Keith Reeder
Senior Member
I've never used the lens - I don't "do" wide - but if I did (and some day I surely will) that's the lens I'd choose.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
7D vs 5D2 noise
- Thread starter alan328
- Start date
I already showed you the thread where the resized comparisons are
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33160623
This "everyone else" seems to be the 50D owners, who just can't believe that the noise perfomance might not be at the level of 40D (or 30D for that matter)... And personally, I do believe that 50D captures more detail than the 40D, especially at lower ISOs, but it doesn't outweigh the difference in noise. Of course, there are other things that the 50D does better than the 40D.
--
pics: http://www.pbase.com/arn
It was $1299 body only when it came out, as the 7D is being offered body-only, so a $400 difference. Even with the numbers you stated above, $1399 is *$300* less than $1699 (7D price) not $200.
And how close did your eyes have to be to see more detail? Keep in mind that an objective non-photographer will not have any point of comparison. My point being a print may contain a little more detail, but will anyone besides you care or know it? Proper viewing distance for an 8x10 or bigger print is 3 feet minimum. The larger the further away you view it from. Camera makers have people drooling over more pixels when it's not really gaining them much. I'll be at 13MP for a long time because that's why my 5D has and the size of my 3200dpi film scans.
I think in the Pro Digital forum recently someone made a 16x20 print of a 1024x800something web posted image to show how well an image can be enlarged. He said his print was very good looking. Once you get to 12 or 13MP, adding 5 or even 8 MP isn't going to provide any substantial detail improvements for prints unless you always crop heavily.
The images shown in the link are NOT resized to the same view. Besides 50D noise is not much worse, if at all, than 40D even at the much higher magnification and resolution. You need to stop this nonsense until you understand how to read the image. The attack of 50D owners will not help your cause either because many of them do own 30D/40D too.
GeorgeML
Leading Member
The 40D was $1299 at introduction. The 50D was indeed announced at $1399.
I remembed this very well.
Wow. Just because I think that the 50D produces more noise than 40D and 30D, you're saying that I'm attacking all 50D owners. That's more than a little childish. And you didn't even look at Durandalfr's post for more than a second. Otherwise you would have seen that there were resized crops too, right in that first post of his.
And while you continue with your childish accusations and refuse to give me the right to have an opinion about noise performance of cameras and you also refuse to believe other people that have same claims... Well, I'm sure that you also disagree with the DPreview's review of the 50D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/page18.asp
I'm done talking about this subject.
--
pics: http://www.pbase.com/arn
GeorgeML
Leading Member
Agree with both.
18mp will maybe produce slightly better prints that 12mp.
At the same time, though, what's wrong with the image quality of the 12 mp 5D classic, a camera universally praised for its image quality.
I'm of the opinion that Canon has yet to produce a 1.6x sensor that matches the image quality of the 5D - four years after the 5D was announced.
It seems that they have the technology to do it but their marketing department keeps insisting on increasing the megapixels.
gilbertmartin
Well-known member
I've read a lot of comments, but has anyone else noticed, that the colours of the 7D are much more neutral on the teddy, than those of the 5DMark II? Just look at the letters...
Higher noise from 6.400 on, but other than that, 7D looks P R E T T Y good to me.
Higher noise from 6.400 on, but other than that, 7D looks P R E T T Y good to me.
GeorgeML
Leading Member
Yes, for whatever reason Canon is switching back to the 20D/30D colors on the 7D.
No more rich and vibrant colors like on the 40D/50D/5DII.
Incidentally, Nikon is using the same color curve as the 20D/30D as well.
Also, from the samples I've seen, the 7D has also much more accurate exposure and white balance than the 40D/50D/5DII, so this additionally give different look on the same scene.
What's your point other than two full paragraphs of personal attack?
Yes you can "think" whatever you want but it's just wrong. You either still don't understand how to read the images (they are NOT resized to the same mag) or you're just a troll. Judging from you posting history you're probably a troll.
Feeding time is over. Bye.
Yes you can "think" whatever you want but it's just wrong. You either still don't understand how to read the images (they are NOT resized to the same mag) or you're just a troll. Judging from you posting history you're probably a troll.
Feeding time is over. Bye.
Here are a couple of photos taken with my 10-22mm on the 500D with tripod.
2 different days, 2 different apertures. Results: lifeless, not sharp (especially at edge) with terrible CA. I've taken literally thousands of pictures of the same scene since it is from my balcony so I know what to expect. I can't blame the 500D because it is fine. Even a kit lens from a 300D did better than these.
I uploaded the unretouched full-size pics but don't know if you can see full-size from Picasa:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Hy5oBUtEA6IOguHh8WJtHQ?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/E8gTl_ssqQ8TxgY8HcWtrQ?feat=directlink
I need WIDE so I can use the 17-40 on the 5D2 instead of the 10-22 on a crop. The 17-40 is better than the 10-22 on any camera. The result from the 10-22 is sometimes so dull that, after looking at the LCD of landscape pics I occasionally wondered if the picture mode was mistakenly set to B&W.WOW!For you maybe. Not for me. I'll never buy another crop camera until Canon comes out with a better really-wide angle lens. I believe their 10-22 is the widest and it's a terrible lens despite the many raves I've seen. I use my 500D when I don't want to take the 5D2 with me. But I am not going to WAST my money on the 7D.
What Canon ultra-wide zoom significantly outperforms the EFS10~22 at equivalent FOV? > Bob
.. and there is photographer factor. Sorry about the sarcasm but it took me only half a second to look at your overexposed picture to know what factor it is in your case. Pbase is down now but I can show you what this lens can do later when it comes up.
So it's not the camera...it's the lens....how about the man behind the camera ?. It's lifeless sure it's a boring scene..at what time this was taken ?. golden hours ?. Do you think a great camera and lens can make a dull situation and environment alive ?.
You might want to see this thread...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/800414/0?keyword=10-22mm#7379745
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/800414/0?keyword=10-22mm#7379745
I need WIDE so I can use the 17-40 on the 5D2 instead of the 10-22 on a crop. The 17-40 is better than the 10-22 on any camera. The result from the 10-22 is sometimes so dull that, after looking at the LCD of landscape pics I occasionally wondered if the picture mode was mistakenly set to B&W.WOW!For you maybe. Not for me. I'll never buy another crop camera until Canon comes out with a better really-wide angle lens. I believe their 10-22 is the widest and it's a terrible lens despite the many raves I've seen. I use my 500D when I don't want to take the 5D2 with me. But I am not going to WAST my money on the 7D.
What Canon ultra-wide zoom significantly outperforms the EFS10~22 at equivalent FOV? > Bob
I believe 20D was $1499 when it first came out. You can say 7D is only $200 more than 20D.
Jerry-astro
Forum Pro
If this is the best example you can come up with, you might want to consider the fact that the problem is behind the camera, not in front of it. Way overexposed and a terrible example to use when suggesting that a lens has a problem. BTW, my 10-22 had some issues "out of the chute" and it needed to be sent to Canon (significant CA at the edges) for a tuneup. When it came back, it was way better and it remains one of the best lenses in my bag (second only to my 17-55). It's very sharp, has minimal CA, and excellent contrast and color.
This lens coupled with a crop camera gives me all the UWA coverage I need and see no need whatsoever to go with FF. And, BTW, I used to own a 17-40L, which you seem to think is an awesome lens. It's not bad, but it displayed significantly more CA than my 10-22 in fairly high contrast areas closer to the edges. I'm not missing it at all.
This lens coupled with a crop camera gives me all the UWA coverage I need and see no need whatsoever to go with FF. And, BTW, I used to own a 17-40L, which you seem to think is an awesome lens. It's not bad, but it displayed significantly more CA than my 10-22 in fairly high contrast areas closer to the edges. I'm not missing it at all.
The man behind the camera took thousands of pics of same scene at all hours of the day with all kinds of cameras and lenses and most of the pics (even those with older cameras and kit lenses) came out better than those with the 10-22.
Perhaps, when I have time, I'll post photos of same scene taken with the 300D, 350D, 30D, 40D, 5D and 5D2 with all manners of kit lenses and L lenses. These are the cameras and lenses that I own and can compare.
At least you admitted that the photos are lifeless. Others also complained about the lack of saturation of this lens, I am not the only one.
Why don't you claim that the photos are SHARP, or there's no CA? You can't. Boring scene can't make a picture blurry, or aberrate chromatically. These are the defects of the 10-22 lens, not of the scenery.
But I know I will never be able to convince you. You stated that I must not have used the 10-22 so I posted the 2 pictures taken with the 10-22 to remove the doubt. That's my main point of posting the photos.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum