40d vs 7d

ok 1

Yeah, having upgraded from a 40D to a 7D I know what you're talking about. I was hoping for basically a 40D/50D with a better AF system but the 7D is just a great package all around.

I felt sick as a pig ...............

When I did a side-by-side test with my 7D vs my 40D, I felt like I have 2+ years of shots that would have been SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better had the 7D come out sooner. I was going to keep my 40D as a backup, but right now I feel like giving it to my sister, because I can't look at it right now.

Hmm. Interesting.

I processed 7D and 40D RAWs with identical settings in DPP.

Was expecting the 7D to have more detail but also more noise.

Surprisingly, noise was the same (at the pixels level).

Even more surprisingly, the 7D had just a little extra detail compared to the 40D.


I guess it all depends on whether you look at RAWs vs JPEGs (I never use JPEGs) and also how you process the RAWs.

Here's a sharpness comparison from another thread:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=771783

stick it on a 300 2.8 L IS lens and see for yaself...........40D IS NOW IN THE BIN

lippy113 wrote in post #8891856
Hi went out with a friend today both using a EF300 2.8 L IS Lens each.
I was using a 40D and he was using a 7D both shooting on jpg. Settings were the same and i couldn't believe what i was seeing i wanted to throw my 40D on the floor............... his pictures were so sharp and colour was bang on mine were ......... Lets not even go there no comparison ok its got 8 million more pixels but the metering system is awesome exposure was bang on every time with the 7d no e/c needed at all...............

where did it all go wrong

Well....

The 7D is cleary in the next "line up" plus it is newer tech, so it's great if the 7D is better than the 40D no?

I'd hope so - I could get another 40D for around £450 but the 7D would set me back a great £1600!

its about time Canon came up with a camera that can match something like the 300 2.8 L IS optics

Just wait for someone to come in and tell you that it's user error because according to him, the 40D images are sharper than the 7D.

Having owned the 40D and now the 7D, the difference *to me* was quite noticeable. I wasn't expecting to see such a difference so I was pleasantly surprised.

Now one could argue, however, that since the 40D doesn't have MFA (micro-focus-adjustment), the 300 might not be performing at its peak on your 40D. But through my own tests, with live view manual focusing on static objects, advantage goes to the 7D.

lippy113 wrote in post #8891856
Hi went out with a friend today both using a EF300 2.8 L IS Lens each.
I was using a 40D and he was using a 7D both shooting on jpg. Settings were the same and i couldn't believe what i was seeing i wanted to throw my 40D on the floor............... his pictures were so sharp and colour was bang on mine were ......... Lets not even go there no comparison ok its got 8 million more pixels but the metering system is awesome exposure was bang on every time with the 7d no e/c needed at all...............

where did it all go wrong

Looking on the monitor, or the back of the camera?

both... we are both using full HD monitors 1920 x 1200 pixels

Same camera settings (wb, exposure, iso, sharpening, etc)? Was the lens calibrated (microfocus adj)for the 7D? Was the lens cal on the 40D(no adj) spot on? How do the RAW files look? I hate to be a skeptic, but the 40D IQ is very good.

lippy113 wrote in post #8892047
both... we are both using full HD monitors 1920 x 1200 pixels

nice.
I've had great luck with the 40,
but found the weakness to be low light (typical for crop sensors)
how is the 7?

you cant say the IQ on the 40d is good unless you have seen the same picture out of the 7d . The 7d in low light nailed the exposure bang on and noise seemed better and in low light if the exposure is out then its more noisy..

I wonder how this puppy i.e 7D measures up against the 1d MK111 then.....
Has any one ever attempted a test...