I had the money in hand to purchase a 7D until I read Darwin's review. I trust and respect his review so I then went to thedigitalpicture.com to check out the review there. Thedigitalpicture.com gave the camera a great overall review but had the same thoughts about the camera image sharpness.
So now I'd like to here from 7D owners that have been using the camera for a while. The three biggest things I hope to gain with an upgrade is this. Image quality (I have an XT so I thought getting a camera several generations newer and several models up I would gain file quality. Second is less noise (My XT give too much noise even at 400 ISO, especially with a crop and USM applied). And third is better Auto focus for birds and wildlife.
What I am most interested in from 7D users is this: Are you happy with higher ISO's even in low light? And, photo quality with aperture at F8 or smaller. I read that the sharpest setting is F6.3 to F8. Are you pleased with shooting higher F16, even F20?
All the other options are icing on the cake that I would love to have on my next camera but if I spent 2000 dollars and have the photo quality of a XT I would be disappointed. All your thoughts and suggestions about the 7D will be appreciated, along with all the other 7D advice I've already read on this site. thanks, John
I am NOT a Canon user and have no vested interest at all in what you buy, but can pass the following along: I have 3 friends (all pro or semi-pro shooters who are NOT NPN members and wouldn't see your post) who purchased 7D's as "back-up" cameras to their pro models and in all cases they either returned the cameras or sold them. The common complaint of these 3 users was the AF system, particularly with moving objects (e.g., birds in flight). One of them also found the files "soft and mushy" regardless of whether the object was moving or not. It is possible (my speculation) that this was a focus issue as well.
Please bear in mind this is simply anecdotal information and a very small sample size (3). These guys are also very discriminating shooters and are comparing the 7D to Canon's top cameras. So please keep this information in context - it could be there are thousands of happy 7D users out there.
Just thought you'd like to know...
Brad
Posted by Keith Bauer on March 26, 2010 at 9:10 AM
John: I don't own a 7D so can't comment directly on many of your questions. The one that doesn't make any sense is the question on "the sharpest setting is F6.3 to F8". The lens is going to determine sharpness at a given aperture, not the camera body.
Posted by Mark Perry on March 26, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I have the 7D and made 4 trips to Iowa this winter to photograph bald eagles. I used the 7D/500f4 L for the whole time. I am very happy with the results. Go here to my website: http://galloimages.zenfolio.com/
The automatic slideshow has 200+ eagle images using the 7D.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 26, 2010 at 12:48 PM
The lens is going to determine sharpness at a given aperture, not the camera body.
This isn't true if you are looking at 100% views on screen, because of diffraction effects. The lens itself will have an aperture that it's optimal at. And the lens aperture will have particular amounts of diffraction blur based on the aperture size.
The question of how that affects the image, though, is partly one of pixel size. You'll start to see the diffraction blurring in a 100% screen view at l with smaller pixels. Pretend you have two versions of a 7D - one with 12MP and one with 18MP. You might be able to discern diffraction effects at, say, f/8 on the 12MP version, and f/6.3 on the 18MP version. So at 100%, the 18MP version may look sharper at f/6.3 than f/8, even if the lens is sharpest at f/8.
You have to keep in mind, though, that 100% views of the two cameras are NOT equal. The 18 MP image at 100% is much larger than the 12 MP image. It's likely that if you were to normalize things by resampling down to 12 MP for both images, you'd see equivalent (or maybe even better for the 18 MP image) results. Since the lens determines diffraction, it's exactly the same for both cameras. It's just that the extra resolution of the 18MP camera allows you to actually capture the diffraction, when the 12 MP camera can't resolve it.
So 100% views are often a bad way to compare cameras with different pixel counts. (This applies to noise comparisons as well.)
In some cameras with high pixel densities, sharpness limited by diffraction begins at openings as wide as F11. So while the lens and its design is the primary determinant of sharpness at various openings, the camera's sensor can through its two cents in as well.
I've got a friend who has a 7D with a 70-300 IS and seems to get fast and accurate focusing performance, based on the images he has shown me. Unless the flying bird is moving towards or away from you, typically the lens/camera can track focus.
