Replacement 7D out the box

Well I just received my 2nd 7D and this time instead of going to the races and shooting away after setting it up, I decided to set it up and test some shots at a distance.

Unfortunately I am comparing it to my 40D that gives me supercrisp shots without any special programming. My 40D probably has 400,000+ clicks with no issues ever and using the same settings, same lens the 7D is notably SOFT!! WTF?

Looks to me the best route is to shoot the 7D on M-Jpeg or M-Raw so its not trying to cram so much onto the smaller sensor thus making the details softer. So my questions...

Why is there so much focus on having an 18mp camera if the 8mp smaller image gives a better detail? Seems like I could have wasted a lot less time and money buy new glass and kept the 40D as my workhorse. I will admit the video is nice, but I am still not feeling the Love from the 7D.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Have you checked the settings to see if in camera noise redux is on?

AudibleSilence wrote in post #9830210
Have you checked the settings to see if in camera noise redux is on?

Noise reduction for high iso? It is on Auto for both cameras. AND... would that have an effect at 100ISO?

7D one looks like it has a lot more detail to me - both crops. There's no gravel detail in the 40D shot, just gray mush.

tkbslc wrote in post #9830253
7D one looks like it has a lot more detail to me - both crops. There's no gravel detail in the 40D shot, just gray mush.

I thought so too

what's the problem? why do you subject your images to compression algorithms? most people shoot raw and process to desirable outcome before committing to compression. I suppose it depends on what your expectations are. Sounds like the 40D is better for you.

7D looks brighter and better color...

ruben00 wrote in post #9830275
I thought so too

It sure looks like 7d resolves better and the color are brighter too.

No indication of what level of in-camera sharpening is being applied; no Exif available; using a file format which by definition compromises the files; no clarification about whether MA has been considered and applied if necessary...

Tango, you really need you rule you out as the problem - it's surely not out of the question yet.

PixxByTango wrote in post #9830243
AND... would that have an effect at 100ISO?

You'd be surprised how helpful the manual can be for questions like that - have a look towards the bottom of p. 208...

Hey... I am all open for suggestions. I have read the manual in this. If there is something I am missing, please... the swift kick is a lot less painful than a bunch of images that have fuzzy edges and unsharp details when trying to capture a car on the racetrack that is 100+ feet away and moving.

Granted this is using jpeg and not raw which is what I typically shoot. I didn't want the do the DNG conversion for the 7D CR2 file that isn't necessary for the 40D CR2 file in Adobe CS3.

Here is another shot using the boat trailer.

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

This testing method is flawed. If you're going to compare shots, you need to either enlarge or reduce the original images to the megapixels of the 7D or 40D. You can't compare JPEGs created from files that are not the same dimension from cameras not of the same pixel density.

Looks like the 40D is darker (underexposed) than the 7D shots. Weird. The sensors must have different sensitivities.

IMHO, in the first set of pictures I can see the most detail in the 7D L jpeg image. The m jpeg and the 40D are about the same.

I don't know if the 18-135 IS lens is a top notch lens or not (never owned one), but the better the lens, the bigger the difference between the 7D and 40D. I used own both, and that's what I found. Now I only own the 7D and an XTi which is really close to my old 40D IQ wise.

And just like Poe said, the best method to compare detail identically is to match output size: same size print (ezpensive), or resize one or the other (or both) to a common size. Or you can just look at different size 100% crops BUT look out for subtle detail i.e. what are the tiny subtle detail differences that I can still see in one image but I can't see in the other.

like many have stated here that comparison is flawed...read here...

http://cyberphotograph​er.com/megapixelmyth/

also a post I made a while ago regarding 18-135 lens + 7d
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=9566429#p​ost9566429