Hate my 7D, what about a Mark IV instead?

Sovern wrote in post #15332133
Haha yea right . I'd rather just stick to the gear that I'm using and buy new lenses and eventually a full frame body. I just don't see the need for 18-22MP's.

Yeah, my goal was ISO 12800 that looks great, is croppable, and I am still able to print posters, and I am there with my equipment.

That's great but don't you agree that at iso 12800 the photo appears as if it as taken with a consumer grade point and shoot?

It lacks color and dynamic range maybe it's just me. I don't know the quality just looks really bad, highlights are clipped, there's a greenish tint, lots of noise and a lack of sharpness.

My goal is to be able to simply shoot portraiture and weddings I don't need to shoot sports or anything fast paced. 12MP can be blown up to poster size too, even 6MP is more than good enough for most prints I think that the new 18MP sensors are just Canon trying to keep up with Nikon or vice versa.

I have owned my 7D since 10/2009.

Below is the 34th picture: 18-135 lens that came with it, shot @ 85mm, f/11 @ 1/125, ISO 800

Sovern wrote in post #15332179
That's great but don't you agree that at iso 12800 the photo appears as if it as taken with a consumer grade point and shoot?

It lacks color and dynamic range maybe it's just me. I don't know the quality just looks really bad, highlights are clipped, there's a greenish tint, lots of noise and a lack of sharpness.

My goal is to be able to simply shoot portraiture and weddings I don't need to shoot sports or anything fast paced. 12MP can be blown up to poster size too, even 6MP is more than good enough for most prints I think that the new 18MP sensors are just Canon trying to keep up with Nikon or vice versa.

Well that shot is from the 1d4, and no that shot doesn't have what you say other than the wb may still be off as it is artificial light. There is absolutely no clipping, the only green on the shot is under her chin from a reflection off a table, and the details are sharp enough to render facial hair. Most likely the "noise" you keep seeing is nothing more than JPG artifacts from compression of the image due to POTN requirements and how it is being rendered on your screen of a machine that seems to chug on 18-22mpx images. Also in the blue area, what you may also be seeing is bokeh quality of an OOF window screen from the lens.

Since you keep using the same terms over and over, no matter what is posted unless it came from your camera, it is quite obvious what is going on here. You are making the right decision, stay with your XSi and $70 flash, as it seems you really have no need for much more and are able to make the most of that equipment. Your other posts in other threads are very interesting as well, where you say you have a calibrated monitor, and you could see things in photos others could not, even those that are professional photogs with high end equipment, then some of the shots you post as examples show the very thing you are pointing out in others' photos, sometimes worse. This thread in addition to how the Sigma lens thread went was very interesting. It sounds like this situation is a mix of "rose-colored glasses" and something to do with your computing equipment used to edit and view photos.

EDIT: I think it best to now get the thread back on track to being a comparison between the 7D and 1D4. If you would like to discuss dynamic ranges, colors, sharpness, etc of your XSi to any upgraded camera, I think it best to open a new thread and post your best samples to describe your concerns, and let others have a go, because we don't want this thread to be invariably locked down like the other(s). Good luck in your future endeavors.

Sovern wrote in post #15332179
That's great but don't you agree that at iso 12800 the photo appears as if it as taken with a consumer grade point and shoot?

It lacks color and dynamic range maybe it's just me. I don't know the quality just looks really bad, highlights are clipped, there's a greenish tint, lots of noise and a lack of sharpness.

My goal is to be able to simply shoot portraiture and weddings I don't need to shoot sports or anything fast paced. 12MP can be blown up to poster size too, even 6MP is more than good enough for most prints I think that the new 18MP sensors are just Canon trying to keep up with Nikon or vice versa.

Are you serious about that shot and comparing it to a P&S? I would kill to have a camera like the MK4 and shoot at THAT ISO and get THAT result.

Sovern wrote in post #15332179
That's great but don't you agree that at iso 12800 the photo appears as if it as taken with a consumer grade point and shoot?

