DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 7D Questions
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 11 of 11, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/07/2010 06:18:09 PM · #1
My main camera is a 5D MKII and I recently bought a 7D as a second body. A couple of questions below:

I never use the histogram, perhaps I should... I keep getting caught out with my 7D's screen - when I am shooting, scenes on the screen look dark, I compensate with ev compensation only to find I should've left it alone when I look at my images on a computer. The 5D seems to offer a much better representation of the exposure and this means I get caught out with the 7D - is there a setting I should change?

Also, and perhaps more controversially, the images from the 7D really don't compare quality-wise to the 5D. I know the megapixel count is less but not substantially so (and pixel pitch-wise the 7D should be superior). If I were to try to describe my subjective assessment - the 7D images seem a little coarse compared to the 5D's smooooth. Also, the 7D images seem easier to 'break' in post processing.

Of course I like the better focussing system and the higher frame rate but even so when I'm doing a shoot I find I almost never use the 7D such is my preference of the 5. Should I be surprised? Do I need to review any of the settings on the 7D?

Thanks

Paul
 06/07/2010 06:33:01 PM · #2
Well the 7D and the 5D have the same screen (more or less).

5D
3.0 " TFT LCD
â€Â¢ 920,000 pixels
â€Â¢ Automatic 3 level brightness adjustment plus 7 manual levels
â€Â¢ 170 ° viewing angle
â€Â¢ Dual anti-reflection ('Clear View')

7D
3.0 " TFT LCD
â€Â¢ 920,000 pixels
â€Â¢ 100% coverage
â€Â¢ 160 ° viewing angle
â€Â¢ Coating : Anti-reflection and Solid Structure

Maybe you have the brightness turned up on the 5D and not use to the look of the 7D. I don't have a 5D but I do have the 7D and I have no problems with the screen. To me they look pretty close between the screen and my computer. Just took a photo and downloaded to my computer and looked at them at the same time.

While the 5D in theory should have better image quality then the 7D I find the 7D image quality to be pretty damn good. Best I have had in a digital camera so far. They are really designed for two different things. 5D has the better image quality and the 7D has the faster frame rate. I don't understand what you mean by "break in post processing". Can you enlarge a 7D photo as much as a 5D? If that is what you are talking about I don't see how. You could get close but exceed.

Overall I am satisfied with the 7D.

Ronnie
 06/07/2010 07:12:28 PM · #3
Thanks Ronnie.

By 'break', I mean how I seem to lose more information when running an image through a couple of filters. The differences I described in my post seem to be even more pronouced.

I'll check on what screen level settings I have on the 5D. The 7 is non-adjustable?

Thanks

Paul
 06/07/2010 07:30:29 PM · #4
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Thanks Ronnie.

By 'break', I mean how I seem to lose more information when running an image through a couple of filters. The differences I described in my post seem to be even more pronouced.

I'll check on what screen level settings I have on the 5D. The 7 is non-adjustable?

Thanks

Paul


Page 181 of the manual. Seems like it is adjustable. Wonder why the review on DPreview did not mention it. So, I would have to say they have the exact same LCD.
 06/11/2010 02:39:30 PM · #5
larger pixel pitch on the 5D will always make for smoother pixel level information. That's a byproduct of noise. Noise is just inaccuracies at the sensor level. One of the influencing factors for noise is the total amount of energy that affects each photo site. Larger photo sites means that they can capture more light. More total capacity means that the ratio from 'inaccuracy' to 'true information' is different.

For example - if you have a variance of +- 3, but your total is 100, your accuracy level is going to be different than if you have a variance of +-3, but your total is 1000.

This is the reason that larger photosites always have the potential for 'smoother' pics.

Newer technology is allowing for more sensitive electronics and better light gathering at the sensor, so this helps the issue as well.

The more you push the information in the image, the more these pixel to pixel inaccuracies will show up.

This page shows the 7D is 5.4MP/cm2 compared to the 5DII at 2.4MP/cm2.

There's a pretty big difference there.

Basically any APS-C sensor will have this issue. In the real world, an APS-C will always have trouble producing pics that look really clean at A3, and it will be a challenge to be consistent with clean results at A4 in difficult shooting situations. Particularly when compared to a FF sensor.

FWIW, the 7D is not actually a great performer where it comes to noise and I find it basically on par with the 30D, with just the tiniest advantage that usually involves slightly shrinking the image.

I'm sure that you are already working in 14 bit RAW/16 bit TIFF, you are obviously _not_ a novice, but just double check that none of the programs you use to manipulate images are dropping you down to 8 bit at some point. For example, I've heard that PhotoMatix likes to render images to 8 bit before spacing them in 32 bit for tone mapping. Not sure about Viveza/Nik stuff.

When I first got started using RAW, I never even noticed that Adobe Camera RAW defaults to 8 bit when first installed and I had been extracting from RAW to 8 bit, then expanding to 16 bit, making adjustments, then saving as 8 bit JPG. I think I was doing the same thing with Canon DPP too.

Also note that some views of pics are 'more forgiving' than others. I have found that Adobe Bridge CS5 really smudges the heck out of stuff in "slideshow" mode (which I use for quick review and image sorting). I only see the real detail of the image (for checking focus) when I zoom in 100%... but that shows all the noise. Later, when opening in Camera RAW, the pic looks much smoother due to a little bit of processing that happens. I hadn't noticed this before in CS3 and I was never a huge fan of the Bridge in CS4.
 06/12/2010 01:42:07 AM · #6
Many thanks for that Keiran. A most excellent post. I'd never really thought about pixel pitch in that way; I'd assumed that a higher pixel pitch would equate to higher spatial resolution and thus would if anything improve smoothness - if I follow you correctly, that would be the case if the technology allowed each pixel to be 'accurate', but in reality, it isn't and the resultant pixel density introduces a specular overlay in of inter/juxta pixel variance which contributes to a 'coarser' look. Presumably, this relates to the much repeated Nikon argument of sometime less is more...?

Thanks again

Paul
 06/12/2010 09:16:38 AM · #7
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
if I follow you correctly, that would be the case if the technology allowed each pixel to be 'accurate', but in reality, it isn't and the resultant pixel density introduces a specular overlay in of inter/juxta pixel variance which contributes to a 'coarser' look. Presumably, this relates to the much repeated Nikon argument of sometime less is more...?


:) glad it made sense.

It will function basically like a somewhat random specular overlay, it won't really be as visible unless you are looking at 100% and in more favorable circumstances, it won't be noticeable until you start pushing a bit harder on the image's information. Some filters are good this way, some aren't so much.

I have found that filters involving layer modes (like Joey's techniques) and pixel based content tend to be a bit more forgiving in some circumstances than using basic adjustment layers. It's almost like the difference between adding information and multiplying information. If you are adding, at most, the inaccuracies will add and cumulate, but when you are multiplying, they can grow a lot faster. It's not actually such a big difference in practice, but that's the feeling that I get.

I have pushed images really hard with pixel based layers and gotten results that were significantly smoother than adjustment layer based results.

Essentially, it's just a difference in the character of the pics and the different ways that the cameras suit being used. I'm still hoping to come across an old 5D mk I for cheap (at the same time that I actually have money) for this very reason. I'd be more comfortable printing a 13x16 or something off a 5D I than off the 7D.

I actually quite agree with the 'less is more' idea. I think it's largely a non-issue when comparing a 1.5x to a 1.6x crop, but it's a significant difference for a camera like the D700, which has FF AND low pixel count like the 5DI.

The tradeoff though is that you can downsize images for smoother results. It's not really possible to upsize images and get more detail.

If you want smoother results with the 7D and you want to print at A4 or something, just downsize it until it's 300DPI for the print size and you will see a noticeable improvement.

Recent comparisons between the 5D I, 5D II, 7D, D3X and 1D IV have shown that resizing can make a huge difference AND that the 5D I can still hold its own quite well against all but the top of the heap (D3X/1D IV).

I don't think it's a huge coincidence that the Nikon D700 has 12 MP and performs only a tiny bit better than the 5D I.

06/12/2010 03:28:24 PM · #8
I just got a 7D. You guys are making me nervous. Should I be worried or is the 7D a great camera as I've read in reviews.
 06/12/2010 03:47:24 PM · #9
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
My main camera is a 5D MKII and I recently bought a 7D as a second body. A couple of questions below:

I never use the histogram, perhaps I should... I keep getting caught out with my 7D's screen - when I am shooting, scenes on the screen look dark, I compensate with ev compensation only to find I should've left it alone when I look at my images on a computer. The 5D seems to offer a much better representation of the exposure and this means I get caught out with the 7D - is there a setting I should change?

Also, and perhaps more controversially, the images from the 7D really don't compare quality-wise to the 5D. I know the megapixel count is less but not substantially so (and pixel pitch-wise the 7D should be superior). If I were to try to describe my subjective assessment - the 7D images seem a little coarse compared to the 5D's smooooth. Also, the 7D images seem easier to 'break' in post processing.

Of course I like the better focussing system and the higher frame rate but even so when I'm doing a shoot I find I almost never use the 7D such is my preference of the 5. Should I be surprised? Do I need to review any of the settings on the 7D?

Thanks

Paul


Paul something that caught me when I first got the 5DII was the AUTO brightness on the back screen. I would think my exposure was off even though the histogram was reading correctly, only to find that due to ambient lighting the screen was going brighter or darker to supposedly make it easier to see. Set your LCD brightness to one screen and don't let it auto, see if that helps.

Matt
 06/14/2010 03:47:25 AM · #10
Originally posted by kgeary:
I just got a 7D. You guys are making me nervous. Should I be worried or is the 7D a great camera as I've read in reviews.


don't worry kgeary, the difference between any of the current cameras at this level is minimal.

I shoot a 7D and I'm very happy with it. The pics are a bit noisier than the hype would make out, but quite reasonable considering it's 18mp on an APS-C sensor.

We are merely comparing the 7D to a very high standard. The 7D is very good, but FF is cleaner.

As Paul pointed out, the 7D and 5D are two very different cameras and have a few characteristics that make them handle very different situations.

Truthfully, there are lots of situations where both are totally equal, but if you were to take the example of a wedding, you would probably do the outdoors planned shots with 5D (which could easily end up getting printed larger than A4), but the shots for the kiss, you might want the 7D for its 8 fps (depending on how you shoot and your confidence compared with the nervousness of the B&G).

Additionally, in my case, I simply couldn't afford to go 5D at this point because it would mean switching over my primary lenses and I'm not ready for that plus the added cost of the body.

You will be just fine with the 7D until you want to start printing larger than A3. Even still, it's pretty likely that if you know what you are doing, you can get very respectable A3 prints out of the 7D.
 06/14/2010 06:42:35 AM · #11
Originally posted by kgeary:
I just got a 7D. You guys are making me nervous. Should I be worried or is the 7D a great camera as I've read in reviews.

You'll love it, and the noise isn't generally an issue. When I told my wife I was thinking of spending $1000 more for the 5D Mark II, I heard a LOT more noise!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/09/2025 10:24:10 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/09/2025 10:24:10 AM EST.