Canon D7 EOS - Good points and bad points?

[Derrel]

That's quite a funny misuse of the wrong word. "Waving", not waiving is the word you were looking for...:thumbup:

 

[cfusionpm]

So silly typo aside, you don't disagree with the intended meaning?

 

[bigtwinky]

My Canon D7 can be set to stun or kill, all at the flip of a switch.
It will allow me to rule the world

 

[emh]

Don't be silly -- you can't compare pictures taken by different people under different circumstances and draw any conclusions. The DxO Mark is a far more reliable measure than some random pictures from the web taken by random people.

And the side-by-side comparison pics you posted are from a review the author essentially admitted was done with different levels of noise reduction.

I would absolutely love to test both of them myself (and maybe when I get a 7D, I'll rent some Nikons and do just that).

Ideally, I would like to see shots taken at the same time, same conditions with the 70-200 2.8 IS II on the Canon and 70-200 2.8 VRII for the Nikon (or some other set of comperable, high-end lenses). It would eliminate pretty much all outside variables and provide a real world set of visual examples. DxO mark does not take into account resolution or lenses in any way, which (in addition to post production) are HUGE factors in creating an image. The site really only exists for e-peen waiving, IMO. But maybe if you take pictures without a lens, your eye can see 1/10 of a stop difference in dynamic range, and resolution doesn't matter, then DxO Mark would be your place to be. :thumbup:

Unfortinately, there seems to be no such comprehensive mass database of image comparisons, and my personal budget doesnt warrent me to undertake such a project myself. Cameralabs has some good sets though.

So you say the DxO Mark is irrelevant... fine... you are entitled to dismiss data you don't like

But then you post random images from the web -- different subjects, different photographers, different conditions -- including ones that the author has admitted to being useless. And that's supposed to be more useful? How?

 

[MrLogic]

Another random (EOS 7D) image from the web. ISO 800. Well... I didn't go out of my way looking for it. Juza posted it a few days ago. It just doesn't look good, IMO:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/galleries/012126.jpg

source: Juza Nature Photography



Look at those wings. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:




I sold my D90, but I know IQ quickly fell apart from ISO 800 onwards. This looks even worse.

 

[rufus5150]

In all honesty and speaking from experience with the 7D's camera side (AF-point/quality aside), the addition of any worth-its-salt post-processing NR will allow you to use up to ISO 6400 without thinking twice and still come up with usable images. I rarely apply anything beyond a '40' in ACR/LR's luminance NR with images up to ISO1600. It's High ISO performance is sound for all practical purposes, but knock yourself out with trying to figure it out in multiple rounds of pixel-peeping.

 

[MrLogic]

In all honesty and speaking from experience with the 7D's camera side (AF-point/quality aside), the addition of any worth-its-salt post-processing NR will allow you to use up to ISO 6400 without thinking twice and still come up with usable images. I rarely apply anything beyond a '40' in ACR/LR's luminance NR with images up to ISO1600. It's High ISO performance is sound for all practical purposes, but knock yourself out with trying to figure it out in multiple rounds of pixel-peeping.

Not exactly "pixel peeping" when someone bumps down the image size to only 1200 wide and it still looks horrible.

Are you saying that Juza doesn't know how to post-process an image? I'm not saying he's the best ever, but most of his 7D shots that were taken at ISO 100 look pretty damn good to me, knowing what he had to work with. Here's one example:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/galleries/012104.jpg

gallery: Juza Nature Photography


However... the ISO 800 shot looks horrible to me.


If you can do better than that at ISO 1600 or above, please post some samples. And if you do, be sure to pick a challenging subject, such as a bird. Let's see that feather detail. :mrgreen:

 

[tsaraleksi]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.

 

[rufus5150]

In all honesty and speaking from experience with the 7D's camera side (AF-point/quality aside), the addition of any worth-its-salt post-processing NR will allow you to use up to ISO 6400 without thinking twice and still come up with usable images. I rarely apply anything beyond a '40' in ACR/LR's luminance NR with images up to ISO1600. It's High ISO performance is sound for all practical purposes, but knock yourself out with trying to figure it out in multiple rounds of pixel-peeping.

Not exactly "pixel peeping" when someone bumps down the image size to only 1200 wide and it still looks horrible.

Are you saying that Juza doesn't know how to post-process an image? I'm not saying he's the best ever, but most of his 7D shots that were taken at ISO 100 look pretty damn good to me, knowing what he had to work with. Here's one example:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/galleries/012104.jpg

gallery: Juza Nature Photography


However... the ISO 800 shot looks horrible to me.


If you can do better than that at ISO 1600 or above, please post some samples. And if you do, be sure to pick a challenging subject, such as a bird. Let's see that feather detail. :mrgreen:

No, I'm not saying or not saying anyone, let alone the mythical 'Juza' knows or does not know how to post process an image.

I don't have any birds handy, but I do have fur at ISO 6400:

http://www.toddmckimmey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/praerie_dog_03_2x3.jpg

 

[MrLogic]

No, I'm not saying or not saying anyone, let alone the mythical 'Juza' knows or does not know how to post process an image.

I don't have any birds handy, but I do have fur at ISO 6400:

http://www.toddmckimmey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/praerie_dog_03_2x3.jpg

"The mythical 'Juza'."


Thanks, BTW. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess. Not even close to usable, IMO.

But fair enough... this daisy shot at ISO 1600 looks quite good:

Flickr Photo Download: Droplets on Daisy #4

 

[bigtwinky]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.

Than whats the point of being on a forum if everyone can't argue and debate and must spend time away from the forum to shoot?!?

I come here to discuss, read, debate and what not.

 

[gsgary]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.

+1 never heard so much bull**** in all my life

 

[cfusionpm]

I don't have any birds handy, but I do have fur at ISO 6400:

http://www.toddmckimmey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/praerie_dog_03_2x3.jpg

Thanks, BTW. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I guess. Not even close to usable, IMO.

"Not even close"?? For use in what? Maybe not a 36x24 poster, but a small print should turn out fine, I think.

 

[tsaraleksi]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you guys ought to stop arguing and spend more time shooting.

Than whats the point of being on a forum if everyone can't argue and debate and must spend time away from the forum to shoot?!?

I come here to discuss, read, debate and what not.

There's nothing wrong with reading/debating/talking. What is problematic is when people spend so much time worrying about their gear and theoretical capabilities that they lose sight of the goal of all this discussion. Far too often you find posters who talk all the time about gear, and not about pictures. And far worse, it's not uncommon to see someone so worried about using a feature of their camera because someone on a board told them not to because of some theoretical problem (such as high ISO on a 7D) that they lose out on shots that would have been excellent.