susi wrote:
You are saying you are getting unacceptable noise past 200 and don't see how this can happen unless your settings are wrong or your 7D is flawed?
I'm saying that without noise reduction, ISOs 400 and 800 are maybe the noisiest of any Canon 1.6x after the 20D.
Noisier even than the 50D, which is not known as a clean ISO camera.
Canon did manage to lower the noise at ISOs 1600+, so in these ISOs the 7D is the cleanest 1.6x camera ever.
As I said, this is a personal preference.
The was nothing wrong with the D2X either.
jorkata wrote:
My bad. I thought we are commenting on gear capabilities here.
Yes we do but you are not looking at the gear capabilities to take a photo but at the capabilities of a single pixel - well I don't know how that would matter to a photographer, what matters to him is the final result and that is more detailed than any previous Canon (or Nikon) crop-DSLR and that at ISO levels that a few years ago would have been called ludicrous. On the 50D ISO-1600 was barely usable, on the 7D I have no reservations going to ISO-3200!
jorkata wrote:
I'm saying that without noise reduction, ISOs 400 and 800 are maybe the noisiest of any Canon 1.6x after the 20D.
And you are saying that out of sheer ignorance or worse. There is no data to support your multiple claims of the exact same topic.
At equal print size the 7D is superior to every other crop Canon. Who cares if you want to print bigger to match the extra pixels, 90% of us don't. We are happy, you aren't. Thanks for sharing your unhappiness at every chance.
5D, 5DII, 1DsIII, 1DIII, Nikon D700, Nikon D3
Even the 20D, 30D, and 40D to some extent.
Certainly not the 50D and 7D.
Like I said, I guess I had different expectations about the image quality of an expensive 1.6x camera loaded with pro features.
I was hoping that maybe Canon would make the 7D IQ closer to the pro models rather than making it worse than previous xxD models (excluding the 50D).
With respect to ISO/noise performance, that is.
jorkata wrote:
5D, 5DII, 1DsIII, 1DIII, Nikon D700, Nikon D3
Even the 20D, 30D, and 40D to some extent.
Certainly not the 50D and 7D.
Like I said, I guess I had different expectations about the image quality of an expensive 1.6x camera loaded with pro features.
I was hoping that maybe Canon would make the 7D IQ closer to the pro models rather than making it worse than previous xxD models (excluding the 50D).
With respect to ISO/noise performance, that is.
actually in the professional world of photography, this is not an expensive camera. I consider it an solid back up to my MKlll , but having said that, it has to perform beautifully even as a back up.. and it does.
jorkata wrote:
5D, 5DII, 1DsIII, 1DIII, Nikon D700, Nikon D3
Even the 20D, 30D, and 40D to some extent.
Certainly not the 50D and 7D.
Like I said, I guess I had different expectations about the image quality of an expensive 1.6x camera loaded with pro features.
I was hoping that maybe Canon would make the 7D IQ closer to the pro models rather than making it worse than previous xxD models (excluding the 50D).
Sorry, I don't know what you are smoking, I had the 20D, 30D, 40D - on those ISO-800 was end of the line, ISO-800 needed major processing to get rid of distracting noise. The 50D was better and the 7D is in it's own league here closing the gap to the 5D II quite nicely. If you start looking at the amount of detail captured there is no contest, you can easily process the noise out without loosing that much detail - detail that was never captured to begin with on the lower res cameras. In fact going by some posts the 7D IQ is dangerously close to the 1D MkIII (partially surpassing it quite nicely). Downsizing to the respective resolution puts quite a dent into the respective image quality advantage of the low resolution FF cameras...
The 40D and 1D3 are both 10mp cameras.
The difference in sensor sizes results in a 5.7µm vs 7.2 µm pixel size difference (see the pixels sizes here).
That’s less than 25%.
So, with ~25% larger pixels, the 1D3 has about 1.5-2 stops ISO/noise advantage over the 40D.
The pixels size of the 7D (18mp) is 4.3µm.
This is ~20% smaller than 5.2µm, which is the pixel size of the 450D (12mp).
What that means is that, in theory, if Cannon applies the 7D same sensor tech to a 12mp camera, this camera will have almost 1.5-2 stops ISO/noise advantage over the 7D.
In other words, if the 7D had ‘only’ 12mp, its ISO/noise performance would have been the same as the 1D3 (almost).
Imagine that !
A lot of people welcome the 18mp sensor of the 7D but not all.
Instead of having a single choice of an 18mp sensor, Canon should also have a 12mp version of the 7D with the incredible ISO of the 1D3.
We won’t be arguing on these forums anymore – everybody will get what they want.
Who am I arguing with.
Well you would see the same if you were to lay of whatever you are smoking. The 1D Mk.III has nice ISO/noise performance for the time it was released. It has only 10Mp though - so to level the playing field you have to severely downsize the image from the 7D. Before doing so you can apply liberal amounts of noise reduction as the details wiped out by this step were never recorded by the relatively low resolution sensor of the 1D Mk.III anyway. The images at ISO 12800 that are now trickling in are showing just this advantage and this translates nicely to lower ISO settings as well...
Only my 7D shows the maze/basket-weaving patter to any noticeable degree when using ACR. While 7D ACR is BETA, in the past, the final version tended to usually perform the same in terms of maze artifacts.
If you just use DPP and in cam jpgs or perhaps certain other programs (?) it might not be much of an issue at all for anyone but it is kind of a mess to leave it to converters to recognize and try to counteract it since if you end up with a body that is not perfectly balance and you don't like DPP or in-cam jpgs too much....
Before I level on just this patch alone, when the orange was brighter and the levels tool didn't have the shadow slider brought to high, the patch looked totally smooth on the 5D2 but still had some basket/maze texture on the 7D which adds the appearance of a lot more noise than it should have and it can also obscure certain fine details like actual fabric weaves or dimpling on walls, etc.
Also note I am not at all saying that all or even most or even more than a handful here and there have this. With the 5D2, it was very rare.
(the 20D and 50D were taken outdoor under direct sunlight, the others indoors, i didn't carefully match brightness here, etc. don't compare general noise between them, especially not the 20D/50D to the others here)
jorkata wrote:
Here�s a quick math that I did for fun:
The 40D and 1D3 are both 10mp cameras.
The difference in sensor sizes results in a 5.7�m vs 7.2 �m pixel size difference (see the pixels sizes here).
That�s less than 25%.
So, with ~25% larger pixels, the 1D3 has about 1.5-2 stops ISO/noise advantage over the 40D.
The pixels size of the 7D (18mp) is 4.3�m.
This is ~20% smaller than 5.2�m, which is the pixel size of the 450D (12mp).
What that means is that, in theory, if Cannon applies the 7D same sensor tech to a 12mp camera, this camera will have almost 1.5-2 stops ISO/noise advantage over the 7D.
In other words, if the 7D had �only� 12mp, its ISO/noise performance would have been the same as the 1D3 (almost).
Imagine that !
A lot of people welcome the 18mp sensor of the 7D but not all.
Instead of having a single choice of an 18mp sensor, Canon should also have a 12mp version of the 7D with the incredible ISO of the 1D3.
We won�t be arguing on these forums anymore � everybody will get what they want. ...Show more →
i think you overdid the 1D3 over 40D advantage there a little, even the 5D2 only does barely that much better
What technique did you use where the real estate shown for the 7D is smaller than the 20D? Are these randomly sized areas or are they supposed to be proportional to something, say 100% pixels, for example?
