bad review on the 7D

jeppoy wrote in post #9012567
so childish when you see bashing here...really!!! what are you a 6th grader?

Ah, classic example of "do what you say, not what you do"! And if you want to bash people using grade school analogies, you probably should choose 4th grade or lower, because I have seen "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader", and I have come to the conclusion most people are not.

BTW, there is a difference in bashing and calmly pointing out the inadequacies of somebody's review.

Just because somebody is a good photographer, it doesn't make them an expert on a piece of technology. The reverse is also true, just because you know every single attribute of your camera and how to make it do things others can't, it doesn't make you a good photographer.

I fall more in this latter case and I am man enough to admit it.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #9012854
I fall more in this latter case and I am man enough to admit it.

Me too!

I think that there are flaws in the test, but it's still useful evidence as long as the person reading the review understands the shortcomings. Stopping down to f/11 or f/13, as he did in the test, and then looking at unsharpened 100% crops is going to show softness. Diffraction is visible at that aperture, although it is not offensive at normal viewing sizes.

Personally, I think that the 7D is a camera that requires a bit of sharpening to look its best.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #9012854
... and I am man enough to admit it.

You are not alone, TeamSpeed

Edit: Oh, WE are not alone either!

Later today I think I'll do similar tests with my 4 bodies (40D, 50D, 7D, XT) and see if the same happens. Although I don't have the lens they were using. I think I'll use my 17-55 2.8 and/or the nifty fifty (carefully focused... )

could be DPP

i shoot raw and import into lightroom. i have seen this in my files and what i do notice is that if i would shoot something at f/4, on a 100% crop, some of them looked soft when cropped in. if i re-shot it again at f5.6 or 6.3 no problem but it sure screws up your DOF. i called canon and they said it was the AA filter and to view them at 50-60% seemed odd for that explanation.

so, i tested it in studio lighting. never once was there an issue. i can view them at 200% and they are razor sharp. only place i see this is outside shots. so maybe the AA filter has something to do with his results.

his work is stunning, great use of hdr photography.

shot these 2 nights ago with a 7d and an 85mm 1.8. 1st one is pretty much right off the camera and i had to soften a little because it was too sharp. you can be the judge

I've done some test on my 40D, 50D, and 7D bodies, using the same scene, tripod, same settings, live view, manual focus, etc. and I have to admit the Darwin's complaints about small aperture softness of the 7D may be plausible but not confirmed.

My images at f14 came out a bit softer from the 7D than from the 40D and 50D with 40D being the sharpest. No surprise here. However, the 40D has no resolution advantage over the 7D even at f14. It is sharper at the 100% pixel level, but uprezzed image to match 7D size actually shows less detail than 7D image. But the 7D image has a bit less contrast compared to the 40D image.

But all in all, I believe tha 7d is not worse than 40D or 50D (or the XSi I assume) even if your lens is stopped down.

I used my Canon 17-55 2.8 IS for this test.

(I will compare wider aperture photos too, I looked at them quickly and there no contest there, the 7D wins, duh)


I pretty much never use my lenses at f14 or so anyway, I rarely even hit f10.

He is also a regular contributer here. A lot of chatter about this review at DP review. I have a lot of respect for him but personally I have my doubts about this review. I have seen many sharp images with this camera.

http://www.outdoorphot​ographycanada.com/inde​x.php

My own rough testing showed that when viewed at 100%, you WILL see the mild effects of diffraction at f/11. Even at f/8 compared to f/5.6 but the difference is so small that it truly isn't significant at that aperture. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to see a difference between f/5.6 and f/8 at 100%. At f/16, it is still relatively mild but noticeable. If you needed to crop heavily to frame your subject, f/16 might present a problem.

I get the distinct impression reading through the posts in this thread that anyone not posting a rave review of the 7D is going to suffer here.

I see nothing in the reviews tone or methods adopted or conclusions to get annoyed about. It is perfectly possible to make the necessary allowances while looking at similar images shot with different cameras, at whatever crop percentage they are offered. I certainly prefer an honest 100% crop across the board to a "lets try and cook the books" fiddle.

Lowner wrote in post #9018739
I certainly prefer an honest 100% crop across the board to a "lets try and cook the books" fiddle.

If such is the case, then why should manufacturers even bother making sensors beyond resolving a 1800x1200 resolution? (Which itself would already be bigger/wider than most people ever view or post/share on the web.)

From what I see over the years, 100% pixel peepers almost never ever print their images. It's all about looking at some 600x400 section and dissecting/evaluating/​analyzing the crap out of the "IQ" of that section: noise, sharpness, bokeh. They analyze shadows in obscure corner of an image, where there's nothing but blur, looking for the holy grail of noise-less photography.

Perhaps there are different philosophies in Photography that I am simply too ignorant to understand. I thought there's an art to identifying a scene, composing a scene, exposing the scene... to try and capture the scene. And since I can't afford to have 2 dozen LCD/LED monitors hanging up on my walls to display photos @ 100% viewing, I would resort to printing them out so I have something to decorate my home/office, and share with family & friends. Or for the "working/paid" photogs, print and sell them.

So forgive me if I never understand the 100% viewing camp. How does one determine the sharpness of 1 pixel? Is not 1 pixel defined as a single pigment of color? So that if you're going to look at a 600x400 section, you merely have 240,000 dots and how they're exposed is dependent on the light (and quality of light) transmitted through the lens attached before hitting the sensor?

In any case, those who still believe in Photography, looking at the overall photograph/image, will probably never understand all the fuss about looking at some 600x400 segment in the obscure shadows or looking for sharpness of an object when the object occupies 3000x2000 pixels. What are you evaluating? Dots?

Amen to that.

I say take your best shot, send it to a good lab, hang it on the wall in a nice frame, and then decide whether you're happy with the results.

As for bad reviews, what's new? There will always be bad reviews of complex gear like cameras, for all kinds of reasons (some legitimate and some less so).

That Wigget guy certainly has an eye for a great composition, by the way.

amfoto1 wrote in post #9008350
Who is Darwin WIggett and when did he become some kind of expert?

Problem with the Internet, anyone can publish anything and label themselves any way they wish.

There are a lot of problems with the methodology of that review...

#1 thing that comes to mind: The type of shooting they profess to do (landscape), the 5D MkII would be a better choice of camera than the 7D.

yeah, same problem with forums
anyone on the Internet with an acces to a forum could bash a pro without having a clue

Julian,

I completely agree with that. I was reacting to the argument presented that claimed any presentation of the 7D's test images was flawed because it did not adjust somehow for the crop size and pixel dimensions.

The impression I got was that anyone daring to suggest the 7D is not perfect in every way is obviously a complete and absolute idiot, has no idea what he or she is doing...... etc, etc.

Lowner wrote in post #9018739
I get the distinct impression reading through the posts in this thread that anyone not posting a rave review of the 7D is going to suffer here.

There's a difference between bashing a review or reviewer (yeah, some have done so here) and pointing out deficiencies in a reviewer's methods.

About a month ago, I did a comparison between my 5D, 5D2, and 7D. After presenting it, several posters noted potential flaws in my methodology. So, I incorporated some of the suggestions and performed the comparison again. The suggestions which I did not incorporate, I explained my reasoning for their omission.

The problem with compariong 100% crop vs. 100% crop is that you're essentially comparing two different sized images. At 150 ppi, the 7D's output translates into a print measuring approximately 36 X 24 inches. At the same 150 ppi, the 40D's output would measure approximately 26 X 17. Surely, one would want the final output to be the same size to compare the capability of the two.

As an owner of both the 5D2 and the 7D, I can attest to the fact that the 5D2's files are a little cleaner than those of the 7D - a little sharper and a bit more micro-detail. I don't think that's unexpected. The only issues in the test that bothered me were the fact that he shot at f/11 to f/14 on some of the test shots where diffraction would be an issue when viewed at 100% with a pixel density as high as that of the 7D.

My personal experience with the 7D is that it does require a bit more sharpening than other cameras, perhaps due to a stronger AA filter or some other influence. I think that the original shots in the test were done with sharpening in DPP set to "0". I don't do that, and didn't even with the 5D classic. He also set NR to "off" in DPP, which shouldn't really affect the low ISO range much but would certainly have a significant effect on high-ISO shots.

The 7D's settings and DPP's interpretation of those settings present a result that was part of the design that Canon likely had in mind. It makes for a tough situation when comparing two Canon cameras. For example, setting noise reduction to "low" and shooting at 3200 brings out different settings on the sliders in DPP when I shoot with the 7D vs the 5D2. So where do you set them when comparing? That was a question that came up when I compared these cameras, and ultimately, I compared them with both the Canon settings and separately, my own settings (0 NR, etc.).

In the end, as always, we should take the totality of the various reviews into account when making buying decisions.