It lacks color and dynamic range maybe it's just me. I don't know the quality just looks really bad, highlights are clipped, there's a greenish tint, lots of noise and a lack of sharpness.

My goal is to be able to simply shoot portraiture and weddings I don't need to shoot sports or anything fast paced. 12MP can be blown up to poster size too, even 6MP is more than good enough for most prints I think that the new 18MP sensors are just Canon trying to keep up with Nikon or vice versa.

Aside from the other very good points made above, I also want to point out that if you are printing at a decent 200 ppi and you want a 36x48 poster, you need an image that is 7200 x 9600 or about 69MP. Assuming that the viewing distance is a bit further away, quite possibly you could get away with 100 ppi but then you are still needing a 3600 x 4800 image. That's about 17 MP. Of course at that distance any noise has just disappeared. A 12MP camera at 36x48 would give you about 83ppi. At this print resolution, noise is going to be the least of your worries.

As for the ISO 12,800 image that looks like a consumer grade P&S, I am just laughing my rear off. A consumer grade P&S couldn't pull that off at ISO 800. Of course it is no better than a consumer grade P&S might produce had there been plenty of light to shoot at ISO 200 or so, but that's a completely difference scenario. You don't buy expensive gear to shoot the easy stuff. What you pay for is the ability to get the hard stuff that the cheap gear can't get.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15332718
Well that shot is from the 1d4, and no that shot doesn't have what you say other than the wb may still be off as it is artificial light. There is absolutely no clipping, the only green on the shot is under her chin from a reflection off a table, and the details are sharp enough to render facial hair. Most likely the "noise" you keep seeing is nothing more than JPG artifacts from compression of the image due to POTN requirements and how it is being rendered on your screen of a machine that seems to chug on 18-22mpx images. Also in the blue area, what you may also be seeing is bokeh quality of an OOF window screen from the lens.

Since you keep using the same terms over and over, no matter what is posted unless it came from your camera, it is quite obvious what is going on here. You are making the right decision, stay with your XSi and $70 flash, as it seems you really have no need for much more and are able to make the most of that equipment. Your other posts in other threads are very interesting as well, where you say you have a calibrated monitor, and you could see things in photos others could not, even those that are professional photogs with high end equipment, then some of the shots you post as examples show the very thing you are pointing out in others' photos, sometimes worse. This thread in addition to how the Sigma lens thread went was very interesting. It sounds like this situation is a mix of "rose-colored glasses" and something to do with your computing equipment used to edit and view photos.

EDIT: I think it best to now get the thread back on track to being a comparison between the 7D and 1D4. If you would like to discuss dynamic ranges, colors, sharpness, etc of your XSi to any upgraded camera, I think it best to open a new thread and post your best samples to describe your concerns, and let others have a go, because we don't want this thread to be invariably locked down like the other(s). Good luck in your future endeavors.

Why are you going off topic? You're thread digging because you got upset about what I said and going off topic to start an argument or make yourself feel better which is insane. Those photos were straight out of the camera no PP applied by the way but you're trying to start an argument because you're upset or so it seems and I understand you but please take it to the PM's as it's very immature. To me the photo that you posted at 12800 would not be considered useable on web let a lone print. Just because I have a different set of standards than you doesn't mean that you need to be upset. The quality of lighting that you posted photos of is no where near useable in my opinion on the web let a lone print.....

I mean really look at the green light under her chin, the blown highlights on her cheek, the distracting blue background that also has some blown highlights and even all of the noise in the overall photo even though it's resized at such a small resolution. I can;t image how terrible it must look as even a 4x6 let a lone a medium or large sized print and I saw other sports photos from you shot at iso 12800 that looked like they were taken with a cell phone under fluorescent lighting that was never corrected. If you can't see how bad these photos are than I think it's you that is seeing things through rose colored glasses and people are lying to you just to get on your good side.

kfreels wrote in post #15333603
Aside from the other very good points made above, I also want to point out that if you are printing at a decent 200 ppi and you want a 36x48 poster, you need an image that is 7200 x 9600 or about 69MP. Assuming that the viewing distance is a bit further away, quite possibly you could get away with 100 ppi but then you are still needing a 3600 x 4800 image. That's about 17 MP. Of course at that distance any noise has just disappeared. A 12MP camera at 36x48 would give you about 83ppi. At this print resolution, noise is going to be the least of your worries.

As for the ISO 12,800 image that looks like a consumer grade P&S, I am just laughing my rear off. A consumer grade P&S couldn't pull that off at ISO 800. Of course it is no better than a consumer grade P&S might produce had there been plenty of light to shoot at ISO 200 or so, but that's a completely difference scenario. You don't buy expensive gear to shoot the easy stuff. What you pay for is the ability to get the hard stuff that the cheap gear can't get.

I would never have a need for a 36X48 poster.....why would you make a post talking about making a poster size print when I never said that I would make one LOL. The largest print I'd probably make would be about 1/3rd the size of that......Also I'm talking about straight quality at 12800, if I shot a photo at iso 100 on my Kodak Point and Shoot it would look better than that image that was posted at iso 12800. The dynamic range and color that is killed at such high isos is very strong.

I have to admit I'm not impressed with what the 7D is capable of image quality wise, a lot of the images being posted with it are soft and have poor dynamic range at higher isos......I think that Canon killed it with the high MP sensor's as a lot of other people think the same.

Sovern, I haven't seen a single example from you to back up any of your opinions.

I'm not blowing smoke up Teamspeed's backside but he has gone to great lengths to post his findings and share knowledge with the forum. You can choose to disagree but give it a rest already.

I knew it would be a matter of time before the posts would start turn sour. It is best to just leave well enough alone, because simply based on examples in other threads and the tone in those other threads (and PMs I have received from a number of other members), there is no level-headed and reasonable discourse to be had here. If it continues, I will have to report it to Rene or another mod to clean up, and I would hope it doesn't come to that.

Back on track, this thread is about the hatred of the 7D and the love of the 1D4, so let's commence!

Wonder where Larry is on this subject at this point, it has been a while since I have seen him reply here. Hopefully he landed a great deal on a 1D4.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15333767
Back on track, this thread is about the hatred of the 7D and the love of the 1D4, so let's commence!

I wish I had a 1D4 to love...

The prices are coming down to the point I will now lose money if I sell mine. I bought mine back in Dec 2010 from a new FM member for $3500 when normal prices were around $3900, skyrocketed up to $4500 (tsunami hit Japan), and now they are around the $3200-3300 mark.

If you can find a great deal, even today with the 5D3 and even the 1DX, it is a wonderful value and takes just some amazing shots.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #15333736
Sovern, I haven't seen a single example from you to back up any of your opinions.

I'm not blowing smoke up Teamspeed's backside but he has gone to great lengths to post his findings and share knowledge with the forum. You can choose to disagree but give it a rest already.

Examples? We're talking about his photos and shooting at iso 6400-12800 on a crop body hes the one thats posting examples not me, if you need examples look at his photos shot at these isos......

I didn't want this thread to become sour but some people speak out of anger and thus ruin threads :/. I have to say though, I wish Teamspeed all the best and everyone else in this thread and I would like to personally thank him for taking the the time out to post examples of photos taken at high isos it really swayed my mind to keep my 450D and eventually get a second one for backup use at weddings due to me not even being able to tell the difference of a photo taken at iso 100 and iso 1600 with it for the most part.

Sovern wrote in post #15333835
Examples? We're talking about his photos and shooting at iso 6400-12800 on a crop body hes the one thats posting examples not me, if you need examples look at his photos shot at these isos......

You said his ISO 12800 shot was comparable to a P&S shot. More than a few people have said post an example to show us a comparable P&S shot.

joeblack2022 wrote in post #15333862
You said his ISO 12800 shot was comparable to a P&S shot. More than a few people have said post an example to show us a comparable P&S shot.

Go to the point and shoot section and look at G12 and S95 examples.......I've seen much better photos quality wise taken with those cameras at iso 100 vs his 7D photos taken at iso 6400-12800.