# Canon 7D for studio work



## nicku (Feb 1, 2012)

Hi,

I want to upgrade my almost 4 years old Canon 40D; my choice is the 7D; i mention that i will use it only with high quality L lenses, 40% for people studio work (portraits postures, isolated on white) 30% for objects, food, desserts (in studio, over various backgrounds) and 30% for cases where the 1.6 crop factor and 8 frames/sec is a huge advantage. I am not interested in high ISO capability of the camera above ISO 400.

My questions are:

- how is performing the 7D sensor in studio shooting people over white background?Huh ( i am interesting mostly in image noise levels at iso 100-200 , the ability to produce sharp images and the ''problems'' with the hair over white background)

- the lvl of details and overall IQ produced by 7D in studio is above average considering today stock standards ( SS standards in special)?

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience,

Nick.


----------



## Wrathwilde (Feb 1, 2012)

I currently have the 7D, I'm going to be giving it up for the 1D X or the 5DIII. Image quality really isn't as good as I had hoped, and the 1.6x magnification makes it harder to work in smaller studio spaces. My advice would be to buy a second hand 5DII instead of a new 7D. But if you think the 1.6x is a must have, or you're going to be shooting sports where you need better autofocus than the 5DII can deliver... by all means get the 7D.

I bought the 7D off my brother for a grand because he needed the money, otherwise I would have sprung for the 5DII. Helping family was more important than getting the camera I wanted.


----------



## nicku (Feb 1, 2012)

I am not interested in a comparison between 7D and 5D IQ. I know that 5D is much better in noise lvl and image quality.* I am interested if the 7D is up to the task* (70% studio work at above average IQ according to today Studio photography standards.). I have friends with 5Dmk2, 40D various Nikon models but not one with 7D ( to do a compare with my 40D).


----------



## vbi (Feb 1, 2012)

While the 7D is a significant upgrade from the 40D in terms of resolution (sheer number of pixels) I have found it to fall a long way short of the IQ of the 5D Mk2 in a studio environment. However, I question if it is a significant upgrade over the 40D unless you want very large prints.

The extra reach, the superior AF system, and the speed of the 7D is suited to outdoor applications...sport, birding, wildlife. The IQ, even at 100 ISO, simply isn't as good as the 5D. 

In the studio the 5D is king. The IQ is astounding, the 9 focus points not a problem (although I personally only trust the centre point so I focus and re-compose which gives me a 98% in focus rate), and the superb low light ability allows you to do a lot more natural light work.

Lastly, I have both, as well as a 40D which I still use regularly. It's a case of using the right tool for the job.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 1, 2012)

I used my 40D/17-55mm EF-s for product photography, since much of mine ends up on the web, it was more than adequate. Now, I use my 7D for the same thing, its even more of a overkill. I've used my 5D MK II, but I do not have a lens with the right focal range for the closeup images, and my 15-85mm zoom has just the right focal range for the 7D. I can get close and show small details or zoom out for a fairly large object all without moving or resetting up the camera. I have a fixed mount bolted to my light table, so moving the camera is a chore.


----------



## leGreve (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't think they ever intended to sell the 7D as a pro cam... and it isn't a pro cam. Yes, it's used by some pros due to it's abilities for some things like 50fps and number of consecutive frames pr. sec.
I would stay clear of it... especially now when the mk III is about to hit the market.

The mk II is an awesome camera (still not pro but...) and it performs excellently with L glass in front. I will probably drop in price rapidly by now, so I would go that route instead.

I have added a photo I did for a local warehouse. Shot with the mk II and the 70-200 2.8L II IS USM. 2400w Broncolor generators and a 4 x 3 meter white paper background.
I had to scale it down to fit the size limit, but you can get the feeling of sharpness of rendition. It's lovely!


----------



## xROELOFx (Feb 1, 2012)

the 7d is an okay camera, but it's not intended for studio work! i guess you can use the 7d for it, just like you can use a 5d to shoot action sports. but that's not what those camera's are designed for.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 1, 2012)

If money shouldn't be a problem you might want to have a look at the 1D4 (probably 2nd hand) since it does outperform the 7D in both studio and outdoor action performance by far.


----------



## darkmatter2k12 (Feb 1, 2012)

I use 7d for most of my work including studio. It is excellent camera when pared with excellent glass. And well suitable for portraits, fashion, etc. I did not bought 5d mark 2 because of poor auto focus. Even in studio it matter how good is your focus. Especially if you prefer framing at borders of frame (i mean out of center), where 5d mark 2 has most unreliable focus points. To be honest 5d mark 2 files have more quality than 7d mark 2. Mostly in terms of color accuracy. So you decide.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 1, 2012)

Honestly, I think the 7D would do just fine for studio work. I'm not sure how much you process your images but the 7D doesn't produce the cleanest images at ISO 100-400. This is something I've noticed in my own work. High ISO stuff is ok but it's really the low ISO images that can be annoying. Something to be aware of, but that being said I still think the 7D would work fine.


----------



## nicku (Feb 1, 2012)

I am aware that the 5Dmk2 IQ is better than 7D, i am only interested if the 7D is up to the job. I mean above average IQ , sharpness and base ISO noise levels, considering today studio quality demands; or the end result is less than acceptable. 

regarding of lenses i use 17-40 f/4 L ; 50mm f/1.4 ; 100mm f/2.8 IS L .


----------



## xROELOFx (Feb 1, 2012)

nicku said:


> I am aware that the 5Dmk2 IQ is better than 7D, i am only interested if the 7D is up to the job. I mean above average IQ , sharpness and base ISO noise levels, considering today studio quality demands; or the end result is less than acceptable.
> 
> regarding of lenses i use 17-40 f/4 L ; 50mm f/1.4 ; 100mm f/2.8 IS L .


well, i think your question is answered then: yes it is able to do the job


----------



## adamkozlowski (Feb 1, 2012)

I would never buy or recommend the 7D to anyone, because i think that 18MP on a crop sensor is a joke - it requires very good lenses and only shooting at sweet spot to actually have sharp photos. But that's depending on your expectations of course. I actually bought a 7D alongside a 5D2 and 1Ds2 and it was just unbelievably bad for the kind of work i do (available light photojournalism mostly).

But for studio work you close down good lenses anyway, but still, i wouldn't recommend it ever since Canon released the 60D. You'd be hard pressed to find any difference in sensor output, but the twist/swivel screen is absolutely perfect for studio work. Why overpay?

Plus my 7D had awful AF problems with all lenses brighter than 2.8 - totally erratic, unable to fix with AF microadjustment. The ironic thing is that the ONLY lens that worked perfectly with my 7D was a Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC. Also a borrowed 70-200/2.8L IS was OK. However the 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 24/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2 were just all over the place. But i'm shooting wide open all the time - it's just the work i do.

The only good thing about the 7D compared to 5D2 for studio work is the lack of shadow banding in low-iso high-dynamic-range shots. 5D2 is awful when it comes to shooting very contrasty scenes like sunsets with trees or highly reflective objects in studio with strobes. Then if you get the RAW into LR or PS and try to bump the shadows a little you get awful mesh-like structure/banding in the shadows. The 7D is free of that as far as i could see.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 1, 2012)

I think the 7d's low iso IQ performance is not above average. The 7d has a vastly superior AF system, good for sports. Other than that, you might as well be using a 60d or 600d for studio work. Same IQ. As many have suggested, a 5d would do much, much, much better.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

Speaking from one professional to another who has used the 7d professionally in studio environments, it is very up for the job. Noise, well, eh, it's good overall, especially at low ISO... Just dont underexpose routinely and shoot to it's strength. If you're doing your work to be outputted to print, whether it be for magazines, newsprint, banners or billboard, it should be clean enough where the noise, if any, will not print or if any of it does, it will show as detail. If your outputting to web, odds are you will be downressing the files at some point and noise wont be an issue. If you plan on keeping it at 100%, display on screens and computer with no intentions of outputting the files, then you may be less than thrilled. I wont lie and say there is no noise, but when you output the files to print and or web, it really isn't a problem.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 1, 2012)

Apparently, someone forgot to tell Canon that the 7D isn't suitable for studio work.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/7d-studio-version-official/

For the work you describe and for the needs you have, the 7D is fine. If you are using a 40D and it works for you, you will only gain, not lose, with the 7D.


----------



## Mindfields (Feb 1, 2012)

As someone who has used a 7D in the studio often, it works great. It's sharp with all of my "L" lenses and at low iso's is perfectly acceptable, and not bad through 1600. But honestly I really only shoot at 100 iso in a studio setting. There are plenty of folks that claim to have had or heard of a " rotten" 7D. Personally I know quite a few photographers that are using them in the studio and love them. One caveat is the 1.6 crop. In a small studio with a long lens you will have some issues depending on your intended crop. 

Good luck on your decision.


----------



## jayvo86 (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm not going to tell you what to get; I'm just going to share my experiences.

I shot with a 60D for about a year. It was a nice general purpose camera that didn't excel in anyone area. (Same sensor as 7D.)

However, when I started shooting stock...it didn't cut it. Having said that, It was ok with highlights and detail...it was just the shadows can get a little bit noisy.

I opted to buy and older 5D "classic," which solved all of my noise problems. 

Some of my photos have a little bit more processing that others; the noise really seemed to creep up with the 60D. However, I can work and image pretty hard before I run into problems with the 5D.

Maybe it would be wise to look at a used 1DmkIII if you need a fast action camera and look into FF for the studio.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Apparently, someone forgot to tell Canon that the 7D isn't suitable for studio work.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/7d-studio-version-official/



+1 - would have posted this but you got there first. 

Agree that if you have control over the lighting and can ensure there's enough of it, the 7D does a great job.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks for pointing that out unfocused =) Basically everyone has different opinions and expectations. If you're shooting portraits, odds are you printing, odds are it will excell in file output. If you're shooting for clients, such as food (restaurants-website and print on menu), products (some catalog and or ecommerce web), etc.... the camera will appease 99% of your clients... Heck, most clients usually do not have a trained enough eye to look for noise let alone know what noise is. If you are unsure how this camera will meet YOUR expectations, see if you can borrow it, rent it, shoot a few frames at a camera store..... Try it out before you buy if in doubt as only you know what your line is in the sand and if this will be sufficient or not. But, as a prior person posted, if you're happy with the 40D files, the 7D will only impress you, not detract you. If you're not happy with the 40D files... look at the 5d2


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 1, 2012)

An honest question... Can somebody explain to me how the 60D will differ from the 7D in the studio? I thought the major differences were in terms of AF, weather sealing and shooting speed. If one were doing studio work, wouldn't they in practice be identical?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> An honest question... Can somebody explain to me how the 60D will differ from the 7D in the studio? I thought the major differences were in terms of AF, weather sealing and shooting speed. If one were doing studio work, wouldn't they in practice be identical?



In practice, the 60D might actually be better, or at least, more convenient to use, thanks to the articulating screen.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> An honest question... Can somebody explain to me how the 60D will differ from the 7D in the studio? I thought the major differences were in terms of AF, weather sealing and shooting speed. If one were doing studio work, wouldn't they in practice be identical?



In practice, as far as image quality is concerned, they should be near identical... Just keep in mind his experience and expectations of files may or may not differ than yours or anyone elses where he may not have been pleased but you could find it near perfect so take everyones opinion, including mine, with a grain of salt. =)


----------



## ablearcher (Feb 1, 2012)

For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.

The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

ablearcher said:


> For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.
> 
> The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.



Couldn't have said it better myself +1


----------



## Tijn (Feb 1, 2012)

ablearcher said:


> For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.
> 
> The easiest way to get an answer to your own question is to search for print samples/the web for studio work done with 7D. If that looks fine to you - get yourself a 7D. If not - upgrade to FF. As simple as that.



Though then, a 60D will do the same job just as well for less money.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

Tijn said:


> ablearcher said:
> 
> 
> > For 100-200 ISO combined with studio lights and good glass, a 7D will do just fine, IMO. People can argue that FF cams can do better, but hey, there are even more expensive systems out there which will do even better than 5D in studio environment. Any discussion of this nature will result in forum folks split into two camps - those who are satisfied with 7D and those who don't. Same result if you try to ask if 5DMKII is OK for studio or you need a Hassy. So this is kinda pointless. Nobody knows for sure what kind of results YOU need.
> ...



Assuming you aren't needing the AF, assuming you dont need the additional features of the flash commander (groupings)... assuming you want to shoot CF UMDA cards... assuming you dont want the body/sealing in case you need to take the body out of studio and on location, 100% VF, FPS ... etc...


----------



## nicku (Feb 1, 2012)

I have searched the web regarding the topic subject and like here i found different opinions, i found also loads crap images shoot with 7d (at 18MP) and very good photos ( unfortunately not at 18MP resolution more at 4-6MP).

if somebody is willing to post some links where we can see studio shots made with 7D at full resolution and post the post processing information .... that would be ideal.

eventually i believe i will rent one and test it in detail. but i want to make a concrete idea before spending 60 euros to rent a camera.

Thanks for the replays, 

Nik.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 1, 2012)

I cannot comment on "studio use" becuase I don't use a studio. But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.) I love my 7D for the feel, the AF, and the FPS, and high ISO images, but if I accidentally wandered into a studio I would prefer to have my 40D.

For reference I shoot primarily with a 70-200L 2.8 IS mark I and the 24-105L 4.0.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Assuming you aren't needing the AF, assuming you dont need the additional features of the flash commander (groupings)... assuming you want to shoot CF UMDA cards... assuming you dont want the body/sealing in case you need to take the body out of studio and on location, 100% VF, FPS ... etc...


There are some differences of course, and indeed some might be of value for studio shooting. Though for the things he's asking about (IQ), I think there is very little difference. I can see the 100% VF being valuable. But both the 60D and the 7D can be used as a flash commander, and both bodies are weather sealed. For the rest, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. 60D is lighter weight, 60D has flip-out screen, 7D has titanium alloy, 7D has (much) better AF and higher FPs.

But since we were talking studio shooting and IQ, I didn't think those had any priority.


----------



## PaperTiger (Feb 1, 2012)

The 7D would be fine in the studio, but aside from the resolution bump from the 40D and microadjust AF, not a whole lot that will benefit you in a studio setting. I'm not a big fan of the camera above 320 ISO, but you shouldn't have to worry about that with a well lit shot. 

Where the 7D really shines is as an on location camera. Great weatherproofing/durability (I have a lot of experience beating that camera up. I think there's some mud on it right now), great AF, a little extra reach with the crop sensor, and so-so noise/IQ.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)



I've run acorss this sort of statement several times. I think there's a technical issue at the root of this - the 7D has a higher-resolution sensor and a stronger AA filter to go with it, and thus the resulting images require a bit more sharpening in post. 

But I also think that technical issue is not the source of most of these types of comments, rather, it depends on how you're viewing the images. The 7D is 18 MP, the 40D only 10 MP. If you view a shot of the same subject/same lens with both cameras at 100% on your screen, the 40D will appear sharper...but the subject the subject will be much smaller. If you downsample the 7D image to the 10 MP equivalent of the 40D file (or upsample the 40D image to 18 MP), the 7D should give the sharper result.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)
> ...



My "test" is quite simple: with the 40D I can make out the hairs on the arm and the time on the wristwatches of cyclists taken at 70mm from the other side of the street. With the 7D the hairs look more like fuzz, and the watch is often unreadable. If I were at home I'd post zoomed in examples, but alas no can do from work. This is a sample of the shots that I'm talking about:


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required... Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness? Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras... As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 1, 2012)

I sold both my 7Ds because I did not like the IQ - was, to my eyes a worse IQ when printed to a max of A3 (16x10) than my 40D.

I went out shooting today and took the old 40D with the not so good glass, EF-S 55-250. However the results I think were pretty impressive and I would be happy with that - constrast and IQ are very good. I do minimal pp, crop to size, levels and simple sharpening.

Not as good as the 5DII, and definitely not as good as the 1Ds3 - but I think at least as good as the 7D

40d, [email protected], iso100, 1/320, f/5


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 1, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required... Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness? Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras... As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.



Shutter speeds on these shots are typically in the 1/800+ range, so I don't think that's the issue.

To be honest I have not spent much time with the MA on the 7D, but if that were the issue there would be SOME shots that have that clarity, but I have not seen them. For this given race series I shoot about 500 of these shots per race, so I've got a pretty good sample size.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Just to play devils advocate, but it has been said that with the 7d, because of it's increased magnification, compared to 30D,40D models, require faster shutter speeds above the 1/focal length speeds prior models would have required... Are you 100% positive it's not camera shake/slightly too slow of shutter and or lens MA being spot on vs camera sharpness? Just ruling that out... By all means the camera has it's benefits and downsides, but to be fair, and perhaps my sharpening in camera and in post may be different/higher than others, but this camera has been one of the sharpest cameras i've owned and that goes all the way back to the 10D and MF and LF cameras... As i said before, I cannot speak for everyone, but for the OP, rent the camera and come up with your own conclusions because no one can answer it for you.
> ...



That's interesting to hear... anyways i'm not trying to say i'm right your wrong, i'm just making conversation... I guess from my POV and cameras I've shot with, the 7d, to my expectations, have far succeeded my other camera's photos, although I will admit I never owned the 40D, i went from the 10D to 30D to 50D and 7D to 5d2... My other cameras, to their credit, at the times I shot with them, I always loved them, but looking back in hindsight at files from those cameras to my current 7d/5d set up, I like the details more with my current gear, but it could be just me. I wont lie, if it wasn't for the IQ of the 5d2, I wouldn't be shooting it and i'm biting at the bit for the 5d3 so I can unload my 5d2... As a camera as a whole, IQ included, I love my 7d albeit i wish it had the sensor of the 5d2 shoved in it... Until then I'll keep plugging away running my business.


----------



## justsomedude (Feb 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.)
> ...



I think this is why we may actually see a 7D - or some other crossover body - as the "high end dSLR" in February before a 5D. The 7D has gotten panned across the board for IQ and AF issues. There are still people who stick by the "you're-just-too-stupid-to-understand-the-powerful-7D" mantra, but dozens of reviews and tests show that "fuzziness" and lack of clarity in resultant images is a repeatable and very real issue on the 7D.

Furthermore, the fact that Canon continues to service my 7D for images quality issues, totally free of charge and well outside of my warranty window, says a heck of a lot about what they must know internally regarding the problems with this body.

Let's keep in mind, the 7D was really a first for this type of body from Canon. Some bumps along the way were to be expected, and as first adopters many of us had to accept the issues that often come with a brand new model. I expect a 7D mkII to be vastly improved... I'm sure Canon expects the same.


----------



## Taemobig (Feb 1, 2012)

My friend who shoots for GQ and FHM and other magazines uses a 7D and a 24-70mm. I used a 40D last year and got some work published in 944 magazine as well. But, like some of the previous posters have said, lighting is more important for studio work than the camera. 

I can post some studio work I've done later and you can judge for yourself if you think the 7D is good enough.


----------



## Mindfields (Feb 1, 2012)

Well, I must have one of the "good" 7d's. I'm just not seeing the problems that many seem to have with this body. 8)


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 1, 2012)

Taemobig said:


> My friend who shoots for GQ and FHM and other magazines uses a 7D and a 24-70mm. I used a 40D last year and got some work published in 944 magazine as well. But, like some of the previous posters have said, lighting is more important for studio work than the camera.
> 
> I can post some studio work I've done later and you can judge for yourself if you think the 7D is good enough.



I understood the OP to be asking about upgrading from the 40D to the 7D, which is different than "is the 7D good enough." I knew the issues with the 7D IQ before I bought it and for my non-studio uses it was still a worthwhile purchase, aka "good enough". But IMHO a 40D to 7D "upgrade" for the studio is probably not a good investment unless there are other non IQ features that are needed.


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 1, 2012)

One thing that is often forgotten about higher resolution sensors, they are less forgiving. Not only do they magnify the detail, but they also magnify any imperfections, be it slight motion blur or lens quality. There are a number of higher grade lenses which outresolve the 40D sensor, but the 7D is able to outresolve those same lenses. I owned the 40D before the 7D, and there isn't really any comparison. Yes, the images appear softer in 7D RAW images, because as Neuro said, you're looking at a magnified view. 7D RAW images can accept high levels of sharpening in Adobe Camere RAW, often up to to 75 or more (I've even pushed it to 90 just to see what it looks like), if you shapren that much with the 40D, you are likely to hit problems. As a standard, I set the sharpening on the 7D at 40, instead of the default ACR of 25 and most files then look fine, although, even the slightest motion blur is visible. With a static subject on a tripod, the 7D is far superior to the 40D in my experience. Granted it doesn't match the 5D MkII in the same circumstances though. the other failing with the 7D is the increased diffraction limited aperture problem. You start to see softening from the effects of diffraction quite a bit earlier than you would with the 40D and it is easily visible to me by f/11 and by f/16 it is irritating (a bit like f/22 was on the 40D). This was my main reason for getting the 5D MkII, saving the 7D for fast moving wildlife or when I needed the reach. I tend to use the 5D MkII for macro too, both for use of narrow apertures and because of the better IQ. For studio work though, from my limited experience, you're often around f/8 anyway, which shouldn't be a problem.
I have only done one studio shoot, but unfortunately, I just double-checked and I used the 5D MkII, so I can't help with links. You're welcome to look on my website or Flickr account at any wildlife shots for examples of what the 7D can do in that setting. They're relatively low resolution on Flickr and you can't see the full size on my website, but I should be able to set something up if you really want to look. I send most of the images I feel are good enough for my website to stock sites and they've never had a problem with image quality (well, except for one 40D image that was described as soft or lacking definition, but it was a mist shot, so it was supposed to be ).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 1, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> One thing that is often forgotten about higher resolution sensors, they are less forgiving. Not only do they magnify the detail, but they also magnify any imperfections, be it slight motion blur or lens quality. There are a number of higher grade lenses which outresolve the 40D sensor, but the 7D is able to outresolve those same lenses. I owned the 40D before the 7D, and there isn't really any comparison. Yes, the images appear softer in 7D RAW images, because as Neuro said, you're looking at a magnified view. 7D RAW images can accept high levels of sharpening in Adobe Camere RAW, often up to to 75 or more (I've even pushed it to 90 just to see what it looks like), if you shapren that much with the 40D, you are likely to hit problems. As a standard, I set the sharpening on the 7D at 40, instead of the default ACR of 25 and most files then look fine, although, even the slightest motion blur is visible. With a static subject on a tripod, the 7D is far superior to the 40D in my experience. Granted it doesn't match the 5D MkII in the same circumstances though. the other failing with the 7D is the increased diffraction limited aperture problem. You start to see softening from the effects of diffraction quite a bit earlier than you would with the 40D and it is easily visible to me by f/11 and by f/16 it is irritating (a bit like f/22 was on the 40D). This was my main reason for getting the 5D MkII, saving the 7D for fast moving wildlife or when I needed the reach. I tend to use the 5D MkII for macro too, both for use of narrow apertures and because of the better IQ. For studio work though, from my limited experience, you're often around f/8 anyway, which shouldn't be a problem.
> I have only done one studio shoot, but unfortunately, I just double-checked and I used the 5D MkII, so I can't help with links. You're welcome to look on my website or Flickr account at any wildlife shots for examples of what the 7D can do in that setting. They're relatively low resolution on Flickr and you can't see the full size on my website, but I should be able to set something up if you really want to look. I send most of the images I feel are good enough for my website to stock sites and they've never had a problem with image quality (well, except for one 40D image that was described as soft or lacking definition, but it was a mist shot, so it was supposed to be ).
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/



This is my experience with this camera. I know different people are going to look at cameras with their own needs and perspectives and wants... I remember when the 10D just came out... I was crushed for being a minor upgrade to the D60. Same when i was researching the 30D before I bought that... forums ripped apart that camera... Bottom line there is no one camera that will appease everyone... people are going to love the camera, others are going to hate it... It doesn't make it a good or bad camera, just a tool that will help a nice chunk of Canon's Photographers.


----------



## gmrza (Feb 2, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> This is my experience with this camera. I know different people are going to look at cameras with their own needs and perspectives and wants... I remember when the 10D just came out... I was crushed for being a minor upgrade to the D60. Same when i was researching the 30D before I bought that... forums ripped apart that camera... Bottom line there is no one camera that will appease everyone... people are going to love the camera, others are going to hate it... It doesn't make it a good or bad camera, just a tool that will help a nice chunk of Canon's Photographers.



What wasn't clear in the original post was the target market, and intended media in which the images would be displayed. While I would agree that the 5DII is way superior for studio work, the 7D can be used for studio work, provided you are not pushing it past its limitations.
In terms of prices, we are also at a point where the 5DII is not terribly much more expensive than the 7D now. That was not the case a couple years ago. Given that you are mainly concerned with studio work, which will mainly be shot at ISO100, you stand to benefit less from a potential 5DIII, which will probably mainly bring improvements in low light / high ISO and hopefully auto-focus - neither of which will impact your images a lot.

If your business will not be impacted by the fact that you are not using the latest body - i.e. you don't have clients who are gear-heads - now may be a very good time to buy while the 5DII is cheap(ish).


----------



## mitchell3417 (Feb 2, 2012)

I love my 7d and have never had a client complain about IQ. That being said I've shot a lot of children, sometimes in low light, and the autofocus has been awesome. It's hard to keep a 2 year-old in focus long enough to focus then reframe your shot. With the 7d I never have to worry about that.


----------



## vbi (Feb 2, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> I cannot comment on "studio use" becuase I don't use a studio. But I do have both a 7D and a 40D, and IMHO (and yes I get flamed for this, but I'm not alone in my opinion) the 40D has superior IQ (specifically sharpness.) I love my 7D for the feel, the AF, and the FPS, and high ISO images, but if I accidentally wandered into a studio I would prefer to have my 40D.



I have to agree. The 40D produces a far cleaner image which appears sharper to me. The 7D seems a little "fuzzy" in comparison. So I also have mixed feelings about the 7D...the AF, the speed, the solidity is impressive, but the IQ is a little disappointing.


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 2, 2012)

*7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...*

Not too much of a tangent...

But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 2, 2012)

*Re: 7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...*



danski0224 said:


> Not too much of a tangent...
> 
> But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?


It isn't something I've noticed, but I also haven't done any tests, I just use what I need to use to get the shot. Really that is what matters, rather than any technical testing that has been done in artificial conditions. The similar comments for other cameras at the full stop ISO setting don't seem to match what I've seen on other cameras either. One thing I do find with the 7D, it tends to underexpose by about 2/3rds stop compared to the 5D MkII, so ISO 1600 on the 7D matches ISO 1000 on the 5D MkII.


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 2, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> Not too much of a tangent...
> 
> But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?



No it is not. It was explained somewhere very deeply (I can search for source if you wish). 80, 160, 320 etc. are not base ISO settings but artificially created. You could achieve same result in postprocessing. Setting these parameters you risk higher noise/narrower tonal range. It might have sense if shooting video for more accurate expo setting, which could allow to avoid more postproduction, which in case of video could bring more picture degradation than in case of still raw shooting.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 2, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > Not too much of a tangent...
> ...



I think the 80, 160, etc argument is more theory vs practice... in theory the camera shoots at the higher ISO in those situations such as 100, 200 in this example than in camera under expose it 1/3 stop hence shooting to the left and then recovering the shadows... In theory and to those who want to view it as an improvement can and will see it as such, but in practice, for me, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but then again i haven't done any scientific measurements to support or disprove this theory... perhaps neuro will set us all straight


----------



## szmigielDESIGN (Feb 2, 2012)

*Re: 7D ISO 80, 160, 3200... vs 100, 200, 400...*



danski0224 said:


> Not too much of a tangent...
> 
> But, what about the 80, 160, 320 and so forth ISO settings that are supposed to be better than shooting 100, 200, 400 etc with the 7D? Is there any truth to this?



*100*/200/400/800/1600/3200/6400 - These are native ISO values achieved by hardware.

*125*/250/500/1000/2000/4000 - These are ISO values achieved by applying 1/3 EV gain to the closest, lower full ISO value which results in more noise and lowered dynamic range by 1/3 EV.

*160*/320/640/1250/2500/5000 - These are ISO values achieved by applying negative 1/3 EV gain to the closest, higher full ISO value which results in less noise and lowered dynamic range by 1/3 EV.

Long story short:
Photography in RAW - doesn't matter.
Photography in JPEG - avoid "base + 1/3".
Video filming - stick to "base - 1/3".

Source:
Own experience + link + link
EDIT: more links - link


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 2, 2012)

...and some other link with good explanation http://shootintheshot.joshsilfen.com/2010/05/13/canon-hd-dslr-native-iso/


----------



## nicku (Feb 3, 2012)

I want to thank all for sharing your experience regarding the 7D. After a thorough research i came to a conclusion:

I will go for the 5Dmk2 - the Image quality is more important for me than the autofocus and other functions that 7d have over 5d.

I will keep my 40D for that 30% where 1.6 crop factor and 6.5 fps is a huge advantage. 

Thanks again for your support and sharing your experience. Very, very helpful, 

BR,

Nik


----------



## unruled (Feb 4, 2012)

I feel slightly less bad about my 4yr old 40d now...


----------



## marekjoz (Feb 4, 2012)

unruled said:


> I feel slightly less bad about my 4yr old 40d now...



Yes! I used 40d before 7d. 7d is much more responsive, better look and feel, excellent AF but quality of images not so much better that 40d if at all. 5d2 so widely appreciated has the same look and feel as 40d - it's like putting a better sensor into 40d alloy but makes a lot better looking pictures.

So 7d - nice toy but not a much progress torwads better quality. 5d2 - same toy as 40d but better image quality.


----------



## vbi (Feb 6, 2012)

Don't feel alone...I still love my 40D.



unruled said:


> I feel slightly less bad about my 4yr old 40d now...


----------



## revup67 (Feb 7, 2012)

I am an owner of the 7D for almost 2 years now and like anything else you can sometimes find ways to work around its deficits.

My work has been published in the news paper and about twice a month on KABC-TV Channel 7 HD Los Angeles for weather broadcasts as well as Channel 5 KTLA in HD and on various web sites for our local county (yes I know web is 72dpi) and so I am told a few newsletters. The pics look pretty darn good (not a one complaint from any source about noise). I view the broadcasts on a 65" HD TV (no discernible noise that I can see). I won't go the battle of the 5DMkii vs. the 7D noise comparison, OK fine the 7D loses - we all know that esp. beyond 400 ISO. A lot can be done in post work to truly mitigate (not eliminate) the 7D's weaknesses you just need to know the ins and outs of post work and have the right software. I avoided the 5D MKii due to its lack of features (no getting around this such as FPS..a dog) since its ideal primarily for portrait work and very limited outside this but if that's your bag then the 5D should be your choice. I used to recompose but rarely if ever do I do this any longer. Watching Canon's Rudy (forget his last name) training demos on the BandH web site has taught me much more about the 7D and also the Blue Crane DVD's so I can exploit its features to its limits and are now more keen of its weaknesses. There are many features of the 7D I'd be pressed to be without. Perhaps since we are on the helm of a 5D Mkiii release I'll go this route after seeing on this site what's to be expected but for the time being, I try and shoot 100 ISO to 200 ISO only unless I truly want the shot no matter and then post process until its done satisfactorily never expecting perfection from a noise standpoint. I hope this helps you in your decision and quest.

It all depends on what you can live with and what are you priority needs.


----------

