7D - pixel peep -does it matter?

Hello eveyone,Im still getting my feet wet on the beast of a dslr know as a 7D.Ive got my micheal the mavon dvds and David bush book.Ive learned alot in a short time.Of course everyone here a POTN has helped with most of my questions.

Heres my question:If i can take a reasonably good picture-using the right settings(or close).But the iso noise(that can be PP),should i continue to worry about the little things that other people are complaing about?

Most people here im sure have a decent good sized monitor(will pixel peep the bad).But in reality if im only printing 5x6 or maybe alittle bigger should i stress out over the pictures if the printed result/web shots show noise or out of focus when zoomed in.But just a normal size pictures will do just fine.

Thanks for steading my mind on what im missing/over thinking/or just whatever.I usually never print extra large prints.

The native full resolution of the 7D will print at approx. 14 X 9.5 at 360 dpi, printing larger still results in nice prints. If you view the print at 1 inch it will show imperfections, but in the real world prints are only viewed at once inch if you want to pick it apart. Same goes for Pixel Peeping, unless you are looking for imperfections you don't view images in that manner.

If you never print big, relax. You won't see it when you print.

Are you worried that Canon's best APS-C camera will not be good enough for small prints? If you are happy with your XSi quality, the 7D will be much better.

absolutely, pixel peeping is part of the game. it's the quickest way to convince you need something else that I know of.

rick_reno wrote in post #13831164
absolutely, pixel peeping is part of the game. it's the quickest way to convince you need something else that I know of.

^^^

davidc502 wrote in post #13831251
^^^

X2!

Here's my solution to pixel peeping.

Process the image then export it to a 1500 pixel wide JPG image. View the JPG full-size on your screen. How does it look? Stand back about 3 feet. Now you're seeing that image at about the size and resolution of a 4x6 print. Look OK?

When I view my 7D files at 100% I see lots of noise and some softness that is absolutely not there in the final reduces JPG.

pixel peeping is a psychological condition that can ruin a photographer by causing him to anguish unnecessarily over his gear, turning him into a gear freak.

Best answer: Don't do it.

Unless you like having your cheek smeared across every print you make, in which case you will never be satisfied until you've got an IQ180 Digital Back.

They didn't pixel peep here and the rest is history
http://redtreetimes.fi​les.wordpress.com …de_la_grande_ja​tte_v2.jpg

n1as wrote in post #13831661
View the JPG full-size on your screen. How does it look? Stand back about 3 feet.

How do you know he should stand back 3 feet? he might have a 15 inch monitor, or a 32 inch one

Seriously though, n1as gives good advise. Not sure you need to step back from your monitor, or export to jpeg first through. Just resize the image on the screen, to be 5x6 inches in real life, and see if it looks good enough to you.

My guess is it will. The only time I would worry about quality on the 7D for small prints, would be if you do a lot of cropping, or you are taking a lot of very low light photos.

If neither one of those is the norm, then no worries

well, the 7D boasts an 18MP sensor, meaning that it is capable of capturing detail that, down to the pixel level, resolve "properly".

However, it's obvious from the comments here that many people are quite satisfied with say a 1MP Web image or, at most, say a 7.2 MP 8x10 print (300ppi). Or a larger print, as long as you keep your distance!

And that's fine, no criticism of such folks and, in fact, a lot of things that I shoot just don't have "tack sharp" demands -- if I can get a "good" focus at say a sports shoot or some kind of event, or street photography, I'm good -- I may do a quick check at some magnification, but again "tack sharp" is not a core requirement, especially for a lot of the handheld shooting I do.

But, there are considerations for approaching things another way when it matters!

For example, for a lot of my wildlife shooting, I routinely have to crop pretty closely, and yeah, even to post a pic like that on the Web, or to print a 5x7/4x6 or certainly an 8x10, sharpness at the finer level does matter, otherwise you flat-out lose detail!

I don't have a 7D, but if I did, for much of my shooting I'll use gear and techniques to maximize/optimize sharpness, because for that type of thing sharpness does matter! And so if you are using techniques and gear for maximum sharpness then you shouldn't feel bad about examining your images closely to ensure that your technique and gear are working for you...so that, like I mentioned earlier, you are shooting with 18 usable megapixels instead of 7 or 10 or whatever!

There is also the fact that in stock and publishing outfits, images are often routinely examined at 100% for not just sharpness but also for lack of image noise. You may say "I'll never shoot for that stuff", but eventually, you may actually capture some shots where you say "Wow! I wonder if I can sell that or get it published?", and then, looking a bit more closely, you recall this and other "anti-pixel-peeping" threads, and never bothered to hone your skills to produce those "tack sharp" images...

Do pixel-peepers sit one foot away from their 65-inch flat-panel TVs? Just curious...

One of the reasons I bought the glass I did (and try very hard to stay at 400 ISO and below if it is a subject I'm shooting seriously) is because of what Tony brought up. I'm shooting images in hopes of selling them at this point and I have to go pixel by pixel and make sure the image is perfect. Handled correctly, the 7D can do this, but you have to know its limitations and what you can accomplish in PP. Further, with stock images too much sharpening and noise reduction also will make the image unsaleable even if it looks great when it's on the monitor, so I can't botch the shot clean it up in post enough to look great at 8x10 and still be able to market it. It's not an option. So I became a pixel-peeper.

If you're shooting as a hobby and your camera gets images great for what you're doing, there's no reason to go crazy about it. I agree wholeheartedly. I loved what my old camera and lenses did until I started trying to sell images, then there were too many times when it looked good on the back screen, looked good at "regular" resolution but was too soft to sharpen well when it got to pixel by pixel.

*I don't own a 65-inch flat panel television... Think our biggest one isn't even over 40?