I have another friend with various Canon DSLRs, including the 1D MkIII, 5D and 50D and he would not touch the 7D feeling that the IQ would be better on the 50D, sharper and possibly less noisy.
I use a Nikon D300 which has 51 selectable focus sites. Expecting an upgrade in focusing performance from a D200, I was quite disappointed when I shot some eagles in flight and got less than a 50% keeper rate, all due to soft focus.
With a little investigating and a good dose of trial and error, I determined that my camera settings were not optimal for what I was trying to shoot. It takes the processor a bit of time to receive information from all the sensors and determine which is the correct one, if you use an automatic focus mode or what Nikon refers to as 3D focusing. In theory it should work, but in practice it doesn't. I have been using the default setting for the camera to focus with a half-press of the shutter. When I switched to disassociating the focus with the shutter release, using the AF-ON button to do all my focusing, and leaving the camera on Continuous Servo shooting mode, my keeper rate (looking only at focusing sharpness) went from less than 50% to 98% or better.
John,
I have a 7D (upgraded from 40D) and I got it for two reasons...improved/faster focus and higher ISO performance. I have not been disappointed in either case. If one takes the time to learn all the various focus options, one can tailor the camera to the specific situation. I use the 7D on either a 500 or the 100-400 zoom and focus speed and accuracy rival my 1DMkIII which is also very fast in my estimation. My percentage of keepers on flight shots has actually improved. I am very happy with the 7D and so far, it has lived up to what I read about the cross type sensors, two Digic4's and more focus points improving focus. The higher ISO performance I've not pushed past ISO 6400 simply because I've not needed to do so, and with proper exposure, images are more than suitable. At 3200 and below, no issues (again, unless I grossly underexpose).
JR
I just bit the bullet on the 7D which I received yesterday. I had my concerns regarding pixel density and weather it was just a glorified 50D. It was a factory refurbished model which I got for $1,399. I have a 50D and 5DMarkII. I purchased it for the following reasons:
-For long lenses I wanted the 1.6 crop factor.
-I was looking to realize similar high iso performance to my 5DMarkII
-I was looking for a faster focusing system
I only got to use it for 75 shots so far. These are my findings:
-The grid overlay in the view finder once turned on is great.
-With limited experience on the body the focusing seemed very fast and tracking worked real well.
-Yesterday was very cloudy and the pictures without doing a side by side seemed better than my 50D.
Before making my decision I spent some time on the phone with Canon. I was willing to bite the bullet on the 1d mark 4 if I could determine the advantage and if was worth $3600. The Canon rep made no bones about it that the 1 D mark4 had some very small advantages but he felt they were miner and did not justify $3600. Time will tell if I made the correct decision.
Another thing I am seeing is there is some camera to camera variation and that unless you fully understand the menu options image quality will suffer. I am still learning things on the 50D and I know my way around that Camera. Also if subjects are soft the lens micro adjustment feature on all 3 may solve the problem. So far so good but only time will tell.
Mike
PS-Even if the camera was perfect I still am capable of taking poor shots! I never rule out user error when looking at my shots. Each day I spend on this board I am enlightened to yet another variable to gain control over.
I think many prosumer owners (20D-50D) will have a favorable opinion of the 7D, while those used to either pro bodies or the 5D series will have more complaints about it.
I come from the prosumer line and felt that the 7D was a huge upgrade over my 40D. Primary uses have been for a variety of indoor and outdoor sports, including many in darker conditions, and various wildlife (again including darker conditions, i.e., a rain forest). I think the AF is noticeably better than the 40D and I'm extremely happy with the high ISO performance. One noticeable flaw is that while high ISO performance is good, I think that mid-range ISO performance is actually a little subpar. Several shots taken between 400-640 seemed grainier than they I was expecting, though not awful by any stretch. I've heard it's due to all those pixels being packed into the tiny sensor, but that's a little too technical for me.
Ultimately, I don't know how much of a "discriminating shooter" (as Brad put it) you are, but coming from the XT I think you'd really like this body.
Max
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 27, 2010 at 10:22 AM
I just bought a 7D, got it only yesterday. Like you I read Darwin's review and wondered about the camera. Then I went to DP Review and looked at their tests which are much more rigorous than what Darwin did. Based on their results I went ahead and bought the 7D and although I've done only one set of 36 shots I have no complaint on the sharpness using the 18-135mm kit lens that came on the camera. That lens however does have noticeable pin cushioning when shooting rectilinear subject matter. I have taken a 100% sample crop from one of the photos I shot yesterday and will attach it. It has had post camera sharpening but there is no digital camera that produces images which do not require sharpening. That is the nature of digital photography.
Posted by Basil Greber on March 28, 2010 at 9:16 AM
So at 100%, the 18MP version may look sharper at f/6.3 than f/8, even if the lens is sharpest at f/8.
Most of David's post makes sense. This sentence, however, does not. If the lens is sharpest at f/8, it's sharpest at f/8. If diffraction would seriously reduce its resolution at f/8 compared to f/6.3, then it wouldn't be sharpest at f/8, but at f/6.3 (diffraction exists no matter the sensor resolution, or even if there's no sensor behind the lens at all).
Posted by Basil Greber on March 28, 2010 at 9:24 AM
In some cameras with high pixel densities, sharpness limited by diffraction begins at openings as wide as F11.
If you look at lens resolution measurements, it's more like f/5.6 for really good lenses on 12 MP APS-C. But unless you really go far into "diffraction territory" (f/16 and beyond), it's probably not that much of a problem.
I think what it all comes down to is a lens may have its own intrinsic sharpness but that can vary depending on the camera body it is mounted on due to variable diffraction effects related to pixel sizes and densities. I guess the fundamental question then is how much can post processing sharpening counter the effects of diffraction?
I have been shooting with the 7D for some time now and I love it. Image quality is fine IMO. ISO/noise is fine too. I shoot mostly birds in flight with some static bird shots thrown in. The AF system is very good IMO, much better than 50D. Yes, you have to keep the AF point on the target, but if you do it locks on nicely. Get the AF set up right for your type of shooting and it works very very well. I really think the images coming out of my 7D speak for themselves. Go to my website and take a look at the images I am getting from my 7D with the 500mm f/4. Most images shot at ISO 320-800 and at f/4-f/16. Then see what you think. www.whistlingwingsphotography.com
[quote]So at 100%, the 18MP version may look sharper at f/6.3 than f/8, even if the lens is sharpest at f/8.
Most of David's post makes sense. This sentence, however, does not. If the lens is sharpest at f/8, it's sharpest at f/8. If diffraction would seriously reduce its resolution at f/8 compared to f/6.3, then it wouldn't be sharpest at f/8, but at f/6.3 (diffraction exists no matter the sensor resolution, or even if there's no sensor behind the lens at all). [/quote]
You're correct Basil. That was very poorly stated on my part. The lenses sharpest aperture would already take into account diffraction effects. I guess the main point was the f/8 on the 12MP camera may "look sharper" at 100% than f/8 on the 18MP, leading someone to believe the the "sharpest" aperture for the lens was different between the cameras.
You might want to see Art Morris's info + settings re the 7D - tips on how to use it, etc. It may simply be something you're doing that is not quite right with this complicatd camera. .
Sign up here:http://birdsasart.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=94ad23bd96f48a1de2ca612b3&id=78b56e1c7f&e=a1d3fd46ed
I have heard about some issues (firmware maybe? as well as front/back focusing) with the 7D. I've only had mine for about a month but I like it much better than the 50D, both for autofocus speed and high ISO performance (only tried up to 1600 so far). In fact I gave my 50D to my sister. I purchased the 7D refurbished by Canon, sold by Adorama. I'm assuming that any firmware or focusing issues would have been updated/adjusted in the reburb.
- Michele
I purchased the 7D 3 months ago and mainly shoot birds, I usually shoot at ISO 400 and f8. I am very happy with this camera. I have a 30D, 40D as well. Images can be viewed or purchased from my website.
I have had my 7D since Oct of 09, which was an upgrade from the 50D. I keep my firmware updated and am meticulous about maintaining my gear ( dad was a camera repair shop owner).
