I find the discussion of noise in these cameras so interesting. I wonder how many people really look at prints to evaluate the significance of this noise.
Andy, myself, and others have shown that ISO 1600 prints from a 40D, 50D, 7D, 5D ( that are not under exposed) can look very nice even at 13 x 19 inches in size.
If the noise is an issue, NoiseWear, LR3, ACR can all help subdue it.
Most of the disturbing noise I see in images is due to under exposure, not ISO.
To compare these modern images with 35mm film shot at ISO 400 is quite dramatic. The noise in ISO 400 film was bunches and bunches worse, than modern DSLRs like the 7D at ISO 1600. It is a fact.
The real issue for both the 50D and the 7D is lens quality - the pixel pitch really demands first rate glass. They both will clearly demonstrate the weakness of less than first rate glass.
Both the 50D and the 7D are head and shoulders better cameras than a 20D ever hoped to be. I have 2 20Ds in my closet, so don't think that I am just biased. They were great in their day, but it has clearly passed.
Absolutely true. Most folks concerned about noise are looking at images much, much larger than the pixels they might see in a print. Most monitors display at around 100 dpi, but we tend to use 300 dpi printers and such. That means if you view the image at 100 percent on the monitor from a 7D image it's like looking at a ginormous print of around 52 inches in the longest dimension. If you were to produce a print of that size would it really be fair to view it as closely as you do a monitor? (This question is directed at people who view at 100 percent.)
I do fairly regularly produce images of 20 inches by 30 inches from 8 MPix, but those large scale printers have their own dedicated RIP (Raster Image Processor) which is in turn a dedicated computer with custom algorithms just for the job.
I still hold the 20D in high regard because if they are used properly, with good control over lighting, with great lenses to form the image, and with careful exposure and careful processing, they can still produce wonderful images. When the 20D was introduced there was nothing else on the market in its price point that could match the creamy high-ISO up to 800 and very usable ISO of 1600. (I thought ISO 3200 was pushing it too far however.) Modern RAW processing allows it slightly better performance now and noise reduction allows pushing even a little further.
Even my little XT/350D still does a decent enough job when I do "my" job properly:
The obligatory 100 percent crop:
Pertinent EXIF:
Model - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
DateTime - 2010:06:10 19:29:51
ExposureTime - 1/200 seconds
FNumber - 4.50
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/200 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.50
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 35 mm
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3456
ExifImageHeight - 2304
ExposureMode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Quality - RAW
Focal length - 18 - 50 mm (1 mm)
Flash details - External TTL
Focus mode 2 - Single
White Balance - Auto
Flash bias - 0 EV
Equipment:
Canon 350D/XT
Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC
Sigma EF 500 DG Super flash for Canon E-TTL II
"Scoop" flash modifier, flash mounted to camera (no bracket).
Note that I used ISO 200. This was chosen because of the selected aperture and the distance to the subject. The room had a white ceiling, so I could have used bounce, but I wanted to take some angled shots too and the geometry would have been wrong.
Why did I choose the XT as the camera? Firstly it was ready, as was the flash. This was a "last minute" sort of get together and unplanned meant use what I had ready. Also I have enough confidence and experience with the system to know it would likely serve the purpose.
This is a 5" x 7" portrait crop from the original landscape orientation. Plenty of detail for the purpose. He made this face so this was a quick "grab" and no time to re-orient the flash. (This is a cousin I hardly ever see and he and his wife were just here for a little while.)
When the 50d first came out I hear a lot of complaints that it wasn't much better than the 4d as far as noise--some people said worse. When the 7d came out, I heard it is was much much better.
I shoot with the 50d now. from what you are saying, it doesn't make any sense to trade up unless I could get at least to the 5dmii and the the 7d would be only a minor improvement.
It doesn't make sense if your only criteria for the upgrade is high-ISO noise. The 7D is a very much more capable camera in other ways.
BTW, I still use a 40D for paying event work, along with the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM as the standard lens. It is a great camera for candids. I do not intend to upgrade until the camera starts failing.
For the wedding ceremony I still use a pair of 1D MKII bodies. The AF is much superior for ambient indoor photography and the camera shoots ISO 800 just fine.
For the formals I use a 5D MKII, but the single memory card makes me nervous. Eventually a 1D MKIV will replace it and one of the 1D MKII bodies.
Josh, ymmv - and if you are ONLY considering upgrading for the 5dII's super-high ISO then you may not find it's enough for you - but for me the 7d has been a BIG step up from the 50d in all ways.
I went from an XT to an xsi, and then added a 50d which was subsequently replaced by the 7d (ie I now have the xsi and the 7d). So I feel I've used enough Canon cameras of different pixel depths to form an opinion. I have kept the xsi as a backup and small, light travel camera - it's a good camera (and was a big step up from the XT), but it doesn't do so well about iso 800. The 50d is a capable camera but the 7d's handling and *responsiveness* are very much more than a minor step up, for me at any rate. One of my biggest problems with the shots I do - often in low light, and often at wide apertures - is missed focus. With the 7d, I've managed to up my keeper rate significantly. I no longer have to "over-shoot" to ensure that at least a few that are shot in tricky circumstances are sharply in focus as I intended. And, IMO, it significantly outperforms the 50d at 1600 and above.
No, it can't match the 5dII. But *to the naked eye* (ie perhaps not scientifically, as in the various benchmark/scientific sites) it is a huge improvement in ISO performance over the xsi and 50d.
I swore I wasn't going to do this because I abhor pixel-peeping for pixel-peeping's sake, but the question comes up often enough that perhaps it's worth putting these out there at ~100% (I eyeballed it, so it may not be "scientifically" 100%). The main thing I notice from this isn't the degree of noise at 100%, but how small a percentage of the frame 1:1 is, which is why I don't think it's really meaningful to assess the 7d's noise at that magnification. I believe somebody calculated that a 1:1 print from a 7d is ~approximately 6 feet wide....
These were raw shots taken at ISO2000 (in horrendous middle-school-auditorium lighting)using the 135L. I processed them very quickly in LR3 just now with no particular attention to getting a perfect final image. I probably could/should have played with the detail slider a little more after applying NR, but for these purposes, I think it shows how good these shots can be made to look without much effort at all. In particular, notice how the noise in the blacks just vanishes even though I lifted the exposure slightly which introduced a little more noise before I was done. .
Exif:
Manual
1/200
f4
iso2000
No flash
135L
AWB
SOOC shot
~100% crop SOOC
Processed, using LR3 (including sharpening and NR)
Divamum that shot looks great to my eye zoomd out even before any cleanup was done.
I too find the high iso performance a huge step up from my XSI. I havent done enough shooting with a 50d to really be able to form a comparison. It is a massive step up from the XSI for sure. I shoot a lot of sports and for whatever reason the baseball games i have been shooting with my 7D have been late day/evening under the lights games. Little league fields arent the best lit and it was always a challenge for my XSI even with my 70-200 2.8L IS under those conditions. I can take shots with my 7D that i never would have been able to get with my XSI without a ton of noise. I also agree with you 100% on the auto focus, it is just worlds better then my XSI and my blown focus rate has gone down substantially.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Here is one shot last night that was taken at ~6:30 under heavy cloud cover. This image is as taken with no noise reduction, the only edit is a cropped it a little. My XSI would have been noise city under these conditions. now if i had only framed it better....
Exif:
Shutter Priority
WB Auto
1/1000
F5.6
ISO 1250
70-200 2.8L IS
Actually, Richy, yes. I'm a lousy hand-holder anyway and now that I can confidently up the ISO in the 7d I'm not even trying to "make do and mend" with a slower shutter speed - I just bump up the ISO instead. For lenses above 50mm I like to try and keep it at 2x1/FL. I can go slower than that, of course, but I've found for me and what must be a careless shutter finger (loose elbows, wonky posture, whatever it is) that's a good rule of thumb.
I'd be the last to rain on anyone's parade, or any brand's latest product. I am a gear junky to the core!
H o w e v e r ....
Well, let me go from an example of what I'm getting at - if when people are given an eye test they are asked to name the different sized letters, not with the usual arrangement largest to smallest, but with a chart which has these letters arranged from smallest to largest, their results are better. Does the "upside-down" chart give them better vision? Of course not! It's the placebo effect.
And so it is with technology. Because we believe the latest is better, our photographs are better. Not only that but things happen on a personal developmental timeline. So, many of the contributors to this thread and others like it are better photographers now than before, and it is now that they have a 7D in their hands. Another reason their images are better which has nothing to do with the qualities of the camera itself.
The placebo effect, the ongoing personal deepening of knowledge and experience, and development of skills - in the context of the manufacturer's hyper hype, and there we have a large proportion of the reason for the perceived improvement of the latest product over earlier.
As Ziggy has pointed out, less subjective measures of the 7D's performance as in DxO's tests show just how slim any real differences are between it and earlier models in a similar category - barely perceptible!
What we believe, rather than reality, can lead to some wonky reasoning, as in - with the 7D's higher resolution I can shoot faster and looser because I have the option later to crop back to something I will keep and still get a good print from it. Well, it makes me think of buying what we don't need at sales because we perceive it as saving us money. If you are going to crop significantly you have just thrown away that extra resolution you bought the 7D for, and you are printing as if from a 50D or earlier camera.
Enthusiasm for the 7D is good healthy fun - I have had a bit of a play with one, and it just would not let me go! But I say let's not get too simplistic about how we judge what is good and better.
I'd be the last to rain on anyone's parade, or any brand's latest product. I am a gear junky to the core!
H o w e v e r ....
Well, let me go from an example of what I'm getting at - if when people are given an eye test they are asked to name the different sized letters, not with the usual arrangement largest to smallest, but with a chart which has these letters arranged from smallest to largest, their results are better. Does the "upside-down" chart give them better vision? Of course not! It's the placebo effect.
And so it is with technology. Because we believe the latest is better, our photographs are better. Not only that but things happen on a personal developmental timeline. So, many of the contributors to this thread and others like it are better photographers now than before, and it is now that they have a 7D in their hands. Another reason their images are better which has nothing to do with the qualities of the camera itself.
The placebo effect, the ongoing personal deepening of knowledge and experience, and development of skills - in the context of the manufacturer's hyper hype, and there we have a large proportion of the reason for the perceived improvement of the latest product over earlier.
As Ziggy has pointed out, less subjective measures of the 7D's performance as in DxO's tests show just how slim any real differences are between it and earlier models in a similar category - barely perceptible!
What we believe, rather than reality, can lead to some wonky reasoning, as in - with the 7D's higher resolution I can shoot faster and looser because I have the option later to crop back to something I will keep and still get a good print from it. Well, it makes me think of buying what we don't need at sales because we perceive it as saving us money. If you are going to crop significantly you have just thrown away that extra resolution you bought the 7D for, and you are printing as if from a 50D or earlier camera.
Enthusiasm for the 7D is good healthy fun - I have had a bit of a play with one, and it just would not let me go! But I say let's not get too simplistic about how we judge what is good and better.
Neil
So then every decision we make should be based on some hard numbers? If people who know what they're looking at are saying, overall, it's better. Who cares what the, "numbers," say?
More importantly, most people here are touting the technical advances rather than the IQ advances of the 7D. It does have a better AF system. It does have better/faster in-camera processing, etc. Based on these facts alone, the camera is a good camera. Is it enough better to make someone upgrade? Well, that's ALWAYS going to be a personal (and not a numbers) thing.
Neil, I know what you're trying to say, but I have to respectfully disagree, at least on this point: I can shoot looser and crop afterwards simply because there's more pixels to enable me to do that. In a case where I need to use a shorter lens so I can keep the shutter speed at a comfortable level to handhold in poor lighting without having to push iso into extreme and unusuable ISO ranges (ie, using my 50mm instead of the 135 in poor theatre lighting), that can be the difference between a series of keepers and not. It doesn't matter if the final resolution is then the same as the 50d or xsi, because I've got a clear, focused shot the xsi or 50d couldn't have given me.
I'm definitely NOT a "latest and greatest" gearsnob - I consider the camera and lenses tools to achieve certain things, not status symbols, and will happily use whatever will give me the results I need. I wanted the 7d for some of its very specific features, and am more than happy with the choice; I've shot with an XT, xsi and 50d, and the 7d gives me the most keepers. Sure, some of that is probably my improvement, but not all - I don't think I'm shooting so differently now than I was in April before I got it . I think if you use one for an extended time you'll see what those of us who are praising it mean - the combination of improved handling *and* improved results (whether those are from the different exposure meter, different AF, different shutter speed/drive, different viewfinder, different sensor or whatever else) means I'm consistently getting better pictures which, as far as I'm concerned, is what it's about.
...The most serious problem with DXO mark for me is that whilst it is an interesting basic guide for things like dynamic range its useless for many other factors. When was the last time you turned over raws to clients? Virtually nobody works that way, ...
...
Virtually everyone with a digital camera starts with data from the imager very similar to what we see in the RAW file. Even the simplest digital cameras collect the readout from the imager section and process from that data.
Since the earliest and most unprocessed image information we, as users, can collect from a digital camera is the RAW file, it makes perfect sense to use that as a starting point for comparative analysis with other cameras.
... As for DPReview, it is owned by famous box shifters amazon. I would trust virtually nothing they say. Amazon doesn't make a penny if you choose to keep your old camera, nuff said! DPReview just shouldnt be a part of peoples consideration. ...
I'm not a tremendous fan of DPReview but I haven't caught them doing anything too deceptive. To say that they, "... just shouldnt be a part of peoples consideration.", would seem to be premature.
... To compare and decide you need to figure out what your normal output is (be it on screen crops of BIF or prints etc) rent \ borrow the camera, learn to use the new camera , get the best out of the output and compare to the old camera.
...
I was going to get the 1d4 until a local photog I respect told me how good his 7d was (he pairs it with a 1ds3). I played with it, was very surprised and got one. The cost \ performance is amazing and whilst it isnt as great as the 1d4 its quite close, especially for 1/3rd the price. YMMV, but this is a great camera and the DXO mark charts don't show just how many great keepers it delivers and how malleable the files are.
That was very fortunate to have a friend with experience in both the 1D MKIII and have a 7D that you could borrow/test. For those less fortunate, I suggest they explore "every" resource to see if there is a consensus of opinion before they make their decision and purchase. Renting is a very valid method of assessing suitability and I'm glad that you mentioned it.
+1 for Adorama. Great company and Helen is an asset. BTW Helen that Flash did arrive earlier than estimated. Mahalo for your time and patience reassuring an old fuss pot....
Yeah, of course, the 7D has some new hardware tools and different SW. They will make a difference at the right time and in the right place. That's a bit different, though, to a blanket judgement by someone that the 7D is better than anything else before it because it makes better pictures, any and all pictures, for them.
In any case, I was not lessening the importance of hardware and SW improvements on the performance of a camera, I was saying that when it comes to perceived better pictures there is another factor which is highly relevant, but which has been absent from this discussion, and that is the human being in the equation. As I said, people see better when they believe they can, they get better when they believe something will cure them, even though it's a sugar pill... and people will take better pictures when they believe the camera is better for taking pictures.
Camera manufacturers run a business. It would be silly of them not to exploit this proven tendency in human behavior. Surely one of the things their advertising is doing is setting up the conditions for a placebo effect to occur. And the timing of new releases is geared up for the same effect.
[QUOTE=How's ISO 100? Is everyone happy with the grain of the different ISOs?[/QUOTE]
I've seen my results vary depending on settings, format shot in (jpg vs raw) and software used to process raw files. Generally quite pleased with sooc results though.
Canon's DPP was best until I got the official Lightroom 3. Now noticing much better noise control at lower and higher ISOs and if there is an issue LR3 cleans it up quite well with it's new noise reduction technology.
Another thing you need to remember in comparing shots from a 20D to a 7D is there are 10 additional megapixels involved if shot at full resolution. So if you're "pixel peeping" or looking at photos in 100% magnification you'll see a lot more noise naturally. I feel it performs very well at both high and low ISO, especially for a crop sensor with that many megapixels to work with.
As far as focussing I love it! The new system is what got me to come back from Nikon. You also have to note that two of the best focussing options for sports (AF Point Expansion) and macro (Spot AF) are disabled by default and have to be turned on.
Couldnt agree more. LR2 was a dog with noise, LR3 is a world apart. I would strongly suggest people take advantage of the free trial and try it for themselves.
I wouldn't say that LR2 was that bad, but LR3 i definitely a huge step up, and would agree that folks should check out the free trial. Exceptional piece of software.
I wouldn't say that LR2 was that bad, but LR3 i definitely a huge step up, and would agree that folks should check out the free trial. Exceptional piece of software.
I guess we are officially off topic, but I would just chime in to totally agree. I could not imagine doing photography without Lightroom and 3.0 is better than ever--although LR2 was very very good.
I guess we are officially off topic, but I would just chime in to totally agree. I could not imagine doing photography without Lightroom and 3.0 is better than ever--although LR2 was very very good.
I've always used Canon DPP, maybe I need more than just a new camera...
Comments
Absolutely true. Most folks concerned about noise are looking at images much, much larger than the pixels they might see in a print. Most monitors display at around 100 dpi, but we tend to use 300 dpi printers and such. That means if you view the image at 100 percent on the monitor from a 7D image it's like looking at a ginormous print of around 52 inches in the longest dimension. If you were to produce a print of that size would it really be fair to view it as closely as you do a monitor? (This question is directed at people who view at 100 percent.)
I do fairly regularly produce images of 20 inches by 30 inches from 8 MPix, but those large scale printers have their own dedicated RIP (Raster Image Processor) which is in turn a dedicated computer with custom algorithms just for the job.
I still hold the 20D in high regard because if they are used properly, with good control over lighting, with great lenses to form the image, and with careful exposure and careful processing, they can still produce wonderful images. When the 20D was introduced there was nothing else on the market in its price point that could match the creamy high-ISO up to 800 and very usable ISO of 1600. (I thought ISO 3200 was pushing it too far however.) Modern RAW processing allows it slightly better performance now and noise reduction allows pushing even a little further.
Even my little XT/350D still does a decent enough job when I do "my" job properly:
The obligatory 100 percent crop:
Pertinent EXIF:
Model - Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
DateTime - 2010:06:10 19:29:51
ExposureTime - 1/200 seconds
FNumber - 4.50
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/200 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.50
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MeteringMode - Multi-segment
Flash - Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
FocalLength - 35 mm
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 3456
ExifImageHeight - 2304
ExposureMode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
SceneCaptureType - Standard
Quality - RAW
Focal length - 18 - 50 mm (1 mm)
Flash details - External TTL
Focus mode 2 - Single
White Balance - Auto
Flash bias - 0 EV
Equipment:
Canon 350D/XT
Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX DC
Sigma EF 500 DG Super flash for Canon E-TTL II
"Scoop" flash modifier, flash mounted to camera (no bracket).
Note that I used ISO 200. This was chosen because of the selected aperture and the distance to the subject. The room had a white ceiling, so I could have used bounce, but I wanted to take some angled shots too and the geometry would have been wrong.
Why did I choose the XT as the camera? Firstly it was ready, as was the flash. This was a "last minute" sort of get together and unplanned meant use what I had ready. Also I have enough confidence and experience with the system to know it would likely serve the purpose.
This is a 5" x 7" portrait crop from the original landscape orientation. Plenty of detail for the purpose. He made this face so this was a quick "grab" and no time to re-orient the flash. (This is a cousin I hardly ever see and he and his wife were just here for a little while.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It doesn't make sense if your only criteria for the upgrade is high-ISO noise. The 7D is a very much more capable camera in other ways.
BTW, I still use a 40D for paying event work, along with the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM as the standard lens. It is a great camera for candids. I do not intend to upgrade until the camera starts failing.
For the wedding ceremony I still use a pair of 1D MKII bodies. The AF is much superior for ambient indoor photography and the camera shoots ISO 800 just fine.
For the formals I use a 5D MKII, but the single memory card makes me nervous. Eventually a 1D MKIV will replace it and one of the 1D MKII bodies.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I went from an XT to an xsi, and then added a 50d which was subsequently replaced by the 7d (ie I now have the xsi and the 7d). So I feel I've used enough Canon cameras of different pixel depths to form an opinion. I have kept the xsi as a backup and small, light travel camera - it's a good camera (and was a big step up from the XT), but it doesn't do so well about iso 800. The 50d is a capable camera but the 7d's handling and *responsiveness* are very much more than a minor step up, for me at any rate. One of my biggest problems with the shots I do - often in low light, and often at wide apertures - is missed focus. With the 7d, I've managed to up my keeper rate significantly. I no longer have to "over-shoot" to ensure that at least a few that are shot in tricky circumstances are sharply in focus as I intended. And, IMO, it significantly outperforms the 50d at 1600 and above.
No, it can't match the 5dII. But *to the naked eye* (ie perhaps not scientifically, as in the various benchmark/scientific sites) it is a huge improvement in ISO performance over the xsi and 50d.
I swore I wasn't going to do this because I abhor pixel-peeping for pixel-peeping's sake, but the question comes up often enough that perhaps it's worth putting these out there at ~100% (I eyeballed it, so it may not be "scientifically" 100%). The main thing I notice from this isn't the degree of noise at 100%, but how small a percentage of the frame 1:1 is, which is why I don't think it's really meaningful to assess the 7d's noise at that magnification. I believe somebody calculated that a 1:1 print from a 7d is ~approximately 6 feet wide....
These were raw shots taken at ISO2000 (in horrendous middle-school-auditorium lighting)using the 135L. I processed them very quickly in LR3 just now with no particular attention to getting a perfect final image. I probably could/should have played with the detail slider a little more after applying NR, but for these purposes, I think it shows how good these shots can be made to look without much effort at all. In particular, notice how the noise in the blacks just vanishes even though I lifted the exposure slightly which introduced a little more noise before I was done. .
Exif:
Manual
1/200
f4
iso2000
No flash
135L
AWB
SOOC shot
~100% crop SOOC
Processed, using LR3 (including sharpening and NR)
~100% crop
I too find the high iso performance a huge step up from my XSI. I havent done enough shooting with a 50d to really be able to form a comparison. It is a massive step up from the XSI for sure. I shoot a lot of sports and for whatever reason the baseball games i have been shooting with my 7D have been late day/evening under the lights games. Little league fields arent the best lit and it was always a challenge for my XSI even with my 70-200 2.8L IS under those conditions. I can take shots with my 7D that i never would have been able to get with my XSI without a ton of noise. I also agree with you 100% on the auto focus, it is just worlds better then my XSI and my blown focus rate has gone down
substantially.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Here is one shot last night that was taken at ~6:30 under heavy cloud cover. This image is as taken with no noise reduction, the only edit is a cropped it a little. My XSI would have been noise city under these conditions. now if i had only framed it better....
Exif:
Shutter Priority
WB Auto
1/1000
F5.6
ISO 1250
70-200 2.8L IS
And with LR3 - which is scary good with the 7d - it's pretty much a non-issue.
H o w e v e r ....
Well, let me go from an example of what I'm getting at - if when people are given an eye test they are asked to name the different sized letters, not with the usual arrangement largest to smallest, but with a chart which has these letters arranged from smallest to largest, their results are better. Does the "upside-down" chart give them better vision? Of course not! It's the placebo effect.
And so it is with technology. Because we believe the latest is better, our photographs are better. Not only that but things happen on a personal developmental timeline. So, many of the contributors to this thread and others like it are better photographers now than before, and it is now that they have a 7D in their hands. Another reason their images are better which has nothing to do with the qualities of the camera itself.
The placebo effect, the ongoing personal deepening of knowledge and experience, and development of skills - in the context of the manufacturer's hyper hype, and there we have a large proportion of the reason for the perceived improvement of the latest product over earlier.
As Ziggy has pointed out, less subjective measures of the 7D's performance as in DxO's tests show just how slim any real differences are between it and earlier models in a similar category - barely perceptible!
What we believe, rather than reality, can lead to some wonky reasoning, as in - with the 7D's higher resolution I can shoot faster and looser because I have the option later to crop back to something I will keep and still get a good print from it. Well, it makes me think of buying what we don't need at sales because we perceive it as saving us money. If you are going to crop significantly you have just thrown away that extra resolution you bought the 7D for, and you are printing as if from a 50D or earlier camera.
