-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
The 7D has landed!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jaff
- Start date
tdodd
Just call me Tim
Let me try to explain further....
A 40D produces files 3888 pixels across. A 7D produces files 5186 pixels across. When you view those files on a monitor, the monitor has a specific physical size (inches) and resolution. Suppose the screen is 1920x1200 and is 20" wide.
The image from the 40D viewed at 100% (if you could see the whole thing) would be 3888/1920x20" across, which is 40.5". If that was a print it would be a damned big one.
The image from the 7D viewed at 100% (if you could see the whole thing) would be 5186/1920x20" across, which is 54". If that was a print it would be an even bigger one - over 1' wider.
So, because the 7D file, when viewed at 100%, is physically a good deal larger than the 40D file, also viewed at 100%, you see all the imperfections more easily. Those imperfections include blur/shake/noise/diffraction/misfocus. You'll also find the DOF becomes shallower too.
That's why the 50D got bad press compared to the 40D. That's why the 7D has been getting a bad press from some quarters, compared to the 40D. Comparisons at 100% are not fair, and do little to prove much about the camera. Rather they may prove something about the photographer's own skills at operating his/her gear, possibly the lens used, and something about the laws of physics.
If you want to make comparisons on a level playing field then you need to make them while viewing each image at the same size, whether on screen or in print. Viewing at 100% is not viewing them at the same size. Viewing at 50% is not viewing them at the same size either. They both need to be viewed at the same physical size, measured in inches (or cm if you prefer).
Please don't even start on cropping. I do not want to go there.
p.s. If you are shooting hand held, with an unstabilised lens, that old guideline about keeping shutter speed above 1 / (focal length x crop factor) will probably not get you perfectly sharp pixels, unless you are a cyborg. That rule of thumb was OK for 12x8 prints, but not for pixel peeping images at virtual sizes four times larger than that.
A 40D produces files 3888 pixels across. A 7D produces files 5186 pixels across. When you view those files on a monitor, the monitor has a specific physical size (inches) and resolution. Suppose the screen is 1920x1200 and is 20" wide.
The image from the 40D viewed at 100% (if you could see the whole thing) would be 3888/1920x20" across, which is 40.5". If that was a print it would be a damned big one.
The image from the 7D viewed at 100% (if you could see the whole thing) would be 5186/1920x20" across, which is 54". If that was a print it would be an even bigger one - over 1' wider.
So, because the 7D file, when viewed at 100%, is physically a good deal larger than the 40D file, also viewed at 100%, you see all the imperfections more easily. Those imperfections include blur/shake/noise/diffraction/misfocus. You'll also find the DOF becomes shallower too.
That's why the 50D got bad press compared to the 40D. That's why the 7D has been getting a bad press from some quarters, compared to the 40D. Comparisons at 100% are not fair, and do little to prove much about the camera. Rather they may prove something about the photographer's own skills at operating his/her gear, possibly the lens used, and something about the laws of physics.
If you want to make comparisons on a level playing field then you need to make them while viewing each image at the same size, whether on screen or in print. Viewing at 100% is not viewing them at the same size. Viewing at 50% is not viewing them at the same size either. They both need to be viewed at the same physical size, measured in inches (or cm if you prefer).
Please don't even start on cropping. I do not want to go there.
p.s. If you are shooting hand held, with an unstabilised lens, that old guideline about keeping shutter speed above 1 / (focal length x crop factor) will probably not get you perfectly sharp pixels, unless you are a cyborg. That rule of thumb was OK for 12x8 prints, but not for pixel peeping images at virtual sizes four times larger than that.
Last edited:
Jaff
Registered Member
I'll just take your word for it Tim. I'm a guy who likes taking photos of wildlife and not interested in the slightest what the wizardry behind it all is. |=o|
Won't really affect me either as I'm planning a move into the 1d series for my next upgrade. Pixels just aren't a high priority on my wish list, been shooting with a 30D last couple of weeks and can't fault the images it was giving me.
