Sent back the 7d ):

malla1962 wrote in post #9712013
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.

I dont think that matters as the pixels are no becoming fysically bigger - it will just use less of them....

I did some shots in MRAW. basically when I was testing out when it was new, I don't see that it would intrinsically improve an image since I presume it uses the processors to downsize the image before writing to the CF card. This may give an appearance of sharper images when viewed full size in the same way that an 8MP camera looks better at 100%. This whole argument seems to be spurious to me, it's what the image looks like in print that is really the determining factor, and 18MP is putting more information on that paper. This is an MRAW shot, I didn't get time to change to full size when this guy arrived in the garden.

This was shot through Double glazing, not the best quality filter

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

artyman wrote in post #9712078
I did some shots in MRAW. basically when I was testing out when it was new, I don't see that it would intrinsically improve an image since I presume it uses the processors to downsize the image before writing to the CF card. This may give an appearance of sharper images when viewed full size in the same way that an 8MP camera looks better at 100%. This whole argument seems to be spurious to me, it's what the image looks like in print that is really the determining factor, and 18MP is putting more information on that paper. This is an MRAW shot, I didn't get time to change to full size when this guy arrived in the garden.

This was shot through Double glazing, not the best quality filter

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Looks good mate.

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?

Have asked the same question many times before. Those who 'abandoned' their 7D have NO answer for it (even though they get the 'image quality' they want + tons of features). Tells you something...

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.

Firstly, there are RAW images on Imaging Resource site for direct download and comparison.

Secondly, I currently own both 450D and 7D. And here's my direct comparison to prove Darwin Wiggett is an idiot.

RAW. 55 mm, f/11 (diffraction limited on BOTH 450D and 7D), 1/25 sec, ISO 100. Tripod mounted, manual focus with 10x live view magnification. Identical RAW conversion procedure. Scaled to the same print size.

450D left, 7D right:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

zincozinco wrote in post #9712069
I dont think that matters as the pixels are no becoming fysically bigger - it will just use less of them....

Aren't the pixels smaller and more clustered together?

thw wrote in post #9712342
Firstly, there are RAW images on Imaging Resource site for direct download and comparison.

Secondly, I currently own both 450D and 7D. And here's my direct comparison to prove Darwin Wiggett is an idiot.

RAW. 55 mm, f/11 (diffraction limited on BOTH 450D and 7D), 1/25 sec, ISO 100. Tripod mounted, manual focus with 10x live view magnification. Identical RAW conversion procedure. Scaled to the same print size.

450D left, 7D right:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Thirdly, the choice of software used for 7D plays a VERY big role. DPP is a bad choice. See this: http://www.fredmiranda​.com …/topic/809801/1​32#7748307

A. I don't see a large enough IQ improvement for the 7d
B. Funny how the software supplied with the camera is not the best at bring out the pic.

thw wrote in post #9712342
Thirdly, the choice of software used for 7D plays a VERY big role. DPP is a bad choice. See this: http://www.fredmiranda​.com …/topic/809801/1​32#7748307

I'm not going to read all 178 pages of that thread, but the page you linked to for that single post about CaptureOne is not flattering to the 7D in the slightest. If anything, they're talking about image quality problems not even addressed in this thread. Once again, most of the people in that thread (at least on that page) see problems with the 7D's image quality regardless of which RAW converter you use. One guy posted that he processed using DPP and CaptureOne, then overlayed the images in CS4 only to discover they had the same artifacting in the images.

yeah... 178 pages is a lot...

I did some scanning of the tread and found one of them did a sharpness comparison. Pretty interesting. I am gonna download a trial version of Capture one and try.

^ I wonder if u can run that file of the can over trial version capture one and see if the sharpness really improves. Just wondering.

But here is the single post that I single out about sharpness test:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …/topic/809801/1​36#7765183

tharmsen wrote in post #9712507
I'm not going to read all 178 pages of that thread, but the page you linked to for that single post about CaptureOne is not flattering to the 7D in the slightest. If anything, they're talking about image quality problems not even addressed in this thread.

Yes, a lot of that has to do with mazing artifacts (in early copies of the 7D) which require one to view images at 200%.

So, if we disregard those artifacts (which are absent in my 7D even after viewing at 200%... ), no one can dispute there's nothing wrong with sharpness on the 7D.

Once again, I point out this comparison between 1Ds3 vs 1D4 vs 7D. Guess not many are willing to accept the 1Ds3 is not that much better than 7D at high ISO.

I'm not sure where I read that DPP is the best choice for the 7D right now, until other software manufacturers can catch up the the 7D's technology.

I've been content with the results from DPP but tried only a couple of others before making the decision to stick with one software package and get to know how to use that one to best effectiveness. Made sense to use Canon's software for Canon's hardware. Was using ACR before this and wasn't as happy.

Will keep my memory banks working and try to recall where that article was.

^ I like DPP and I continue to use DPP. I just found out about capture 1 today and am curious about its capability. I wonder if canon's 3.8 update improve the algorithm any ( i doubt it) but I am gonna try out the capture one tonight when I get home.

Right ... found it ... http://canonfieldrevie​ws.com/canon-7d-4-image-quality/

Under Conclusions and Recommendations:

LR 2.5 and LR 2.6 are in my opinion not yet optimized for developing and editing raw files from 7D. I hope Adobe will soon release Lightroom version 3 with optimized code for 7D files, to compete with DPP. I really love Lightroom, but I am not impressed how LR deals with my 7D raw files. For best image quality from your 7D raw files you should use the Canon DPP software.

And the review summarizes:

If you already own a Canon 7D, I encourage you to enjoy it and don´t pay too much attention to photographers who aren’t satisfied with it. The most important thing is that you are satisfied.

Capture One feels extremely unintuitive to me... Most windows apps, have a "save as" or "save for web", or convert somewhere under the file menu... Capture one v5 does not appear to have that. i believe you have to use/apply a recipe and then one of those little icons brings up a process window, that will finally output something.

I'm not saying it's bad, it may actually be a great way to do things, it's just not the norm, and i find it painful to get use to.

and personally, i can't say if it does a better job, but if it does... that's pretty damn scary if you ask me!

sue.t wrote in post #9713021
If you already own a Canon 7D, I encourage you to enjoy it and don´t pay too much attention to photographers who aren’t satisfied with it. The most important thing is that you are satisfied.

And that should be the deciding factor