best camera choise considering image quality only

[George Spiridakis]

Hello everyone, i would like to ask especially the experts or people who had or used both models: 1D Mark 3, 5D Mark 2, 7D


My question is: which camera is the best in image quality (please don't include the fact weather sealing, battery grip and these stuff). Can you rate them with a max score the 10 for me please?


I am an owner of a 50D at the moment, and my first model before the 50D, was the 400D.


50D is a good camera, but just this, 'good'. not excellent. the 15Mp and the high ISO don't do much about the quality. i am a wildlife photographer (not pro), but i want to take the best output from my camera, without much interfering by Photoshop and other things. I can't take good photos with ISO higher than 400, even in good light conditions. Above that, noise becomes quite apparent.


i 've seen images from a 5D2. i was impressed..So clear and no noise at all (my friend was using it with a Canon EF 500 f/4 IS, which is sure much better than my 100-400), but this body really delivers great images! when i compare it with my 50D. The only disadvantage this camera has is the fact that is full frame, which will make me to get very close to my subject, but..i can make more croping than with the 50D and still get better images i suppose..the fact it has 3,9 fps don't bothers me much.


Now, the 1D Mark 3 is very complicated case..i mean it has the stunning 10 fps which you can use in many cases, and a better AF system, but how much better image quality it produces compared with 50D, and with 5D2. It is overpriced for me i think,it is 2 years old model nowand also i believe soon Canon will release the new model, which will be more Mp (quite important for me, because if this camera was at least 12Mp i would think more for it), and even better in high ISO performance. An important think for me this camera has is the 1,3x sensor, which is better than the full frame in the final focal length.


As for 7D, i really doubt about being much better than the 50D, it has an improved AF system ok, and the 8fps, but if it's not much better in image quality and ISO performance, i think me as an owner of the 50D, it does not worth to spend money for little improvement (i don't care about the video stuff it has).


So, because soon i will have the 400L f/5,6 USM of Canon (which is better than the 100-400), please help me which model is the best for my update, because i will spend money and i want to keep it for at least 3-4 years. Should i wait for the 1D Mark 4?

[Vlad Xp]

I always thought that high quality images are achieved by using high quality lenses. After all, that is the component that creates image on the image sensor. You can't expect the best quality image using the best camera without using the premium glass. I recommend that you keep the 50D, and rent a few L primes, and see if that's enough to convince you to invest in lenses, not the body.

[Joel Bookhammer]

I agree with the assumption that the lens plays a major role in image quality. I shoot with a 40D with 3 L lenses 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS, and the 85 1.2 II. I also own the nifty fifty and the 85 1.2 creates the best image quality then all the other lenses.


Look at the images that Nate (forgive me for not rememberingyour full name) has shot using a 40D and 400 5.6. He has some great images with that set up and recently upgraded to the 500 f4.


My 2 Cents


Thanks


Joel

[Gian Luca]

Lenses pay a major role in image quality, but the camera is very important as well.


I have a 5dMKII and in my opinion it is the best image quality camera available in the Canon line, at the same level with 1Ds MKIII, but for a fraction of the price. I was ready to buy a 1Ds MKIII when the 5dMKII has been announced, and after reading Bryan test I bought it.


As far as the 1Ds MKIV, if there will be one next year nobody knows today Image definition, performance at high ISO, Price, so it is impossible to compare.

[Fast Glass]

The 5D II has the highest image quality offered by Canon, but the 1ds III has image quality so close that I would not hesitate to buy one.

[Daniel Browning]

, i would like to ask especially the experts or people who had or used both models: 1D Mark 3, 5D Mark 2, 7D


I had a 1D3 before, now I have a 5D2. Never touched a 7D, but I've read about it.



My question is: which camera is the best in image quality?


Well, you weren't really specific about what you meant by "image quality", so I'll just go with my own idea about it if that's alright. [:D] For birding, the 7D easily wins, by a long shot. Here are the numbers I would give them:

7D: 10
1D3: 7
5D2: 5




the 15Mp and the high ISO don't do much about the quality.


I know what you mean. If you compare the same angle of view from the 50D and 5D2, you have to crop the 5D2 down to 8 MP. At ISO 1600+, the 5D2 will have less noise but less detail. At low ISO, the 50D will have more detail and the same amount of noise.


The 7D changes that, though. It brings the high ISO performance up to the same level as a cropped 5D2, but still keeps the resolution advantage (18 MP vs 8 MP, and the same noise).


So for birding, the 7D has less noise than the 1D3 and 5D2, unless you don't have to crop.



As for 7D, i really doubt about being much better than the 50D,


At low ISO, the noise is not much improved. But at high ISO, it is noticeably better than the 50D.


The 7D is essentially the exact camera that birders have been waiting for. We've wanted a professional 1.6X crop for a long time, and it's finally here.

[Fast Glass]

The 7D is essentially the exact camera that birders have been waiting for.





You gotthat right![Y]

[Todd Ovick]

george,...when it comes to IQ,...the lens is WHERE ITS AT!!!,...you got 4 classes on canon bodies, rebel, xxD models, 5D models, and 1d models....


My first camera was a an Original Rebel (300D) ,....used it for a while and then bought an "L" lens...and noticed an instant/noticeable difference to IQ. then i got my 5D and and WOW!!! exceptional IQ increase,...since then i have upgraded all my glass to "L" quality.......I hope to upgrade my 5D body to a newer 1d model for newer functions and better auto-focusing capabilities.......your 50D should show substantial IQ improvements with better Glass (lens')!!

[ShutterbugJohan]

The 7D is essentially the exact camera that birders have been waiting for.





You gotthat right!/emoticons/emotion-21.gif





And those who are on a budget[:@] who want a pro body. [A]

[shutr]

I compared the 5DmkII, 50D, rebelXTi. I used my 24-105L lens. The Image quality, ie sharpness & detail easy winner the 5DmkII.

[Vince]

I own 5D Mk II and some L lenses, recentlly just bought 1D Mk III for all kind action shots. As I know currentlly lots discount in new 1D Mk III, because of new version may release soon this year or next year, therefore I think its good time to get one. I am not Pro therefore I don't need super new version 1D Mk 4, and no point for me to spend lots money for new 1D Mk 4 body~


I used to own 500D which I found image/high ISO quality similar to 50D (from all kind of reviews etc...). And before I decide to buy 1D Mk III I actually compare lots reviews between 1D, 1Ds, 5D, 50D, 500D and 7D for image.high ISO quality, then I found high ISO quality in 1D Mk III should be better than 7D, 50D and 500D. But for image details (large print especially) 7D will be the best, and the question will be do you need it?


I shot slow moving objects by using 5D Mk II and for fast moving object 5D Mk II just too slow. For me 1D Mk III all about SPEED ! which I love it :P and ya you can use it in any kind of weather !!


So for any event I will carry both cameras, 5D Mk II attached 16-35mm L f2.8 USM II and 1D Mk III attached with 70-200mm L f2.8 IS USM etc....


My 2c~

[Scott]

It sounds to me that money is not an object, if I were you I'd get the whole three bodies. [:D] Is there that much money in wildlife photography. he he I've got the 50D with a small piece of L glass on it and the image quality is razor sharp.

[peety3]

If money was no object, I'd be torn between the 1Ds III and the 5D II. In reality, if money was no object, I'd pick up 1-2 1Ds3 bodies now, and pick up 1-3 1Ds4 bodies when they came out. :) As I always say, if you haven't _____, don't try it. In this case, it's "shot with a 1-series body", but it's also been "ridden a carbon-fiber bicycle", "shot with the 85/1.2L lens", "shot with the 200/2LIS lens", etc.

[Joel Eade]

If you want to consider the sensor quality only to decide which camera to buy,(apart from the lens), look at the DxoMark website. You can get an in depth comparison of the sensors in all the common digital bodies. It's very enlightening information.


Joel Eade

[peety3]

I guess people really are that stupid as I have posted in previous threads if you don't know please shut you mouth now and listen

The highest quality pictures as of now come from the 1Ds series no one can agrue this " I REPEAT" can argue with this

The highest quailty camer as of now if I am correct woud be an 8X10 film camera
But as far as digital goes phase one's P60+
Holds the title
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Just go away. There's a valid argument in considering cameras that are newer than the 1-series, as they have newer sensor technology and newer processing technology. Considering the 5D Mark II scored very close to the 1Ds Mark III on DxOmark, that's just one sample of the argument being open.

[Fink_Studios]

I know you were trying to dis me but well that kind of back fired peet3 I like fight in you but you'll never win

As you stated above the 5d mark II came close in the dxo test but yet it was not as good the 1Ds series will always have a slight edge other wise the would have discontinued the line
Since they debut the 1D series it has been on top thank for kinda taking my side


Keep trying you never win oh and this is not a game I am just telling it like it is

Good luck and happy shooting

[George Spiridakis]

Thanks for your answers.


I still have my doubts for 7D, and i am sure that is not a much better camera than the 50D. The 1D Mark 3 must be quite better than 7D. As for the glass, the next lens i am going to buy, is the 500 f/4 L IS USM, which can't afford at the moment. So, for now, i can only improve my camera body.


5D 2 looks to be a great camera, but using it with my 400 f/5,6 L USM the focal lenght will not be enough. i will have to get closer to my subject, so my fotos will be less in number, but better in quality and i will be able to shoot in low light also.


Now, the new1D 4 looks very good, it has the 1,3 x factor which is an advantage for me, hopefully it will be even better in ISO performancethan the 1d3, (i wish image quality will be as good as the 5D2, as well as the ISO performance) and it's 16Mp, which is just perfect for me (10Mp of 1D3 was not enough for this price). also, it can shoot at 10fps, and it has e very good AF system (i wish with no problems this time).


Please tell me your opinions about the 1D4, about price, quality and performance, compared with 5D2, or even 7D and 1D3.


If i had no problem with money, i was going to buy the 1D4 (for wildlife and bird photography), the 5D2 (for landscape, portraitand macro photography) and Canon's 500 f/4 L IS USM. Unfortunately, at some point, maybee at Christmas time, i will sell my 50D and buy a 5D2 or a 1D4..probably, the second..

[Daniel Browning]

I still have my doubts for 7D, and i am sure that is not a much better camera than the 50D.


You are mistaken. It is much better.



The 1D Mark 3 must be quite better than 7D.


In some ways it's better, but in other ways it is worse.



Please tell me your opinions about the 1D4, about price, quality and performance, compared with 5D2, or even 7D and 1D3.


All we have to go on right now are paper specifications and a few pre-production jpeg files. We wont know more until it ships, which is not expected for at least one more month. I looked at raw files from preproduction 7D units, and the production units turned out differently.


The 7D is almost purpose-made for telephoto work. In focal-length limited situations it has superior resolution to the 1D4. If you are at all limited by finances, and you are, it's the obvious choice over the 1D4.

[HiFiGuy1]

I still have my doubts for 7D, and i am sure that is not a much better camera than the 50D.


You are mistaken. It is much better.


So, is it time for me to consider selling my 40D kit with the 28-135? I am being serious. I have really wanted the AF microadjust since it came out, and I mainly am interested in telephoto work, with a little bit of interior/exterior architecture shooting, so I want to stay with the 1.6x for now. I have a 17-40 f/4 and am looking to get a 300 f/4 and 1.4x TC. I think I want that over the 400 f5.6 for the IS and versatility, unless you think that is a poor decision and convince me otherwise. I will eventually sell my 17-40 and get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 for obvious reasons.


I am slightly concerned about the "image retention" issue that is seen in high-speed mode, according to the News section here on this site, and I hope it is something that can be addressed by a firmware update.







The 1D Mark 3 must be quite better than 7D.


In some ways it's better, but in other ways it is worse.


For my own edification, please elaborate.

[Daniel Browning]

So, is it time for me to consider selling my 40D kit with the 28-135?


The 7D would be significant upgrade, especially for telephoto, autofocus, or high ISO shots.



I have a 17-40 f/4 and am looking to get a 300 f/4 and 1.4x TC. I think I want that over the 400 f5.6 for the IS and versatility, unless you think that is a poor decision and convince me otherwise.


Either would be a great choice. Consider also the 100-400 if the cost and weight aren't an issue.


100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 is not quite as sharp as the 300mm f/4+1.4x, but it's close. ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=7&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =1&amp;APIComp=0)


The autofocus is slower, though. And the 300mm has better bokeh especially without the 1.4x. Not to mention a full stop faster when 300mm is all you need.


All things considered, I prefer the flexibility of the 100-400.



I am slightly concerned about the "image retention" issue that is seen in high-speed mode, according to the News section here on this site, and I hope it is something that can be addressed by a firmware update.


Yes. There are two other issues that plague the 7D as well. All units have fixed pattern noise at ISO 400 and lower that shows up when you use over 9 stops of dynamic range, similar to the 5D2. Most people don't use more than 9 stops, though, so it may not affect you. Some copies of the 7D have an issue with gain and/or offset imbalance of the green channels which causes mazing artifacts at all brightness and ISO settings. If you get hit by that one you can just return it.






In some ways the 1D3 is better than the 7D, but in other ways it is worse.


Here's an elaboration.


First there's the obvious resolution advantage of the 7D. When you are limited by focal length (i.e. "lens-limited", you can't get closer and you don't have a longer lens), the 7D gives you 18 MP compared to just 6 MP on the 1D3.


Second, the high ISO performance of the 7D is superior, especially when lens-limited. It has 40% lower read noise per area after scaling both to the same spatial frequency. But more importantly, it has far less pattern noise at ISO 800 and above. (Below 800 the 1D3 is superior).


Then there are a lot of other misc. features like the hi-res LCD, movie capability, etc. that were added in the newer body, but the 1D3 still retains some nice advantages, like a larger sensor, better weather sealing (though the 7D is better than the 50D), better autofocus (though YMMV), ergonomics, etc.

[Fast Glass]

100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 is not quite as sharp as the 300mm f/4+1.4x, but it's close. ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=7&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =1&amp;APIComp=0)





Forgive me for being nit picky, but it looks to me that the 100-400mm is a bit sharper in the center but the 300mm+1.4 is better in the corners. I guess it doesn't make any differance in real world anyway.

[Daniel Browning]

...it looks to me that the 100-400mm is a bit sharper in the center but the 300mm+1.4 is better in the corners.


You're quite right. It's very good for a zoom.

[HiFiGuy1]

So, is it time for me to consider selling my 40D kit with the 28-135?


The 7D would be significant upgrade, especially for telephoto, autofocus, or high ISO shots.



I have a 17-40 f/4 and am looking to get a 300 f/4 and 1.4x TC. I think I want that over the 400 f5.6 for the IS and versatility, unless you think that is a poor decision and convince me otherwise.


Either would be a great choice. Consider also the 100-400 if the cost and weight aren't an issue.


100-400 at 400mm f/5.6 is not quite as sharp as the 300mm f/4+1.4x, but it's close. ("http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=7&amp;API= 1&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =1&amp;APIComp=0)


The autofocus is slower, though. And the 300mm has better bokeh especially without the 1.4x. Not to mention a full stop faster when 300mm is all you need.


All things considered, I prefer the flexibility of the 100-400.



I am slightly concerned about the "image retention" issue that is seen in high-speed mode, according to the News section here on this site, and I hope it is something that can be addressed by a firmware update.


Yes. There are two other issues that plague the 7D as well. All units have fixed pattern noise at ISO 400 and lower that shows up when you use over 9 stops of dynamic range, similar to the 5D2. Most people don't use more than 9 stops, though, so it may not affect you. Some copies of the 7D have an issue with gain and/or offset imbalance of the green channels which causes mazing artifacts at all brightness and ISO settings. If you get hit by that one you can just return it.






In some ways the 1D3 is better than the 7D, but in other ways it is worse.


Here's an elaboration.


First there's the obvious resolution advantage of the 7D. When you are limited by focal length (i.e. "lens-limited", you can't get closer and you don't have a longer lens), the 7D gives you 18 MP compared to just 6 MP on the 1D3.


Second, the high ISO performance of the 7D is superior, especially when lens-limited. It has 40% lower read noise per area after scaling both to the same spatial frequency. But more importantly, it has far less pattern noise at ISO 800 and above. (Below 800 the 1D3 is superior).


Then there are a lot of other misc. features like the hi-res LCD, movie capability, etc. that were added in the newer body, but the 1D3 still retains some nice advantages, like a larger sensor, better weather sealing (though the 7D is better than the 50D), better autofocus (though YMMV), ergonomics, etc.






Daniel,


Wow. You're a fount of information. Thank you.


7D: How do I know the settings/circumstances that cause the fixed pattern noise? In other words, what does it take to force my camera into this "bad" area? How do I avoid them? Do I want to? It seems like dynamic range is my friend. Also, how do I identify the green channel problems if I get a 7D? What are the symptoms? Am I being overbearing if I ask for an example to look at? [:$]


Lens choices: The ISO you linked shows them as pretty comparable, as you say. I checked, for thoroughness, at 300mm f/5.6 so it'd be apples to apples, and the 300mm f/4 is clearly better there. I don't think I'd mind using the TC and adding/taking it away. I vacillated on the 100-400 for a long time, thinking it would be a great compromise solution, but I just can't seem to get over the push-pull zoom. I haven't actually used it, but I have a mental block. Maybe I'm making too much of it? It seems that you own one. What are your thoughts on this aspect? In this price class, I'd make the stretch if necessary. It isn't that different. A 300+1.4 combo is about $1600, and the 100-400 is about $1680.


The other, cheaper, prime option would be the 400 f/5.6 non-IS @ $1330. We've all seen that Nate has made some extraordinary shots with it. I just think it is a little slow for my needs outside of bright daylight wildlife shooting, which also include the odd football game under the lights. I actually used my other body/lens combo (Nikon D100 + Sigma 400mm f/5.6 non-IS APO TeleMacro) at a high school football game this weekend for the first time, and discovered that without a fast AF system, the 1.5x FOVCF at 400mm (600 effective) even from the stands is narrow enough to make it difficult to follow a play and get a shot. Also, even wide open (f/5.6 and ISO1600) it was stumbling around 1/30-1/50 second. Not really hand-holdable for me. Did I mention the AF was slow and hunts terribly? Not sure if that is a lens or body issue. Or both. I know, in a dream world, I have a 400mm f/2.8 IS, but without selling my primary mode of transportation, that is not going to happen anytime soon. [:D]


I will sell the Nikon combo if I got a comparable Canon lens, so that will help to subsidize to some extent.

[luck101]

5dmkII





good price for full frame, great iso capability, movie mode *if you find it as an asset*


digic 4 tech goodies, decent burst (considering the amount of data it moves) what more could you want for the price??


the 7d is a good alternative, but just the sensor is 1.6x. the benefits of the full frame advantage, u should investigate if full frame works to your advantage

[Daniel Browning]

7D: How do I know the settings/circumstances that cause the fixed pattern noise? In other words, what does it take to force my camera into this "bad" area?





It requires going to 9+ stops of dynamic range. Dynamic range is the distance between the clipping point and the visible shadows. Most people only use 5-8 stops of dynamic range, but anything you do to increase the amount of dynamic range used in your picture can put you over the top.


For example, if you use Highlight Tone Priority, that adds 1 stop.


Automatic Vignetting correction can add several stops in the corners, depending on the lens.


The bad ISO settings (125, 250, 500, 1000) increase it 1/3 stop.


Auto Lighting Optimizer can increase it a *lot*, but the number of stops varies with every picture.


Any increase of brightness in post can do it (positive exposure compensation, add "fill light", reduce contrast, etc.) For example, if you accidentally underexpose by one stop, then boost it in post to fix the problem, you might hit it.






How do I avoid them?





Don't use too much dynamic range (i.e. never underexpose). That means if you encounter a scene with lots of dynamic range, you have to use exposure blending or just not take the picture. (Or live with the pattern noise.)






It seems like dynamic range is my friend.





Yes, it is. That's why this problem with Canon cameras is unfortunate. It limits what we can do.


Here is a method to check for the pattern noise with Rawnalyze:


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33386107 ("http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33386107)


Almost every camera seen so far (over 9 out of 10) has this problem, though.



Also, how do I identify the green channel problems if I get a 7D?


Here's one method to check the problem using a ree command-line utility called "dcraw" and Photoshop, with a visual example included:


http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809801/116#7679914 ("http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809801/116#7679914)


Here's a different method using the free program "IRIS" (crop included):


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33384683 ("http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33384683)


And here's another method using Rawnalyze (no image):


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33357735 ("http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33357735)



What are the symptoms? Am I being overbearing if I ask for an example to look at? /emoticons/emotion-10.gif


Here is what it looks like:


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33283944 ("http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&amp;message=33283944)



but I just can't seem to get over the push-pull zoom. I haven't actually used it, but I have a mental block. Maybe I'm making too much of it? It seems that you own one. What are your thoughts on this aspect? In this price class, I'd make the stretch if necessary.


