My comment was not intended in any way to be critical of any decisions that you made with regard to settings or anything you did with technique. I can't imagine how you could have done any better than you did with conditions that you were faced with. My only point was intended to be that, given the conditions, I think it would have been pretty hard to do any better than you did.
Also, with regard to the beautiful image that you added, while the noise may be visible at 100%, I would not be concerned in the least with trying to clean it up further because I can't image that the noise there would be visible at the image level or detract in any way from the quality of even a moderately large print. It is a great example of how noise can be bothersome only to those who insist on making such judgments by viewing at 100%.
No sweat Les - I didn't take your posting as critical at all - you were just starting the facts and actually quite germane to this discussion since we all agree that expose to the right is even more critical at high ISO's ... and yea, we agree that was just not an option here.
uz2work wrote:
Canon's "mistake" in making the 7D was not in putting an 18 MP sensor in it that outperforms all previous Canon APS-C bodies in every way. Instead, their mistake was in not anticipating that people were going to insist on comparing files from the 7D to those of 8 MP and 10 MP cameras in a totally invalid manner by comparing the 7D and the 8 or 10 MP images to each other both at 100%.
Les
Why do you assume I compared them at 100%? The 7D is very noisy and to me, period(which is what is important for my own veredict) and its features are shadowed by this in MY opinion.I keep saying it, too much MP's for an APS-C camera when it came out.I would have preferred a 12-14 MP sensor with better noise performance thorough the entire ISO range.Im not trying to convince anyone, Im just exposing my opinion.
From all the examples you've shown here, I've arrived at one conclusion. You simply select some settings and let your NR software do the rest. No wonder you whinge about losing details.
mikeengles wrote:
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
What you don't realise is that "excessive noise" doesn't kill fine details as much as your excessive NR. You can't just let your NR software apply the same setting all over your photo, that's how you got your detail smudging. You need to apply your NR selectively. It's the same technique whether you use a Rebel or a 1D.
If you're too lazy to learn about Layers and Mask, there's a NR software called Dfine that will let you do NR selectively. You should give that a try.
Royraiden wrote:
Why do you assume I compared them at 100%? The 7D is very noisy and to me, period(which is what is important for my own veredict) and its features are shadowed by this in MY opinion.I keep saying it, too much MP's for an APS-C camera when it came out.I would have preferred a 12-14 MP sensor with better noise performance thorough the entire ISO range.Im not trying to convince anyone, Im just exposing my opinion.
I assume that because, at the image level, 7D images show as little noise or less noise than any 10 MP camera that I've used or seen compared to the 7D. And the sample comparison photos that TeamSpeed provided in response to your post show just that.
I was looking at another thread on the board. In that thread, people are commenting about the 1D Mark III, and one person responded that she kept her 1D Mark III and sold the 7D because the 7D was too noisy. I had a 1D Mark III and a 7D at the same time. I loved the 1D Mark III and think it is a great camera. And, at the pixel level, it would appear that its files are much cleaner than those from the 7D. However, if I have to upscale the 1D Mark III image for purposes of print to the size of the 7D image, noise would be very similar. Further, if I was in a focal length-limited situation and had to crop the 1D Mark III image to the same field of view as the 7D image, that cropped 1D Mark III image would be down to about 6 1/2 MP. Then, if I had to upscale that cropped 1D Mark III image to the same size as the 7D image for purposes of a print, the 7D image will win easily, both in terms of noise and in terms of ability to resolve detail. Again, I had both of those cameras at the same time, and I had more than enough experience working with the files from both cameras to know that this is/was the case.
Thus, I'm more than pleased that Canon decided to put an 18 MP sensor in the 7D because, had they decided to put a 12 or 14 MP sensor in the camera, it would have diminished its value as a camera in doing what it does better than any camera currently being produced, and that is to use its pixel density to excel in focal length-limited situations.
uz2work wrote:
I assume that because, at the image level, 7D images show as little noise or less noise than any 10 MP camera that I've used or seen compared to the 7D. And the sample comparison photos that TeamSpeed provided in response to your post show just that.
I was looking at another thread on the board. In that thread, people are commenting about the 1D Mark III, and one person responded that she kept her 1D Mark III and sold the 7D because the 7D was too noisy. I had a 1D Mark III and a 7D at the same time. I loved the 1D Mark III and think it is a great camera. And, at the pixel level, it would appear that its files are much cleaner than those from the 7D. However, if I have to upscale the 1D Mark III image for purposes of print to the size of the 7D image, noise would be very similar. Further, if I was in a focal length-limited situation and had to crop the 1D Mark III image to the same field of view as the 7D image, that cropped 1D Mark III image would be down to about 6 1/2 MP. Then, if I had to upscale that cropped 1D Mark III image to the same size as the 7D image for purposes of a print, the 7D image will win easily, both in terms of noise and in terms of ability to resolve detail. Again, I had both of those cameras at the same time, and I had more than enough experience working with the files from both cameras to know that this is/was the case.
Thus, I'm more than pleased that Canon decided to put an 18 MP sensor in the 7D because, had they decided to put a 12 or 14 MP sensor in the camera, it would have diminished its value as a camera in doing what it does better than any camera currently being produced, and that is to use its pixel density to excel in focal length-limited situations.
I have a slightly different take on the 1d III vs 7d comparison. I shoot dog agility and there is a lot of it indoors which means shooting at ISO6400 for the entire day. I find that the 1d III has a slight edge over the 7d in the high ISO noise department in two ways. First the noise seems to respond to NR a bit better and 2nd there is more latitude with the exposure with the 1d III. Even shooting at ISO6400 I'm about 1/3 of a stop underexposed most of the time and the final prints (up to 8x10) are better from the 1d III.
That being said I'm a big fan of the 7d even at high ISO and the fact you can even compare the once top of the line 1d III with the 7d says a lot about the 7d IMO.
I admit I didn't read all 16 pages of this thread but I think I got the idea of where it went. Personally I find the 7d noise to be of little concern up to the extremes. I've successfully shot indoor agility at ISO12800 and offered prints up to 5x7 without a concern with some shots printing up to 8x10 very well.
This is one example of an ISO 12,800 shot that printed @8x10 very nicely (which I'm sure some of you have seen before). Of course there was selective NR done on the image, something that is very important to become passable at IMO.
The before/after of the dog at ISO 12800 is very, very, very well done!
You didn't have a 100% "after" shot of the bird, but I'm guessing similar excellent job.
uz2work wrote:
I assume that because, at the image level, 7D images show as little noise or less noise than any 10 MP camera that I've used or seen compared to the 7D. And the sample comparison photos that TeamSpeed provided in response to your post show just that.
I was looking at another thread on the board. In that thread, people are commenting about the 1D Mark III, and one person responded that she kept her 1D Mark III and sold the 7D because the 7D was too noisy. I had a 1D Mark III and a 7D at the same time. I loved the 1D Mark III and think it is a great camera. And, at the pixel level, it would appear that its files are much cleaner than those from the 7D. However, if I have to upscale the 1D Mark III image for purposes of print to the size of the 7D image, noise would be very similar. Further, if I was in a focal length-limited situation and had to crop the 1D Mark III image to the same field of view as the 7D image, that cropped 1D Mark III image would be down to about 6 1/2 MP. Then, if I had to upscale that cropped 1D Mark III image to the same size as the 7D image for purposes of a print, the 7D image will win easily, both in terms of noise and in terms of ability to resolve detail. Again, I had both of those cameras at the same time, and I had more than enough experience working with the files from both cameras to know that this is/was the case.
Thus, I'm more than pleased that Canon decided to put an 18 MP sensor in the 7D because, had they decided to put a 12 or 14 MP sensor in the camera, it would have diminished its value as a camera in doing what it does better than any camera currently being produced, and that is to use its pixel density to excel in focal length-limited situations.
I found 1D III clearly cleaner at pixel level than 7D, but similar once equalised, but also 1D III is much forgiving of under exposure. 7D has a much smaller sweet spot than most cameras due to that high pixel density, but if you learn to stay within or close you will be rewarded with great detail and very manageable noise. I suspect that some though can't find that sweet spot or aren't looking. You need good exposures (keep that histogram as far right as possible - a few small blinkies are aok) and good shutter speed to avoid motion blur which can make noise look worse as well. I agree if you fall well out of the sweet spot, you might as well trash the file, but this should not be occurring regularly if you take time to figure out how it behaves. it's not really different to what you should be doing with other cameras, just you need to be a bit more careful; it punishes slackers and I know I've slacked off many a time.
Alek Komarnits wrote:
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! ;-)
The noise in the crop isn't objectionable to my eyes.
This is one image where pixel-level sharpness is secondary to content. If I were a news photo editor, I wouldn't hesitate to make this front page stuff.
So after 16 pages we're all settled and agreed right?
On one side you have people that are either too lazy, don't want to bother, or have not yet bothered to learn how to shoot and expose and properly PP their 7D files. This is the group that does not like the 7D. This group will completely ignore any in your face evidence or advice that has been posted and are ready to nitpick apart photos at the 100% crop level regardless of how good they are at the image level.
On the other side you have the people that are learning to, or have learned to find the sweet spot and process their photos to get sweet photos. These people like the 7d.
I purposefully mis-focussed this to check what the "noise" is all about with the 7D noise. The light was fast fading as the sun set and a light breeze compounded the already mis-focussed image with a generous amount of motion blur.
However, even with all that a the overall noise is not all that detrimental if some selective NR is done in LAB mode IMHO..
However, it's tough to evaluate noise if not taken in the context of detail within the same image. For me, the key is "retained detail/controlled noise." Thus, we need to see detail (in focus area) within the same frame.
Without detail that could be lost, all we need to do is to perform an aggressive blur routine, and any noise will vanish.
Ok here's a thought, let's see if we can even the field a bit between the 7D and a decent 'low noise' FF (5D2 or 5D3)
The way I see it is we need to level both focal length AND aperture . and given that ff should be better by at least 1.5 stops this should still favour the ff
Basicly shoot the 7D against the ff 1 stop wider AND a comparable focal length. So you keep shutter speed the same and shoot the ff 1 stop up in ISO (eg 7D 800 v FF 1600)
I wonder if anyone out there has the to do either of these
Test 1
7D + efs17-55 @2.8 v FF + 24-105 @f4
Test 2 :
7D + 300 @2.8 v FF 500 @f4
300mm on the crop = 480 so the 500 is as close as you can get (of course you could slip a 1.4 TC behind the 300 and loose a bit of reach instead )
Then view a comparison @ 100%
I'm not saying the 7D will beat the ff but I think the difference would be a lot closer
Liquidstone wrote:
I love this capture, Alek.... priceless!
The noise in the crop isn't objectionable to my eyes.
This is one image where pixel-level sharpness is secondary to content. If I were a news photo editor, I wouldn't hesitate to make this front page stuff.
Thanks for the kinda comments Romy ... having seen many of your spectacular pictures (especially the moon & birds), it means a lot coming from you. I was lucky to be in the right place in the right time ... and have the lions "pose" for me ... although it didn't last long.
alek
P.S. Speaking of 7D noise, can anyone clean up this ISO 400 image - the top of the building on the right is terrible... ;-)
Alek Komarnits wrote:
Thanks for the kinda comments Romy ... having seen many of your spectacular pictures (especially the moon & birds), it means a lot coming from you. I was lucky to be in the right place in the right time ... and have the lions "pose" for me ... although it didn't last long.
alek
P.S. Speaking of 7D noise, can anyone clean up this ISO 400 image - the top of the building on the right is terrible... ;-)
What noise? All I see is some awesome trails of heatwave.
If I remember correctly, aren't you the guy who posted some pretty damn cool photos and videos of birds that nested in front of your house? My apology if I was wrong.
mco_970 wrote:
Deleted. I forgot about 'Hide Me'. Bye Mike.
I'm sure that the "hide me" button can be a good personal solution to gain relief from the drivel that he is continuously spouting. Unfortunately, unless others challenge the validity of what he is saying, those who are looking for information to help them with making decisions about their own equipment choices can be misled into believing that what he is saying might actually be true. While the 7D is not a perfect camera and while others can have reasonable and well-reasoned complaints about it, his thoughts about the camera are so extreme as to make it appear that it is not the excellent tool that it is.
As I have been following this thread for the last few days, for some reason, I keep being reminded of the days when I was a teenager and a young adult. At that time, I had not yet gained the wisdom to realize that I could not get enjoyment from playing the game of golf. So, I played the game several days a week, and I was using the same (expensive) equipment that the guys who were winning tournaments on the PGA tour every week were using. Yet, even with using that equipment, I could not play the game nearly as well as those guys who were making a lot of money winning those tournaments. Since I know that I was doing everything right in using that equipment, I figure it must have been the case that I just got "bad copies" of the clubs that I was using.
I'm not sure why this thread keeps reminding me of my experiences playing golf, but it does.
