7D's high mp count

xsouthpawed · Sep 10, 2010

So. I'm just about dead set on getting the 7D (probably within 2 months)
Right now, I have a 10D with a broken AF (I think my uncle dropped it into the water once and got it repaired before it got handed down to me) So I desperately need a new body. But recently I was looking around TPF and there were a lot of complaints/comments about needing higher quality glass for the high density in the 7D's sensor. My worry is, If I do get the 7D, I probably won't be able to get any new glass for a while (the ones that I do have is listed below). I'm mainly concerned about my "walkaround" 28-105. I'm pretty sure it's as old as my 10D... Will this pose an issue?

Thanks

P.S. I've seen a lot of posters recommend the EFS 17-55 2.8 for the 7D. Are there any EF / Sigma / Tamron recommendations for the 7D too? (I kind of want to stay away from EF-S, since there is the possibility that I might eventually get a FF years later.

)

icassell · Sep 10, 2010

My 'walkaround' lens for my 7D is my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (the older one -- not the one with IS). I bought it several years ago for my 30D and it works great with the 7D as well. I've seen them for sale used for ~$350. It is an EF-S mount, though, so will not work properly with a FF camera.

cfusionpm · Sep 10, 2010

Here's a way to think about it: if you take a shot with the 7D and resize it down to the 10D's 6.3MP, it will probably look no different. The high MP count may be limiting on cheaper glass, but unless you're making giant 36x24" prints or zoom in to 100% on a big monitor, you probably won't tell much of a difference. Those who preach that the 7D is utterly unusable with anything but the best of glass have probably never actually used one. Yes, it's not going to be an ideal image without ideal glass, but the image coming from a poor lens is going to look poor no matter what body it's on. All the other lenses listed should excel on the 7D.

As far as staying away from EF-S, I say embrace it. You shoot with a crop, why not try to get the best out of it? I've gotten some amazing shots with my 10-22, and the 17-55 proves very useful and versatile.

pbelarge · Sep 10, 2010

southpaw
I shoot the 50 1.4 with my 7D, and I am quite happy with the results, you can be very creative - just use your nogin.

I do not have the other lenses, so I cannot say much about them.

rufus5150 · Sep 10, 2010

cfusionpm said:
Here's a way to think about it: if you take a shot with the 7D and resize it down to the 10D's 6.3MP, it will probably look no different. The high MP count may be limiting on cheaper glass, but unless you're making giant 36x24" prints or zoom in to 100% on a big monitor, you probably won't tell much of a difference. Those who preach that the 7D is utterly unusable with anything but the best of glass have probably never actually used one. Yes, it's not going to be an ideal image without ideal glass, but the image coming from a poor lens is going to look poor no matter what body it's on. All the other lenses listed should excel on the 7D.

As far as staying away from EF-S, I say embrace it. You shoot with a crop, why not try to get the best out of it? I've gotten some amazing shots with my 10-22, and the 17-55 proves very useful and versatile.

The one place you will see an effect is using canned processing tools such as Topaz Adjust and other things that boost local contrast or use some form of smart sharpening (OnOne's detail finder tool is guilty). On the 7D, those out-of-focus areas can all of a sudden look incredibly noisy because of the slight stipple effect of the pixel density on the 7D (and yes, I have one and I shoot with L, non-L and have shot with sub-par glass on it). You can deal with it, but if you're used to dealing with images coming out of an XTi or something in the 10mp range and then later dealing with the 7D, you have to adjust your post process tactics a bit to deal with those situations. The L or other HQ glass doesn't eliminate the problem, but does mask it more.

xsouthpawed · Sep 11, 2010

Well in that case... would it be better for me to invest into a better walk-around or a faster telephoto prime? (I'm thinking 200mm f2.8 L)

Not that I'd be able to get it right away.. but something to set my sights upon after the body

Btw. I'm going to be shooting high school sports (dark gyms ugh) along with dances and such. My equipment is listed below

Neil S. · Sep 11, 2010

cfusionpm said:
Here's a way to think about it: if you take a shot with the 7D and resize it down to the 10D's 6.3MP, it will probably look no different. The high MP count may be limiting on cheaper glass, but unless you're making giant 36x24" prints or zoom in to 100% on a big monitor, you probably won't tell much of a difference. Those who preach that the 7D is utterly unusable with anything but the best of glass have probably never actually used one. Yes, it's not going to be an ideal image without ideal glass, but the image coming from a poor lens is going to look poor no matter what body it's on. All the other lenses listed should excel on the 7D.

