For those of you that think the 7D is good with noise...

rhys216 wrote in post #12597240
^^^
An you'l be one soon!

And you're one already

rhys216 wrote in post #12597003
And anyone else's, if they are not visually impaired.

Great so anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion can't see and isn't as enlightened as you? That is the problem with evaluating cameras is there is not single measurement to judge if one camera is better than the other. You have to consider the entire package. Otherwise, just disassemble your D7000 and walk around with just the CMOS sensor and trash the other components and tell everyone how better it is . Sure, the D7000 has slightly better noise characteristics, but there are so many other variables that make canon equivalents better in the opinion of many. I can see an argument both ways, but I recognize what I have is an opinion. What you fail to recognize is all you have is your opinion as well - not clear fact one is better than the other.

pentax1 wrote in post #12597260
And you're one already

I'm actually a recovering one...

Can we please debate more about CAMERAS and RESULTS and less about calling each other names?
I guess we all registered here to learn/discuss about cameras and photography .... while I'm pretty sure one can have a personal discussion on PMs or IM software....

jase1125 wrote in post #12597266
Great so anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion can't see and isn't as enlightened as you? That is the problem with evaluating cameras is there is not single measurement to judge if one camera is better than the other. You have to consider the entire package. Otherwise, just disassemble your D7000 and walk around with just the CMOS sensor and trash the other components and tell everyone how better it is . Sure, the D7000 has slightly better noise characteristics, but there are so many other variables that make canon equivalents better in the opinion of many. I can see an argument both ways, but I recognize what I have is an opinion. What you fail to recognize is all you have is your opinion as well - not clear fact one is better than the other.

Huh, what?
We were talking about a combination of noise and dynamic range, and the fact that Canon sensors suffer from more noise in the shadows and cross-hatching.
This isn't just my opinion, it can be clearly observed by anyone.

As for the rest of the tangent your trying to steer the thread toward, well that's a whole other subject for another thread, but what I will say is, since making the jump, I'v never looked back.

And I agree with you the noise on the 7D is slightly better if pushing shadows. Who would want to underexpose and push shadows 4 stops in a real world situation? I just don't get proclaiming one camera has better noise handling based on what I consider extreme testing that isn't typical of real world post processing. I readily admit my limit on pushing shadows is about 3 stop on the 7D. How many times have I needed to do that? Maybe a handful because I screwed up the exposure. So in that sense, yes the D7000 is superior when using ACR.

However, as shown there is much better response to pushing shadows in DPP. In that case, the differences start to fade as it looks like one can push nearly as much as the D7000. Hence, that is why is said it was your opinion that canon is poorer. I just disagree.

jase1125 wrote in post #12597378
And I agree with you the noise on the 7D is slightly better if pushing shadows. Who would want to underexpose and push shadows 4 stops in a real world situation? I just don't get proclaiming one camera has better noise handling based on what I consider extreme testing that isn't typical of real world post processing. I readily admit my limit on pushing shadows is about 3 stop on the 7D. How many times have I needed to do that? Maybe a handful because I screwed up the exposure. So in that sense, yes the D7000 is superior.

If you can't understand why being able to lift shadows without loss of image quality might be useful, then you haven't experienced many challenging real word situations.

rhys216 wrote in post #12597390
If you can't understand why being able to lift shadows without loss of image quality might be useful, then you haven't experienced many challenging real word situations.

That might be true that I haven't ran into the same challenges you have. It is also possible that my body and technique has allowed me some success in similar situations. I won't claim to know which statement is accurate as that is impossible. I just haven't had to push that many stops to date.

I certainly agree it can be useful if one monkey's up the exposure or just wanting to do some crazy post processing.

Back to my original point is using DPP, the difference in pushing shadows between the two sensors decreases considerably.

jase1125 wrote in post #12597378
However, as shown there is much better response to pushing shadows in DPP.

DPP does better than LR, but cross-hatching is still clearly visible, visible enough that I'd feel uncomfortable using the image in any other than personal use.

jase1125 wrote in post #12597378
In that case, the differences start to fade as it looks like one can push nearly as much as the D7000. Hence, that is why is said it was your opinion that canon is poorer. I just disagree.

The thing is you don't disagree, you just don't want to agree.
Read your sentence again, you basically just said the images can't be pushed as far as the D7K, yet state you disagree with me when I say the 7D is weaker in this regard...

In a real situation, one could hardly notice this "lack of information". The cat picture I post yesterday looks like the following (at the pixel level) when treated with DPP3.9 and LR3.4.1 (in both cases without any sharpening applied but with a mild NR).

Miguel

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

rhys216 wrote in post #12597431
DPP does better than LR, but cross-hatching is still clearly visible, visible enough that I'd feel uncomfortable using the image in any other than personal use.

The thing is you don't disagree, you just don't want to agree.
Read your sentence again, you basically just said the images can't be pushed as far as the D7K, yet state you disagree with me when I say the 7D is weaker in this regard...

Yes in ACR they cannot be pushed as much as the D7000. In DPP it can. If I could quantify noise speckles in the D7000 and for arguments sake it equals 10,000 and the canon equals 10,110 they are different. In practice, they are not. So what I'm saying is there appears to be a minute difference between the d7000 processed in ACR and the 7D processed in DPP. In practice there isn't any difference.

I would also submit the cross-hatching in the DPP processes image is barely visible.

jase1125 wrote in post #12597469
Yes in ACR they cannot be pushed as much as the D7000. In DPP it can. If I could quantify noise speckles in the D7000 and for arguments sake it equals 10,000 and the canon equals 10,110 they are different. In practice, they are not. So what I'm saying is there appears to be a minute difference between the d7000 processed in ACR and the 7D processed in DPP. In practice there isn't any difference.

I would also submit the cross-hatching in the DPP processes image is barely visible.

No they can't, and yes there is.

paparios wrote in post #12597459
In a real situation, one could hardly notice this "lack of information". The cat picture I post yesterday looks like the following (at the pixel level) when treated with DPP3.9 and LR3.4.1 (in both cases without any sharpening applied but with a mild NR).

Miguel

When you downsize the image it hides a magnitude of flaws.
Regards to your sample above, I prefer the look of the original, the process one looks a little murky and soft/flat, at least when It's directly compared with the 'before'.

In my experience with the 7D, Adobe/Lightroom kills DPP in detail / resolution. DPP smears channels to get rid of banding/noise that is otherwise present in the LR conversion without LNR.

When needing to recover 4 stops of light it appears that DPP might do a better job, but I wonder how much better the LR conversion could look with different settings, and how much worse the DPP conversion could look with different settings also. I'd like to see a more scientific comparison.

And to the poster using those web sized photos to dismiss the banding: are you serious? Even completely downsized for the web the banding is horrendous IMO, rendering that pushed exposure completely unusable. To compare that to the D7000 pic pushed 4 stops is a joke.

rhys216 wrote in post #12597535
When you downsize the image it hides a magnitude of flaws.
Regards to your sample above, I prefer the look of the original, the process one looks a little murky and soft/flat, at least when It's directly compared with the 'before'.

There is no original in the crop samples. The first crop is from LR3.4.1 and the second from DPP3.9. The differences observed is due to LR3.4.1 applied some clarity, vibrance, saturation, lights and dark adjustments, which produce a sort of "virtual" sharpening.

The equivalent original crop (DPP without any sharpening or NR) is the following

Miguel

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.