DPreview.com 7D Review

[Brian E. Small]

They seem to love the camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/

[pcho]

I had a play with the 7d today and the moment I held it it felt solid and good. I like the feel and view finder is bright and clear. I will eventually get it later in next year after I get my 1dmkIV . The guy at the large photographic store told me they cannot get enough of this camera. I cab see why dpreview struggle to get any cons for this camera

Perry

[OntPhoto]

It sounds like a glowing review. One area dpreview doesn't cover is extensive field testing of the Ai-Servo function. Still like to see what Rob Galbraith comes up with in his testing of the camera (just for curiosity sake). Can't wait to get my hands on a 7D. I have a new and very fast computer on order and once that gets here I will purchase the 7D.....in time for the owl season

[WJaekel]

pretty much disappointing test results here

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009 ... -canon-7d/

I wonder what's the truth

Wolfgang

[bias_hjorth]

I might be me but all the pictures in Darwin´s review looks to be slightly out of focus. I wonder if he did use the same lens on all three bodies. That might explain the soft photos.

[c.w. moynihan]

I don't hold much creed for Darwin's review based on the discussion of said review at the pixel peeping Fred Miranda forum, the fact that ACR has not been properly developed as of yet for the 7D and my own experience with the camera. I think this will turn out to be an awesome camera, especially for bird photographers.

[Royce Howland]

I previewed Darwin & Samantha's 7D material before it went live, and I have no issue with what they reported, or their direct conclusions for their purposes. I was one of several folks who looked at the material, all of whom as far as I know supported it; but the others were not quoted. I said quote away, who cares about flames.

If one knows anything about Darwin himself, it's clear he is a master photographer so there's no question of skill or not knowing how to focus a camera, etc. I've shot with Darwin in the field and he is meticulous in his capture and processing work. Samantha is also highly talented and equally thorough. They don't pretend to be imaging engineers, optical scientists or whatever, but they know photography. They shot 3 separate 7D bodies on a variety of lenses, locked on tripods with live view dialed up to 10X to eliminate focus issues. This info is plainly spelled out in the text and comments thread. Also spelled out is that DPP was used on default settings, since ACR support is not final and the objective was to do a comparative evaluation of initial "out of the camera" pixel level sharpness. Obviously nobody would leave the files in that state, but it's interesting to observe the qualitative results of the initial images -- never mind the specs, the test charts & MTF curves, and the performance numbers, how do the images look? The answer is, compared to other bodies both higher- and lower-end, the images look soft and flat out of the camera.

Suggesting why that might be -- heavyweight AA filter, diffraction limitation starting at f/6.8, shallower DOF compared to full frame, suboptimal results from DPP -- can't IMO counteract the obvious conclusion that the 7D files are initially softer than many other bodies out there, of which they showed comparative results from several. Other reviews agree with this. Reading between the lines, some supporting info for it is even buried within the glowing praise found at DPR, for example.

As they repeatedly stated, don't take their word as gospel, review for yourself and judge. For them, the "out of camera" results are unsatisfactory. They don't like to heavily post-process except when necessary for artistic reasons, and they shoot a lot of landscapes where f/11 or f/16 is de riguer. For them, the 7D doesn't cut it. For others, it will be fine, because as much info as they reported, it's obviously only part of the story for part of the potential usage patterns for this camera.

Well, enough of that. Sam & Darwin don't need me to defend them and their results. So let me say that my own initial results, after far less methodical & a less repeated set trials than what they conducted, show me the same thing. Worse, my 7D very clearly suffers from inconsistent and occasionally gross failure of AF on static, decently contrasty subjects in sufficient light using sharp, capable optics. I'm just trying to work through all of this with the usual Canon dance -- RTFM, firmware updates, playing with custom function settings, shooting test charts, looking into microadjustment, etc. Then perhaps back to Canon for calibration, servicing and possibly replacement.

Because I don't have anything firm yet that's "review worthy", I haven't posted anything before now. But so far I echo Darwin & Sam's comments though at a more provisional level -- love the camera design & handling, like the specs, not happy with the images and need the AF to work. I'm going to keep bashing away at it, because I really want to like & keep this camera. But the jury is still out for me...

[E.J. Peiker]

I knew of Darwin's and Royce's findings about a few days ago and have arranged to test a 7D myself next weekend in the field on subjects I absolutely know how to photograph, our local wintering ducks. I will be able to compare it to it's primary market competitor, the D300. It should be interesting!

[WJaekel]

I knew of Darwin's and Royce's findings about a few days ago and have arranged to test a 7D myself next weekend in the filed on subjects I absolutely know how to photograph, our local wintering ducks. I will be able to compare it to it's primary market competitor, the D300. It should be interesting!

Well, I'm very interested in your findings ! As Royce said ,- the jury on the 7D is still out. There are a couple of tests which are in line with Darwin's results. On the other hand, I've seen excellent results, too. The IQ of the camera was also thoroughly tested by a respected German nature photographer who got mixed results, also depending on the lenses used. The article is written in German, of course. But at least you can view some examples at full size via the links provided at the end.

http://www.wildlife-workshop.de/1/aus-d ... os-7d.html

Wolfgang

[Greg Downing]

I too knew about Darwin's and Royce's findings too but unlike E.J. I won't be bothering to do my own tests just yet this time around as I would prefer to sit on the sidelines and observe for a while.

I'm looking forward to hearing more about the 7D and what E.J.'s and Royce's and Darwin's (all whom I know and respect) and other's findings are when they have more time to run it through the ringer. I am sure I will get to test one out at some point too but I'm not looking to buy one currently.

[c.w. moynihan]

Here are some tests done by someone over at FM who disputes Darwin's findings for sharpness.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/809801/136

I am going to do some pixel peeping tests as my project for this weekend to see if I am truly getting the results (sharpness wise) that I think I am getting. Perhaps I will end up eating crow. I will post some 100% unprocessed crops comparing this camera to my 1Ds3 and perhaps 50D.

[thedigitalbean]

I learned some time ago that photographic talent and ability doesn't necessarily make one a great camera tester, much like being a great camera tester doesn't necessarily make one a great photographer.

Darwin is a great photographer and I'm sure that he did his testing with the most honest intentions, however this quote from Darwin to me highlights that diffraction is not something that Darwin completely understands (or if he does, he communicates in a way that doesn't demonstrate it):

"Diffraction was not the problem, I test all my lenses and know where diffraction kicks in for each individual lens. If diffraction was the problem specific with the 7d then what a useless camera if you can’t use apertures past f8."

Anyway, I have the 7D, 1Ds3 and Rebel XSi, so when I find some spare time, I'll do my own controlled testing as much as I hate to do so (I'd rather spend my time out shooting and taking real pictures ).

[Eduardo]

Darwin is a great photographer and I'm sure that he did his testing with the most honest intentions, however this quote from Darwin to me highlights that diffraction is not something that Darwin completely understands (or if he does, he communicates in a way that doesn't demonstrate it):

"Diffraction was not the problem, I test all my lenses and know where diffraction kicks in for each individual lens. If diffraction was the problem specific with the 7d then what a useless camera if you can’t use apertures past f8."

.

Good point!

Darwin has been set on flames at a couple of threads in DPreview (nothing surprising here). He found that shooting at F11-F16 the 7D produces softer images than his Rebel and even his P & S camera. How dare he shoot at F11-F16, does he think he is a landscape photographer? Is he a DOF lunatic? The argument of some 7D owners is that if he had tested at F7 or so he would be getting much sharper images. Therefore his testing was flawed as he was using the 7D in a "unconventional" way. Those that engaged in conventional 7D testing (at F7 or so) got excellent results. Darwin is a bad reviewer, and to some fanboys at DPreview, a bad photographer.

Looks to me birders may find 7D @ F7 to work very well, but users needing plenty of DOF will find diffraction affecting IQ. Sounds like this is just a tool, neither good or bad in itself, more like screwdrivers. Different tools for different jobs.

[Eduardo]

Darwin is a great photographer and I'm sure that he did his testing with the most honest intentions, however this quote from Darwin to me highlights that diffraction is not something that Darwin completely understands (or if he does, he communicates in a way that doesn't demonstrate it):

"Diffraction was not the problem, I test all my lenses and know where diffraction kicks in for each individual lens. If diffraction was the problem specific with the 7d then what a useless camera if you can’t use apertures past f8."

.

Good point!

Darwin has been set on flames at a couple of threads in DPreview (nothing surprising here). He found that shooting at F11-F16 the 7D produces softer images than his Rebel and even his P & S camera. How dare he shoot at F11-F16, does he think he is a landscape photographer? Is he a DOF lunatic? The argument of some 7D owners is that if he had tested at F7 or so he would be getting much sharper images. Therefore his testing was flawed as he was using the 7D in a "unconventional" way. Those that engaged in conventional 7D testing (at F7 or so) got excellent results. Darwin is a bad reviewer, and to some fanboys at DPreview, a bad photographer.

Looks to me birders may find 7D @ F7 to work very well, but users needing plenty of DOF will find diffraction affecting IQ. Sounds like this is just a tool, neither good or bad in itself, more like screwdrivers. Different tools for different jobs.

..and a quote by Darwin on his testing and why his testing differs from DPreview

But like I said in my review, the 7d does good with close subjects like studio scenes (the way dpreview tests most cameras), the problem is is with more distant scenes and detailed mid distant scenes like landscapes. I like to test the kinds of subjects I will ACTUALLY photograph, not test charts and flower vases.

If anyone is getting results they like from the 7D, then that is all that matters. Mileage may vary. For the way we shoot (detailed and often distant landscape in RAW and processed in DPP), the 7d does not cut it dor us. But don’t believe us or ANY review site, test for yourself with your lenses, apertures, RAW convertors and subjects. d

[c.w. moynihan]

I have completed a sharpness test for the 7D using live view manual focus with the 85mm F/1.2L II lense. I focused on a $20 dollar bill on the wall about 5 feet away. Aperatures used f/2.8, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16 at iso 200. No postprocessing other than the crops to about 1000 pixels at 100% viewing. To me the camera apopears to be pretty sharp. At f/16 it is evident the images softens a bit due to diffraction. When my web host comes back online, I will upload the crops and post a link

edit: Note, some softness does start to appear at f/11 compared to f/8. My guess, this camera will not be the choice for high aperature landscape work due to diffraction. For birding, as long as the AF is spot on, it will be great, imo. f/8 and below.

[E.J. Peiker]

There is so much misunderstanding of diffraction out there and I used to be one of them until I really studied it. Careful study of this should clear some of that up:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

[Eduardo]

Mixed but somewhat positive.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPa ... age=870853

[thedigitalbean]

There is so much misunderstanding of diffraction out there and I used to be one of them until I really studied it. Careful study of this should clear some of that up:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

I reviewed that this morning just as a refresher. IMO the most important thing to take away about diffraction is that one must consider the entire imaging system and in real world use, one must consider final output as well (i.e. prints of a certain size evaluated at a certain distance). This is why my own personal evaluations of cameras is done by examining prints.

[E.J. Peiker]

Exactamundo Aravind! That was my subtle point in the post

[WJaekel]

Of course that's the most important point and it's also evident that everybody has to test and decide for himself if a given camera lives up to his expectations and needs. Nevertheless, I'm a bit surprised that respected photographers come to strictly the opposite conclusion regarding the sharpness and detail the camera can deliver. (I'm not talking about some amateurs without a clue how to handle and test the camera). Here's another test of a bird photographer:

http://www.hofmann-photography.de/html/ ... sions.html

If you zoom into 100 %, the sharpness and detail is night and day from what Darwin has pointed out. Of course the setup and motifs are different. But I wonder if diffraction and lenses can explain such extreme differences, given the fact that the testers knew what they were doing and unless the bodies or lenses are faulty - which is unprobable for 3 bodies and different lenses tested by Darwin.
If the camera is a good tool for landcape photography is different story but you would guess that test results don't differ in such an extreme way.

Regards

Wolfgang