The 7D Works Killer In Studio As Well

[ianjenn]

I do this 40 hours a week for a living. We have a 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D and also some Rebel I don't use much! The 7D came in about 1 week ago and it is awesome. The colors are good very similar to what the 5D puts out. The files are huge you can edit an image all day if you wanted.
I can do close up crops if anyone wants?

[Photo-John]

Looks good, Ian. Please write a review after you've used it a bit. I do think the camera is nice. But as far as image quality goes, I want to point out that it doesn't come close the the 5D Mark II or the comparable Nikon DSLRs. Yes, it does have a lot of resolution. But that resolution comes at a price - more noise. I do think it's better than the EOS 50D and I am pleased that I am able to shoot usable images up to ISO 1600 now. But I think it would have been nice if Canon had left the resolution at 15 megapixels instead of increasing it to 18. I don't think the increased resolution offers any real benefits and a 15-megapixel sensor almost definitely would have had lower noise and better overall image quality.

Did you order a 1D Mark IV for yourself yet?

[ianjenn]

John,

I will do. I shot 5 road bikes today and got stuck using the 5D so couldnt really compare them. I have some more SRAM force stuff to shoot and will do it with a MACRO lens and compare them then a little more. I havent really done any action since we shoot 99% of the time in studio!

It does feel a little more solid than the 5D but my 1D makes both feel like a box camera so!

The Mark IV will come only when another job comes along. Have to wait and see what is going on with 2 possible leads. Or maybe MXA will use some of my HANGTOWN images for a cover or 2!

[photoclever]

I do think the camera is nice. But as far as image quality goes, I want to point out that it doesn't come close the the 5D Mark II or the comparable Nikon DSLRs.

At low to mid ISO the 7D out resolves the 12 MP FF bodies from Canon and Nikon, and is very close to the 5D mkII. At higher ISO the FF bodies do better, but it's surprising how close the 7D is up through 1600-3200 depending on the comparison. The average viewer simply could not discern a 7D print from a 5D mkII print at ISO 100, nor a 7D print from a D700 print at ISO 1600.

But I think it would have been nice if Canon had left the resolution at 15 megapixels instead of increasing it to 18. I don't think the increased resolution offers any real benefits and a 15-megapixel sensor almost definitely would have had lower noise and better overall image quality.

The first time I compared a 7D file to a 5D mkII file I was glad Canon went with 18 MP. 99% of my shooting is at ISO 1600 or below. To make any real gains in noise they would have had to drop back down to 10 MP, but then the camera couldn't hold the fine detail that it does now. I can always trade detail for cleaner images in post, but I can't do the opposite.

[ianjenn]

Looks good, Ian. Please write a review after you've used it a bit. I do think the camera is nice. But as far as image quality goes, I want to point out that it doesn't come close the the 5D Mark II or the comparable Nikon DSLRs. Yes, it does have a lot of resolution. But that resolution comes at a price - more noise. I do think it's better than the EOS 50D and I am pleased that I am able to shoot usable images up to ISO 1600 now. But I think it would have been nice if Canon had left the resolution at 15 megapixels instead of increasing it to 18. I don't think the increased resolution offers any real benefits and a 15-megapixel sensor almost definitely would have had lower noise and better overall image quality.

Did you order a 1D Mark IV for yourself yet?

Looks like the new IV is gonna SPANK Nikon in a bad way noise wise. Kind of funny because you couldn't use a Nikon above 800 ISO until 1-2 years ago! Did I mention their lenses are still cheaper?
HAHAHA

[Photo-John]

Is that your photo? Did you get a Mk IV? I really need to do a back-to-back studio comparison to see if the Mk IV is better than the D3S. I'll be really surprised if it is. It's pure physics. If the Canon is better at high ISO, then they're doing some real magic with noise reduction.

[ianjenn]

Jon can you yank that for me.....
sorry should have done this!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/despeaux/

No I have not gotten one.

[Photo-John]

Jon can you yank that for me.....
sorry should have done this!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/despeaux/

No I have not gotten one.

Cool - removed the photo. I took a look at those samples and they do look good. I took a close look at the ISO 12,800 image and thought it looked totally usable. I really need to do or see back-to-back tests done with both cameras. Not that I'm going to buy a D3S. But in the interest of fair competition

[ianjenn]

Cool - removed the photo. I took a look at those samples and they do look good. I took a close look at the ISO 12,800 image and thought it looked totally usable. I really need to do or see back-to-back tests done with both cameras. Not that I'm going to buy a D3S. But in the interest of fair competition

Yeah NIKON lenses are so much $$$ like 1500 or so more for the 300 is crazy. I am stuck with canon. If I need a big camera then a Phase One 65 will maybe be rented!
HAHAH

See me at Hangtown with one of those on and 3 softboxes!:thumbsup: