BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tdodd" data-source="post: 1723209" data-attributes="member: 55450">Good website. Interesting review and comments.I started rummaging around and found this article on judging IQ from web sized photos - <a href="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/judging_image_quality_photos_web.htm" target="_blank">http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/judging_image_quality_photos_web.htm</a>. How true!That's exactly why I had no intention of judging the results from the 1D4 in this thread against the results from the 7D in the other thread. Not only is the size rather small, but there simply isn't enough data to go on. One set may have looked better than the other, but there is no EXIF data, no way to know how accurate the original exposures were, how much light there was, how much cropping was involved, whether the active AF point was over the subject and for how long it had been allowed to track, whether there was any camera shake or pixel level subject blur in the original capture, whether the subject was centre frame or off towards an edge, and what sort of processing was applied. Certainly the sharpening looks quite zealous in some of the images.Also, is a 400 DO lens plus teleconverter the fairest test of camera performance? Compared to a 500/4 at f/5.6 the IQ of the optics is possibly holding back the 7D, or at least rendering its detail advantage null. The centre image is not great and the edges and corners are really quite poor. Take a look at this comparison, with a camera of low pixel density (1Ds3)....<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=117&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2" target="_blank">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=338&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=117&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2</a>Making a comparison of a bare 400 DO against a bare 400/5.6L, both at f/5.6 it looks to me like the cheaper lens is significantly more contrasty....<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2" target="_blank">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=278&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=338&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2</a>I suspect the 7D would highlight lens deficiencies even more acutely. To  show what the cameras are really capable of I'd like to see results  where the lens was less of a restriction on ultimate IQ. I've never used a 400 DO, but from everything I've read about that lens I'm not sure it is a good choice for testing camera performance. I think a 400/5.6 or 500/4 might both be a better choice.</blockquote>

Verification