7D Image quality??

[Mike55]

Originally Posted by MakisM1

Well, to start with, don't expect miracles from the Tamron.

Second, when you pixel-peep at 1:1, don't expect extremely sharp interfaces.

Third, in the first (folliage) photo, you shutter speed is rather low. The old film rule that the minimum safe shutter speed is 1/FL should be updated to 1/(1.6xFL) to account for the 'effective' FL of the crop. Better yet, 1/(2xFL) if you have the light.

Fourth, now that the 5D3 is out, you start hearing stories about people having difficulties with the vaunted 7D AF. I believe that it has to do more with the complexity of the system that the operator has to master.

Read the manual, make test shots, ask specific questions with examples.

I have a 60D since last October, initially with the EF-S 18-200 mm. In the beginning I thought that the lens is soft, the AF is front focusing, etc etc. Over a period of 6 months, with specific practice/trial and error, I have improved the sharpness of my images considerably (before any PP).

This is a 100% crop from the 18-200



Exif intact (12/30/11)

...and the original photo

That shot looks slightly OOF.

[Mike55]

Originally Posted by TeamSpeed

A higher density of pixels recording movement at 100% leads one to try to get faster shutter speeds to get a more crisp shot. This has been discussed before, and even Canon talks about this in their white papers on the 18mpx crop bodies. It is a result of the pixel peeping disease that is rampant.

Yes, too bad pro stock agencies judge images at the pixel level...




For Johnny's First Family Picnic, it's fine.

[Mike55]

Originally Posted by cfcRebel

Yupe i MA the camera+lens combo, but then i have this HUGE question on microadjust that no one seems to be able to answer. Here it goes:
When one start MA the lens, i take it the person should turn the focus ring until the viewfinder shows everything is blurr. Then press the cable release to achieve the One Shot focus until the confirmation beep, right? (I assume the answer is: Right). Ok, my question is, which way should I turn the focus ring to deliberately blur the focus prior to half-press the cable release, to the macro side or to the infinity side? The reason i ask is, they (the turning sides) cause the AF to lock focus on different spot. A sample phenomenon that i encountered would be, if i blur the focus by turning the ring towards the macro side, half-press to AF would give me front focus. In contrast, turning it towards Inifitinity side, the AF nails the focus spot on. So, how should in interpret this?

You can bypass this by using the best MFA method:

http://www.ophrysphotography.co.uk/p...adjustment.htm

Scroll down to the last method on the page. This works best. Go outside, maybe put the laptop on a step ladder or chair, get a tripod, and place something with fur or feathers in a tree a good bit away.

[MakisM1]

Originally Posted by Mike55

That shot looks slightly OOF.

The focus point is at the eye of the squirrel, not its @ss...

Look at the Exif data... The DOF is less than an inch for 190 mm FL

[TeamSpeed]

Originally Posted by Mike55

Yes, too bad pro stock agencies judge images at the pixel level...




For Johnny's First Family Picnic, it's fine.

Not everyone on POTN has such agencies checking their work at that level, in fact, I daresay a majority of the pixel peepers are members themselves only, and not by any other 3rd party.

[tdodd]

Here is a 1920x1176 pixel screen print from Lightroom showing an example from my 7D at 100% from a raw file without edits. I've shown this as a Lightroom screen print so that you can see the absence of edits. Too soft? Naturally sharp (not over-sharpened)?

LINK Please make sure your browser does not resize the linked image.

Smaller version just to show what you're getting....



It's probably worth noting that when viewing on my 17" laptop a 7D file viewed at 100% would yield a virtual image 39" across, which is pretty large for scrutiny from 12-18" away. 4' would be a more suitable viewing distance for such an image size.

[jhayesvw]

Originally Posted by Mike55

The 7D also needs a higher shutter speed because of pixel density. No joke, but with the 40D and 420mm I could be fine at 1/60 on a monopod. With the 7D it's 1/160 minimum.

I know this is a lame question, but have you micro adjusted your lens? There's an awesome way to do it with a laptop and the EOS utility. Stick a stuffed animal in a tree that is your most common distance and have at it.

I have a question.
if the 40d is 10mp and the 7d is 18mp does that mean that the 7d on 50% crop will be comparable to the 40d on 100% crop?

[tdodd]

Originally Posted by jhayesvw

I have a question.
if the 40d is 10mp and the 7d is 18mp does that mean that the 7d on 50% crop will be comparable to the 40d on 100% crop?

