Wherever Conrad's photo came from, it doesn't look normal for ISO400. I have way better RAW images with much higher ISO than that. When I get home I'll post a couple.
Conrad, did you get a chance to store your raw on a fileshare somewhere? If you haven't found a place yet, you could try wetransfer.com, very easy to upload and get a link to share. I would love to pull your raw up in DPP and see either what is going on with the raw, or perhaps there is an issue with your 7D. I can email or PM you my email if that helps.
Conrad Tan wrote:
Here's my contribution for this very interesting thread. To me, if one is shooting above ISO1600, you're in light that is beyond the capabilities of the 7D IMHO. Frankly anything above ISO800 in bad light is horrible. But for still subjects, ISO400 in really really bad light (like in the samples to follow) is still quite acceptable with a little post processing. I just used Noise Ninja on the BG leaving the subject masked out. Resized, WB adjustment, clutter removal and sharpened a touch.
I think the 7D is a fine camera. I still have mine! I think if the conditions are right and you know the limits of the body and are patient enough for some medium level post processing, you can really put out some neat pictures with it!
...Show more →
I think either you set your in-camera NR too high or you have a dud 7D, if that's the best you get from ISO400.
This is a much worse lighting condition than your example. ISO1600, 1/50s, ZERO NR.
Jeff wrote:
....It's interesting to note that the images offered as illustrations in this thread have mostly green OOF backgrounds, probably the channel least susceptible to having poor luminance noise characteristics. I know that with my 7D (and virtually any Bayer sensor out there), the blue and red channels were far more problematic in regard to luminance noise (even at low ISO), especially so for mine in images with lots of blue sky. Perhaps I had a dud (Canon didn't think so), or perhaps my lack of skill with noise suppression via software simply didn't allow me to get the best the camera had to offer... ...Show more →
Here's a recent shot at ISO 800 with OOF blues and reds, taken in the middle of strong monsoon rains that hit northern Philippines.
Shooting info - Canon 7D + 100-400 IS, 180 mm, f/5.0, ISO 800, 1/800 sec, hand held, manual exposure in available light, uncropped full frame resized to 1200x800, FW 2.0.
Noisy enough - look at my photo in the wildlife section under Egret Touchdown - there is a non noise reduced version there. I'm seriously thinking 5DIII
Charles Gallo wrote:
Noisy enough - look at my photo in the wildlife section under Egret Touchdown - there is a non noise reduced version there. I'm seriously thinking 5DIII
But your problem isn't the noise. It's not that sharp, it's underexposed and the cropping leaves a lot of empty space. It would've looked better if you crop it into portrait orientation.
Sure it'll probably look less noisy if shot with a 5D3 but the above problems still remain.
If I was to consider a full frame camera, it won't be because of the less noise it produces, but because of the less DOF effect from having to get closer.
Charles Gallo wrote:
Noisy enough - look at my photo in the wildlife section under Egret Touchdown - there is a non noise reduced version there. I'm seriously thinking 5DIII
So you'll be investing in a 600mm lens as well to go with it?
Charles Gallo wrote:
Noisy enough - look at my photo in the wildlife section under Egret Touchdown - there is a non noise reduced version there. I'm seriously thinking 5DIII
Yes, noisy enough..... especially if one's capture and PP workflows aren't optimized.
Blimey, what a patronising lot these 7D adherents are, almost like a religious sect. They seem to not be able to accept that some of us have a very different experience concerning OUR OWN 7Ds, not THEIRS. They cannot accept that we who have criticisms are just as experienced and knowledgable as some of them. I for one have been doing photography since 1970, have owned all sorts of film cameras and printed the results in my own darkroom. I have been doing digital imaging since 1992 and have owned and scanned film with some fine Nikon scanners and messed about with processing them for some time. I do know bad image quality when I see it and so do others of us who are not very devout 7D believers.
Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that it may not their camera that is the problem, despite the evidence?
Conrad pretty much stopped responding now, eventhough I'd REALLY like to know what he thinks regarding his ISO400 100% crop compared to my ISO1600 100% crop. Or if he has uploaded his RAW for us to see.
Now some dude just come in here and started mouthing off instead of showing his shot and have a discussion.
