7D vs 5D2 noise

[madzazulu]

I said lifeless because the scene itself is boring. I don't think I want to waste my time inspecting boring pics for sharpness or more . If you check the link I gave you, you can see what you've claimed are not true..it's the man/woman behind the camera+lens that matters.

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 ?.

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.

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 ADMIT 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 lens.

 

[lb92683]

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.

I don't have time to deal with "issues" or lens "tuneup". If it's no good "out of the chute", it's not good enough for me.

 

[Jerry-astro]

I'd like perfection in every piece of equipment I buy as well. Who wouldn't? But, volume manufacturing being what it is, I don't necessarily expect it. Of all the Canon lenses and cameras I've owned over the last 7 years (a bunch), this is the only one which has required any service from Canon. I'd say that's a pretty good record. What's more, they turned it around quickly and efficiently, and returned the lens working perfectly to specification.

I see you have very strong opinions about this lens, but the example you posted is a borderline ridiculous one to use to make that case. What's more, I'll trust both my own experience and what I've read from countless others on this site who swear by the sharpness, low CA, and excellent contrast and color from the 10-22. Your expectation of complete perfection alone tells me a lot about how unrealistic those expectations are.

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.

I don't have time to deal with "issues" or lens "tuneup". If it's no good "out of the chute", it's not good enough for me.

 

[Kuivaamo]

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.

There's a very, very good reason for this.

5D: sensor surface area = 864 square millimetres
APS-C: sensor surface area = 330 square millimetres

BTW, resolution is an extremely important part of image quality. And in this respect, the 7D beats the 5D.

 

[lb92683]

If you check the link I gave you, you can see what you've claimed are not true..

This is like asking: Do you believe me or do you believe your own eyes?

 

[madzazulu]

I'm saying it's the person behind the camera+lens that makes the difference. If those people that have posted their pics in the link have no problem making good looking pictures why can't you do the same ?.

 

[John Sheehy]

7D High pixel density looses detail to softness as usual.

I think it's pretty obvious that the 5D2 versions are more highly sharpened.

7D Color is lost as also appears whenever higher ISO is pushed in any review.

To me the 7D inappropriately pirates its identifier from full frame.
This camera will probably be just be a step of marginal progress along the path.
if you already have a decent camera it won't be necessary.

Differing saturation/colortone/picturestyle defaults probably account for a good deal of what you are talking about.

--
John

 

[lb92683]

He has lost all the credibility by the his comment on 10-22.

I have never seen such faith outside of religion: It's blasphemy for anyone to comment on 10-22!

 

[Peter 13]

He has lost all the credibility by the his comment on 10-22.

I have never seen such faith outside of religion: It's blasphemy for anyone to comment on 10-22!

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason for that might be that the 10-22 is a lens with great saturation? And you are simply wrong?

 

[lb92683]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason for that might be that the 10-22 is a lens with great saturation? And you are simply wrong?

Why should I be so blind? Against the evidence right in front of my very own eyes?

 

[Peter 13]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason for that might be that the 10-22 is a lens with great saturation? And you are simply wrong?

Why should I be so blind? Against the evidence right in front of my very own eyes?

Last time I looked for your evidence, there was nothing on Picasa. What did you do to the evidence, lb92683? This is obstruction of justice!

 

[Kuivaamo]

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason for that might be that the 10-22 is a lens with great saturation? And you are simply wrong?

Why should I be so blind? Against the evidence right in front of my very own eyes?

But how do you then explain why are there so many people who are happy with the lens' performance?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

That's a sampling of 194 people, 92% of whom recommend the lens. Overall rating: 9/10 (which is pretty high for a zoom lens).

Perhaps you have a bad copy. Maybe you're not using it to the best of its abilities. But dismissing the whole lens design sounds illogical.

 

[rwbaron]

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

RAW noise

Finally let's take a look a the raw output of the EOS50D next to the ten megapixel 40D. Removing any in-camera noise reduction and processing the images using Adobe Camera Raw (without NR) gives us the nearest thing to a 'level playing field' for assessing the relative noise levels of the two cameras' sensors. Despite the fact that the 50D is the newer camera it shows visibly more chroma and luminance noise than the 40D. Considering the 50D's much more tightly packed sensor (4.5 MP/cm² vs 3.1 MP/cm² on the 40D) this comes hardly as a surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect Canon's engineers to overcome the laws of physics.

I'm done talking about this subject.

Sorry but DPR was simply wrong on this review as they've been on a few others. Have you noticed that DPR never spoke of "image level" noise until after all the "noise" created in the forums by their suspect 50D review. Afterward, they magically started mentioning image level noise too.

I shoot with both the 40 and 50D interchangeably and do all my image appraisals at the pixel level and I do not see any difference in noise that is of any consequence.

Bob

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

 

[lb92683]

But how do you then explain why are there so many people who are happy with the lens' performance?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

That's a sampling of 194 people, 92% of whom recommend the lens. Overall rating: 9/10 (which is pretty high for a zoom lens).

The explanation is in what you yourself write: the 8 discriminating % who don't recommend the lens. I simply belong to the 8%.

 

[carlk]

Nay, You belong to the 8% who does not know how to shoot a camera.

The picture you posted is a joke.

But how do you then explain why are there so many people who are happy with the lens' performance?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

That's a sampling of 194 people, 92% of whom recommend the lens. Overall rating: 9/10 (which is pretty high for a zoom lens).

The explanation is in what you yourself write: the 8 discriminating % who don't recommend the lens. I simply belong to the 8%.

 

[lb92683]

Nay, You belong to the 8% who does not know how to shoot a camera.

The picture you posted is a joke.

Exactly my point. The lens is a joke.

I don't want to participate in a religious war here. Just want to remind the fanatics that even Jesus doesn't get 100% and He's not complaining. Only nuts wage equipment wars as if there would be 62 virgins waiting for them after their death at the 10-22mm battle.

 

[tko]

There's a lot of things in life I won't do, but I usually don't bother informing the world. It sounds, well, kind of snobbish. Or maybe the 7d is too threatening? At any rate, you can take a fantastic wide angle w/any camera out there if your are craftman. It's sports you can't fake. That's why I pick speed and AF first, the rest is easy.

 

[tko]

None of the FF wide angles do any better on the ratings than the 10-22MM

BUt I kind of agree. Canon doesn't really have any really decent WA that a razor sharp edge to edge, certainly not zooms, maybe the new 24MM F1.4.

 

[Guv]

I think I'll hold off on the 5DII. I might save more, actually, since I don't have to replace half my lenses. These look great. (No offense to the 5D crowd - I'd get one if I could afford it!)

One thing nobody's talking about is the new metering system. Canon's previous Evaluative metering is embarrassingly dumb, fooled by virtually all and even minor backlighting, even if you're focused on a nearby subect (no distance information taken into account). I've always been impressed by how well the D300's Matrix Metering works, clearly using the subject much more in the metering calculation. I hope the 7D's entirely new system works as well.

--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uunnngh/sets/72157608440121699/

 

[Jose Rocha]

The IQ of the 7D up to ISO 3200 is stunning and sets a new benchmark to beat. I'd like to hear about AF performance from new users.

--
Jose Rocha

http://olhares.aeiou.pt/jplacebo