Sent back the 7d ):

Man these are so soft! Damm all those MPs! They ruin these pictures! They are only sharp because they are resized for the internet! But damm look at how soft they are!

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:

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.

You would think there is a very good test or checklist for how sharp the 7D is that everyone could execute before running to the forum to lament the inadequacies of the 7D (or any new release actually).

Conditions/Tests:

1. Microadjust your sharpest lens
2. Sunny or well-lit area
3. Stop down said lens 1 stop from wide-open
4. Set ISO to 100-400
5. Mount camera to tripod, turn off IS if applicable
6. Use detailed target subject, preferably something interesting (and immobile)
7. One shot AF mode
8. Raw + JPEG
9. Focus and shoot target at shutter speed 1/FL or faster
10. Shoot test shot, process RAW with sharpening, or JPEG with post processing sharpening
11. Maybe repeat test shot but first go to live view and use 5x or 10x zoom to manually focus, then take shot and post-process (rules out #1 issues for the most part)

If this yields soft pics, then there probably is something wrong. If this yields a sharp image, but doesn't in other more complex situations, then it could very well be settings, AF mode, too high an ISO, etc. and you can take the research to the next level. I think the conditions above help eliminate many of the issues that could soften an image by doing a more controlled test without too many uncontrollable factors causing grief in your assessment.

There are also variations of photographers.

avan wrote in post #9714271
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.

Sweet, more dinky over sharpened images held up as examples of how sharp out of camera RAW images are at full resolution.

snowboarder wrote in post #9713765
... Canon will lose many disappointing shooters.

Surely a camera manufacturer would prefer to not have disappointing shooters user their gear. Makes for a bad impression.

tharmsen wrote in post #9714788
Sweet, more dinky over sharpened images held up as examples of how sharp out of camera RAW images are at full resolution.

Are you saying that you shoot, convert without processing and submit? Theseare in your department of expertise, care to comment?

Waldemar Sikorski wrote in post #9714910
Are you saying that you shoot, convert without processing and submit?

No, what I'm saying is showing highly processed images as examples of, now here's the important part, out of camera sharpness is a pointless exercise.

No one is arguing that you can't process a 7D image into something pretty. What's being debated is that the 7D produces softer images than other bodies in the Canon line-up.

Once you wrap your head around that, then is starts to make some sense.

tharmsen wrote in post #9714788
Sweet, more dinky over sharpened images held up as examples of how sharp out of camera RAW images are at full resolution.

I thought there are some post showing 100% crop unprocessed sharp image from the 7d...is it not?

Off topic but wanted to say you have some really nice bird shots Waldemar Sikorski.

tharmsen wrote in post #9714966
No, what I'm saying is showing highly processed images as examples of, now here's the important part, out of camera sharpness is a pointless exercise.

No one is arguing that you can't process a 7D image into something pretty. What's being debated is that the 7D produces softer images than other bodies in the Canon line-up.

Once you wrap your head around that, then is starts to make some sense.

Intresting. This is straight out of the camera RAW only converted to jpeg. Nothing else done. Pretty sharp to me where i aimed.

this thread has just gone to bits its like a die hard war between nay and jay sayers. its like a bad soap, i just have to log on and see whats going on, really nothing new has happened and still we are 20 pages in and its just repeating - im enjoying it but then again I was watching "Falcon Crest" as well.

bohdank wrote in post #9713314
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".

I feel exactly the same way!!

What people dont understand and the reason for the 7D is that Canon is a bussiness. The goal is to sell cameras. And what sell cameras obviously is MP. I bet for every customer that complains about the horrible IQ of the 7D, there are thousands that swear by it (as seen on these forums). I bet everytime they shoot up the MP's their sales go through the roof! And unfortunately theyre just going to keep on going up. Its what sells cameras and what makes Canon money.

It all started when digital cameras where 2 MP's and back then maybe it made sense to try to get more MP for sharper cameras. So consumers where brought up on more MP = better IQ. Here we are a few years later and the mentality remains. How the hell are we now going to make consumers understand that sensors are at their limits with MP's? We cant. So were going to continue to see them go higher. Its unfortunate.

When you say sent it back after 6 weeks, did you send it back to Canon and ask for an upgrade to the 5D? Mine was sent back to cannon for focus issues. Hope it makes me a happy camper when it comes back.

billposter wrote in post #9687764
I had exactly the same experience with the 7D and sent it back after 6 weeks. Got a 5D2 and I'm delighted with it.

Looks good to me.

It just so happens me and another cat took nearly the exact same picture. The difference: His came from a 1dmkII @ 3200 ISO and mine came from a 7D at 4000 ISO. You be the judge. I am in no way shape or form sure of or SAYING there weren't many other variables, or that the mkII is any kind of comparison to the mkIII or even the 5dmkII.

I want to see high IO sports shots, where the target moves, like soccer or basketball