The 7D has landed!!! (1 Viewer)

[hollis_f]

I use LR2.6 and 3 with no problems at all with noise, other than snow.

Me too, it does sound like Ian may not have LR's defaults set correctly.

 

[tdodd]

I took a few shots today and have processed them in both DPP and Lightroom. A couple have had minor tweaks to exposure/blacks but that's it. In Lightroom I have selected the Camera Standard profile. I have left Lightroom NR and sharpening on defaults. For DPP I have selected Standard picture style with sharpening at 3. All are uncropped. Here's an album of the pairs of shots.....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/7DDPPVsLR?authkey=Gv1sRgCNOKktOf2MrO_wE

I realise they could benefit from cropping and more tailored adjustments, but this represents a fairly level playing field between the two pieces of software. It is worth noting that Lightroom's original Adobe Standard camera profile makes skies look darker and noisier than the Camera Standard profile. By switching to Camera Standard the results from each processor are much closer, albeit still not exact matches.

p.s. I just noticed that with DPP outputting at a quality of 7/10 and Lightroom outputting at 70% the files from DPP are typically over twice as large as those from Lightroom, suggesting to me that Lightroom is compressing its JPEG output considerably more that DPP, which might explain perceptions of reduced IQ. Even raising the output quality to 80% in Lightroom produces significantly smaller files than DPP at 7/10. It needs LR to be at 90% before the file size from LR exceeds that from DPP at 7/10.

 

[hampers]

Tim, thanks for that had a look at some of mine and prefer the softer tones from Camera Standard. Have now created a preset and will use that in future. Very interesting experiment. I'm not seeing much noise with my camera, but, haven't pushed exposures in bad light and heavy crops. Will be interesting to see the performance under those circumstances. Difficult at moment as its like an ice rink around us.

Phil

 

[187]

This is interesting and helpful .

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/blog/?p=226

 

[Nikon Kid]

This is interesting and helpful .

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/blog/?p=226

Great information for those that are a bit worried about setting up their 7d's

 

[hollis_f]

Great information for those that are a bit worried about setting up their 7d's

Although I would disagree with setting the colour space to aRGB. It's meaningless when shooting raw and can cause loads of problems shooting jepg if you don't know what you're doing. Much safer to leave it as sRGB if you're not very well clued up on the topic.

 

[Roy C]

This is interesting and helpful .

http://www.deepgreenphotography.com/blog/?p=226

I read this last week on Birdphotographers where Doug Brown is an active member - Originally he suggested leaving HTP enabled but may have changed that after the predicted negative comments. I would also agree with Frank about the colour space, unless you are willing to change during processing then it is best left on sRGB.
Interesting read but nothing really different from what has already been mentioned all over the web and I would imaging very similar to what most Bird photographers are using. Still putting it all in graphical form in one thread is good.

 

[tdodd]

A few from today with my 7D and 100-400, all hand held at 400mm and 1/250. They were processed in Lightroom 2.6. Only the first has had additional NR, courtesy of Neat Image. For the rest, NR is at Lightroom defaults.

I shot around 200 images in all, including many other subjects apart from these. I did notice many shots were soft and when I got home I rechecked my AF calibration but found no fault. My conclusion is that despite my best efforts to shoot smoothly and steadily there is a real risk of visible camera shake when viewing at 100%. I shouldn't be surprised, because I've done the maths, and it makes sense, but I think I will try the tripod for more shots in future.

It's also worth noting that for shots such as these the DOF really is almost nil, so the tiniest error in AF accuracy or smallest movement by the photographer or subject, even a couple of mm, is going to be enough to spoil the shot. I put some numbers into the DOF calculator here - http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htm - and with my shooting parameters, for viewing at 100%, the DOF was calculated at just 1mm. It's not easy to find much that's sharp when working at that level of precision. Reduced in size, as these are, for the web, the DOF increases to roughly 8mm for someone with "manufacturer standard" eyesight.

 

[Roy C]

A few from today with my 7D and 100-400, all hand held at 400mm and 1/250. They were processed in Lightroom 2.6. Only the first has had additional NR, courtesy of Neat Image. For the rest, NR is at Lightroom defaults.

I shot around 200 images in all, including many other subjects apart from these. I did notice many shots were soft and when I got home I rechecked my AF calibration but found no fault. My conclusion is that despite my best efforts to shoot smoothly and steadily there is a real risk of visible camera shake when viewing at 100%. I shouldn't be surprised, because I've done the maths, and it makes sense, but I think I will try the tripod for more shots in future.

It's also worth noting that for shots such as these the DOF really is almost nil, so the tiniest error in AF accuracy or smallest movement by the photographer or subject, even a couple of mm, is going to be enough to spoil the shot. I put some numbers into the DOF calculator here - http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htm - and with my shooting parameters, for viewing at 100%, the DOF was calculated at just 1mm. It's not easy to find much that's sharp when working at that level of precision.

Some nice shots there Tim, especially the bluetit.
I agree with you on two counts, camera shake and DOF

a) You need a steady platform or higher shutter speed to get sharp shots (I already use a tripod most of the time so no real problem)

b) I am using a 2x tc with my 300/2.8 most of the time and for me it definitely pays to stop down one to f8.

 

[Roy C]

There was some nice light today so I tried the 7D AF sytem with stacked 2x tc and 1.4x tc on my 300/2.8 (effectively f8 but the camera only sees the 2x tc so attempts to AF). The results were pretty good, on birds with high contrast like Oystercatcher and shellduck the AF was fast (centre point). With less contrast like Curlew it was predictable slower to lock on but always got there.

The shots below are all crops of around 50%, taken with stacked tc's (840mm), ISO 800 and f8 (effectively f11) and all on AI servo mode. Although somewhat lacking in detail because of the amount of glass on board I feel the 7D did an excellent job in term of AF, IQ and noise.

 

[tdodd]

Nice job there, Roy, especially with all that glass to manage. Yes, the light was good today (quality more than quantity), when it managed to raise itself above the treeline, which isn't that often these days. Unfortunately tomorrow's forecast is not so encouraging where I am so I'm not sure when I'll get to up my game and use the tripod.

 

[Nikon Kid]

There is definitely a lack of detail in the pics Roy with a 2x TC, but still good images.

I don't know if I will ever take the next step up to 300 f2.8 or 500mm f4, from all the bird images I have seen on here and other websites the 500mm f4 takes some beating, with and without a TC.

 

[Roy C]

There is definitely a lack of detail in the pics Roy with a 2x TC, but still good images.

These were taken with a 2x tc PLUS a 1.4x tc stacked, please read the post. - just the 2x tc gives far better images than this.

My post was all about the 7D's AF performance when out of spec (e.g. f8) it had nothing to do with the 300/2.8 or any other lens. It should be of interest to anyone with a f5.6 lens that wants to use a 1.4 tc with the 7D.

 

[MalR]

My conclusion is that despite my best efforts to shoot smoothly and steadily there is a real risk of visible camera shake when viewing at 100%. I shouldn't be surprised, because I've done the maths, and it makes sense, but I think I will try the tripod for more shots in future..

I found this very interesting. I am tempted by the 7D (although I can't really afford one!!). What most interests me is the improved tracking AF for BIFs (I currently have a 40D). But isn't this somewhat negated if there is more of a need to use a tripod? My main birding lens is the 400F5.6, and I value it for its "handholdability".

Thanks, anyway, to all who have contributed their impressions/opinions on this thread. Very interesting reading.

Malcolm

 

[Nikon Kid]

These were taken with a 2x tc PLUS a 1.4x tc stacked, please read the post. - just the 2x tc gives far better images than this.

My post was all about the 7D's AF performance when out of spec (e.g. f8) it had nothing to do with the 300/2.8 or any other lens. It should be of interest to anyone with a f5.6 lens that wants to use a 1.4 tc with the 7D.

I missed the 1.4 TC never mind, but a bit of deviation onto to other lens is not a crime. back to sleep.......

 

[tdodd]

I found this very interesting. I am tempted by the 7D (although I can't really afford one!!). What most interests me is the improved tracking AF for BIFs (I currently have a 40D). But isn't this somewhat negated if there is more of a need to use a tripod? My main birding lens is the 400F5.6, and I value it for its "handholdability".

Thanks, anyway, to all who have contributed their impressions/opinions on this thread. Very interesting reading.

Malcolm

The problem is not the fault of the 7D. It's simply that the higher pixel density will pull out more detail from the image captured at the sensor, and that detail includes blur/shake/softness. If you compare whole images taken with, a 40D vs 50D vs 7D, all at the same size - say a 12x8 print - the 7D image will absolutely not look worse than the others.

The problem the 7D brings upon itself, through no fault of its own, is that pixel peepers love to look at pixels instead of images, and that's where they see failings of their own skills and other things (lens IQ, AF accuracy, DOF limits etc.) more easily. I would say that the AF tracking is leaps ahead of previous 1.6X croppers, and very similar to my 1D3, so I have no complaints there. I've written in the past that for BIF I find my 1D3 offers just as much cropability/reach as my 50D, simply because I am not skilled enough to make perfectly shake/blur free captures time after time after time. Other than the improved AF, the 7D can't really help me sharpen up my hand held BIF shots so the same problem persists.

Of course, you can reduce shake/blur by increasing shutter speed, but for any given amount of light that means increasing the ISO, and then you trade off blur/shake for noise. There are no easy answers. The best thing to do is to close the distance to your subject and capture as large an image as you can, reducing the need to crop as much as possible.

By my maths, if shooting BIF with a hand held 400/5.6L in bright, sunny conditions, I'd expect to be shooting at around 1/2500 as a minimum in order to have sharp(ish) 100% crops. Wide open at f/5.6 you'd be needing 400 ISO to achieve that speed (320 actually, but who uses intermediate ISOs?). So in fact you could/would/should go to 1/3200, f/5.6, 400 ISO, which is great for shooting bright/white birds and holding the highlight details, in bright sunlight. Of course, as soon as the light falls below bright sunshine, or you have less dazzling subjects, you may need to pick up the ISO to 800, 1600, perhaps more. I think everyone would agree that between noise vs shake/blur, noise is the lesser evil and more easily dealt with in post, so that means high ISO shooting is potentially a very real fact of life, unless you have a faster lens or can improve lens stability. I can certainly see why the 500L is such a favourite for those with deep enough pockets.

