Canon 7d out of my skill set?

[Jeremy Z]

I shot my SLR for the first time in a while yesterday, and noticed the same results you're describing.

After looking through and editing the images, I found two causes:

A. shooting hand held with too slow of a shutter speed, and forgot to turn on the anti shake. Check the EXIF data and see how your camera was set for the images you don't like.

B. wrong focal point. I had set the camera to automatically choose the focal point, and it chose poorly sometimes. After setting it to only use the center focus sensor, and me manually choosing the focal point, I got what I was after. You can check for this in your images by looking at different parts of the pics and see if other points are sharp instead of your intended point.

Also, if you are using a crop lens on a full frame body, the results will never be up to par.

 

[analog.universe]

I'll repeat what I said though, I've never had a use for anything at 100% zoom... some rare situations, giant prints, whatever, you might. I think most of the time though, chasing pixel-peep worthy sharpness is unnecessary.

 

[Ricky21]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw? Also, so you're saying I would have the same problem with the 60D since it has same sensor with my current glass? And, if I zoom into 60%, and it's sharp then I should be ok?

 

[analog.universe]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw? Also, so you're saying I would have the same problem with the 60D since it has same sensor with my current glass? And, if I zoom into 60%, and it's sharp then I should be ok?

Basically, if it looks sharp enough for you in the format where the image will ultimately be seen, then it's fine. If you want to view it on a computer monitor full screen, and it looks good, then it's good. If you want 4x6 prints and they're good, then they're good. If you want a big 16x20 to hang on the wall, then you're probably going to have to put a little more effort in and possibly upgrade some glass. 18mp is a lot, you won't need all of it _most_ of the time.

And, technically any edit you do is better if you do it to a raw (or 16-bit tiff). The more data you have to work with, the less of a chance of round-off error or some other artifact from the software. That being said... for something subtle like a small radius unsharp mask, you should be fine doing it jpg, most of the time I do it to the jpg. Just make sure the sharpening is the last part of workflow, after the resizes and everything else. Don't sharpen your 100% images unless you're going to print them 100%.

 

[MLeeK]

When you apply it to a raw image you are using a smart filter or you have flattened the raw into a jpeg. Yes, it's going to essentially produce the same result.
At 60% you are pretty OK.
Remember not to shoot wide open. There is CONSIDERABLE improvement in that lens just from f/2.8 to f/3.5. Make sure your shutter is fast enough-even if the subject isn't moving your hand does have vibrations and pressing the shutter causes movement. Remember that all raw images MUST be clarified with a post processing sharpening.

 

[Ricky21]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw? Also, so you're saying I would have the same problem with the 60D since it has same sensor with my current glass? And, if I zoom into 60%, and it's sharp then I should be ok?

Basically, if it looks sharp enough for you in the format where the image will ultimately be seen, then it's fine. If you want to view it on a computer monitor full screen, and it looks good, then it's good. If you want 4x6 prints and they're good, then they're good. If you want a big 16x20 to hang on the wall, then you're probably going to have to put a little more effort in and possibly upgrade some glass. 18mp is a lot, you won't need all of it _most_ of the time.

And, technically any edit you do is better if you do it to a raw (or 16-bit tiff). The more data you have to work with, the less of a chance of round-off error or some other artifact from the software. That being said... for something subtle like a small radius unsharp mask, you should be fine doing it jpg, most of the time I do it to the jpg. Just make sure the sharpening is the last part of workflow, after the resizes and everything else. Don't sharpen your 100% images unless you're going to print them 100%.

Does taking that quality down on the camera help anything, or is that not a true reduction in MP? (taking from L to some other quality). Also, again, another dumb question, but is there any actual resizing done to an image to produce different prints, or is it a matter of computer or print lab applying the size during printing. (i.e., printing a 4x6 or a 12x18 from my original cropped image size)

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I'd like to add that a good monitor is also requisite to the body and lens. Not sure what is being used, but it is as important as anything else in seeing what the actual image is.

 

[KmH]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw?

Yes, vastly different.

First, there is no .raw. There are over 100 Raw file formats, most of them are proprietary, like Nikon's .NEF and Canon's .CR2.

A JPEG gets sharpened in the camera, and it gets reduced from a 12 or 14-bit file to an 8-bit file. Additionally the pixels get constrained into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixels Minimum Coded Units. All of which leaves little, if any, editing headroom for a JPEG file. Tutorials – The RAW File Format

JPEG is intended to be a final, straight out of the camera, ready-to-print file type that will not be edited further.

 

[analog.universe]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw? Also, so you're saying I would have the same problem with the 60D since it has same sensor with my current glass? And, if I zoom into 60%, and it's sharp then I should be ok?

Basically, if it looks sharp enough for you in the format where the image will ultimately be seen, then it's fine. If you want to view it on a computer monitor full screen, and it looks good, then it's good. If you want 4x6 prints and they're good, then they're good. If you want a big 16x20 to hang on the wall, then you're probably going to have to put a little more effort in and possibly upgrade some glass. 18mp is a lot, you won't need all of it _most_ of the time.

And, technically any edit you do is better if you do it to a raw (or 16-bit tiff). The more data you have to work with, the less of a chance of round-off error or some other artifact from the software. That being said... for something subtle like a small radius unsharp mask, you should be fine doing it jpg, most of the time I do it to the jpg. Just make sure the sharpening is the last part of workflow, after the resizes and everything else. Don't sharpen your 100% images unless you're going to print them 100%.

Does taking that quality down on the camera help anything, or is that not a true reduction in MP? (taking from L to some other quality). Also, again, another dumb question, but is there any actual resizing done to an image to produce different prints, or is it a matter of computer or print lab applying the size during printing. (i.e., printing a 4x6 or a 12x18 from my original cropped image size)

I don't like to shoot low res in camera just because it feels limiting. I always keep an original RAW for every image, and that way I can make my decisions later. What if you grab some amazing shot that you want to print large, but you've only got half the resolution you need?

Depending on which lab you use and how you deliver your images, various types of processing can occur. The printer that it gets printed on will have a native resolution however, and at some point, the image will need to be sized to match that, often this is the lab's responsibility. When we start talking about the details of print though, it gets a little out of my league. I'll link you to a good article I read and then hope someone more knowledgeable can fill in the rest. : )

How Big Can I Print by Thom Hogan

 

[analog.universe]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw?

Yes, vastly different.

First, there is no .raw. There are over 100 Raw file formats, most of them are proprietary, like Nikon's .NEF and Canon's .CR2.

A JPEG gets sharpened in the camera, and it gets reduced from a 12 or 14-bit file to an 8-bit file. Additionally the pixels get constrained into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixels Minimum Coded Units. All of which leaves little, if any, editing headroom.

JPEG is intended to be a final, straight out of the camera, ready-to-print file type that will not be edited further.

There is also the type of jpg that comes out of your raw converter, not the camera, which has had no sharpening applied. (unless you've asked for it). I find sharpening these files a little to be no problem at all.

 

[Ricky21]

So, I guess in talking with my friends and reading a lot of the above commentary, that it appears the 7D is outperforming my current Tamron glass due to sensor type and 18MP performance. I am within the 30 day return window with Amazon, and could return without a big deal. I do a lot of general shooting of kids and playing around. nothing too serious, but loved the thought of the 7D with some extra money I was saving. It sounds like the 60D may yield me the same results to comparable MP and sensor. Do you think the 50D would get me the sharpness I'm looking for with my current glass set-up? I want to make a good decision and get sharp photos with my current glass. It looks like the 50D may have a different sensor??, and I know it has less MP. Thoughts please?

 

[KmH]

Dumb question, but is applying the unsharp mask to a .jpeg going to be different than applying to .raw?

Yes, vastly different.

First, there is no .raw. There are over 100 Raw file formats, most of them are proprietary, like Nikon's .NEF and Canon's .CR2.

A JPEG gets sharpened in the camera, and it gets reduced from a 12 or 14-bit file to an 8-bit file. Additionally the pixels get constrained into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixels Minimum Coded Units. All of which leaves little, if any, editing headroom.

JPEG is intended to be a final, straight out of the camera, ready-to-print file type that will not be edited further.

There is also the type of jpg that comes out of your raw converter, not the camera, which has had no sharpening applied. (unless you've asked for it). I find sharpening these files a little to be no problem at all.

Raw converters sharpen every image as part of the Raw conversion process, in addition to other manipulation of the Raw file like demosaicing and the application of non-linear luminosity adjustments.

 

[analog.universe]

So, I guess in talking with my friends and reading a lot of the above commentary, that it appears the 7D is outperforming my current Tamron glass due to sensor type and 18MP performance. I am within the 30 day return window with Amazon, and could return without a big deal. I do a lot of general shooting of kids and playing around. nothing too serious, but loved the thought of the 7D with some extra money I was saving. It sounds like the 60D may yield me the same results to comparable MP and sensor. Do you think the 50D would get me the sharpness I'm looking for with my current glass set-up? I want to make a good decision and get sharp photos with my current glass. It looks like the 50D may have a different sensor??, and I know it has less MP. Thoughts please?

The sharpness of the glass depends on the glass only. Putting it on a lower resolution body only gets you lower resolution. Sharpness really has nothing at all to do with the body until you start printing crazy large. The advantages of the 7D are the build quality, autofocus system, frame rate, processing speed, etc...

Getting sharp photos with your current glass is just about technique, and pretty much non-dependant on the body. That glass does have limitations however, and the high resolution body make it easier to see those limitations. It doesn't mean the lens is performing any worse, you're just seeing how bad it's performing more clearly. This is why folks spend so much money on glass. Making a nice lens is not an easy thing, every design makes compromises, and designs based on affordability make a lot of compromises. A lens that's sharp enough to look good at 100% across the frame at 18mp is a rare and expensive thing. A zoom lens that can do it even more so... As I mentioned though, for most applications, it doesn't matter if it looks good at 100%.

It doesn't matter that the 7D outperforms the Tamron, the 60D and 50D will also... At normal viewing sizes, my guess is the lens looks fine, no matter what body you shoot it on. If you really want super sharp so you can print super large, you need a different lens.

 

[analog.universe]

Yes, vastly different.

First, there is no .raw. There are over 100 Raw file formats, most of them are proprietary, like Nikon's .NEF and Canon's .CR2.

A JPEG gets sharpened in the camera, and it gets reduced from a 12 or 14-bit file to an 8-bit file. Additionally the pixels get constrained into 8x8, 8x16, or 16x16 pixels Minimum Coded Units. All of which leaves little, if any, editing headroom.

JPEG is intended to be a final, straight out of the camera, ready-to-print file type that will not be edited further.

There is also the type of jpg that comes out of your raw converter, not the camera, which has had no sharpening applied. (unless you've asked for it). I find sharpening these files a little to be no problem at all.

Raw converters sharpen every image as part of the Raw conversion process, in addition to other manipulation of the Raw file like demosaicing and the application of non-linear luminosity adjustments.

Some RAW converters give you control over whether or not sharpening is done, and others do not even have a sharpening module. I use UFRAW, which does not provide any sharpening, which is fine for me, because I prefer none to be done before I resize. Sharpening a full size image, and then resizing it can lead to aliasing, so I take an unsharpened image off the raw converter, and only sharpen after I've decided on the output size. (normally, there are exceptions like anything else). I've noticed that ACR does have several type of sharpening algorithms built in, so it depends on which tool you use and how you like your workflow.

 

[Ricky21]

Thank you. Very helpful. I want to upgrade to the canon 24-70mm f2.8L for my general shooting, as I think this one is comparable to my tamron only better.

Would this be a good next purchase for 7d