A question for Canon 7D owners (mainly)
Discussion
Well for f4 and handheld it looks sharp enough, plenty of detail on the crop.
As for the exposure, its underexposed big time. If you want clean pixels you need to expose to the right, you've 1-2 stops of space there, then pull it back in post.
Also what raw conversion are you using? DPP is supoposed to be good but I use ACR (latest).
And first thing I do (to most images) is use noise ninja, even on ISO 100 shots, very lightly (acutaly profiled) , you wont loose any detail but it will celan up the noise.
Sharpening is also a but of an art, you've underexposed, creating noise, then not cleaned it up, then sharpened the noise up a lot.
Can tweak the USM parameters to not do that.
As for the exposure, its underexposed big time. If you want clean pixels you need to expose to the right, you've 1-2 stops of space there, then pull it back in post.
Also what raw conversion are you using? DPP is supoposed to be good but I use ACR (latest).
And first thing I do (to most images) is use noise ninja, even on ISO 100 shots, very lightly (acutaly profiled) , you wont loose any detail but it will celan up the noise.
Sharpening is also a but of an art, you've underexposed, creating noise, then not cleaned it up, then sharpened the noise up a lot.
Can tweak the USM parameters to not do that.
RobDickinson said:
Well for f4 and handheld it looks sharp enough, plenty of detail on the crop.
As for the exposure, its underexposed big time. If you want clean pixels you need to expose to the right, you've 1-2 stops of space there, then pull it back in post.
Also what raw conversion are you using? DPP is supoposed to be good but I use ACR (latest).
And first thing I do (to most images) is use noise ninja, even on ISO 100 shots, very lightly (acutaly profiled) , you wont loose any detail but it will celan up the noise.
Sharpening is also a but of an art, you've underexposed, creating noise, then not cleaned it up, then sharpened the noise up a lot.
Can tweak the USM parameters to not do that.
Hi Rob,As for the exposure, its underexposed big time. If you want clean pixels you need to expose to the right, you've 1-2 stops of space there, then pull it back in post.
Also what raw conversion are you using? DPP is supoposed to be good but I use ACR (latest).
And first thing I do (to most images) is use noise ninja, even on ISO 100 shots, very lightly (acutaly profiled) , you wont loose any detail but it will celan up the noise.
Sharpening is also a but of an art, you've underexposed, creating noise, then not cleaned it up, then sharpened the noise up a lot.
Can tweak the USM parameters to not do that.
For some reason, having prepared a longish reply, PH demanded I logged in again and, of course, threw away the missive in process! Such joy.
Summary version.
It is just a quick test for detail and sharpness. I know it's underexposed - intentionally so for the purpose of the silhouette test frame. I can deal with the slight noise easily enough but it does make the processing for sharpness a little more complex than the very simple small amounts applied for the sample but, given the purpose of the shot, I didn't feel it was justifiable to make the effort at this point. Indeed I wanted to keep the processing to a minimum so at to get at the base capabilities of the camera. I'll accept sharpening since that, to some degree, is a necessity if we are to make any sense of the assessment and comparisons.
I use LightZone as an editor so the conversion engine is DCRaw. All adjustment, including noise reduction (by colour and/or luminance and for selected parts of the image if need be) are usually completed as part of RAW processing.
Trying a comparison with DPP (as the 'official' tool) is on my list of things to do in the next week.
It's quite interesting to uncover the perceived strengths and, possibly, weaknesses by playing - but tomorrow (or rather, today now) is a day for shooting in the field. I'd best top up the batteries!
Edited by LongQ on Monday 30th August 00:50
RobDickinson said:
Well good luck!
The key is to get the exposure nailed and to the right, though it doesnt help when the histograme is pulled from the jpg...
You have more headroom than that but not for reds and skin etc.
The unadjusted settings seem to be quite well to the right - to the point where the grey skies of last Friday either needed up to a 2 stop recovery or, in a couple of cases, were blown out despite there being a stop or more recovery available from the darker areas without any greatly increased visible addition of noise. I was thinking of dropping things 1/3 or 1/2 a stop as a default setting. Undecided yet - I'll see what tomorrow brings.The key is to get the exposure nailed and to the right, though it doesnt help when the histograme is pulled from the jpg...
You have more headroom than that but not for reds and skin etc.
The example is, of course, well below that. It was part of a group that were shot pretty much directly into the sun - we had a vaguely interestng sunset this evening which made a nice change from the recent rains.
RobDickinson said:
As for the exposure, its underexposed big time. If you want clean pixels you need to expose to the right, you've 1-2 stops of space there, then pull it back in post.
Also what raw conversion are you using? DPP is supoposed to be good but I use ACR (latest).
Rob are you saying that you tend to slightly overexpose then pull it back in post? Is this to get more detail?Also what raw conversion are you using? DPP is supoposed to be good but I use ACR (latest).
Cheers
D
Push the exposure right up until just before you clip something important. , especialy if , like the pylon shot there isnt masses of DR.
Obviously blowing tons of stuff you want isnt on so its to be carefull.
I still find myself not doing this and even ending up pushing up to a stop in post which adds noise.
Obviously blowing tons of stuff you want isnt on so its to be carefull.
I still find myself not doing this and even ending up pushing up to a stop in post which adds noise.
LongQ said:
I was thinking of dropping things 1/3 or 1/2 a stop as a default setting. Undecided yet - I'll see what tomorrow brings.
I use manual exposure most of the time and mentally I work on 1/3 down as a rough guide.As an aside, recently I've started using the great spot metering of the 7D to set the exposure which has improved my control over the highlights no end.
pernod said:
LongQ said:
I was thinking of dropping things 1/3 or 1/2 a stop as a default setting. Undecided yet - I'll see what tomorrow brings.
I use manual exposure most of the time and mentally I work on 1/3 down as a rough guide.As an aside, recently I've started using the great spot metering of the 7D to set the exposure which has improved my control over the highlights no end.
A couple of the other giys shooting there yesterday - clearly regulars - very kindly loaned me the use of their lenses for a few minutes So I can now see what a 70-200 f4 +1.4 extended can do and compare it with a 70-200 f2.8 Mk2.
All I can say is that I fear my wallet may never recover.
A couple of other observations.
The shutter release button on the 7D is very sensitive. With high speed continuous mode switched on CF card capacity disappears frighteningly quickly. The release button on the grip seeme even more sensitive ...
I've noticed some very strange results from my 70-300 DO lens which I have yet to investigate - almost like it was not correctly mounted some of the time but it could be an IS artefact. If I work it out I'll post on it.
Over all the Camera, with BG fitted (I have yet to play without it fitted) is a delight to use, very balanced, great veiwfinder and as you would expect a world away from the lower order bodies. I had a 1D4 in my hands for a couple of minutes yesterday and that was another interesting experience. The 7D+BG seemed quite close to 1D4 in terms of weight and balance. I really didn't have enough time to even begin to consider the differences in controls and performance.
As for my original question ..... I'm still looking at the output - 1 16Gb, 4Gb and 2Gb card to assess. I'll try to post some samples in the next day or so.
Further to my previous thoughts:
Having now assessed a lot more of the day's take AND finally got around to looking at the shots from my 400D I am somewhat puzzled.
The first thing I'll mention is that the extra resolution combined with the 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 is superb.
With my 70-300 DO - which is recognised as a very sharp lens in most tests - is also excellent. When it focuses.
The 400D can struggle with focus, especially niciable for action shots, with a lens that cannot go wider than f5.6. I have recognised this with the 70-300 sometimes when at the 300 zoom end where it only claims to offer f5.6, noticably even when the centre focus point on dark, low contrast subjects. Also when shooting continuously there will often be a shot in the sequence, usually the second or third, where it is very clearly out of focus. The common factor seems to be the influence of the centre of the image. It's most evident on pan shots, as one might expect since the focus point contrast level could vary a lot. However I recently had the use of a lens with max f6.3 at the longer end and that offered softness on static subjects at a relatively high shutter speed but nearly always when contrast in the focus area was lacking and especially when the subject was a dark colour.
So - one should expcet some limitations, there are some and I am familiar with them.