By the way, not that these were BIF shots, but here are 100% crops from the shots I posted earlier today. As you can see, the IQ is really not there when scrutinised this closely. I expect equivalent shots/crops from my 1D3 would look sharper and cleaner, but they would also be only 60% of the size, which is why the softness would not be so obvious. Of course, shooting at 1/250 was unlikely to help and stopping down to f/8 meant that at 100% view I was already into diffraction territory. Yet already I was struggling to achieve adequate DOF for these shots. Had I opened up more I would have been faced with the issue of reduced lens IQ from the zoom lens. Talk about a rock and a hard place. At least the light was fairly good, in quality if not quantity (1/250 at f/8 and 400 ISO means light levels 2.7 stops dimmer than bright, direct sunshine).

 

[MalR]

Thanks, Tim for your (as ever) considered and helpful reply. However, I am still somewhat confused ... nothing new there. In an earlier post, RoyC, whom I regard as one of the voices of reason on these threads, said the superior AF tracking alone justified upgrading to the 7D.

I took that to mean that, all things being equal, someone (such as myself) moving up from a 40D could expect to enjoy a higher rate of keepers when shooting birds in flight. But your post seems to suggest that the 7D requires a superior technique on the part of the user to make the most of the camera's capabilities.

Apologies if I am missing something or misunderstanding something. I am interested in this because I do struggle with birds in flight with the sensitive, "unforgiving" focus tracking of the 40D. Would a 7D benefit someone such as myself, or is it a totally new "ball game" altogether.

Many thanks,

Malcolm

 

[tdodd]

Malcolm, if you are anything like me, the 7D AF should improve your keeper rate for BIF and make the whole exercise of tracking BIF far more satisfying and far less frustrating. However, if, unlike me, you already have incredibly well honed skills at tracking BIF with a lesser body you may find the advantages the 7D offers are of less value. Like I said earlier, the 7D AF performance is similar to my 1D3. For many people that is worth the price of admission alone - pro quality AF in a body costing half as much as a 1D3 and 1/3 the price of a 1D4 has got to be interesting. There are, of course, many other improvements too, for those that can make use of them.

The issue I raised about pixels and pixel level sharpness is quite separate, and nothing to do with the AF, or the camera's abilities. I am only raising the point about pixel sharpness in order to manage expectations, since there is more to IQ than AF performance alone, and some of it is down to the skills of photographer, not the gear. Furthermore, those concerns only rise to the surface if/when you pixel peep. If you are more interested in the image you can produce, rather than the individual pixels, you should not be disappointed with the 7D. If you insist on staring at pixels at 100% then be prepared to see any limitations in your own skills, and other limits enforced by the laws of physics, magnified by 33% more (compared to a 40D) and thus more offensive to the eye.

If you can shoot a static subject (perched or wading bird) from a stable platform (tripod), in good light (low ISO), with a perfectly focused (microadjusted) prime lens, with aperture set for optimum sharpness/DOF then be prepared to be blown away by what the 7D can do for you. But wave an unstabilised hand held 400mm lens in the air at a subject which itself is hurtling around the skies and you may find the image, and the pixels in particular, are not quite as crisp. That will not be the fault of the camera.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[IanF]

I found this very interesting. I am tempted by the 7D (although I can't really afford one!!). What most interests me is the improved tracking AF for BIFs (I currently have a 40D). But isn't this somewhat negated if there is more of a need to use a tripod? My main birding lens is the 400F5.6, and I value it for its "handholdability".

Thanks, anyway, to all who have contributed their impressions/opinions on this thread. Very interesting reading.

Malcolm

Hi Macolm,

I've had the 7D since mid-December having moved from the 40D for much the same reasons as you. The autofocus is superior to the 40D making it much easier to stay on track birds with in flight even when they're passing an obstacle. The sensor also captures lots of fine detail though really the 40D is no slouch in that department anyway. I find the metering is superior as well.

I've not had to change my technique at all. I still hand hold almost exclusively when out and about. For birds in flight you need to pan with the bird and that's just the same whether it's the 40D or 7D so using a tripod doesn't come into the equation for me. The HD video feature is quite nifty though for that with a 400mm lens you really do need to use a tripod!

I like the 7D and it's a step up from the 40D though on balance I tend to think of it as a small step rather than a huge leap.

 

[Roy C]

To my mind the biggest advantage to BIF compared with other non 1 series cameras is the ability to be able to set a slow tracking sensitivity speed. Here is a good example of a shot I took yesterday. You can see that I had lost the bird in the focus point and yet the bird is still pretty much in focus.

As a side issue, I found that shooting Birds in flight with a 2x tc was almost impossible on the 40D because of the slower focussing time. With the 7D there is no doubt in my mind that the combo focusses faster. BIF at 600/5.6 is now a real possibility for me now as this shot demonstrates.