fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 13

15 … 27 28 end

Archive 2012 · How noisy is your 7D?

uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #1 · How noisy is your 7D?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
n0b0 I think this line of reasoning is a dead end. Clearly there is a dichotomy with users of the 7D. The majority get on with it just fine and the minority think it's pretty ordinary. You will never convince them otherwise no matter how much evidence is shown.

I'm figuring that, at this point, he is just enjoying pushing our buttons with the absurd. It is either that or else he is someone who, once he has dug himself into a hole, better not have access to a shovel because, if he can reach it, he is just going to use it to dig the hole deeper.

Les

Sep 03, 2012 at 06:26 PM

TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #2 · How noisy is your 7D?

Alek, your picture and exposure is one of the 7D's archilles heel. You are at a higher ISO, and you underexposed this shot by about 2/3 stop. This will produce sparklies or whatever you want to call them, and the noise is that much more difficult to remove.

In any case, due to the blur from the slow shutter speed, this was the best I could do, and it would be good for a 5x7 or so. I hope you like it. I actually left some noise behind to provide a bit of contrast/detail.

Link

Sep 03, 2012 at 09:20 PM

thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #3 · How noisy is your 7D?

Pixel Perfect wrote:
n0b0 I think this line of reasoning is a dead end. Clearly there is a dichotomy with users of the 7D. The majority get on with it just fine and the minority think it's pretty ordinary. You will never convince them otherwise no matter how much evidence is shown.

Those who insist on viewing their images 100% on screen all the time ought to stick to their 10 MP 40D and 12 MP 5Dc for the rest of their lives.

Sep 03, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Andrew J
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #4 · How noisy is your 7D?

or shoot medium raw

Sep 03, 2012 at 10:45 PM

mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #5 · How noisy is your 7D?

Hello

Curiously the only NR applied was the default in ACR 6.7 as well as some more sharpening. It could be that there were other factors at work in the smudging, such as shutter speed amd movement. Your criticism is like shooting the messenger when you don't like the message.
It does not matter what the base image was, it was used as a demo of what high ISO noise and subsequent NR does to fine image detail. No one seems to dispute that or my 'premises'.

I guess it is human nature not to let facts get in the way of strong belief.

Mike Engles

PS You are all free to use your own NR software on the merged image.
We might get a few surprises.

Sep 04, 2012 at 05:59 AM

Liquidstone
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #6 · How noisy is your 7D?

uz2work wrote:
Romy,

I'm sure that you are right, and your pictures prove it. One of my points, however, is that you are taking those countermeasures to mitigate against camera shake. And your use of live view, sturdy support, etc. shows that. Some others are not willing to take those measures, and still others find themselves in shooting situations where they can't be taken. And my other point is that, even if you do take those measures, you still need to have some luck on your side. At those shutter speeds, if the bird blinks, slightly turns, etc., you are not going...Show more →

Les,

I do shoot static subjects with faster Tv for the first insurance shots, as this will yield indeed a higher % of sharp captures. For the owl above, I must've used (if memory serves me right) ISO 800, f/5.6 and 1/125 sec or thereabouts as my initial settings.

It was only after the static bird gave me more opportunities to shoot that I tried pushing the envelope, lowering the ISO and slowing the Tv till I can no longer get sharp captures. Indeed, many shots at slow Tv were blurred, but the ones I got sharp at ISO 200 are much better than the first insurance shots at higher ISO (in terms of noise, DR and processability).

My main point is smaller pixels doesn't automatically require faster Tv for all scenarios.

BTW, I'm usually lucky with slow shutter, long lens shots.

Some old samples of birds found only in the Philippines, albeit not with the 7D:

Spotted Wood-kingfisher (Actenoides lindsayi)

20D + 500 f4 IS + 1.4x II, 1/20 sec
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/60012371.jpg

Indigo-banded Kingfisher (Alcedo cyanopecta)

350D + Sigmonster @ 800 mm, 0.60 sec
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/52909741.jpg

350D + Sigmonster @ 800 mm, 0.80 sec
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/52818905.jpg

Philippine Nightjar (Caprimulgus manillensis)
40D + Sigmonster @ 800 mm, 1/15 sec

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/89674952/original.jpg

Romy

Sep 04, 2012 at 06:47 AM

uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #7 · How noisy is your 7D?

mikeengles wrote:
Hello

Curiously the only NR applied was the default in ACR 6.7 as well as some more sharpening. It could be that there were other factors at work in the smudging, such as shutter speed amd movement. Your criticism is like shooting the messenger when you don't like the message.
It does not matter what the base image was, it was used as a demo of what high ISO noise and subsequent NR does to fine image detail. No one seems to dispute that or my 'premises'.

I guess it is human nature not to let facts get in the way of...Show more →

Mike,

It is definitely not the case that no one seems to be able to dispute what you have done or your premises.

In this and other threads, a number of people have tried to carry on a reasoned and logical discussion with you about the issues at hand. In each case, the manner in which you have either ignored or rejected everything that anyone has told you has led to making such an attempted discussion a very frustrating experience. That frustration has led some to react more harshly than they would normally feel appropriate. I know that I have done so, and I regret doing so.

Thus, as an alternative to continuing in a meaningless and hopeless attempt at a discussion or to reacting harshly, at this point, others have pretty much decided just to ignore your posts, but, again, the lack of comment on them is not because there is nothing in them that is wrong. For example, in the post with the link to your "demonstration", such as it is, you say that full frame cameras have more depth of field field than cropped cameras. In fact, the opposite is true. I could explain that more or go on and comment about the demonstration itself, but there really is no point.

Les

Sep 04, 2012 at 07:47 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #8 · How noisy is your 7D?

FWIW here's a shot taken at ISO 800 of a subject with a lot of fine fur detail. The only NR applied was in LR with my usual settings for ISO 800 of

amount 50
radius 0.7
detail 12
Mask 45

LR 15
Detail 70
Contrast 30

CR 25
Detail 50

First the processed shot and then 100% of file from LR4. The fur detail has not been affected in the least shooting at ISO 800. Don't forget to make sure your browser is zoomed to 100% when viewing the images.

Sep 04, 2012 at 08:18 AM

n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #9 · How noisy is your 7D?

The least you could do was put a flippin arrow to show the direction.

Anyway, I already stated earlier in this thread that noone here is claiming the 7D to be as good as the bigger sensor 5D and 1D cameras in terms of noise, but your claim that the 7D is only a "fair weather camera" is still wrong. But if you really feel that it's unusable, feel free to sell it and stop bothering us. I'm trying to find a better way to clean the 7D high ISO noise without you being argumentative.

I still wanna see what's wrong with Conrad's RAW for that ISO400 white bird on page 4. The one that he claimed to be "really really bad light".

Sep 04, 2012 at 08:40 AM

mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #10 · How noisy is your 7D?

Hello

Since the question that Romy asked was 'How noisy is youe 7D', here is a direct comparison, with no noise simulation of my 7D.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4402957911/photos/2192883/iso-100_3200

I took a series of pictures at ISO 100-6400 on a tripod at f11 with live view, mirror up, no IS, one shop AF,10s timer and standard noise reduction in the menu. The shutter speeds were 1/100 for ISO 100 and 1/6400 for ISO 6400.

I did not refocus for each shot, just changed ISO and shutter speed. NR and sharpening was turned off in ACR 6.7. NR was done by NeatImage 7 and preset 'remove 50% noise' used.
What you see is ISO100 with no shapening and NR and ISO3200 with NR and no sharpening.
If you want to see the original ISO 3200 I can post it.

If the fur on top of Clarence's head does not look the same in both images, there was a slight breeze in the garden, that might explain the differences as well as the lower 1/100 shutter speed at ISO 100

Now I am quite aware from posts on this thread, that this comparison will cut no ice with the majority of posters, but I am sure that there are a few who might still be interested.

I am not saying that the 7D is a generally useless camera, but as you might have gathered I am not that impressed with it. What I have been trying to say that IF you are going to crop your images a lot and IF your want to record fine detail, then stay away from ISOs above 800.

Mike Engles

PS I did make a picture that was clockwise, but it would have needed scrolling as the important images were one above the other. This way they are alongside making viewing easier.

Edited on Sep 04, 2012 at 09:07 AM · View previous versions

Sep 04, 2012 at 08:57 AM

Royraiden
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #11 · How noisy is your 7D?

Very noisy if you ask me, the files coming out of the 7D are really different looking, I dont think my previous 40D looked so "weird" even at high ISO'S.Comparing it to the 1D3 is out of the question for me, even at 6400 the files have decent detail on them.I shot a friendly football match 2 weeks ago with my 7D as my main body because my 1D3 was on its way to Canon for repair, I honestly was disappointing with the 7D's performance at ISO 800.Its a great camera with lots of great features that gets the job done but I have always said that 18mp on that sensor was just too much.

Sep 04, 2012 at 08:58 AM

Andrew J
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #12 · How noisy is your 7D?

Then shoot Med RAW and you have 10MP with a 1.6 crop.

Sep 04, 2012 at 09:12 AM

mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #13 · How noisy is your 7D?

Hello N0b0
There is no NR software available to do that kind of magic.
Once excessive noise kills the fine detail, it can never be recovered.
It is like trying to go back in time or rebuild a sliced onion.

Mike Engles

Sep 04, 2012 at 09:13 AM

mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #14 · How noisy is your 7D?

mikeengles wrote:
Since the question that Romy asked was 'How noisy is youe 7D', here is a direct comparison, with no noise simulation of my 7D.

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4402957911/photos/2192883/iso-100_3200

Huh, ISO 3200 looks pretty good. I guess I am realistic, and my glass is more than half full.

It's usable friggin' ISO 3200 on a camera that can be bought for around $1000! Awesome!

Sep 04, 2012 at 09:44 AM

mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #15 · How noisy is your 7D?

Hello
I hope that you have interpreted the picture correctly.
It is ISO 100 on the left and NR'ed 3200 on the right.
I have not shown the actual ISO3200.If you feel that the one on the left looks pretty good, then that is fine?

I have made a new comp that I hope explains it better.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4402957911/photos/2193056/2_iso-100_3200
On the left ISO 100, in the middle ISO 3200 NO NR and on the right ISO3200 with 50% NR.

Mike Engles

Sep 04, 2012 at 10:24 AM

mikeengles
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #16 · How noisy is your 7D?

Hello

I refer anyone to
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html and enter these details
5m
400mm
F8 for the 7D and the 5D2.
It seems to contradict what you say.
A cropped camera has a narrower field of view and less depth of field and the circle of confusion is much smaller for a 7D.

For those who cannot be bothered, according to the calculator
the DOF for the 7D is 4cm for those parameters and 7cm for the 5D, a full frame

Perhaps that site has it's database for camera and lens specs wrong.
The 7D crop factor gives a telephoto effect, hence a narrower DOF compared to full frame.

Mike Engles

Sep 04, 2012 at 10:40 AM

uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #17 · How noisy is your 7D?

mikeengles wrote:
Hello

I refer anyone to
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html and enter these details
5m
400mm
F8 for the 7D and the 5D2.
It seems to contradict what you say.
A cropped camera has a narrower field of view and less depth of field and the circle of confusion is much smaller for a 7D.

For those who cannot be bothered, according to the calculator
the DOF for the 7D is 4cm for those parameters and 7cm for the 5D, a full frame

Perhaps that site has it's database for camera and lens specs wrong.
The 7D crop factor gives a telephoto effect, hence a narrower DOF compared to full frame.

Mike Engles

That is only because the framing is different. If you shoot with the same lens from the same distance and with the same aperture and then you crop the 5D Mark II image to the same field of view as the 7D image, the depth of field of the 7D image and the cropped 5D Mark II image will be identical. On the other hand, if you use the same lens with the same aperture and adjust the distance so that framing will be the same, the 5D Mark II image will have shallower depth of field. In no case, on shots taken with the same lens at the same aperture and with the same field of view (whether cropped to the same field of view or with the same field of view because of a distance adjustment), will the 7D image have shallower depth of field.

For example, using the depth of field calculator that you have linked to, if you shoot with your 400/5.6 and a 7D at 100 feet and with an aperture of f5.6, the depth of field is 4.04 feet. If you shoot with the 5D Mark II and with the same 400/5.6 at f5.6 and adjust the distance to 62 feet to get the same framing, the depth of field is reduced to 2.43 feet.

Or, alternatively, if you use a 600 mm lens with the 5D Mark II at f5.6 and a distance of 100 ft to get approximately the same framing as you would get with the 7D and a 400 mm lens at f5.6 and a distance of 100, the 5D Mark II combination has a depth of field of 2.82 feet compared to the 4.04 feet of the 7D combination.

Thus, in a focal length limited situation, if you use the 5D Mark II with a longer lens or by shortening the camera to subject distance (if possible) you reduce the depth of field significantly with the 5D Mark II compared to the 7D. If you use the same lens from the same distance and get the same field of view by cropping the 5D Mark II image to the 7D field of view, the depth of field is identical. Thus, the 5D Mark II image is never going to have larger depth of field.

Thus, if you are actually working with shallower depth of field with the 5D Mark II, to get the same depth of field as you would get with the 7D, you are going to have to stop down more with the 5D Mark II than with the 7D. And that means that, to get a desired shutter speed, you will actually have to shoot with a higher ISO with the 5D Mark II than with the 7D, and doing so will reduce/eliminate any noise advantage that the 5D Mark II might have started out with. Therefore, reality actually leads to the conclusion that is the direct opposite of what you were trying to lead one to believe the conclusion would have been.

( I really don't know why I'm bothering to reply.)

Les

Edited on Sep 04, 2012 at 01:17 PM · View previous versions

Sep 04, 2012 at 11:58 AM

sritri
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #18 · How noisy is your 7D?

That is only because the framing is different. If you shoot with the same lens from the same distance and with the same aperture and then you crop the 5D Mark II image to the same field of view as the 7D image, the depth of field of the 7D image and the cropped 5D Mark II image will be identical. On the other hand, if you use the same lens with the same aperture and adjust the distance so that framing will be the same, the 5D Mark II image will have shallower depth of field. In no case, on...Show more →

Best explanation ever Les

Sep 04, 2012 at 12:19 PM

mco_970
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.14 #19 · How noisy is your 7D?

Huuummm, yep, still looks pretty good for ISO 3200. What are YOU expecting it to look like? ISO 100??

This thread is starting to smell like old cheese (which in turn is making me hungry for some cheese).

mikeengles wrote:
Hello
I hope that you have interpreted the picture correctly.
It is ISO 100 on the left and NR'ed 3200 on the right.
I have not shown the actual ISO3200.If you feel that the one on the left looks pretty good, then that is fine?

I have made a new comp that I hope explains it better.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4402957911/photos/2193056/2_iso-100_3200
On the left ISO 100, in the middle ISO 3200 NO NR and on the right ISO3200 with 50% NR.

Mike Engles

Sep 04, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Alek Komarnits
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.14 #20 · How noisy is your 7D?

I appreciate the comments/work on my Zebra picture. Thank you uz2work - JohnT - Liquidstone - Pixel Perfect - TeamSpeed

I will say that is one of the better looking ISO3200 images I've seen from my camera as I'm usually very disappointed by the noise at that level. But still pretty amazing one can generate semi-decent images at that low of light.

Les: I knew a bit underexposed ... but I had run out of light and felt 1/6s shutter speed was already pushing it. Appreciate your "turn off the LR sharpening" and I'm going to have to add that step to my processing ... in fact, I think I may just default to ZERO sharpening for the RAW conversion as I typically do in Photoshop as the very last step after any cropping/resizing.

Romy: Good suggestion to "double process" - I've actually done that when I've had stuff like indoor shots with blown-out windows ... highlight recovery on steroids! ;-) But yea, never thought about doing on the other end of the light spectrum.

P.S. On the "lighter note" (pun intended), here's a fun little picture from the earlier in the same trip to Kenya - focus isn't dead on as you can see in the actual pixels shown in the 2nd image which is ISO 800, F/2.8, 1/100s ... but this was a fleeting capture. This is also an example of what I consider annoying noise even at ISO 800 ... so I may have to go back and try to clean it up after this informational thread! ;-)

Edited on Sep 04, 2012 at 01:05 PM · View previous versions

Sep 04, 2012 at 12:48 PM

1 2 3 … 13 14 15 … 27 28 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 13 14 15 … 27 28 end