How does Canon respond to the D800?

[awinphoto]

I remember a few months ago someone on this forum was criticizing the 7D as having noise in the sky in his landscape shots and was questioning the 7D's credibility and usability in landscape photography. For the last day, I've heard a lot of people mentioning how much they want Canon to produce a large MP camera for (studio and landscape). For the hell of it, I decided to check out the sample photos of the D800... The photos I saw, all the way from ISO 25K all the way down to ISO 100, all of them I could detect traces of noise the in the static areas of the scenes, whether it be the sky or shadow in the seashore scene, to the backdrop on the woman and wild cat shot, all the way down to the high ISO shots which compared to the 5d2 (i know, it's unfair to compare the two), Does this noise detract others from wanting to use this camera for landscapes, or was the posts a few months ago regarding the 7D nitpicking about nothing, or are you willing to forgive it because it is full frame and 36Mp rather than an 18MP crop camera? Just getting people 2 cents

 

[kenraw]

Makes me glad that I have the 1Ds3 for this Sundays cross country race with a mere 250 runners - I have 2 hours to get the CD to the organiser

No problem with the 7D...

I expect to be on iso3200 to get the shutter speed high enough.

I sold my two 7Ds because of the poor IQ, something the 1Ds3, 1D4 and 5D2 manage without breaking into a sweat.

When you get high speed action then it is not always possible to get the metering correct everytime , especially in poor light. Easy to do in DPP in one action on the RAW files without inducing noise - but it was not possible with the 7D

If the 7D was so noise free and quick to pp then perhaps you might wonder why the sports togs dont use them

+1 on that for sure.

Now I'm not saying you can't get a good result with the 7d in pp because you can, however the pp required becomes incredibly time consuming when you have a couple of thousand wedding images, and you can't cull them down to 50 images for the bride.
I've used a d700 at a wedding alongside my 7d's and yes once pp and printed in the album they look as good as the d700 images, however the pp on the d700 was minimal in comparison, it was more of what effect to add as opposed to stretch the DR in raw then selectively sharpen, selectively NR add detail to areas on the 7d files etc

now before you jump on me about the d700, its not that I want a Nikon its just my friend has two d700's for weddings and lets me borrow one when I know I've got some serious low light situations to deal with.

maybe s second hand 1dmk3 is a good idea I never considered that option . I would love a 1dx but the launch price would be enough to buy 2 d800's and a lens or 2 5dmk2's and two L lenses

a 5dmk 2 with new AF is all I and many others wish for, please happen soon.

 

[kubelik]

I remember a few months ago someone on this forum was criticizing the 7D as having noise in the sky in his landscape shots and was questioning the 7D's credibility and usability in landscape photography. For the last day, I've heard a lot of people mentioning how much they want Canon to produce a large MP camera for (studio and landscape). For the hell of it, I decided to check out the sample photos of the D800... The photos I saw, all the way from ISO 25K all the way down to ISO 100, all of them I could detect traces of noise the in the static areas of the scenes, whether it be the sky or shadow in the seashore scene, to the backdrop on the woman and wild cat shot, all the way down to the high ISO shots which compared to the 5d2 (i know, it's unfair to compare the two), Does this noise detract others from wanting to use this camera for landscapes, or was the posts a few months ago regarding the 7D nitpicking about nothing, or are you willing to forgive it because it is full frame and 36Mp rather than an 18MP crop camera? Just getting people 2 cents

I shoot a lot of architecture and landscape and it would drive me nuts if I had blue-sky noise when I'm shooting at ISO 100. when you print large, you definitely see that noise. if you use noise reduction, you lose detail in foliage or fine stonework/metalwork. I guess it's a trade-off, since you start with more detail at 36 MP (assuming your lens is adequate) ... I still think something in between the 5DII and the D800 would be ideal.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What is a likely improvement to DR?

Hard to say, Canon has quite a lot of room to improve low ISO DR. They easily have 2 even 3 stops there. I'm not sure if their current basic architecture is capable of more than an extra 1/2 measured and 1 stop real though. Hopefully they have changed things up.

For SNR at middle gray there is a lot less room for improvement without a radically different sensor type or a re-write of the laws of physics. The best camera out there is probably within 1 stop of best that can be done as is already.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Nice url here
<snip>

More like "another example of an internet muppet who thinks that comparing a 36mp sensor against an 18mp sensor using 100% crops from each is s fair comparison"...

Don't get me wrong - I have no interest whatsoever in the D800 or "what it means for Canon", and I'm less than impressed from the IQ I've seen from it so far (although it's a preview model, so things may well change) but I strongly suspect that this particular internet muppet is clueless, or dishonest, or both (imagine that!)

He clearly has an agenda where an increase in megapixels is concerned though, which (along with the entire rest of his site - anyone who talks up the Darwin Wiggett review of the 7D, is a cretin) displays his ignorance.

In any event, without a clear statement of his comparison methodology, that site is a useless reference point, I'm afraid.

I agree plus he is mixing up 8bit jpg posterization with shadow pattern offset banding, etc. etc. That blog is a total mess. It's also funny how he has gone from like 100% raving against Canon to 100% raving against Nikon. Very bizarre.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

But apply all those careful steps to the D700 file and then it's better again?

But perhaps I'm missing part of what you mean?

I'm saying that - with just a little bit of care and effort on a user's part - it's possible to make images that match the D700 in terms of IQ: perhaps with a D700 it might be easier (although as I suggest, that depends on things like what you're shooting and whether you're focal-length limited), but it's still easy with the 7D.

So spend some time researching which converters get the best out of 7D files (plenty of info about that on the net) and use them - hardly an onerous task.

Then, post process the files intelligently. In terms of the steps and techniques I use, I'm using exactly the same PP workflow I used to use on my 40D: I don't "capture" sharpen on conversion, and instead, sharpen selectively in PP using nothing more complicated than a duplicate layer and the Eraser brush.

I also apply NR selectively if needed, the same way.

It's dead easy, it's quick, and it's no trouble at all.

7D files dealt with like this match the likes of the D700 right up the ISO scale.

I've posted 6400 ISO (another) and 12800 ISO images from my 7D before (3200 ISO is easy) and they want for nothing. Yes they're "only" at web sizes, so you're going to have to trust me when I say that they print really well too.)

If the little bit of extra time my PP involves is too much trouble for some people, that's their problem. I take the view that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly - I realise that I may be a minority voice there...

The exif is in all of those - they're all in low light or "available dark".

Suffice to say, the only IQ "problem" the 7D has is that careless sharpening can cause problems: keep away from capture sharpening, and apply such sharpening as you need selectively, and the 7D's IQ is as clean as a whistle at the image level (this last being the final piece of the puzzle - I can pretty much guarantee that people who complain about 7D noise are looking at the files at 100%).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

that does seem like a wishlist, the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too kind of wishlist we all dream up. the Digic 5 + Digic 4 combined is a big red flag to me; I don't know that you would want to pair two processing cores with (what I'm assuming are) different clock speeds together.

An earlier version of the rumor that had the digic 4 being part of the AF module (ala 1DX) so it's not necessarily nutty, that said the rumor does sound like a guess-wish.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My role (unpaid as I am now an amateur) is just to deliver the processed images. The club takes care of the web site and any sales/distribution.

All done in less than 2 hours. I did it last summer in good light with a 7D and I was very disappointed with the results, did the same in October is worse light with the 1D4 and got nearly 100% keepers (and those I missed I knew I had missed when taking them, usually another runner taking the focus)

So you spend a few hours shooting and then two hours processing and give them away for free for other people who spent basically no time to sell for a profit? Shouldn't they give you a big chunk of the sales? It sounds like they are getting a free sports photographer.

 

[briansquibb]

My role (unpaid as I am now an amateur) is just to deliver the processed images. The club takes care of the web site and any sales/distribution.

All done in less than 2 hours. I did it last summer in good light with a 7D and I was very disappointed with the results, did the same in October is worse light with the 1D4 and got nearly 100% keepers (and those I missed I knew I had missed when taking them, usually another runner taking the focus)

So you spend a few hours shooting and then two hours processing and give them away for free for other people who spent basically no time to sell for a profit? Shouldn't they give you a big chunk of the sales? It sounds like they are getting a free sports photographer.

That is correct - that is what I do - I do all types of photography in this way. I get to do an incredible amount of photography for which you could not get any other way

All sales revenue from the cross country event goes back into the development of my local running club.

At the moment I am also doing the same for our local Dickens society as well and the preservation of a house from th 16th century. From my work on our local community web site I also now have full press accreditation which means I get in with my cameras to most events. Cost to me? - a few DVDs a week when I had over the pictures - you cannont buy experience like that.

 

[albeit22]

If Canon doesn't step up the game on build quality they are going to slowly sink.
I upgraded from a 7d to full frame 5dmarkii and felt like i downgraded. The build quality needs some serious attention.
The memory card door is flimsy with no spring or anything. every time you open it, it just flops around and when its shut it doesn't mate to the body very well and squeaks. Just doesn't leave me feeling very secure.
I don't care if they keep the pixel count where its at but beef up the body and add more weather sealing or i am leaving camp!!!!!!! just my 2 pennies

 

[briansquibb]

If Canon doesn't step up the game on build quality they are going to slowly sink.
I upgraded from a 7d to full frame 5dmarkii and felt like i downgraded. The build quality needs some serious attention.
The memory card door is flimsy with no spring or anything. every time you open it, it just flops around and when its shut it doesn't mate to the body very well and squeaks. Just doesn't leave me feeling very secure.
I don't care if they keep the pixel count where its at but beef up the body and add more weather sealing or i am leaving camp!!!!!!! just my 2 pennies

Weather sealing an issue - get a series 1 then

5DII was not intended as an all weather camera. I guess that the popularity and longevity of the 5DII means that a squeaky door is not a deal breaker for most.

PS I have abused my 5DII for 2 years and it still hangs together and works without fault.

PPS Squeaky things are often cured with a drop of light machine oil

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Suffice to say, the only IQ "problem" the 7D has is that careless sharpening can cause problems: keep away from capture sharpening, and apply such sharpening as you need selectively, and the 7D's IQ is as clean as a whistle at the image level (this last being the final piece of the puzzle - I can pretty much guarantee that people who complain about 7D noise are looking at the files at 100%).

Don't forget using a slight (2/3 stop) overexposure to get as much data into the highlight headroom as possible. Of course, that's not a 7D-specific problem, but the 7D's files being clean in other channels cause it to be more noticeable than might be the case on some other cameras.

 

[thepancakeman]

Cost to me? - a few DVDs a week when I had over the pictures - you cannont buy experience like that.

But you also cannot buy new gear on that. :-\

It sounds like your "work" is somewhat similar to mine (at least regarding the race), but I've managed to get a few bucks back into my pocket to help "support the habit" aka buy new gear. The way I've been doing it is that the race director has free access to all my photos, but sales to the athletes go to me. No expense to the race, plus they get free photos, but I'm getting the experience and not just volunteering and putting $ directly into someone else's pocket. Even on the work I do for my cycling team where I've gotten "wow, how can I pay for this photo" and I tell them just to donate to the team, the bigger ticket purchases (8x10s and a few poster size prints) have the revenue to me.

I like your period shots for the Dickens Society and your street image! Me--I can't seem to shoot anything but sports. :-[

 

[briansquibb]

Cost to me? - a few DVDs a week when I had over the pictures - you cannont buy experience like that.

But you also cannot buy new gear on that. :-\

I dont buy gear from photo income

I like your period shots for the Dickens Society and your street image! Me--I can't seem to shoot anything but sports. :-[

Thank you - just keep trying - it will work

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hopefully this guy, who knows the specs and has seen, has very different expectations than most of us (and this actually is somewhat possible going by some other things he has said) otherwise it sounds like the answer may be "not very well", he says:

"The marketing mistakes Canon makes repeatedly lately is an understimation of the pace of innovation needed to keep a strong position in the market. The 5D mk II successor, still not announced, will be a disappointment to many."

yikes.

For now I will try to keep the faith though, it just seems to hard to believe they will mess this up even given their recent conservative track record, I don't think they can be THAT out of touch. I hope not.

 

[funkboy]

That blog is a total mess. It's also funny how he has gone from like 100% raving against Canon to 100% raving against Nikon. Very bizarre.

That's why ol' Fake Chuck is so near & dear to our hearts . Takes a lot of guts to be that crazy in such a public manner.

