[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304416279' post='8018']
Yes it is!
[/quote]
Canon has lost the noise leadership a couple of years ago.
If you don't believe our findings feel free to explore the other sites - see e.g. the dxomarks for the 7D vs the D7000 or the K5 or the A580. Apart from sensor noise it's also inferior in terms of dynamic range here.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1304491559' post='8042']
Canon has lost the noise leadership a couple of years ago.
If you don't believe our findings feel free to explore the other sites - see e.g. the dxomarks for the 7D vs the D7000 or the K5 or the A580. Apart from sensor noise it's also inferior in terms of dynamic range here.
[/quote]
My goodness, Klaus. What did I write? Read it again.
That the 7D is a good performer. Nowhere did I make a statement about which camera is best in what.
Anyway, about dynamic range and noise, this is the SAME. As the dynamic range gets "measured" by the noise floor.
About the 7D/60D and its performance specifically: it is pretty equal in output (not silly measure methods) to the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5, differences being very small. At higher ISO, the 7D shows a bit more noise, but finer grained, with more detail (the others show a bit of NR at higher ISO, resulting in a bit less detail).
As I said, the differences are very small, and one would be hard pressed to know which camera made an image. The dynamic range (low shadow noise at base ISO) advantage with the K5 and D7000 is lost at higher ISO's.
It is easily compared in the dpreview reviews, where you can have RAW samples side by side.
I wrote that the 7D is very usable at higher ISOs, and that is just true. The OP was mentioning using ISO 800 and 1600 with his A700 regularly.
And if for some reason you are a pixelpeeper who looks at images only at 100% pixel level, and do not like seeing some pixels having a wrong colour, then you won't be happy with the output of any APS-C camera. Or just need to know that at higher ISO's, under 6400, files clean up very well without loss of detail.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1304424346' post='8023']
Not aimed specifically at BC but everyone replying to the above comment, we might want to define how high an ISO, and what's considered usable.
Personally, I'm generally happy with the output in normal use up to ISO3200, although of course the resolution is impacted by then compared to lower ISO. Another issue to watch out for is the reduced dynamic range at higher ISO, which makes it too easy to blow highlights. I rarely use ISO6400, as I see that as nature's way of telling me I should be going home when light drops that low.
[/quote]
Thanks, popo. For trying, it is appreciated.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1304423627' post='8021']
No it isn't what, miro?
I can't make sense of your post.
I said: "The 7D is very usable at higher ISO's too, so that should not be a concern."
Which is true, it is a very capable camera, also at higher ISO's (OP mentions ISO 800 and 1600 being used regularly).
So what are you talking about regarding "similar results" and "3-th <sic> party RAW converters"?
Puzzling.
[/quote]
Hi BC,
3-th party RAW converter is RAW converter developed not from camera manufacture. E.g. Adobe camera RAW.
With risk to spoil this thread I'd like to ask you one question. Have you ever shoot with canon 15MP+ camera? e.g Canon 50d,550d,60d,7d
Back to the main contents of this thread
OP has some field problems and he wants to move to canon.
Before giving advice I want to know what went wrong with current camera lens setup. If it is difficult to explain, post sample images.
My experience is that camera and lenses from last decay are very very capable tools.
If one image is bad with this camera/lens it will not be good with other brand camera and lens. Better, maybe, but not the best. Funny enought my best wildlife images is taken with canon 400D+ Tokina 100macro. The keys for successful wildlife/birds image are
- patience.
- learn and know your subject.
- find the best place - internet can help.
- be at the right place
- be at the right time
- know your equipment.
Kind regards,
Miro
Read the OP's post agin. he has no issues regarding IQ, his issue is with the Sony 70-400mm lens not focussing fast enough for his use.
This is not the OP's fault, nor something unknown. The Sony 70-400mm just is not that fast a focusser. That does not have to be a problem for everyone, but for the OP's purpose it is.
Does this have anything to do with RAW converters? No. Does it have to do with what camera I have or do not have? No.
Just has to do with which lens is best suited for a task. Lenses are much more important than which SLR body one uses.
And of course, some camera bodies are better at AF tracking than others. Canon and Nikon are very good at AF tracking. The lens has to be capable, of course.
Good that we are at the same direction.
We come to conclusion that all previous discusion about Sensors /ISOs are irelevant.
AF capability is a little bit important.
The most important techicaly is the lens. That is why at my first post I proposed Sigma 100-300 or Sigma 300/2,8 [size="5"]If the problem is technical![/size]
I assume that all other reposobility for missed shoots are photogrpaher mistakes. right?
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1304491559' post='8042']
Canon has lost the noise leadership a couple of years ago.
If you don't believe our findings feel free to explore the other sites - see e.g. the dxomarks for the 7D vs the D7000 or the K5 or the A580. Apart from sensor noise it's also inferior in terms of dynamic range here.
[/quote]Yes I agree but what do you bet that the next generation sensors in Canon will be class leading 
outofrangefinder
Unregistered
Thank you all for the interesting discussion. My problem is now solved, in a way I didn't expect myself. My local camera shop carried an A580 for the first time and I had a chance to try it out. Seems that Sony has tweaked the AF algorithm. With the A580, the AF doesn't hunt nearly as much as with the A700, the 70-400 now feels almost like a new lens. It's not as fast as the Canon solution, but fast enough for my purposes and I got what I wanted without changing system at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the A580 has other shortcomings like the missing second control wheel, no program shift (oh man), the small viewfinder and the fact that you can't turn off NR in JPEG mode (it has only two settings: "Auto" and "weak" - so it loses details from ISO 400 upwards in comparison to the A700). In RAW mode, the picture quality is flawless and the live view option does come in handy sometimes. Plus, it might be one of the last Alphas with an optical viewfinder. I wish they had dropped the A580s electronics in a A700 class body and added micro AF calibration. Anyway, the A580 seems to be underrated a bit, because everyone paid much more attention to the SLT bodies.
[quote name='outofrangefinder' timestamp='1304881912' post='8134']
Thank you all for the interesting discussion. My problem is now solved, in a way I didn't expect myself. My local camera shop carried an A580 for the first time and I had a chance to try it out. Seems that Sony has tweaked the AF algorithm. With the A580, the AF doesn't hunt nearly as much as with the A700, the 70-400 now feels almost like a new lens.
[/quote]
Exactly, and this confirms IR review who say they tested A55 and 7D side by side and found the AF tracking to comparable. And Canon sensor technology is behind too.
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1304888778' post='8141']
Exactly, and this confirms IR review who say they tested A55 and 7D side by side and found the AF tracking to comparable. And Canon sensor technology is behind too.
[/quote]
the IR review is just writing bullshit on that point. We have been over that before, and the dismal results shown in thier A55v crops show that.
|
