Canon EOS 7D Owners Thread
- Thread starter bl0at3r
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 3,728
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Cool, that's quite an upgrade
Cheapest place for a second battery is currently amazon at £49 http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1000.html
thanks for that, when i got my siggy from london camera exchange they offered to do me one for £50 but thought i would leave it...will have to get one at some point
OP
- Messages
- 3,728
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought about it for months, also considered the D700....
I can see the attraction, but can't understand why everyone is so fixated with 'going full frame' - sure there is no crop factor, and the sensor is bigger which gives better dof and less noise at higher iso - how many people aspire to 'go full frame' because they think they should or it will make them a better photographer?
The 5D2 is getting on a bit now (I'm sure all the lovers will disagree whilst trying to self-justify their kit) and for me the benefits of the 7D outweigh the benefits of the 5D2.
If canon do combine the newer autofocus and viewfinder, speedlite transmitter, fps and button layout of the 7d into the 5d2 to make the 5d3 then I can start to see a reason to move to FF - but I'm in no rush
- Messages
- 8,400
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmmm It really is horses for courses i guess. I would not need the fps or speedlite tranny and would much prefer the full frameiness however crop does have it's advantages like not showing lens corner/edge errors.
By the time I can afford either the 7D or 5D Mk2 there will be a 5D mk3 so we'll see what that's like. At the moment decent glass is the way for me to go. Also I'm finding it hard to justify having 3 cameras and I'm thinking of ditching the Gf1 so I can get some L glass but not decided yet. I have the s95 which is a fab super portable camera for out and about and the 500D which is proving to be a great camera and although I love the GF1 it does seem pointless having it.
By the time I can afford either the 7D or 5D Mk2 there will be a 5D mk3 so we'll see what that's like. At the moment decent glass is the way for me to go. Also I'm finding it hard to justify having 3 cameras and I'm thinking of ditching the Gf1 so I can get some L glass but not decided yet. I have the s95 which is a fab super portable camera for out and about and the 500D which is proving to be a great camera and although I love the GF1 it does seem pointless having it.
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 3,728
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 86
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've been saving up and ordered a 7D on Jan 1st - can't wait until it arrives.
It replaces a 10D I've been using for about 6 years, it'll be interesting to see the differences.
Hurray for the VAT increase ("It will cost us less in the long run if I order it now, dear!" )
It replaces a 10D I've been using for about 6 years, it'll be interesting to see the differences.
Hurray for the VAT increase ("It will cost us less in the long run if I order it now, dear!"
)
- Messages
- 8,400
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Oooh there should be quite a difference!! especially how the camera handles and file size.
I like your style!!Hurray for the VAT increase ("It will cost us less in the long run if I order it now, dear!"
- Messages
- 144
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm very much still a beginner with DSLR's, got a 7d mainly because it has a metal body.
I too struggle to get anything sharp.
Just Dave
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 29,876
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Simon
In what circumstances are you not getting sharp images cant you be more specific
Im not struggling to get sharp images with my 7D, mind you Ive not used it much for birds as yet,but I would say set your AI servo to slow, not what you would think and go for fast, dont know if you have seen this Clicky Linky setting up your 7D
In what circumstances are you not getting sharp images cant you be more specific
Im not struggling to get sharp images with my 7D, mind you Ive not used it much for birds as yet,but I would say set your AI servo to slow, not what you would think and go for fast, dont know if you have seen this Clicky Linky setting up your 7D
Last edited:
- Messages
- 243
- Name
- Carl
- Edit My Images
- No
I've had my 7D for a few months. At first I struggled to get control of the focus but that was simply because I hadn't turned off the auto modes (according to the link in above post). Now that I use spot and manually place the point, it is better, but I am a little suspicious that the focus is always a little bit infront of the claimed distance.
Happy to put it down to user error until I have had the camera longer and can be sure.
Happy to put it down to user error until I have had the camera longer and can be sure.
- Messages
- 144
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I find that most of the time I just don't quite get a sharp focused image, when I do they really are sharp but I don't seem to replicate whatever I did to achieve the sharp image everytime. The fact that the camera/lens can give really sharp images makes me think that it's more likely to be me doing something wrong.
It is the same on the 400D that I have, which why I bought the 7D, I don't believe that both cameras and lenses have faults. It has to be me.
I'll stick a link to a pic to show what I mean, the pic its self is nothing special but I had hoped it would be sharp which it isn't, is it ???? http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a...tion=view¤t=5380664370_78f0d51d13_o.jpg
I've probably gone off topic, I'll delete if so.
I've seen the link thanks and will at some point try that set up.
- Messages
- 9,608
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The above test should tell you if it's hardware or technique issues. I have never had a problem with the focussing on my 7D, apart from being caught out about how fast it will focus on something !
Those who seem to be having problems focussing with the 7D, I would suggest that you enable single (centre point) AF, and then take a number of images of a static subject at different apertures. Also, if you have an IS lens, make it's on if you're hand holding, and off if you're using a tripod. Make sure all shots have a minimum of 1/125 shutter speed. Make sure you take at least one shot on a minimum of 1/500 or faster.
After doing this, if there are still focus issues then change lenses and try again. If the 2nd lot of results are similar to the first it's probably a camera issue.
Post the images here and a few of the others can give you feedback.
I would imagine that 9 out of 10 times it will be user error rather than the equipment.
Steve
Those who seem to be having problems focussing with the 7D, I would suggest that you enable single (centre point) AF, and then take a number of images of a static subject at different apertures. Also, if you have an IS lens, make it's on if you're hand holding, and off if you're using a tripod. Make sure all shots have a minimum of 1/125 shutter speed. Make sure you take at least one shot on a minimum of 1/500 or faster.
After doing this, if there are still focus issues then change lenses and try again. If the 2nd lot of results are similar to the first it's probably a camera issue.
Post the images here and a few of the others can give you feedback.
I would imagine that 9 out of 10 times it will be user error rather than the equipment.
Steve
- Messages
- 9,608
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What part of the image did you focus on ? The foreground is definitely sharper than the the actual turbines.
Steve
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
You shot this at f/14, which will exhibit diffraction softening when examining files from a 7D at 100%. Have a Google for the Darwin Wigget review and the tirade of abuse he received when testing the 7D at small apertures, and without sharpening. That said, it does not look dreadful to my eyes at 100%, all things (f/14) considered.
EDIT : Have a look at this comparison of your lens used at 55mm on a 50D at f/16 vs f/8. Note the image degradation at f/16. That's diffraction. The 7D would make it more obvious than the 50D when viewing at 100% due to the higher pixel density. Pictures (as opposed to pixels) should look the same from either camera with respect to diffraction.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
I suspect there may be room to improve your image workflow, especially in regard to sharpening, and you might find you get more appealing images if you capture and save them in the sRGB colour space instead of Adobe RGB. Many browsers and other image handling software do not render colours from Adobe RGB files correctly.
Here is your file as output from Lightroom with no adjustments at all except some output sharpening after resizing. This is an important workflow step for best results. Do not rely on websites to do a proper job of sharpening for you....
Click the bar to see at the full image size (as prepared by me) rather than the smaller version resized by this website.
EDIT : I just noticed you are using AI Focus. Why? Even Canon cautions against its use. Have a look at the 7D videos on the bandhphotovideo website. You also have High ISO NR set to standard. That will be having a softening effect at 400 ISO in its efforts to reduce noise. For the very best results you might want to take charge of NR as well as sharpening, shooting raw to begin with and addressing those matters later on when processing the files.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 144
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thank you all for you comments and help, I have a lot to learn. Had I read this Darwin Wigget review I would not have bought the 7D, but I have to say I like my 7D, it feels right and I'm glad I've got it. I now have to get to grips with it and photography in general.
Heres a link to another pic.
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a170/kingwuckfit/Photographs/?action=view¤t=IMG_2481.jpg
and this one (I focused on the nose and this photo has the "sharpness" I'm after )
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a170/kingwuckfit/Photographs/?action=view¤t=_MG_2688.jpg
Heres a link to another pic.
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a170/kingwuckfit/Photographs/?action=view¤t=IMG_2481.jpg
and this one (I focused on the nose and this photo has the "sharpness" I'm after )
http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a170/kingwuckfit/Photographs/?action=view¤t=_MG_2688.jpg
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
IMHO Darwin Wigget made some big errors in his use of the 7D during that review. There is nothing wrong with the 7D as far as sharpness is concerned. It's poor lens quality, poor AF calibration, poor shooting technique and unskilled processing that are usually the cause of the problems - unless of course you get a faulty body. There are many things to examine before concluding that the camera is producing soft images. The 7D requires higher levels of competence in all these areas when examining files at 100%. It's not a fault of the camera; it is its strength. It rewards skilled use and reveals flaws where they exist. I know I've had to buck up my game since getting the 7D.
I've posted this before, but I struggle to find fault with the performance of the 7D on this 1600 ISO shot of a fast moving dog. This was taken with a slow zoom lens at 400mm....
100% crop....
Now if you pick an easier target, such as a perched bird, and get closer to filling the frame then the abilities of the 7D are, IMHO, pretty impressive.....
(Please click the bar to enlarge.)
100% crop....
I've posted this before, but I struggle to find fault with the performance of the 7D on this 1600 ISO shot of a fast moving dog. This was taken with a slow zoom lens at 400mm....
100% crop....
Now if you pick an easier target, such as a perched bird, and get closer to filling the frame then the abilities of the 7D are, IMHO, pretty impressive.....
(Please click the bar to enlarge.)
100% crop....
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm still getting to grips with my 7D (got it on 14th Jan).
Posted a picture of the moon in the general photo sharing section which I was please with for sharpness although shooting the moon with a 15-85mm lens meant I had to crop it to death
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=290404
Found some of the set up tutorials really useful but I think I've still got a looooong way to go before I master the beast
I'm actually looking forward to the weather brightening up a bit so I can go out and recapture some of the shots I've taken with my 400D and compare them.
Posted a picture of the moon in the general photo sharing section which I was please with for sharpness
although shooting the moon with a 15-85mm lens meant I had to crop it to death http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=290404
Found some of the set up tutorials really useful but I think I've still got a looooong way to go before I master the beast
I'm actually looking forward to the weather brightening up a bit so I can go out and recapture some of the shots I've taken with my 400D and compare them.
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Cheers.
Here's another example, where hopefully I can show how a photograph can have the sharpening finessed to enhance the appearance. It's a subtle change, but in the pursuit of perfection every little helps.
Here's the original image, unedited and simply resized....
Here's a 100% crop without edits....
Here is the 100% crop with some tweaks to sharpening....
Like I said, subtle changes, but for a hand held shot of a moving bird it's a pretty fair result from a camera as merciless as the 7D in revealing flaws in technique, lens, AF etc..
Unfortunately you may not get results like that SOOC when shooting to JPEG using default settings for sharpening, NR, ALO, LPIC etc.. If you're going to stop down to f/14 then I'm almost certain you won't.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 292
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No don't do that.
Enjoy your 7D and get to know it.
To be honest, I went from a Pany FZ28 to my 7D, and as much as it can be unforgiving (sometimes), I'm really enjoying using the Canon
- Messages
- 9,608
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't go backwards... Take up the challenge of getting right. Practice, practice practice, and then practice some more ! That's the great thing about digital, there is no real cost in hitting the shutter button. Just go looking for a particular image and practice until you get it right.
The 7D has so many options, try a few and see what works for you.
Steve
The 7D has so many options, try a few and see what works for you.
Steve
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I can't think of any reason why a properly functioning 7D, with correctly calibrated lenses, should give results inferior to the 400D when comparing IMAGES as opposed to PIXELS. The trouble is, unless other elements in the equation are up to snuff it may give results which are no better either, and that's an expensive way to make little or no progress.
IMO the 7D is a great camera for action photography. The AF performance is excellent and the high ISO performance is the best of any Canon APS-C camera before it. Shooting at low ISO with a good lens, well focused and held steady, the 7D is capable of extracting excellent detail from a subject. There are plenty of other features that make it an attractive proposition for other types of photography - 100% viewfinder, 3 stop metering, wireless flash control, high frame rate, weatherproofing, artificial horizon, ergonomics, and more.
Unfortunately, through no fault of the camera, but rather physics, the high pixel density is of dubious advantage when requiring to stop down a long way for an extended DOF. This is because diffraction smudges the image coming from the lens and the 7D's pixels pick up the problem sooner than most other cameras. The images should not be worse than any other camera, but some of the strengths of the 7D will be of reduced advantage.
It is a great camera, and one which many would be pleased to grow into, but at the same time it could really be far more camera than some people need.
IMO the 7D is a great camera for action photography. The AF performance is excellent and the high ISO performance is the best of any Canon APS-C camera before it. Shooting at low ISO with a good lens, well focused and held steady, the 7D is capable of extracting excellent detail from a subject. There are plenty of other features that make it an attractive proposition for other types of photography - 100% viewfinder, 3 stop metering, wireless flash control, high frame rate, weatherproofing, artificial horizon, ergonomics, and more.
Unfortunately, through no fault of the camera, but rather physics, the high pixel density is of dubious advantage when requiring to stop down a long way for an extended DOF. This is because diffraction smudges the image coming from the lens and the 7D's pixels pick up the problem sooner than most other cameras. The images should not be worse than any other camera, but some of the strengths of the 7D will be of reduced advantage.
It is a great camera, and one which many would be pleased to grow into, but at the same time it could really be far more camera than some people need.
- Messages
- 292
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Also, regarding sharpness, I think there is an unofficial rule if thumb when using the 7D to shoot at approx 2x (?) the focul length you're currently shooting with. eg If you're at 85mm, shoot at around a minimum 170th of second. (Ignore this for creative shots etc)
I know that people with talent and even no IS can shoot at impossibly slow shutter speeds. But, from what I can gather, the 7D and its 18mps can find you out, if you micro move the camera on depression of the shutter.
So perhaps up your speed and iso if need be.
I know that people with talent and even no IS can shoot at impossibly slow shutter speeds. But, from what I can gather, the 7D and its 18mps can find you out, if you micro move the camera on depression of the shutter.
So perhaps up your speed and iso if need be.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
The original rule of thumb on shutter speed....
shutter speed >= 1/focal length (on a 35mm camera)
was intended to suffice when printing to approx 10x8 for viewing from 12" away.
With the smaller sensor of any APS-C camera the rule should be modified to be....
shutter speed >= 1/(focal length x crop factor)
That's because the smaller image needs more enlargement in order to print (or display) as a 10x8. More enlargement (1.6X more) means that shake/blur become more evident. Therefore the shutter speed needs to be increased by the same factor in order to reduce shake/blur by an equivalent amount.
When it comes to viewing images at 100% the rules above go out the window. Depending upon your monitor specs you might well find that at 100% you are viewing an image with a virtual size of 40" across. That's 4X larger than your standard 10x8. That means that your shutter speeds need to be 4X faster than the rule suggests.
In other words, to get a shake free image from a 7D and 85mm lens when examined at 100% you should be looking to use a shutter speed of 85 x 1.6 x 4 = approx 1/500 when hand holding, if you want the chance of acceptable sharp 100% crops. Of course, the rule is more of a guideline and some people do better than others. Either way, please don't imagine that the old rules for shutter speed apply fully to viewing 100% crops. They don't.
The same argument also applies to picking a shutter speed to suit your subject motion. Any blur at the sensor will cover more pixels on a 7D than on any APS-C camera before it. If you examine the file at 100% you will more likely see evidence of blurring where on another camera you might not. It won't matter a jot to the final image, viewed at normal size, but if you want sharp 100% crops then that's another angle to consider.
EDIT : I like Rob's phrase above - "the 7D will find you out.". It's true. Shake, blur, misfocus, diffraction, poor lens IQ - the 7D's little pixels will reveal errors quicker than all its predecessors. But this only matters when pixel peeping. None of these things will look any better or worse than any other APS-C camera when viewing the whole image at "normal" size.
shutter speed >= 1/focal length (on a 35mm camera)
was intended to suffice when printing to approx 10x8 for viewing from 12" away.