What surprises me a little is that the 7D seems rather prone to the same limitation - perhaps even more than the 400D, though to be honest that impression is probably based on the number of frames assessed and of course since the sensitive shutter buttons on the 7D will, in high speed continuous mode, rattle off a couple or three shots when it feels you shutter finger approaching, the sheer volume is not a reliable measure!
Now it may be that the 70-300 DO is simply too slow at AIServo focusing .... but then it seems to me to be fine as long as it is not at its 300mm extent. As soon as it falls into a focal length that has wider than f5.6 available the results are much more reliable. (I assumed this was all down to me but the same results can be seen across a range of shutter speeds which pretty much eliminates camera movement as the oonly cause. There are good and less good results at all shutter speeds - the focal length seems to be the most cnsistent factor.)
Is anyone else seeing the same thing or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I've re-checked the various settings available for focus use and there are a couple of experiments I can try - including simply selecting a single point (as with the 400D). I was using AF point expansion since that seemed to offer some potential benefits yet still be working only on the subject rather than its surrounding. As I mentioned everything seems within expectations, for the most part, at anything less than 300mm.
The potentially interesting thing about all of this is that the recently announced 70-300 L spec lens is f4-f5.6. (The DO is f4.5 - 5.6). So is there some chance that the new lens might see the same issues? Or do I need to get the DO serviced?
Clearly this is not just a case of spending the money - at least not on the body front.
The implication would seem to be that only the fastest lenses make sense (though I have a a handful of shots taken with a borrowed 70-200 f4 +1.4 extender. That combination seemed to be fine, though not as sharp as the f2.8 Mk2.
Having now assessed a lot more of the day's take AND finally got around to looking at the shots from my 400D I am somewhat puzzled.
The first thing I'll mention is that the extra resolution combined with the 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 is superb.
With my 70-300 DO - which is recognised as a very sharp lens in most tests - is also excellent. When it focuses.
The 400D can struggle with focus, especially niciable for action shots, with a lens that cannot go wider than f5.6. I have recognised this with the 70-300 sometimes when at the 300 zoom end where it only claims to offer f5.6, noticably even when the centre focus point on dark, low contrast subjects. Also when shooting continuously there will often be a shot in the sequence, usually the second or third, where it is very clearly out of focus. The common factor seems to be the influence of the centre of the image. It's most evident on pan shots, as one might expect since the focus point contrast level could vary a lot. However I recently had the use of a lens with max f6.3 at the longer end and that offered softness on static subjects at a relatively high shutter speed but nearly always when contrast in the focus area was lacking and especially when the subject was a dark colour.
So - one should expcet some limitations, there are some and I am familiar with them.
What surprises me a little is that the 7D seems rather prone to the same limitation - perhaps even more than the 400D, though to be honest that impression is probably based on the number of frames assessed and of course since the sensitive shutter buttons on the 7D will, in high speed continuous mode, rattle off a couple or three shots when it feels you shutter finger approaching, the sheer volume is not a reliable measure!
Now it may be that the 70-300 DO is simply too slow at AIServo focusing .... but then it seems to me to be fine as long as it is not at its 300mm extent. As soon as it falls into a focal length that has wider than f5.6 available the results are much more reliable. (I assumed this was all down to me but the same results can be seen across a range of shutter speeds which pretty much eliminates camera movement as the oonly cause. There are good and less good results at all shutter speeds - the focal length seems to be the most cnsistent factor.)
Is anyone else seeing the same thing or am I barking up the wrong tree?
I've re-checked the various settings available for focus use and there are a couple of experiments I can try - including simply selecting a single point (as with the 400D). I was using AF point expansion since that seemed to offer some potential benefits yet still be working only on the subject rather than its surrounding. As I mentioned everything seems within expectations, for the most part, at anything less than 300mm.
The potentially interesting thing about all of this is that the recently announced 70-300 L spec lens is f4-f5.6. (The DO is f4.5 - 5.6). So is there some chance that the new lens might see the same issues? Or do I need to get the DO serviced?
Clearly this is not just a case of spending the money - at least not on the body front.
The implication would seem to be that only the fastest lenses make sense (though I have a a handful of shots taken with a borrowed 70-200 f4 +1.4 extender. That combination seemed to be fine, though not as sharp as the f2.8 Mk2.
Your 7D deserves better glass than the 70-300, you have to accept that fact and live with it, why do you think canon have just released a MK2 version of 70-200 IS 'L' F2.8 [and several other lenses for that matter] - simply becaiuse the old lenses are not up to resolving what a 7D body [or a 5dmk2 for that matter can] your 70-300 is not in the same league aa a 'L' series lens so work it out for yourself 
S47 said:
Your 7D deserves better glass than the 70-300, you have to accept that fact and live with it, why do you think canon have just released a MK2 version of 70-200 IS 'L' F2.8 [and several other lenses for that matter] - simply becaiuse the old lenses are not up to resolving what a 7D body [or a 5dmk2 for that matter can] your 70-300 is not in the same league aa a 'L' series lens so work it out for yourself
Hmm.It is the DO version of the lens, not the cooking consumer version, and as such is marketed and priced by Canon in the L spec class along with its 400mm DO sibling. They are not given the L spec red ring identifier - because they have the DO spec green ring version.
For what it's worth the results, when correctly focused, from my DO lens are at least on a par with the 70-200 f4 +1.4 extender for sharpness. The chap using that was working with, iirc, a 1D4. The results looked excellent on screen - but then so did all all of them. I only took a few shots with that combination and it would be difficult to be certain that focus was always accurate based on those.
That said you make a good point - Canon have upped the quality of the 70-200 f2.8 with the Mk2. Presumably they will be doing the same with the other popular lenses - 100-400 for example, and we should assume at this point that they have already addressed this with the recently announced 70-300L lens. Excellent. But that means that to buy a £1k body and make it usable you also need to spend about £6k on lenses (making some assumptions about the likelihood of future prices doubling compared to exisiting lenses - as happened with the 70-200 f2.8) IS it worth it?
If you go back to the start of the thread you will find one of my main questions was about whether the 18Mp sensor/latest quality 70-200 Mk2 lens was indeed good enough to avoid the need and cost of having something longer as well - so as you can see I am already aware of the argument that the new high resolution sensors demand (or even require) 'better' glass.
More to the point, in relation to what I posted that prompted this response from you, will they focus consistently on a 7D at f5.6? As far as I can guess there is no guarantee that spending the cash resolves the focus question with any certainty. Not sure a 100-400 f2.8 would be affordable or indeed usable. This is a focus question NOT a resolution question.
Or have I just got an unfortunate combination of body and lens or not found the settings that work best? Any observations about what focus settings seem to work well for moving subjects would be welcome - I'll try them out.
LongQ said:
Any observations about what focus settings seem to work well for moving subjects would be welcome - I'll try them out.
This is the post i made on another Photography Forum after my first shoot with the 7D last October. I'd been out of action over a month with a Torn Bicep so i'd had plenty of time to read the Manual and set it up as near as possible to my 1DMKIIN. I usually shoot with a Single AF point, but use expansion when necessary. The only other major change i've made is condemning DPP to the bin and using Capture One Pro for RAW Conversion.
Me elsewhere said:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Some general info.
Battery life - 700+ shots taken left me with 65%+ on both batteries.
RAW file size is in excess of 22Mb+ (it's a hungry bugger)
I found bog-standard single point AF to be the best (for me). "Zone" AF seemed to work well for the buggies though as they don't have much bodywork to aim at.
These are the AF settings i used for the majority of the day...some fine tuning/experimenting is still to be done.
CFn III.
1 Between 0 and Slow. I found slower is better...
2 0 : AF Priority.Tracking Priority
3 1 :Continuous AF Track priority
4 1 :Focus Search Off
5: 0 : Disable
6: Single point, Spot AF and Zone AF enabled.
7 0: Stops at AF area edges (i found Continuous to be rubbish from a quick try)
8 0:Auto
9 1: Enable
10 : 0 Enable
11 1: Disable
12 0 : Same for horiz/vertical
Hope that helps 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Some general info.
Battery life - 700+ shots taken left me with 65%+ on both batteries.
RAW file size is in excess of 22Mb+ (it's a hungry bugger)
I found bog-standard single point AF to be the best (for me). "Zone" AF seemed to work well for the buggies though as they don't have much bodywork to aim at.
These are the AF settings i used for the majority of the day...some fine tuning/experimenting is still to be done.
CFn III.
1 Between 0 and Slow. I found slower is better...
2 0 : AF Priority.Tracking Priority
3 1 :Continuous AF Track priority
4 1 :Focus Search Off
5: 0 : Disable
6: Single point, Spot AF and Zone AF enabled.
7 0: Stops at AF area edges (i found Continuous to be rubbish from a quick try)
8 0:Auto
9 1: Enable
10 : 0 Enable
11 1: Disable
12 0 : Same for horiz/vertical
MonkeyHanger said:
LongQ said:
Any observations about what focus settings seem to work well for moving subjects would be welcome - I'll try them out.
This is the post i made on another Photography Forum after my first shoot with the 7D last October. I'd been out of action over a month with a Torn Bicep so i'd had plenty of time to read the Manual and set it up as near as possible to my 1DMKIIN. I usually shoot with a Single AF point, but use expansion when necessary. The only other major change i've made is condemning DPP to the bin and using Capture One Pro for RAW Conversion.
Me elsewhere said:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Some general info.
Battery life - 700+ shots taken left me with 65%+ on both batteries.
RAW file size is in excess of 22Mb+ (it's a hungry bugger)
I found bog-standard single point AF to be the best (for me). "Zone" AF seemed to work well for the buggies though as they don't have much bodywork to aim at.
These are the AF settings i used for the majority of the day...some fine tuning/experimenting is still to be done.
CFn III.
1 Between 0 and Slow. I found slower is better...
2 0 : AF Priority.Tracking Priority
3 1 :Continuous AF Track priority
4 1 :Focus Search Off
5: 0 : Disable
6: Single point, Spot AF and Zone AF enabled.
7 0: Stops at AF area edges (i found Continuous to be rubbish from a quick try)
8 0:Auto
9 1: Enable
10 : 0 Enable
11 1: Disable
12 0 : Same for horiz/vertical
Hope that helps 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Some general info.
Battery life - 700+ shots taken left me with 65%+ on both batteries.
RAW file size is in excess of 22Mb+ (it's a hungry bugger)
I found bog-standard single point AF to be the best (for me). "Zone" AF seemed to work well for the buggies though as they don't have much bodywork to aim at.
These are the AF settings i used for the majority of the day...some fine tuning/experimenting is still to be done.
CFn III.
1 Between 0 and Slow. I found slower is better...
2 0 : AF Priority.Tracking Priority
3 1 :Continuous AF Track priority
4 1 :Focus Search Off
5: 0 : Disable
6: Single point, Spot AF and Zone AF enabled.
7 0: Stops at AF area edges (i found Continuous to be rubbish from a quick try)
8 0:Auto
9 1: Enable
10 : 0 Enable
11 1: Disable
12 0 : Same for horiz/vertical
Just wanted to say what a great set of photo's!
M-J-B said:
I don't have a 7D, only a 50D so I can't comment on the thread.
Just wanted to say what a great set of photo's!
Why thank you kind sir Just wanted to say what a great set of photo's!
My 7D actually replaced a 50D, which is a damned good Camera itself IMHO.
50D/Sigma 120-300 & 1.4x Convertor..
Edited by MonkeyHanger on Wednesday 1st September 20:41
MonkeyHanger said:
M-J-B said:
I don't have a 7D, only a 50D so I can't comment on the thread.
Just wanted to say what a great set of photo's!
Why thank you kind sir Just wanted to say what a great set of photo's!
My 7D actually replaced a 50D, which is a damned good Camera itself IMHO.
50D/Sigma 120-300 & 1.4x Convertor..
Edited by MonkeyHanger on Wednesday 1st September 20:41
I mainly use a 24-70L and 70-200L IS and had thought of investing in a 5D MK II, but I'm confused now!
M-J-B said:
Right..........Stop that now!
I mainly use a 24-70L and 70-200L IS and had thought of investing in a 5D MK II, but I'm confused now!
