Sent back the 7d ):

tharmsen wrote in post #9714966
No, what I'm saying is showing highly processed images as examples of, now here's the important part, out of camera sharpness is a pointless exercise.

No one is arguing that you can't process a 7D image into something pretty. What's being debated is that the 7D produces softer images than other bodies in the Canon line-up.

Once you wrap your head around that, then is starts to make some sense.

Do you see the analogy?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Denise Z wrote in post #9715089
When you say sent it back after 6 weeks, did you send it back to Canon and ask for an upgrade to the 5D? Mine was sent back to cannon for focus issues. Hope it makes me a happy camper when it comes back.

To be honest, I wasn't sure it was the camera, after reading so many posts saying it was OK. I just traded it in against a 5D2 without saying anything to the shop (not where I bought the 7D)

I was maybe super critical having just moved from a Sony A900 FF and high IQ and the 7D didn't measure up in the IQ department. I moved to the 7D to get the video capability and regretted it immediately when I saw the IQ. I was ready to go back to Sony. However after getting the 5D2, I'm extremely happy with the IQ and I'll be staying with Canon.

can we get some side by side 100% crops of 5D2 vs 7D shots to examine microdetail... not only at high ISO but at ISO100/200 also...

tharmsen wrote in post #9714966
No, what I'm saying is showing highly processed images as examples of, now here's the important part, out of camera sharpness is a pointless exercise.

No one is arguing that you can't process a 7D image into something pretty. What's being debated is that the 7D produces softer images than other bodies in the Canon line-up.

Once you wrap your head around that, then is starts to make some sense.

hmmmmmm..last time I checked pretty much ALL DSLR need to have post done to them..isnt that kind of the point. You have total control over the image after...I personally would rather see images out of cam with USM applied to them to see how well they take sharpening up. maybe you need to give that a little though and wrap your head around that.

dmo580 wrote in post #9715424
can we get some side by side 100% crops of 5D2 vs 7D shots to examine microdetail... not only at high ISO but at ISO100/200 also...

I just spent a few hours taking pictures of birds, it's snowing so don't have great light and iso's around 1000 to 1600... and while i see many others with sharp images, i can assure you, all of mine are crap, lol.

From what I can see there's no comparison here to a FF, instead, and I believe the general theme of this thread, is that 7d is soft compared to other crop frames.

There's a great little overlay thingy here to compare sharpness at various iso's: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …al-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

My personal results so far, suggest this is fairly accurate...

It's not the high MP count that is causing soft images but rather the over active AF system.

When the focus is spot on, the images are razor sharp even at 100% and low sharpness settings. Unfortunately the 7D's AF system is so jumpy/twitchy/inconsis​tent under real world conditions that it won't hit that focus point right on. You can hear the lens change focus when you repeatedly half press the shutter on the same target. You have to take several of shots and hope one will be perfectly focused.

Sure the AF is fine under controlled tests like using high contrast targets and charts. But in real world conditions, the AF system is fast but not very accurate. Even MK IV users are complaining about soft pics with their AF system. I guess having a fast AF is a trade off with accuracy.

garycoleman wrote in post #9715537
It's not the high MP count that is causing soft images but rather the over active AF system.

When the focus is spot on, the images are razor sharp even at 100% and low sharpness settings. Unfortunately the 7D's AF system is so jumpy/twitchy/inconsis​tent under real world conditions that it won't hit that focus point right on. You can hear the lens change focus when you repeatedly half press the shutter on the same target. You have to take several of shots and hope one will be perfectly focused.

Sure the AF is fine under controlled tests like using high contrast targets and charts. But in real world conditions, the AF system is fast but not very accurate. Even MK IV users are complaining about soft pics with their AF system. I guess having a fast AF is a trade off with accuracy.

Agreed. I'm pulling out razor sharp shots tonight in my very controlled, mirror-lockup-on-a-tripod tests, but out this morning using AI Servo with the 100-400 it was just a whole bunch of fail.

I dunno what to do at the moment.

FMX wrote in post #9715101
Looks good to me.

It just so happens me and another cat took nearly the exact same picture. The difference: His came from a 1dmkII @ 3200 ISO and mine came from a 7D at 4000 ISO. You be the judge. I am in no way shape or form sure of or SAYING there weren't many other variables, or that the mkII is any kind of comparison to the mkIII or even the 5dmkII.

Assuming the top pic is the 7D, uh . . . yuck!

Okay folks, I don't understand why there is such a controversy, especially with the polar opposites we have here.

Yes, I understand there are many variables. There's lens, exposure, lighting, focus and perhaps more. However, we're not comparing apple pie recipies. This really shouldn't be subjective. Except for a defective camera, there has to be a right an wrong here provided we're discussing the same thing.

I don't want to see post processed examples. Compare raw and perhaps camera processed jpeg but if you display post processed pics, it just confuses people. A superior RAW is a superior RAW. If you are a master of "garbage in, jewel out" you're just going to taint what should be a simple, scientific, unwaverable, non-subjective, provable result.

The question is a simple "does the 7D produce soft and/or noisy images when compared to a comparable camera."

I still don't know the answer because solid evidence has been presented that is in solid confict. We need a judge and a gavel in here, STAT!

FMX wrote in post #9715101
Looks good to me.

It just so happens me and another cat took nearly the exact same picture. The difference: His came from a 1dmkII @ 3200 ISO and mine came from a 7D at 4000 ISO. You be the judge. I am in no way shape or form sure of or SAYING there weren't many other variables, or that the mkII is any kind of comparison to the mkIII or even the 5dmkII.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND

Its clear to me the bottom shot was with the 7d.

I'll play post the crop game just because I like to post photos more then talk about stuff

Anyway if these aren't sharp enough or good enough IQ then those people have MUCH higher standards then me. For online and prints I can't really think of anything I'd like better.

All of the 100% crops were shot on RAW, imported into lightroom and exported to jpg with no edits (including sharpening). The first two I made a little challenging with moving subjects

Full image after processing:
Canon EOS 7D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1/2000s f/4.0 at 160.0mm iso200

Optiq wrote in post #9715723
............The question is a simple "does the 7D produce soft and/or noisy images when compared to a comparable camera."

That is really the nub of the matter, there is no comparable camera to the 7D, the 5D2 is FF, the 1D4 is a pro camera, so no like for like comparison. All have their strengths but for what it is the 7D is a fine camera. If you don't like I didn't realise that the Canon police were forcing you to use one

davem720 wrote in post #9715603
Agreed. I'm pulling out razor sharp shots tonight in my very controlled, mirror-lockup-on-a-tripod tests, but out this morning using AI Servo with the 100-400 it was just a whole bunch of fail.

I dunno what to do at the moment.

What AF mode are you using, what is the situation you are shooting, and what are your CF settings regarding the AF options?

It stands to reason that if the 7D can get those sharp pics you are looking for, and that the AF modes offered have been proven to be really, really good for alot of sports and birders, then maybe it is just the combination of AF mode + CF settings that is the culprit in your situation (and maybe others).

Optiq wrote in post #9715723
Assuming the top pic is the 7D, uh . . . yuck!

Top pic is actually the 1d mk2

maverick678 wrote in post #9714467
There are also variations of photographers.

Yes, but when a good bunch of seasoned shooter find there is something wrong, they are not right?

The 7D is here to stay.

Time to close this post??