7D MK 11 Image Quality, RAW vs JPEG (1 Viewer)

Julian H · Jan 18, 2015

In case anyone was having issues with IQ from their 7D MK 11 files, here's one area that was giving me some sleepless nights.

Since I don't have an easy way to open RAW files due to outdated software/hardware, I had been shooting large jpegs.

Utilizing my typical workflow, I was frustrated in that these images didn't process as well as I expected and didn't sharpen up as well as I had anticipated -and it was driving me a little bananas since most of the reviews suggested I should see an improvement in IQ - especially so since I was using a 40D previously.

Anyway, I switched over to RAW+jpeg mode so that I was at least capturing RAW files for subsequent processing. I loaded the Canon DPP software and processed a couple of RAW images in PS. I was very relieved to find these RAW files came in and processed much better than the lg jpegs. Since there's no in-camera processing, I expected as much, but still relieved to see my images processing better.

Here's a couple of quick test shots from yesterday.
American Bittern, unprocessed [email protected] 250 ISO 400mm 5.6 lens
Cropped version, processed and saved as a jpeg to show crop detail.

American Coot, 1000@F8 (+1/3 EV) ISO 250 unprocessed
Cropped and processed.

Tom Lawson · Jan 19, 2015

Julian H said:
In case anyone was having issues with IQ from their 7D MK 11 files, here's one area that was giving me some sleepless nights.

Since I don't have an easy way to open RAW files due to outdated software/hardware, I had been shooting large jpegs.

Utilizing my typical workflow, I was frustrated in that these images didn't process as well as I expected and didn't sharpen up as well as I had anticipated -and it was driving me a little bananas since most of the reviews suggested I should see an improvement in IQ - especially so since I was using a 40D previously.

Anyway, I switched over to RAW+jpeg mode so that I was at least capturing RAW files for subsequent processing. I loaded the Canon DPP software and processed a couple of RAW images in PS. I was very relieved to find these RAW files came in and processed much better than the lg jpegs. Since there's no in-camera processing, I expected as much, but still relieved to see my images processing better.

Here's a couple of quick test shots from yesterday.
American Bittern, unprocessed [email protected] 250 ISO 400mm 5.6 lens
Cropped version, processed and saved as a jpeg to show crop detail.

American Coot, 1000@F8 (+1/3 EV) ISO 250 unprocessed
Cropped and processed.

Having recently acquired a MKII I have had the usual problems with outdated software.I have until now processed my MKI images using Windows Vista and Lightroom,but the RAW images from the MKII are not recognised by my version of Lightroom,and the current version of DPP won't download into Vista.On my other machine which is running Windows 8.1 I can download DPP but with RAW files from the MKII it doesn't seem to be producing as good images as I got with the MKI in Lightroom,so more expense buying an updated version of Lightroom!
Tom Lawson.

Julian H · Jan 19, 2015

Tom,

I don't use Lightroom. My workflow is: use Breezebrowser Pro to edit/sort all my images and the ACR converter in Photoshop to process my images.

Lightroom's interface uses the same ACR as in PS, so there should be some uniformity there when processing images using those two programs.

I haven't figured out the Canon DPP converter yet, and I know a few pros that use it to process their RAW files and speak highly of it. I don't intend to use it since my workflow with PS ACR suits me fine.

For Portraits and non-birdy things, I will likely use Lightroom, since I can process a lot more images quickly with the devlop module so that it doesn't take me a gazillion hours to process an evet/people shoot.

Presently I am updating all my software and OS so I can view my images!

One of the pain in the arse aspects of new technology.

KyleM · Jan 20, 2015

I haven't made it to processing yet, sorting day 1 from the camera, and if anything the images are sharp as anything (and sharper than the 7D I would say, but that could easily be through the operation of the camera, using EC for example to keep the exposure where I want in manual, etc.)

The camera handles beautifully. Looks like you caught the focus on the back of the coot?

Not a fan of DPP but I use it for my unprocessed sort and weed, so I don't waste time processing something I don't keep. Quick view first pass (50%) , 100% crop second.

As far as hardware, well this rig was built for music recording, pictures are childs play. Best of luck.

Julian H · Jan 20, 2015

Tom,

Also meant to add, that in the interim, if you need to process the RAW captures, converting them to DNG format with Adobe's free DNG converter is a workaround if you are using older software that isn't supported.
Once in DNG format, they can be converted and processed using older software.

They are lossless files and are about 1/4 the size of the RAW capture.

Tom Lawson · Jan 20, 2015

Julian H said:
Tom,

Also meant to add, that in the interim, if you need to process the RAW captures, converting them to DNG format with Adobe's free DNG converter is a workaround if you are using older software that isn't supported.
Once in DNG format, they can be converted and processed using older software.

They are lossless files and are about 1/4 the size of the RAW capture.

Thanks for that.I will have a try and see how I get on but I suspect its going to a new version of Lightroom.
Tom.

graham catley · Jan 21, 2015

Based on so many positive reviews I bought one Monday: took 300 shots Tuesday with 500f4 mark 2 and converters and 300 2.8 with converters. Took RAW and Jpegs anticipating the software problem. Result about 10% looked sharpish in LJpeg. Had to upgrade to Yosemite on the Mac which I had been avoiding but then got ACR update and as Julian says the RAWs converted are 100% better than large Jpgs but still so far very disappointing. Took some Goldeneye from a hide with 500 and 2x and it looks to have focused 2 feet behind the bird even on featureless water with a contrasty bird. Not done anything today:

Julian H · Jan 21, 2015

Graham...several people i have spoken with seemed to need a micro-adjustment to compensate for focus..mainly front-focus. I had to dial in +13.

I did a test twice to make sure and it was front-focussing noticeably.

Once I get my gear sorted I can do more tests, but this was the first time i had shot ljpeg and was not happy at the quality from a 2K body...thankfully the RAW files seem to be inline with all the positive reviews.

graham catley · Jan 21, 2015

Julian H said:
Graham...several people i have spoken with seemed to need a micro-adjustment to compensate for focus..mainly front-focus. I had to dial in +13.

I did a test twice to make sure and it was front-focussing noticeably.

Once I get my gear sorted I can do more tests, but this was the first time i had shot ljpeg and was not happy at the quality from a 2K body...thankfully the RAW files seem to be inline with all the positive reviews.

Yes need to take more time with it Julian. I did use MA with my mark4 but thought it actually made little difference and didn't bother with the 5D3 as all shots are accurate with all lenses and converters possibly due to it being full frame? Hopefully a bit better weather tomorrow for some more tests.

Dean Eades · Jan 21, 2015

Graham I can never understand why you have so many problems with most of the cameras you get ?

graham catley · Jan 22, 2015

a few better experiences today -- never had any problems with anything other than the 7D --http://pewit.blogspot.co.uk -- still not convinced about the supposed better noise in dull light; in bright light maybe but today was pretty dismal at times

holzphoto · Jan 22, 2015

My camera had issues straight out of the box. Sent it to canon usa and mine was the 1st one they had received for repair. everyone else apparently returned theirs.

canon didn't have the tools to fix it and it was a 2.5 week wait for the tool to come from japan. got the camera back and am happy w/ it.

Julian H · Jan 31, 2015

Rough-legged at ISO 640

So, here's an MRAW file out of DPP..not much tweaked since I don't like the interface and processed and cropped in PS. Noise ninja noise reduction and some levels and adjustments applied.
It was a grey sky with snow on the ground as fill light. 400mm 5.6 lens, handheld at 500 at 6.3 ISO 640.
Juv Rough-legged Buzzard. With my 40 D I wouldn't go above 400 for noise.

Farnboro John · Jan 31, 2015

Julian H said:
So, here's an MRAW file out of DPP..not much tweaked since I don't like the interface and processed and cropped in PS. Noise ninja noise reduction and some levels and adjustments applied.
It was a grey sky with snow on the ground as fill light. 400mm 5.6 lens, handheld at 500 at 6.3 ISO 640.
Juv Rough-legged Buzzard. With my 40 D I wouldn't go above 400 for noise.

Could we see the original just cropped to the same size?

John

Julian H · Feb 1, 2015

roughie

Hi John,

Here's the uncropped, out of the camera file if this gives you a better idea. I can't show a 100% crop since I don't have my software on my laptop. It was a flat, grey day, the only reason these have any depth was the blanket of snow illuminating it.
Noise was present but ok at 640 and softened with NR.
I had my capture set to MRAW by mistake so this is a 10MP image rather than a 20MB image which would have retained more detail than in the crop.

7D MK 11 Image Quality, RAW vs JPEG (1 Viewer)

More options

Julian H

Well-known member

Attachments

Tom Lawson

Well-known member

Julian H

Well-known member

KyleM

Well-known member

Julian H

Well-known member

Tom Lawson

Well-known member

graham catley

Well-known member

Julian H

Well-known member

graham catley

Well-known member

Dean Eades

Dean Eades Wildlife Photography One to One's

graham catley

Well-known member

holzphoto

Well-known member

Julian H

Well-known member

Attachments

Farnboro John

Well-known member

Julian H

Well-known member

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread