Sent back the 7d ):

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

Oh, crap.

If these aren't sharp (and to be clear, they're better again big and uncompressed) then you don't obviously know what "sharp" means:

snowboarder wrote in post #9713765
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.

This is why two days ago I wrote this.
I'm still waiting for your comment.

snowboarder wrote in post #9713765
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.

That is so funny.

snowboarder wrote in post #9713765
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.

I guess "MANY" people's experience and expertise is really base on the equipment that they have, from your logic.

Keith R wrote in post #9713792
Oh, crap.

If these aren't sharp (and to be clear, they're better again big and uncompressed) then you don't obviously know what "sharp" means:

I bet if you printed them and put them along side images from any other camera NOBODY would be able the say that they were taken with a 7d.

Wow @ those bird pix. Outstanding! Looks tack sharp to my eye. And those model pix folks linked to. OMG gorgeous! I'd sure like to learn (in general, not specifically wrt the 7D) how to get results like that! I would proudly frame and hang any of those pics.

snowboarders comment " 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"
strikes me as rather arrogant. Regardless of what people have used in the past, possibly for reason of cost, does not negate their opinions and to imply that only "high end users" are qualified is rubbish in my opinion.

There are so many variables in all of this including the glass used, skill level, shooting conditions. There are enough examples of sharp 7D images to confirm that the 7D is a decent crop camera, perhaps snowboarders skill level wasn't good enough to utilise it.

artyman wrote in post #9714019
snowboarders comment " 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"
strikes me as rather arrogant. Regardless of what people have used in the past, possibly for reason of cost, does not negate their opinions and to imply that only "high end users" are qualified is rubbish in my opinion.

There are so many variables in all of this including the glass used, skill level, shooting conditions. There are enough examples of sharp 7D images to confirm that the 7D is a decent crop camera, perhaps snowboarders skill level wasn't good enough to utilise it.

I agree. and I have had plenty of high end cameras,ie 1dmk2, 1dmk2N, 1dsmk2, 1dmk3, 1dsmk3. and I love the 7D

Here is a recent photo with the KIT lens on the 7d. I think its pretty sharp myself... taken 7d, 1/400, f5.6, 100 ISO

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

snowboarder wrote in post #9713765
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...

I'll turn the tables, maybe it is all those people with the "high end DSLR"s that are "fighting to the death" to justify their much more $$ equipment over a camera that costs much less. Surely someone with lower end equipment doesn't know what they are talking about and could never take a good sharp photograph and recognize it as such.

Anyway, as always these arguments are pointless (but sometimes entertaining.. like a train wreck), just use what gets the job done for you and be done with it. There are obviously a lot of 7d users out there that think the camera gets the job done, for everyone else there is other equipment.

Oh, yes I have a 7d.. no I didn't come from a Rebel but neither did I come from a "high end DSLR" or a point and shoot. So I guess I fall somewhere inbetween in the photography hierarchy.


John

Maybe another question to ask is the opposite one: how 'low' down the DSLR Canon line can one go and get truly awesome tack sharp shots without having to tweak every little thing?

We know the highest end Canon DSLRs take amazing pics.

I believe the 7D can produce great photos (I've seen it on these forums).

Does it take a semi-pro or pro-level photographer to get awesome results with the 7D? Does the photographer need to have a certain min level of photographic technical expertise to accomplish this? Does the camera need to be tweaked a lot to get at this level of quality?

One of my considerations in looking at the 7D is the realization that perhaps I'm not up to the level of using such a camera--perhaps I don't have nearly the level of skill and knowledge required to get the kind of quality photos. I'm almost convinced the 7D is 'too much camera for me' and that I'd spend more time tweaking settings and trying to figure out how to get a good picture than just shooting, and that would be frustrating for sure.

I saw this quote here on POTN and it seems appropriate here...

Beginners worry about cost...Amateurs worry about equipment...Profession​als worry about light

You can get stunning shots with the Rebel XS though I wouldn't want to try to get a fast focus acquisition with one.

photophyte wrote in post #9714206
Maybe another question to ask is the opposite one: how 'low' down the DSLR Canon line can one go and get truly awesome tack sharp shots without having to tweak every little thing?

We know the highest end Canon DSLRs take amazing pics.

I believe the 7D can produce great photos (I've seen it on these forums).

Does it take a semi-pro or pro-level photographer to get awesome results with the 7D? Does the photographer need to have a certain min level of photographic technical expertise to accomplish this? Does the camera need to be tweaked a lot to get at this level of quality?

One of my considerations in looking at the 7D is the realization that perhaps I'm not up to the level of using such a camera--perhaps I don't have nearly the level of skill and knowledge required to get the kind of quality photos. I'm almost convinced the 7D is 'too much camera for me' and that I'd spend more time tweaking settings and trying to figure out how to get a good picture than just shooting, and that would be frustrating for sure.

It needs setting up right, good glass and a good shutter speed.

I think there are variation of body. I'm not a super dupper photographer, but I know how to take good image, see my jeelee galery in pbase. But I can't do anything with this damned body even with a 300m f2.8 that are not entry level lens as I know. On small bird everything are muddy, no great detail, my Xt borough at work give me better image. If I'L be having catch bird like the one show here by Keith, I have been keep the camera.