As far as staying away from EF-S, I say embrace it. You shoot with a crop, why not try to get the best out of it? I've gotten some amazing shots with my 10-22, and the 17-55 proves very useful and versatile.

I agree that EF-S lenses can be a good alternative to L glass when you are starting out.

It is wise to try and look ahead when buying them though.

I would really like to upgrade to a 5D mk III when its released. This would also require that I buy new zooms in the 16-35 and 24-70 range, since I only have a 35mm prime.

If I had just bought 2 L zooms instead of my EF-S lenses then this wouldnt be a problem.

Its just something I recommend people keep in mind.

cfusionpm · Sep 11, 2010

xsouthpawed said:
Well in that case... would it be better for me to invest into a better walk-around or a faster telephoto prime? (I'm thinking 200mm f2.8 L)

Not that I'd be able to get it right away.. but something to set my sights upon after the body

Btw. I'm going to be shooting high school sports (dark gyms ugh) along with dances and such. My equipment is listed below

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). A 200 prime may be a bit long on a crop body; especially for any indoor stuff. A 17-55 2.8 would be nice for dances when you want wide shots in low light, (but the 50 1.4 can perform well here with enough room for tighter shots, and is a lot faster lens).

There's no one lens that will do it all, so pick what you need most and work within that budget until you have everything you need. I only say this because I feel very comfortable with the lenses I have now, and really have no intention of adding to my setup any time soon. I spent time saving and upgrading until I had (more or less) the range from 10mm-200mm covered, with 17mm and on at f/2.8.

pbelarge · Sep 11, 2010

xsouthpawed said:
Well in that case... would it be better for me to invest into a better walk-around or a faster telephoto prime? (I'm thinking 200mm f2.8 L)

Not that I'd be able to get it right away.. but something to set my sights upon after the body

Btw. I'm going to be shooting high school sports (dark gyms ugh) along with dances and such. My equipment is listed below

I know you may be waiting, which is a good idea. Shoot with what you have for now and see how you adjust.

Neil S. said:
I would really like to upgrade to a 5D mk III when its released. This would also require that I buy new zooms in the 16-35 and 24-70 range, since I only have a 35mm prime.

If they ever do decide to make a MKiii...:mrgreen:

cfusionpm said:
xsouthpawed said:

Well in that case... would it be better for me to invest into a better walk-around or a faster telephoto prime? (I'm thinking 200mm f2.8 L)

Click to expand...

How well will his 70-200 f4 work in the conditions he is describing?

xsouthpawed · Sep 11, 2010

To be honest. I've been using the 70-200mm f4 a LOT recently because it's the only lens that has a focus ring that I like (all the other ones are too small/rough for me)

I haven't been able to try the 70-200mm much in conjunction with sports yet.. (My manual focus isn't good enough to keep).

Scatterbrained · Sep 11, 2010

I think my sig says it all.

Derrel · Sep 11, 2010

If the 7D sensor were expanded from its small APS-C 1.6x size of 329 square millimeters in area to a full-frame 24x36mm sensor of 864 square millimeters, the resulting pixel density would make for a 46.74 megapixel sensor. Your aging 28-105 Canon zoom will look rather sub-par on an 18MP sensor. The fallacious argument that, "a poor lens is going to look like a poor lens no matter what body it's on" ignores the realities of optics; a medium format camera lens that is 50 years old, single-coated, and only "average" optically will beat the pants off of a lens designed for 35mm and which is "excellent", but which happens to be capturing on the tiny 24x36mm caprture size.

Of course, it takes an honest, experienced worker like rufus to state that, yes, the 7D's image files tend to be noisy compared with those from other cameras, and that yes, the 7D's incredibly high pixel density is out-stripping the ability of regular Canon lenses,and that yes, the better image quality route means that 17.8 MP on the smallest APS-C sensor (Canon's 1.6x size), multiplied by 2.62x larger area to get to FF equals a 46.74 megapixel sensor density.

It has already been proven,empirically, not "theoretically" that the Nikon D3x's 24 megapixel sensor is causing diffraction limiting BEFORE f/5.6...the theoretical charts Matt referenced last week from cambridge in color are nice, but they ignore actual,real-world tests and ignore things like the anti-aliasing filter,moire, and are purely theoretical calculations, performed years ago, back when Canon's 11 MP full-frame 1Ds was the top camera.

In answer to your question: the 28-105 will not cut the mustard on a 17.8 MP small-sensor camera. 17.8MP on 1.6x is a nice marketing ploy that hurts color saturation and dynamic range, and leads to MASSIVE noise at elevated ISO settings...17.8 MP on 1.6x is a marketing-driven move that makes consumers think they can crop the daylights out of the images, but what it really does is pushes the images farther and farther down the lens MTF curve...so the images from the 7D really do not look that much better than 12MP images at normal ISO settings, and as far as lens performance goes, the 46.74 MP FF "equivalent" density of the 7D means you're better off getting a full-frame camera, or even a 1.3x body, if you want to get good images with "normal" Canon lenses. 7D images suffer from lower contrast, since they are farther down the MTF performance curve of each and every lens, compared with a more typical camera with lower pixel density using the same lens. (this isn't opinion, it's optics).

Those who happen to own a particular,pet item are often unwilling to concede that it has any problems or issues,whatsoever; rufus is an exception in this particular example. He admits that, like my Canon 50mm 1.4, his 50/mm 1.4 also suffers from focus "hiccups" at times; he also notes how the 7D's noise issues are actually visible. The 7D is a serious user's camera, and its pixel density means that a huge percentage of lenses are now the limiting factor. Kit zooms, and consumer lenses, and most of the prosumer glass in actual use right now is simply NOT good enough to leverage a sensor with the smallest pixels EVER found in ANY Canon d-slr camera...the 7D has bypassed the abilities that "most" lenses actually have. That's a simple fact. A few years ago, when we were shooting at 6, 8,and 10 MP on APS-C, the SENSOR was the limiting factor. Now, at 17.8 on 1.6x the sensor is better than the lenses....WHY is this so hard to accept for some people?? People who have never shot full-frame, and yet constantly maintain that the 7D is "better" than sensors that are 2.6x greater in area, and which have bigger, more light-sensitive pixels AND have more, total pixels???

Let's put the pro-Canon spin on it, shall we? "The Canon 7D's sensor is so high-density and so high-resolution that it is better than almost any regular Canon lenses on the market now, except for the very-best L-series lenses shot at their best apertures."

xsouthpawed · Sep 11, 2010

phew. That was a lot to read through Derrel, but I think I get your point.

On the other hand, am I wrong to think that 7D is the next body for me? I WILL be shooting sports, and I really want the video capabilities. (I will be making promo vids and such for my yearbook)

So bottom line, would the 50D + HD video camera < the $1500 I'm paying for the 7D?

This megapixel stuff is really worrying me. I don't want to buy a body just to find out that all my lens don't "perform" as great anymore.

cfusionpm · Sep 11, 2010

Derrel said:
It has already been proven,empirically, not "theoretically" that the Nikon D3x's 24 megapixel sensor is causing diffraction limiting BEFORE f/5.6...the theoretical charts Matt referenced last week from cambridge in color are nice, but they ignore actual,real-world tests and ignore things like the anti-aliasing filter,moire, and are purely theoretical calculations, performed years ago, back when Canon's 11 MP full-frame 1Ds was the top camera.

Oh Derrel, you never disappoint!

So here's what I shot and put together in the past half hour or so to try and demonstrate diffraction limitations in the 7D, using one of the lenses that the original poster owns:

Click the image for full res (taken from 100% crops):

Is that empirical enough for you?

It looks like diffraction seems to creep its way in around a tiny bit at f/11 and f/16. Looks pretty full-on at f/22, which is certainly a lot different than the ~f/4.5 or f/5.6 or whatever number you made up about the 7D. The chart you are referring to (and trying to totally dismiss without citing any link of your own) is this technical explaination diffraction and how it relates to aperture and pixel size. According to the calculations at the bottom for a 17.8MP 1.6x crop sensor, the DLA is a hair after f/8. Math is math; it really doesnt matter what camera was top at the time. It also states that it is a gradual process and not a harsh cutoff.

So please, Derrel, stop this foaming-at-the-mouth tirade against the 7D and it's high pixel density. Or if you are going to continue, please actually use the camera in question at length.

And as far as ISO performance, if this isn't good enough for you, then perhaps a $5,000-8,000 pro camera purchase is in order:

Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
ISO 3200, 1/400 sec @ f/2.8
Shot under garbage High School night lighting

Edit: in no way am I arguing the point on the 28-135 though. It's not a very good lens, and it's not going to look very good on the 7D. That said, without specific testing, I can't say how much (if any) worse it would look compared to original 10D shots. Would be something interesting to see (especially when downsized to match 10D resolution).

And back to the original poster, you can follow this witch hunt that Derrel is trying to stir up to justify his hatred for Canon, the 7D, and anything with a crop sensor and high megapixels. OR you could listen to people who have actually used, bought, and own the camera in question. Just some food for thought.