Sure 7D is not as good as the 5Ds and 1Ds in terms of IQ, noone here is denying that, but so far I think we have proven that it's really not as bad as some might think. I've learnt a few things to improve my 7D Image Quality, so why don't you check your ego out the door and come here with an open mind, you might just surprise yourself and learn a few things.
n0b0 wrote:
Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that it may not their camera that is the problem, despite the evidence?
Conrad pretty much stopped responding now, eventhough I'd REALLY like to know what he thinks regarding his ISO400 100% crop compared to my ISO1600 100% crop. Or if he has uploaded his RAW for us to see.
Now some dude just come in here and started mouthing off instead of showing his shot and have a discussion.
Sure 7D is not as good as the 5Ds and 1Ds in terms of IQ, noone here is denying that, but so far I think we have proven that it's really not as bad as some might think. I've learnt a few things to improve my 7D Image Quality, so why don't you check your ego out the door and come here with an open mind, you might just surprise yourself and learn a few things....Show more →
I've been very happy with the results that I've gotten with the 7D for almost 3 years now. As a long lens shooter, the 7D has opened up new possibilities for my shooting by giving me the opportunity to put lots of pixels on the subject with a very mobile, light weight rig, and that rig has allowed me to get shots that I would not have been able to get with other equipment.
Yet, I've never really used the 7D much at ISO higher than 1600. I thank those who, in this thread, have shared their processing tips for higher ISO images. By taking the opportunity to learn from them, I'm confident that I can expand the use of the 7D to even more situations than those in which I have been using it and that I will be happy with the results.
On the other hand, we have someone who, in this and other threads, has flat out rejected all suggestions and offers for help with regard to both technique and processing, and who insists that nothing that he might be doing could be contributing to his dissatisfaction with his 7D images. It always seemed to make sense that, if you don't like the results you are getting and if you refuse to do anything any differently than the way you have been doing it, you shouldn't be surprised if the results don't improve.
Blimey, what a patronising lot these 7D adherents are, almost like a religious sect. They seem to not be able to accept that some of us have a very different experience concerning OUR OWN 7Ds, not THEIRS. They cannot accept that we who have criticisms are just as experienced and knowledgable as some of them. I for one have been doing photography since 1970, have owned all sorts of film cameras and printed the results in my own darkroom. I have been doing digital imaging since 1992 and have owned and scanned film with some fine Nikon scanners and messed about with processing them for some time. I do know bad image quality when I see it and so do others of us who are not very devout 7D believers.
You should name who the "patronising lot" and "7D adherents" are. Many of us who use the 7D in its area of strength (longer reach via high pixel density) also use other bodies like the 1D4 or 5D2 when the strengths of such non-7Ds fit well in the shooting situation.
Blimey, what a patronising lot these 7D adherents are, almost like a religious sect. They seem to not be able to accept that some of us have a very different experience concerning OUR OWN 7Ds, not THEIRS. They cannot accept that we who have criticisms are just as experienced and knowledgable as some of them. I for one have been doing photography since 1970, have owned all sorts of film cameras and printed the results in my own darkroom. I have been doing digital imaging since 1992 and have owned and scanned film with some fine Nikon scanners and messed about with processing them for some time. I do know bad image quality when I see it and so do others of us who are not very devout 7D believers.
Impressive credentials... I cannot compete with that, but I can throw out the fact that I have shot with 3 different 7Ds, along with 3 5Ds, 3 5D2s, 2 1D3s, and 1 1D4 (along with a smattering of other xxD and xxxD bodies). I have shot somewhere around 12-15K high ISO (3200 and above) shots with the 7Ds during sporting events, stage events, and band competitions. I have developed a process to help clean up the noise but still retain as much detail as possible, to the point that people have purchased my actions. I have offered up my services to take a look at anybody's 7D raw files to try to help them get the most out of them and to give them pointers on what to improve on.
If you are not willing to help us help you, not going to offer up samples of your work via raw, and just want to remain aloof about how you know more about the shortcomings of the 7D than the rest of us, wouldn't there be better things to spend time on than to sit in these types of threads? I know I would if I were in your shoes...
At home I hate it when my wife quotes me ;-)