Originally Posted by Bill W
Bill
Thats what I am looking for, the "ooh's and ahh's"
Bill
Thats what I am looking for, the "ooh's and ahh's"
You're welcome.
This is certainly possible, but the only way for it to happen would be if Canon took a significant departure from their current marketing philosophy. Right now, their cameras/marketing is based on the idea that compression is bad, bit depth is good, etc. The 5D2, for example, is plagued by such bad pattern noise and read noise that no one in their right mind (which excludes astrophotographers, naturally) ever uses more than 10 bits of of the 14-bit raw files. The 4 bits are just a waste of space (and frame rate). But the whole "14-bits" thing is a big marketing deal for Canon, so they can't allow the user to disable it for a faster frame rate. What I suggest they do is say "14-bits" on the box, but actually use 10 bits in the files. Users wont know the difference since they're not using more than 10 bits now. They could even write "16 quadrillion bits for better color!!!11". One can only hope...
Mr Browning,
Could you please expand on this concept for me please? I'm not familiar with "pattern noise" and "read noise" and how it relates to bit-depth. The technical side of digital photography is new to me and I find it very interesting. Thanks a bunch.
Damian
[quote=neuroanatomist]I'd be happy to shoot the same scene from a tripod with the lens of your choice (listed in [url="/members/neuroanatomist/default.aspx]my profile[/url]) and both the 7D and 5DII, at a couple of ISOs...[/quote]
Ok, here you go. Sorry for the uninteresting subject matter - somehow I doubt plastic farm animals can be considered 'wildlife'. [:P]
All of these images were shot RAW and converted to JPG using DPP, with no adjustments applied. The 100mm images were shot with theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LMacro IS and the 400mm images were shot with theEF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6<span style="color: #ff0000;"]LIS. All of the shots were exposed as identically as I could make them - they are all at 0.3 s and f/6.3. I compensated for the 4-stop difference between ISO 100 and ISO 1600 with ND filters because I wanted to keep the exposure time the same to match the read and shot noise contribution - but maybe that wasn't the best approach (Daniel - comments?).
The first composite is the full size images, with the 5DII's images cropped down to match the FOV of the 7D. The second set of images are 100% crops from each image - the 7D shows a smaller field because of the much higher pixel density (the 5DII crops are 8 MP vs. the 18 MP of the 7D images).
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D.jpg[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D_2D00_100pct.jpg[/img]
Looking at the 100% crops, I'm not sure if this is a fair way to display the images - the smaller FOV of the 7D makes direct comparison difficult, since the pixels are different sizes. So in addition to straight 100% crops, I put together the following composite, where the 5DII crops are the same as above, but the 7D images are less than 100% crops since I took the same field as the 100% crop of the 5DII (about 2.2x as many pixels) and downsampled those crops to match the size of the 5DII crops.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/5DIIvs7D_2D00_100pct_2D00_scaled.jpg[/img]
There are a lot of ways these image can be interpreted, I think. I have to say, it's hard for me to conclude that the 7D images 'blow away' the cropped 5DII images. The 7D images seem a bit sharper, and the noise is a bit more evident at high ISO. But it does seem safe to say that a 7D image is definitely not a significant IQ downgrade compared to a cropped 5DII image. When that fact is added to the faster frame rate and better autofocus system, the 7D is the clear winner for wildlife/bird/sports shooting.
Rick, let me know if you want the RAW files - I can email them to you via yousendit (assuming the address in your profile is usable).
Yeah, "blow away" might not be too strong, but I do think it has significantly more detail (everything that's entailed in an upgrade from 8 MP to 18 MP). I don't think downsizing the 7D makes sense in this context, because that is throwing away a lot of the 18 MP advantage. It's like going form 7D to 20D.
Rather than downsize the 7D, I upsized them both to the same resolution:
Here is the 5D2:
7D ISO 100:
To me, the 7D has a lot more detail, and it can be improved by sharpening a lot. Of course, the JPEG artifacts are pretty obvious here too. Doing the same from raw and adding a realistic amount of sharpening would make the difference even more I think.
I'd like to take a crack at them. You can put anything you want in the email address and post the link here if you want.
John
I would appreciate that if you could email the link and yes the email in my profile is correct.
Thanks for putting the effort in to this
Rick
I returned my 7D and bought a used1D MK III for about the same price, I like it much better. As to the 500L f/4, I have read a number of complaints about AF problems with the 7D and 500mm L, I don
Glad to help - it was an interesting exercise! I've been wanting to compare the two in this way for a while now. Actually, once I get the 135mm f/2L (next on my list), I'll be able to empirically settle the debate Jon and I previously had, about IQ of 7D+85L vs. 5DII+135L (which, with the crop factor is the same FOV and DoF; for that test, I'll move the camera rather than crop the images).
Rick and Daniel, I have sent both of you links to the RAW files (.zip archives of two RAW files per link). Rick, yours went to your email address and Daniel, yours are in a PM.
Please let me know if there are issues with the files.
--John
This reviewer shows that the 5DII is still superior to the 7D when it comes to noise levels and sharpness/detail.
Yes, the 7D has superior AF, but it doesn't blow away the 5DII in these other areas.
http://rolandlim.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/canon-eos-7d-review/
John
I received the files and thank you very much. I have to say you did a good job at setting the test up, all the samples are what I would expect off a tripod controlled set up.
I ran some tests and this is what I am seeing so far. I will be going over them a little closer as I think of more ways to check the files to see what I can do with the 7d.
While not by any means scientific this is what I have done so far:
I took the 100mm files did a quick look and from first perception they are very equal.
Next I took the file and reset the files to original camera settings. Which was Standard.
I then did a crop. I free handed the crop of just the outline of the book. My logic here is that if I were taking a picture of say a deer at 100 yards, I would crop just the things I wanted out of the picture. Being equal distance from the deer with either camera, I would most likely want the same crop out of either camera.
Next I did a white balance. I cheated on this one. Knowing my grandkids toys, I would bet the nose of the sheep is very close to 18% grey. Even if it isn
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
