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!