Another dissapointing review of the 7D

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by inTempus, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. inTempus

    inTempus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,692
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Here's another disappointing review of the 7D. This review includes sample pics shot from a Rebel (12mp), 7D (18mp) and 1DsMk3 (21mp).

    They used more than one 7D as the results from the initial tests were so disappointing they thought perhaps they had a dud body. Unfortunately the 2nd and 3rd bodies performed the same.

    The XSi out performed it in IQ at every turn... and of course the 1Ds3's images were far and away better.

    The Canon EOS 7D Review « Darwin Wiggett

    Depressing to say the least. If I were in the market today for a mid-level body and I didn't already have a bag full of Canon glass, I would go for the D300s.
     
  2. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    22,839
    Likes Received:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Ouch!
    the only thing that comes to my mind as a possible error in the test ( and I honestly don't know enogh about it to know if its a problem with this test or not) is that the RAW processing was, at some level incorrect. I recall that early 50D images were softer until the RAW processing (or maybe firmwire) was upgraded and then results improved overall and this could be what we are seeing here.

    I would be very surprised if canon would allow a midrange body to be beaten so clearly by an entry level body - canon especailly since they are very aggressive with making sure that each level of their camera range has a distinct advantage over the lower teirs.
     
  3. MrLogic

    MrLogic TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  4. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    22,839
    Likes Received:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Heh reading the comments to the blog there is quite abit of variety in responces. One weakness I can see in teh test is that it relies on unprocessed RAWS only with no mention of processed RAWs. I mention this as whilst a RAW shot should have "no incamera processing" this is in actuality a false fact and some sharpening and noise reduction will be performed - so I wonder if the rebel series camera is not simply applying more of this incamera sharpening to its RAW shot than the 7D is (or perhaps less incamera noise reduction) ?

    Ever since the 50D I have worried that canons move toward more MP would have led to softer images as noise became harder to control without having to use stronger noise reduction (And thus more image quality loss in the finer details).

    The other thing that is worrying is the mentions of diffration starting a lot earlier - f13 is where I like to work with macro, I would hate that with more MP the diffraction effect would start sooner and thus reduce the possible smaller apertures I could use for macro work.
     
  5. inTempus

    inTempus TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,692
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Indiana
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I think the biggest problem is that other cameras with similar processing produce far better files.

    As for sharpening, if shot in RAW there shouldn't be any sharpening applied. That's done by DPP after the RAW is downloaded. If it's disabled, there won't be any sharpening done.

    The test is of the basic RAW files produced by the cameras. That's what you have to work with right out of camera. If you start off with a better file (more detail, better shadow detail, etc.) your end result should be better once processing is applied.

    No matter how you slice it the RAW files from the 7D don't look much better than a G11 point and shoot.
     
  6. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    22,839
    Likes Received:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Noise reduction should also not be applied but it is. IF they are willing to apply noise reduction then why not sharpening to. It something I would suspect more in the G11 though over the DSLRs (the sharpening).

    I can't disagree against that save to say that some are saying that processed RAWs from the 7D are better looking than processed from the rebel series. The only other thing I have found is debates on teh best RAW processor to use - some are saying that canon DP is not the best to use and that better results are seen in the Lightroom 2.5 beta support for the camera.
     
  7. MrLogic

    MrLogic TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    This pretty much sums it up, IMO:



    The Canon EOS 7D Review « Darwin Wiggett
     
  8. NateWagner

    NateWagner TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Also though, if the DPP they were using didn't have the appropriate camera profile it would screw things up wouldn't it? I mean, that explains to me why the DPreview was so much better (they at least had the beta version of the updated raw processor)
     
  9. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    22,839
    Likes Received:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'm pretty sure there have been canon camera designers who have confirmed this very fact. That they even would like to push the ISO, dynamic range and such but that marketing says go for MP.
    Hopefully the Nikon push for ISO will eventually lead Canon to follow - I think we are seeing the end of the MP war and the start of the ISO war - for which Nikon got the first shot at this time around.
     
  10. MrLogic

    MrLogic TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
  11. Overread

    Overread has a hat around here somewhere Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    22,839
    Likes Received:
    3,671
    Location:
    UK - England
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Based on the linked diffraction test I would agree with the testers in that after f11 is where it starts showing up but that f16 is usable. Of course the blog review counteracts this assessment but then we have to decide if their review is complete enough. Certainly the results they have found are sounding a little strong on one side and whilst I'm not questioning their authenticity it might be that some difference in the processing software used (even with nothing done to the RAWs) might be responcible for this difference
     
  12. Derrel

    Derrel Mr. Rain Cloud

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    35,143
    Likes Received:
    12,660
    Location:
    USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I at first thought that maybe Darwin had stopped the lens down too far, such as f/16 in the hay bales in the field test scene. But in the comments below, he stated that his personal copy of the Canon 45mm TS/E lens is best at f/5.6 to f/13 and that he used those apertures as well in his testing procedure. He also commented that the 7D did well on in-studio test shots, "like those done by dPreview", but that in distant and mid-distance scenes, like those that he tends to shoot, the 7D bodies, all three of them, looked mushy.

    He used Live View for critical focusing...the tests, over and over, up-sampled and down-sampled, D300s versus 7D versus 1Ds Mark III versus Rebel versus D300s,ad nauseum--they all showed the same things. The comparisons between the Canon pocket cameras and the 7D were interesting.

    From what I have read from highly technical types, diffraction seems to kick in on the 7D at around f/5, which seems reasonable, given that it has the smallest pixel size of any d-slr ever made, and the most-densely packed sensor as well; smaller apertures would likely show a LOSS of sharpness, so even f/5.6 would be affected by diffraction. I have also read that the 7D has some loss of color depth at base ISO, which is 100, and was optimized for higher ISO shooting. My D2x has a 12.3 MP sensor on 1.5x,and diffraction kicks in at f/5.6, so f/5 at 18MP seems perfectly in line with what I have read, namely that at f/5 (as in f/5.0) the 7D's image lose sharpness at smaller openings.

    I personally think that perhaps the 7D's unusual sort of 4-color imager is causing some problems; Canon has some hard to explain secondary green-yellow color RGB +G-Y demosaicing of the RAW data off the sensor, which is as I understand it, how they are measuring the color of the light in their color-aware light metering. *Properly* converting the RAW sensor data using this RGB+G=Y system seems to be causing a maze artifacting pattern for the few RAW converters on the market capable of handling 7D RAW files.
    I personally think the RAW conversion software for the 7D might not yet be optimized to deal with their weird new sensor's working method, and that better image quality will be possible in the future.

    I wonder if maybe Darwin needed to have applied MUCH higher USM, like maybe 500% at perhaps somewhere between .22 and .30 pixels Radius at 0 Threshold to overcome the strong anti-aliasing filter of the 7D.

    But the fact remains--with that high-density 5.4 Megapixel per Square Centimeter sensor density, the LENS performance that I have seen in several reviews does not look good when using the 17-55 f/2.8 L EF-S lens,and frankly it does not look very good on the 24-105-L zoom either. Looking very closely at full-sized samples shot with the 17-55, I see a LOT of chromatic aberration problems and a slightly 'fuzzy' quality at the edges of most frames shot with the 17-55 f/2.8. With the premium,single focal length telephotos the bird guys are using, the 7D looks quite good, which is to be expected from a premium lens in the $7,000 price range.

    The review is what it is. It's a two-person, practical, field test, involving three different 7D bodies, a top FF Canon body, a Nikon D300s, and some Canon P&S captures,and lots of cross-comparing. On landscapes. Using a pretty new camera, that uses a rather odd demosaicing system that "most" RAW converter software is not handling very well. And the sensor's pixel density is clearly beginning to factor into lens quality, and even lens f/stop in use. This camera seems to be pushing the boundaries quite hard...
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

7d diffraction

,
7d diffraction limit
,
7d shutter button mushy
,
canon 7d raw sharpening
,
canon eos 7d disappointing
,
diffraction 7d
,
diffraction canon 7d
,
dpp vs lightroom 3 vs aperture
,
f 2.8 vs f 8
,
mushy canon 7d image