-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I have tested the 7D and 20D side by side
- Thread starter wendyorg
- Start date
JackRiley
Senior Member
No, Dave over at Imaging resources was NOT talking about dark frame subtraction. He is referring to Canon's on-chip noise reduction. He specifically states that it is not at the expense of fine, low contrast detai, as is so often the case. However, from my experience, the A2 DOES suffer from that malady, regardless of the firmware version.
Well, I'm pretty sure most readers of these forums would trust Phil's tests over FOTO Sweden. And Phils's tests also showed the top performing Olympus 8080 to be the equal of teh 20D.
Any objective tests confirm your quantum opinions on the A2 with new firmware?
IMO my 20D images blow away the ones I made with my A2.
On Phil's tests, the 20D jpegs did just fine.
--
Arnold for President!
Chadd Thompson
Leading Member
This is in no way directed at anyone and is a generalization for products in general not just cameras.
With the current options in DSLR's I dont think you are going to see huge difference in any of the latest options. Some cameras do some things better than others but mostly the differences you are going to see in image quality are going to be in the eye of the beholder.
You are going to see a lot of words like, slightly, marginally, a little bit, I think, etc etc. Because most of the differnces are not measureable, and depend greatly on who is looking at the results.
Anymore I think too many end users are hung up on "my camera is the best" and will argue to no end as to why they believe that way. I don't understand why so many people second guess thier decisions and beat them selfs up to the point of distress as to wether or not a different product is better than what they just purchased. I used to be bad about this but finally realized that I just needed to live with the decisions I made regarding purchases and enjoy using whatever product I chose at the time.
If anyone is that worried about thier decision don't buy a camera "or any product for that matter" until you have read reviews, seen pictures, or even gotten to use one and from that determine what is the best option for you, and definatly don't buy a product on release.
This is one of the reasons that the early images I posted from my 7D were straight out of the camera, I wanted potential buyers to be able to see what the 7D is capbable of producing in less than optimal conditions "my poor skills" on a day to day basis. All of my pics are on pbase full size if someone wanted to download them and play with them in PS or whatever their favorite editor is. Also I have RAW files for a good number of my pictures that I would be happy to send someone if they wanted them to play with. I in no way want to mislead someone who is potentially going to spend well over $1000 of thier money based off of my input/images.
So in closing.
There is no way that any one product is going to fit everyones needs, otherwise there were be only one option. So go take some pictures and enjoy your camera no matter what brand you are shooting.
Sorry for the rambling. This is just my .02 worth
--
Thanks,
Chadd
http://www.pbase.com/chadd
With the current options in DSLR's I dont think you are going to see huge difference in any of the latest options. Some cameras do some things better than others but mostly the differences you are going to see in image quality are going to be in the eye of the beholder.
You are going to see a lot of words like, slightly, marginally, a little bit, I think, etc etc. Because most of the differnces are not measureable, and depend greatly on who is looking at the results.
Anymore I think too many end users are hung up on "my camera is the best" and will argue to no end as to why they believe that way. I don't understand why so many people second guess thier decisions and beat them selfs up to the point of distress as to wether or not a different product is better than what they just purchased. I used to be bad about this but finally realized that I just needed to live with the decisions I made regarding purchases and enjoy using whatever product I chose at the time.
If anyone is that worried about thier decision don't buy a camera "or any product for that matter" until you have read reviews, seen pictures, or even gotten to use one and from that determine what is the best option for you, and definatly don't buy a product on release.
This is one of the reasons that the early images I posted from my 7D were straight out of the camera, I wanted potential buyers to be able to see what the 7D is capbable of producing in less than optimal conditions "my poor skills" on a day to day basis. All of my pics are on pbase full size if someone wanted to download them and play with them in PS or whatever their favorite editor is. Also I have RAW files for a good number of my pictures that I would be happy to send someone if they wanted them to play with. I in no way want to mislead someone who is potentially going to spend well over $1000 of thier money based off of my input/images.
So in closing.
There is no way that any one product is going to fit everyones needs, otherwise there were be only one option. So go take some pictures and enjoy your camera no matter what brand you are shooting.
Sorry for the rambling. This is just my .02 worth
--
Thanks,
Chadd
http://www.pbase.com/chadd
I want to thank you all so far for keeping this thread basically civil, as I know it is a very emotionally charged issue when discussing two very good cameras and their relative values to us. If I am going to take the time to process and post the images in addition to what I have already gone through to take the images, I ask that all of you agree to the following...
1. It will be very easy for some to become defensive about which camera they favor, and I ask that you keep the defensiveness OFF of this thread and forum. Please try and just state objectively what you see.
2. Please do not make comments about how my testing procedures are flawed - they are admittedly not made up of scientific methods or equipment, but they use simple real-world situations which were important to me only. I KNOW THERE ARE FLAWS, so please keep this in mind when looking at images and opinions. Please do your own tests so that you can see what works for you. This is just what I found and my eye, tastes and results will differ from yours.
If anyone does start to get out of hand, it will hurt my feelings and make me feel as if all my work was for nothing and I will feel the need to remove the images. I am sacrificing a lot of bandwith for this, so I can only leave them up if the benefits outweigh the negatives. I'll leave them up as long as people are having meaningful discussion about them.
Are you in?
I'll post them later tonight after most people have had a chance to read this, thanks,
Wendy
1. It will be very easy for some to become defensive about which camera they favor, and I ask that you keep the defensiveness OFF of this thread and forum. Please try and just state objectively what you see.
2. Please do not make comments about how my testing procedures are flawed - they are admittedly not made up of scientific methods or equipment, but they use simple real-world situations which were important to me only. I KNOW THERE ARE FLAWS, so please keep this in mind when looking at images and opinions. Please do your own tests so that you can see what works for you. This is just what I found and my eye, tastes and results will differ from yours.
If anyone does start to get out of hand, it will hurt my feelings and make me feel as if all my work was for nothing and I will feel the need to remove the images. I am sacrificing a lot of bandwith for this, so I can only leave them up if the benefits outweigh the negatives. I'll leave them up as long as people are having meaningful discussion about them.
Are you in?
I'll post them later tonight after most people have had a chance to read this, thanks,
Wendy
DRG
Veteran Member
It is important to first ensure correct exposure before comparing noise in high ISO shots. Since high ISO is typically used in situation in which there isn't a lot of control over low ambient lighting, it is often the case that even high ISO isn't sufficient to create a proper exposure. As a results, I see an awful lot of underexposed high ISO samples posted. Since underexposure increases the visibility of noise still further, it can push an acceptable level over the edge into unacceptability.Besides that, I saw many 3200 samples from Canon and can't really
say that they're acceptable for anything showing party pictures to
friends on built-in LCD screen.Seriously, they're noisy, much
better than previous generation of digicams and as noisy as my
point-and-shoot shirtpocket camera at ISO400, but anyway, it's all
hardly acceptable for any application.
This may be at least part of the reason that some find ISO 1600 and 3200 acceptable and others find it entirely too noisy. Other reasons of course include camera-to-camera variation and whether the image is printed or downsampled for screen display vs. examination at 100% in an editor.
David
Bob Myers1
Forum Pro
.... it really is appreciated.
Bob
Bob Myers WB7SBW
2 - Olympus C21oo 2 - B3oo 1 - B-Macro
http://hillsidephotos.com/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos3/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos2/
http://members.cox.net/robert.myers1/
http://members.cox.net/robert.myers2/
Bob
--
Bob Myers WB7SBW
2 - Olympus C21oo 2 - B3oo 1 - B-Macro
http://hillsidephotos.com/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos3/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos/
http://members.cox.net/digiphotos2/
http://members.cox.net/robert.myers1/
http://members.cox.net/robert.myers2/
Oh, they surely are, but this is what it makes your affords so valuable - because technical data can be optained from datasheeds - live experiances can not... but with your opinion compared to some others we can make some good expectations on what we get.
no, I'm out --- out for a walk --- but I will be back in early enought to hopefully see your images before some trolls are taking over the world or at least your bandwith
hope that you can show your images as long as possible so that everyone is able to create his own opinion.
Your first post made us realy interested...
so long
pi
PS: please include some 100% crops if you haven't already done
Vance Zachary
Veteran Member
Our names are not Phil Askey. We are not professional camera testers. When we make our generalizations, we do so as people who love photography and give our honest impressions of these tools of the trade. Of course, you are welcome to disagree but try to be objective and stay away from personal attacks. Impressions are not scientific facts. They nevertheless can be useful when taken as a whole in making decisions on which camera might be best for you.
As Chad mentioned, we all have our personal preferences. Camera brand can not be an excuse for not being able to make excellent pics and not growing as a photographer. Nonetheless, I find it amusing when people make a big deal about shutter sound when, to me, that is the last thing I would worry about. If I can make WOW pictures, the camera's shutter can sound like a hyena's laugh for all it matters to me. I come from medium format where the shutter sounds like a Canon going off. But, of course, that's just me. For other people it is the deciding factor in selecting a camera.
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
As Chad mentioned, we all have our personal preferences. Camera brand can not be an excuse for not being able to make excellent pics and not growing as a photographer. Nonetheless, I find it amusing when people make a big deal about shutter sound when, to me, that is the last thing I would worry about. If I can make WOW pictures, the camera's shutter can sound like a hyena's laugh for all it matters to me. I come from medium format where the shutter sounds like a Canon going off. But, of course, that's just me. For other people it is the deciding factor in selecting a camera.
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
The Canon 20D with the on-board flash, gives you a pretty bad red eye which surprised me. Normally only smaller, less expensive cameras with the flash close to the lens do this. My A1 doesn't do it, nor does the 7D. I decided to resort to the red-eye mode which normally I hate, as number one, it doesn't work, and number two, it is annoying to have all those pre-flashes go off. Anyway, using the red eye reduction feature on the 20D, we saw that it doesn't do those same pre-flashes per se - it sort of slowly fades in and out and by golly, it actually works pretty well! There is a VERY small amount of color left in the eye, a very very dark reddish as compared to the KM with no red eye mode turned on, but it is barely noticeable and satisfied me.
One more thing I thought was interesting were the relative file sizes between the two cameras. At basically the same settings, same ISO, same subject and lighting, highest quality set for both cameras, the Canon file sizes are smaller. For instance, at 100 ISO the Canon file size was 2,144 K. The KM version was 3,952K with NR On and 4,022K with NR off. At 3200 ISO, Canon was 3,578K and KM was 5,591K with NR on. Not sure if this is due only to their .jpg compression or other factors, but I am amazed at all the 20D can fit into a file size that small.
Wendy
One more thing I thought was interesting were the relative file sizes between the two cameras. At basically the same settings, same ISO, same subject and lighting, highest quality set for both cameras, the Canon file sizes are smaller. For instance, at 100 ISO the Canon file size was 2,144 K. The KM version was 3,952K with NR On and 4,022K with NR off. At 3200 ISO, Canon was 3,578K and KM was 5,591K with NR on. Not sure if this is due only to their .jpg compression or other factors, but I am amazed at all the 20D can fit into a file size that small.
Wendy
D
David Martin
Guest
Do you think Phil could make this one of his standard tests?We really ought to specify how many days, and blond or brunette, for consistent results!
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
Hello Wendy,
NR should not influence your image when exposure time is under 1 sec. If exposure time in your example was under 1 sec, this small variation you observed might be due to various random influences.
Best regards,
Wolfram
Which compression were you using? The images of my D7D are around 2000-2500K in "fine" mode. The 300D, for example, produces images of comparable size when set to its best jpeg mode.
NR should not influence your image when exposure time is under 1 sec. If exposure time in your example was under 1 sec, this small variation you observed might be due to various random influences.
Best regards,
Wolfram
Can I ask you this Wendy was the 50f1.4 lens on the D7D for these comp tests the lens you had when you first bought the camera?
Peter
Peter
WendyD
Well-known member
To a fellow Wendy --
I'm really grateful for the informal look -- for me, actual use experience and comparison gives me a better sense than lots of technical data. Of course, it's moot -- I took the plunge and ordered the 7D (I should get it Wednesday). Back in the 70's, I had a chance to upgrade a film Minolta with a Canon, and chose the XD-11 (gave away my age, no doubt, with that one), and I've been a fan of Minolta ever since.
For other posters -- which lenses are you having the best luck with? Obviously, the better the lens, the better the result, but how good does the lens have to be? And, has anyone purchased either of the two new "digital" lenses KM is marketing as being designed for the 7d?
Final comment -- all things being equal, or even slightly unequal, I think I'll vote for the KM to participate in this forum over Canon's! I think we do a better job of civility, no? (I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and hum if someone says the 20D is better!!)
Thanks, again, for your work and impressions.
--
Wendy
I'm really grateful for the informal look -- for me, actual use experience and comparison gives me a better sense than lots of technical data. Of course, it's moot -- I took the plunge and ordered the 7D (I should get it Wednesday). Back in the 70's, I had a chance to upgrade a film Minolta with a Canon, and chose the XD-11 (gave away my age, no doubt, with that one), and I've been a fan of Minolta ever since.
For other posters -- which lenses are you having the best luck with? Obviously, the better the lens, the better the result, but how good does the lens have to be? And, has anyone purchased either of the two new "digital" lenses KM is marketing as being designed for the 7d?
Final comment -- all things being equal, or even slightly unequal, I think I'll vote for the KM to participate in this forum over Canon's! I think we do a better job of civility, no? (I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and hum if someone says the 20D is better!!)
Thanks, again, for your work and impressions.
--
Wendy
José B
Forum Pro
Yes, I do have this lens and absolutely love it. It focuses very fast with the 7D. Here are some samples:
Cheers,
José
All-glamour team: Maxxum 7D+35/2+50/1.4+85/1.4G(D) and 28-75/2.8 (D). Charter Member of the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Adoption Society
Cheers,
José
--
All-glamour team: Maxxum 7D+35/2+50/1.4+85/1.4G(D) and 28-75/2.8 (D). Charter Member of the Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Adoption Society
Biu
Senior Member
Legacys_quest
Leading Member
Alex is right..I have a friend who lives in L.A. , he was the first to hipped me to manipulating high speed film where you wouldn't even know that it was shot wih a highspeed film. He shoots alot of concerts. I'm not sure how it works but it has something to do with the lights..I'm going to give him a buzz to find out what it the technique that he uses.
It is important to first ensure correct exposure before comparingBesides that, I saw many 3200 samples from Canon and can't really
say that they're acceptable for anything showing party pictures to
friends on built-in LCD screen.
better than previous generation of digicams and as noisy as my
point-and-shoot shirtpocket camera at ISO400, but anyway, it's all
hardly acceptable for any application.
noise in high ISO shots. Since high ISO is typically used in
situation in which there isn't a lot of control over low ambient
lighting, it is often the case that even high ISO isn't sufficient
to create a proper exposure. As a results, I see an awful lot of
underexposed high ISO samples posted. Since underexposure increases
the visibility of noise still further, it can push an acceptable
level over the edge into unacceptability.
This may be at least part of the reason that some find ISO 1600 and
3200 acceptable and others find it entirely too noisy. Other
reasons of course include camera-to-camera variation and whether
the image is printed or downsampled for screen display vs.
examination at 100% in an editor.
David
Legacys_quest
Leading Member
at the high iso speed.
Here what you can do to check for B/F....
Please dont take this as lab standards, but something you can do easily if you have a printer.... make yourself a chart.....
This lens happens to be the old 49mm filter, 50f1.4 @ f1.4, using AF - 1600asa/flourescent lighting.....so not the conditions but one I did 5mins ago, you will see better examples but I did this in a hurry....
Peter
Please dont take this as lab standards, but something you can do easily if you have a printer.... make yourself a chart.....
This lens happens to be the old 49mm filter, 50f1.4 @ f1.4, using AF - 1600asa/flourescent lighting.....so not the conditions but one I did 5mins ago, you will see better examples but I did this in a hurry....
Peter
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum