7D and 18 megapixels?

Qarik

I am nikon guy but I have been following/reading stuff about the 7D regarding noise, sharpness, overall IQ.

Do you think that canon made the right choice to go 18Megapixels on crop sensor? it seems to me a bit overkill to me. Nikon still hasn't gone over 12M on it's top of the line bodies except for the D3X...and I am glad to see it frankly.

ziggy53

The extra Megapixels is nice if you use good lenses and especially at, and around, base ISO. At higher ISOs it does produce more visible noise at 100 percent views, but prints and Internet display sizes do not suffer as much as some might think.

Ultimately it is more marketing bravado than either a benefit or a problem, and the difference between 12 MPix and 18 MPix is not a tremendous difference in image quality.

Awais Yaqub

Not a technical person, you can downsize 18MP file to 12 MP if you dislike 18MP, but i think they are great when shot around F8 and processed carefully for NR.
High MP wins when client asks about camera and i see Nikon D300S and 7D are same in price.

borrowlenses.com

It'll be interesting to see what Nikon does next. Reports are that its next FX bodies will be 16-18mp. If they can keep the ISO performance inline with current models they might be able to please both the pixel peepers and the high ISO crowd too.

kdog

Cropping. You can crop into an image and throw 1/3 of the pixels away on a 7D image, and still have the same resulting image size as a Nikon D300.

kcui

Awais Yaqub wrote: »

Not a technical person, you can downsize 18MP file to 12 MP if you dislike 18MP, but i think they are great when shot around F8 and processed carefully for NR.
High MP wins when client asks about camera and i see Nikon D300S and 7D are same in price.

Denser sensors inherently produce more noise, even if you resize the resulting file to 12MP, the noise in the image is still there.

Really great article on pixels and sensor size:
http://www.gorephoto.com/blog/?p=291

chrisjohnson

Kdog nails it. I was trying to shoot birds the other day and realized I need only 15% of the image. With 18MP I have a better chance to crop and enlarge.

I suppose real birders would argue for a longer lens and this is probably the way to do it.

NeilL

kcui wrote: »

Denser sensors inherently produce more noise, even if you resize the resulting file to 12MP, the noise in the image is still there.

Really great article on pixels and sensor size:
http://www.gorephoto.com/blog/?p=291

Thanks for the link, good read.

Cropping and downsampling are not the same thing, I think (?), but your point is correct, that the signal to noise ratio is not changed by either.

Neil

Brett1000

goldenballs wrote: »

Kdog nails it. I was trying to shoot birds the other day and realized I need only 15% of the image. With 18MP I have a better chance to crop and enlarge.

I suppose real birders would argue for a longer lens and this is probably the way to do it.

sure but those 500mm lens can get expensive!
a few extra megapixels for cropping wildlife pics is good

divamum

kdog wrote: »

Cropping. You can crop into an image and throw 1/3 of the pixels away on a 7D image, and still have the same resulting image size as a Nikon D300.

Bingo. Exactly. I routinely find myself benefitting from those extra mps for exactly this reason.

Matthew Saville

kdog wrote: »

Cropping. You can crop into an image and throw 1/3 of the pixels away on a 7D image, and still have the same resulting image size as a Nikon D300.

Maybe cropping works for some photographers, but as a portrait and wedding photographer depth is of the utmost importance so cropping just isn't good practice.

I will however say that I certainly could use more megapixels and I eagerly await an affordable 24 megapixel FX camera from Nikon.

But overall I'm like the OP; I'm much happier as a photojournalist with just 12 megapixels, and the ease-of-use (file size) plus of course the low-light performance that affords me.

(BTW, dollar for dollar, a 12 megapixel Nikon NEF file is way smaller than a 12 megapixel Canon CR2 file, thanks to Nikon's stronger compression algorithms. Some may think compression is a bad thing, but if quality is your problem then that's what un-compressed is for. Oh wait, Canon doesn't have compression options, just "lossless compressed"... (Nikon has compressed, lossless, and un-compressed. :-))

Anyways, the D300s does an amazing job competing with the much newer 7D sensor for low-light performance; DXOmark's sensor rating puts the 7D's advantage at, well, marginal... And of course I don't need to mention that if you REALLY value low-light performance it's all about full-frame, and the D700 and D3s just completely school anything Canon has to offer, period. Heck, the 24 megapixel D3X trumps the 21 megapixel 5D mk2, 1Ds mk3, and even the 16 megapixel 1Ds mk2 and 1D mk4.

So, it's just a game of leapfrog if you ask me. That, and I think Canon got trigger happy with megapixels. Most notably, their jump to 21 megapixels when Nikon decided to stay at 12. That must have stung, when Nikon took away Canon's high ISO crown. Now Canon will get laughed out of town if they try to make their 5D mk3 with fewer (or even equal) megapixels. They're stuck with +21 MP, while Nikon has tons of wiggle room all the way down to 12...

I bet the D300s replacement will be 14-18 MP DX, the D3s replacement will be 14-18 MP FX, and maybe we'll see one more 12 MP sensor when they put a D3s sensor in the D700s; THAT would totally make my day.

Either way, in my opinion Nikon played it smart and will maintain a low-light advantage for at least one or two more generations...

HOWEVER, I do think the 7D is worth discussing on it's own. It's probably the best crop-sensor camera on the market right now, thanks to Canon's addition of a GOOD AF system and of course, the pop-up flash commander. (Oh and I almost forgot the video recording, if you're into that stuff.) Personally I'd still take a D300s ANY DAY because of the dual card slots and the more manageable filesize, but if you're already a Canon shooter, the 7D is by far the most versatile and powerful tool for people to get creative with. The crop frame helps spread those focus points ALL over the viewfinder, especially compared to the 5-series' pitiful focus point spread. (And BTW all 7D focus points are cross type, AND have spot metering!)

So yeah, the 7D is a great leap forward for Canon. I have to laugh and say "party like it's 2005!" when Canon users get excited about using their pop-up flash as a commander, but other than that it's a good camera and it compliments the 5D mk2 very nicely if you are in my industry of portraits and events...

=Matt=

ImageX Photography

Go, D300S!!:D

craig_d

Matthew Saville wrote: »

(BTW, dollar for dollar, a 12 megapixel Nikon NEF file is way smaller than a 12 megapixel Canon CR2 file, thanks to Nikon's stronger compression algorithms. Some may think compression is a bad thing, but if quality is your problem then that's what un-compressed is for. Oh wait, Canon doesn't have compression options, just "lossless compressed"... (Nikon has compressed, lossless, and un-compressed. :-))

Are you saying that Nikon offers lossy compression for raw files? Considering that raw is for people who care the most about their image quality, that seems completely absurd. Lossy compression is for final distribution JPEGs, not for sources or intermediate stages.

Lossless compression is compression. It's what .zip files, .rar files, and other compressed archive formats use. It doesn't generally compress as radically as lossy compression, but it guarantees that you get back exactly what you put into it, which for raw files is exactly what I want.

studio1972

So, to sum things up; canon users think canon is better, nikon users think nikon is better, Duh!

Overfocused

@Matthew - I agree the 7D is the best crop camera for price... also 1DS MK4 has a 2/3 sensor it can't compare

For 2/3 in any light (Especially low light) and packing 18MP, there is a big difference in noise for sure. And, if you are cropping, it makes an even bigger difference since you're blowing up the noise. At least a couple years ago when I used Pentax digital cameras, the quality of a 1.6x camera at 10MP (K10D) vs. 6MP (older model from a friend.. forgot # lol), the 6 looked as good or better when blown up with decent software since it is so much more clear and sharp.

For 1.6x vs full frame there's no contest at all though. I routinely shoot at ISO 4000-5000 indoors or at twilight with a 5D Mark II, and the photos look fantastic as long as they're properly exposed. They're good enough that they could easily make a solid 24 x 36 with fractals. The K10D doesn't even have a chance at doing that even at ISO1600. I'd like to see actual %100 crops from 2/3 cameras with noise control off in-camera and see how well the 7D actually does. Maybe someone could get some %100 crops for that.

NeilL

I understand that there is a threshold of difference in MP count that has to be passed before there is a consequent difference in IQ. The details have slipped my mind, but for example the difference between 10MP and 12MP sensor sizes produces no difference in IQ in reality, maybe 10MP and 14MP is also meaningless practically speaking.

So comparing absolute MP sensor sizes is pretty meaningless, when it is a stepwise minimum difference of some number of MP that is in fact what makes comparisons meaningful. So, comparing 12MP and 18MP makes sense, but not 18MP and 21MP, where the critical difference threshold is not passed.

Also, it is not only pixel density that is going to affect IQ, it is also pixel architecture. And very significantly in these days of advertising one-upmanship, also the more extensive use of post-capture in-camera SW processing, which to my mind is a kind of fudging, fixing what the latest increase in MP count has broken. Similarly adding another processor just to handle the increased file size of more MP.

I have said before that this new 7D-inspired technique of shooting to crop appears to me as logical as buying stuff on sale that you don't need just to seem to save money. Why would you need that odd approach for portraits and landscape, still life and product photography, when you can set everything up to be exactly right? Why would you use it for events and sport where you can anticipate all your settings pretty accurately? Perhaps it has a role in bird and wildlife, yes OK.

Last, no studio1972, your trivial summing up misses the point of real technical development issues which characterise the differences between the camera makes.

Neil

NeilL

Overfocused wrote: »

[...] And, if you are cropping, it makes an even bigger difference since you're blowing up the noise. [...] I'd like to see actual %100 crops from 2/3 cameras with noise control off in-camera and see how well the 7D actually does.

(- only that the post-capture in-camera processing is not accessible to the user to use optionally.)

Neil

divamum

NeilL wrote: »

I have said before that this new 7D-inspired technique of shooting to crop appears to me as logical as buying stuff on sale that you don't need just to seem to save money.

Not a new technique as far as I'm concerned - given my light/lens limitations in certain situations (usually theatrical) I sometimes have no choice but to shoot loose and crop down. The difference with the 7d is that I don't have to worry about it - I know that I'll have enough resolution that the shots will still look fantastic.

Getting a longer lens wouldn't necessarily solve my problem, since it's often related to available light: if I'm shooting in a theater with no control over the light and I want to handhold (as I usually do), it's a real bonus to be able to use a shorter, faster (lighter) lens such as the 50 1.4 and crop in later. I can keep shutter speeds up at a lower ISO and still, ultimately, get the shot I need. It doesn't mean I always shoot this way - the 135 f2 gives me some mighty fine images wide open - but sometimes, it's a really great workaround.

I've done this in these situations with every camera I've had, but there's no denyhing that the 7d makes it easier and more successful

craig_d

NeilL wrote: »

I have said before that this new 7D-inspired technique of shooting to crop appears to me as logical as buying stuff on sale that you don't need just to seem to save money. Why would you need that odd approach for portraits and landscape, still life and product photography, when you can set everything up to be exactly right?

That's funny, I didn't know Dorothea Lange was using a 7D in 1926 when she shot this famous image as a half-body shot and then cropped it later. "New 7D-inspired technique" indeed. Or was she just not a good enough photographer to "set everything up to be exactly right"? There are other examples one could point to by other classic photographers, but this one may be the most extreme.

Point being, sometimes in PP you realize that an image you shot would be better if cropped down. The more pixels you have available, the more freedom you have to do that while still producing an image of sufficient resolution.

NeilL

divamum wrote: »

Not a new technique as far as I'm concerned - given my light/lens limitations in certain situations (usually theatrical) I sometimes have no choice but to shoot loose and crop down. The difference with the 7d is that I don't have to worry about it - I know that I'll have enough resolution that the shots will still look fantastic.

Getting a longer lens wouldn't necessarily solve my problem, since it's often related to available light: if I'm shooting in a theater with no control over the light and I want to handhold (as I usually do), it's a real bonus to be able to use a shorter, faster (lighter) lens such as the 50 1.4 and crop in later. I can keep shutter speeds up at a lower ISO and still, ultimately, get the shot I need. It doesn't mean I always shoot this way - the 135 f2 gives me some mighty fine images wide open - but sometimes, it's a really great workaround.

I've done this in these situations with every camera I've had, but there's no denyhing that the 7d makes it easier and more successful

Fair enough, dm! Let's include opera in "Birds & Wildlife", eh, not completely implausible, maybe?! D

Neil

NeilL

craig_d wrote: »

That's funny, I didn't know Dorothea Lange was using a 7D in 1926 when she shot this famous image as a half-body shot and then cropped it later. "New 7D-inspired technique" indeed. Or was she just not a good enough photographer to "set everything up to be exactly right"? There are other examples one could point to by other classic photographers, but this one may be the most extreme.

Point being, sometimes in PP you realize that an image you shot would be better if cropped down. The more pixels you have available, the more freedom you have to do that while still producing an image of sufficient resolution.

Quite right. Nevertheless, a few exceptions, however meritorious, don't disprove an unnecessary and illogical trend.

Neil

final_alarm

NeilL wrote: »

I have said before that this new 7D-inspired technique of shooting to crop appears to me as logical as buying stuff on sale that you don't need just to seem to save money.
Neil

I'm with Divamum and Craig_d on this one 1000%. Having the ability to crop down and still have enough pixels makes a big difference in the flexibility that the camera offers in my opinion. The fact that i don't have unlimited income so spend on glass to fit every situation i may be faced with the flexibility to crop more gives me options i didn't have with my 12mp Rebel. I personally don't shoot as loose as possible just to crop it down unless i have to. There are just times that the extra pixels makes the difference between getting the shot or not. For instance if i'm at the ball field and I'm taking shots of the outfield i can get away with using my 70-200 at F2.8 if there isn't enough light to run my 2x TC on it at f5.6 and still maintain a fast shutter speed. This is a situation I'm faced with very often and the extra pixels have made the difference between a usable shot and a throw away for me. A 300mm f2.8 would cure the need to crop as much for me but i can't afford a $5000 lens.

At the ball field's i shoot at the lighting sucks after about 7pm and when the lights are on for night games they are poor and very spotty at best. Not exactly conditions i can just "set up for" at all since you dont know where the action is going to go. With my rebel I pretty much had to stop shooting if they were under the lights, it was damn near impossible to have enough shutter speed for sports and at 800 ISO or more noise was a huge problem. Those things are not an issue for me using the 7D at all, i have had usable shots up to ISO 5000 with some help from LR3 and 3200 or less noise has not been an issue at all if i get the exposure right.

NeilL

final_alarm wrote: »

I'm with Divamum and Craig_d on this one 1000%. Having the ability to crop down and still have enough pixels makes a big difference in the flexibility that the camera offers in my opinion. The fact that i don't have unlimited income so spend on glass to fit every situation i may be faced with the flexibility to crop more gives me options i didn't have with my 12mp Rebel. I personally don't shoot as loose as possible just to crop it down unless i have to. There are just times that the extra pixels makes the difference between getting the shot or not. For instance if i'm at the ball field and I'm taking shots of the outfield i can get away with using my 70-200 at F2.8 if there isn't enough light to run my 2x TC on it at f5.6 and still maintain a fast shutter speed. This is a situation I'm faced with very often and the extra pixels have made the difference between a usable shot and a throw away for me. A 300mm f2.8 would cure the need to crop as much for me but i can't afford a $5000 lens.

At the ball field's i shoot at the lighting sucks after about 7pm and when the lights are on for night games they are poor and very spotty at best. Not exactly conditions i can just "set up for" at all since you dont know where the action is going to go. With my rebel I pretty much had to stop shooting if they were under the lights, it was damn near impossible to have enough shutter speed for sports and at 800 ISO or more noise was a huge problem. Those things are not an issue for me using the 7D at all, i have had usable shots up to ISO 5000 with some help from LR3 and 3200 or less noise has not been an issue at all if i get the exposure right.

I can't argue with or detract from what you say.

I wonder, though, about a comparison between a Rebel and the 7D. If you couldn't get pretty comparable results with a 40D or 50D and the 7D with the 70-200 2.8 in the conditions you describe I would be surprised.

I guess my aim is to question the emergence of the resolution room to crop as a major justification for the purchase of the 7D over comparable bodies.

Driving along a few nights ago after sunset, so dark I had stopped looking out for photo opps. Out of the corner of my eye caught sight of two swans in the bay, silhouetted against the very, very last reflection of the light in the sky. Just for the fun of it I pulled over, got out 40D and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, walked back. Less light than even a few minutes before, I could barely see these birds. Camera and lens gave me immediate AF on them, and I took this handheld at f4, 200mm, 1/6 sec, 800 ISO. SOOC after RAW conversion in Capture One 5 with minimal sharpening and NR only.



Neil

final_alarm

NeilL wrote: »

I can't argue with or detract from what you say.

I wonder, though, about a comparison between a Rebel and the 7D. If you couldn't get pretty comparable results with a 40D or 50D and the 7D with the 70-200 2.8 in the conditions you describe I would be surprised.

I guess my aim is to question the emergence of the resolution room to crop as a major justification for the purchase of the 7D over comparable bodies.

Driving along a few nights ago after sunset, so dark I had stopped looking out for photo opps. Out of the corner of my eye caught sight of two swans in the bay, silhouetted against the very, very last reflection of the light in the sky. Just for the fun of it I pulled over, got out 40D and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, walked back. Less light than even a few minutes before, I could barely see these birds. Camera and lens gave me immediate AF on them, and I took this handheld at f4, 200mm, 1/6 sec, 800 ISO. SOOC after RAW conversion in Capture One 5 with minimal sharpening and NR only.



Neil

I shopped the 50d pretty heavy over the summer last year and was going to pull the trigger on one this spring when i could afford it until the 7D came out. The 100% viewfinder, much improved auto focus system, better weather sealing and the extra burst speed really sealed the deal for me. The difference in pixels and video were non factors in my decision. I also like the built in flash controller but i have used it infrequently because the type of shooting i do most often a flash isn't something i would use. You very well could be right that i could get similar results with a 40 or 50d but the way i see it the AF, sealing and burst speed make it a worthy buy for me over the 50d and the extra pixels are a bonus should i decide/need to use them.

final_alarm

NeilL wrote: »

I can't argue with or detract from what you say.

I wonder, though, about a comparison between a Rebel and the 7D. If you couldn't get pretty comparable results with a 40D or 50D and the 7D with the 70-200 2.8 in the conditions you describe I would be surprised.

I guess my aim is to question the emergence of the resolution room to crop as a major justification for the purchase of the 7D over comparable bodies.

Driving along a few nights ago after sunset, so dark I had stopped looking out for photo opps. Out of the corner of my eye caught sight of two swans in the bay, silhouetted against the very, very last reflection of the light in the sky. Just for the fun of it I pulled over, got out 40D and 70-200mm f4L IS USM, walked back. Less light than even a few minutes before, I could barely see these birds. Camera and lens gave me immediate AF on them, and I took this handheld at f4, 200mm, 1/6 sec, 800 ISO. SOOC after RAW conversion in Capture One 5 with minimal sharpening and NR only.



Neil

I shopped the 50d pretty heavy over the summer last year and was going to pull the trigger on one this spring when i could afford it until the 7D came out. The 100% viewfinder, much improved auto focus system, better weather sealing and the extra burst speed really sealed the deal for me. The difference in pixels and video were non factors in my decision. I also like the built in flash controller but i have used it infrequently because the type of shooting i do most often a flash isn't something i would use. You very well could be right that i could get similar results with a 40 or 50d but the way i see it the AF, sealing and burst speed make it a worthy buy for me over the 50d and the extra pixels are a bonus should i decide/need to use them.

Qarik

I wouldn't call extra pixels for cropping neccessarily a great "feature", I would regard it as happy coincidence. Yes, you might be happy you have all those pixels on occasion but I am much happier the great majority of time (for my shooting anyway) with better iso, IQ, and smaller files. I *suspect* a good many canon guys might feel the same way about the other wise fully loaded 7D.

craig_d

NeilL wrote: »

I guess my aim is to question the emergence of the resolution room to crop as a major justification for the purchase of the 7D over comparable bodies.

Sure. I wouldn't say increased resolution is the main reason to favor a 7D over a Nikon D300; I just object when people suggest that the extra resolution is useless or that "real photographers" don't crop.

W.W. Webster

Overfocused wrote: »

... also 1DS MK4 has a 2/3 sensor it can't compare

Eh?

divamum

craig_d wrote: »

Sure. I wouldn't say increased resolution is the main reason to favor a 7D over a Nikon D300; I just object when people suggest that the extra resolution is useless or that "real photographers" don't crop.

Ric Grupe

I'm one of the Canon Guys that is very happy to have 18mp and find that the effective reach it affords to be very beneficial.

Talking down something you haven't used is....well....(insert proper adjective here):uhoh

Overfocused

NeilL wrote: »

(- only that the post-capture in-camera processing is not accessible to the user to use optionally.)

Neil

Not exactly sure what you mean... there are noise control options