to all of the complainers of higher MP count for the 7D

don't you feel silly that all the pics posted so far have proven you wrong that higher MP did not equal more noise for the 7d. In fact there is less noise with 7D images than with the 50D.

We'll see. I've taken ISO 3200 test shots with all the bodies I have including the 50D. When I get the 7D I'll post them.

garycoleman wrote in post #8723841
don't you feel silly that all the pics posted so far have proven you wrong that higher MP did not equal more noise for the 7d. In fact there is less noise with 7D images than with the 50D.

I've no real opinion on the 7D (other than the feature set looks very good - abouut equal to the Nikon D300 finally) but I will point out that the real verdict on IQ is seldom settled until the cameras are out for several months.

I've seen crazy statements made as cameras were rolled out in the past. The 40D was cleaner than the 5D at high ISO, the 50D is a noise disaster etc. etc.

6 to 12 months later everyone realized that the 40D wasn't really very different from the 30D in IQ, and the 50D is similar to the 40D. What do you want to bet the 7D is another small incremental improvement.

Finally, what we will never know is how the image would look if you had the 7D sensor technology and processor with 8 megapixels.

JeffreyG wrote in post #8723877
I've no real opinion on the 7D (other than the feature set looks very good - abouut equal to the Nikon D300 finally) but I will point out that the real verdict on IQ is seldom settled until the cameras are out for several months.

I've seen crazy statements made as cameras were rolled out in the past. The 40D was cleaner than the 5D at high ISO, the 50D is a noise disaster etc. etc.

6 to 12 months later everyone realized that the 40D wasn't really very different from the 30D in IQ, and the 50D is similar to the 40D. What do you want to bet the 7D is another small incremental improvement.

Finally, what we will never know is how the image would look if you had the 7D sensor technology and processor with 8 megapixels.

resounding with experience and wisdom.

Ray

I am repeating myself again. I have yet see a bird shot at ISO1600 cropped in RAW from the 7D yet........in RAW.....

I agree it's a waiting game. Will it band out in the wild? Will it be clean? Until we see thousands of IRL samples we won't know for sure. But I will say, regardless of how good it is at 18mp, imagine HOW MUCH BETTER it could have been at 12 or maybe 15? Those are realistic MP counts that would have yielded better results in terms of noise REGARDLESS of how good it is at 18mp. Do you really need 18mp? Plus, the reported 27mb RAW files at ISOs no higher than 500 are a bit frightening. IBmemoriescheap. Yeah yeah, I know, but I don't need 18mp so I certainly don't need 25mb+ files when I'm not using it anyway.

That said, I did think the 7D would be pure CRAP because of it's MP count on an APS-C and I'll admit, from what I've seen it's looking amazing. But there will always be the "what could it have been with less MP" question....

If you don't want the huge raw file size, simply switch to one of the smaller file sizes.... M-RAW or S-RAW

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8726145
I agree it's a waiting game. Will it band out in the wild? Will it be clean? Until we see thousands of IRL samples we won't know for sure. But I will say, regardless of how good it is at 18mp, imagine HOW MUCH BETTER it could have been at 12 or maybe 15? Those are realistic MP counts that would have yielded better results in terms of noise REGARDLESS of how good it is at 18mp. Do you really need 18mp? Plus, the reported 27mb RAW files at ISOs no higher than 500 are a bit frightening. IBmemoriescheap. Yeah yeah, I know, but I don't need 18mp so I certainly don't need 25mb+ files when I'm not using it anyway.

That said, I did think the 7D would be pure CRAP because of it's MP count on an APS-C and I'll admit, from what I've seen it's looking amazing. But there will always be the "what could it have been with less MP" question....

I agree with this 100%. I think if it were a 15mp cam it would be soooooo much better. I dont need 18mp, but want/need more than 12mp. So 15mp on this cam would have been buttery gravy imo.

Hmm so the 7D should have it's megapicxels reduced, I don't see a clamour to have the 5DII reduced from 21MP surely that would have been better at 15MP

JeffreyG wrote in post #8723877
I've no real opinion on the 7D (other than the feature set looks very good - abouut equal to the Nikon D300 finally) but I will point out that the real verdict on IQ is seldom settled until the cameras are out for several months.

I've seen crazy statements made as cameras were rolled out in the past. The 40D was cleaner than the 5D at high ISO, the 50D is a noise disaster etc. etc.

6 to 12 months later everyone realized that the 40D wasn't really very different from the 30D in IQ, and the 50D is similar to the 40D. What do you want to bet the 7D is another small incremental improvement.

Finally, what we will never know is how the image would look if you had the 7D sensor technology and processor with 8 megapixels.

With the 40D there were RAW comparisons very early on with the 30D, and the results were, of course, very similar. With the 50D and beyond it gets a little more difficult because Canon has changed the in camera processing so much, and the RAWs don't necessarily behave like 30D/40D RAWs (same goes for the 5D and 5DII). I think the big let down with the 50D had a lot do with Canon's claims about high ISO improvement, when they really just improved in camera NR for jpegs. The 7D seems to be applying an unprecedented level of NR in camera as well, so you're certainly right that we'll have to wait for the RAWs and DPP 3.7 (or others) to make an accurate assessment of the IQ.

whitesell wrote in post #8726246
If you don't want the huge raw file size, simply switch to one of the smaller file sizes.... M-RAW or S-RAW

right, but there's still a compression or noise issue to be getting 27mb files from a 18mp sensor at ISOs that low, that's my point. Granted canon's compression has never been amazing...

artyman wrote in post #8726309
Hmm so the 7D should have it's megapicxels reduced, I don't see a clamour to have the 5DII reduced from 21MP surely that would have been better at 15MP

actually, a 16mp (1DsII sensor) 5Dii would have been ideal for me. I never said I wanted more than the 12 the 5D had, I just wanted everything else that came with that upgrade. I used 21mp 25% of the time tops, the rest was sRAW1 or 2. And imagine what a 5Dii could have been with less pixels. Even better, less pixels AND the 7D's processing (if it really is bandless IRL).

If I really NEEDED 18+ or 20+ MP I'd be MF shopping. DSLRs are all about having MOST of the IQ (and more at high ISOs) in a portable package that's more responsive.

whitesell wrote in post #8726246
If you don't want the huge raw file size, simply switch to one of the smaller file sizes.... M-RAW or S-RAW

That is most likely what I will do for family and other shoots, but when I do band or stage presentations, I will shoot at the full size, and crop out what I don't want. Every single raw and JPG sample that I have seen thus far here and on other sites/forums, I don't see the high ISO banding/patterning, and that alone sells me on the camera.

I didn't have this issue on the MKIII but have had it on the 40D and 50D. This is pretty exciting that I once again can have a camera that will have a larger feature set and performance than I probably will use on a daily basis, but it is there should I need it, and without some of the headaches I have had in the past. The 30D and MKIII have been the two of my favorite bodies to date out of 8 models I have tried, and I hope to add the 7D to that list.

TooManyShots wrote in post #8726088
I am repeating myself again. I have yet see a bird shot at ISO1600 cropped in RAW from the 7D yet........in RAW.....

Will someone get this man a bird shot at ISO1600 in RAW from a 7D already?!?

A simple duck shot would satisfy those requirements, where are the duck shots?

I see the statement that IF this 7D had less MP's it would be soooo much better as a possibility but not a certainty.

Canon is not a stupid company of know nothings. We sit at home and offer Monday morning quarterback statements and think it is a snap to do this or that. I bet it is a lot more involved than even the most knowledgeable here would know, unless they actually are involved with Canon do it for a living.

To be far I am as guilty as all here of this, perhaps more so.

I think Canon has looked at using lower resolution chips but with their newer Digic processors and found the improvements to be less than stellar. Better, but easily quantifiable. However, if Canon also changes the imaging chip and ups the MP's too then we have no way to compare apples with apples. So we chime in with, "wow a bit less noise AND more MP's Canon is amazing, or good, or sucks you pick your poison".

Wondering about "what if" is going to get us absolutely no where.

Already there are some signs that the 7D has some issues and we are awaiting some more pictures in RAW to make a final decision. There is white Dandruff at higher ISO's and there may be heavy Pattern noise or not we need more testing here. It is still noisy but a bit less so then the 50D but more so than the 5DmkII which is the top of the IQ bodies right now.

Video feature set is the best but I bet it will be a notch behind the 5DmkII overall in High ISO video too. Still to early to know.

So what does that leave us to conclude? We need more images in more varied lighting conditions to be certain of anything WRT the 7D. Initial lower ISO shots look promising after a bit of PP, which I find to be totally fair as this is the way I show folks what I shot. Never unprocessed straight from the camera stuff.

Unprocessed says very little IMO except to allow others more skilled in PP to work their magic on our images and show us how much better a good hand can massage an image to perfection. This too has it's place and value. It just is a natural part of the picture viewing process. Images need to be treated to some PP to be truly finished.

It also takes time for folks to learn how to work the new body with it's new layout and feature set. It also takes time for the software designers to refine their wares to get the most out of these new bodies files. None of this happens overnight.

I think with all it's options that the new AF is going to give many fits. It is a bit daunting with all the choices it offers. So, early on, some will hate the 7D because they have not learned and, through trial and error, tweaked the AF options to perform the best it can for their shooting style and situation. Should Canon be blamed because some are too lazy or unskilled to tweak the AF to achieve better results?

What I would like to see is an early release report and then about 6 months later, a state of the art look at software and refined shooting skills to give a more complete and balanced review of the body in question. Unless I missed it this almost never happens.