![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Tony Printezis
![Quote](images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Don Burkett
I've had it since Monday, this weekend will be the first serious IQ test, but so far it is a very very worthy upgrade from my 40d.
Don, thanks for sharing your experience with us. Could I ask for a favor? Any chance of posting some 100% crops of shots taken at narrow apertures (f/10 or narrower)? I'm really curious to see how much diffraction would affect the shots. The very low DLA is the only thing that's making me nervous about buying it.
Thank you,
Tony
Check out this thread : [url="/forums/t/1055.aspx?PageIndex=4]Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc.[/url]
[quote=clemmb]
Now my rough calculation of the 7D is that it’s DLA is 6.9. Would I be like Bryan and regretted going much past f/8 with the 7D?
[/quote]
[quote=Daniel Browning]
If you are happy with *some* improvement, then you will not regret it. Diffraction will never cause the 7D to have *worse* resolution. But in extreme circumstances (e.g. f/22+) it will only be the same, not better. At f/11, the returns will be diminished so that the 7D is only somewhat better. (If you use the special software below, you can get those returns back.) In order to enjoy the full benefit of the additional resolution, one must avoid going past the DLA.
[/quote]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>