Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 680 posts | 
by Neilyb on Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:01 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
I found this on POTN. Not a scientific comparison at all, his exposures are a little on the dark side but what interests me is the "old" 70D sensor and the "brand new" 7DII sensor...both look very scarily similar to me. Noise and detail wise. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... ?t=1404856

I do not mind Canon marketing higher FPS and super AF system but "new" sensor?
 

by Vertigo on Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:11 am
User avatar
Vertigo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 416
Joined: 16 Feb 2012
Location: Rennes, France
I also wish that Canon did not add any sort of blurring filter, for reducing noise at the expense of details.

While waiting for controlled comparisons, one thing to keep in mind is that the 7D2 has much more pixels per area than 5D3 or 1D4, hence is more demanding on lens sharpness. Some lenses or lens/TC combos that were tack sharp on a 5D3 will not be equally sharp at 100% on the 7D2.
 

by Neilyb on Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:28 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
My post was more concerned with the improvements, or lack thereof, over the "old" 70D sensor. The above link shows shots from both 7D2 and 70D in what can only be described as an "apples to apples" comparison. the 5D3 shots are irrelevant really.
 

by Gary Irwin on Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:39 am
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Neilyb wrote:I would have liked to see a lower strength AA or no AA filter on this camera, but of course that might have given Canon noise problems, especially pattern noise. However Doug's crop does look sharp. Have to agree though most shots do look a little lacking.
+1
I'd be interested in seeing examples of what the maximum IQ potential is for the camera ... keep ISO low(ish), leave the TCs in the bag and feel free to heavily post process the image as necessary (just let us know what was done). Sky-high ISO shots may be fun, but are not very instructional to this shooter.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:48 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Gary Irwin wrote:
Neilyb wrote:I would have liked to see a lower strength AA or no AA filter on this camera, but of course that might have given Canon noise problems, especially pattern noise. However Doug's crop does look sharp. Have to agree though most shots do look a little lacking.
+1
I'd be interested in seeing examples of what the maximum IQ potential is for the camera ... keep ISO low(ish), leave the TCs in the bag and feel free to heavily post process the image as necessary (just let us know what was done). Sky-high ISO shots may be fun, but are not very instructional to this shooter.
How does lack of an AA filter cause more "noise"? Moire yes, but noise?
 

by crw816 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:04 am
User avatar
crw816
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1942
Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Location: Colchester, VT
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
Neilyb wrote:I would have liked to see a lower strength AA or no AA filter on this camera, but of course that might have given Canon noise problems, especially pattern noise. However Doug's crop does look sharp. Have to agree though most shots do look a little lacking.
+1
I'd be interested in seeing examples of what the maximum IQ potential is for the camera ... keep ISO low(ish), leave the TCs in the bag and feel free to heavily post process the image as necessary (just let us know what was done). Sky-high ISO shots may be fun, but are not very instructional to this shooter.
How does lack of an AA filter cause more "noise"? Moire yes, but noise?
It is my understanding that an AA filter blurs the image slightly to eliminate Moire and as a side effect this results in a tiny bit of NR (effectively)... I may be incorrect. 
Chris White
www.whitephotogallery.com
 

by OntPhoto on Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:41 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
Now that I have shown myself the 7D MK2 is quite capable of doing pretty good in high ISO (for web sized images at least and even for some newspaper photos with noise reduction) I will do some good light shots to show detail and sharpness.

I see some new features on the 7D MK2 body that is new to a Canon 40D user. Just some getting used to. It must have been a number of times where I opened the memory card door without first turning the camera off. Thought the mode dial was stuck before realizing you had to depress the little green button :-) But what I appreciate the MOST is the big clear view through the VF. This was the feature I missed the most when I returned the 7D after a brief trial period a number of years ago.
 

by Neilyb on Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:41 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
crw816 wrote:
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
Neilyb wrote:I would have liked to see a lower strength AA or no AA filter on this camera, but of course that might have given Canon noise problems, especially pattern noise. However Doug's crop does look sharp. Have to agree though most shots do look a little lacking.
+1
I'd be interested in seeing examples of what the maximum IQ potential is for the camera ... keep ISO low(ish), leave the TCs in the bag and feel free to heavily post process the image as necessary (just let us know what was done). Sky-high ISO shots may be fun, but are not very instructional to this shooter.
How does lack of an AA filter cause more "noise"? Moire yes, but noise?
It is my understanding that an AA filter blurs the image slightly to eliminate Moire and as a side effect this results in a tiny bit of NR (effectively)... I may be incorrect. 
Sorry I was thinking of moire whilst reading an article about D750 :o

But surely the reduction in details from an AA filter require extra sharpening either in camera applied to the RAW or later in RAW converter? Perhaps not pattern noise but certainly requiring more careful PP work to get an image with sharp details whilst not sharpening the noise? (which is why the "unprocessed" 7DII shots look softer?)
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:25 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Neilyb wrote:
crw816 wrote:
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
Neilyb wrote:I would have liked to see a lower strength AA or no AA filter on this camera, but of course that might have given Canon noise problems, especially pattern noise. However Doug's crop does look sharp. Have to agree though most shots do look a little lacking.
+1
I'd be interested in seeing examples of what the maximum IQ potential is for the camera ... keep ISO low(ish), leave the TCs in the bag and feel free to heavily post process the image as necessary (just let us know what was done). Sky-high ISO shots may be fun, but are not very instructional to this shooter.
How does lack of an AA filter cause more "noise"? Moire yes, but noise?
It is my understanding that an AA filter blurs the image slightly to eliminate Moire and as a side effect this results in a tiny bit of NR (effectively)... I may be incorrect. 
Sorry I was thinking of moire whilst reading an article about D750 :o

But surely the reduction in details from an AA filter require extra sharpening either in camera applied to the RAW or later in RAW converter? Perhaps not pattern noise but certainly requiring more careful PP work to get an image with sharp details whilst not sharpening the noise? (which is why the "unprocessed" 7DII shots look softer?)
Stronger AA filters definitely require more PP, but IMO you can do it without too much impact on the subject. Global sharpening usually isn't required too much anyway, depending on the image of course.
 

by Neilyb on Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:57 am
User avatar
Neilyb
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2763
Joined: 7 Feb 2008
Location: Munich
Of course. But higher pixel counts require less AA filtering as moire is less of an issue, which makes me wonder why Canon still use one at all (take the Nikon D7100 as an example).
 

by Gary Irwin on Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:16 am
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 594
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Gary Irwin wrote:
Neilyb wrote:I would have liked to see a lower strength AA or no AA filter on this camera, but of course that might have given Canon noise problems, especially pattern noise. However Doug's crop does look sharp. Have to agree though most shots do look a little lacking.
+1
I'd be interested in seeing examples of what the maximum IQ potential is for the camera ... keep ISO low(ish), leave the TCs in the bag and feel free to heavily post process the image as necessary (just let us know what was done). Sky-high ISO shots may be fun, but are not very instructional to this shooter.
How does lack of an AA filter cause more "noise"? Moire yes, but noise?
Sorry for not being clear, Scott...of course AA filter has nothing to do with noise, but it can affect the amount of post processing required to get a sharp image as you know. I'm just trying to understand why the majority of test images I've seen so far on the web seem rather soft. Many have been at high ISO, so that's one explanation. I'm hoping Corey's reported problem is just a fine-tune issue. I know many are waiting for LR/PS update, but I think all that is needed is to convert to 16 bit TIF using DPP and then use your favourite post processing software. Heck, leave the default settings on DPP if you like....I see no need to zero out everything.

I'm just interested in seeing the max potential of the 7DII that reflects my shooting style, which is, say, 800 ISO with up to a 50% linear crop (25% by area).

I just picked up an shiny new 500 IS II and have my name down for a 7DII+grip, but based on the quality of the images being posted so far, I'm not sure I'm ready to pull the trigger yet.
Gary Likes Nature.
 

by Coreyhkh on Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:36 am
User avatar
Coreyhkh
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1090
Joined: 8 Dec 2012
Location: London Ontario
I checked my 500mm last night and it was back focusing so I adjusted it -3 and -4 with the 1.4.


Also check out this site techradar 7dmkii

the 7D scores good results for sharpness, look up the d7100 and they look pretty close so I have no clue what to think.
-------------------------------------
http://www.coreyhayes.net
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:06 am
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 5131
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Member #:00437
Evaluating images shot with a 2x TC , handheld is pointless IMO. There is no point in criticizing a camera for softness shot in that situation. Using a 100-400 to evaluate the 7Dmark2's sharpness is not a very good test either, the lens will the limitation before the camera.


Last edited by Scott Fairbairn on Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 

by John Guastella on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:15 am
John Guastella
Forum Contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
Sharp or not sharp?
Sharp, without a doubt.

John
 

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:25 am
fredcor
Lifetime Member
Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186
Absolutely agree with Scott.  Non zoom L lens with no TCs would be ideal.  My own errors convinced me that sharpness is dependent on the shooter's ability to set up right.  As I get older I throw away more images due to sharpness than any other image feature.  That is why I got a 5DIII to enable higher shutter speeds with higher ISO quality.  Looks like MF focus adjustment is going to be a critical factor with this camera.


Also Doug's image is sharp enough for me.  Seeing that Canon only implied an improvement, without proof, in their advertising, I have to be yet convinced the image quality is better than the 7D or 70D.
Frederick Lat Correa
 

by rnclark on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:49 am
rnclark
Lifetime Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Member #:01978
Neilyb wrote:I found this on POTN. Not a scientific comparison at all, his exposures are a little on the dark side but what interests me is the "old" 70D sensor and the "brand new" 7DII sensor...both look very scarily similar to me. Noise and detail wise.  http://photography-on-the.net/forum/sho ... ?t=1404856

I do not mind Canon marketing higher FPS and super AF system but "new" sensor?
Lots of confusion in this thread

Above link: he has resampled the images and depending on which image was resampled and with what algorithm, the noise profile on a given image will be changed.  It should not be considered a noise comparison.

Doug Brown's image shows what the camera and lens are capable of.  Doug is an excellent bird photographer.  Anyone not achieving similar results is either using a lesser technique or a lesser quality lens.

The 7D2 has 4.1 micron pixels.  A sensor with smaller pixels is functionally equivalent to using a sensor with larger pixels and a TC, but without the degradation of the TC.  If you complain about noise consider this.  Say you are used to a 1DX (6.9 micron pixels).  Let's say you had a 1.7x TC.  When you put the 1.7x TC on you increase exposure time (or open the f-stop if not already wide open).  The 7d2 gives more reach on the subject over a 1DX by 6.9/4.1 = 1.7x.  So taking off the 1DX and putting on the 7D2 is adding 1.7x magnification (but without the degradation of more optical elements).  Increase exposure by 1.5 stops with the 7D2 just as you would with a 1DX+1.7x TC.  Then you get the same noise and same pixels on the subject.  Most complaints about noise is not understanding these facts (and that applies to the 7D Mark 1 too).

Blur filter over the sensor does not change noise.  But finer detail does mask noise.  (e.g. noise in a blurred background is more apparent than in areas of high contrast fine detail).  When pixel sizes are large (e.g. 7 to 8+ microns) more aggressive blur filters are needed.  As pixel sized decrease, blur is done more by the lens.  I would have preferred a 7D2 with no blur filter.  How do we know if the 7D2 has a blur filter?

In complaining "my other camera" gave a sharp image, but the 7D2 does not, consider the following.  If your lens/technique is not up to the challenge of the increased resolution on the subject, the 7D2 is not going give lower quality ON THE SUBJECT.  For example, a lens may not deliver the pixel to pixel sharpness (contrast) on the 7d2 that it does on a camera with larger pixels, but the detail will be no less ON THE SUBJECT and likely to still be more.  I would say detail on the subject is more important than pixel to pixel sharpness.  In other words, stop focusing on the pixel and focus on the subject.

Along these lines, examine the images here: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/pixel.size.and.iso/
This is a comparison of images made with a 1DIV, 7D and 5DII as a function of ISO with NO resampling.  Yes the 7D images are noisier, but they show more detail.  Which image would you choose?  Most people I show this to choose the images with more detail (7D).  I'll do this same sequence with the 7D2 (I get my 7D2 today).

Roger


Last edited by rnclark on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
 

by OntPhoto on Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:52 am
User avatar
OntPhoto
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7039
Joined: 9 Dec 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario. Canada.
I will be testing with a 400 5.6L and Signa 30 1.4 (this lens is sharp even wide open based on past tests) and maybe a Canon 17-55 2.8 IS.

Later I'll do Canon 200 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L (non-IS).  None of the mentioned lenses are micro-adjusted.
 

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:05 pm
fredcor
Lifetime Member
Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186
Trouble is Roger, not all photographers shoot scientifically like you do.  I'm lazy and for the $ expect more on my plate than you do. :)

In all cases I cannot plan the exposure before the subject arrives.  When it does it may not stay long enough to figure out the exposure.

Camera makers devised modes like: Av, Tv, P, etc (mind you, they still call them 'Creative modes') for those lazy photographers or those not accomplished enough to use the M mode.  My lovely English Aunt uses the Phd, mode (she explains it as: Press here Dummy)
Frederick Lat Correa


Last edited by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 

by Methodical on Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:39 pm
User avatar
Methodical
Forum Contributor
Posts: 138
Joined: 9 Jun 2009
OntPhoto wrote:Now that I have shown myself the 7D MK2 is quite capable of doing pretty good in high ISO (for web sized images at least and even for some newspaper photos with noise reduction) I will do some good light shots to show detail and sharpness.

I see some new features on the 7D MK2 body that is new to a Canon 40D user. Just some getting used to. It must have been a number of times where I opened the memory card door without first turning the camera off. Thought the mode dial was stuck before realizing you had to depress the little green button :-) But what I appreciate the MOST is the big clear view through the VF. This was the feature I missed the most when I returned the 7D after a brief trial period a number of years ago.


That would be nice - thanks.  I am convince just as you (waiting for mine to arrive from Canon).  I am rather tired of high ISO tests and FF vs 1.6 debate.  I just want mine, so that I can go do my thing.  Also, I don't plan to do any comparison tests either of cats and books.  I'm just going out and do what I do.  I'd love to see some nice day time images.  I don't typically go higher than ISO 3200 and that's even rare.  If higher, it's because it's an ID shot and will never be posted or printed by me.  Btw, I always open the card door without turning the camera off.

Personally, I can care less about the debate between FF and 1.6 bodies because even with the 1.6 there will be some cropping going on.  I will just grab whichever body I decide to use that day or take both and switch as needed.  I've been itch'n to get back to a 1.6 body, but none caught my eye until the 7D2.  It has all the features of the 1D series with 1.6 crop factor.  I just want to go back to 1.6 and have a nice focusing system to accommodate my shooting style.
 

by fredcor on Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:50 pm
fredcor
Lifetime Member
Posts: 5419
Joined: 14 Oct 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON. Canada
Member #:00186
Methodical, the reason for such length on image quality is because there are a lot, and I mean a lot! of photographers who were disappointed with 7D image quality; not any other feature.  They do not want to be laden with the same issue.  Therefore, they have to be given the space to ensure their issues are resolved, or other features outweigh, before they purchase the 7DII.  That includes me.  I use a 5DIII now, but would really like to buy the 7DII as I miss the 1.6 factor; I had two 7D's bodies.  I do not know if I can live with another 1.6 body, without at least a proven 1-1.5 stop noise improvement.  I believe the image should come out of the camera clean without having to use noise reduction software.  Those are my expectations and I'm sticking with them.

Why do we not see similar discussion with other new cameras is the question to ask?
Frederick Lat Correa
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
680 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group