Canon 7D IQ Poor Quality?

[osiris2000]

I just got my 7D and to be honest photos are not tack sharp at CR2... I have read many mixed feelings regarding the sharpness of the 7D due to the filter canon have incorporated... On the other hand I have seen some lovely photos of people using the 7D. Does this mean maybe my 7D is at fault?? bad batch maybe?.. I don't really want to move onto a Nikon D700 as I have invested quite a lot in Canon, but amnot really happy with the 7D IQ, even my old 350D takes briliant photos... Is it just me or are there any others who feel the same way?

Thanks to all

J.

[ricktas]

All photos need sharpening out of digital cameras that are taken in RAW. End of story! Every camera and lens will deviate slightly from the average specifications. Forget about pixel peeping, take the photos and sharpen them in PP.

[peterking]

I just got my 7D and to be honest photos are not tack sharp at CR2... I have read many mixed feelings regarding the sharpness of the 7D due to the filter canon have incorporated... On the other hand I have seen some lovely photos of people using the 7D. Does this mean maybe my 7D is at fault?? bad batch maybe?.. I don't really want to move onto a Nikon D700 as I have invested quite a lot in Canon, but amnot really happy with the 7D IQ, even my old 350D takes briliant photos... Is it just me or are there any others who feel the same way?

Thanks to all

J.

It took me some time to convert from the 350D to the 7D with much agro in between. With some pointers from members of this forum I'm now getting better images with the 7D than I ever did with the 350D. The main thing I have done is relearnt how to take photo's. There is such a huge change from the 350 to the 7 that for me the only way was to forget what I did with the 350 and start afresh with the 7.

[Dylan & Marianne]

for landscape images, I've found that there is no issue with sharpness up to iso800 (which I don't tend to exceed anyway).
The only issue is noise which can be noticed even in well exposed images down to iso100 . That said, I've found noiseware pro or lightroom 3 fixes this very easily without affecting the end result after sharpening - most of the images I've been posting in the landscape section have recently been taken with the 7D ( CPL for the FF got smashed!)

[JM Tran]

How many times do you print or use an image at 100%? With 18MP the images are huge and even if you bugger the composition and crop out half the frame you still end up with plenty of pixels to play with.

Pixel peeping only messes with your head.

well the standard for judging sharpness of a sensor or/and lens is usually done by a 100% crop of a given photo. I can take a shot at F2 at 200mm of a person and without zooming into the photo it might look sharp - like the aforementioned photos - but what if myself or a client decides to enlarge the photo to say, 45x30 inch? Uh oh, it aint sharp when enlarged anymore......the onus is on you to know how to judge your photos

its not pixel peeping, its just a standardized way to test a lens or sensor performance at the centre and corner sharpness performance.

[etherial]

for landscape images, I've found that there is no issue with sharpness up to iso800 (which I don't tend to exceed anyway).
The only issue is noise which can be noticed even in well exposed images down to iso100 . That said, I've found noiseware pro or lightroom 3 fixes this very easily without affecting the end result after sharpening - most of the images I've been posting in the landscape section have recently been taken with the 7D ( CPL for the FF got smashed!)

I've enjoyed viewing your work, and also your tutorials. I wonder if you could give us some pointers on NR and sharpening in LR for the 7D? It is still something I haven't got my head around just yet.

[marcusb]

I got the exact same issues funnily enough. A complete amateur coming from a 450d and 50mm 1.4.

Now I've got the 7D and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm thinking, these images aren't sharp, too much noise, my lens has poor AF and AF issues, theres too many bloody in camera settings etc.

I really think this camera exposes a lack of understanding & skills. I find this really challenging with shooting kickboxing and thought I'd nail it now with this better equipment. I ended up with alot of OOF images and no sharpness.

Theres gotta be something about it, something to learn. I've managed to do alot better with landscapes/architecture at f8-f11.

Could it possibly be the lens and camera need to be calibrated. I'm getting extremely paranoid and looking for excuses elsewhere.

[Art Vandelay]

There's a few 7D owners on here, post up some pics with exif data attached and which Af point mode used. See if we can help.

[Clubmanmc]

I got the exact same issues funnily enough. A complete amateur coming from a 450d and 50mm 1.4.

Now I've got the 7D and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I'm thinking, these images aren't sharp, too much noise, my lens has poor AF and AF issues, theres too many bloody in camera settings etc.

I really think this camera exposes a lack of understanding & skills. I find this really challenging with shooting kickboxing and thought I'd nail it now with this better equipment. I ended up with alot of OOF images and no sharpness.

Theres gotta be something about it, something to learn. I've managed to do alot better with landscapes/architecture at f8-f11.

Could it possibly be the lens and camera need to be calibrated. I'm getting extremely paranoid and looking for excuses elsewhere.

shooting kick boxing with a Tamron F2.8 is your problem...

I shoot wrestling in similar situations with similar lighting... and have had lots of luck with either my 16-35 or 24-70 (F2.8) Canons on my 7D and a few older 40's and 30's

what people are misunderstanding, is that with an 18mp image, when you zoom in as far as you can, what looks to be OOF, would be just Square pixels at the zoom levels you have zoomed to

i have a few shots at 100% of cropped static shots of my living room at variable ISO levels testing the noise... and i am VERY happy with it...

M

[Dan Gamble]

There's a follow up to the original article HERE

There's a bit of justification, back-tracking and some newer info and comparisons.

Useful follow-up I thought. A fair bit backs up what Rick and some others have said.