terminator wrote:
"your never going to print it out that big" - how do you know that?
"your never going to view it screen like that" - I am looking at the photos like that all the time!
As said, if you shrink the size of photos, you can hide those noise and make the photos look pretty. But if you ever need to make huge prints, you have to fight very hard towards the noise, even at ISO 800!
I can live with 10mp 1d3 because of the super clean images it produces. But I cannot tolerate the photos of 7D for a single second even though it has about twice of the pixels as 1D3. ...Show more →
Try uprezzing a 1D3 file to 18MP, print it, and see what happens. Conversely, downrezzing a 7D file to 10MP has the opposite effect.
CKrueger wrote:
ISO 3200 unusable? On a 7D? At what point do we stop caring about taking a photograph, and start caring about how pixels look to a signal-to-noise algorithm? Honestly, I'm not ordinarily one to shake a finger at pixel peeping, but the standards of sharpness and noise that some people require today write off pretty much every great photograph ever taken with a film camera.
.... My point is, we sometimes get lost in details. All our fretting about noise and sharpness keep us from taking great photographs. You might say "a great photograph is better if it's sharp and has no noise", but I really couldn't care less. A great photo taken at ISO 3200 with a 20D and 18-55 is still a great photo. A boring photo taken at ISO 100 with a 5D2 and your favorite Leica lens is still a boring photo. ...Show more →
So very well said. The levels of so-called "noise" that are in many of the photos posted to this thread are absolutely surgically clean compared to what was coming out of DSLRs just a few years ago. Going back further, they would have been marveled at and even disbelieved if they'd come from a film camera.
Folks, don't worry about a little luminance here and there. Get the shot! That's all that matters.
I NEVER shoot above 400 and have been using Nik's Define 2.0 to clean-up 7D images shot at 200 and above. I have had reasonably hostile feelings towards the 7D because of what I perceived was excessive noise largely because I compare them to files coming off a 1DsMkIII (not fair - but what the hell). I can understand why Terminator feels the way he does. To me the 7D appears to be very noisy - even at low ISOs.
That said, this discussion encouraged me to take my 7D out and do some playing with high ISO and LR 3's noise reduction. Boy, I'm impressed - it really cleaned things right up. Now one can argue that you should have to clean up an ISO 200 image but, if you do, so what. The more important point is that you can get really good ISO 1600 images out of the camera that would print fine to large sizes. I'm pleasantly surprised.
Hrow wrote:
To me the 7D appears to be very noisy - even at low ISOs.
Yup, if you expect something closer to liquid tonality you need to use noise processing at low ISO with these cameras... have had to ever since the 40D, in my opinion (I think it started with the Digic III sensor line).
If you check in DPP to see what Canon's default processing settings for the 7D are, you will see that Canon sets luminance NR to '1' even for ISO 100 images. (Recall that DPP settings, by default, mimic what the camera does with JPEGs.) For reference, with images from the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV, the ISO 100 NR setting is '0' (none).
That's a clear indicator to me mind that Canon intends that NR be used even at base ISO to compensate for relatively high read noise on its APS-C sensors. This, apparently, is a tradeoff deemed acceptible to obtain the benefits of higher pixel count.
I also find that the 7D's low ISO noise is exacerbated when using ACR and LR--so if you rely on Adobe software the camera will seem even noiser. Adobe also seems to compensate more for maze artifacts, which renders the images a bit softer by default.
So, I've learned simply to use an NR workflow even for ISO 100 images (although it took my a while to feel okay about this).
I find that if using *careful* NR settings in ACR/LR or NeatImage (when processing in DPP), it is possible to make the base ISO files look closer to those from a 5D Mark II, with (relatively) little impact on fine detail.
Weirdly, Canon files seem to take noise reduction really well, whereas applying similar settings in ACR to images from certain Nikon models (I used to shoot with a pair of D300s) seems to have a more destructive impact on fine texture in the image. I have no idea why this should be so, and it's not meant to be knock on Nikon in any way, I'm just glad of the option to use NR with the 7D in a wider range of situations.
Daan B wrote:
I really don't care about grain, as long as an acceptable amount of detail is left. I do care about banding. How about banding in 7D high ISO images? And how do high ISO 7D images respond to the new NR engine in LR3 (which does a great job with my 5D2 files)? Still considering a 7D...
My 7D has no banding at any ISO thus far. Of course, some of those models that exhibit banding, some copies seem to be impervious, so it's possible I just got lucky.
