Sent back the 7d ):

jonchicoine wrote in post #9713110
I can't say if it does a better job

I can - it does, and by some margin over ACR/Lr.

Why "scary"? If you want the best out of the 7D you should use the best software for the job. Nothing scary about that...

thw wrote in post #9712721
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.

I have no idea what maze you're talking about, but 7D images are simply soft period.
I haven't seen any sharp image yet. Anywhere. It's quite sad people are trying to
prove how sharp it is by showing really bad photos, even here in this thread.
To me it's clearly related to the new sensor. The high MP images must suffer
and Canon chose to apply some doubtful magic to it instead of "losing the MP war".
Quite pathetic. It is a very bad sign for the future. Nobody needs more megapixels,
people want a better image - more dynamic range and more real resolution.
I'm positive the 21MP/full frame limit is where we should stop and spend some R&D
on improving the dynamic range. Clean up the lower range (shadows), improve
the noise (I'm talking base ISO noise) and we will get more details. But stop adding
more bad noisy pixels!
Motion picture cameras are concentrating on this. It's probably because they are
designed for the pros who want only one thing - more dynamic range.
They are not trying to bring more pixels - 4K, even 2K is plenty and nobody wants 16K.
But they want a cleaner image with more dynamic range. Nothing else.
Canon is making cameras for the Pop Photo crowd. More pixels please

21 mpixels is (more than) enough for a FF. I do not and will not replace my 5DII for more of those. I want lower noise and more DR. I want that more than better AF or any other bell and whiste they will invent and try to convince me that I "need".

snowboarder wrote in post #9713288
I haven't seen any sharp image yet. Anywhere. ...(

I agree with most of what snowboarder is saying... but I think it's exaggerating to say there are NO sharp 7d pics. someone else posted this link earlier in the thread, and to my novice eye, a lot of these are really good, and many very sharp.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …19&thread=34330​666&page=1

does no one else think there are some really sharp pics in that thread?

sue.t wrote in post #9713021
LR 2.5 and LR 2.6 are in my opinion not yet optimized for developing and editing raw files from 7D.

I believe this as well. I think it helps to process with "Camera Faithful" settings instead of Adobe Standard (or whatever the default is).

John

snowboarder wrote in post #9713288
I have no idea what maze you're talking about, but 7D images are simply soft period.
I haven't seen any sharp image yet. Anywhere. It's quite sad people are trying to
prove how sharp it is by showing really bad photos, even here in this thread.

Have you seen my 450D vs 7D side-by-side direct comparison? Or the link provided? Or do you prefer to bury your head in the sand?

I do not understand why people insist on believing in the pixel density myth. Sometimes people think they know better than sensor designers themselves:
http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1000&messag​e=34469358
Hello... wake up! Or are you guys waiting for Nikon to release a 20 MP APS-C camera and 35 MP FF camera before you'll acknowledge there's no such thing as pixel limit?

Perfect_10 wrote in post #9713153


And that should be the deciding factor

And the end of this thread.

malla1962 wrote in post #9713558
And the end of this thread.

One can only hope

Honestly the XSi roof shot is about as sharp, just needs a little contrast boost to be honest. 12MP to 18MP isn't even that huge a difference really.

malla1962 wrote in post #9713558
And the end of this thread.

Aww and I just bought this popcorn

^ to go with ur pop corn.

I think pixel density limit is not really a limit. I agree with everyone that DR, noise and other area should be improved and all.

7D or no 7D, in my low IQ (not image quality) mind, I cannot wrap around the argument. here is my thinking: resolution and sharpness should go hand in hand. and the more line you can resolve, the sharper the image is. I understand there is limit on printing and droplet size and what not. but just in theory, the more line I can squeeze onto a given 8x10 area, should be sharper right? so given 4mp, 8mp, 12mp, 18mp and you print them all on a piece of a4 paper, which one will appear sharper or more detailed (keep in mind we are not talking about noise, dr here)? Does it really matter about 100% view at this point? maybe one day we will have 21mp monitor in front of us but then the pixel will be so small, does that really matter?

I can see the image appear to be soft on tharmsen's pictures and many others. These are all very valid reason for them to pick FF over 7D for whatever work they do or they simply being perfectionist. but to say all the pictures from 7d is soft is just looking for arguing with people and not really offering anything to help with finding solution to the problems.

Maybe there is a limit to my 7D or 450D but I look for solutions. I commented on Tharmen's 5000ISo and 6400 ISO pictures not to challenge anyone but trying to find if there is a solution to the problem and I am glad he posted the 10,000 iso pictures and that not being a solution but makes me look else where for the cause of the problem. Many complains about the sharpness and I found some people shows Capture one can do better job and I am going to try it. I love DPP, it is simple and does a good job but if capture one can do better job process my 7D pictures and make it looks as sharp or close to the sharpness of FF 5d2. guess what? That is my answer to my problem and I will adapt to the tool to produce better image.

There is no perfect camera (not yet) and I am sure technology will only get better and better. The prize for me is the end result, a good beautiful picture that I can show my friend and hang on wall or revisit and appreciate life. Only bashing how bad the camera looks and how reviews says bad things are not constructive criticism. And there is always Nikon but it is not like they don't have their share of the problems. No one is telling anyone not to swich and if you have the financial strength to do so, please do switch. I am not a canon fan and I would have no problem to buy another brand but given the price range and crop factor, 7d is still a very good choice and probably still one of the best at this price range (new).

enough of my soup box. I just like to see people trying to find solution noise reduction software, settings on the camera and what not to produce better result instead of simply "this camera suck balls and this other camera pawns it any time" comment is really just waste of time.

jonchicoine wrote in post #9713375
I agree with most of what snowboarder is saying... but I think it's exaggerating to say there are NO sharp 7d pics. someone else posted this link earlier in the thread, and to my novice eye, a lot of these are really good, and many very sharp.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …19&thread=34330​666&page=1

does no one else think there are some really sharp pics in that thread?

There is some nice images in that thread.

snowboarder wrote in post #9713288
but 7D images are simply soft period.
I haven't seen any sharp image yet. Anywhere.

Care to comment?

rogazilla wrote in post #9713631
^ to go with ur pop corn.

That last line just warranted the popcorn funds used for the purchase of said popcorn!

Good points made lately and the dpreview post has a bit in the 4th point :

"....I am not certain small pixels are really better or necessary at this moment...."

After that was said, it does look like those with access to FF are generally the ones disappointed in the 7D and I can't fault them. When it comes to processing, if DPP is no good for the 7D and perhaps future cameras, that essentially levels the playing field in the bundled software category. Those whose lives depend on sharpness likely have FF already and those who are perfectly happy with the 7D probably don't make a living off of photography and much respect to them as well since they're happy with what they have.

Waldemar Sikorski wrote in post #9713713
Care to comment?

That's far more detail than I ever wanted to see

jonchicoine wrote in post #9713375
a lot of these are really good, and many very sharp.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …19&thread=34330​666&page=1

I went through those pics as well and none of those are really good.
Most are over-processed with too much noise reduction and then over-sharpened.
Many are simply soft. What's sad you can see it on a web-sized version...
Look, many people haven't really seen any sharp photos. They jumped from a P&S
to an entry level Rebel camera, they have been told it's "normal" for their images
to look soft because it's a DSLR, blah, blah. Then many upgraded to a 7D
and they are experts now. With all the respect you can only trust people who
have been shooting with a high end DSLR for years, who own 5D II or 1D
and now they have a 7D. Somebody who upgraded from a Rebel to a 7D simply
often doesn't know otherwise. He will fight to death because he just spent so much
money on a camera... It's the human nature But he needs time to learn
how to shoot and how to process the files. And how to see...
The fact is 7D is simply a disappointing act. Many great features, poor image quality.
If 5D Mark III follows the same philosophy, Canon will lose many disappointing shooters.