7D's high mp count

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by xsouthpawed, Sep 10, 2010.

  1. xsouthpawed

    xsouthpawed TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    So. I'm just about dead set on getting the 7D (probably within 2 months)
    Right now, I have a 10D with a broken AF (I think my uncle dropped it into the water once and got it repaired before it got handed down to me) So I desperately need a new body. But recently I was looking around TPF and there were a lot of complaints/comments about needing higher quality glass for the high density in the 7D's sensor. My worry is, If I do get the 7D, I probably won't be able to get any new glass for a while (the ones that I do have is listed below). I'm mainly concerned about my "walkaround" 28-105. I'm pretty sure it's as old as my 10D... Will this pose an issue?

    Thanks :)

    P.S. I've seen a lot of posters recommend the EFS 17-55 2.8 for the 7D. Are there any EF / Sigma / Tamron recommendations for the 7D too? (I kind of want to stay away from EF-S, since there is the possibility that I might eventually get a FF years later. :D)
     
  2. icassell

    icassell TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,893
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Arizona
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    My 'walkaround' lens for my 7D is my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (the older one -- not the one with IS). I bought it several years ago for my 30D and it works great with the 7D as well. I've seen them for sale used for ~$350. It is an EF-S mount, though, so will not work properly with a FF camera.
     
  3. cfusionpm

    cfusionpm TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Here's a way to think about it: if you take a shot with the 7D and resize it down to the 10D's 6.3MP, it will probably look no different. The high MP count may be limiting on cheaper glass, but unless you're making giant 36x24" prints or zoom in to 100% on a big monitor, you probably won't tell much of a difference. Those who preach that the 7D is utterly unusable with anything but the best of glass have probably never actually used one. Yes, it's not going to be an ideal image without ideal glass, but the image coming from a poor lens is going to look poor no matter what body it's on. All the other lenses listed should excel on the 7D.

    As far as staying away from EF-S, I say embrace it. You shoot with a crop, why not try to get the best out of it? I've gotten some amazing shots with my 10-22, and the 17-55 proves very useful and versatile.
     
  4. pbelarge

    pbelarge TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    southpaw
    I shoot the 50 1.4 with my 7D, and I am quite happy with the results, you can be very creative - just use your nogin.

    I do not have the other lenses, so I cannot say much about them.
     
  5. rufus5150

    rufus5150 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,658
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit

    The one place you will see an effect is using canned processing tools such as Topaz Adjust and other things that boost local contrast or use some form of smart sharpening (OnOne's detail finder tool is guilty). On the 7D, those out-of-focus areas can all of a sudden look incredibly noisy because of the slight stipple effect of the pixel density on the 7D (and yes, I have one and I shoot with L, non-L and have shot with sub-par glass on it). You can deal with it, but if you're used to dealing with images coming out of an XTi or something in the 10mp range and then later dealing with the 7D, you have to adjust your post process tactics a bit to deal with those situations. The L or other HQ glass doesn't eliminate the problem, but does mask it more.
     
  6. xsouthpawed

    xsouthpawed TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well in that case... would it be better for me to invest into a better walk-around or a faster telephoto prime? (I'm thinking 200mm f2.8 L)

    Not that I'd be able to get it right away.. but something to set my sights upon after the body :)

    Btw. I'm going to be shooting high school sports (dark gyms ugh) along with dances and such. My equipment is listed below :)
     
  7. Neil S.

    Neil S. TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Japan
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I agree that EF-S lenses can be a good alternative to L glass when you are starting out.

    It is wise to try and look ahead when buying them though.

    I would really like to upgrade to a 5D mk III when its released. This would also require that I buy new zooms in the 16-35 and 24-70 range, since I only have a 35mm prime.

    If I had just bought 2 L zooms instead of my EF-S lenses then this wouldnt be a problem.

    Its just something I recommend people keep in mind.
     
  8. cfusionpm

    cfusionpm TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    For high school sports, a 70-200 2.8 is almost required. I shot an indoor basketball game and a few night football games and both of which are pushing it at f/2.8 and 1600-3200 ISO (which is fine for the 7D). A 200 prime may be a bit long on a crop body; especially for any indoor stuff. A 17-55 2.8 would be nice for dances when you want wide shots in low light, (but the 50 1.4 can perform well here with enough room for tighter shots, and is a lot faster lens).

    There's no one lens that will do it all, so pick what you need most and work within that budget until you have everything you need. I only say this because I feel very comfortable with the lenses I have now, and really have no intention of adding to my setup any time soon. I spent time saving and upgrading until I had (more or less) the range from 10mm-200mm covered, with 17mm and on at f/2.8.
     
  9. pbelarge

    pbelarge TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I know you may be waiting, which is a good idea. Shoot with what you have for now and see how you adjust.

    If they ever do decide to make a MKiii...:mrgreen:


     
  10. xsouthpawed

    xsouthpawed TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    To be honest. I've been using the 70-200mm f4 a LOT recently because it's the only lens that has a focus ring that I like (all the other ones are too small/rough for me)

    I haven't been able to try the 70-200mm much in conjunction with sports yet.. (My manual focus isn't good enough to keep).
     
  11. Scatterbrained

    Scatterbrained Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Location:
    Yucca Valley, Ca
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I think my sig says it all.
     
  12. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,456
    Likes Received:
    12,796
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    If the 7D sensor were expanded from its small APS-C 1.6x size of 329 square millimeters in area to a full-frame 24x36mm sensor of 864 square millimeters, the resulting pixel density would make for a 46.74 megapixel sensor. Your aging 28-105 Canon zoom will look rather sub-par on an 18MP sensor. The fallacious argument that, "a poor lens is going to look like a poor lens no matter what body it's on" ignores the realities of optics; a medium format camera lens that is 50 years old, single-coated, and only "average" optically will beat the pants off of a lens designed for 35mm and which is "excellent", but which happens to be capturing on the tiny 24x36mm caprture size.

    Of course, it takes an honest, experienced worker like rufus to state that, yes, the 7D's image files tend to be noisy compared with those from other cameras, and that yes, the 7D's incredibly high pixel density is out-stripping the ability of regular Canon lenses,and that yes, the better image quality route means that 17.8 MP on the smallest APS-C sensor (Canon's 1.6x size), multiplied by 2.62x larger area to get to FF equals a 46.74 megapixel sensor density.

    It has already been proven,empirically, not "theoretically" that the Nikon D3x's 24 megapixel sensor is causing diffraction limiting BEFORE f/5.6...the theoretical charts Matt referenced last week from cambridge in color are nice, but they ignore actual,real-world tests and ignore things like the anti-aliasing filter,moire, and are purely theoretical calculations, performed years ago, back when Canon's 11 MP full-frame 1Ds was the top camera.

    In answer to your question: the 28-105 will not cut the mustard on a 17.8 MP small-sensor camera. 17.8MP on 1.6x is a nice marketing ploy that hurts color saturation and dynamic range, and leads to MASSIVE noise at elevated ISO settings...17.8 MP on 1.6x is a marketing-driven move that makes consumers think they can crop the daylights out of the images, but what it really does is pushes the images farther and farther down the lens MTF curve...so the images from the 7D really do not look that much better than 12MP images at normal ISO settings, and as far as lens performance goes, the 46.74 MP FF "equivalent" density of the 7D means you're better off getting a full-frame camera, or even a 1.3x body, if you want to get good images with "normal" Canon lenses. 7D images suffer from lower contrast, since they are farther down the MTF performance curve of each and every lens, compared with a more typical camera with lower pixel density using the same lens. (this isn't opinion, it's optics).

    Those who happen to own a particular,pet item are often unwilling to concede that it has any problems or issues,whatsoever; rufus is an exception in this particular example. He admits that, like my Canon 50mm 1.4, his 50/mm 1.4 also suffers from focus "hiccups" at times; he also notes how the 7D's noise issues are actually visible. The 7D is a serious user's camera, and its pixel density means that a huge percentage of lenses are now the limiting factor. Kit zooms, and consumer lenses, and most of the prosumer glass in actual use right now is simply NOT good enough to leverage a sensor with the smallest pixels EVER found in ANY Canon d-slr camera...the 7D has bypassed the abilities that "most" lenses actually have. That's a simple fact. A few years ago, when we were shooting at 6, 8,and 10 MP on APS-C, the SENSOR was the limiting factor. Now, at 17.8 on 1.6x the sensor is better than the lenses....WHY is this so hard to accept for some people?? People who have never shot full-frame, and yet constantly maintain that the 7D is "better" than sensors that are 2.6x greater in area, and which have bigger, more light-sensitive pixels AND have more, total pixels???

    Let's put the pro-Canon spin on it, shall we? "The Canon 7D's sensor is so high-density and so high-resolution that it is better than almost any regular Canon lenses on the market now, except for the very-best L-series lenses shot at their best apertures."
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
7d canon basketball forum
,
basketball picture forum canon 7d
,
basketball pictures with canon 7d
,
beat settings for indoor basketball portraits
,
canon 7d basketball photos
,

canon 7d basketball settings

,
canon 7d indoor basketball
,
ef 70-200mm f/2.8l is ii football
,
high school basketball pictures using canon 7d 2012
,
nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 night football