I am constantly amazed at the resolution of the images this camera this camera produces.
Discussion
18 repliesSo now I'd like to here from 7D owners that have been using the camera for a while. The three biggest things I hope to gain with an upgrade is this. Image quality (I have an XT so I thought getting a camera several generations newer and several models up I would gain file quality. Second is less noise (My XT give too much noise even at 400 ISO, especially with a crop and USM applied). And third is better Auto focus for birds and wildlife.
What I am most interested in from 7D users is this: Are you happy with higher ISO's even in low light? And, photo quality with aperture at F8 or smaller. I read that the sharpest setting is F6.3 to F8. Are you pleased with shooting higher F16, even F20?
All the other options are icing on the cake that I would love to have on my next camera but if I spent 2000 dollars and have the photo quality of a XT I would be disappointed. All your thoughts and suggestions about the 7D will be appreciated, along with all the other 7D advice I've already read on this site. thanks, John
I am NOT a Canon user and have no vested interest at all in what you buy, but can pass the following along: I have 3 friends (all pro or semi-pro shooters who are NOT NPN members and wouldn't see your post) who purchased 7D's as "back-up" cameras to their pro models and in all cases they either returned the cameras or sold them. The common complaint of these 3 users was the AF system, particularly with moving objects (e.g., birds in flight). One of them also found the files "soft and mushy" regardless of whether the object was moving or not. It is possible (my speculation) that this was a focus issue as well.
Please bear in mind this is simply anecdotal information and a very small sample size (3). These guys are also very discriminating shooters and are comparing the 7D to Canon's top cameras. So please keep this information in context - it could be there are thousands of happy 7D users out there.
Just thought you'd like to know...
Brad
The automatic slideshow has 200+ eagle images using the 7D.
This isn't true if you are looking at 100% views on screen, because of diffraction effects. The lens itself will have an aperture that it's optimal at. And the lens aperture will have particular amounts of diffraction blur based on the aperture size.
The question of how that affects the image, though, is partly one of pixel size. You'll start to see the diffraction blurring in a 100% screen view at l with smaller pixels. Pretend you have two versions of a 7D - one with 12MP and one with 18MP. You might be able to discern diffraction effects at, say, f/8 on the 12MP version, and f/6.3 on the 18MP version. So at 100%, the 18MP version may look sharper at f/6.3 than f/8, even if the lens is sharpest at f/8.
You have to keep in mind, though, that 100% views of the two cameras are NOT equal. The 18 MP image at 100% is much larger than the 12 MP image. It's likely that if you were to normalize things by resampling down to 12 MP for both images, you'd see equivalent (or maybe even better for the 18 MP image) results. Since the lens determines diffraction, it's exactly the same for both cameras. It's just that the extra resolution of the 18MP camera allows you to actually capture the diffraction, when the 12 MP camera can't resolve it.
So 100% views are often a bad way to compare cameras with different pixel counts. (This applies to noise comparisons as well.)
I've got a friend who has a 7D with a 70-300 IS and seems to get fast and accurate focusing performance, based on the images he has shown me. Unless the flying bird is moving towards or away from you, typically the lens/camera can track focus.
I have another friend with various Canon DSLRs, including the 1D MkIII, 5D and 50D and he would not touch the 7D feeling that the IQ would be better on the 50D, sharper and possibly less noisy.
I use a Nikon D300 which has 51 selectable focus sites. Expecting an upgrade in focusing performance from a D200, I was quite disappointed when I shot some eagles in flight and got less than a 50% keeper rate, all due to soft focus.
With a little investigating and a good dose of trial and error, I determined that my camera settings were not optimal for what I was trying to shoot. It takes the processor a bit of time to receive information from all the sensors and determine which is the correct one, if you use an automatic focus mode or what Nikon refers to as 3D focusing. In theory it should work, but in practice it doesn't. I have been using the default setting for the camera to focus with a half-press of the shutter. When I switched to disassociating the focus with the shutter release, using the AF-ON button to do all my focusing, and leaving the camera on Continuous Servo shooting mode, my keeper rate (looking only at focusing sharpness) went from less than 50% to 98% or better.
