Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 29 Sep 2009 (Tuesday) 13:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7D Received and Tested... short review

 
Canonswhitelensesrule
Goldmember
Avatar
3,648 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C.
     
Oct 01, 2009 16:30 |  #91

I know that having the ability to use high ISOs is a nice feature, and can get us shots we normally wouldn't be able to capture, but at times I think people forget that back in the "good old days" of film use (esp slide film) we did our best to use very LOW ISO films.

Film such as Kodachrome 25, 64, fujichrome 50, Velvia 50 etc, or up to ISO 400 (possibly pushed to ISO 1600 if need be). But that was usually the limit. So we were capable of producing images with those low ISO speed films (we just found a way to get the shots we needed).

So I think we may have gotten a bit "spoiled" by the super high ISOs available in digital, and perhaps have become too dependent on it as a "cure all" or "easy answer".

I'm not saying it doesn't have a place, or to never use the high ISOs available, but at least to me, it shouldn't be the most important feature of a camera. We should try and capture images with the lowest ISO possible, to get the "cleanest" shots possible. At least that's what I would try and do. Again this is all JMHO, and I didn't mean anything negative against anyone who uses high ISOs constantly, whatsoever.

*waits to get lambasted...


Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever! ;)
"It's only cheating if you get caught!" - Al Bundy
People who THINK they know it all really annoy those of us who DO!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Oct 01, 2009 16:32 |  #92

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #8743044 (external link)
Again this is all JMHO, and I didn't mean anything negative against anyone who uses high ISOs constantly, whatsoever.

Sometimes we don't have a choice, and for some of us who shoot a lot of available light stuff, high ISO performance is critical.
Referring to the film days is backward thinking IMO...technology marches on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Oct 01, 2009 16:47 |  #93

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #8743044 (external link)
But that was usually the limit. So we were capable of producing images with those low ISO speed films (we just found a way to get the shots we needed).

Or just not bothered. At least now one stands a chance of getting usable images in situations that were, in the 'good' old days, impossible.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canonswhitelensesrule
Goldmember
Avatar
3,648 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C.
     
Oct 01, 2009 16:57 |  #94

nicksan wrote in post #8743055 (external link)
Sometimes we don't have a choice, and for some of us who shoot a lot of available light stuff, high ISO performance is critical.
Referring to the film days is backward thinking IMO...technology marches on.

Oh I know technology marches on, and I apologize if my post offended anyone. That is why I qualified my post by saying, "I know that having the ability to use high ISOs is a nice feature, and can get us shots we normally wouldn't be able to capture", and " Again this is all JMHO, and I didn't mean anything negative against anyone who uses high ISOs constantly, whatsoever."

All I was trying to convey is that it seems that so many people are acting as if high ISOs are the MOST IMPORTANT thing on a camera, and that if it doesn't produce virtually SPOTLESSLY CLEAN images at these higher ISOs, then the camera is NFG.

I realize that high ISO performance is very important to some, and is in fact even critical to some, but it seems like that's the ONLY, or MOST IMPORTANT factor to the majority of people in the 7D threads, and NOT how SHARP an image it can produce at "normal" i.e. low ISO settings.

And as far as referring back to film days, I realize we have to move ahead with technology, but just because something is "old" doesn't necessarily mean it's always WORSE. I still think the vibrancy and saturation of colours of Velvia slide film on a bright sunny day which gave some photos almost a 3-D appearance, in which they simply "POPPED" off of the screen, are still some of the most stunning and beautiful images ever created.

Again, this is in no way meant to put down, or dispense any negativity whatsoever with today's advancements in technology, just saying that the olden days weren't ALL BAD.

I guess I'm just saying in a long winded manner...ENOUGH WITH THE HIGH ISO COMPARISON OR WANNA SEE threads already. Let's see MORE LOW/AVERAGE (50-400) ISO examples from the 7D. (If it goes down to 50 ISO - which it damn well should)


Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever! ;)
"It's only cheating if you get caught!" - Al Bundy
People who THINK they know it all really annoy those of us who DO!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Oct 01, 2009 16:57 |  #95

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #8743044 (external link)
I know that having the ability to use high ISOs is a nice feature, and can get us shots we normally wouldn't be able to capture, but at times I think people forget that back in the "good old days" of film use (esp slide film) we did our best to use very LOW ISO films.

Film such as Kodachrome 25, 64, fujichrome 50, Velvia 50 etc, or up to ISO 400 (possibly pushed to ISO 1600 if need be). But that was usually the limit. So we were capable of producing images with those low ISO speed films (we just found a way to get the shots we needed).

So I think we may have gotten a bit "spoiled" by the super high ISOs available in digital, and perhaps have become too dependent on it as a "cure all" or "easy answer".

I'm not saying it doesn't have a place, or to never use the high ISOs available, but at least to me, it shouldn't be the most important feature of a camera. We should try and capture images with the lowest ISO possible, to get the "cleanest" shots possible. At least that's what I would try and do. Again this is all JMHO, and I didn't mean anything negative against anyone who uses high ISOs constantly, whatsoever.

*waits to get lambasted...


Can't really say for sure, since I never really did much film.

That said, I think people these days actually don't give high iso a big enough chance. A single smidgen of noise and people go crying foul.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
774 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:10 |  #96

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #8743188 (external link)
it seems like that's the ONLY, or MOST IMPORTANT factor to the majority of people in the 7D threads, and NOT how SHARP an image it can produce at "normal" i.e. low ISO settings

The sharpness has nothing to do with ISO, and it is not a characteristic of the camera (the AA filters are pretty close to each other in the DSLRs).

just because something is "old" doesn't necessarily mean it's always WORSE

But something, which is "new" is always WORSE, right? For example high ISO capability.

If it goes down to 50 ISO - which it damn well should

It does not go down to 50, and it should not either. NO modern DSLR of Canon supports ISO 50, and it is very good that way.


Gabor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monokrome
Goldmember
Avatar
1,185 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: NoVa
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:16 |  #97

Panopeeper wrote in post #8743252 (external link)
It does not go down to 50, and it should not either. NO modern DSLR of Canon supports ISO 50, and it is very good that way.

It is selectable via C.Fn change with the 1d series bodies.



S5IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jannie
Goldmember
4,936 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:23 |  #98

Huh, my 1DMKIII goes down to 50 and I sure use it a lot with the 85L. It's the latest of Cannon's professional line, it doesn't say 50 it says L for Low and the same way with the 5D classic I had and I believe the 1DsMKIII as well.

I think Canon's doing their best to do a good job here, we cannot expect a smaller sensor to put out what a full frame sensor can do when using the same technologies and sensor design. If Canon made all new versions of all models to be developed at exactly the same time and to be released on the same date, the comparisons would probably be more accurate, but in this day and time, a camera that is introduced a year later than another is bound to have the differences that Canon believes from their research that the majority of the public will buy.

I as a consumer ask for huge things to happen because I want it now. If things weren't so hurried and technology changing so fast, I wouldn't be hearing people ask when the next 5D model will come out when the current one has only been out 6 months. In this regard I really miss the good old days of film, where the photographer had to learn to expose whether there was a meter in the camera or not, where your lenses were kept for many years until sometimes you physically wore out the mechanical mechanisms, where the photographer had to focus the camera themselves (It really wasn't that bad folks, now we want the Genie to do it for us, which is great for some of us older folks with tri-focals but a good split image ground glass was pretty darn good. ISO was left up to Kodak, it was called ASA then and to change it, you had to change the film.

So that may all seem so archaic now but one thing that really was better, people didn't complain about their equipment so much, or blame their goofed up shots on the camera or worse yet, the manufacturer. If your photographs were out of focus it meant you missed the focus, if they weren't exposed right then you blew it and learned to get it right.

The computer evolvement has caused everything to go faster, not necessarily easier because I think people are being pushed harder and for more hours because the competition is coming at them so fast.

But the one thing that doesn't change - talent.

Or like in a recent blog from Joe McNally who'm I like a lot, he said a guy was telling him he had all the latest heavy duty pro gear, knew how to operate it flawlessly but one thing he couldn't get a handle on, content. Good grief!

But I love digital photography with a passion because it does free you up to be able to do so much more and as for the high ISO thing, I was shooting last night, faces of people at work and it was practically dark, ISO 6400, f1.2 1/100th of a second. Yes it had noise but also yes I was able to get what I wanted and the photos will be used on the internet and not very big so I walked away with something that I simply would have never been able to get before, there was no possibility to light it, it was during a performance, shots of the guys running the lights and visual displays on their computers, also thank Goddess for Lightroom which with burn and dodging I could help the absolutely horrible light enough for some pretty nice compliments and that felt pretty good.


Ms.Jannie
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"!
1DMKIII, 85LII, 24-70L, 100-400L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canonswhitelensesrule
Goldmember
Avatar
3,648 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C.
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:33 |  #99

Panopeeper wrote in post #8743252 (external link)
But something, which is "new" is always WORSE, right? For example high ISO capability.

OMFG I didn't say that!! Quit putting words in my mouth and make it sound as if I was bashing high ISO capability! I'm not!!

I was just saying that it shouldn't be the BE ALL - END ALL of how a new camera is judged!! SHEESH!!!