With the smaller sensor of any APS-C camera the rule should be modified to be....
shutter speed >= 1/(focal length x crop factor)
That's because the smaller image needs more enlargement in order to print (or display) as a 10x8. More enlargement (1.6X more) means that shake/blur become more evident. Therefore the shutter speed needs to be increased by the same factor in order to reduce shake/blur by an equivalent amount.
When it comes to viewing images at 100% the rules above go out the window. Depending upon your monitor specs you might well find that at 100% you are viewing an image with a virtual size of 40" across. That's 4X larger than your standard 10x8. That means that your shutter speeds need to be 4X faster than the rule suggests.
In other words, to get a shake free image from a 7D and 85mm lens when examined at 100% you should be looking to use a shutter speed of 85 x 1.6 x 4 = approx 1/500 when hand holding, if you want the chance of acceptable sharp 100% crops. Of course, the rule is more of a guideline and some people do better than others. Either way, please don't imagine that the old rules for shutter speed apply fully to viewing 100% crops. They don't.
The same argument also applies to picking a shutter speed to suit your subject motion. Any blur at the sensor will cover more pixels on a 7D than on any APS-C camera before it. If you examine the file at 100% you will more likely see evidence of blurring where on another camera you might not. It won't matter a jot to the final image, viewed at normal size, but if you want sharp 100% crops then that's another angle to consider.
EDIT : I like Rob's phrase above - "the 7D will find you out.". It's true. Shake, blur, misfocus, diffraction, poor lens IQ - the 7D's little pixels will reveal errors quicker than all its predecessors. But this only matters when pixel peeping. None of these things will look any better or worse than any other APS-C camera when viewing the whole image at "normal" size.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 903
- Name
- Lesley
- Edit My Images
- Yes
HELP Ok guys I have a 7d and Im having a megga noise problem, cant even 50% crop its so bad. Im using a Canon 100-400 Spent a day at Slimbridge last week light was great and got some good shots later in the afternoon light had dropped so upped the ISO and noise noise noise. We were shooting the swans coming into feed.
Even at 1000 ISO its bad. I turned it to auto to see what it would wanted then turned auto off and went to same as it had said .
Still terrible. Not sure what Im doing wrong any suggestions anyone.
Oh the high noise reduction was on normal. I have since turned that on to high and got marginally better shots at the w/end.
I can accept it probably is me doing something wrong but I just dont know what so all helpful suggestionsgratefully received or is it possible I have a duff camera *** using same lens on my 50 d noise is not a problem here is a linkof an example hope it works
Even at 1000 ISO its bad. I turned it to auto to see what it would wanted then turned auto off and went to same as it had said .
Still terrible. Not sure what Im doing wrong any suggestions anyone.
Oh the high noise reduction was on normal. I have since turned that on to high and got marginally better shots at the w/end.
I can accept it probably is me doing something wrong but I just dont know what so all helpful suggestionsgratefully received or is it possible I have a duff camera *** using same lens on my 50 d noise is not a problem here is a linkof an example hope it works
- Messages
- 903
- Name
- Lesley
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
Lesley, the example you posted was shot at 5000 ISO and is underexposed. Well, it may not appear underexposed to the eye, but you have fallen a good 2+ stops short of saturating the sensor. This is a long way removed from an "ETTR" exposure, which I would normally strive for. Shooting at 5000 ISO and underexposing by 1 stop is like shooting at 10,000 ISO. Underexposing by 2 stops is like shooting at 20,000 ISO. You're going to see noise!
I know you have not provided the original file - unless the 7D is now kicking out 6MP files, but did you perform any edits before cropping? I also notice that High ISO NR is set to Low, which probably isn't going to make a hge difference noisewise. Shooting at high ISO, underexposing and making hefty crops are not the best way to obtain clean looking results, I'm afraid. One on its own would be challenge enough, but all three rolled into a single exposure - that's asking a lot.