Won't really affect me either as I'm planning a move into the 1d series for my next upgrade. Pixels just aren't a high priority on my wish list, been shooting with a 30D last couple of weeks and can't fault the images it was giving me.
tdodd
Just call me Tim
No wizardry, Jaff, but for those who complain about these cameras with high pixel densities it is worth appreciating the likely reasons for their disappointment. Sure, they may have a faulty camera, but more than likely they have faulty expectaions and/or faulty technique, or perhaps a lens that is not up to snuff. It may simply be that the AF needs a little microadjustment to dial things in perfectly. If we don't understand the true cause of the problem, how can we provide a solution.
If it wasn't for pixel peeping we wouldn't even get these issues being raised. I mean, back in the dark ages of 35mm film, who amongst us was interested in making a print larger than 12x8? My largest was a standard 7x5 from Bonusprint/Boots etc.. Now we can pixel peep these things up to a size of 3' or 4' across, and that's from an APS-C sensor, not even full frame. Who amongst us would have shot film at anything above 400 ISO? I didn't. That's a massive step up in expectations. If everything else about the photography does not step up too, including a sense of reality, then disappointment may well be the result.
I have to say, looking back at my 100% crop of the robin, I am blown away by the IQ there. That's with a zoom lens and shot at 800 ISO, and on my monitor is equivalent to a full image size of 40" across, and I'm judging it from 12-15" away. There is no reason to complain with about the camera's performance. Just imagine the quality that should be possible with a prime lens and better light, shooting at 100 ISO. That said, if I had worse light, or a difficult subject, with fast motion to be tracked, I don't suppose for a second that the image would stand up well to scrutiny at 100%. That would not be a fault with the camera. That would be a practical reality of shooting challenging subjects in sub-optimum conditions. The realistic expectation would be to enlarge the image by a more modest amount - perhaps 50%, perhaps 33%, perhaps 25%. Even viewed at 33% a 7D image will only just fit onto my 1920x1080 display, and be a little over 12x8. I really can't grumble if I can get acceptable quality at 12x8, and I shouldn't grumble if that file looks a little flakey at 2.5X that size.
If it wasn't for pixel peeping we wouldn't even get these issues being raised. I mean, back in the dark ages of 35mm film, who amongst us was interested in making a print larger than 12x8? My largest was a standard 7x5 from Bonusprint/Boots etc.. Now we can pixel peep these things up to a size of 3' or 4' across, and that's from an APS-C sensor, not even full frame. Who amongst us would have shot film at anything above 400 ISO? I didn't. That's a massive step up in expectations. If everything else about the photography does not step up too, including a sense of reality, then disappointment may well be the result.
I have to say, looking back at my 100% crop of the robin, I am blown away by the IQ there. That's with a zoom lens and shot at 800 ISO, and on my monitor is equivalent to a full image size of 40" across, and I'm judging it from 12-15" away. There is no reason to complain with about the camera's performance. Just imagine the quality that should be possible with a prime lens and better light, shooting at 100 ISO. That said, if I had worse light, or a difficult subject, with fast motion to be tracked, I don't suppose for a second that the image would stand up well to scrutiny at 100%. That would not be a fault with the camera. That would be a practical reality of shooting challenging subjects in sub-optimum conditions. The realistic expectation would be to enlarge the image by a more modest amount - perhaps 50%, perhaps 33%, perhaps 25%. Even viewed at 33% a 7D image will only just fit onto my 1920x1080 display, and be a little over 12x8. I really can't grumble if I can get acceptable quality at 12x8, and I shouldn't grumble if that file looks a little flakey at 2.5X that size.
Last edited:
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Like most folk when they get a new toy, I could not wait to try out my 7D. The first day out was crap light and I was snapping birds from a distance I would not normally shoot at - when I got home and looked at the shots I was bitterly disappointed and thought about returning the Camera right away. After cooling down I decided to persevere for a while and within a week I was absolutely delighted with the Camera.
