# APS-C Image Quality (7d vs nex7)



## akiskev (Nov 17, 2011)

I took a sample image from Imaging Resource's review of Sony Nex 7 and compared it with the same sample shot from Canon 7D review (which btw has same iq with 60d,600d and 550d as expected). The difference in IQ is *VAST*! Please take a look at the two 100% crop comparisons I made (both shots taken with the same Sigma lens).

7d vs Nex 7 1
7d vs Nex 7 2

How can we justify such a big difference? Is it the new Sony sensor? Is it the crappy jpeg output of Canon? 
If the test is legitimate, then Sony has by far the best aps-c sensor out there. It delivers unbelievable quality even when reviewing the images at 100% (pixel peepers rejoice!).

PS Remember that this comparison is only about *image quality*. We all know the differences between a high end dslr and a mirrorless camera.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 17, 2011)

Many variables can affect results http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Without having access to all the variable details, it would seem impossible to answer.


----------



## koolman (Nov 17, 2011)

It is very hard to use these to "comparisons" in any useful way - as each camera has fine tuning that optimizes performance. (picture styles, sharpness and saturation settings, etc.)

I must say however - that my brother in-law visited me for a few days last month. He came with his 7d + canon 24-70. I used My canon t2i + tamron 17-50 NON vc.

My IQ was consistently better then his. I "played" with the 7d extensively, attached my Tamron to it, and tried it as well with a canon 50 1.4.

Bottom line - for a reason I dont understand - the 7d was somewhat "soft" / "mushy" compared to the t2i !!!

It was hard for me to believe. I then read many such postings of 7d owners complaining of a "softness".

It could be that the 7d emphasis is more on speed then IQ ? I also found the 7d's center focus point - to get less tack sharp results then the "cheapi" t2i.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 17, 2011)

Those differences can be down to:
Lens, ISO, aperture, raw-or-jpg, picture style and sharpness setting, noise reduction, processing software used.
Out of them, i'd presume raw/jpg and sharpness setting would be making the biggest difference of them.

To control variables, you can mount an EF-lens on a NEX via an adapter, use DXO or something to process both shots with the same noise-reductions etc.
But some variable you can't control, like just because the camera says iso100 doesn't mean it's actually iso100, and picture-styles are going to be brand- and probably even sensor-dependent.

I'll be waiting until DXOMark does their nex7-review before passing judgement.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 17, 2011)

Looks like the 7D photos still have the default sharpness setting of 3. If so then out of the box this is probably right - but then the 7D is set for providing unsharpened images to libraries and editors whereas the Nex7 is set up to produce photos for the coffee table

Brian


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 17, 2011)

koolman said:


> Bottom line - for a reason I dont understand - the 7d was somewhat "soft" / "mushy" compared to the t2i !!!
> 
> It was hard for me to believe. I then read many such postings of 7d owners complaining of a "softness".



Bryan also talks about the 7D being a bit 'soft' compared to other cameras, just set the sharpness to '3' and don't worry.




koolman said:


> I also found the 7d's center focus point - to get less tack sharp results then the "cheapi" t2i.



With the same lenses on different cameras? could be an AF issue, but only the 7D can AF Microadjust...


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 17, 2011)

koolman said:


> It could be that the 7d emphasis is more on speed then IQ ? I also found the 7d's center focus point - to get less tack sharp results then the "cheapi" t2i.



More likely the setup of the 7D which is the problem. I have 2 7D's are they are both spot on sharp.

I have heard from 7D owners about this softness and they have sent them back to Canon etc and still been soft. Then you hear they shoot in jpeg using the default settings and not sharpened them. Out of the box the 7D will always look soft. So a P&S convert will always be complaining about soft images.


----------



## candyman (Nov 17, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> koolman said:
> 
> 
> > It could be that the 7d emphasis is more on speed then IQ ? I also found the 7d's center focus point - to get less tack sharp results then the "cheapi" t2i.
> ...



So you are shooting with the 7D and what is your 7D built-in sharpnesssetting? Or do you sharpen your RAW photo afterwards?


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 17, 2011)

koolman said:


> I must say however - that my brother in-law visited me for a few days last month. He came with his 7d + canon 24-70. I used My canon t2i + tamron 17-50 NON vc.
> 
> My IQ was consistently better then his. I "played" with the 7d extensively, attached my Tamron to it, and tried it as well with a canon 50 1.4.
> 
> Bottom line - for a reason I dont understand - the 7d was somewhat "soft" / "mushy" compared to the t2i !!!



I moved from a 450D, which in latter parts I was shooting in RAW to a 7D (with which I've always used RAW) and had similar issues at first. My "problem" was solved once I read the manual and came to grips with all the autofocus options and found what suited me. I'm an amateur and not having a go at you in any way, just for me at least it is a camera that can take a bit to get the best from but results can be awesome as you get used to it ;D. I now despise and never use any of the AF modes that automatically pick points.


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 17, 2011)

@Koolman:

my bet is that you were using AF, and didn't calibrate your focus with the 7D and either of the lenses you used
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/03/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-facts
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/510.html
i.e. what dilbert said: we were posting at the same time, but my post was longer 

about the 7D vs NEX7 issue:
* it could also be an AF issue: the NEX7 uses contrast-detect AF so it is slow but always on target; the 7D uses phase detect AF, which is fast but will generate systematic errors unless calibrated correctly:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/510.html
* it could be that they're using the same model of lens for both cameras, but one lens is fine and the other is soft
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
* it could be a sharpness-in-post issue: on those samples, I see lots of double-lining on the NEX7 samples, in the doors, windows, etc
* I don't think it is a sensor thing: the DXOmark comparison of A77 vs 7D is kind of a tie:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/734%7C0/(brand)/Sony/(appareil2)/619%7C0/(brand2)/Canon
take the SLT mirror of the A77 away, and the NEX7 may be beating the 7D, but not by much


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 17, 2011)

Looks more like a lens difference than a sensor difference.

I have sharpness on my 7D set to 5 or 6, shoot RAW and use L glass. It's tack sharp.


----------



## torger (Nov 17, 2011)

Probably a lens difference, and jpeg settings etc. There is no extreme AA filter on the 7D sensor so if the lens is sharp and your tripod does not vibrate, your focus is right etc you get sharp pixels.

However what we do know is that the 7D sensor has at ISO100 pattern noise issues in dark shadows and considerably less dynamic range than compared to the best current APS-C sensors. At higher ISOs the sensor fares quite well though.


----------



## KeithR (Nov 17, 2011)

akiskev said:


> How can we justify such a big difference?



Some _Real World_ 7D output:

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/reworks/turnstone_bridlington_1b.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/reworks/turnstone_bridlington_2.jpg

Taken with the 7D/100-400mm, handheld at 400mm. Converted in Capture One 6, PP in CS4.

*Nothing much wrong with these...*

Or this:

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/dog_big.jpg


----------



## KeithR (Nov 17, 2011)

torger said:


> However what we do know is that the 7D sensor has at ISO100 pattern noise issues in dark shadows and considerably less dynamic range than compared to the best current APS-C sensors.


Not strictly true - what we _know_ is that the 7D needs the user to apply some intelligence and discernment in his choice of conversion software. I've cranked low ISO 7D shots up by 4 or more stops without any problem in the shadows.

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg
http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg


----------



## akiskev (Nov 17, 2011)

Excellent pics KeithR!!
The images I uploaded were 100% crops though. Nobody said that 7d is not a very good camera iq wise. It surely is one of the best aps-c cameras anyone can buy at this moment.

I just mentioned that Sony's sensor was WAY BETTER in pixel peeping situations. To pixel-peep you need a 100% image. Not a scaled down one


----------



## torger (Nov 17, 2011)

KeithR said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > However what we do know is that the 7D sensor has at ISO100 pattern noise issues in dark shadows and considerably less dynamic range than compared to the best current APS-C sensors.
> ...



Well it kind of is strictly true ;-). It is correct that you can reduce hardware pattern noise with software noise reduction, and Canon's own software does quite well. But if you want to use third party software to process your RAWs? I like user-freedom in post-processing, and therefore I certainly prefer well-behaving hardware rather than hardware that requires fixups in software.

I do agree though that one should not exaggerate this problem, although I do see it now and then when I work with my images it has so far not given me any practical problem in prints. I actually have had more problems with reduced size web images, when the pattern can occasionally become more visible when reducing to certain sizes, then also in brighter parts of an image, such as a dull uniform sky.

For example this test image: http://torger.dyndns.org/temp/IMG_9045.jpg
has line noise problems in the sky, not so very obvious but when stretching around with the picture it does appear a slight vertical "corduroy" pattern. It is too slight to be visible in a print (and some of you will probably not see it on screen either, requires good screen and perfectionist eye), but I could do without it anyway. Might be more visible in this one: 
http://torger.dyndns.org/temp/IMG_8160.jpg (again, the sky).

The image was converted with RawTherapee, without using the line noise filter (which I only use in more severe situations, since it reduces detail too, sometimes I do a separate filter for the sky since there is generally no sharp details there to worry about).


----------



## AJ (Nov 17, 2011)

The Sony NEX photo looks oversharpened.

Something's wrong with the 7D photo. My 7D gives me much sharper results at 100%


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 17, 2011)

My experience with the 7d is that a careful microfocus adjustment makes a big difference, the high pixel density requires near perfect focus. There is a learning curve.

Sony cameras are great in jpeg, they use a ton of NR and saturation so that images look wonderful on the web. Compare raw output, and the tables reverse, give images the same nr and developing treatment, and the noise from the sony sensors suddenly becomes very apparent.

This makes Sony a good choice for a person who justs wants to point and shoot, while those who want to process their own images to get best possible quality will prefer the Canon sensor.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 17, 2011)

Just for an example of lens and 'sharpness' processing differences, here's some shots I was taking to compare a few weeks ago.
I was comparing the Canon EFs 15-85 @ 35mm to the Samyang 35/1.4.
Here's the shots I took under identical conditions on my 7D, firstly I RAW-processed everything with sharpness 3 using DPP. Basically, the samyang kicks butt. (shutter speeds were at 1/200s at f/8, so no motion blur, iso100, 100% crops from the far-right vertically-middle of frame)
Today, i've gone back to the RAW files, and processed the exact same photos again, with the samyang sharpness setting on 0, and the 15-85 sharpness on 5 (i tried up to 7, but it looked too 'over-sharp').
The differences are so much less pronounced than when the sharpness setting are the same. Basically, if this small difference in PP makes such a difference in the output photo, comparing across sensor-types is a lot harder than just looking at sample pics...


----------



## willrobb (Nov 18, 2011)

akiskev said:


> Excellent pics KeithR!!
> The images I uploaded were 100% crops though. Nobody said that 7d is not a very good camera iq wise. It surely is one of the best aps-c cameras anyone can buy at this moment.
> 
> I just mentioned that Sony's sensor was WAY BETTER in pixel peeping situations. To pixel-peep you need a 100% image. Not a scaled down one



I agree 100%. I think the 7D is a great camera, lots of people get great results with it, I was very happy with mine, but I sold it last weekend as I felt the IQ at high ISO wasn't suited for what I do. Looking at the test results it looks as if the Sony sensor is pretty damn good, I welcome that as it means canon will have to raise it's game a bit which helps us. However, if they made a 7DII sensor too good it would eat into canon FF sensor sales, so I don't expect a massive increase in sensor quality in the 7DII, but I am sure it will be pretty damn good and if it keeps a lot of the great 7D functions in terms of AF, FPS, built in wireless controller etc, the 7DmkII is going to be first choice camera for many people as well as an awesome 2nd camera for a lot as well. 

As I said, I loved my 7D. For anything in print or online publication I was extremely happy, but for private wedding and portrait hires where I always give clients some large A3 size prints, I just found my 5DmkII to way outperform on IQ across the board so I decided to sell the 7D for another 5DmkII. I will miss the 7D, but for the price I paidfor it and what it did for me, it really was a great buy and I am happy to have used it.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 18, 2011)

I tried IR's studio scene at ISO 100. After downloading both samples I:

* Re-sized the 7D sample to the NEX-7 sample size using bicubic sharper.

* Applied Smart Sharpen at 100% / 0.7px.

After that the IQ advantage of the NEX-7 was much smaller then what appears in your samples. It's a 24 MP sensor so I would expect some advantage.

I also tried sharpening the NEX-7 sample a bit and then trying to "catch up" again with the 7D sample. The differences were still small. Basically the largest difference came down to more artifacts on the 7D sample, but on either the artifacts would only be visible while pixel peeping.

That said I expect a 24 MP sensor might yield a better rendition of foliage in landscape shots for larger prints. Not dramatically larger, but another 4-6" for a print which will be critically reviewed. (I consider the 7D to be a 24-30" landscape camera as is. Larger with greater viewing distance, less critical viewers, or less demanding subjects.)

We are reaching the point of diminishing returns in small format sensor resolution, where top notch glass, expert technique, challenging subject matter, and big prints are required to see any difference at all. That said I'm all for more megapixels as long as other characteristics do not suffer as large landscape prints are one of my favorite subjects.

This isn't enough to make me consider jumping ship. But I could end up with a NEX-7 any way because I would like to add a mirrorless system. I would like to see if Fuji releases an interchangeable lens version of the X-100 though. For that matter I would like to see any of the mirrorless systems embrace small, fast, high quality primes. They are too zoom heavy right now, and big slow zooms do not play to the strengths of a compact, mirrorless system.


----------



## papa-razzi (Nov 18, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I have sharpness on my 7D set to 5 or 6, shoot RAW and use L glass. It's tack sharp.



Dumb question, but I'll ask anyway. Are you talking about the sharpness setting you apply in your post processing, or is there a sharpness setting for the JPEG conversion in-camera? Is that part of a picture-style?


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 18, 2011)

papa-razzi said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I have sharpness on my 7D set to 5 or 6, shoot RAW and use L glass. It's tack sharp.
> ...


Sort of both.
Go to picture-style settings, and (on my 7D at least), pressing the 'info' button brings up all the options for each style. In the list, they're listed as "standard 3,0,0,0" or something. The first number, 3, is the sharpness.
If you shoot JPG, that's the setting the camera uses for conversion. (I presume it uses the same algorithms as when raw-converting using DPP, but just saves as 99% quality jpg, not 100%).
If you shoot RAW, whatever picture style you choose in the camera is set as the *default* when you raw-convert in DPP. You can shoose anything else you want from the raw-file, i've made multiple copies of a shot from the same RAW file, and they all turned out wildly different. But setting the style in-camera is good if you batch-process and don't want to play around too much.
See my examples a few posts back, they were from RAW files, i processed them with sharpness 3 (because that was the default), then processed them again with sharpness 0 and 5. All were using the 'standard' picture style.


----------



## torger (Nov 18, 2011)

willrobb said:


> [However, if they made a 7DII sensor too good it would eat into canon FF sensor sales, so I don't expect a massive increase in sensor quality in the 7DII



I hope / think that regardless how good quality the sensor is it would not really cut into FF sales. The 2.5 times larger sensor area in FF will make some difference by itself, higher resolution, and you have other depth of field properties and the field of view you get in the nice focal lengths 24, 50, 85, 70-200 glass is more versatile for many. In sports and wildlife APS-C will probably become more popular though, now when APS-H seems to be phased out.

Canon must keep up with the competition too, concerning sensor quality it may be even more important to be competitive on entry level APS-C cameras than on full-frame. Enthusiast amateurs are often technically interested and wants a sensor that performs well in lab tests, even if a lesser sensor would be perfectly good enough for their needs. It would not be good for Canon if they get the reputation to have the less good sensors compared to Sony and Nikon, it would hurt entry level DSLR sales which is an important market.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 18, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> See my examples a few posts back, they were from RAW files, i processed them with sharpness 3 (because that was the default), then processed them again with sharpness 0 and 5. All were using the 'standard' picture style.



If you are shooting in RAW then I would recommend sharpness as 7 as this is what the image on the LCD will show. If you shoot with 3 you will think that your shot is coming out soft or blurred. 7 shows much closer to the pp image


----------



## moreorless (Nov 18, 2011)

willrobb said:


> I agree 100%. I think the 7D is a great camera, lots of people get great results with it, I was very happy with mine, but I sold it last weekend as I felt the IQ at high ISO wasn't suited for what I do. Looking at the test results it looks as if the Sony sensor is pretty damn good,



Looking at the results I'v seen the Sony seems significantly worse than the 7D at high ISO and noticbley worse all the way down to 200.


----------



## KeithR (Nov 18, 2011)

moreorless said:


> Looking at the results I'v seen the Sony seems significantly worse than the 7D at high ISO and noticbley worse all the way down to 200.


The A77?

Yep, it's _terrible_ - eye-poppingly worse than the 7D at _any_ ISO.


----------



## KeithR (Nov 18, 2011)

dilbert said:


> I disagree with that statement completely.
> 
> There are reasons for wanting to use FF cameras that have nothing to do with the difference in sensor IQ.


I'll take that a stage futrther: IQ "superiority" is _the least valid reason of all_ to go FF. 

This is something which has been demonstrated time and time again on DPR, Photo.net and other sites: the _end result_ from a modern crop sensor can _easily_ match the _end result_ from a given FF camera to the extent that it's impossible to tell which image came from which camera.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 18, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Looks more like a lens difference than a sensor difference.
> 
> I have sharpness on my 7D set to 5 or 6, shoot RAW and use L glass. It's tack sharp.



What he said. x2


----------



## candyman (Nov 18, 2011)

KeithR said:


> I'll take that a stage futrther: IQ "superiority" is _the least valid reason of all_ to go FF.



What, according to you, would be valid reasons to go FF? Just curious.


----------



## sawsedge (Nov 18, 2011)

The Sony 24 mpix sensor is way noisier than the 7D. It's noisier than the 50D in raw. Sony does a lot of post processing in JPG obviously. Once you factor in NR, the detail that the Sony sensor *might* have resolved is lost. The Sony 16 mpix sensor is darned good though... about on par with the 7D. If I were interested in a NEX, I'd get the 5n, not the 7.

KeithR's shots, along with those of many working pros, prove without any doubt that the 7D is an amazing camera.

I've looked carefully at many online tests over time, and found many tests that vary important details like where the focus is placed. This is why it is good to read everything you can find on the topic and weigh the results yourself. 

If I'd listened to all the naysayers when the 50D came out, for example, I would not have bought it. But I did a lot of careful research and bought it and have made many good images. When something doesn't turn out, I am usually the problem, not the hardware.


----------



## torger (Nov 18, 2011)

KeithR said:


> I'll take that a stage futrther: IQ "superiority" is _the least valid reason of all_ to go FF.



Yes, when conditions are good I tend to agree. Using a FF camera with a 1.4x tele converter on a long lens instead of a crop body is probably not going to give you much, might gain some very little resolution and DR, but lose in light sensitivity which is usually of key importance in these cases.

For landscape photography things will change when resolution go up over 30 megapixels. Today the pixels on the FF sensors are way larger than they need to be. FF has a potential to compete with medium format that APS-C has not, and I think and hope we'll see a move in this direction with coming FF cameras. For high ISO applications already today the best FF sensors clearly outperform the best APS-C. It shall be interesting to see if 1DX is even better than the Nikon D3s.


----------



## skitron (Nov 18, 2011)

KeithR said:


> Converted in Capture One 6





KeithR said:


> what we _know_ is that the 7D needs the user to apply some intelligence and discernment in his choice of conversion software



I have to agree RAW + Capture One 6 is like switching to L lens all over again. Simply amazing the improvement.


----------



## Picsfor (Nov 18, 2011)

torger said:


> It shall be interesting to see if 1DX is even better than the Nikon D3s.



Having had a play, and seen the images produced - i can comfortably say "without a doubt".
I kid you not - IQ is stunning - even at it's 'working 51k ISO' and i wouldn't be too unhappy at using H2 setting of 204k ISO.

Nikon still have to announce the D4, but the D3s will cease to be the all in one king when the 1DX is finally released.

I'm a 3 year old 5D2 user, and my only gripe with a 5D2 is the focusing - but so good is the IQ, focusing and high ISO that I'm seriously thinking thinking of trading both in for a single 1DX...


----------



## moreorless (Nov 19, 2011)

torger said:


> For landscape photography things will change when resolution go up over 30 megapixels. Today the pixels on the FF sensors are way larger than they need to be. FF has a potential to compete with medium format that APS-C has not, and I think and hope we'll see a move in this direction with coming FF cameras. For high ISO applications already today the best FF sensors clearly outperform the best APS-C. It shall be interesting to see if 1DX is even better than the Nikon D3s.



Yeah that definately the impression I get from the new Sony sensor, perhaps Canon will do better(although they are at a size disadvanatge) but 24 megapixels on a crop really does seem a bridge too far at the moment. If we were talking only high ISO's I could see the point(although neither the NEX 7 nore the A77's featuires seem to be marketed towards landscape/studio users) but even ISO 100 looks like it will lose more detail to noise reduction than the 7D while 200-400 are still going to see alot of use from that market for hand holding.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 21, 2011)

torger said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take that a stage futrther: IQ "superiority" is _the least valid reason of all_ to go FF.
> ...



I'm not fully aware of how the tele-extender effects perspective distortion. I know it has IQ loss, Light Loss/f-stop loss, slower auto-focus speed, etc. etc. However I do realize that a 1.6 crop body is just that, a crop. The 1.6x mathematics only help you determine the smaller area of coverage, it does not change the perspective properties of the lens used. For example. If you put a 16-35 on a fullframe @16mm and get on top of your subject, you will see an extreme amount of perspective distortion, an exaggeration useful in artistic expression. If you put the same lens on a crop, you will get the same amount of distortion, just you won't see the full frame, you it would be just like taking the full frame image into Photoshop and cutting off equal portions of the top and bottom, and then left and right sides. Same picture, but less of it. And not the minimized, but still there distortion of a 25.6mm lens that the 1.6x mathematics would imply.

I was under the assumption, but could be wrong, that a 1.4x or 2.0x extender, actually changes the perspective compression of a telephoto lens, and really and fully changes it's focal length unlike a crop body. Maybe someone can confirm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> I was under the assumption, but could be wrong, that a 1.4x or 2.0x extender, actually changes the perspective compression of a telephoto lens, and really and fully changes it's focal length unlike a crop body. Maybe someone can confirm?



It only changes perspective if you change the distance from the subject to compensate for the reduced angle of view. Perspective is determined by the distance to the subject, and *only* by the distance to the subject. We say that wide angle lenses distort perspective and telephoto lenses compress perspective only because of the typical framing distances for such focal lengths.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 21, 2011)

neuro Thank you so much. I could have sworn you were dead wrong but I just tested it and paid attention to what you said and indeed, it's the re-framing (even though it's not that extreme of a physical move) that gives the artistic change I love in the 16-35 (going from wide to standard visually). I used a 16-35 and tried without any re-framing, holding the camera stationary, and there was no change in perspective distortion, it was just closer or further away. I was under completely wrong impression. Thank you very much, that will be useful to have a better understanding of what is actually happening. cheers


----------



## psycho5 (Nov 21, 2011)

skitron said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > Converted in Capture One 6
> ...



Is capture one really that awesome?? im using adobe PS5 and camera raw and loving it, but if there is something im missing in raw conversion please explain. I never understood DPP anyways unless you didnt have photoshop..


----------



## unfocused (Nov 21, 2011)

psycho5 said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > KeithR said:
> ...



I'm curious about this as well. I'm not sure I want to pop for another piece of software, especially since I haven't found Lightroom to be all that beneficial over Photoshop (both use the same RAW processing, just different interfaces) Can someone who has used both please quantify what, if any, advantages other RAW processing software might have over Photoshop? (I'm not talking about image editing, I'm talking about RAW processing and some concrete examples would be helpful)

Or, are people just comparing third-party software to Canon's?


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

psycho5 said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > KeithR said:
> ...



I do most of my RAW processing in DPP. It is a surprisingly capable piece of software - weakness is that it hides many of the usefull functions. 

Capture One seems to have been designed along the same lines as DxO - basically a workflow/batch app.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> neuro Thank you so much. I could have sworn you were dead wrong but I just tested it and paid attention to what you said and indeed, it's the re-framing (even though it's not that extreme of a physical move) that gives the artistic change I love in the 16-35 (going from wide to standard visually). I used a 16-35 and tried without any re-framing, holding the camera stationary, and there was no change in perspective distortion, it was just closer or further away. I was under completely wrong impression. Thank you very much, that will be useful to have a better understanding of what is actually happening. cheers



It's a misconception that most people have, actually - so, you were in good company.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

unfocused said:


> I'm curious about this as well. I'm not sure I want to pop for another piece of software, especially since I haven't found Lightroom to be all that beneficial over Photoshop (both use the same RAW processing, just different interfaces) Can someone who has used both please quantify what, if any, advantages other RAW processing software might have over Photoshop? (I'm not talking about image editing, I'm talking about RAW processing and some concrete examples would be helpful)



Great question - and one that gives me an excuse for a simple test. 

I expect the primary difference in RAW converters is how they handle noise and color, and secondarily, how they handle lens corrections. For example, one reason I prefer DxO to ACR is that the former bases the lens corrections (distortion, vignetting, etc.) on controlled lab testing, whereas ACR's lens profiles are sometimes based on user-submitted results (subject to variation in lighting, etc.). 

For a comparison, I picked a test image with a fair bit of noise - an ISO 3200 shot from the 7D. This shot simulated real-world high-ISO use, i.e. I used ND filters to reduce the illumination, rather than a fast shutter speed in bright light (as is commonly used in ISO noise testing, and results in lower read noise that isn't necessarily reflective of real-world shots). Shot was with the 7D and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 85mm, 1/60 s, f/5.6. 

The same RAW image was converted to JPG with Canon's own DPP, DxO Optics Pro, Adobe Camera RAW (in CS5), and Apple Aperture 3. The appropriate camera and lens correction modules were used where available as part of the converter (i.e. all except Aperture 3, where you need a separate plugin).

Unfortunately, different RAW converters use different algorithms and the relative settings mean different things in different programs - so, there's really no way to meaningfully compare across settings. The approach I took was to assume that the developers of the software know their software best, and chose default settings optimal for the camera and ISO setting - obviously, they're going to be biased to what the developers think a good image looks like, but at least it's a baseline for comparison. For DPP default, I used the Standard Picture Style (the 'no adjustment' image used Neutral). 

Here's what the output looks like (click for larger, up to 1600 pixels with View All Sizes, which when viewed at full size are 100% crops):





Personally, my order of preference is DxO > DPP > Aperture > Adobe Camera RAW. ACR looks grainy and oversaturated to me, and with Aperture the contrast is on the low side. Again, these are just the default settings - with specific, image-dependent adjustments better results are certainly possible with any of the packages.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, my order of preference is DxO > DPP > Aperture > Adobe Camera RAW. ACR looks grainy and oversaturated to me, and with Aperture the contrast is on the low side. Again, these are just the default settings - with specific, image-dependent adjustments better results are certainly possible with any of the packages.



Interesting - I use DPP for RAW processing and DPP seems to have least noise - and I have been saying that the 7D at 1600 is fine, whereas others have been complaining of noise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, my order of preference is DxO > DPP > Aperture > Adobe Camera RAW. ACR looks grainy and oversaturated to me, and with Aperture the contrast is on the low side. Again, these are just the default settings - with specific, image-dependent adjustments better results are certainly possible with any of the packages.
> ...



It's a quality thing. DPP's noise is coarser/blotchier, and comes at a cost of more reduction in sharpness.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a quality thing. DPP's noise is coarser/blotchier, and comes at a cost of more reduction in sharpness.



I guess it is a compromise thing then - take a really sharp picture and lose a little of that for some visual reduction in noise.

For smaller images (up to A4 print) I would guess then the loss of sharpness would not really show, whereas ugly noise would. If the image with worse noise was put through NR software then there would be loss of IQ. So bottom line is that it probably makes little difference which path is taken in the real life situation - just shows the importance of good glass.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 2, 2011)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/736|0/%28brand%29/Sony/%28appareil2%29/619|0/%28brand2%29/Canon (that link should bring up a nex7 vs 7D direct comparison)

The results are in, thankyou DXOMark.
Noise at 100% ('screen') is neck and neck, nex wins in low, 7D wins in mid, nex wins at high. But only just. I wouldn't decide between them on that factor alone. Resizing to the same size, ie 'print', nex has the slight advantage over 7D for the whole range, but still only just. It's nowhere near 5D2 quality (which you wouldn't expect from an aps-c anyway).
Sony have always been better at the DR, nex wins easy in the low and high ends, in the middle-iso the 7D is equal at equal sizes, better at 100%.
Tonal range is too close to call at 100%, nex just wins for print sizes (again, the advantages of shrinking higher MP).
Colour sensitivity the nex wins across the board at print sizes, and at high/low iso at 100%, the 7D just touches it at mid-range ISO.

Certainly interesting, if this gives the indication of performance of the D300s replacement, and the A77 (does the a77 have fixed pellicle mirror? If so that'll reduce the usable iso because of light-loss in the mirror). The nex may not be able to touch the 7D for fast contrast autofocus, but in a DSLR or DSLT it can have a fight on its hands.
(now i'm very interested in a nex, seeing as it can take a whole lot of other rangefinder lenses like Leica M that can't go on a dslr. Too bad i can't afford leica M lenses either though...)

Still, more competition = good. Bring on the 7D2 - nex7/d400/a77-killer


----------

