7D test images taken today (high ISO)

[inTempus]

Here are some high ISO pixel peeping crops from the 7D.

ISO 100 for a baseline:

ISO 800:

ISO 1600:

ISO 3200:

ISO 6400:

...and for grins ISO 12800:

 

[inTempus]

7D with 70% unsharp mask in CS3:

What were the radius and threshold?

Radius: 1.0
Threshold: 0
(default)

 

[rufus5150]

Thanks. I'm actually starting to lean toward a higher threshold (I consistently used 3 with the images off my XTi) and a slightly larger radius (again, used to use 1.0). I've been toying with 1.5 and 5 respectively, and have been pleased with the results thus far but I'm still not done toying.

 

[Derrel]

Have you tried something along the lines of 200 to 500%, with a radius of from .22 to .38 and a threshold of Zero? You might have better results at removing the AA-filter's blurring effect that way, as opposed to 70% at 1.0 pixel width, which is kind of coarse.

 

[inTempus]

Have you tried something along the lines of 200 to 500%, with a radius of from .22 to .38 and a threshold of Zero? You might have better results at removing the AA-filter's blurring effect that way, as opposed to 70% at 1.0 pixel width, which is kind of coarse.

I'll give it a shot and see what it looks like.

 

[inTempus]

7D image with 500% sharpening with a .3% radius and 0 threshold.

 

[rufus5150]

Nice and crisp. The threshold that low is always going to pop those specular highlights at the end of the hairs, though.

Ugh... this new camera has turned me into both a PixelPeeper and a PixelTweaker!!!

 

[inTempus]

Hehe.

I stared off not being real keen on the 7D. After playing with it and shooting with it, I'm liking it. I would like to have a chance to play with it some more... I may have to buy one to give it proper attention. LOL

 

[MPSax1]

1. The ISO 6400 could clearly be used as long as the print isn't huge.
2. As for how the 18MP goes into the whole thing on how these pictures have better noise than even the D3! (as far as I've seen). Either the pictures are fake (I don't know why the guy would have to lie) or it is as many landscape photographers have presumed in ignoring the release of the 7D and still grabbing onto the 40D for economical purposes (assuming they can't get the FF cameras). Canon has some seriously nice noise removal built into the camera, but it lowers the amount of information as far as I've been told. The pictures aren't going to be sharp at extremely large prints, or if you take away the noise reduction, they'll be sharp at large with tons of noise.

Try turning the noise reduction off and using no editing

 

[inTempus]

Try turning the noise reduction off and using no editing

You do realize every single digital camera on the market uses noise reduction, right? Any digital image produced by any camera over ISO 800, no matter how expensive or cutting edge the camera is, would look like complete ass without it. A default level of NR is completely appropriate, which is what has been applied here. The "Neutral" picture style was selected and DPP's settings were unaltered. These images represent what a user would get out of their camera if they opened the box and started shooting without making any changes to their settings.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "editing". No editing was done to any image. Well, I did crop several images to show pixel level detail. I assume you're not talking about that. I also sharpened a couple of images, but I pointed those out and posted the unsharpened versions for comparison... so again, I assume you're not talking about that.

 

[MrLogic]

Posted this link before, but the entire 7D review is now up at Juza Nature Photography:

Juza Nature Photography


The last part with the teleconverters is somewhat interesting, but I found it odd that he only "tested" the combos wide open, and didn't use a 1.7x TC, but only a 1.4x and a 2x TC. But still:

"Considering the very high pixel density of the 7D, I thought that the 2x would have not been necessary: I was wrong. Even on the 7D, the 2x TC is still able to extract a little more detail than the 1.4x, at least on high quality lenses."

 

[MrLogic]

Posted by Peter Hawrylyshyn on BirdPhotographers.net:


"The 50D and Mk3 had AF Microadjustments to calibrate the AF of the 400mmDO to each camera body
The 7D is a new demo model with no AF micro-adjustments
This may in part account for slight differences in sharpness"

thread: Image Noise : 7D vs 50D vs Mk3 - BirdPhotographers.Net - It Ain't Just Birds!

 

[MPSax1]

When I refer to the noise reduction, I do it on reviews solely. I believe this is what a decent number of reviewers do. This is the case because different cameras have "better" noise reduction programs built in at defaults to make the images appear superior, when in fact you are losing information. In reviews I'd compare it to something like a 1d Mark III or a 1ds Mark III, etc and have them all without any noise reduction. This way you get the compare and not just go off the image formed. Just my opinion, regardless they look like good photos in terms of nosie