best camera choise considering image quality only

[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.

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.


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. []


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&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


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


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33384683


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


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33357735

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

Here is what it looks like:


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&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.