I don't own one, but I used it a lot several years ago. I disliked the push-pull, but it wasn't a deal-breaker.



The other, cheaper, prime option would be the 400 f/5.6 non-IS @ $1330. We've all seen that Nate has made some extraordinary shots with it. I just think it is a little slow for my needs outside of bright daylight wildlife shooting, which also include the odd football game under the lights.


Agreed. I.S. is a must for me.

[Keith B]

but I just can't seem to get over the push-pull zoom. I haven't actually used it, but I have a mental block. Maybe I'm making too much of it? It seems that you own one. What are your thoughts on this aspect? In this price class, I'd make the stretch if necessary.


I don't own one, but I used it a lot several years ago. I disliked the push-pull, but it wasn't a deal-breaker.






I have the 100-400 and the push pull is a non-issue for me. In fact I kind of like it. Fortunately for me I had a friend that had it and I could test it out before I bought one.


I was shooting the cycle races at Daytona a few weeks ago and the push pull was great. I could go wide to get groups and Zip in on one of them faster than a twist would let me.

[HiFiGuy1]

Daniel,


Thanks again. The picture I saw from DP Review seems to have some organized rectangular blocks of color. I didn't see any green stuff though. Is that the problem? And that would qualify for a return?


BTW, over 9 of 10??? So, are you saying my 40D has the pattern noise issue, too? I've never seen it before as far as I know. Alas, I have never used HTP, and I try to shoot to the right 1/3 or 1/4of the histogram. I have been trying to remember to always use 160, 320, 640, 800 ISO settings, since I read about those being supposedly better than the "regular" 100, 200, 400, etc. with the 40D. Does this technique also apply to the 7D, or can it use the regular ISO numbers?


I asked once before but it may have been buried. Is it possible that a firmware update can fix this problem or is just part of the design?


Keith,


I wish I knew someone with a 100-400 that I could try out. I can envision it, but without feeling it for myself,I don't want to pull the trigger. I may have to rent one but I really hate to waste the money.


I am leaning towards the 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC for the moment, but I will keep my eyes open for options as far as testing a 100-400.

[Daniel Browning]

Thanks again. The picture I saw from DP Review seems to have some organized rectangular blocks of color. I didn't see any green stuff though. Is that the problem?





Yes. The imbalance between green channels doesn't show up as green, but it throws off the demosaic algorithm which causes the organized rectangular blocks.



And that would qualify for a return?


Yes.



BTW, over 9 of 10???


Yes, on the cameras so far. Hopefully Canon will fix it so that future cameras are not as bad, but they never did that with the 5D2. (Mine from December 2008 is just as bad as a friends' from April 2009.)



So, are you saying my 40D has the pattern noise issue, too?


Yes, but not quite as bad as the 7D. (Or perhaps it's the same but the additional random noise on the 40D helps hide the pattern, I'm not sure which.)



've never seen it before as far as I know.


Good. Then you probably wont see it on the 7D, either, as long as you don't change your raw conversion style.



have been trying to remember to always use 160, 320, 640, 800 ISO
settings, since I read about those being supposedly better than the
"regular" 100, 200, 400, etc. with the 40D. Does this technique also apply to the 7D, or can it use the regular ISO numbers?


I don't know how the ISO settings on the 7D work yet. FWIW, the 160,320,640,1250 ISO settings on the 40D are not better than the regular ISO if you shoot raw. They're only better if you shoot JPEG. (For raw they are only the same as the regular whole-stop ISO numbers.) People only think they are better because they don't realize that the white point changes (less highlight headroom for a fixed exposure).



I asked once before but it may have been buried. Is it possible that a firmware update can fix this problem or is just part of the design?


It can be improved through firmware (or raw conversion), but the best fix is hardware.

[Julius]

I have both the 5d MII and the 1d MIII. It really depends on what you like to shoot. I use the 5D MII for portraits, landscapes and generally photography on a day to day basis. For sports, I always use the 1d MIII.


As for overall feel, the 1d MIII feels so much better with it's integrated grip. Either way, I don't think you can go wrong.