In my experience, the 7D cleans up very nicely with LR3's NR. To my eye, the 5D, 5D2, and 7D all clean up nicely. It does less well with my Olympus and Panasonic cameras... I suspect Adobe has spent more energy making Canon look good than some other brands, considering the number of Canon photographers out there.
Aside from all this noise talk (which IMHO is rendered moot by all the excellent high ISO photos in this thread), the 7D is an outstanding camera. Operationally, everything about the camera (bar the viewfinder) is a step up from the 5D2. Focus tracking, off-center AF points, the various focus modes, on-board flash master, frame rate, weather sealing, movie mode controls, and the ability to configure the camera controls are all significant upgrades over the 5D2. All the 5D really has going for it is a bit less noise, and the larger sensor. Which is plenty, of course, but as an overall camera the 7D is easily the best camera I've ever used from Canon that didn't have "1D" written on it. (Heck, I prefer the 7D to the 1D bodies, purely for the lighter, more compact package.)
Since you already own a 5D2, I wouldn't necessarily recommend a 7D. But if you need a high frame rate, better AF, or extra reach, the 7D might be worth it.
I think a lot of the people who bitch about the 7D are clueless about it. Others may have had some bad examples, or perhaps bad settings for their work.
I'm simply amazed at what I can pull from that camera. It doesn't have too many MP. That's hogwash.
Glad to see some rationality finally coming to 7D threads in general.
Gary, excellent synopsis regarding post, although I personally am tickled with LR3 for the 7D as opposed to LR2. I felt robbed by the 7D when using LR2. I just find DPP annoying to work with. I really dislike the interface.
Like Rob, I too have come to the conclusion that many, many people who complain about the 7D files, may not understand the post proc required. Either that or they may have a very linear and non-accommodating post work flow in that they have their set way of processing an image, no matter the camera, and expect brilliant results no matter what file they are dumping into their choice of software.
If people are truly *that* fastidious about their images, then they should be buying nothing but 1Ds3's and keeping their teeth closed. Seriously. People honestly expect a $2000 camera to have absolutely flawless image rendition sooc? These people should be giving their heads a shake.
It doesnt work like that.
My car and my truck both get me from point A to point B, but I have to drive each of them much, much differently, and I expect different abilities and performance from each of them.
Lance Couture wrote:
Gary, excellent synopsis regarding post.... Like Rob, I too have come to the conclusion that many, many people who complain about the 7D files, may not understand the post proc required.
Thanks....
One thing I forgot to mention is that Highlight Tone Priority can substantially increase noise.
When you enable this, the camera reduces the gain on the sensor by one stop (effectively underexposing the shot) , then applies a compensating tone curve which increases brightness while retaining detail in the highlights.
This is all fine and dandy in good light, but in marginal light or with any kind of underexposure, noise can get ugly even using relatively low ISOs.
As we all know by now there is very little "footroom" in the shadows on Canon's recent sensors, and lifting the shadows further than a stop or so can rapidly reveal read noise.
Every once in a while I'll have set HTP for some shot or another, then forget to turn it off, and then be stunned by the level of noise that I'm getting at ISO 400 or something.
I have often wondered if this is a factor when people complain about 7D noise.
One thing I forgot to mention is that Highlight Tone Priority can substantially increase noise.
When you enable this, the camera reduces the gain on the sensor by one stop (effectively underexposing the shot) , then applies a compensating tone curve which increases brightness while retaining detail in the highlights.
This is all fine and dandy in good light, but in marginal light or with any kind of underexposure, noise can get ugly even using relatively low ISOs.
As we all know by now there is very little "footroom" in the shadows on Canon's recent sensors, and lifting the shadows further than a stop or so can rapidly reveal read noise.
Every once in a while I'll have set HTP for some shot or another, then forget to turn it off, and then be stunned by the level of noise that I'm getting at ISO 400 or something.
I have often wondered if this is a factor when people complain about 7D noise....Show more →
When I first got the 7D many people around here advised me to disable all of those bells and whistles like HTP, PEC, LENR, etc, etc, etc, and to simply take care of those things in post.
So, sounds like that you do admit that 7D's images are flawed? I have a 1Ds3, why cannot I complain about 7D's image quality? I never expect 7D's image quality to be as good as those contemporary or even older cameras with lower pixel density. I just think the road Canon took, sacrificing pixel level image quality for high pixel count, is not right.
Lance Couture wrote:
If people are truly *that* fastidious about their images, then they should be buying nothing but 1Ds3's and keeping their teeth closed. Seriously. People honestly expect a $2000 camera to have absolutely flawless image rendition sooc? These people should be giving their heads a shake.
terminator wrote:
So, sounds like that you do admit that 7D's images are flawed? I have a 1Ds3, why cannot I complain about 7D's image quality? I never expect 7D's image quality to be as good as those contemporary or even older cameras with lower pixel density. I just think the road Canon took, sacrificing pixel level image quality for high pixel count, is not right.
Nope. Not at all. I do not think the 7D's images are flawed. They are what they are, and in the hands of some they are more than in the hands of others - same as any other camera out there. I select the tool which fit my needs, and I work with what each camera gives me rather than complain.
The bottom line is that the 7D has nothing short of AMAZING IQ at any ISO for a crop camera. The fact that is has IQ which is in the same area as that of the 5D's (both) and the 1D3, is nothing short of astounding.
Let's be truthful. Without this being a "7D thread", there is no way anyone could tell what camera or ISO (what this thread is about anyway) any of the images in this thread were taken at/with had it not been disclosed via thread topic, post info, or EXIF.
I personally happen to think that complaining about "pixel-level IQ" and other mundane minutia such as "microcontrast" is completely missing the point of photography all together, unless you believe that photography is all about the technical.
I just happen to believe that we have reached a point of diminishing returns (until the next big technological jump), and I think its absolutely mind-boggling the technical abilities available to us in bodies such as the 7D.
I also believe that anyone who thinks that the files from a 1D3 or 5D are miles ahead of those from a 7D, at any ISO, needs to re-evaluate their methods of evaluation as well as their post processing.
The first time I looked at 100% views of RAW files from my T2i I actually thought it was my 5D, the detail was so superb and so different from any of the previous 1.6 crop cameras I have owned (lots of them) I couldn't quite believe it. It's a real step up from the 450D etc.
It makes travelling so much more difficult now, do I take my 5D or the T2i? Problems, problems
Lance Couture wrote:
Glad to see some rationality finally coming to 7D threads in general.
Gary, excellent synopsis regarding post, although I personally am tickled with LR3 for the 7D as opposed to LR2. I felt robbed by the 7D when using LR2. I just find DPP annoying to work with. I really dislike the interface.
Like Rob, I too have come to the conclusion that many, many people who complain about the 7D files, may not understand the post proc required. Either that or they may have a very linear and non-accommodating post work flow in that they have their set way of processing an image, no matter the camera, and expect brilliant results no matter what file they are dumping into their choice of software.
If people are truly *that* fastidious about their images, then they should be buying nothing but 1Ds3's and keeping their teeth closed. Seriously. People honestly expect a $2000 camera to have absolutely flawless image rendition sooc? These people should be giving their heads a shake.
It doesnt work like that.
My car and my truck both get me from point A to point B, but I have to drive each of them much, much differently, and I expect different abilities and performance from each of them. ...Show more →
Agreed, OCD is a mental disease, unfortunately there is no real cure at this time for the handful of members that seem to exhibit that. (or stated more seriously, some folks expect perfection from their equipment, which is fine, but there has to be reason mixed in with expectation).
If you are happy with 5D2 3200, you should be happy with 7D 1600, if you are okay with 5D2 6400, you should be happy with 7D 3200, etc. since they are about 1 stop apart in regards to noise.
I find that high ISO from the 7d is just fine (although I find my 1d III to be slightly better). Anyway, shooting at high ISOs is just as much about technique then anything else. Being careful with your exposure can be the biggest difference between a good and a not-so-good photo.
Here are some of my 7d high ISO shots.. all with NR applied. In all cases NR was applied to backgrounds but not to the main subject (bird etc).
There are always, processed and unprocessed, exceptions of image material that will work at the extremes of several parameters. It's hard to compare up loaded images for IQ, unless of course, this is your ultimate use. Reproduced image size and media are critical.
So the question might be "Will it work for me @ xxxx ISO."
The 7D is populated with 18Mp on a sensor that is 39% of FF. That means that, at higher ISOs, ultimate, resolution will be limited by noise. Indeed, ultimate resolution at 18Mp (approx 47Mp FF pixel density) and any ISO, is difficult to realize under most conditions.
The question might also be "Compared to What:" From these posts it seems that the 7D lags the FF Canons by at least one stop in hi-ISO performance and, it seems, extra internal NR (over the FF Canons) is necessary to achieve that. That might imply a gap of 1.5 stops. That makes sense since the sensor area so much smaller than FF.
And, I can tell you from some experience, that means the 7D is at least 3 stops behind Nikon's D3s. FYI I rate the FF Canons for my use at ISO 3200, the D3 at 6400 and the D3s @ 12,800. I would hesitate to advance any cropped sensor's ISO above ISO 1600. YMMV
SoundHound wrote:
There are always, processed and unprocessed, exceptions of image material that will work at the extremes of several parameters. It's hard to compare up loaded images for IQ, unless of course, this is your ultimate use. Reproduced image size and media are critical.
So the question might be "Will it work for me @ xxxx ISO."
The 7D is populated with 18Mp on a sensor that is 39% of FF. That means that, at higher ISOs, ultimate, resolution will be limited by noise. Indeed, ultimate resolution at 18Mp (approx 47Mp FF pixel density) and any ISO, is difficult to realize under most conditions.
The question might also be "Compared to What:" From these posts it seems that the 7D lags the FF Canons by at least one stop in hi-ISO performance and, it seems, extra internal NR (over the FF Canons) is necessary to achieve that. That might imply a gap of 1.5 stops. That makes sense since the sensor area so much smaller than FF.
And, I can tell you from some experience, that means the 7D is at least 3 stops behind Nikon's D3s. FYI I rate the FF Canons for my use at ISO 3200, the D3 at 6400 and the D3s @ 12,800. I would hesitate to advance any cropped sensor's ISO above ISO 1600. YMMV...Show more →
Yes of course, the 7D is not a D3s. However, it seems to be widely acknowledged that it has set a new benchmark for high ISO performance froim APS-C, at least until the appearance of the D7000 (and even then it's not clear that the D7000 is better, merely as good).
I preface this with the fact good exposure technique improves any high ISO pics. I found with spot on exposure, my 40D at 1600 at times compared not too shabbily to even a 1D Mark IV (without being nit-picky):
I agree that the new Canon cameras clean up really well with noise processing, much improvement over my old 40D. I think if you intend to use pics with minimal post processing, the older cameras result in at least equally great photos with that workflow. Those RAW images seem to be good SOOC but seem (to me at least) less 'pliable' with postprocessing. I've found the newer RAW files love to be played with in post and hold up really well, hold more detail/color/etc with noise reduction, etc.
For example, ISO 1000 on my 40D was pretty OK, especially if well exposed but needed work if not spot on exposure wise. Noise processing helped, but quickly smeared the pic. The RAWs from newer sensors, when viewed with no noise ware, are pretty noisy at same ISO, but Noise Ninjja cleans them up to a much greater degree while maintaining detail. So the 'end' result at times may be better.
Maybe (just guessing) sensors are so well tuned for today's photoshop/Noise Ninja -ers that they look worse untuned (sort of like how high end cars are finincky and touchy if not perfectly maintained vs the Honda accord you can hand to 20 different drivers and it will fit them all well enough)
One thing I forgot to mention is that Highlight Tone Priority can substantially increase noise.
When you enable this, the camera reduces the gain on the sensor by one stop (effectively underexposing the shot) , then applies a compensating tone curve which increases brightness while retaining detail in the highlights.
This is all fine and dandy in good light, but in marginal light or with any kind of underexposure, noise can get ugly even using relatively low ISOs.
As we all know by now there is very little "footroom" in the shadows on Canon's recent sensors, and lifting the shadows further than a stop or so can rapidly reveal read noise.
Every once in a while I'll have set HTP for some shot or another, then forget to turn it off, and then be stunned by the level of noise that I'm getting at ISO 400 or something.
I have often wondered if this is a factor when people complain about 7D noise....Show more →
HTP is of no use if you shoot RAW. You can achieve better results in PP and you have about 1 stop headroom over jpg anyway. You are far better batch converting RAW if you want a jpg quickly; this way you can apply superior NR, sharpening, WB, and tonal corrections.
I have a 1Ds3, why cannot I complain about 7D's image quality? I never expect 7D's image quality to be as good as those contemporary or even older cameras with lower pixel density. I just think the road Canon took, sacrificing pixel level image quality for high pixel count, is not right.