I have now had the Camera for six weeks and as far as I am concerned it is the best thing since sliced bread :-O this time of the year I am routinely shooting at ISO 800 and IMO noise levels at this ISO is better than the 40D (which I still have but has not seen the light of day since I got the 7D).
The detail you can capture is amazing and the extra pixels gives a heck of a lot more room for cropping. The real biggy is the AF sytem which is so much better than the 40D.
Attached are a few samples all shot with a 2x tc and all at ISO 800.
The last shot of the grounded Fieldfare was taken yesterday through a double glazed window and the Camera was at about a 80 degree angle to the window - I am amazed it turned out so well.
I have now had the Camera for six weeks and as far as I am concerned it is the best thing since sliced bread :-O this time of the year I am routinely shooting at ISO 800 and IMO noise levels at this ISO is better than the 40D (which I still have but has not seen the light of day since I got the 7D).
The detail you can capture is amazing and the extra pixels gives a heck of a lot more room for cropping. The real biggy is the AF sytem which is so much better than the 40D.
Attached are a few samples all shot with a 2x tc and all at ISO 800.
The last shot of the grounded Fieldfare was taken yesterday through a double glazed window and the Camera was at about a 80 degree angle to the window - I am amazed it turned out so well.
Attachments
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Thanks Phil, everything I have read about shooting through windows say that you should be square on to the glass but I have found this not to be the case - I have many shots from my computer desk which is about 30 degrees to the window and they are better than being square on in my experience but I had never tried shooting at almost 90 degrees to the window before. Could be something to do with double glazing as opposed to single glazing.
Anyway, enough waffle from me. Suffice to say that I am mega pleased with the 7D.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
Very impressive Roy and I, too, especially like the one photographed through glass. I am very impressed by the amount of detail in the snow. In a lot of the snow shots I have seen recently the snow is completely bleached out to keep the exposure of the bird correct. Did you process different parts of the image in different ways or is just down to very careful metering?
Ron
Ron
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
Hi Ron, re the snow I used the shadows/highlight tool to dampen down the highlights (which was the snow of course) and recover the max amount of detail. I also made sure when metering that I did not completely blow the snow.
NoSpringChicken
Well-known member
Thanks Roy. It's a very tricky balancing act but it is worth it when you get results like yours.
Ron
Ron
Islandergirl
Well-known member
Faulty camera
Hi there 7D users,
I recently purchased the 7D and after a spending a few days using intensively found that I could not get images without really bad noise even at iso 400 the noise was really bad. I did lots of comparison shots with my 20D and the images on the 20D had less noise the 7D. It also didn't focus sharply the whole image was soft with no detail. I contacted the supplier and they have arranged a courier to pick up the camera and they are going to send me a replacement as soon as they get that one back. From looking at this and other threads elsewhere it seems there are a number of cameras out there with real problems.I'm wondering if there is a duff batch that canon are keeping quiet about. What concerns me is that other photographers are quick to blame the photographer instead of encouraging them to send the cameras back to get them checked. It is quite obvious that if your lucky and get a good copy the results will be excellent, I ,m just hoping that my replacement will be a good one.
Hi there 7D users,
I recently purchased the 7D and after a spending a few days using intensively found that I could not get images without really bad noise even at iso 400 the noise was really bad. I did lots of comparison shots with my 20D and the images on the 20D had less noise the 7D. It also didn't focus sharply the whole image was soft with no detail. I contacted the supplier and they have arranged a courier to pick up the camera and they are going to send me a replacement as soon as they get that one back. From looking at this and other threads elsewhere it seems there are a number of cameras out there with real problems.I'm wondering if there is a duff batch that canon are keeping quiet about. What concerns me is that other photographers are quick to blame the photographer instead of encouraging them to send the cameras back to get them checked. It is quite obvious that if your lucky and get a good copy the results will be excellent, I ,m just hoping that my replacement will be a good one.
hollis_f
Well-known member
I'm afraid that experience shows it is often the user, not the equipment. And if the fora can help users determine just what they're doing wrong then it's a much better outcome than if they were just told to send the camera back - because they'll have the same problems with the new camera.
Of course, the only way to tell where the problem lies is to look at sample images, with the shooting information intact.
One big problem with people moving from quite old cameras with few megapixels to the new ones that are packed with them, is that they insist on comparing images between new and old at different magnifications. Read Tim's posts above, where he compares the 7D and the 40D. Doing the comparison with the 20D is even more drastic. Looking at individual pixels is not a good way to judge the quality of an image - looking at the image is the best way to do that.
edenwatcher
Well-known member
Absolutely. I also came from the 20D and it has been quite a steep learning curve. For the first couple of weeks I was wondering why I had shelled out £1200 on a camera that didn't seem to be getting me much better results. Further down the line and it blows me away.
Rob
Rob
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
In my case I was already to send my camera back after a couple of days and a friend encouraged me to give it a bit longer, after a week I was delighted with the camera. I am not saying that you have not got a 'lemon' but people encouraging others to make sure it is not user error before sending back are only trying to help. As Frank has said, if it does turn out to be user error then no amount of replacement cameras will be any better.
Lets hope that your replacement does the trick. Best of luck.
mike nesbitt
Well-known member
After a couple of days with the 7D, I too was ready to send it back. I decided to perservere with it specifically to rule out user error and tried EVERY trick in the book to achieve decent images.
After another two weeks of despair, I was that mad with it that I was ready to hoy it into the sea.
I tried everything possible to get sharp pics from it and was achieving about 5% keepers.
In despair I took it back to Jessops and demanded either my money back or a new camera. To my surprise they gave me a new camera.
Like Roy I now think it's the best thing since sliced bread. A totally different animal to the first one I had, it produces great shots on a regular basis without doing anything different. There are certainly duff ones out there and probably quite a few too.
Mike.
After another two weeks of despair, I was that mad with it that I was ready to hoy it into the sea.
I tried everything possible to get sharp pics from it and was achieving about 5% keepers.
In despair I took it back to Jessops and demanded either my money back or a new camera. To my surprise they gave me a new camera.
Like Roy I now think it's the best thing since sliced bread. A totally different animal to the first one I had, it produces great shots on a regular basis without doing anything different. There are certainly duff ones out there and probably quite a few too.
Mike.
Scousemouse
Well-known member
I think it's the same going on with the "Woodpigeon" and "Song Thrush" pics we were discussing/arguing about yesterday Roy.. The User posted as good, if not better pics with a lower spec camera with fewer pixels.
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette I guess LOL
tdodd
Just call me Tim
If you don't like the noise at 400 ISO I guess you'll hate the noise at 6400. These were shot at 1/250, f/2.8, 6400 ISO and processed in Lightroom. That is an exposure equivalent to shooting in light 9.7 stops dimmer than bright sunshine.
Attachments
Last edited:
tdodd
Just call me Tim
Cheers, Christine. I know these are nothing to do with bird photography, but since the thread is about the 7D I thought these photos would present what the camera can do when it is used for taking photographs rather than pixels. This was my first time ever shooting indoor sports, and my first time at a basketball match. I had the wrong lens for the venue - 70mm was too tight at times - and I really didn't know where to position myself for the best shots, so I just winged it. Obviously as basketball shots go they are pants, but I thought the camera gave pretty good account of itself.
There are more, larger examples, with some crude NR, as a slideshow in an online album here - http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTig...gCLnYrOnC9MDLQw#slideshow/5427413558989024306
There are more, larger examples, with some crude NR, as a slideshow in an online album here - http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTig...gCLnYrOnC9MDLQw#slideshow/5427413558989024306
Last edited:
