7d losing skin texture...quite disappointed.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12291805
Or upload the CR2 to share with others, then we could try to see flaw in the raw itself.

Yup.

I'm sure that the problem is partially caused by using the same settings as used for the 5D.

AlanU wrote in post #12287567
7D as you try to achieve your sharpness you hit a wall in the fine granular noise. As you reduce the soft grains the softness gets worst. This is a none issue for printing but in the pixel peeping analysis this is something I have never dealt with before. I will say I am not fond of this. I can see how there are 1dmk3 fanboys reverting back to a lower resolution file which is alot easier to manipulate and is easy to produce files for print.

I know exactly what you are talking about. I feel that after a certain sharpness setting on LR3 it looks like sand. However if people aren't pixel peeping and if you change the size of the photo its not an Issue. I never noticed this with my t1i. Then again I'm guess 18mp on aps-c is a good reason for this?

I haven't used my 7D to shoot people yet so won't comment on the skin texture but if there is an issue I think it has more to do with the underlying noise level of the 7D which seems to be higher than the other cameras I have owned or own, 40d/5D/5DII.

It was the first thing I noticed when I viewed my first images with the camera. Whatever Canon needed to do maintain better higher ISO performance, 1600+ it appears they sacrificed lower ISO performance to attain it. With that said, I don't consider the 7D either a good high or low ISO camera.

bohdank wrote in post #12294377
I haven't used my 7D to shoot people yet so won't comment on the skin texture but if there is an issue I think it has more to do with the underlying noise level of the 7D which seems to be higher than the other cameras I have owned or own, 40d/5D/5DII.

It was the first thing I noticed when I viewed my first images with the camera. Whatever Canon needed to do maintain better higher ISO performance, 1600+ it appears they sacrificed lower ISO performance to attain it. With that said, I don't consider the 7D either a good high or low ISO camera.

I feel the exact same way after getting my 7D. It looks as if it has better high iso performance than my 40D, but as you said the lower ISO images also seem to have more noise compared with my 40D.

As AlanU said images form my 7D deosn't seem to retain skin textures, but then again the images I have are mainly that of my 1 1/2 year old son who has baby skin. I'll try to take portraits of people with good skin texture and see if it manages to retain the skin texture .

hollis_f wrote in post #12294000
Yup.

I'm sure that the problem is partially caused by using the same settings as used for the 5D.

I wish it was that simple. I will have to say this case the files are "it is what it is". The way the raws feel in LR3 appears to manipulate more like jpg. Without a doubt the RAW is more flexible but in the 7d's case its alot less than other bodies I've owned.

I analysed my daughters photos that I've taken with my 5dmk2, 5dc and theres definitely a more dynamic look with detailed shadows. The photos I've now taken with the 7D has a flatter look as if I was not well versed in bouncing flash. The shadow detail on baby skin blows out to cream.

Some may take this as bashing. I'm merely writing about my experience with the files. ISO performance appears to be more appreciated by the masses but in my case I would have to say I'm not one of them. I'll give it credit that its a definite improvement over the 50D.

I guess I've learned not to publicly write in a forum the deficiencies of a camera. Regardless of what I own I will express my likes/dislikes. I have sure understood what many mention regarding the 7D as a killer responsive body but also the stiff manipulation of raw files and how noisy the files can be a low and moderate ISO settings. I now appreciate my older previous 50D and will taper down my dislikes of my 1dmk3 because of this experience.

I will have to play more at tiny apertures with studio strobes. See how ideal lighting works with this body.

This is a very interesting thread. I shoot on a 550D / t2i with similar sensor technology, though I'm not as experienced to spot a "smoothing" of the skin. I'll keep my eyes open for any such problems, but I've generally been very happy with this 18mp, low light performing sensor.

ISO 100 definitely has more "grain" than previous DSLRs I've shot with, I wouldn't imagine it actually "blurs" detail! Very interesting. Hope more people give their input!

Worked perfectly fine for the time i owned one - did a bunch of beauty stuff with it...

http://www.flickr.com …5348819076/in/p​hotostream
http://www.flickr.com …4354460975/in/p​hotostream
http://www.flickr.com …4281005761/in/p​hotostream

Natural light was no problem either, whether wide open or stopped down. That said the files can be a little "crunchy" and not as flexible in post processing as my 1D (3&4) bodies - they allow me to push the files a fair bit more before they start to fall apart. But certainly in rendering nice skin texture the 7D for me was never an issue so possibly may be differing post processing techniques. Of course YMMV

It would be an interesting poll to see how many use DPP vs a 3rd party Raw rendering tool and whether they were happy or not with their JPG results. I always use DPP, since I feel that if I purchase a Canon camera, they would have tuned their software to match their camera output, so they go together as a package. I understand the allure to use Adobe products as well as their workflow engines, etc. but I have no such need, and have been generally very happy with the output of my cameras using DPP.

For those of you discussion how "sandy" or "grainy" the images get as you sharpen, you MUST remove the noise first as cleanly as you can. Since some 3rd party tools ignore the noise removal values set by the camera (where DPP will honor this if you let it), you are even at a larger disadvantage noise-wise, and have to remove that noise before sharpening. There is no good alternative. I use DPP, it honors the "standard high iso noise" setting I have my cameras at, and then I post process the resulting JPGs.

I have taken raw right to JPG and told DPP to ignore in-camera NR values, and I didn't like the results either. I have since changed it so that camera is always set to standard, DPP honors the Lum/Chrom in-camera values (which varies by ISO setting), and I then work on the resulting JPGs.

AlanU wrote in post #12295482
Some may take this as bashing. I'm merely writing about my experience with the files. ISO performance appears to be more appreciated by the masses but in my case I would have to say I'm not one of them. I'll give it credit that its a definite improvement over the 50D.

I guess I've learned not to publicly write in a forum the deficiencies of a camera. Regardless of what I own I will express my likes/dislikes. I have sure understood what many mention regarding the 7D as a killer responsive body but also the stiff manipulation of raw files and how noisy the files can be a low and moderate ISO settings. I now appreciate my older previous 50D and will taper down my dislikes of my 1dmk3 because of this experience.

I will have to play more at tiny apertures with studio strobes. See how ideal lighting works with this body.

Well, being it a public forum, one simply needs to stand by his/her own convictions and grow a thicker skin. As much of all this is personal opinion, and as they say, "Opinions are like @$$holes, everyone's got one and they all stink."

I don't doubt that the 7D's files are more problematic for *your* needs. You're comparing it to FF, APS-H, and older (less pixel-density APS-C). I would also be curious to see how you feel about the 1D4, as this might be an overall issue with cramming more pixels onto the same size sensor and see how you feel between the 1D4 vs. your experience with your 1D3.

If it's the wrong tool for your job/trade, then either decide whether you can live with the compromises, or ditch it for something you can live with. As we all know, there is no perfect camera. IMO, focusing on the deficiencies instead of adapting to work around them is a waste of time. Doesn't mean you can't point it out, but also means you can't expect everyone to agree with you.

*I* personally bought the 7D knowing its limitations. But since this is just a hobby for me, and I rather have more focus points, better focus points, I knowingly accepted the compromises that would come with 18mp crammed onto an APS-C sensor so that I could gain the benefits of the new features.

Coming from the 40D, my only expectation in terms of IQ is that when I look at the overall image (not pixel-peeping), that my 7D would be just as good as my 40D. I found that to be the case with nearly a 2-stop advantage in high-ISO. And when I've printed 20x30 prints to hang on my walls, I've had no issues with skin texture nor noise. And my patients (who did not know the photos were taken by me) have commented on great the photos are. So that's my gauge/audience, and that's good enough for *me*.

But your standards and your clients' standards could very well be much higher and that won't fly in your neck of the woods.

IMO, the 7D is the jack-of-all-trades camera. It's good at pretty much everything, but master at none. It's far from perfect, that's for sure.

jwcdds wrote in post #12295832
Well, being it a public forum, one simply needs to stand by his/her own convictions and grow a thicker skin. As much of all this is personal opinion, and as they say, "Opinions are like @$$holes, everyone's got one and they all stink."

I don't doubt that the 7D's files are more problematic for *your* needs. You're comparing it to FF, APS-H, and older (less pixel-density APS-C). I would also be curious to see how you feel about the 1D4, as this might be an overall issue with cramming more pixels onto the same size sensor and see how you feel between the 1D4 vs. your experience with your 1D3.

If it's the wrong tool for your job/trade, then either decide whether you can live with the compromises, or ditch it for something you can live with. As we all know, there is no perfect camera. IMO, focusing on the deficiencies instead of adapting to work around them is a waste of time. Doesn't mean you can't point it out, but also means you can't expect everyone to agree with you.

*I* personally bought the 7D knowing its limitations. But since this is just a hobby for me, and I rather have more focus points, better focus points, I knowingly accepted the compromises that would come with 18mp crammed onto an APS-C sensor so that I could gain the benefits of the new features.

Coming from the 40D, my only expectation in terms of IQ is that when I look at the overall image (not pixel-peeping), that my 7D would be just as good as my 40D. I found that to be the case with nearly a 2-stop advantage in high-ISO. And when I've printed 20x30 prints to hang on my walls, I've had no issues with skin texture nor noise. And my patients (who did not know the photos were taken by me) have commented on great the photos are. So that's my gauge/audience, and that's good enough for *me*.

But your standards and your clients' standards could very well be much higher and that won't fly in your neck of the woods.

IMO, the 7D is the jack-of-all-trades camera. It's good at pretty much everything, but master at none. It's far from perfect, that's for sure.

Actually I think familiarity of people/names on the potn have created friends. "It is what it is" when it comes to kind/constructive opinion's or useless contribution. Nikon to me is not an option due to gear investment.

My comments in written words "online" can be decifered differently I guess. Getting familiar with different bodies my experience is ever changing from body to body.

I was hoping to see a brainstorm of comments and advice so that I can benefit aswell as non participants/others that simply read this thread.

Rai33, ohhh my hotness those photos are gorgeous! I can see ideal strobe lights benefiting all dslr's. I find my 1dmk3 to be a great body for ideal artificial light. I may just ship my 1dmk3 to platinum cps to see if i do have a problem with metering and loss of texture. I've had PM's telling me their 1dmk3's exhibit the same orange hue soft blowouts in natural sunlight if care is not taken with exposure. A friend of mine working at a camera shop sees this with his 1dmk3 copy aswell with other customers. The 7D seems to have similar characteristics but even moreso than my 1dmk3. I wonder if its simply a copy variation like teamspeed thinks is a possibility.

Julian I've often looked at your growing child's pics. The 7D chacteristics I am describing is quite consistent in your photos. My 5d and 5dmk2 seldom has this phenomenon but on rare occasions extremely over exposed pics can do this softness issue on my young children. The 7d seems to jive better with adult skin textures in natural sunlight.

As far as the 1dmk4 is concerned the vaporware 5dmk3 is more appealing to me than a 1dmk4. However the cps prices of the new 1dmk4 makes this "obtainium" to me.

I have taken a few shots of people with my 7D and never noticed it loosing texture around the faces of the subject. Might be the fact that younger children have very soft and smooth skin more then anything else... But in adults I notice the texture is spot on.

This is an interesting thread! Since Alan owns quite a few Canon cameras I have no doubt Alan is seeing the loss of skin texture with the 7D.

Was wondering if trying another third-party raw converter would help?

There's Capture One: http://www.phaseone.co​m/en/Downloads/Capture​One.aspx

I forgot where I read this but a notable photographer/retoucher mentioned between Capture One and LR3, one does a better job retain highlights, while the other does better revealing shadow detail. Of course I don't remember which app does what better! Sheesh!

I have a 50D and use LR3 and very pleased with the skin texture.

I have also taken a few pics of kids and honestly i haven't noticed any problems with lack of detail in those shots. Here's one example shot with the 70-200/4L in natural afternoon sunlight. The baby has smooth skin but for some reason my malfunctioning 7D picks up fine surfacedetails. That can't be correct..

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

AlanU wrote in post #12296245
Julian I've often looked at your growing child's pics. The 7D chacteristics I am describing is quite consistent in your photos. My 5d and 5dmk2 seldom has this phenomenon but on rare occasions extremely over exposed pics can do this softness issue on my young children. The 7d seems to jive better with adult skin textures in natural sunlight.

This may very well be the case, and my standards could simply not be as high as yours. I also don't have a 5D/5D2 so, in other words, ignorance is bliss for me. As pointed out earlier, photography is just a hobby for me. Reason I moved to DSLR (and then specifically the 7D) was so that I could have the better AF to chase my boy around. Granted 1D3/1D4 could also do the same, but at this time, I just can't justify that kind of investment into a camera body that gets changed/upgraded every few years.

Obviously you're not the only one seeing/finding issues with the 7D files (and in your case, 1d3 as well). So you have your own set of standards/preferences. Thus as I noted, if it doesn't work for you, you'll have to decipher your next step as to whether you could work around the 7D's limitations, or may have to consider ditching it for another body to generate the quality that you're accustomed to.

My curiosity is whether this is going to be an on-going issue with future Canon cameras. As they continue to cram more pixels, if the 7D is exhibiting this effect, I wonder if when you get a chance to shoot with the 1D4, whether you'd encounter similar findings. I certainly hope not for your sake because that may mean all future Canon cameras may be more troublesome for you.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12295830
It would be an interesting poll to see how many use DPP vs a 3rd party Raw rendering tool and whether they were happy or not with their JPG results. I always use DPP, since I feel that if I purchase a Canon camera, they would have tuned their software to match their camera output, so they go together as a package. I understand the allure to use Adobe products as well as their workflow engines, etc. but I have no such need, and have been generally very happy with the output of my cameras using DPP.

For those of you discussion how "sandy" or "grainy" the images get as you sharpen, you MUST remove the noise first as cleanly as you can. Since some 3rd party tools ignore the noise removal values set by the camera (where DPP will honor this if you let it), you are even at a larger disadvantage noise-wise, and have to remove that noise before sharpening. There is no good alternative. I use DPP, it honors the "standard high iso noise" setting I have my cameras at, and then I post process the resulting JPGs.

I have taken raw right to JPG and told DPP to ignore in-camera NR values, and I didn't like the results either. I have since changed it so that camera is always set to standard, DPP honors the Lum/Chrom in-camera values (which varies by ISO setting), and I then work on the resulting JPGs.

Thanks for the info on the Sandiness. I Use LR3 and while trying to remove the noise, trying to sharpen just seems to bring back the same exact noise. Probably the fact I fail at post processing if anything.