7D's high mp count

[inTempus]

So I just upgraded to a Canon 7D from my Nikon D5000 so did I make a poor choice?

Absolutely not. The 7D is a great camera, it's certainly in the top of it's class. Don't let people on the Internet convience you otherwise.

 

[Southtown57]

Alright. I just have the kit lens (28-135mm) and I'm worried it's not going to make good pics. It's going to be a while before I can afford some nice lenses after buying this.

 

[Neil S.]

Derrel...

I would like to ask you in all fairness to acknowledge that the image that Matt posted is very low noise for Iso-3200, especially on a 1.6 body. I know it really is 3200 because I pulled the exif data on it.

To be honest even I am a little surprised by how clean it is. The professional reviews that I have read have all said that the 7D has good high Iso performance.

Heres a quote from the dpreview 7D review - pg. 30. under "Image Quality":

Canon EOS 7D Review: 30. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

"Despite the highest nominal resolution of all APS-C DSLRs and therefore a very small pixel-pitch the EOS 7D performs very well in low light situations and manages to maintain a good balance between image detail and noise reduction up to very high sensitivities. It's visibly better than the EOS 50D and as good as it gets in the APS-C class (if you prefer the 7D or Nikon D300S in this respect is probably a matter of taste). If you require significantly better high ISO performance than the EOS 7D can provide, your only option is to move into the full-frame segment."

So we have seen a pic from Matt showing very low noise, and the professional reviews say this as well.

I have to wonder if you are just making this stuff up as you go LOL.

I know you are very knowledgeable about photography, and I respect you greatly. I think that you really need to let this 7D thing go though...

I also own the 7D and 70-200 2.8 IS II as you know, and it is simply a superb combo in my opinion. You can shoot super wide, and then crop down (often to actual pixels) and still have useable images. The resolution and detail that the combo provides is simply class leading. The D300s cant compete in this area for obvious reasons.

It is in fact true that the 7D requires good glass, but as long as you know that going in its not a problem. This is something that is easily learned simply by reading reviews, and forums.

I know for a fact that the 7D is the best, or the 2nd best crop camera on the market today. Which one (7D or D300s) depends on your personal preference because they are so damn close.

You may think that this doesnt mean much, but it does because not everybody can afford a FF body.

Also I had EF-S lenses, and that was a reason for me to go from the 30D to the 7D, and not 5D mk II.

 

[Southtown57]

Yeah so far the pics that I have taken with the 7D have looked great. I have never tried the D300s for comparison though.

 

[inTempus]

Alright. I just have the kit lens (28-135mm) and I'm worried it's not going to make good pics. It's going to be a while before I can afford some nice lenses after buying this.

Stop worrying, you will love the images your kit produces. The D300s images would look no better or worse to you.

If you're worried it won't perform to your standards, go take some pics with it and put your mind at ease.

 

[rufus5150]

The high-iso performance of the 7D really surprised me but after seeing the results of the dual digic 4 processors on the body, I'm sold on its abilities. I trust that between LR3 and Noiseware Pro, I can get presentable images at 3200 and that noise can be adequately dealt with if exposed properly. I'd be (and I am) more worried about loss of dynamic range which just means you need to be more careful shooting.

My keeper rate nose dives when I edge up toward 6400, but I still maintain some keepers. 12,800 is nigh useless unless you want the instant 'scanned from a news paper look'.

I'm not sure how else to explain it other than the noise on the 7D is simply different than any other camera I've used. It's not better, or worse, but the sensor's pixel density creates a different noise pattern. The noise is so utterly dense, though, that in treating the noise, a smart noise reduction program is actually better at retaining the sharpness in images than lower-pixel count sensors (in my somewhat limited experience).

The kit lens that comes with it will produce no worse images than a kit lens with any of their other crop-sensor line and the body is capable of producing quite striking images with a wide range of glass.

 

[icassell]

I agree with rufus5150. One interesting thing to note is that several people have found that using DPP for your RAW conversion rather than ACR gives much cleaner images when you are working at very high ISO.

 

[Neil S.]

I agree with rufus5150. One interesting thing to note is that several people have found that using DPP for your RAW conversion rather than ACR gives much cleaner images when you are working at very high ISO.

Who was DPP developed by?

Now that I am done being a smart a$$ lol...I wil say that I never really thought about using it until right now.

It would make sense that Canon would be able to develop the best software to correct for noise, because they designed the sensor+camera.

 

[icassell]

I agree with rufus5150. One interesting thing to note is that several people have found that using DPP for your RAW conversion rather than ACR gives much cleaner images when you are working at very high ISO.

Who was DPP developed by?

Now that I am done being a smart a$$ lol...I wil say that I never really thought about using it until right now.

It would make sense that Canon would be able to develop the best software to correct for noise, because they designed the sensor+camera.

I think that's the point exactly. Canon didn't have to reverse-engineer DPP as Adobe has to do with ACR. From what I can figure out, the difference is really apparent the higher your ISO climbs. I must admit, however, that I'm still using ACR with my 7D and haven't tried DPP since I first bought my 30D years ago. I use an LR3/CS5 workflow and the thought of adding DPP to the mess terrifies me.

EDIT:

For those interested, here's a link to a discussion of the merits of DPP as well as the advantage of moving away from AWB

http://www.birdphotographers.net/fo...SO-Avocet-shot&p=546496&highlight=#post546496

 

[xsouthpawed]

For high school sports, a 70-200 2.8 is almost required. I shot an indoor basketball game and a few night football games and both of which are pushing it at f/2.8 and 1600-3200 ISO (which is fine for the 7D).

Unfortunately.. I don't exactly have the money for a f/2.8 =\
hopefully I'll be able to make do with my f/4..

At least I am reassured that 7D is the next stop The ISO performance is almost godly compared to my 10D >.>

So i guess next upgrade after that is a better walk around? I don't even have the 28-135mm mentioned.. it's the 28-105.

 

[cfusionpm]

For high school sports, a 70-200 2.8 is almost required. I shot an indoor basketball game and a few night football games and both of which are pushing it at f/2.8 and 1600-3200 ISO (which is fine for the 7D).

Unfortunately.. I don't exactly have the money for a f/2.8 =\
hopefully I'll be able to make do with my f/4..

At least I am reassured that 7D is the next stop The ISO performance is almost godly compared to my 10D >.>

So i guess next upgrade after that is a better walk around? I don't even have the 28-135mm mentioned.. it's the 28-105.

Oh?? Your signature lists the 28-135...

Anyway, the f/4 should do fine in most situations and will still be a LOT more useful on the 7D than on a 10D. The only tricky parts will come if you have to shoot late night games an hour or so more after sundown. You may need to hike it up to 6400 ISO, but if your end images are going to be for web or school newspaper, IQ really shouldn't be a deal breaker with some moderate noise reduction in LR3 (or other "smart" NR software).

 

[Garbz]

Will this pose an issue?

Depends entirely on if you have some stupid compulsion to zoom all photos to 100% and then stare at the sharpness. Personally I prefer to see my photos full size. That's rarely larger than 1920x1200 since that's my monitor res, and on a 10x5 pic it doesn't make a difference if my camera is 10mpx or 100mpx either.

 

[Neil S.]

.

 

[icassell]

This is from this morning with the 7D and Canon EF400mm f/5.6L -- 1/1250sec f/7.1 @ ISO 3200 handheld. I think it survives the high ISO pretty well and this was a significant crop too.

 

[xsouthpawed]

Oh?? Your signature lists the 28-135...

Anyway, the f/4 should do fine in most situations and will still be a LOT more useful on the 7D than on a 10D. The only tricky parts will come if you have to shoot late night games an hour or so more after sundown. You may need to hike it up to 6400 ISO, but if your end images are going to be for web or school newspaper, IQ really shouldn't be a deal breaker with some moderate noise reduction in LR3 (or other "smart" NR software).

My bad
I'll change it. it is the 28-105 though

I dunno if it makes a difference but it's the yearbook with color print ..
I have PS CS4