 

[psolberg]

I remember a few months ago someone on this forum was criticizing the 7D as having noise in the sky in his landscape shots and was questioning the 7D's credibility and usability in landscape photography. For the last day, I've heard a lot of people mentioning how much they want Canon to produce a large MP camera for (studio and landscape). For the hell of it, I decided to check out the sample photos of the D800... The photos I saw, all the way from ISO 25K all the way down to ISO 100, all of them I could detect traces of noise the in the static areas of the scenes, whether it be the sky or shadow in the seashore scene, to the backdrop on the woman and wild cat shot, all the way down to the high ISO shots which compared to the 5d2 (i know, it's unfair to compare the two), Does this noise detract others from wanting to use this camera for landscapes, or was the posts a few months ago regarding the 7D nitpicking about nothing, or are you willing to forgive it because it is full frame and 36Mp rather than an 18MP crop camera? Just getting people 2 cents

for the sake of argument let's say the noise is the same (which IMO isnt'. the D800 looks cleaner than the 7D). AT 36MP the noise is lost in the sheer resolution when you print compared to the 7D print. Try it. Resize a D800 file to 18MP. So I fully dissagree that the D800 is not suited for landscape even if noise levels are the same as the 7D because at a whoping 2X times the number of pixels, you get someting in return.

 

[Maui5150]

I remember a few months ago someone on this forum was criticizing the 7D as having noise in the sky in his landscape shots and was questioning the 7D's credibility and usability in landscape photography. For the last day, I've heard a lot of people mentioning how much they want Canon to produce a large MP camera for (studio and landscape). For the hell of it, I decided to check out the sample photos of the D800... The photos I saw, all the way from ISO 25K all the way down to ISO 100, all of them I could detect traces of noise the in the static areas of the scenes, whether it be the sky or shadow in the seashore scene, to the backdrop on the woman and wild cat shot, all the way down to the high ISO shots which compared to the 5d2 (i know, it's unfair to compare the two), Does this noise detract others from wanting to use this camera for landscapes, or was the posts a few months ago regarding the 7D nitpicking about nothing, or are you willing to forgive it because it is full frame and 36Mp rather than an 18MP crop camera? Just getting people 2 cents

for the sake of argument let's say the noise is the same (which IMO isnt'. the D800 looks cleaner than the 7D). AT 36MP the noise is lost in the sheer resolution when you print compared to the 7D print. Try it. Resize a D800 file to 18MP. So I fully dissagree that the D800 is not suited for landscape even if noise levels are the same as the 7D because at a whoping 2X times the number of pixels, you get someting in return.

If you have to crop it down, that sort of defeats the purpose. And noise is noise. It may not be as apparent when cropped, but by the same time, the image will not have nearly the detail it should... i.e. a decent performing 36 MP shot with low noise versus a cropped down 18 MP shot.

 

[wockawocka]

'How does Canon respond to the D800?'


By flipping two fingers and doing a mooney.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I remember a few months ago someone on this forum was criticizing the 7D as having noise in the sky in his landscape shots and was questioning the 7D's credibility and usability in landscape photography. For the last day, I've heard a lot of people mentioning how much they want Canon to produce a large MP camera for (studio and landscape). For the hell of it, I decided to check out the sample photos of the D800... The photos I saw, all the way from ISO 25K all the way down to ISO 100, all of them I could detect traces of noise the in the static areas of the scenes, whether it be the sky or shadow in the seashore scene, to the backdrop on the woman and wild cat shot, all the way down to the high ISO shots which compared to the 5d2 (i know, it's unfair to compare the two), Does this noise detract others from wanting to use this camera for landscapes, or was the posts a few months ago regarding the 7D nitpicking about nothing, or are you willing to forgive it because it is full frame and 36Mp rather than an 18MP crop camera? Just getting people 2 cents

for the sake of argument let's say the noise is the same (which IMO isnt'. the D800 looks cleaner than the 7D). AT 36MP the noise is lost in the sheer resolution when you print compared to the 7D print. Try it. Resize a D800 file to 18MP. So I fully dissagree that the D800 is not suited for landscape even if noise levels are the same as the 7D because at a whoping 2X times the number of pixels, you get someting in return.

If you have to crop it down, that sort of defeats the purpose. And noise is noise. It may not be as apparent when cropped, but by the same time, the image will not have nearly the detail it should... i.e. a decent performing 36 MP shot with low noise versus a cropped down 18 MP shot.

But the point is with higher MP you can either have more detail or the same noise, depending upon what works best for each situation. With lower MP you have no option.