Canon 7D

[professorgb]

I really like the specs, but am quite concerned about IQ above ISO 400.  The noise appears to be as bad as that in the 40D--all of the ISO 800 and higher samples have a lot of chroma and luminance noise in them.  Perhaps the firmware will be tweaked a bit before the camera is launched; I sure hope so.

[Ken Bennett]

I really like the specs, but am quite concerned about IQ above ISO 400.  The noise appears to be as bad as that in the 40D--all of the ISO 800 and higher samples have a lot of chroma and luminance noise in them.  Perhaps the firmware will be tweaked a bit before the camera is launched; I sure hope so.

I agree, and it makes me wonder just who is processing these files? I mean, come one, eliminating chroma noise is relatively easy. The luminance noise doesn't bother me as much -- it's fairly random and "grain-like," but even that can be reduced.

I'll be interested to see some raw files shot at 800 or 1600.

[JohnKoerner]

Given that plenty of people were buying the D300 in preference to a Canon camera, and others were whining that Canon did not take APS-C seriously, I'm sure that this is a significant camera. I'm also sure that Canon looked with envy at Nikon being able to sell an expensive APS-C camera in large numbers.

I think in it is good that Nikon was able to continue to sell the D300 well at the higher price than the 40 and 50Ds, because the Nikon did have superior qualitative features over both, and I say this as a buyer of the 50D.

I am not sure that the Canon execs felt 'envy' over the D300 sales, but what they did see was that a very large portion of consumers were willing to dig a bit deeper into their wallets to get those quality features, which is good that the people who make decisions see this IMO.

For what this clearly did was encourage Canon to surpass the D300 this time around, pretty much on every level now, cutting no corners in quality this time, and then to offer this new full-featured APS-C camera for a slightly less expensive price than the D300s. Nikon's eventual response to this, of course, will be to try to trump Canon in some way ... as they did to the 1DsMkIII with Nikon's wonderful D3x ... the trouble is though, with Nikon, they seldom add the value in 'price' like Canon does, but instead make you pay for it (as the D3x came out at a staggering price point compared to its comp, good as it was as a camera).

No, it also adds the high prices that characterise the most recent pro lenses e.g. 17mm TSE. It's almost as if some of these recent announcements are an excuse to raise prices. The D300s adds a few hundred quid to the D300 cost.

I think it's good that the price points of these cameras remain high (but not too high) as it affirms their value in the market. I think, for what you get, that the 7D and the D300s (along with the 5DMkII and D700) are the best values in digital SLRs, giving the 'most camera' for the least money.


.

[chex]

Actually, everyon in Europe, or the UK at least is being ripped off by Canon with a 1:1 $:£ price.

[Panopeeper]

I mean, come one, eliminating chroma noise is relatively easy. The luminance noise doesn't bother me as much -- it's fairly random and "grain-like," but even that can be reduced.

Come on, if you developed a new algorythm, apply for patent and publish it. More than one raw processors' creators will be interested on it.

I'll be interested to see some raw files shot at 800 or 1600.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DTHMB.HTM

[wilburdl]

GregW: of course the AF has to work properly - let's hope it does this time.

TimG: As to Sony - they seem to be a small fish in the high end dslr game - and without video capabilities even in their new cameras - good luck to them. They'll probably need it. I live in NYC where you will walk by hundreds of people carrying SLRs on a given day. I don't believe I have ever spotted a single a900 in the wild. 5D MarkIIs? They are literally everywhere you look. Even amateurs are carrying $3000 SLRs these days. I believe the a900 is a good camera with good AF, and the a850 seems to be just as good, but it can't be what Canon is most worried about these days.

The Sony's are nothing to sneeze at. The 850 is a head turner. I guess it's the in thing to have video capabilities, but when it comes down to capturing photographs, it's hard to argue with a $2000 price tag on a 25mp camera. That's exciting. I think the only thing holding them back really is the name. It's like when people ask what camera they should get, the first 2 names are Canon and Nikon. It may take some time, but I honestly believe that people will start to recognize the value the Sony's have. The only other thing prohibiting them is those already in the C+N camps. It's much to expensive to dump all your gear and switch to another brand. And with the way technology has been working, it's only a matter of time before the big 2 take notice and prepare an answer (so might as well stay put).

That said, I guess I can express my optimism about this new canon. I too am at a loss for the naming scheme. I thought they might want to call it the 3D but oh well. The biggest drawback with the 5D series to me has always been the AF. It sucks. It's slow, not that accurate and hunts in below optimum lighting. It's a huge difference when you come from the 1 series. You're getting more focal points, lets hope they're faster and more accurate as well.

I can only imagine what Canon has in the pipeline with this new cam. It's about time, though it could be seen as incremental, it's a departure from the predictable upgraded feature set that Canon had been putting out these past couple of years that allowed Nikon to catch up and surpass them. I hope this means the 1DsIV won't get caught flat footed.

[Er1kksen]

I really like the specs, but am quite concerned about IQ above ISO 400.  The noise appears to be as bad as that in the 40D--all of the ISO 800 and higher samples have a lot of chroma and luminance noise in them.  Perhaps the firmware will be tweaked a bit before the camera is launched; I sure hope so.

I have to ask, what samples have you been looking at? The samples over at Imaging Resource (including jpeg samples at all the different NR settings and downloadable RAW files) look fantastic. Certainly a little better than my 40D at pixel level, and vastly better on the overall image noise. Based on the tests people have been doing so far, it cleans up very well too.

[Panopeeper]

I have to ask, what samples have you been looking at? The samples over at Imaging Resource (including jpeg samples at all the different NR settings and downloadable RAW files) look fantastic. Certainly a little better than my 40D at pixel level, and vastly better on the overall image noise. Based on the tests people have been doing so far, it cleans up very well too.

My measurements show, that the pixel-wise noise of the 40D is a bit lower, up to ISO 800. However, the noise of the 7D is much cleaner; the pattern noise is gone, at least down to the shades present in the review images.

Note, that the ugly pattern noise of the 5D2 appears in much darker regions; these images do not contain so dark objects.

http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/PatternNoise_Canon40D.GIF

http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/PatternNoise_Canon50D.GIF

http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/PatternNoise_Canon7D.GIF

http://www.panopeeper.com/Canon/PatternNoise_Canon5DMkII.GIF

[Ben Rubinstein]

Now that ACR 5.5 supports the 7D, any links to some decent RAW files in varying conditions and varying iso's?

EDIT: Found a whole bunch at Imaging Resource, adobe need to do more work on the beta support for the 7D, when iso's 800/1600 are almost as good as my 5D's (!), iso 400 shouldn't look that awful.

[madmanchan]

Ben, the support for the 7D in CR/LR is very preliminary, not official. It is based on the extraordinarily few sample files that we had available at the time that we were finalizing the release.

[ejmartin]

It's way too early to draw firm conclusions on how much improved the 7D's noise is.  The RAW samples at Imaging-Resource, for example, are from a preproduction body which has substantial imbalance of the two green channels of the Bayer array.  Most RAW converters will generate maze patterns from this input, making it hard to judge noise and detail from converted output.  Somewhat better inferences can be drawn from direct analysis of the RAW data, but even that should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Eric, I fully understand that the support is in beta, not blaming adobe for that! just stating that I can't come to conclusions based on them as yet due to the above.

All strength to you and your team!

[Ray]

I'm not sure if I should be reproducing crops from Imaging Resource here, but the 7D at ISO 6400 looks amazing in comparison with the 5D2 downsampled to the same file size. However, these are jpegs. Nevertheless the 7D shot seems so much better. Of course, at base ISO, the 5D2 would be better. But at base ISO, noise is usually not an issue. I notice that IR in their comparator do not equalise DoF so it's difficult sometimes to compare resolution.

[attachment=16619:7D_v_5D2.jpg]

[NigelC]

I'm not sure if I should be reproducing crops from Imaging Resource here, but the 7D at ISO 6400 looks amazing in comparison with the 5D2 downsampled to the same file size. However, these are jpegs. Nevertheless the 7D shot seems so much better. Of course, at base ISO, the 5D2 would be better. But at base ISO, noise is usually not an issue. I notice that IR in their comparator do not equalise DoF so it's difficult sometimes to compare resolution.

[attachment=16619:7D_v_5D2.jpg]

Actually, what I see in the comparison is that although the 5D2 shot has much more noise, especially nasty chroma noise, the underlying image is sharper - look at the detail in the script on the bottle, and on the pen.

[NigelC]

Actually, what I see in the comparison is that although the 5D2 shot has much more noise, especially nasty chroma noise, the underlying image is sharper - look at the detail in the script on the bottle, and on the pen.

Although that comment depends on where the plane of focus is on both shots - it could be that it is further back on the 7D shot - which of course supports your comment on depth of field - therefore I'm probably wrong!

[Ray]

Although that comment depends on where the plane of focus is on both shots - it could be that it is further back on the 7D shot - which of course supports your comment on depth of field - therefore I'm probably wrong!

I would expect the  picture resolution of the 5D2 (line widths per picture height) to be greater than that of the 7D despite the fact that there's hardly any difference between 18mp and 21mp. The wider spacing of the pixels on the 5D2 sensor will be less demanding on the lens. However, I would expect such resolution differences to be noticeable only when the lenses are used at their sharpest apertures, usually around F5.6. When one chooses an aperture for a desired DoF, then there may be circumstances where the 7D image is equally sharp. For example, comparing F5.6 on the 7D with F9 on the 5D2, or F7.1 on the 7D with F11 on the 5D2. There may even be some circumstances where the 7D is actually sharper. For example, the 7D at F13 compared with the 5D2 at F22.

There may be other circumstances where the 5D2 shows a very obvious resolution advantage. For example, the 7D at a full aperture of F3.5 with a lens which is not sharpest at full aperture, compared with the 5D2 at F5.6 with a lens which is sharpest at F5.6.

One would also expect a 5D2 image at base ISO to have cleaner and more detailed shadows than the 7D. On the other hand, if it is necessary to use a particular shutter speed to freeze subject and/or camera movement, as well as maintaining a specific DoF, then the 5D2 would have to be used at a higher ISO than the 7D and any noise and DR advantage due to the larger sensor would likely be lost or much reduced.

[pcunite]

...

Excellent and accurate information Ray. A list of good differences of the pro's and con's of FF vs. crop.

[Ray]

Excellent and accurate information Ray. A list of good differences of the pro's and con's of FF vs. crop.

Thank you. The choice between a 5D2 and a 7D is one which I will probably be making in the near future, unless I wait for the successor to the 5D2. I look forward to seeing the DXOMark tests for the 7D.

[professorgb]

I may be wrong, but it appears that you're comparing the 5dmkII with the D700, not the 7D.  Look at the filenames in the image you've attached.  If that is the case, then I'm not at all surprised by the difference.

I'm not sure if I should be reproducing crops from Imaging Resource here, but the 7D at ISO 6400 looks amazing in comparison with the 5D2 downsampled to the same file size. However, these are jpegs. Nevertheless the 7D shot seems so much better. Of course, at base ISO, the 5D2 would be better. But at base ISO, noise is usually not an issue. I notice that IR in their comparator do not equalise DoF so it's difficult sometimes to compare resolution.

[attachment=16619:7D_v_5D2.jpg]

[Ray]

I may be wrong, but it appears that you're comparing the 5dmkII with the D700, not the 7D.  Look at the filenames in the image you've attached.  If that is the case, then I'm not at all surprised by the difference.

You are absolutely right. Thanks for pointing that out. I had downloaded images of the 3 cameras and confused the D700 shot with the D7 shot. I guess that's an indication of wishful thinking, or too much wine, perhaps   . We tend to believe what we want to believe. I wanted to find a good reason to buy yet another camera.

Here are crops from the 3 cameras, clearly labelled. It now seems clear that the D7 has no advantage over the 5D2 at high ISO. But the D700 remains supreme on the noise front.

Drat it! I think I might have to opt for a 5D2 on my next photographic trip. On the other hand, a D700 and D7 might be a better combination.

[attachment=16692:D700_7D_5D2.jpg]