I have a 7D (upgraded from 40D) and I got it for two reasons...improved/faster focus and higher ISO performance. I have not been disappointed in either case. If one takes the time to learn all the various focus options, one can tailor the camera to the specific situation. I use the 7D on either a 500 or the 100-400 zoom and focus speed and accuracy rival my 1DMkIII which is also very fast in my estimation. My percentage of keepers on flight shots has actually improved. I am very happy with the 7D and so far, it has lived up to what I read about the cross type sensors, two Digic4's and more focus points improving focus. The higher ISO performance I've not pushed past ISO 6400 simply because I've not needed to do so, and with proper exposure, images are more than suitable. At 3200 and below, no issues (again, unless I grossly underexpose).
JR
-For long lenses I wanted the 1.6 crop factor.
-I was looking to realize similar high iso performance to my 5DMarkII
-I was looking for a faster focusing system
I only got to use it for 75 shots so far. These are my findings:
-The grid overlay in the view finder once turned on is great.
-With limited experience on the body the focusing seemed very fast and tracking worked real well.
-Yesterday was very cloudy and the pictures without doing a side by side seemed better than my 50D.
Before making my decision I spent some time on the phone with Canon. I was willing to bite the bullet on the 1d mark 4 if I could determine the advantage and if was worth $3600. The Canon rep made no bones about it that the 1 D mark4 had some very small advantages but he felt they were miner and did not justify $3600. Time will tell if I made the correct decision.
Another thing I am seeing is there is some camera to camera variation and that unless you fully understand the menu options image quality will suffer. I am still learning things on the 50D and I know my way around that Camera. Also if subjects are soft the lens micro adjustment feature on all 3 may solve the problem. So far so good but only time will tell.
Mike
PS-Even if the camera was perfect I still am capable of taking poor shots! I never rule out user error when looking at my shots. Each day I spend on this board I am enlightened to yet another variable to gain control over.
I come from the prosumer line and felt that the 7D was a huge upgrade over my 40D. Primary uses have been for a variety of indoor and outdoor sports, including many in darker conditions, and various wildlife (again including darker conditions, i.e., a rain forest). I think the AF is noticeably better than the 40D and I'm extremely happy with the high ISO performance. One noticeable flaw is that while high ISO performance is good, I think that mid-range ISO performance is actually a little subpar. Several shots taken between 400-640 seemed grainier than they I was expecting, though not awful by any stretch. I've heard it's due to all those pixels being packed into the tiny sensor, but that's a little too technical for me.
Ultimately, I don't know how much of a "discriminating shooter" (as Brad put it) you are, but coming from the XT I think you'd really like this body.
Max
Most of David's post makes sense. This sentence, however, does not. If the lens is sharpest at f/8, it's sharpest at f/8. If diffraction would seriously reduce its resolution at f/8 compared to f/6.3, then it wouldn't be sharpest at f/8, but at f/6.3 (diffraction exists no matter the sensor resolution, or even if there's no sensor behind the lens at all).
If you look at lens resolution measurements, it's more like f/5.6 for really good lenses on 12 MP APS-C. But unless you really go far into "diffraction territory" (f/16 and beyond), it's probably not that much of a problem.
Most of David's post makes sense. This sentence, however, does not. If the lens is sharpest at f/8, it's sharpest at f/8. If diffraction would seriously reduce its resolution at f/8 compared to f/6.3, then it wouldn't be sharpest at f/8, but at f/6.3 (diffraction exists no matter the sensor resolution, or even if there's no sensor behind the lens at all). [/quote]
You're correct Basil. That was very poorly stated on my part. The lenses sharpest aperture would already take into account diffraction effects. I guess the main point was the f/8 on the 12MP camera may "look sharper" at 100% than f/8 on the 18MP, leading someone to believe the the "sharpest" aperture for the lens was different between the cameras.
Sign up here:http://birdsasart.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=94ad23bd96f48a1de2ca612b3&id=78b56e1c7f&e=a1d3fd46ed
and then look for Birds as Art bulletin #322
Good luck -
Sandy r
- Michele
darrenmckenna.com
I am constantly amazed at the resolution of the images this camera this camera produces.