose the 50D.

 

[MichaelHodges]

For me, it was the noise on my 7D.
I am not good with artificial lighting (yet, I hope) and I always end up in situations where the ISO would jump to 1600 (which is BAD, in a 7D) or above.
And the difference in ISO performance between FF and crop is NOT neg-li-gi-ble

Yes, the 7D is great when you control the lighting. Those environments are almost meaningless for testing a camera, IMHO. It's only when you get outside, in demanding conditions that a camera proves its mettle.

 

[Skirball]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4

OMG that's great. Not even 4 years ago. Funny how a sponsorship will change your "opinion." Arias has ZERO credibility to me now.

I think the only option is for Arias to duke it out in a cage match with Ken Rockwell. Winner earns the title Most Hated Man in Camera Chat Forums.

 

[dtaylor]

Wow. Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

He may have been harsh, but his point stands. The web is loaded with clean, sharp, detailed 7D images with gorgeous color. If you are not producing work with similar IQ it is not the camera model. Either you have a faulty unit or your technique is flawed, and it's usually the latter.

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF. They didn't notice any horrible noise. The "7D is noisy!" meme gets annoying to those who don't seem to have any problem producing excellent images with it.

Now if we're talking high ISO...yes, the 7D is noisy and soft vs. the 5D2 and especially the 6D, 5D3, and 1DX. But so is pretty much every other crop sensor. Granted newer sensors are better, but still pale in comparison to the latest FF sensors at high ISO.

 

[ecka]

Wow. Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

He may have been harsh, but his point stands. The web is loaded with clean, sharp, detailed 7D images with gorgeous color. If you are not producing work with similar IQ it is not the camera model. Either you have a faulty unit or your technique is flawed, and it's usually the latter.

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF. They didn't notice any horrible noise. The "7D is noisy!" meme gets annoying to those who don't seem to have any problem producing excellent images with it.

Now if we're talking high ISO...yes, the 7D is noisy and soft vs. the 5D2 and especially the 6D, 5D3, and 1DX. But so is pretty much every other crop sensor. Granted newer sensors are better, but still pale in comparison to the latest FF sensors at high ISO.

Well, it is called photoshop . Any big sensor camera can produce clean, sharp, detailed images these days.
As a former 7D user (and I did like that camera very much) I must say that my 6D has a lot more potential for what I do - lower noise, lower aberrations, better subject isolation, better contrast (and micro contrast), better sharpness, better cropability, better DR, nicer bokeh, wider and better range of lenses (specially primes, while equivalent crop lenses are either just as big, as heavy, as expensive and still inferior, or do not exist). Every review is subjective, every professional has his own opinion, but we should only discuss facts. Let's keep all the prejudice out of it. Science and religion don't mix.

 

[MichaelHodges]

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

 

[Zv]

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

 

[sagittariansrock]

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

 

[ecka]

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

I switched from 500D (I think 50D has the same sensor) to 7D (back in 2010), which was quite a bit better in noise department. 500D/50D seemed more grainy.
I always tried to keep my 7D macro shots under ISO 800, but now, with 6D I can go up to ISO 3200.

 

[dtaylor]

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.

Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in size...you would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."

 

[sdsr]

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)? dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

 

[tayassu]

I just wanted to say that I found the video awesome and I found it to be the first of all those claiming to use a real-world approach to that discussion that lived up to its title. I really enjoyed watching it and I'm going to enjoy even more not reading the 7 pages discussion before this post, which was surely not intended by Mr. Arias, who has my greatest respects!
I wish everyone happy shooting with his or her camera, whether it is an iPhone, a 70D or a Linhof Master Technika! And Mr. Arias is right, it is about light, composition, emotion and moments, it is about the moron behind the camera! And sadly, there are enough morons behind cameras that only care for gear... Try shooting a week without thinking about your camera specs and you'll appreciate the work of art coming out much more!
A happy week to you all!

 

[sagittariansrock]

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.

Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in size...you would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."

First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias. Also I say 'my 7D' which was noisy. I loved it for everything else, but I have complained about the noise several times on these forums before I switched to the 5D III. Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

Thirdly, your second guess is irrelevant- what matters is data. I am pretty confident I will do far better than chance in picking out my 7D images at high ISO (large size jpegs, at least). If I care enough, I can post some of them from my 7D and I think you might agree.

Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them. As it is, comparing high ISO images from single copies of two cameras side by side don't comprise scientific tests as far as I am concerned. Show me something like what Roger Cicala does, and I will hear you.

 

[Meh]

Over the past week or so as I've watched this video being posted and shared with comments like "Zack nails it" or "Zack finally settles the crop debate"... etc. etc. I've been very tempted to post a rant here and there... not because the overriding message that APS-C sensors are very good or that the Fuji cameras are very good... the fact is they are very good and produce exceptional image quality. Part of what bothers me is the factually incorrect analysis and his generalized statement that the difference between APS-C and FF is "negligible" when the fact is that there is a measurable difference between the two. For a well lit scene with only a few stops of dynamic range an iPhone has excellent image quality, otherwise it kinda sucks. Zack's video is way oversimplified... it's a sliver of a conditionally true statement and therefore pretty much useless. The other part that bother's me is his use of extended comparison... by putting even larger and even smaller objects beside the two you are actually comparing makes them look relatively similar in size and we humans are generally bad at absolute comparisons... we are much better at relative comparisons so what we "see" is that the APS-C and FF look about the same when compared to the really big and the really small. But that is scientifically invalid method of analysis. The visual distortion does not change the fact that the FF sensor is 2.5X larger than the APS-C and has significant and measurable differences in a number of performance parameters. Sure, under certain conditions the differences may not be within the ability of a human being to see it or any particular person may not care... but so what, not seeing or not caring does not change the physics and the facts. But taking those specific cases and uses that as evidence to make a general conclusion is faulty logic. That might not be Zack's fault per se... he is not a physicist or sensor technology expert. On the other hand, the guy is making money off blogging, teaching, writing, and possibly from sponsorship by Fuji. He is purposely entering the "sensor size debate" with a "humorous and endearing sensor size doesn't matter" video in order to get people to watch his video... it's a tried and true trick of marketing... tell people what they want to hear and in a way they can relate to it and they will buy what you be selling... in droves. And what is Zack selling... video views, blog posts, teaching, and Fuji cameras. I'm not buying. Except that I did because I watched the video and wrote this post. Arghhhhh.

 

[Skirball]

And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them. As it is, comparing high ISO images from single copies of two cameras side by side don't comprise scientific tests as far as I am concerned. Show me something like what Roger Cicala does, and I will hear you.

 

[Zv]

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF.

Having owned FF and a 7D, I'd have to disagree.

Yup I would also agree with Michael here on this one. There is definitely noise visible at ISO 800 on the 7D, not much though. Even at ISO 100 I found myself using the NR slider sometimes. With the 5D2 I leave that slider alone 99% of the time.

Is this more than a disagreement about what "very little" means (or, put differently, about whether the differences you see matter)? dtaylor doesn't say they look the same, after all....

He implied the difference is not noticeable to which we responded (based on actually having owned a 7D and 5D) that we disagree. That is all we are stating. Neither person is wrong as we are simply stating opinions. What others choose to do with that info is their business.

Note this is based on the 7D. Modern day APS-C cameras with Sonikon sensors is a different debate. Perhaps in those cases the difference is less. I'm sure someone with both could comment.

 

[Valvebounce]

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

 

[MichaelHodges]

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D. It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects), drab colors, low ISO blue channel noise, and thick AA filter that made the 7D the worst IQ of any Canon DSLR I've owned.

I've never had a complaint or trouble with any of them until that body. Too bad, because it feels great in the hand and sports an amazing build.

Even the 70D I own is a considerable upgrade in IQ, especially in color and sharpness with the same set of lenses.

 

[Zv]

+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D. It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects), drab colors, low ISO blue channel noise, and thick AA filter that made the 7D the worst IQ of any Canon DSLR I've owned.

I've never had a complaint or trouble with any of them until that body. Too bad, because it feels great in the hand and sports an amazing build.

Even the 70D I own is a considerable upgrade in IQ, especially in color and sharpness with the same set of lenses.

Yup, sounds about right.