Canon 7D IQ Poor Quality?

[wideangle]

I came across this review of the Canon 7D and thought it was interesting in the end results. I'm not saying it's poor quality, tend to agree with replies that it may have something to do with the filter in camera. I would have liked to have seen images sharpened in post processing so see if the details could be bought out

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

[NGP]

that's a first I've ever seen or heard about it.. my own testing has confirmed otherwise, as have x amounts of other reviews out there.. ;)

[Fotodude]

I recently came across this review, and it is the first non complimentary one I have found. Having not purchased one of these yet, it has made me have a serious think.

The person doing the review is respected (& does know what he is talking about), so the results being shared cannot simply be dismissed.

I would really like to read a follow up review by someone that has good enough knowledge to objectively confirm or dispute the findings of this review.

Cheers
Matt.

[wideangle]

Yes, it would be interesting to see other reviews as well. I have heard word of mouth from reputable people with experience in the industry similar thoughts to the above review of the 7D. But I was hard pressed to find any online reviews that supported the issues of softer images from the camera. As the 7D makes its way into the market more I will be interested to see more reviews and if this issue pops up.

[hoffy]

Just had a look for giggles. Don't particularly like the way they have zoomed in on the detail. if they were using exactly the same variables, why did the samples zoomed in on the 7D look much bigger at times?

That being said, where they were the same size, to have a 400D (or what ever it is called) out perform the 7D is of some concern? Maybe its the lens that is the problem point?

[mclean8]

i been peeping my pixels cause of this review.

i do not concur. 40d vs 7d with 85 1.2 @ f16, mirror lockup, live view focus, picked best of 4 samples, sorry the lighting didn't stay the same through the test though. lightroom 2.6 rc1 as raw converter, adobe standard as camera profile, default sharpening in lightroom (25, 1.0, 25, 0). into photoshop and 40d file up-rezed using bicubic smoother, even before up-rez the diff was obvious. 100% crops of focus target, windy day in melbourne so no shots of leaves.

distance is not infinity, just across the street, 20 or 30 metres away i guess.

[hoffy]

OK, which is which?

[mclean8]

7d on top, 40d below.

lighting was probably just more favourable when 7d was being used.

[Clubmanmc]

have a look at Allan and my thread about the 7 v 5 v 50 v 40 D (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=42417) comparison

M

[jev]

I don't say the the 7D is sharper than the others tested, but what nags me is the statement "RAW without sharpening". That simply indicates to me they did not try to get the maximum out of the camera.

[spinner]

My first post here, so be kind...:)

For any published "opinions", there will always be counter arguments:

http://www.prophotohome.com/news/2009/11/19/canon-7d-worse-than-canon-rebel-xsi/

[wideangle]

Thought I would drag this thread up again, as I am looking at getting the 7D and I want to like it, but I keep on seeing reports and reviews that otherwise suggest that the 7D seems to have questionable results coming from it in terms of sharpness. Maybe it's just easier to look at all the "negative" reports rather than all the users and reviews that praise the camera. What have your experiences been? Are such reports always typical when a new camera comes out, or is there something going on here? I want one! :)

Maybe it's also something to do with how each person is going to judge image sharpness/detail etc. I have heard that because the 7D has 18MP on a crop sensor means that there the low pass filter is stronger to combat noise from images. Maybe this is a major reasons for reviews saying the camera is soft? I have found all Canon SDLR's to need sharpening from the base level of 0, especially in RAW images, needing +1 or +2 in DPP software. Do you find you need to sharpen images some more with the 7D compared to other cameras? Importantly, does this bring good results, and does it degrade IQ?

[MarkChap]

I don't know how you judge sharpness, but this is at 12800 ISO f4.5 (wide open, not the best place to shoot at any time) with the siggy 120-400 hand held with OS on, absolutley no processing

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4362197842_f197650f3f.jpg

See this thread for a for a flower 7D and 85 f1.8 @ f2.8 http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=50535

I have not particularly noticed that I need to apply more or less sharpening in post than I did with my 40D

I have a gallery of tri-athlon images here 7 February 2010 (http://photographingcq.com/gallery/Triathlon/7%20February%202010/index.html)
No sharpening applied at all, just converted from RAW to jpg by selecting the images and the using Image Processor from the photoshop menu item in Bridge, so there may have been a small amount of default sharpening applied.
All the images from the 7 February Gallery are with the 7D and predominantly my 70-200 Tamron, a few of the first cycle images were with the 85f1.8

[MarkChap]

Couldn't resist, here is one example

http://photographingcq.com/gallery/Triathlon/7%20February%202010/slides/frogs_tri_070210_0134.jpg

[wideangle]

Have you got a 100 per cent crop of the image, as it's hard to tell detail sharpness from such small images.

[MarkChap]

To start with I have no idea what you mean by a 100 per cent crop,

All I can say is these are both full frame images, I don't pixel peep, I can probably arrange to load up the RAW files on my server this evening (probably around 5:00pm) and you can then down load them and peep to what ever level takes your fancy :)

PM me you email address and I will shoot you an email once I have them loaded on

[wideangle]

To start with I have no idea what you mean by a 100 per cent crop,

All I can say is these are both full frame images, I don't pixel peep, I can probably arrange to load up the RAW files on my server this evening (probably around 5:00pm) and you can then down load them and peep to what ever level takes your fancy :)

PM me you email address and I will shoot you an email once I have them loaded on

Hey, just mean a section of the whole image. It's hard to tell if an image is sharp from a smaller one.

[etherial]

How many times do you print or use an image at 100%? With 18MP the images are huge and even if you bugger the composition and crop out half the frame you still end up with plenty of pixels to play with.

Pixel peeping only messes with your head.

[fhphoto]

Agree with Etherial's view on pixel peeping

[rwg717]

Looks a dodgey deal to me:rolleyes:
Richard

[osiris2000]

I just got my 7D and to be honest photos are not tack sharp at CR2... I have read many mixed feelings regarding the sharpness of the 7D due to the filter canon have incorporated... On the other hand I have seen some lovely photos of people using the 7D. Does this mean maybe my 7D is at fault?? bad batch maybe?.. I don't really want to move onto a Nikon D700 as I have invested quite a lot in Canon, but amnot really happy with the 7D IQ, even my old 350D takes briliant photos... Is it just me or are there any others who feel the same way?

Thanks to all

J.

[ricktas]

All photos need sharpening out of digital cameras that are taken in RAW. End of story! Every camera and lens will deviate slightly from the average specifications. Forget about pixel peeping, take the photos and sharpen them in PP.

[peterking]

I just got my 7D and to be honest photos are not tack sharp at CR2... I have read many mixed feelings regarding the sharpness of the 7D due to the filter canon have incorporated... On the other hand I have seen some lovely photos of people using the 7D. Does this mean maybe my 7D is at fault?? bad batch maybe?.. I don't really want to move onto a Nikon D700 as I have invested quite a lot in Canon, but amnot really happy with the 7D IQ, even my old 350D takes briliant photos... Is it just me or are there any others who feel the same way?

Thanks to all

J.

It took me some time to convert from the 350D to the 7D with much agro in between. With some pointers from members of this forum I'm now getting better images with the 7D than I ever did with the 350D. The main thing I have done is relearnt how to take photo's. There is such a huge change from the 350 to the 7 that for me the only way was to forget what I did with the 350 and start afresh with the 7.

[Dylan & Marianne]

for landscape images, I've found that there is no issue with sharpness up to iso800 (which I don't tend to exceed anyway).
The only issue is noise which can be noticed even in well exposed images down to iso100 . That said, I've found noiseware pro or lightroom 3 fixes this very easily without affecting the end result after sharpening - most of the images I've been posting in the landscape section have recently been taken with the 7D ( CPL for the FF got smashed!)

[JM Tran]

How many times do you print or use an image at 100%? With 18MP the images are huge and even if you bugger the composition and crop out half the frame you still end up with plenty of pixels to play with.

Pixel peeping only messes with your head.

well the standard for judging sharpness of a sensor or/and lens is usually done by a 100% crop of a given photo. I can take a shot at F2 at 200mm of a person and without zooming into the photo it might look sharp - like the aforementioned photos - but what if myself or a client decides to enlarge the photo to say, 45x30 inch? Uh oh, it aint sharp when enlarged anymore......the onus is on you to know how to judge your photos

its not pixel peeping, its just a standardized way to test a lens or sensor performance at the centre and corner sharpness performance.

[etherial]

for landscape images, I've found that there is no issue with sharpness up to iso800 (which I don't tend to exceed anyway).
The only issue is noise which can be noticed even in well exposed images down to iso100 . That said, I've found noiseware pro or lightroom 3 fixes this very easily without affecting the end result after sharpening - most of the images I've been posting in the landscape section have recently been taken with the 7D ( CPL for the FF got smashed!)


I've enjoyed viewing your work, and also your tutorials. I wonder if you could give us some pointers on NR and sharpening in LR for the 7D? It is still something I haven't got my head around just yet.

[marcusb]

I got the exact same issues funnily enough. A complete amateur coming from a 450d and 50mm 1.4.

Now I've got the 7D and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm thinking, these images aren't sharp, too much noise, my lens has poor AF and AF issues, theres too many bloody in camera settings etc.

I really think this camera exposes a lack of understanding & skills. I find this really challenging with shooting kickboxing and thought I'd nail it now with this better equipment. I ended up with alot of OOF images and no sharpness.

Theres gotta be something about it, something to learn. I've managed to do alot better with landscapes/architecture at f8-f11.

Could it possibly be the lens and camera need to be calibrated. I'm getting extremely paranoid and looking for excuses elsewhere.

[Art Vandelay]

There's a few 7D owners on here, post up some pics with exif data attached and which Af point mode used. See if we can help.

[Clubmanmc]

I got the exact same issues funnily enough. A complete amateur coming from a 450d and 50mm 1.4.

Now I've got the 7D and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm thinking, these images aren't sharp, too much noise, my lens has poor AF and AF issues, theres too many bloody in camera settings etc.

I really think this camera exposes a lack of understanding & skills. I find this really challenging with shooting kickboxing and thought I'd nail it now with this better equipment. I ended up with alot of OOF images and no sharpness.

Theres gotta be something about it, something to learn. I've managed to do alot better with landscapes/architecture at f8-f11.

Could it possibly be the lens and camera need to be calibrated. I'm getting extremely paranoid and looking for excuses elsewhere.


shooting kick boxing with a Tamron F2.8 is your problem...

I shoot wrestling in similar situations with similar lighting... and have had lots of luck with either my 16-35 or 24-70 (F2.8) Canons on my 7D and a few older 40's and 30's

what people are misunderstanding, is that with an 18mp image, when you zoom in as far as you can, what looks to be OOF, would be just Square pixels at the zoom levels you have zoomed to

i have a few shots at 100% of cropped static shots of my living room at variable ISO levels testing the noise... and i am VERY happy with it...

M

[Dan Gamble]

There's a follow up to the original article HERE (http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/canon-7d-vs-the-canon-xsi/)

There's a bit of justification, back-tracking and some newer info and comparisons.

Useful follow-up I thought. A fair bit backs up what Rick and some others have said.