keithreeder:
Because it's primarily down to how the file is converted.
I know why it may be the case but there was definitely less noise level difference between converters (set to no noise reduction) in the past (or for different cameras)
It's really very simple. You can make any camera look very clean or very noisy. Shoot in bright light, over-expose slightly, use higher shutter speeds, and avoid subjects with a lot of shadow and you get a very clean image. Do the reverse with the same ISO and you get lots of noise.
mfurman wrote:
It is a very good review. I do not understand why some reviewers see the noise and others do not see it.
Which appears to be about the right size (11MB) for Camera RAW.8bi (32-bit). ""
It is the "1003" file. I wouldn't rename it in place - I'd copy it to a new folder and rename it there so that the original is kept untouched.
Once I renamed that file, I found the one in my Photoshop elements folder (mine is c:/adobe/photoshop elements 7.0/plug-ins/file formats ), and removed the copy of "Camera Raw.8bi" from that folder (put it in a safe place so that you can change back to 5.5 or whatever version you now have) and copied the newly-named version in its place.
The first time you use it, you will be reminded that it is a beta version of Camera Raw.
I'm still playing with it. It did a wonderful job of cleaning up some ISO 12800 pictures I took with the 5D2 last week, but I haven't done much with the 7D's high-ISO shots yet. I'm still a little uncertain on the white balance and color richness as well, but the only test pictures I've played with at high ISO were taken under compact flourescent lighting, which isn't full-spectrum light. Have to do some side-by-side comparisons with DPP in the future. ...Show more →
Was quite enjoying the review until I read this: "That said, pictures from this camera will always seem noisy to me because the math says so. You can’t cram 18 megapixels on a crop sensor camera and avoid noise. I wish Canon had kept this camera around 12-14 megapixels. It might have approached the status of best $1700 camera ever made if they had."
...yet another 'camera reviewer' who doesn't understand what the 'math' says about the relationship between noise and resolution. Before making such silly pronouncements, he really needs to read this: http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth
In brief, his assessment that a 12 or 14 Mpixel sensor would have made this a better camera is entirely bogus, and based on his tendency mentally to compare 100% crops as if they are a level playing field.
2. some are using ACR 5.5 and some AR 5.6RC or C1v5 (ACR 5.5 will make a noisy artifacted mess out of any 7D copy)
3. some are using DPP with a more 'tame' copy of the 7D and some are using DPP with a more 'out there' copy of the 7D (DPP will make a semi-mess to varying degrees from somewhat obnoxious to not much of a problem depending upon which copy of the 7D you toss at it)
4. some people are comparing 7D to like an 8-10MP cam, both at 100% view (neither sensible, nor fair to compare it like that)
I haven't actually tested yet whether ACR 5.6RC and such just get rid of artifacts or reduce noise too, I would think they would reduce the artifacting noise if they get rid of the artifacts though and at quick glance I think it is ok, but haven't looked into it at all yet. I thought a few claimed it still seemed noisier even with new software and normalization at lower and mid-ISO, not sure, someone else claimed it was now great there. Unless maybe the column to column stuff still leads the converters to make a bit extra noise if not mazing.
Someone suggested it might apply varying degrees of compensation depending upon the individual copy, getting rid of artifacts in all cases but losing a trace more detail from some copies. Someone else claimed it sets the same compensation number for all bodies.
brainiac wrote:
Was quite enjoying the review until I read this:
...yet another 'camera reviewer' who doesn't understand what the 'math' says about the relationship between noise and resolution. Before making such silly pronouncements, he really needs to read this: http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth
In brief, his assessment that a 12 or 14 Mpixel sensor would have made this a better camera is entirely bogus, and based on his tendency mentally to compare 100% crops as if they are a level playing field.
there may well be something to that
all the same, in fairness, if he used ACR 5.5 that does make the images rather noisy indeed at low ISO, normalized or not and even DPP does with some to many copies.
Who said UV/clear filters effect IQ that you can actually notice it? I took these with my 300L, F4, IS and a UV filter through dirty zoo glass. I'm sure these would have been better without that glass but I wonder how many people would have been able to tell.
brainiac wrote:
...yet another 'camera reviewer' who doesn't understand what the 'math' says about the relationship between noise and resolution. Before making such silly pronouncements, he really needs to read this: http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth.
Do you have any other sources or documented tests to support this Hypothesis?
Everyone who shares this idea, cites the exact same document.
The rest of us can go to almost every other photography site in the world to support our theory.
To me the argument seems like one of those things that's so obvious that nobody bothers to mention it. It seems very obvious to me that with higher resolutions, noise is less noticeable when viewing the image as a whole. However if there is less noise at 100%, the full image will be even cleaner, even if you can see it. You're argument is that since you won't notice it, the idea is wrong. That just not necessarily correct.
I was lucky enough to get my hands on a 7D yesterday afternoon with a 24-70L to boot.
In South Africa the 7D could be compared to hens teeth at the moment.
So here is my question:
What tests should I do to ensure I have a good copy of the 7D and the lens? (I have 7 days to figure out if there is anything wrong) Please note that this is my first step to becoming a serious part time photog. I have been playing with 350D and 400D's for a year or so and any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Zenon Char wrote:
Who said UV/clear filters effect IQ that you can actually notice it? I took these with my 300L, F4, IS and a UV filter through dirty zoo glass. I'm sure these would have been better without that glass but I wonder how many people would have been able to tell.
haijak wrote:
Do you have any other sources or documented tests to support this Hypothesis?
Everyone who shares this idea, cites the exact same document.
The rest of us can go to almost every other photography site in the world to support our theory.
To me the argument seems like one of those things that's so obvious that nobody bothers to mention it. It seems very obvious to me that with higher resolutions, noise is less noticeable when viewing the image as a whole. However if there is less noise at 100%, the full image will be even cleaner, even if you can see it. You're argument is that since you won't notice it, the idea is wrong. That just not necessarily correct. ...Show more →
That's not my 'idea'. My 'idea' is that people compare 12 Mpixel and 24 Mpixel files at 100%, so they think denser sensors are noisier. That method of comparison is broken and wrong but very very very very popular on "almost every other photography site in the world", and on this one quite often too. Broken comparisons like that appear in DPR's official reviews and by default on DXOMark.
When you do actually test equal areas of sensor and compare them fairly you find that denser sensors don't seem to be significantly noisier per square millimetre, and consequently it absolutely makes sense to question the widely believed myth that they deliver noisier pictures.
Show us your tests. If you've done any. Or are you just repeating what you've heard other people believe?