It depends what you plan to use it for. If it's Landscapes / Portraits etc, then the 5D2 is superb. If you're shooting something that moves faster than the average Iceberg, then i'd say look elsewhere.I mainly use a 24-70L and 70-200L IS and had thought of investing in a 5D MK II, but I'm confused now!
MonkeyHanger said:
M-J-B said:
Right..........Stop that now!
I mainly use a 24-70L and 70-200L IS and had thought of investing in a 5D MK II, but I'm confused now!
It depends what you plan to use it for. If it's Landscapes / Portraits etc, then the 5D2 is superb. If you're shooting something that moves faster than the average Iceberg, then i'd say look elsewhere.I mainly use a 24-70L and 70-200L IS and had thought of investing in a 5D MK II, but I'm confused now!
Mixture of landscapes (in France at the moment for example), F1, Le Mans and kids/family.
Thought full frame was the way to go and 5D MK II would be the best option?
For landscapes in decent light theres very little difference between the 5D2 and the 7D.
If you print very large you may see some difference, if you shoot over ISO 1600 a lot you will see some difference.
The only signidicant differences in IQ are the 5D2 has a stop (or a bit more) at higher ISO and has an apparent DOF of a stop shallower (i.e. f2.8 on the 7D is equivelant to f4 on the 5D2). If your into fast prime shallow DOF shoorting the FF body is the one to go for.
The 5D2 can focus OK on the center point, andeven track (especualy with the helper ones enabled), the rest are rough as.
When I considered them both I also looked at lenses. 24-70 vs 17-55 (unfair here as the 24-105L is the real 17-55 equivelant), 10-20 (or 10-22 or 8-16) vs 17-40L etc. The FF lenses were larger, heavier and more expensive, and not realy better (apart from weathersealing).
When it came down to it the 7D allows me to shoot a lot more than the 5D2 (sport/wildlife etc) whilst still making great landscapes and potraits.
Even for studio work (where light is controlled) crops can be seen as better needing shorter lighter lenses for the same field of view and subject distances.
Saying that I'm realy after a FF body for the shallow DOF kinda stuff. A 1DsII or 5D + cheaper 50 is a lot less than a 35L ...
If you print very large you may see some difference, if you shoot over ISO 1600 a lot you will see some difference.
The only signidicant differences in IQ are the 5D2 has a stop (or a bit more) at higher ISO and has an apparent DOF of a stop shallower (i.e. f2.8 on the 7D is equivelant to f4 on the 5D2). If your into fast prime shallow DOF shoorting the FF body is the one to go for.
The 5D2 can focus OK on the center point, andeven track (especualy with the helper ones enabled), the rest are rough as.
When I considered them both I also looked at lenses. 24-70 vs 17-55 (unfair here as the 24-105L is the real 17-55 equivelant), 10-20 (or 10-22 or 8-16) vs 17-40L etc. The FF lenses were larger, heavier and more expensive, and not realy better (apart from weathersealing).
When it came down to it the 7D allows me to shoot a lot more than the 5D2 (sport/wildlife etc) whilst still making great landscapes and potraits.
Even for studio work (where light is controlled) crops can be seen as better needing shorter lighter lenses for the same field of view and subject distances.
Saying that I'm realy after a FF body for the shallow DOF kinda stuff. A 1DsII or 5D + cheaper 50 is a lot less than a 35L ...
M-J-B said:
I had read that.
Mixture of landscapes (in France at the moment for example), F1, Le Mans and kids/family.
Thought full frame was the way to go and 5D MK II would be the best option?
Ah the infamous "bit of everything" camera Mixture of landscapes (in France at the moment for example), F1, Le Mans and kids/family.
Thought full frame was the way to go and 5D MK II would be the best option?
How about a decent, used 1DMK3. Or a 1DSMK3 if you fancy pushing the boat out a bit more. Both have the 1 series AF system but the "S" falls down slightly on frame rate (i use single shot anyway) and loss of "reach".
OR
Buy a 7D and add something like a Canon 10-22 to the collection.
ETA
I meant a 1DsMK2....the MK3 still requires the sale of vital organs to finance it. Although this is PH, where everyone is awash with cash
Edited by MonkeyHanger on Wednesday 1st September 21:48
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff