Good comparisons with 1D3, 5D2 and 7D:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ra-Review.aspx
Printable View
Good comparisons with 1D3, 5D2 and 7D:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ra-Review.aspx
I'm glad I didn't buy a lemon. :)) I'm extra glad I did not switch to a D3S even if it had a 1 stop ISO noise advantage.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...omparisons.htm
I am still surprised that Manual Mode + Auto ISO does not have exposure compensation. Someone left it out for the Mark V? I hope not! I hope to see this flaw corrected in the next firmware.
Pao, by definition, when you are in manual mode there is no exposure compensation because you change your exposure by an increase or decrease of SS or changing the aperture. When in Av or Tv you have EC.
An excellent review/comparison by a fine reviewer.
But wont auto iso then over ride what ever you have set manully .Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Gould
i.e if you have set SS and apeture to give a correct exposure at say 400iso for a shot on the ground then take a shot in the sky wont auto reduce the iso oweing to the brite sky .
and by doing that underexspose the bird given you were faceing the same way .
Rob
Why would you ever use Auto ISO and let the camera make the decision for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hardy
I believe most photographers shooting in manual will increase the ISO as the light fades in order to increase sensor sensitivity and allow for an increased SS that could not be accomplished at a lower ISO without decreasing DOF or they are already wide open.
I agree for the most part. The only time I consider implementing auto ISO is when I am using TV mode to freeze a subject in low light conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Gould
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
Pao,
Great comparison/review of the cameras. It was nice to see a review with the images cropped identically. Something that a bird photographer likes to see in comparisons.
As I suspected, the 7D has slightly better resolution than the Mark IV with higher noise. With a few samples I have been able to obtain, the Mark IV and 7D offer similar quality results when noise levels are equalized between both cameras. In other words adding noise reduction to the 7D's images to equal that of the Mark IV, produce resolution that is almost identical. Would you agree?
Alan
Mike, please explain further regarding the use of Auto ISO in Tv mode to freeze a subject in low light conditions. Thanks,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Tracy
Alan -
The juzaphoto review states: "These images are 100% crop from RAW files .. no noise reduction nor sharpening ... Exposure was the same for every camera; the crops have not been resized." If this is true,it is IMPOSSIBLE to get the exact same "crop/display" size and exposure detail/level for the each camera as shown in his sample pictures.
In the digital-picture.com review, the displayed sample images show differences as would be expected at 100%. Their summary was: "Differences in noise between the 1D III, 1D IV and 5D II samples up through ISO 6400 are minor and insignificant to my eyes - all 3 DSLRs produce impressive results. Thus, higher resolution wins at final output. The Canon EOS 1D Mark IV maintains its good results while providing far more resolution than the 1D III without an increase in sensor size. The 5D II has the sensor size advantage over the other two cameras. The 1D IV results are noticeably cleaner (and sharper) than the 7D results even at lower ISO settings."
Adding the same amount of NR to 7D and Mk4 images will not produce identical images. Whether further NR to 7D images can approach the image quality of a Mk4 is another question/debate
PH
No Text
Jay you are right that EC should not exist in Manual Mode but with it should be enabled with Auto ISO. As the reviewer mentioned the proper implementation of AutoISO (found only in the 1D4 & 7D as the 5D2 and 40D had lousy implementations) would make Manual Mode with AutoISO become Aperture AND Shutter Priority with the camera selecting sensor sensitivity for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Gould
EC coupled with the proper metering mode would make my life so much easier.
When you set your body to AutoISO you cannot preselect to ISO 400.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Hardy
AutoISO would change the ISO depending on your metering mode. If you set it to spot meter at the AF point then it should not be such an issue so long as the bird is connected to the active AF point instead of the sky.
Thanks PaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Pao Dolina
yes i understand you carnt preselect in auto i did not explain my question very well but you have told me what i was missing regarding active af point and how the auto iso would work
Thanks
Rob.
Auto ISO in Manual mode is a very useful thing. True it changes the meaning of Manual to something else. The best way to think about it would be something like an Aperture+Shutter Priority. You set the aperture and shutter speed and the camera picks the ISO using its meter. Camera meters can often be wrong (especially on Canon cameras) so having a way to EC the meter's reading is crucial to having this ability.
The current implementation of Auto ISO in M mode gets you 90% there to the ability I've described above. However, without EC, it is in my opinion useless. You simply cannot blindly trust the camera's meter (you don't in Av or Tv do you?).
I would like to know more about this front-focus firmware... Mine just got back from canon an still can't focus....
Peter --
I have been stating numerous times in various threads on this forum that the real way to test cameras from a bird photographer's perspective is to shoot from a set distance and crop the images identically.
Why? Because that's what we do as photographers when photographing birds in the wild. A 1.3x camera requires a heavier crop than a 1.6x camera to create an equally framed subject such as a bird. When doing so, the images taken with a Mark IV and 7D are nearly identical. The 7D has slightly more noise but greater detail than the Mark IV. By decreasing the noise on the 7D image, the resolution suffers slightly and the end result are images that look nearly identical at 100% zoom AKA "pixel peeping". It is very, very hard to tell the images apart.
Before you disagree, please remember this is only when shooting in a focal-length limited scenario in which you can't physically walk closer to the bird to frame the bird identically. If I could walk up to the subject and frame them identically, the Mark IV would win hands-down. But, I rarely shoot birds in that scenario unless they are tame birds. At least for how I photograph birds, Juzaphoto's comparison makes perfect sense.
Alan
Alan -
There are 3 scenario's when comparing cameras:
1) Position all the cameras at a set distance - - at a 100% crop, this will result in different image sizes due to (1.3x vs 1.6x), size of sensor, ... (as shown in The-Digital-Picture.com review)
2)Position the cameras at different distances to correct for differences in (1) and thereby create images of equal size without any postprocessing cropping/resizing (I agree - not always possible with birds)
3)Use the setup in (1) and then employ postprocessing/cropping in PS to create images of equal size/magnification. (which is what you've suggested)
Noise is related to sensor size, distribution, ... which is a pixel by pixel trait. To some, such differences are important. Once you use postprocessing/cropping to create "identically sized" images you are introducing new variables - what interpolation algorithms were used, did they impact noise, how was exposure corrected, was sharpening applied, ... You have limited control over what PS will or will not do in this process. If your only interest is the final image, these issues/differences may not matter.
My concerm with the Juzaphoto review is that the setup/description doesn't fully explain the sample photos. To produce images of "near" equal size/crop and exposure levels - some postprocessing had to be applied (which was never fully explained), were different lenses used, or was the distance so great as to negate the 1.3 x1.6 difference in cameras(Mk4 vs 7D) - hence how do you know what the images really show?
What you're really asking is : with today's postprocessing , at what distance and under what lighting conditions do the inherent noise differences between a Mk4 and D7 become insignificant producing nearly identical images for equally framed subjects when outputed to the web, small prints, large prints, ....? I'd be curious to see any images you have answering this question.
PH
Peter,
I hear what you are saying and maybe my post-processing criteria is different than yours or the majority of users?
Typically for publication purposes, I crop a photograph (usually a bird) at 300ppi because that is what the publisher wants.
At 300 ppi, I don't think there was much of any interpolation occurring with either camera and I found that when cropped identically at various ISO's the results were strikingly similar.
I also tried higher ppi settings and the results were similar.
The 7D's 1.6x sensor requires less post-cropping when compared to the Mark IV's 1.3x sensor which brings these two camera's very close in image quality.
Again, this comparison is only valid from a fixed-distance and maybe I am doing things differently than most in post-processing. I am curious however as to how others post-process their images.
Alan
I liked the Digital picture review. It matched my own findings in the field. Infact, two days back, I noticed that several times I accidentally hit the AF-on button on the vertical grip. For people who don't only use the shutter button for AF, this won't be an problem. Ofcourse, one can be careful or turn off the vertical orientation. When I am shifting to the vertical mode fast, I turn the camera clockwise and then use the horizontal shutter button. That way, I can still work in vertical with the vertical orientation switched off.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Regarding Auto ISO in Manual Mode.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Chas/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style>With the proper exposure having been set in-camera for a given quantity of light... Auto ISO will increase or decrease as the level of illumination falling on scene within the meter pattern changes. If the Quality of the light additionally changes ( such as going from overcast to sunny) Auto ISO will not produce the desired result. And, it will be necessary to alter the exposure value. EC in Manual is not necessary, simply change the aperture or shutter-speed to alter the exposure.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 9"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Chas/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> Auto ISO is a useful in-camera tool for the working PJ's whose primary job requirement is that he/she concentrates on getting the definitive shot over technical perfection.
Best,
Chas