No. A 50% view of a 7D file would give you an image of only ~4.5MP. It's half the height and half the width, giving only 1/4 the area and only 1/4 the pixels. 18/4 = 4.5.

A better fit would be to view the 7D file at 50% and the 40D file at 67%. That should yield pretty much the same sized file both in pixels and inches.

5184 * 50% = 2592
3888 * 67% = 2605

[Mike55]

Originally Posted by MakisM1

The focus point is at the eye of the squirrel, not its @ss...

Look at the Exif data... The DOF is less than an inch for 190 mm FL

Right. Still doesn't look "locked in". I'd toss that shot without thinking about it.

[MakisM1]

Originally Posted by Mike55

Right. Still doesn't look "locked in". I'd toss that shot without thinking about it.

Whatever rocks your boat...

[biggles99]

hi all, first time post here as i have just re-joined the canon stable (i have a film eos50e from days past but hadn't purchased a canon digital slr) having bought a 7D two days ago. I must say these types of threads make one very nervous about the choice, but I have literally seen this thread on EVERY brand of camera's forums, and often on nearly every camera model.

For me, it was simple. I've been using pentax gear for large field sports and wasn't convinced that the AF was nailing shots like i needed it too. I couldn't afford a 1-series canon, as a 50e owner i couldn't bring myself to own nikon, so the 7D's AF system stood out like a beacon.

I'm just hoping that any apparent lack of sharpness is able to be worked around. certainly, a quick look through these boards reveals no shortage of info, advice and/or opinions. I'll hire a lens or two before buying anything, process in LR and ultimately, if the results are not a clear step up from what i was getting previously, i'll just keep using the K5.

[h14nha]

Originally Posted by Mike55

Wow. I have perfect vision with no correction of any kind, and the difference is significant. Plus, the 5D II does not have that "waxy" look to the images the 7D has.

You continue to knock the 7d so why haven't you binned it ?? I have a 70-200 mk2, I can take it out with me instead of my 100-400 and happily crop significantly as its IQ is that good. You talk as if you have very high standards. If you find the 7d waxy, then no loss of focal length should compensate it from the 5dii.
You had both the 7d and 5dii, and, if the IQ is as significant as you proclaim, then you can easily demonstrate what your monitor is showing you what the rest of us can't see.
If you can't prove what you're saying then you should really stop spreading mis-information, which worries new comers to the 7d.
Welcome to the forum Biggles99. I can't comment on the Pentax, but you will get great images from your 7d, it just takes a little while to get used to it's AF..........

[AlanU]

Biggles,

shoot away with your 7D and you will be the one to determine if you like your 7D output.

If you have an IPS lcd panel it will show more details or lack of when you do comparisons to other camera files.

If you compare your pentax raw files to a 7D you will notice immediately that the 7D has a soft fine hazy sharpness. I know this description sounds odd but but the 7D will require more sharpening. As you add sharpness you'll increase the noise. As you hit the RAW file with NR (noise reduction) you'll loose detail. If you look at skin textures MIKE55 mentions "waxy". This is not far from the truth when you try to clean up noise on human subjects. Hairy animals or feathered friends or architecture can get away with the 7D characteristics more than human skin textures.

In many cases you can see websize photos (low res) exhibiting this smooth unrealistic skin textures. Post processing varies from every individual but a high percentage you'll see aggressive sharpening and aggressive NR hit with alot on the "detail" slider in Lightroom.

I wanted to love the 7D raw files but the files just didn't work for me. The 5dmk2 Raw file can be manipulated much more (ridiculously sharper) and work with my non sports photography.

If you print alot you'll get good results using a 7D.

[TeamSpeed]

I agree with the NR vs sharpening vicious circle, but at high ISOs like 12800, that is to be expected, unfortunately, especially from almost 3 year old tech. There wasn't much detail left in her skin at this point, a bit around her cheeks though. The 100% is from a 8x10 print size.

This cheerleader is actually this white with lots of makeup on, she is kinda scary looking actually in person, like she never sees the sun. She is also a hypochondriac, it is quite amusing to talk to her. Just to give some basis to her complexion.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by Mike55

That shot looks slightly OOF.

It's because it was shot at 1/50 of a second, with a focal length of 190mm. Since it has IS, the overall shot is probably fine, but subject motion is apparent in the whiskers. I expect that's why the shot isn't perfectly clear at the pixel level.