The Canon 7D and the non improvement over the 40D

Fireproof Creative

Fireproof Creative

Messages
1,302
Name
Jonny
Edit My Images
No
I've gotta say I'm disappointed with the 7D, I'm not sure if mines a dud or not but noise at low ISO is exceptionally poor compared to the 40D.

The noise erases detail on raw files at ISO 100 and generally doesn't resolve as well as the 40D. What I'd really like to find out is, if this is normal operating quality.

Here's a comparison

Canon 40D + Sigma 100-300 F4 + 1.4x sigma converter

britcar 40d by Fireproof_Art, on Flickr
(by all accounts this should be worse than the following combo but it isn't)


Canon 7D + Canon 400mm f5.6 prime (checked and confirmed razor sharp on other bodies)

Aston 7d by Fireproof_Art, on Flickr

These are both straight conversions from RAW no adjustments - note the noise artefacts in the sunstrip in the second image.


I appreciate that this pixel peeping but I bought this camera because it was supposed to be a step up from the 40D in terms of image quality and resolving power. It doesn't appear to be, any thoughts would be welcome.

p.s I have tried exposing to the right and differing lighting etc with minimal difference in improvement.

Cheers folks I look forward to some wisdom
 
Last edited:
Your post title suggests that the 7D is not an improvement on the 40D whereas its a mega improvement. If all you are actually talking about is ISO performance (whether you are correct or not) perhaps your post title should reflect this?
 
I had a 7D in 2009 and my observations pretty much mirrored what you're seeing Jonathan. Most people seem happy with the output but mine was desperately noisy at the lower Iso settings when compared to other bodies I had.

Bob
 
A while ago I was using a 40D and a 550D. On a couple of occasions I used borrowed 7D's (multiple ones) and was never impressed with the noise quality. The 550D definitely produces better quality images in terms of fine detail compared to the 7D. The 40D I found was very similar just lacking in pixels for much cropping.
 
The 40D was always regarded as a top performer regarding noise. The 7D can get decent noiseless images but you pretty much need to nail the exposure. You under expose and you will see noise.

Steve
 
I had a 7d for about a year and a half loved mostly everything about it the focusing system and build quality were amazing. But have to say the noise performance was terrible. I do gig photography. The noise for the low light gig was not that great And it got to the point were I traded in my 7d and swapped it for the 5d mk ii. Being a full frame noise performance is great. The 7d is still one of my favourite canon bodies I owned.
 
I have had both cameras and didn't think image quality was much different, but the 7D was certainly far nicer to use.

The 7D was certainly more prone to showing up noise if underexposed, but I suspect that's because of the extra 8mp on the same size sensor
 
Print them both at A3 and compare them at viewing distances.

I will bet the difference has disappeared.
 
I have owned both, but the other way around... i.e. I had a 7D and then bought a 40D as a backup camera.

I hated using the 40D and found the IQ crap in comparison at anything over ISO 400 in comparison to the 7D. However I shot some architecture for the local uni with the 40D to test it out when I bought it and couldn't see any difference what so ever between the standard of pics it took at ISO's 400 and below to what the 7D would have been capable of.

If I had to choose one and only one out of the 2 bodies I'd plump for the 7D due to the better ISO performance above 800 and better AF system... but it really comes down to what you're shooting.

For me both camera's are crap at mid to high ISO's really so I am loathe to pick up the 7D most of the time and sold the 40D. At lower ISO's there's little between them.
 
Last edited:
I swapped a 60D for a 7D to use as backup to my 5D3 and I've found mine noisy above ISO800. It's at the repair centre at the minute being almost rebuilt after I dropped it (both PCB and AF unit damage, £600 to repair) and I'm debating whether to part ex it for either a 1D Mk3 or wait till the 70D gets released and part ex it for that. I've not used a 40D for a direct comparison but I've had a 550D, 60D, 5D2, 2 x 7D's and a 5D3 and the wife 650D and both the 7D's have been the same. For noise handling they're definitely bottom of my pile but the AF does make up for a lot.

If the 70D has the same AF system but with better noise handling I think thats the way to go, specially if the delay in the announcement was for a change of sensor to a 20+ Mp instead of 18Mp of the 7D. I will try the 7D when it gets back to see if the rebuild has made any difference to it.
 
Last edited:
Jackwow said:
Your post title suggests that the 7D is not an improvement on the 40D whereas its a mega improvement. If all you are actually talking about is ISO performance (whether you are correct or not) perhaps your post title should reflect this?
Click to expand...
Thanks for that helpful bit of feedback there, as I outlined in the post with examples,in my experience it is not an improvement (let alone mega) - In image quality, ISO performance and to a large extent AF performance.

Canon Bob said:
I had a 7D in 2009 and my observations pretty much mirrored what you're seeing Jonathan. Most people seem happy with the output but mine was desperately noisy at the lower Iso settings when compared to other bodies I had.

Bob
Click to expand...
Thanks that's actually useful - were you ever able to compare to other 7's at all? are they all like this and we are just fussy or are there duff copies about?.

GeForce Junky said:
A while ago I was using a 40D and a 550D. On a couple of occasions I used borrowed 7D's (multiple ones) and was never impressed with the noise quality. The 550D definitely produces better quality images in terms of fine detail compared to the 7D. The 40D I found was very similar just lacking in pixels for much cropping.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I too have seen fullsize images from 550s that look markedly better in terms of resolved detail and colour accuracy - I was lead to believe the 7D would excel in all these areas.

steve_v said:
The 40D was always regarded as a top performer regarding noise. The 7D can get decent noiseless images but you pretty much need to nail the exposure. You under expose and you will see noise.

Steve
Click to expand...

Thanks, I have used the technique of exposing to the right numerous times and I still see nasty patchy noise at all ISOs up to 800. I rarely ventured higher than 400 on the 40D, but I am seeing worse noise at ISO 100 than I had at 800 from the 40d - surely that step is unreasonable?

tijuana taxi said:
I have had both cameras and didn't think image quality was much different, but the 7D was certainly far nicer to use.

The 7D was certainly more prone to showing up noise if underexposed, but I suspect that's because of the extra 8mp on the same size sensor
Click to expand...

Agreed, I didn't expect miracles from the pixels being squashed in but as mentioned before, the 550D appears to have a far better level of image quality.

Phil V said:
Print them both at A3 and compare them at viewing distances.

I will bet the difference has disappeared.
Click to expand...

I am sure that is the case, however I use the images for digital art and need to resolve as much detail as possible - the 7D appears not to be able to do this (in my case at least) as well as the 40D. I didn't upgrade my camera to produce the same results as my 40D on prints on A3 viewed 4 foot away - I wanted, and paid for, an improvement in detail and image quality.

ajax_andy said:
I have owned both, but the other way around... i.e. I had a 7D and then bought a 40D as a backup camera.

I hated using the 40D and found the IQ crap in comparison at anything over ISO 400 in comparison to the 7D. However I shot some architecture for the local uni with the 40D to test it out when I bought it and couldn't see any difference what so ever between the standard of pics it took at ISO's 400 and below to what the 7D would have been capable of.

If I had to choose one and only one out of the 2 bodies I'd plump for the 7D due to the better ISO performance above 800 and better AF system... but it really comes down to what you're shooting.

For me both camera's are crap at mid to high ISO's really so I am loathe to pick up the 7D most of the time and sold the 40D. At lower ISO's there's little between them.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm not seeing the same results unfortunately - I rarely go above 800 at any rate, but at all ISOs below 400 the 7D appears roughly twice as bad as the 40D. AF appears patchy as well- while i'm willing to put this down to misuse of the settings due to inexperience of the new(er) system, the image quality I am not so willing to accept blame for.

modchild said:
I swapped a 60D for a 7D to use as backup to my 5D3 and I've found mine noisy above ISO800. It's at the repair centre at the minute being almost rebuilt after I dropped it (both PCB and AF unit damage, £600 to repair) and I'm debating whether to part ex it for either a 1D Mk3 or wait till the 70D gets released and part ex it for that. I've not used a 40D for a direct comparison but I've had a 550D, 60D, 5D2, 2 x 7D's and a 5D3 and the wife 650D and both the 7D's have been the same. For noise handling they're definitely bottom of my pile but the AF does make up for a lot.
Click to expand...

Thanks - it is interesting to hear that - would you say the Aston shot in the OP is fairly standard for the 7D then?



Thanks all for taking the time to post - if you could take a look at the sample images if any of you get a chance and let me know if it looks any different in terms of technical quality to what you have experienced with your 7D copies.

Many thanks again
 
It is amazing how often similar posts about the 7D arise. That says something about the 7D, and as a very happy user I reckon it says even more about users.

The 7D sure can produce noise, big style. But with careful exposure and PP that noise can be neutralized.

In most situations, I set my EC to +2/3. That in itself goes alomg way to minimizing noise. However I also always shoot in RAW (with whatever camera I am using) and by using LR4 and the masking facility, I can obtain superb images certainly up to ISO800 and often above depending on conditions and subject.

I always adjust luminance in the detail section before sharpening using the masking facility. It really does work for me in 99% of situations.
 
Yellowbelly said:
It is amazing how often similar posts about the 7D arise. That says something about the 7D, and as a very happy user I reckon it says even more about users.

The 7D sure can produce noise, big style. But with careful exposure and PP that noise can be neutralized.

In most situations, I set my EC to +2/3. That in itself goes alomg way to minimizing noise. However I also always shoot in RAW (with whatever camera I am using) and by using LR4 and the masking facility, I can obtain superb images certainly up to ISO800 and often above depending on conditions and subject.

I always adjust luminance in the detail section before sharpening using the masking facility. It really does work for me in 99% of situations.
Click to expand...


Thanks mate I too have worked with +2/3 as well and see very limited improvement - have only ever shot Raw. Using full Photoshop CS6 - I am not a beginner to this - I'm not sure user error is the case - what I really need to know is if the Aston shot at the beginning of the post looks normal to you for an ISO 100 shot in terms of noise and detail :) - I have a 5D III which is by all accounts a more complicated camera - I have no reason to be critical of it in any way and can use it perfectly well.

P.S I am not really looking to use any post NR, I didn't have to on the 40D and dont believe it should be necessary on what is fundamentally optimal settings for any digital camera (bar slightly better light in the first image) - I need the detail
 
Last edited:
I agree the 7D is a fine camera and more than capable of producing fine photos. Also the nicest handling camera I have used and just about right design and features wise.

Not at its best for high ISO work and I might be talking rot here, but I believe the low pass filter is rather strong which means more post processing than some other cameras.
One other factor may be the higher pixel count could exaggerate camera shake when hand holding, again could be nonsense, but I thought it did

Recently sold mine, was going to buy a Pentax K-5IIs for its lack of aforementioned filter and low light performance. in the end decided against another crop sensor and must say photos from my old 5D do compare favourably against those from the 7D (nothing else about the camera does though)
 
Jonathan, I am sorry if my post came over as "holier than thou". That was not my intention. I can only speak as I have experienced. You can see from my camera bag that I use the 5D2 and the 7D and sure, the 5D2 is much easier, shall we say much more forgiving, than the 7D. I was one of the disappointed when I first tried my 7D as shooting it in the same way as the 5D2 resulted in a poor noise performance. But over time I found ways to minimise or even negate the problem. My 7D will never equal the 5D2 when it come to low light landscapes, but neither will my 5D2 ever take such cracking action shots and wildlife. Horses for courses and all that.
 
Canon Bob said:
I had a 7D in 2009 and my observations pretty much mirrored what you're seeing Jonathan. Most people seem happy with the output but mine was desperately noisy at the lower Iso settings when compared to other bodies I had.

Bob
Click to expand...

Graphix501 said:
Thanks that's actually useful - were you ever able to compare to other 7's at all? are they all like this and we are just fussy or are there duff copies about?.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't have that chance but I did take some control shots of lithographic colour samples and established that the main source of noise was the red channel.

Bob
 
Yellowbelly said:
Jonathan, I am sorry if my post came over as "holier than thou". That was not my intention. I can only speak as I have experienced. You can see from my camera bag that I use the 5D2 and the 7D and sure, the 5D2 is much easier, shall we say much more forgiving, than the 7D. I was one of the disappointed when I first tried my 7D as shooting it in the same way as the 5D2 resulted in a poor noise performance. But over time I found ways to minimise or even negate the problem. My 7D will never equal the 5D2 when it come to low light landscapes, but neither will my 5D2 ever take such cracking action shots and wildlife. Horses for courses and all that.
Click to expand...

Gotcha didnt think you came across like that - just wanted to clarify and thanks for the extra insight :)
 
Hi again Johnathan.

I've just been looking a the two images you posted in 1# and I have to say that's not a good way to compare the performance of the two cameras.

The first shot is in good light, the second not so good, just this small change can make a big difference to the image quality.

I too have gone from a 40D to 7D and initially struggled with the 7D.

I think you just have to appreciate that squeezing the image onto a 15*22mm sensor with 18million pixels on it is going to show up flaws in the image capture you never noticed in the 40D at 10mp.