EDIT : Actually now I see the timestamp as well - 08:42 (nearly an hour after sunrise) - I'm thinking maybe it is underexposed. At first I thought maybe it was a sort of duskish/sunset shot, but at 08:42 I can't help feeling the shot should be visibly brighter, as well as pushing more to the right on the histogram. Also, was the sky really so pink?
I downloaded the file and ran it through Neatimage to remove some noise, but also a lot of detail I'm afraid....
Same file brightened by 1 stop and with a small shift away from magenta towards green....
If you can make the original raw file available I'll see if I can do any better, if you like.
I know you have not provided the original file - unless the 7D is now kicking out 6MP files, but did you perform any edits before cropping? I also notice that High ISO NR is set to Low, which probably isn't going to make a hge difference noisewise. Shooting at high ISO, underexposing and making hefty crops are not the best way to obtain clean looking results, I'm afraid. One on its own would be challenge enough, but all three rolled into a single exposure - that's asking a lot.
EDIT : Actually now I see the timestamp as well - 08:42 (nearly an hour after sunrise) - I'm thinking maybe it is underexposed. At first I thought maybe it was a sort of duskish/sunset shot, but at 08:42 I can't help feeling the shot should be visibly brighter, as well as pushing more to the right on the histogram. Also, was the sky really so pink?
I downloaded the file and ran it through Neatimage to remove some noise, but also a lot of detail I'm afraid....
Same file brightened by 1 stop and with a small shift away from magenta towards green....
If you can make the original raw file available I'll see if I can do any better, if you like.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,136
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just ordered my7D, how do I contain myself waiting for the delivery
doc
doc
- Messages
- 903
- Name
- Lesley
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Tim not sure how i send you a raw file that was probably one of the worst shots but I understand what your saying (I think) clock is wrong it was about 4.20pm they were coming in for tea. Its me getting it wrong then ok I accept that end of a long day and brain gone out of gear. But It does seem the minute I raise the ISO noise steps in and obviously my novice experience has got to think more about exposure.
No I havent done any edits or crop.
How can I make raw files available please.http://www.mediafire.com/?n22ccxu595g8g this is my noise folder and also hopefully will allow you to see what I mean.
many thanks for your help
No I havent done any edits or crop.
How can I make raw files available please.http://www.mediafire.com/?n22ccxu595g8g this is my noise folder and also hopefully will allow you to see what I mean.
many thanks for your help
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
You should be able to upload your raw file(s) to mediafire I would have thought. Just pick the .cr2 original instead of a JPEG you've created.
As for noise - sometimes you have to accept that you won't get a great shot. If the light is poor and you don't have the glass and camera to cope. If you want improvement then I wonder whether you needed to be shooting at 1/1250. Ideally I'm sure you would, but given the circumstances perhaps shooting at 1/800 and 6400 ISO would have been better. A 400mm f/2.8 lens would have been better still.
I've shot with my 7D and got very fair results at 1600 ISO. Even at 6400 ISO I've had good PICTURES, but stare at the individual PIXELS and it all gets a bit ugly. The secret is to fill the frame. Then you don't have to stare at individual pixels because you don't have to crop.
Take a look at this shot at 6400 ISO. I've not applied any fancy editing except to adjust white balance. I've not cropped, but I have exposed well to the right. The result is a pretty clean looking IMAGE at 6400 ISO. The individual PIXELS look crap. That's to be expected.
As for noise - sometimes you have to accept that you won't get a great shot. If the light is poor and you don't have the glass and camera to cope. If you want improvement then I wonder whether you needed to be shooting at 1/1250. Ideally I'm sure you would, but given the circumstances perhaps shooting at 1/800 and 6400 ISO would have been better. A 400mm f/2.8 lens would have been better still.
I've shot with my 7D and got very fair results at 1600 ISO. Even at 6400 ISO I've had good PICTURES, but stare at the individual PIXELS and it all gets a bit ugly. The secret is to fill the frame. Then you don't have to stare at individual pixels because you don't have to crop.
Take a look at this shot at 6400 ISO. I've not applied any fancy editing except to adjust white balance. I've not cropped, but I have exposed well to the right. The result is a pretty clean looking IMAGE at 6400 ISO. The individual PIXELS look crap. That's to be expected.
- Messages
- 903
- Name
- Lesley
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ah I see what you mean Tim about the editing I may have resized them but nothing else. Well you have certainly made an improvement on that one. Perhaps when Ive mastered how to use a camera I will have to invest in a decent editing package as well. Here are some of my others if.http://www.mediafire.com/?qza995wboizu5
I can get it nearly right sometimes Lol.
I can get it nearly right sometimes Lol.
- Messages
- 9,608
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Les,
Just to support what Tim has said, the image below was taken on my 7D at 1600 ISO. It has been cropped a bit, and some basic sharpening but not much else. It wasn't even taken of expensive glass, I was using a 70-300 IS USM.
There is a thread running in the "Talk Photography" section about noise, and it's clear that getting a well exposed shot goes long way to help the image.
Steve
Just to support what Tim has said, the image below was taken on my 7D at 1600 ISO. It has been cropped a bit, and some basic sharpening but not much else. It wasn't even taken of expensive glass, I was using a 70-300 IS USM.
There is a thread running in the "Talk Photography" section about noise, and it's clear that getting a well exposed shot goes long way to help the image.
Steve
- Messages
- 3,093
- Name
- Russ
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I watched a 50min video about the 7D last night (got the link from on here somewhere) in which a guy from Canon explains the cameras strengths and touches on it's weaknesses, one of which being it's crowded sensor.........
However, by know these "limitations", exposing to the right and composing the picture correctly, as demonstrated by tdodd, you can get perfectly acceptable images shooting at high ISOs.
My 400D only went up to ISO1600 and I found out that combinded with a Sigma 170-500 f5-6.5, trying to shoot at a rugby much on a dull Saturday afternoon was impossible after 3pm, however if I had more of an ISO range available I may have been able to carry on shooting, the trade off would have been more noise BUT I might have got the shot of the game!!!
It depends what's more important to you, getting a pixel-perfect photo or getting the perfect image
However, by know these "limitations", exposing to the right and composing the picture correctly, as demonstrated by tdodd, you can get perfectly acceptable images shooting at high ISOs.
My 400D only went up to ISO1600 and I found out that combinded with a Sigma 170-500 f5-6.5, trying to shoot at a rugby much on a dull Saturday afternoon was impossible after 3pm, however if I had more of an ISO range available I may have been able to carry on shooting, the trade off would have been more noise BUT I might have got the shot of the game!!!
It depends what's more important to you, getting a pixel-perfect photo or getting the perfect image
- Messages
- 903
- Name
- Lesley
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Steve, lovely shot.
Yes its back to the basics for me I think the thing is Ive had no issues at all with it on closer more fill the frame subjects, whatever the light. It was further out smaller stuff which made me question what was wrong, and now I know its down to me the challenge will be get my head round it.
Many thanks for your help both.
Yes its back to the basics for me I think the thing is Ive had no issues at all with it on closer more fill the frame subjects, whatever the light. It was further out smaller stuff which made me question what was wrong, and now I know its down to me the challenge will be get my head round it.
Many thanks for your help both.
- Messages
- 903
- Name
- Lesley
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 9
- Name
- Hannah
- Edit My Images
- No
Just picked up my new DSLR today, another 7D
After buying one at launch and finally outing it 6 months ago in favour of a couple of M4/3 Panasonic cameras, I have gone full circle
I have spent months deliberating and review reading but for ME I don't think there is a better 'all round' body....
So 7D'ers, a couple of questions....
Grip - worth it or not?
What lens have you got on yours the most? (I have bought a 24-105L as my walkabout choice)
Hi,
I have a 7D and find that the 17-55mm f2.8 as a workhorse is a fantastic combo. The 17mm is great for that little extra wideness - particularly on the cropped sensor - and as its an EF-S it's substantially lighter. and the constant f2.8 is great for that extra speed and DOF.
I have read many reviews (of which I totally agree with) that say that the only thing missing to make it an L series is the red band!
Have fun with your re-discovery!
Hannah