Re: Megapixels ~ How does the Canon 7D compromise image quality?

[Mendoza]

I read or heard a few places including here about how image quality is compromised when the 7D is paired with a consumer-grade (i.e. no "L" glass) lens. I've owned the 7D for a few months now and all I have and can possibly afford are consumer-grade lenses.
Can anyone explain how the 7D diminishes the quality of the results under such conditions? And how so? Does it simply exaggerate the imperfections in your glass, or is there more to it?
P.S. I'm quite happy with this camera; I'd just like to better understand the potential 'shortcomings.'

 

[Derrel]

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D

"What the pictures look like is perhaps easier to digest. So far, the photos we've taken with a beta 7D look a lot like they've come from a 50D, except with 2.9 million additional pixels of resolution. Canon appears to have done a masterful job of wringing out every ounce of quality from the 7D's little pixels (smaller than any Canon before), resulting in photos that are fairly crisp, reasonably clean and usable up to about ISO 1600.

Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows. At all ISO increments, other than the very lowest ones, pictures can take on a somewhat harsh, chunky appearance not present in larger-pixel cameras in Canon's lineup, such as the EOS-1D Mark III. Or Nikon's D3 and D700.

Correcting for digital dandruff requires image detail to be softened, sometimes considerably, while the slight harshness is simply a trait to be lived with.

This means that overall, 7D image quality is shaping up to be decent, though not groundbreaking. If you're coming from a 50D or Rebel T1i, you're likely to be right at home with the picture quality from this camera. If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

 

[Rekd]

If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

I'd love to see some side by sides on this. Besides the ones from that link. They all look like crap. Some of my ef'd up shots looked better than those hi res shots. :twak:

photos that are fairly crisp, reasonably clean and usable up to about ISO 1600

^^^ I snorted. :lmao:

 

[Flash Harry]

Having good glass though important is not the be all end all of photography, some cheaper lens produce stunning results, knowing your equipment and its limitations is more important to getting great shots than simply fitting a prime or L glass lens. H

 

[Mendoza]

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well.

That's one thing I've noticed, and frankly I'd prefer noise to look more film-like, which it does, than digital.

Having good glass though important is not the be all end all of photography, some cheaper lens produce stunning results, knowing your equipment and its limitations is more important to getting great shots than simply fitting a prime or L glass lens. H

Yes I agree. My query is a technical and relatively minor one.