It is true to say that the 7D files do need careful handling, I was recently surprised to find the different way the Adobe RAW convertor handled the files compared to DPP, with much better results in my opinion.

I was initially a bit disappointed to find all this work was needed to produce good images from the 7D, but then I used to spend hours in the darkroom and not produce pictures nearly as good as this camera can produce.

I'm sure anyone who tried to shoot above 400iso in the days of film is now, like me, revelling in the high iso abilities of the modern DSLR

So would I get my 40D out of the cupboard in preference to my 7D - no, can't think of a single situation where I would rather use my 40D

HTH

David
 
I loaded both photo's into photoshop so I could compare them better than in the browser. To be honest I see a lot more chroma noise in the shadow cast by the car in the 40d photo than I do in a similar area of the photo from the 7d.

The 7d photo is just not as sharp. I'd put that down to some adjustment being required on the lens when used with your specific 7d. All cameras and lenses have tolerance levels and it looks like this pair could be at opposite ends of the tolerancescale.

It's also possible that more time is needed handling this combo - it's been mentioned by many people in the past that the 7d can be more demanding of the photographer than some other Canon dslrs.

Just my opinion of course. :)
 
Here is my few pennies worth. I own a 7D and the 550D also in the past I have quite a few Sony Alpha DSLRs. I have to say that the 7D is the most dissappointing out of the lot. Soft images 80% of the time OOF 80% of the time and requires far more post processing than any of the others (regardless of which lens I use). I also own a Sony HX9V travel zoom which is far sharper than the 7D, more accurate at focussing and better overall for a fraction of the cost than the 7D IMHO. When I can manage to get everything correct and the 7D nails it, the images from are stunning, but they are just too few and far between.
I did errm and ahh over my purchase between the 7D and the Nikon D7000 and I really think I went in the wrong direction. Yes I know I am not using any L series lenses but from what I have seen so far I am not prepared to spend another £1000+ or so on an L lens and I am seriously considering cutting my losses and making the swap to Nikon. My 550D is perfect for taking on days out but the 7D just doesn't suit for the more serious side. It has to be, for me, the worst value for money I have ever spent.
By the way, I do love the feel and button layout, menus etc but it all comes down to the image output regardless of what camera has taken the image and for me the 7D just doesnt cut it.
 
Just my tuppence worth...

I had a 7D and upgraded to the to 5dee II, however ironically I'm now looking for a 7D again as a second body.

For landscapes or anything where I'd perhaps do longish exposures, which I do alot of - I found the noise on the 7D appalling bad. Hence the upgrade.

However at airshows and wildlife - I found the 7D perfect but the AF is *very* unforgiving - you have to nail it or the AF will show where you've missed the focus.

And I think that's the key - it's AF is alot more precise, given it's speed and the more AF points - which did initially for me mean lots of shots that were binned.

As for the noise - I think that's been covered well on here, cramming all those mega pixels onto a crop sensor was going to have to have some compromises along the way I guess...

Cheer
 
It's odd, but in another thread I said I had heard that the 7D was noisy and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong.

Now, in this thread, I'm reading different opinions...
 
digital said:
It's odd, but in another thread I said I had heard that the 7D was noisy and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong.

Now, in this thread, I'm reading different opinions...
Click to expand...

I think it depends who you listen to and dare I say it how much effort they have put into getting the best images they can.

If I'd had pots of money I would probably have bought a 5Dmk11 and been very happy (until the mk111 cameout :D ) but I have learnt to make the best of what the 7D can offer.

D
 
digital said:
It's odd, but in another thread I said I had heard that the 7D was noisy and I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong.

Now, in this thread, I'm reading different opinions...
Click to expand...

It IS noisy, but it depends on how you use it... if you get the exposure right then it's clean, but if you under expose the noise appears in the darker areas badly.

It's a b****r of a camera to shoot weddings in churches with, as if you expose so there darker areas are ok then you blow the dress etc... expose so the dress is perfect and you get noise all over the shop.

This is why I bought the 5D MK III and 6D.

Shooting during the day and in nice light the camera is capable of great things and produces little to no noise at the right exposure, but it's a very unforgiving beast if either you get it wrong or the scene has too big a difference between light and dark areas.
 
Well, I've got a 5D3 and had a 60D until Management took a shine to it! I'm looking for another second body and was tempted by the 7D until the noise issue came up. I use them mainly while we're travelling so there's often not a lot of time for setting up, particularly when some creature or other decides to show up unannounced!

Perhaps it will be worth waiting for the 7D2.
 
ajax_andy said:
It IS noisy, but it depends on how you use it... if you get the exposure right then it's clean, but if you under expose the noise appears in the darker areas badly.
Click to expand...

You nailed it in one. When I shoot a concert in a venue where the lighting is just horrible and I can't get the exposure right because I'm at the limits of the hardware, I can push the exposure as much as 2, sometimes 3, stops in post with my 5D and 6D, but the 7D shots are useless if I even have to push them 1 stop. If you get the exposure right in camera, you'll be fine. If you have no choice but to underexpose a little, don't expect miracles.
 
When the 7D was first released I was thinking of jumping ship from Pentax and so had the loan of one from a shop for a week. I returned it due to the amount of noise it produced at low ISO and stayed with Pentax. About 6 months ago I was watching the Canon Ebay outlet and a 7D came up with a 70-300mmL for a steal so I grabbed it for the lens (to use with the 50D I had previously bought to use with a MP-E65mm) and intended to sell on the 7D.

have to say in the end I sold the 50D ... this 7D is so much better than the original one I had, the ISO performance is usable up to 1600 whereas on the old one I was getting horrible noise even at 200.

Still pick up my Pentax K-5II for anything low light but the 7D is my camera of choice for anything requiring decent AF speed.
 
Have you tried micro-adjusting the 400mm focus to the 7d ?
 
Graphix501 said:
Thanks for that helpful bit of feedback there, as I outlined in the post with examples,in my experience it is not an improvement (let alone mega) - In image quality, ISO performance and to a large extent AF performance.

Thanks that's actually useful - were you ever able to compare to other 7's at all? are they all like this and we are just fussy or are there duff copies about?.

Thanks, I too have seen fullsize images from 550s that look markedly better in terms of resolved detail and colour accuracy - I was lead to believe the 7D would excel in all these areas.

Thanks, I have used the technique of exposing to the right numerous times and I still see nasty patchy noise at all ISOs up to 800. I rarely ventured higher than 400 on the 40D, but I am seeing worse noise at ISO 100 than I had at 800 from the 40d - surely that step is unreasonable?

Agreed, I didn't expect miracles from the pixels being squashed in but as mentioned before, the 550D appears to have a far better level of image quality.

I am sure that is the case, however I use the images for digital art and need to resolve as much detail as possible - the 7D appears not to be able to do this (in my case at least) as well as the 40D. I didn't upgrade my camera to produce the same results as my 40D on prints on A3 viewed 4 foot away - I wanted, and paid for, an improvement in detail and image quality.

Thanks, I'm not seeing the same results unfortunately - I rarely go above 800 at any rate, but at all ISOs below 400 the 7D appears roughly twice as bad as the 40D. AF appears patchy as well- while i'm willing to put this down to misuse of the settings due to inexperience of the new(er) system, the image quality I am not so willing to accept blame for.

Thanks - it is interesting to hear that - would you say the Aston shot in the OP is fairly standard for the 7D then?

Thanks all for taking the time to post - if you could take a look at the sample images if any of you get a chance and let me know if it looks any different in terms of technical quality to what you have experienced with your 7D copies.

Many thanks again
Click to expand...

I found the 7D a fantastic camera when everything was in its favour.
But once I started to up the ISO it was terrible, it frustrated me so much & I lost so many shots I ended up buying a 1D mkiv.
I will say though that the focus on my 7D is superb.
 
Must admit, I never found noise an issue on my 7D and it was by far the best APS-C I'd owned in the XXD series (and I had them all). I exclusively shoot in RAW though and process in Lightroom, so I wonder if I'd ever shot in JPG I'd have seen it. Where I have experienced noise at the very high ISOs, I didn't find it offensive, and as someone said above, printed, (or scaled for screen output) it was never an issue. I always used Auto ISO with absolute confidence as well, the output was so good.
 
I loved the handling of the 7D and I thought the LCD screen was nice compared to my 5DII. Most of the images I took looked fine at 1:2, but zoom to 1:1 and noise was apparent - not a real world issue, but the 7D is not a pixel-peepers camera.

Having said that when I nailed the exposure in good light it was pretty noise free.
 
Just an update:

I have carried out multiple tests in good light with a focus chart and found the body has inconsistent focus issues. My 400mm required a +9 MA this has slighlty improved focus capability HOWEVER - AF performance is abysmal in AI servo mode with the focus point wandering all over the frame (even when set to single centre on monopod). It's still not an acceptable correction to soft images as the lens back/front focuses to a different degree at different subject distance not to mention being wholey unacceptable for zoom lenses.

I have found that applying pressure to the lens "levering" it against the contacts of the body instantly improves focus performance, whilst this does allow me to see what I should be getting - It is an impossibly cack handed way of photographing - I have cleaned and treated the contacts with no effect, this is a body issue and will return to Canon. Sadly the noise issue remains and from the sounds of things, its normal.

Thanks again for all the info
 
Yellowbelly said:
It is amazing how often similar posts about the 7D arise. That says something about the 7D, and as a very happy user I reckon it says even more about users.

The 7D sure can produce noise, big style. But with careful exposure and PP that noise can be neutralized.

In most situations, I set my EC to +2/3. That in itself goes alomg way to minimizing noise. However I also always shoot in RAW (with whatever camera I am using) and by using LR4 and the masking facility, I can obtain superb images certainly up to ISO800 and often above depending on conditions and subject.

I always adjust luminance in the detail section before sharpening using the masking facility. It really does work for me in 99% of situations.
Click to expand...

+1 :)
 
Do you sit 6 inches away from your TV and complain about the poor quality of the picture? Do you print out your images 6 foot wide and exmaine them with a magnifying glass and complain about the quality?

Because they're both as stupid as trying to judge image quality by pixel-peeking.

Real photographers look for good image quality. Measurebators look for good pixel quality.
 
hollis_f said:
Do you sit 6 inches away from your TV and complain about the poor quality of the picture? Do you print out your images 6 foot wide and exmaine them with a magnifying glass and complain about the quality?

Because they're both as stupid as trying to judge image quality by pixel-peeking.

Real photographers look for good image quality. Measurebators look for good pixel quality.
Click to expand...

There are two sides to this - I had a 7D and felt I got excellent images at normal viewing sizes and distances.

At the same time just about every other camera I've had looks better when pixel peeping - this is not to say there is a point in pixel peeping, but it does beg the question why is the 7D worse than most in this respect.
 
philthejuggler said:
At the same time just about every other camera I've had looks better when pixel peeping - this is not to say there is a point in pixel peeping, but it does beg the question why is the 7D worse than most in this respect.
Click to expand...

Imagine you had a camera that shot image 5 million pixels across. What do you think a 100% crop would look like?

I'm still planning on creating a full-frame camera with a 600x400 pixel sensor. High ISO (131,072,000) noise would be non-existent and 100% crops would be brilliant. Of course, whole image quality would be crap - but that obviously doesn't matter to a lot of people.
 
I was very happy with my 7D's high-ISO performance versus my 40D. I found that pixel vs pixel both bodies were pretty much equal, but with twice the pixels 7D felt like it gained a stop.

It is strange that I felt as much gain going from 40D to 7D as I did from 7D to 6D, the 6D's high-ISO performance being slightly underwhelming for me. Perhaps all 7D sensors are not created equal and maybe I just got a good one.
 
hollis_f said:
Do you sit 6 inches away from your TV and complain about the poor quality of the picture? Do you print out your images 6 foot wide and exmaine them with a magnifying glass and complain about the quality?

Because they're both as stupid as trying to judge image quality by pixel-peeking.

Real photographers look for good image quality. Measurebators look for good pixel quality.
Click to expand...

Not really helpful...


Originally Posted by Phil V View Post
Print them both at A3 and compare them at viewing distances.

I will bet the difference has disappeared.
Click to expand...

I am sure that is the case, however I use the images for digital art and need to resolve as much detail as possible - the 7D appears not to be able to do this (in my case at least) as well as the 40D. I didn't upgrade my camera to produce the same results as my 40D on prints on A3 viewed 4 foot away - I wanted, and paid for, an improvement in detail and image quality.
Click to expand...

but thanks for taking the time to read through.
 
Last edited:
Orville said:
I was very happy with my 7D's high-ISO performance versus my 40D. I found that pixel vs pixel both bodies were pretty much equal, but with twice the pixels 7D felt like it gained a stop.

It is strange that I felt as much gain going from 40D to 7D as I did from 7D to 6D, the 6D's high-ISO performance being slightly underwhelming for me. Perhaps all 7D sensors are not created equal and maybe I just got a good one.
Click to expand...

You must have but unfortunately for me I got a s#%t one. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top