Mini-review of the 7D is now up

[Romy Ocon]

Dear folks,

My user-review of a production 7D is now up in my PBase site. Thanks to Canon Philippines, especially to JayR Romero and Toni Cuesta, for the loan of the camera.

www.pbase.com/liquidstone/prod7d

Romy

[Bobby Kintanar]

That's as fair, well-balanced, and practical as reviews can get Ka Mastah. Some will, no doubt, give more weight to the AF abilities of the 7D, while others may consider the noise characteristics as more important, so the review really puts things in real-world perspective and leaves the decision to buy/upgrade to the user. 2 Thumbs up !!!

[Ed Matuod]

I notice this too, "Also, there seems to be some instances when the 720/60p HD video has aliasing on the feathers, and moire on the fine feather patterns, when using very sharp lenses."



Thanks for your unbiased and fair review. Appreciated well.

[Romy Ocon]

Thanks, Bobby and Ed.

Ed, can't see your video yet because my connection is currently crawling (will take a look at it when my connection speed improves). Here's a screen grab from a 720/60p footage - 7D + Sigmonster + 2x TC, f/18, 1/125 sec, ISO 500. It's unretouched except cropping to 1050x700 from 1280x720 to reduce file size.

Note the aliasing on the wingtips at the left bird and the moire-like artifacts on the necks of both birds. It's actually more noticeable when the video is rolling. This is with a 2x TC on the Sigmonster, and when a bare (hence, sharper) lens is used, the issue gets even worse.

[Bobby Kintanar]

Ka Mastah, for the life of me, I can't see anything wrong with this photo at all in terms of moire or anti-aliasing! My goodness, you may be color-challenged, but you sure have some extra-sensory kind of thing going. Maybe that's why your images are ALWAYS stunning. :-)

I do agree they are a bit soft. :-)

[Romy Ocon]

Nov 4, 2009 13:40:39 GMT Bobby Kintanar said:

Ka Mastah, for the life of me, I can't see anything wrong with this photo at all in terms of moire or anti-aliasing! My goodness, you may be color-challenged, but you sure have some extra-sensory kind of thing going. Maybe that's why your images are ALWAYS stunning. :-)

I do agree they are a bit soft. :-)

Lol.... it's easy for me to see it because it's very apparent when the images are moving. The edge of the primaries of the bird at the left should be straight, but in the video grab there's aliasing/stair-stepping. The fine feathers in the neck area of both birds have vertical patterns (with some horizontal too if viewing the video). ;D

This could be caused by the undersampling approach of image size reduction from 18 MP to 2 MP - meaning only every 3rd or nth row/column of the sensor pixels is read and recorded to speed up data throughput. The ideal method for optimum IQ is to read the whole output of the sensor and resize via software, on the fly. Such might need massive computing power in-camera, and might not be possible yet. Also, the full res RAW data at 30-60 fps readout speed can't possibly fit yet into currently available data pipelines.

Aliasing/moire is an inherent pitfall of undersampling, and it gets worse in 720p (because more row/columns of pixels will be skipped) compared to 1080p.

[Edu Lorenzo Jr]

ah.. after those threads of a color-quiz and that other thread with testing the eyes.. this one made me more confident as I can see the aliasing on the wingtips and the shoulders of the doves. At first I thought they were optical illusions.

[Romy Ocon]

Nov 4, 2009 5:32:03 GMT Ed Matuod said:

I notice this too, "Also, there seems to be some instances when the 720/60p HD video has aliasing on the feathers, and moire on the fine feather patterns, when using very sharp lenses."

Thanks for your unbiased and fair review. Appreciated well.

I've seen it on the wing feathers of the nearer bird, Ed. It makes the footage practically unuseable, as the artifacts are tough to rectify in post process. Some filmers use TCs or even slight defocusing as anti-aliasing tools.... the extreme sharpness of the lens used increases the chances of these artifacts occuring. This is one extraordinary instance when a shooter can complain that his lens is too sharp. ;D

[Bobby Kintanar]

Okay, Bobby K. is squinting now, looking closely at the photo for nth time ... aha! I see it, yes, yes, ah, hmmm, no, no, it's just part of the feather, hmmmm, squinting some more , getting real close to the monitor now... hmmmm, Edu sees it, why can't I? Hmmm, is that it? The lines .... hmmmm.

I give up.

[tina mallari]

I do see the lines on the wing tips and the neck... heck even the feet have lines in them

[Edu Lorenzo Jr]

If allowed..

[Bobby Kintanar]

Edu, those are the places I've looked at a hundred times - they look like part of the bird to me, and are completely acceptable for my taste. I noticed the blur on the necks first, then the wing tip, but in all honsty, I don't mind them at all. :-)


EDIT: I used the magnify function on my keyboard, and yes, they are there alright! Jaggies is the common term for those artifacts, I think. On normal views, they can't be seen, but if you view them really large, you can spot them - if you're looking, I guess. :-)

[Romy Ocon]

Nov 5, 2009 11:36:05 GMT Bobby Kintanar said:

Edu, those are the places I've looked at a hundred times - they look like part of the bird to me, and are completely acceptable for my taste. I noticed the blur on the necks first, then the wing tip, but in all honsty, I don't mind them at all. :-)


EDIT: I used the magnify function on my keyboard, and yes, they are there alright! Jaggies is the common term for those artifacts, I think. On normal views, they can't be seen, but if you view them really large, you can spot them - if you're looking, I guess. :-)

Hi Bobby,

The artifacts are hardly discernable indeed in still grabs. But when you view the video footage, these become very prominent, such that they make the clip unuseable. In the footage that Ed posted, it is already noticeable at that small size. If you view in HD, the artifacts become disastrous.

I wonder if the tendecy of aliasing/moire is the reason why 720p was not included in the 5D2 at the onset. But then, 720p is included in the pro-level 1D4, so Canon must've found a way to tame it. Let's keep our fingers crossed that such is the case, and hence the 7D's 720/60p still has hope.

[Ely Teehankee]

I did not see anything wrong with the video. Perhaps I do not understand the terms allasing and moire artifacts. But I do appreciate your honest opinion about the performance of the 7D.
The noise would definitely not be acceptable. You have just prevented me from making a costly mistake. Thank you very much for your review. Mabuhay.

[Bobby Kintanar]

Ely, to be fair to the 7D, the noise is well-controlled at the higher ISO's (above 800) and in the lower ISO's the photos can stand a single pass of Noise Ninja and still keep the details. I find that the photos are very workable if you just include a fair amount of de-noising the JPEG file in your workflow. As I see it, Ka Romy is just concerned because these noises should not be there in the first place.

My main concern with the 7D is its ability to focus on BIF's with busy backgrounds, and since Ka Mastah and Neon tried out a production 7D with a working AF under these conditions, only one more thing remains: Canon's Quality Control: Can we test the unit before buying it?

Once we are sure the unit we are purchasing is good for our use, I see no reason not to upgrade from a 40D, for sure, if one has the cash to burn. With a 50D, it's your decision and personally, I won't. :-)

Here's a shot I cleaned up (ISO 400) from the 7D which I still find very acceptable: De-noised with Noise Ninja Automatic Profile:



With SMH Levels adjusted: