7D's high mp count

[cfusionpm]

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

Unless you're printing full pages at huge DPI, I wouldn't worry at all.

Considering you can print the 7D's 18mp image (5184x3456) in 11x17" at 300dpi, you shouldnt have any trouble whatsoever; even with full page prints. You'll have a lot of freedom to crop down or reduce the image size. I've gotten some very nice 8x10" prints off Mpix that look just great. :thumbup:

Be more worried about the content of the images than megapixels and image noise. The scene, the action, the emotion, the point of the picture. Below is a shot I took with my 50D at ISO3200 which looks pretty grainy and awful at full res. But it shows pride and emotion after a big play, which is a lot more important than a clean boring shot, IMO.

Let me reassure you that the 7D is a great and very capable camera that can produce some great images. It does amplify flaws in cheaper lenses, but unless you plan on printing high dpi poster-sized images, it's more or less a moot point. It will handle low light better than pretty much every other crop sensor body available today (at worst, equal to the D300s; despite having having a slightly smaller sensor AND higher pixel density). It will absolutely shine with a lens like the 70-200 f/4L. It has a lot of tools to help get great shots, including a lot of upgraded autofocus modes. It's a really great camera that has been very well recieved by owners and reviewers alike; anyone who says otherwise has probably never actually used one.

 

[xsouthpawed]

Thanks

Gives me a lot of confidence and a lot to look forward to too.
Can't wait. Just gotta get past that SAT now...

 

[shaunly]

No doubt the 7D is a GREAT cropped sensor camera, but it's hard to tell it's ISO capacity with these small low resolution images you guys are posting. My D90 at 3200ISO looks great also when the pictures are this small. I'm just saying, the OP might get the wrong impression because once he sees the full resolution or even at say 10MP, the ISO level is not going to be anything like these sample pictures.

 

[shaunly]

Below is a shot I took with my 50D at ISO3200 which looks pretty grainy and awful at full res. But it shows pride and emotion after a big play, which is a lot more important than a clean boring shot, IMO.

Great picture BTW. These days you can have both! Just have to know which camera to buy for your need.

 

[cfusionpm]

No doubt the 7D is a GREAT cropped sensor camera, but it's hard to tell it's ISO capacity with these small low resolution images you guys are posting. My D90 at 3200ISO looks great also when the pictures are this small. I'm just saying, the OP might get the wrong impression because once he sees the full resolution or even at say 10MP, the ISO level is not going to be anything like these sample pictures.

Below is a screen cap at full res to show what the image looks like at 100% as well as show how minimally NR was used:


(Click for full)

And below here is a screen cap of how tightly the image is cropped from the original:

To give you an idea of how nice this is, you could still print the fully cropped image as an 8x10" at 200dpi.

 

[shaunly]

^^Now that's more like it.

 

[prodigy2k7]

thats amazing, my XTi (400D) cant do that with its 10MP and crappy ISO performance.

 

[cfusionpm]

thats amazing, my XTi (400D) cant do that with its 10MP and crappy ISO performance.

Hey, I got some great shots out of my old XTi! Granted most of them were in nice, sunny daylight though

 

[prodigy2k7]

thats amazing, my XTi (400D) cant do that with its 10MP and crappy ISO performance.

Hey, I got some great shots out of my old XTi! Granted most of them were in nice, sunny daylight though

Oh ya, no doubt, its nice for outdoors with ISO 100-200 lol. I really hate using ISO 400 or higher. But I also cant crop that much (at least not with the lenses I have, maybe the 50mm, but thats a pretty decent crop!) You got what like 18MP? Looks good for that huge crap you did.

 

[cfusionpm]

Yeah, I remember never DARING to go to ISO 800 or above with mine! haha, how things have changed... :thumbup:

 

[Jaimiem]

I just sold my XTi and am picking up a 7D this weekend. I can't wait!!

 

[Derrel]

Diffraction is already affecting the lens fully at f/8 Matt,and it appears to begin at f/6.3, but then again, it takes a critical eye to see or admit that, not a biased eye to ignore it.
Also, try a subject that's not 1 inch tall; spread those 17.8 million pixels out over an area the size of the side of a house. Your test target is ridiculously tiny. Shoot a real test chart, not some white letters on brown, with a drop shadow to create false impression of detail...and, please, don;t try and sway me with pictures the size of a matchbook, where 18 million pixels are used to cover an area smaller than a candybar!!

Look--I'm a big,strong man--I can lift a can of tuna fish,with one hand!!!

versus

Look, I'm a big strong man, I can dead lift 550 pounds.

See the difference there? You're showing us a teeny-tiny little "sample" image that's ridiculously down-sized. And so, your point is, what????

Nice football shot...at the size of a postcard. How does the 100 percent pixel view look?

 

[cfusionpm]

I guess I'm not very strong if I can only dead 375. =/

 

[Neil S.]

Also, try a subject that's not 1 inch tall; spread those 17.8 million pixels out over an area the size of the side of a house. Your test target is ridiculously tiny. Shoot a real test chart, not some white letters on brown, with a drop shadow to create false impression of detail...and, please, don;t try and sway me with pictures the size of a matchbook, where 18 million pixels are used to cover an area smaller than a candybar!!

Derrel,

Please tell me how the 7D is different from any other APS-C vs. FF comparison.

I know that it's true that the 7D has more MP crammed into its small sensor compared to say a 300Ds. But there are comparisons that can be made between different FF bodies in this aspect as well.

How is this any different than a D3x and a 5D mk II sensor density comparison?

By your logic and reasoning, the D3x would be at a disadvantage because it has a higher pixel density compared to the 5D mk II for the same sensor size.

Keep in mind that their sensors are almost exactly the same size, and the D3x is actually 0.1mm smaller in width.

So because its bad to have a higher MP density I guess the D3x must have worse image quality compared to the 5D mk II then right?

Here is a breakdown of sensor size vs. pixel density:

- Canon 5D mk II (21.1MP)

36 x 24mm FF sensor (864 square mm)

The 5D mk II has a pixel density of 24,421 pixels per square mm (rounded up)

- Nikon D3x (24.5MP)

35.9 x 24mm FF sensor (861.6 square mm)

The D3x has a pixel density of 28,435 pixels per square mm (rounded down)

Now to include APS-C (and the 7D) in this comparison, here are the figures for the 7D and the D7000:

- Canon 7D (17.9MP)

22.6 x 14.9mm APS-C sensor (336.74 square mm)

The 7D has a pixel density of 53,157 pixels per square mm (rounded up)

- Nikon D7000 (16.2MP)

23.6 x 15.6mm APS-C sensor (352.56 square mm)

The D7000 has a pixel density of 45,950 pixels per square mm (rounded up)

Now what I don’t know here is if getting up into the 40,000-50,000+ range for pixel density per square mm somehow is a “limit” or "cap" where image quality starts to rapidly degrade.

Do you have any insights on this that are based on facts and not just opinion?

Remember that this isn’t only about the 7D. This is about sensor pixel density in general.

Neil

 

[cfusionpm]

^That's not really the argument to make, IMO. Derrel never seemed exactly pleased with the D7000's hike in MP, and has always held a negative attitude toward any crop, especially with a higher megapixel count. I think a better argument to make (with regards to high ISO) is that despite having a smaller sensor and despite having a significantly higher pixel density, the 7D performs just as well as (if not better than) the 12MP D300s.