Reading mode: Light Dark

7D: HALF an f stop better at high ISOs. Not 1 or two.

Go to last post
Lots of people were, and still are, shooting the 7d down because the higher pixel count "ruined" the IQ. As always, the truth is in-between the two extremes. I've pixel peeped with the best of them, looking at most of the test images. Sometimes the 7d looks very marginal, sometimes it's almost equal to the 5dII. Even the final DPR review won't put this to bed - even now, some better think the 50d is better than the 40d and vice versa.

One thing is sure - don't use just one source, that includes DPR, IR, or DXO. Looks at all sources and make up your own mind.

Personally, I don't judge by the printed image, not because of the concept, but because it's hard to do a flip/flip A/B comparison, and I can't print 20X30 prints at home. You'd really need to print crops. The print is the final result, but the monitor reveals all.
 
... rather than simply parrotting what others have said -- again and again and again. You seem to feel that you have to prove something by delivering the same message in various posts repeatedly.

If you don't want to buy the camera, by all means, don't. If you have some unique insights that go beyond parrotting what IR has to say, please share them. In the meantime, I'd much rather pay attention to real reports from real users with real observations than your endless ranting with variations on the same theme.

I'll definitely +1 on the comment someone else made about your "protesting too much."
 
"Personally, I don't judge by the printed image, not because of the concept, but because it's hard to do a flip/flip A/B comparison, and I can't print 20X30 prints at home."

If you can't print large enough to discern the difference between the images from two cameras AND you can't tell the difference between two images unless you look really closely at them and do flip/flip comparisons, THEN THERE ISN'T ANY REAL WORLD DIFFERENCE IN IMAGE QUALITY !

People don't look at large prints from 1 foot away ! They look at the image, not the pixels !

This board has gone mad with pixel peeping.

I can understand that the wildlife guys might want to blow things up like crazy because they might shoot a bird that occupies 1/8th of the frame and then crop like crazy to enlarge it. But for landscape photographers and portrait shooters and wedding photogs with confined subjects where they can control the composition, this behavior makes no sense.

Do you really need to be able to see the pores in the brides skin when you look at the image close up ?

--
40D, 28-135, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX
Broken G9, soon to be fixed.
Ufraw and Gimp power user.
 
Thanks for your post, I completely agree.

If I can add a personnal comment, from my personal point of view the 50D was not as good as the 40D.
The good point on the 7D is the work made by Canon on the pattern noise.
 
Well, given that I have printed great looking 13 X 19 shots from the 50D at ISO 3200 (with the proper processing), a half stop better than that, with 3 more megapixels, and a host of features, sounds like a killer camera. The idea that anyone could complain about the 7D being "only" a half stop better than the 50D at high ISO is mind boggling.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 
I think perhaps you're jealous of all the new 7D owners. You protest too much.

As for my opinion versus IR reviews (which could be written by different people, or worded differently simply due to author mood): take your own challenge. Have someone else print the 7D and 5D2 ISO 100 samples to 36". Have that person label them, then cover the labels. Display them and let your family and friends review them and tell you which is better, if either. Vote yourself.

At the end, rip off the labels and see if there's any statistically significant correlation between votes and cameras. I bet there won't be.
me2000 said:
Daniel Lee Taylor said:
me2000 said:
People are openly stating that the 7D is 2 stops better for high ISO noise than the 50D and that it rivals the 5DMKII for IQ !
Click to expand...
At high ISO the 7D is roughly 1 stop better than the 50D and has virtually no banding. Per pixel noise may not be a full stop better, but when enlargement for printing is taken into account it's a stop IMHO.

At low ISO the 7D is surprisingly close to the 5D2 in IQ. So close I would bet that nobody could discern prints between them in a double blind test. This was the first thing I noticed studying the IR samples and I was quite frankly shocked at just how close the output was.
Click to expand...
You must see something that the IR people didn't because they said the 7D output was good to 20x30 with raws whereas the 5DMKII output was EXCEPTIONAL to 24x36 with the in camera jpgs no less.

So either they are blind or you are seeing things that aren't there.

--
40D, 28-135, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX
Broken G9, soon to be fixed.
Ufraw and Gimp power user.
Click to expand...
 
didd said:
Thanks for your post, I completely agree.

If I can add a personnal comment, from my personal point of view the 50D was not as good as the 40D.
The good point on the 7D is the work made by Canon on the pattern noise.
Click to expand...
Which, in certain demanding low-light, bad-light-color situations, would make the 7D far more usable than the 40D or 50D. When you have to crop heavily for shots like wildlife in dark green places, the pattern noise is a very serious obstacle to SQ (subject quality).

--
John

 
If you look at what you are using as a source, you will find that the 5DII & D90 are reviews. These are very thorough & done with a current copy of the camera. The 7D is a preview. These are usually done with a preproduction model & are revised when a current copy is reviewed. I reserve my judgement until I have done my own hands on experiments & the experts have done the same. You however seem determined to knock a camera that you have never used & has never been given a proper review by the experts. Why do you think that your opinion is more respected than those on this forum who have consistently given beautiful examples of their work & prove that they are knowledgeable & unbiased. I haven't seen any of the aforementioned group bad mouth the 7D. I will reserve my finale judgement for when I can use the camera & those whose opinions I respect use it. Bab
 
I have noticed quite the opposite. A lot of people on here quick to judge a camera that's only been officially tested in a beta mode. They critcize the mp count, the confounded af opertation, etc. Until we see some hard facts and careful analysis, it will remain merely supposition. By the way, no one is forced to by this camera.
 
Let them enjoy, time enough for test results later. Even if it matches the 50D, its still 18 mp, fast, improved sealing, improved AF, less banding. Its a winner no matter which way you look at it.
 
The following is all based on measurement on a pixel-for-pixel basis (I am not into resizing).

Noise:

1. The 40D is somewhat less noisy up to ISO 1600 than the 7D.

2. The 50D and the 7D are roughly equal up to ISO 800; from there the 7D is better.

3. Over ISO 1600 the 7D is metter and better than the 40D and 50D. This is not a surprize: the 7D's noise is getting reduced with up to ISO 6400, while the others stop at ISO 1600.
4. The 7D does not come even close to the 5D2 at any level.

Pattern noise, banding:

1. The random pattern noise of the 7D is much less than that of the others, incl. the 5D2.

2. The banding of the 7D caused by the readout electronics in the deep shadows, from ISO 100 to 400, is worse than the pattern noise of the others, but it affects only in the deeper shadows, in the 9th stop and darker.

--
Gabor

http://www.panopeeper.com/panorama/pano.htm
 
I don't understand why others in the same position feel it is necessary to do so. If you read specs. & or reviews on a piece of equipment & feel that it is not right for you then you have every right to pass on buying that equipment. I don't think that you have the right to say that it is a bad decision for others to buy it & that they don't know what they are talking about if they are happy with the results they get or why you care about their decisions about their money. Bab
 
I don't do 20X30's at home. I do order them occasionally. I'm just saying I don't feel like printing out a lot of testing images and going crazy trying to flip through them. I can view 10's to 100's of on-screen images relatively easy. I don't want to print them all. I've printed out enough in the past so I think I can judge on-screen versus print.

It's been my experience that one shot can not be used to judge a camera. You need a variety of shots under a variety of circumstances. I've seen terrible noise from a 5dII.
me2000 said:
If you can't print large enough to discern the difference between the images from two cameras AND you can't tell the difference between two images unless you look really closely at them and do flip/flip comparisons, THEN THERE ISN'T ANY REAL WORLD DIFFERENCE IN IMAGE QUALITY !
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But in the manufacturing industry we monitor and control the process quality, always trying to reduce defects and increase quality. Many times we are trying to go from a 99.999% success to a 99.9999% success. Doesn't mean much to most people unless you are the one buying the .0001% that didn't work or failed early. The way to improve quality is to continuously monitor and improve quality all all levels. Any one change may be small. A series of small changes in a variety of areas can lead to a big improvement.

I agree that sometimes pixel peeping goes to far. People pixel peep who don't have single decent printable photo to their name. There was some guy who wanted to shoot street photography at ISO 100 because he didn't like the noise at ISO 200. That seems extreme to me, but since I don't know him and his craft I can't really judge. But on the other hand, if you could talk to Ansel Adams he'd probably agree with our concept of quality, monitoring each step in the process and looking for small improvements.

Bottom line, incremental improvement and pixel peeping is what drives the industry to better and better cameras, so it's not a bad thing, but yes, sometimes people overdo it.
 
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
Douglas Brown said:
I don't think you fairly represent IR's opinion of the 7D. They also said this: "All in all, the Canon 7D delivers exceptional print quality, with phenomenal detail (especially when working from RAW) at low ISOs, and a very graceful trade-off between noise and subject detail as you go up the ISO scale." Of course I'll have mine tomorrow and I'll be able to formulate my own opinion. :)
Click to expand...
There's the bottom line, folks. It's unconscionable to distort the reviewer's conclusions by leaving out...well...THE CONCLUSION.

Have you even looked at the completely unprocessed raw files that were posted in another thread of this forum? The 7D is magnificent up through ISO 1600. All of that detail and so little noise! Have you seen it? How can you not be impressed? Even where there is noise, the high pixel density gives such a fine noise grain that these images clean up extraordinarily well in post (I tried it in Noise Ninja myself).

If you want to pick on something, then take a file of ISO 100-400 and crank up the fill light as high as it will go, until you obliviate all shadow tonality. You'll then see some banding in the shadows. So there you go. That's something you can pick on.
 
I can see your post about you keeping the 40D, it does what your need and that is fine, but you are not going to change any minds with all these test that others posted, For one you don't even have the camera and it would be better to wait for the reviews before making any statements. Looking at the samples in my opinion it's going to take great photos, the price is right and comparing the features to the 40 or 50D it has a lot going for it. You made your point the first time around now it looks like you just want to argue, I would give it a rest.
me2000 said:
This board has gone nuts with 7D mania. Its affecting people's judgment.

People are openly stating that the 7D is 2 stops better for high ISO noise than the 50D and that it rivals the 5DMKII for IQ !

I believe a lot of these statements are being made because of of an explosion of pixel peeping coupled with an unheralded amount of semi scientific rationalization.

This behavior totally reminds me of hifi enthusiasts who claim that Class A amplifiers and Monster cables result in better blah blah blah.

You wanna know how good a camera is ? Take test shots, print them and ask your friends and family to judge the image quality.

But they aren't a pro photographer like you ? I know ! They just have good eyes !

And isn't the purpose of our "work" to make prints for others to look at ? You are worried that their eyes won't tell them what your pixel peeping has told you ? Yes, welcome to the real world !

I think Imaging Resource does the best job of anyone at assessing image quality. Because they actually work from prints and make comments and judgments based on print quality. Imagine that !

Furthermore, they post this information and the images themselves when they do a PREVIEW, so its available immediately when a camera is released. Their shooting conditions are tightly controlled and they publish a wide, wide variety of test shots. What more could you ask for !

I highly recommend that some of you download these images, print them and then ask your friends to tell you what looks good and what doesn't. It might be enlightening.

Don't have the time or money to do the printing ? Then read IR's comments. See the Print Quality sections on these pages:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DIMAGING.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DIMAGING.HTM

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/E40DIMAGING.HTM

Wanna know how many stops better the 7D is than the 50D ?

"At higher ISOs, the Canon 7D's images held up very well, gaining perhaps a half an f-stop of performance over those from the EOS 50D before it."

A HALF an f stop. Not 1, not 2. HALF.

Yes, the 7D has more resolution. IR covers that too. The 7D will make sharp 20x30 prints with some unsharp masking. A 50D will make sharp 16x20s and the 40D 16x20s are a little soft.

Based on the hysteria on this board, I am anticipating a huge increase in demand for large format photo printing. The largest print I've ever made is 12x16.

Wanna know about high ISO printing ? They cover that too.

At ISO 1600 the 7D shots were "pretty good, albeit with some visible noise in areas of flat midtone tint." For the 50D they said: "For 13x19 inch prints, ISO 1,600 was about the limit." and for the 40D they said "ISO 1,600 shots were slightly soft but quite usable at 13x19 inches."

So NONE of these cameras produced great 13x19 images at ISO1600.

Wanna know what they said about the 5DMKII ?

"Exceptional print quality, good color, sharp 24x36 inch prints from camera JPEGs (with a little unsharp masking)." 24x36 from in camera JPEGS ! And they underlined the work Exceptional.

As well as: "High-ISO shots are surprisingly clean, ISO 6,400 is good up to about 13x19, albeit with a little noise in the shadows and some loss of subtle subject detail."

ISO 6400 is 2 stops better than ISO 1600 for the 7D, 50D and 40D.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2IMAGING.HTM

Message to board: stop peeping and start printing. Or just read the IR print quality comments.

Have a good day.

--
40D, 28-135, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, 430EX
Broken G9, soon to be fixed.
Ufraw and Gimp power user.
Click to expand...
--
Tom
 
me2000 said:
You wanna know how good a camera is ? Take test shots, print them and ask your friends and family to judge the image quality.

But they aren't a pro photographer like you ? I know ! They just have good eyes !

And isn't the purpose of our "work" to make prints for others to look at ?
Click to expand...
Regardless of the rest of your argument, if they're based on the statements above, they are flawed from the start.

First of all, the test of quality, whether audio or visual, is not to simply listen to or view a couple of samples and make a decision. The outcome of such tests are subject to too many factors outside of the actual quality. Rather, the proper way is to provide a number of sample pairs in which neither the tester nor the subject knows which is which. Only after the judgments are rendered does the tester go back and look at the records to see which type of sample got the most votes and if the difference was statistically significant. Indeed, if you apply this type of testing to your own example of Monster Cables, it clearly shows the product to be a sham.

Second, the goal of the photographer is to provide a print that the owner will enjoy long term. This means an appreciation that evolves and grows as the owner's own familiarity with the image and with the art of photography grows. As a result, the photographer needs to exceed the initial standards of the owner so that they can find new layers of appreciation over time.

An analogy might be letting a friend sample a dish you've cooked. At first, he/she might just say that the dish is delicious and enjoyable. After several visits to your house for dinner and being served this dish again, the person might start noticing the specific spices and herbs that were used and ask about them, adding a new layer of enjoyment to the experience. If a work provides several such recurring experiences, so much the better.

This is why professionals shoot for more than just good enough.

David
 
based on personal preferences. You have to have numbers to support the test results.

--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top