Enthusiasm for the 7D is good healthy fun - I have had a bit of a play with one, and it just would not let me go! But I say let's not get too simplistic about how we judge what is good and better.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
So then every decision we make should be based on some hard numbers? If people who know what they're looking at are saying, overall, it's better. Who cares what the, "numbers," say?
More importantly, most people here are touting the technical advances rather than the IQ advances of the 7D. It does have a better AF system. It does have better/faster in-camera processing, etc. Based on these facts alone, the camera is a good camera. Is it enough better to make someone upgrade? Well, that's ALWAYS going to be a personal (and not a numbers) thing.
Facebook Fan Page
Blog
I'm definitely NOT a "latest and greatest" gearsnob - I consider the camera and lenses tools to achieve certain things, not status symbols, and will happily use whatever will give me the results I need. I wanted the 7d for some of its very specific features, and am more than happy with the choice; I've shot with an XT, xsi and 50d, and the 7d gives me the most keepers. Sure, some of that is probably my improvement, but not all - I don't think I'm shooting so differently now than I was in April before I got it
FWIW.
Virtually everyone with a digital camera starts with data from the imager very similar to what we see in the RAW file. Even the simplest digital cameras collect the readout from the imager section and process from that data.
Since the earliest and most unprocessed image information we, as users, can collect from a digital camera is the RAW file, it makes perfect sense to use that as a starting point for comparative analysis with other cameras.
I'm not a tremendous fan of DPReview but I haven't caught them doing anything too deceptive. To say that they, "... just shouldnt be a part of peoples consideration.", would seem to be premature.
That was very fortunate to have a friend with experience in both the 1D MKIII and have a 7D that you could borrow/test. For those less fortunate, I suggest they explore "every" resource to see if there is a consensus of opinion before they make their decision and purchase. Renting is a very valid method of assessing suitability and I'm glad that you mentioned it.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
My pleasure, and thank you
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
http://twitter.com/HelenOster
Helen@adorama.com
www.adorama.com
Yeah, of course, the 7D has some new hardware tools and different SW. They will make a difference at the right time and in the right place. That's a bit different, though, to a blanket judgement by someone that the 7D is better than anything else before it because it makes better pictures, any and all pictures, for them.
In any case, I was not lessening the importance of hardware and SW improvements on the performance of a camera, I was saying that when it comes to perceived better pictures there is another factor which is highly relevant, but which has been absent from this discussion, and that is the human being in the equation. As I said, people see better when they believe they can, they get better when they believe something will cure them, even though it's a sugar pill... and people will take better pictures when they believe the camera is better for taking pictures.
Camera manufacturers run a business. It would be silly of them not to exploit this proven tendency in human behavior. Surely one of the things their advertising is doing is setting up the conditions for a placebo effect to occur. And the timing of new releases is geared up for the same effect.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I've seen my results vary depending on settings, format shot in (jpg vs raw) and software used to process raw files. Generally quite pleased with sooc results though.
Canon's DPP was best until I got the official Lightroom 3. Now noticing much better noise control at lower and higher ISOs and if there is an issue LR3 cleans it up quite well with it's new noise reduction technology.
Another thing you need to remember in comparing shots from a 20D to a 7D is there are 10 additional megapixels involved if shot at full resolution. So if you're "pixel peeping" or looking at photos in 100% magnification you'll see a lot more noise naturally. I feel it performs very well at both high and low ISO, especially for a crop sensor with that many megapixels to work with.
As far as focussing I love it! The new system is what got me to come back from Nikon. You also have to note that two of the best focussing options for sports (AF Point Expansion) and macro (Spot AF) are disabled by default and have to be turned on.
Hope this helps!
I wouldn't say that LR2 was that bad, but LR3 i definitely a huge step up, and would agree that folks should check out the free trial. Exceptional piece of software.
I guess we are officially off topic, but I would just chime in to totally agree. I could not imagine doing photography without Lightroom and 3.0 is better than ever--although LR2 was very very good.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
I've always used Canon DPP, maybe I need more than just a new camera...