7d losing skin texture...quite disappointed.

I can post examples but they will not be comparable if the default settings are used for both applications. By default DPP applies all the in-camera settings to a Raw conversion. By comparison, third-party converters like Lightroom, ACR, etc. only apply four of the camera settings: ISO, shutter speed, aperture and its own interpretation of White Balance.

Then also consider that all photos have a Picture Style applied; Lightroom and ACR have Camera Matching Profiles that attempt to replicate the color rendition of Canon's Picture Styles but cannot automatically apply the other settings in the picture style like saturation, contrast, etc.

That's the reason why it requires more work to approximate a default conversion from the manufacturer's software in third-party converters.

mtimber wrote in post #12301222
So does someone have an example of a raw file processed in DPP and one in Lightroom with the same basic settings for us to compare?

PixelMagic wrote in post #12301485
I can post examples but they will not be comparable if the default settings are used for both applications. By default DPP applies all the in-camera settings to a Raw conversion. By comparison, third-party converters like Lightroom, ACR, etc. only apply four of the camera settings: ISO, shutter speed, aperture and its own interpretation of White Balance.

I don't think the word "apply" is the right one. ISO, shutter speed and aperture are read via EXIF, they are not variables applied during data conversion.

mtimber wrote in post #12301222
So does someone have an example of a raw file processed in DPP and one in Lightroom with the same basic settings for us to compare?

There are two problems with this suggestion - 1) Lightroom's default settings are likely to be far from optimum. DPP's defaults may be closer, depending on what was set in the camera. 2) A better test would be to use either program, in any way, to produce the 'best' result. However, this ends up being a test of one's relative skills with the different programs - and a test of the definition of 'best'.

I guess the ideal would be to make a CR2 file avalaible for everybody/anybody to manipulate with their favourite raw editor. Then have all the different results put up for public vote. People could then decide which program produced the best result - for them.

Maybe it's just me being the lazy git that I am, but I won't jump thru a lot of hoops to try to get a piece of equipment to work the way I want. Not when there are other alternatives out there to try. Case in point, I bought a 50D on the day it was released. As the OP pointed out to Rai33, "ideal strobe lighting...."
As a comparison, the 50D gave me some fabulous shots under the controlled lighting of the studio. But my outdoor natural light shots were all over the map regarding inconsistency. In the end,(after 4 months) I simply gave up on the 50D, and sold it on and moved to different bodies that suited my overall needs better.
To the OP, I'd sell that 7D in a heartbeat and try something different, like maybe a 1DS2.
Buy 'em used, and if you don't like them in six months, you can sell and get most of your money back.

Honestly, I have achieved the most consistent results from my 1D2 bodies than anything else I have shot. It's almost like they hit the sweet spot with that particular 8.2 m/pix sensor in that size. Very forgiving, and I have enlarged prints to 20"x30" from it with fabulous results. As always, YMMV.

HKGuns wrote in post #12291297
Your "findings" have no basis in fact and you've provided no evidence to illustrate they are founded in fact. Nor are they consistent with other peoples impressions of the camera.

To top it off, you're complaining about the metering of the 1D3 which has nothing to do with the 7D "issue" you've apparently discovered. Lots of people are 100% satisfied with their 1D3 metering.

When I read this thread I see someone who needs to find something to complain about.

There, now you have it in all its glory.

When I shot a 1D3 side by side with a 5D2 I was shocked by how horrible the 1D3's metering and WB consistency is. Every file needs a ridiculous level of attention. I've relegated it to backup duties now and replaced it with a 5D classic which gives my 5D2 a run for its money

Many people like the 1D3 but I think, for its price and stature, it is one of the worst cameras I have ever used (relative to its price and stature). YMMV

jwcdds wrote in post #12295832
As we all know, there is no perfect camera.

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/nikond3x/

What does ymmv mean?

Your Mileage My Vary

smorter wrote in post #12302214
http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/nikond3x/

B..b..but it doesn't do HD video.

If I had $15000 to blow... I'd consider it. (I know, body's $8k, but gotta factor in lenses too.)

uOpt wrote in post #12298944
Why, specifically, would you expect different outcomes? The raw conversion is actually rather primitive and straightforward. And even the most primitive tool (ufraw probably qualifies) reads the camera's original idea of what white balance was supposed to be,

Any curves applied are, in any of these tools, a human's idea, and not right out of the camera settings done on the computer.

Actually this is far, far, from the truth. RAW conversion is insanely complicated. Even the demosaicing algorithm can be extremely complicated. We don't know what DPP or ACR use, because they don't reveal that info, but they are very very different and both have different strengths and weaknesses. ACR can pull more detail from some 7d files (and I almost always use it detailed landscapes that are in the iso 200-3200 range). ACR produces horrible, horrible moire at times and can produce banding on 7d iso 100 files that DPP has no problems whatsoever making a perfect file from. Every once and a while you get an image with a super sharp lens that just gets ruined by either DPP or ACR but that RawTherapee using AMAZE produces a flawless image from. *Shrug*. When you are dealing with making up data from educated guesses, there's a lot of different ways to go about it, and no "right" way, some methods work better than others depending on the image--that's why it's valuable to have more than one raw converter around imho...

A high quality demosaicing algorithm (like AMAZE for example) is almost magical. Then there's lens corrections, CA removal, etc. Do those get done before or after the demosaicing process? (Depends on the application). Getting that RAW data into a color space we can use is also extremely complicated. It's not as simple as figuring out what the white balance is (or setting it) and applying some curves. It's extremely complicated and I can't even begin to understand half of it. People dedicate their entires lives to this kind of thing. There are issues of what working space to use (yes even though the RAW data doesn't have a set color space, in reality the converter does use some sort of working color space) (or do you use some sort of extremely wide LAB or LUV system to work on the data instead? If you do, what do you do with those values far far outside any normal color space--do they get clipped--averaged in somehow--what exactly are you going to do with them?)

Not to mention dealing with cameras like the 18mp Canon cameras that have green channels that are slightly different. (The reason ACR might show banding in some 7d images sometimes, when DPP won't for the same image). Some raw converters (ACR for example) do weird things and twist and change values of colors to produce a more "pleasing" image. RAW conversion is anything but primitive and straightforward.