First Week With The 7D

[shorty6049]

what's an "amateur photojournalist"? are you getting paid to be using these?

 

[musicaleCA]

By amateur, I mean that I'm shooting for a student paper. Getting paid? Not by the paper, but potentially by the people I shoot while out on assignment, particularly the musicians/artists. Make sense? (Unless your idea of photojournalism requires that I'm not volunteering my time.)

^^^ OK< time for me to maybe stick my foot in my mouth but isnt a way to reduce the size of the file is not to shoot the largest file sizes availible? am i missing something?

Yes and no. I could reduce the size of my RAWs to around 10MP by shooting MRAW. This is actually a pretty viable alternative to the full RAW file when I don't need to do extreme cropping later (so, not sports), or otherwise need extreme control over details (the difference in how noise reduction works between the two is not one I have explored yet). However, Adobe can't support MRAWs from the 7D yet; they've only released preliminary support for the 7D. That means that if I use any other RAW sizes, I'm forced to use DPP (Digital Photo Professional, Canon's RAW converter, which I like to call Digital Piece of Poo), try to, somehow, pick which images to edit, export them as TIFFs from DPP, compress them with PS so that they're a sensible size, and then importing said TIFFs into LR2. Doing all that insanity can easily add half an hour to and hour (much of that trying to fight with DPP and seeing which shots are worth editing) to my workflow per ten images. Not worth it, by far.

 

[Derrel]

As far as picking images to edit ,one PJ tip is to shoot RAW + JPEG with the in-camera JPEG sharpening turned up quite high,and the in-capture JPEG image down-sized a bit. Using a camera like the D2x with roughly 19-20 megabyte uncompressed RAW captures, it's much,much easier and faster to review straight out of camera JPEGs that were shot with the sharpening cranked all the way up. This is the way Rob Galbraith educates working journlists to evaluate lenses for example--shoot RAW+ JPEg, so that when an image is dead-on,100 percent in-focus, it shows up looking 100% in-focus, and the shots that are "almost" in focus look, well, not so good.

Depending on what your monitor's display is, I run at 2560 x 1600, an image that is smaller than the monitor's vertical resolution can be selected for minimal artefacting on talls--IF you have auto-rotate turned on. Conversely, if you turn off the auto-rotatate, you can set the in-camera JPEG size to be quite large,and will be able to judge focus and composition quite well.

When shooting with a camera that offers in-camera Noise Rduction and a Custom tone curve and other good image parameter adjustments, you might find that once you know the camera's exposure tendencies, you can jack up the in-camera NR, set the contrast the way you want, and set the saturation appropriately,and have the camera spit out a large-ish JPEG file from 6 to 8 to 10 or even 12 megapixel size, and have an output file that is already ready to size, tone, sharpen, and then transmit, without even needing to touch the RAW files. You did set a good WB in the field, didn't you?:thumbup:

Under deadline, I normally go through and sort the BEST files and send only those few to the TRASH...it's easier that way....send the absolute best to the trash, then label them with a color-code under Mac OS X, and then dump them back into the download folder, and then Option-click to highlight the best raw files and then send THOSE to the trash, then collect them and dump them into a work folder and process only the best two or three or four files.

It takes longer to write about this than to perform the actions.

 

[musicaleCA]

Thank goodness I don't work under hard deadlines then. >.< As it stands, I usually have a few days before the images go to print. Though this is a darned good tip for how to work fast in the field, and I'll keep it in mind if/when I start working for larger media with tighter deadlines (as in two hours ago isn't fast enough ).

And of course I set a good WB. Didn't you? :greenpbl:

 

[MrLogic]

=

the 5D MkII is blown out of the water in everything except the FF by the 7D

Right... blown out of the water in everything but the most important thing: image quality.

Care to elaborate? Your comment holds no weight without some explanation of its reasoning.

Canon 1Ds MK III & 5D MK II ~ 156 pixels per mm.
Canon 7D ~ 233 pixels per mm

As all the online 5D MK II vs. 7D comparisons have shown that means significantly more noise at *every* ISO level (even with the improvements in sensor technology)

There's also more than a stop difference in high ISO performance... e.g. ISO 3200 files from a 5D II look somewhat better than ISO 1600 files from a 7D. That's quite significant, IMO. But hardly surprising.

Google is your friend.

 

[musicaleCA]

Right... blown out of the water in everything but the most important thing: image quality.

Care to elaborate? Your comment holds no weight without some explanation of its reasoning.

Canon 1Ds MK III & 5D MK II ~ 156 pixels per mm.
Canon 7D ~ 233 pixels per mm

As all the online 5D MK II vs. 7D comparisons have shown that means significantly more noise at *every* ISO level (even with the improvements in sensor technology)

There's also more than a stop difference in high ISO performance... e.g. ISO 3200 files from a 5D II look somewhat better than ISO 1600 files from a 7D. That's quite significant, IMO. But hardly surprising.

Google is your friend.

No need to be snide. I know damn well that there's noise at higher ISOs. That's a given, and I didn't say that this was about SNR. In fact, I said quite the opposite: "While we've all been fawning over, or complaining about, the 7D's signal-to-noise ratio, what I'm writing here is not about that." I'm not a moron, and you insinuating such with your last comment is blatantly offensive. If you honestly think I'd spend $4k on camera bodies before doing a fair bit of research, you're quite naive. As you even said, it's hardly surprising. My overall response to this is "well DUH". Of course it'll have more noise at high ISOs. Thankfully, good NR software like Define can help to lessen this problem. "5D MkII is blown out of the water in everything except the FF by the 7D" noise included. I made no claim that noise is somehow better than a 5D.

And as mentioned by Switch, it's no use to have great high ISOs if the AF system and buffer can't keep pace. That has been really 1D territory, until now.

Shooting on a crop sensor, there's a trade-off. You get some noise, but you also get more bang-for-your-buck, greater DoF at equivalent apertures, and the crop factor can be a blessing, not a curse, in many applications. And for the love of god man, can you *really* look me straight in the face and tell me that shot on the previous page at ISO 2000 is ruined by noise?

For a crop body, the 7D is remarkably clean. I said that this write-up wasn't about noise. That topic has been hammered to death so much it's a useless point to argue. The noise is what it is. I was far more interested in evaluating the other features, which seem to have been really left in the lurch over this inane, positively stupid obsession with SNR.

 

[MrLogic]

No need to be snide. I know damn well that there's noise at higher ISOs. That's a given, and I didn't say that this was about SNR. In fact, I said quite the opposite: "While we've all been fawning over, or complaining about, the 7D's signal-to-noise ratio, what I'm writing here is not about that." I'm not a moron, and you insinuating such with your last comment is blatantly offensive. If you honestly think I'd spend $4k on camera bodies before doing a fair bit of research, you're quite naive.

"5D MkII is blown out of the water in everything except the FF by the 7D" noise included. I made no claim that noise is somehow better than a 5D.

Okay. I guess I just didn't understand why you took issue with my comment.

Of course, image quality is not the be-all end-all, but... I'll rephrase... pretty damn important. I guess I have heard/read too many complaints about the 7D's IQ already... and they were not all about noise, either.

 

[shorty6049]

By amateur, I mean that I'm shooting for a student paper. Getting paid? Not by the paper, but potentially by the people I shoot while out on assignment, particularly the musicians/artists. Make sense? (Unless your idea of photojournalism requires that I'm not volunteering my time.)

nah, i just asked because USUALLY, whenever organization you're working for will provide you with cameras to use, whether it's a student newspaper or a "real" news organization. at least that's the way it's been when i've done stuff along those lines.

but- they've also always paid their photographers.

this is a college newspaper i'd asssume?

 

[musicaleCA]

No need to be snide. I know damn well that there's noise at higher ISOs. That's a given, and I didn't say that this was about SNR. In fact, I said quite the opposite: "While we've all been fawning over, or complaining about, the 7D's signal-to-noise ratio, what I'm writing here is not about that." I'm not a moron, and you insinuating such with your last comment is blatantly offensive. If you honestly think I'd spend $4k on camera bodies before doing a fair bit of research, you're quite naive.

"5D MkII is blown out of the water in everything except the FF by the 7D" noise included. I made no claim that noise is somehow better than a 5D.

Okay. I guess I just didn't understand why you took issue with my comment.

Of course, image quality is not the be-all end-all, but... I'll rephrase... pretty damn important. I guess I have heard/read too many complaints about the 7D's IQ already... and they were not all about noise, either.

Okay, fair is fair. Glad you weren't just being an ass. The reason I took issue with your statement is that you didn't provide any reasoning initially; that always just makes me junk someone's arguments, on the theory that I don't have the time to justify others' opinions/statements.

A mixed blessing of crop sensors is, er, the sensor size relative to the lens. You get better quality in terms of vignetting, CA, and sharpness from any lens designed for a 35mm format camera, but the flip side is that that lens had better be able to provide the resolution you need for the super-high pixel densities of these cameras. That really means that to get the best out of these darn cameras, you need to use very good glass. Just one of the reasons I've gone to the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L as my workhorse lenses. They can, if I absolutely nail the focus, just churn out enough LW/PH to feed the sensor's demands...It's all give and take, but crop sensor sizes certainly have their place. In my case, I can cover a huge focal range for the money spent, compared to a 35mm format (with three lenses, the equivalent of 16-360mm, vs 16-200mm for the same price or more in glass).

The extreme requirements of the 18MP 1.6x sensor for LW/PH, I suspect, is the foundation for quite a few complaints about picture quality. In this case, it's not that the camera has gotten worse in comparison to previous crop bodies, it's just a limitation of the format and something that hadn't appeared before now.

By amateur, I mean that I'm shooting for a student paper. Getting paid? Not by the paper, but potentially by the people I shoot while out on assignment, particularly the musicians/artists. Make sense? (Unless your idea of photojournalism requires that I'm not volunteering my time.)

nah, i just asked because USUALLY, whenever organization you're working for will provide you with cameras to use, whether it's a student newspaper or a "real" news organization. at least that's the way it's been when i've done stuff along those lines.

but- they've also always paid their photographers.

this is a college newspaper i'd asssume?

Indeed, it's a college paper. The Ubyssey. I've now contributed and participated enough to be considered "staff", though all that really gets me is voting rights and an email address I won't use.

The office camera is an XTi with a 17-55/3.5-5.6 kit lens. So...I started with better gear than they had. The paper simply doesn't have the budget for solid camera gear (not even close to the kind of stuff I have now). So I pretty much said to hell with it and got myself solid gear. Now I can only blame any problems on the dummy behind the lens. :lmao: (And no, I really don't get paid. Ah well...it's a solid paper. A lot of photojournalists and journalists alike in Vancouver got their start at this paper, so I know I'm in the right place to learn.)

 

[shorty6049]

yeah, experience is experience. I worked at my school's paper for a week and decided photojournalism wasn't really for me... They pay photogs a stipend and have a reasonable amount of gear, but it wasn't really worth it. Now i work for our yearbook and am a student photographer for our university relations department. Wish i could afford 2 7Ds..... but my 40,000 dollars in loans tells me not to... (and my bank account)

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Hey Musicale,

Just my two cents worth about PJ work, not about the camera. And of course, you know I have been out of this game for quite a while (since long before the advent of digitial in the profession), so you may want to verify this on your own.

I have read and been told on several occasion and it was mentioned here on TPF, I believe, not that long ago that PJs shoot mostly JPEGs because of the fast turn around needed for their work. Something to consider.

It seems to me this has not been mentioned in this thread unless I missed it or not understood a post.

For all I know you shoot in RAW because you feel safer with the extra play you get from that, not yet being 100% confident in your skills. Believe me, I would understand that since PJ was my first photog career and it was nerve wracking for a while.

 

[Antithesis]

Hey Musicale,

Just my two cents worth about PJ work, not about the camera. And of course, you know I have been out of this game for quite a while (since long before the advent of digitial in the profession), so you may want to verify this on your own.

I have read and been told on several occasion and it was mentioned here on TPF, I believe, not that long ago that PJs shoot mostly JPEGs because of the fast turn around needed for their work. Something to consider.

It seems to me this has not been mentioned in this thread unless I missed it or not understood a post.

For all I know you shoot in RAW because you feel safer with the extra play you get from that, not yet being 100% confident in your skills. Believe me, I would understand that since PJ was my first photog career and it was nerve wracking for a while.

Yeah, I agree with this. If you can get your jpeg settings pretty good in-camera, it'll save you a lot of post.

Are most of your images going to be on newsprint or on the web? If your shooting purely for newsprint, you can probably get away with some stuff you can't get away with on a monitor and vice versa. If your shooting for web, keep in mind that you can use a very small image (72dpi), and you don't need a very large image for newsprint either. Just some stuff to think about if your trying to keep a card from filling up or if you have a deadline to meet.

I actually want to try and shoot for my school paper for spring term, but we'll see how that pans out.

 

[zland]

I think your reasoning for getting the crop-bodies is a good one, and I think they are probably better if you have to grab more action shots for reasons SwitchFX stated. I actually prefer DX sensors for the very reason that you get more focal range per dollar. Plus, dealing with 21mp images is a nightmare if you have to batch several hundred images on anything less than a top-end computer. I had to edit a few weddings shot on a 1Ds mkIII on a 3 year old Mac pro tower and it made me want to pull my hair out.

Also, is the camera weathersealed? How's the build quality. I had a 5D and it was built like a tank, but no sealing. Go figure.

For me the crop sensor is a blessing. I get to use a 400mm f5.6 L series lens that is relatively cheap & get 560mm out of it for example vs a full sensor in which I would spend about 5X that amount to get 560mm. I am doing mostly surf photography so a lot of fps (7D has 8fps) & crop sensor work really well IMO. Regarding ISO, shooting outdoors in the daytime means I often shoot at 400 ISO or less thus not as much a concern.

Again, I think I will find more times when I will be glad to be shooting with a crop sensor than times I woudn't therefore making it the right equipment for me. Budget is an issue to me when considering buying a 500mm f4 L series lens & also the weight & size of that lens is a burden to travel with. I think the real issue is finding the equipment that works best for what you are shooting & your budget. If there was a perfect lens or camera body we would all have the same equipment.

 

[Buckster]

I think your reasoning for getting the crop-bodies is a good one, and I think they are probably better if you have to grab more action shots for reasons SwitchFX stated. I actually prefer DX sensors for the very reason that you get more focal range per dollar. Plus, dealing with 21mp images is a nightmare if you have to batch several hundred images on anything less than a top-end computer. I had to edit a few weddings shot on a 1Ds mkIII on a 3 year old Mac pro tower and it made me want to pull my hair out.

Also, is the camera weathersealed? How's the build quality. I had a 5D and it was built like a tank, but no sealing. Go figure.

For me the crop sensor is a blessing. I get to use a 400mm f5.6 L series lens that is relatively cheap & get 560mm out of it for example vs a full sensor in which I would spend about 5X that amount to get 560mm.

Cropping away the same amount from the full frame image in post would give you the same thing. It's a crop, not a teleconverter.

 

[AverageJoe]

I think your reasoning for getting the crop-bodies is a good one, and I think they are probably better if you have to grab more action shots for reasons SwitchFX stated. I actually prefer DX sensors for the very reason that you get more focal range per dollar. Plus, dealing with 21mp images is a nightmare if you have to batch several hundred images on anything less than a top-end computer. I had to edit a few weddings shot on a 1Ds mkIII on a 3 year old Mac pro tower and it made me want to pull my hair out.

Also, is the camera weathersealed? How's the build quality. I had a 5D and it was built like a tank, but no sealing. Go figure.

For me the crop sensor is a blessing. I get to use a 400mm f5.6 L series lens that is relatively cheap & get 560mm out of it for example vs a full sensor in which I would spend about 5X that amount to get 560mm.

Cropping away the same amount from the full frame image in post would give you the same thing. It's a crop, not a teleconverter.

This is very true, it's just hard for some people to make that connection for some reason. I think some photo sales sites claim lenses give 1.6x the focal length, when in fact they only give the same.