Sent back the 7d ):

Skip Souza wrote in post #9708277
OK guys. You know who you are, I've deleted your posts. Stop arguing at each other.

Thank you.

I had the 7D and returned it after just 4 days. I was at the time using a 40D and thought the 7D would be this great upgrade in IQ. The biggest reason for me to upgrade was better IQ performance.
I thought the 7D was a great camera and a huge improvement over the 40D, but the IQ was just not acceptable to me. I didnt see it as an upgrade worth 1800 dollar. I ended up buying the 5D-2 which to me was everything i was looking for IQ wise and then some.

Alot of people on here said it was this great camera. I thought i was crazy until i started searching around online and found i wasnt the only one. There where tons of others reviewing the camera and finding the same problem as i was.

Here is one of the many reviews i found where they compare it to many cameras, and the 7D files rite out of camera always looks worse.

http://darwinwiggett.w​ordpress.com/2009/11/1​1/the-canon-7d/

hpulley wrote in post #9708403
Canon has had the 1.3x crop for years and years. There are legions of sports shooters who are used to this length with their lenses. I don't see Canon getting rid of it anytime soon. Perhaps they'll follow Nikon in letting their full frame cameras take different crops?

Actually, I just read something (post 1D4 release) from Canon where they said the 1.3 was a solution to an old problem (year 2000ish) that really has no application today. They all but said the 1.3 will be going away at some point in the not to distant future.

With the 1D4 Canon played it safe and really didn't do much other than try to fix the AF problems of the 1D3 and added a very few additional features. They punted on the 1D4 to try and get back to neutral ground and repair their damaged reputation. I suspect the 1DV will be a full frame and the 1.3 will go the way of the Dodo.

I'll see if I can find that online article.

Nah...I've seen his shots....pretty darn impressive.

Waldemar Sikorski wrote in post #9708993
I think Rai33 shoots with the 7D and his images are so, so, .... well look for yourself.

maverick678 wrote in post #9709065
Nah...I've seen his shots....pretty darn impressive.

I know, shouldn't he be returning the 7D since it's soft and has that diffraction limit and what other reasons there are...

IT's seem that there are two kind of 7D. a sort of dr Jekill and... Some post show stunning picture other simply muddy. For myself, I have return 2 samples, more on the mr Hyde side. Can't have a dawn good picture with the 300mm f2.8 on longer distance shot. at close distance: so-so. desperate and deceive! No real other alternative with Canon.

chomish wrote in post #9709041
I had the 7D and returned it after just 4 days. I was at the time using a 40D and thought the 7D would be this great upgrade in IQ. The biggest reason for me to upgrade was better IQ performance.
I thought the 7D was a great camera and a huge improvement over the 40D, but the IQ was just not acceptable to me. I didnt see it as an upgrade worth 1800 dollar. I ended up buying the 5D-2 which to me was everything i was looking for IQ wise and then some.

Alot of people on here said it was this great camera. I thought i was crazy until i started searching around online and found i wasnt the only one. There where tons of others reviewing the camera and finding the same problem as i was.

Here is one of the many reviews i found where they compare it to many cameras, and the 7D files rite out of camera always looks worse.

http://darwinwiggett.w​ordpress.com/2009/11/1​1/the-canon-7d/

Yuck... that's a disturbing review... so...

Go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM and download the images for the 7d and any other crop camera and downsize the 7d to what you want to compare it to...

I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison, but for sure the 7d wins in this comparison. I then downloaded same image for 5d mk2, downsized that, and compared to the others, and at the smaller size, it's incrementally better than the others, as to be expected....

so... i'm not sure what's going on in that review... but I'm not gonna send my 7d back based on that...

my 2 cents

jonchicoine wrote in post #9709926
Yuck... that's a disturbing review... so...

Go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM and download the images for the 7d and any other crop camera and downsize the 7d to what you want to compare it to...

I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison, but for sure the 7d wins in this comparison. I then downloaded same image for 5d mk2, downsized that, and compared to the others, and at the smaller size, it's incrementally better than the others, as to be expected....

so... i'm not sure what's going on in that review... but I'm not gonna send my 7d back based on that...

my 2 cents

It says in the side bar of that site, "These images are JPEGs straight from the camera..." Those would be sharper than the RAW files straight out of the camera. From what I gather after reading through this entire thread, the RAW quality straight out of the camera is the issue. The test that chomish linked used RAW files for the comparisons.

Gerald3 wrote in post #9710113
It says in the side bar of that site, "These images are JPEGs straight from the camera..." Those would be sharper than the RAW files straight out of the camera. From what I gather after reading through this entire thread, the RAW quality straight out of the camera is the issue. The test that chomish linked used RAW files for the comparisons.

ah, I see thanks... i missed that

tharmsen wrote in post #9709056
Actually, I just read something (post 1D4 release) from Canon where they said the 1.3 was a solution to an old problem (year 2000ish) that really has no application today. They all but said the 1.3 will be going away at some point in the not to distant future.

With the 1D4 Canon played it safe and really didn't do much other than try to fix the AF problems of the 1D3 and added a very few additional features. They punted on the 1D4 to try and get back to neutral ground and repair their damaged reputation. I suspect the 1DV will be a full frame and the 1.3 will go the way of the Dodo.

I'll see if I can find that online article.

1D Mark IV was supposed to be full frame too... oh wait, I read that the 1Ds Mark IV will be larger than full frame, but will still take EF lenses with no vignetting. I don't believe what I read until the final announcement, up until then I add a bag of salt!

Until Canon can get a 10fps full frame camera going the 1.3x is here to stay. With all the bits they have to push around I dunno, quad DIGIC V processors on the 1DV maybe can do it... And even then, I'll wish they could widen the AF sensors as I really like the coverage of the 1D 1.3x.

hpulley wrote in post #9710420
1D Mark IV was supposed to be full frame too... oh wait, I read that the 1Ds Mark IV will be larger than full frame, but will still take EF lenses with no vignetting. I don't believe what I read until the final announcement, up until then I add a bag of salt!

Until Canon can get a 10fps full frame camera going the 1.3x is here to stay. With all the bits they have to push around I dunno, quad DIGIC V processors on the 1DV maybe can do it... And even then, I'll wish they could widen the AF sensors as I really like the coverage of the 1D 1.3x.

Yeah, never take the word of Canon or anything.

Nikon has had full frame shooting at 9fps for a while now. Somehow, I don't think getting that to 10fps would be all that difficult if that's all that's keeping them with the 1.3 (and it's not).

Okay ... this might a dumb question ... if 18 megapixels is pushing the limits ... why not try a lower quality setting? Has anyone tried shooting at M RAW, which according to the manual is 10 megapixels) to see if the IQ is more satisfactory?

I'm happy with my 7D, it just took a while to learn how to not interfere in its capability. In this instance, the human was the issue but I had no place to return myself too so perservered until I could do better.

hpulley wrote in post #9710420
Until Canon can get a 10fps full frame camera going the 1.3x is here to stay. With all the bits they have to push around I dunno, quad DIGIC V processors on the 1DV maybe can do it... And even then, I'll wish they could widen the AF sensors as I really like the coverage of the 1D 1.3x.

Theres no reason they cant do a 10fps FF camera, they had a mirror and shutter mechanism for it in the EOS-1v and as for the data the size of the sensor doesnt matter, you're still collecting 16mp of information and pushing it...They could have easily gotten a 10fps 16mp FF 1D Mk IV if they wanted to

The reason 1.3 was created was sensor technology didnt allow for full frame sensors that were cost effective for a while, and even the original 1Ds used 2 sensor "halves" to make a full frame sensor...the 1Ds II was the first to have a 1 piece FF sensor if i remember right..

There has to be something besides technical limitations we're not thinking of or we're not privvy to, maybe the fact is that pros in the field DO like the 1.3x crop because it spares them using a teleconverter...See that 1Ds III vs 7D test for an example of why that is a good thing...

KenjiS wrote in post #9710854
There has to be something besides technical limitations we're not thinking of or we're not privvy to, maybe the fact is that pros in the field DO like the 1.3x crop because it spares them using a teleconverter...

I for one like the 1.3 crop as it woks well for what I do most with a 300f2.8 ans saves me buying a 400f2.8 and I guess there are a lot of people out there who think the same.

sue.t wrote in post #9710765
Okay ... this might a dumb question ... if 18 megapixels is pushing the limits ... why not try a lower quality setting? Has anyone tried shooting at M RAW, which according to the manual is 10 megapixels) to see if the IQ is more satisfactory?

I am happy with the way mine is at 18mp but its a good point and I might give it a go one of the days.