7D Review

[MrLogic]

Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR Camera Review

What about this place. They say as you increase the sharpness settings the camera improves a lot and its better than 50d with noise. You can see it in the images.

It's a Canon-only review site, with (guess what) a Canon bias. They won't dump on Canon's new flagship 1.6x crop frame dSLR. You can sharpen a 50D file, too, you know.

But yeah, a stronger AA filter = more sharpening in post. But you do lose a lot of detail that can't be recovered. I would know... I have a D700. The original 5D appears to be much sharper, because of the -- what appears to be -- a much weaker AA filter.

You can play with it some in post, but it's not the same thing. "Oversharpened" images look like **** regardless.

 

[Derrel]

Here is a link to a dozen Canon EOS 7D reviews or previews. kep in mind the camra is already on its third firmware update since its launch in October, so some of these sites were evaluating early retail release cameras with the 1.0.7 firmware update, perhaps some with the 1.0.9 firmware update. On November 5th, Canon released firmware update 1.1.0

Canon 7D Reviews and Resources » Photography Bay | Digital Camera Reviews, News and Resources

ANother resource, covering the 7D's ireless E-TTL flash, some video clips, some sample images, the micro- focusing adjustment chart, a rundown on the 7D's new AF system, and a very comprehensive 7D review from ROland Lim can be found at this URL 7D FAQ THREAD and Directory sticky. - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Roland's 7D review has loads of screen caps of the camera's control LCD's, and has a lot of good comparison photos of the 7D pitted against other Canon bodies. Canon EOS 7D Review « The World According to Roland

 

[MrLogic]

Original 5D vs. 7D (crops)

ISO 100:

Image Quality: 7D vs 5D original ? - FM Forums

ISO 1600:

Image Quality: 7D vs 5D original ? - FM Forums

 

[inTempus]

MrLogic,

These sample images support the reports I've been seeing regarding the image quality of the 7D. The images are soft, almost to the point of looking out of focus. It doesn't seem to happen with all bodies, but one reviewer tested 3 different bodies and had the issue with all 3. I would say, based upon what I've read, there are a very large number of 7D's that produce such soft images. Hopefully this is something they can correct with a firmware update, but given they're on #3 already and these reports are still coming in, I'm a bit worried it may be something software can't fix.

 

[CyclonePWR]

Maybe I'll wait. The camera has a lot of positives. I played with the camera at Best Buy and liked it. What I really want in a upgrade is ability to use higher ISO and shaper looking photos. The other things about this camera are great but it seems like its 2/3 of the way there but not all the way.

A full frame would cost me 1000$ more for body and 1000$ in at least one more lens. I guess I'll see whats out there in 6 months again or if they make improvements on the 7d.

 

[cfusionpm]

Aside from the ISO pictures above, I don't understand how the IQ shots are fair comparisons. The 7D is sitting at the extreme wide end of the lens. Why weren't they taken at the same focal length? The comparison wasn't framing crop vs full, it was IQ, and it introduces an outside variable that voids the test IMO.

 

[Derrel]

Who would have thought that a full frame d-slr that costs $1,000 more than the 7D, and which has a sensor that is 2.5 times larger in area, would be so much better at elevated ISO settings? Who would have thought that the 5D Mark II with 21.5 megapixels on a FF sensor would deliver better lens performance and higher ultimate resolution and higher acutance from a moderately high-quality zoom lens like the 24-105-L, than was possible using an 18 megapizel sensor that is 2.5 times *smaller* in area and has the smallest pixels ever seen on any d-slr camera?:mrgreen:

If the 7D had a FF sensor, at its pixel current density, it would be about a 43 megapixel sensor if it were the requisite 2.5 times larger in area to bring it up to the size of the 5D Mark II's sensor.:mrgreen:

One approach is the old-school 5D-II way: FF ie Big-Block V8. Dual 4 bbl carbs. Slow-revving, redline at only 5,500 RPM, but torque out the ying-yang

One approach is new-way: small 4 cylinder, dual overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, fuel injected. High-revving....redline at 7,500 RPM.

 

[cfusionpm]

Well, regardless of whatever pixel density jibber jabber everyone is sick of hearing about, I would just like to see an actual fair and equal test. One that doesnt introduce unaccounted-for variables like different focal lengths, which make the comparison hold much less value. Unless someone would like to somehow argue that IQ is perfectly constant throughout the entire zoom range of a given lens...

 

[MrLogic]

Who would have thought that a full frame d-slr that costs $1,000 more than the 7D, and which has a sensor that is 2.5 times larger in area, would be so much better at elevated ISO settings? Who would have thought that the 5D Mark II with 21.5 megapixels on a FF sensor would deliver better lens performance and higher ultimate resolution and higher acutance from a moderately high-quality zoom lens like the 24-105-L, than was possible using an 18 megapizel sensor that is 2.5 times *smaller* in area and has the smallest pixels ever seen on any d-slr camera?:mrgreen:

Right. The comparison was between the 7D and the original 12.8(?) megapixel 5D, by the way, which can be had for about the same price "new," (2 year warranty) ...as the 7D. At least, where I live.

But inTempus said that part of the difference in the above comparison (fair comparison or not) stems from quality control issues. The 7D is supposed to perform better, I guess. But these are crops nonetheless.

I went over to the Canon forums, and the pictures from 7D users look okay for the most part:

7D Post your Pictures Here - Page 114 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

No 100% crops, though, so who knows.