In fact I repeatedly stated that the advancements in technology are GREAT!!! But it almost seems like if the cameras didn't have the super high ISO capability people wouldn't be able to take a damn picture. Or wouldn't even know HOW to. Heaven forbid they have to use a FLASH (that's a FIVE letter word, NOT a FOUR letter word last time I checked.)

Again, not putting down the new advancements in technology whatsoever, or the HIGH ISO capabilities, and the fact that they allow us to capture images we would never be able to capture in some circumstances where flash etc is not allowed, or feasible. More power to the engineers and creators of todays WONDERFUL cameras.

Just saying that the sun doesn't rise or set with HIGH ISO performance. (Or at least IMHO it shouldn't.) But it is nice to have the option if needed. And shouldn't be the MAIN criteria on how a new camera is judged. Again at least IMHO.

I didn't mean to upset or aggravate so many people.:o


Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever! ;)
"It's only cheating if you get caught!" - Al Bundy
People who THINK they know it all really annoy those of us who DO!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kccheers
Member
66 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Liberty, Missouri
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:39 |  #100

Funny how everyone is in such a frenzy on this camera. I don't remember it being that way when I bought my 40D...man that seems like a long time ago!


7D Gripped l 24-70 f2.8L l 70-200 f4.0L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
774 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:41 |  #101

It is quite common, that owners of the most expensive equipment don't really know their tools (this occurs with MFDBs as well, which cost many times more than DSLRs).

NONE of the modern Canons has ISO 50 (nor do the Nikons support it). Whenever you select ISO 50, you are shooting with ISO 100, one stop overexposed.

ISO 50 is only for JPEG: it overexposes and then reduces the intensity; of course that does not help with clipping. There is no reason to use ISO 50 with raw data; in fact, there is reason not to use it, namely overexposure.


Gabor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Panopeeper
Senior Member
774 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Oct 01, 2009 17:44 |  #102

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #8743371 (external link)
Just saying that the sun doesn't rise or set with HIGH ISO performance

Just to be clear: I am shooting almost only with ISO 200 (with a 40D). I don't remember to have used the 40D or earlier the 20D with 1600 ever. However, I do realize, that there are photographers shooting stage, highschool sport, etc. and they do need high ISO.


Gabor

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Oct 01, 2009 19:45 |  #103

1move wrote in post #8728358 (external link)
Here it is, sorry they are pretty crappy as I was in a hurry and shot against a bright background so the noise can be seen a bit more at the vase

@1000
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i212.photobucke​t.com …/cc52/1move_200​7/1000.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


@1600
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i212.photobucke​t.com …/cc52/1move_200​7/1600.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


@2500
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i212.photobucke​t.com …/cc52/1move_200​7/2500.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


@3200
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i212.photobucke​t.com …/cc52/1move_200​7/3200.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO


@6400
IMAGE NOT FOUND PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i212.photobucke​t.com …/cc52/1move_200​7/6400.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO



Anyone else vote for these as the worst test shots ever? ;)

Sorry to the OP, but man these are just painful to look at.


Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1move
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
330 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
     
Oct 02, 2009 10:42 |  #104

versedmb wrote in post #8743998 (external link)
Anyone else vote for these as the worst test shots ever? ;)

Sorry to the OP, but man these are just painful to look at.

Thanks for that! Knowing I was in a big rush and all these comments are pretty much useless. Photos are taken down now as per your comment, many people asked and I was first to post the photos I didnt see you jump in line:rolleyes:


Canon 5D mkIII II 24-70mm f2.8L v. II II 85mm f1.2L vII II 50mm f1.4 II 100mm Macro IS f2.8L II 2 x 580 EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AllenF
Member
231 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Oct 02, 2009 11:59 |  #105

Panopeeper
I sit corrected thank you for the correction and posting to clear up the DNG benefits and concerns.

I think DNG works well as you showed in your post. If one were concerned of another issue with Adobe missing the mark then I would burn to disk the original Canon RAW file and save it and then do the DNG on the hard drive and work with it. If, at a later date the DNG was found to be in error a simple reinstall of the Canon RAW from your disc copy would make all things right again. YMMV

As was pointed out for now if you want to look at the 7D RAW files you need the Canon software or the Adobe DNG to work with them. For now this is how it must be. To get the Canon software you have to buy the 7D. IIRC


7D, 20D, G10, T90, A-1, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L, Canon 100-400L, Canon 500D, 2 ea Canon 580 ex, Canon ST-E2, Velbon El Carmagne 630 Carbon fiber tripod with an Acratech Ultimate Ballhead, Acratech Leveling Base, Velbon Carbon Fiber SHERPA PRO POD NEO POD 8, Tons of RRS plates and quick release mounts, and flash stands diffusors and back drops, ETC...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

18,813 views & 0 likes for this thread
7D Received and Tested... short review
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Craig777
865 guests, 330 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.