What happens if apply some NR at ISO 12,800? Ran them quickly through NoiseWare. The file is likely usable for small prints. The blotching in smooth areas is a problem but at least it doesn't have pattern noise.
abqnmusa wrote:
Those 12800 examples are all a noisy mess at 12800. But that is not a realistic ISO on any camera.
if the 7D produced clean images at 800, 1600, 3200 that would be a huge improvement
over other 1.6 bodies. Even just usable 800 and 1600 would be great.
Got back a page and take a look at the matrix I put together.
Yeah I ran it through Nik Define, it's usable for small prints. It's pretty impressive for a crop camera.
thedigitalbean wrote:
What happens if apply some NR at ISO 12,800? Ran them quickly through NoiseWare. The file is likely usable for small prints. The blotching in smooth areas is a problem but at least it doesn't have pattern noise.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I have put together a camera/ISO matrix...
All other cameras were resized (up or down) to the 7D's size to keep the comparison fair.
paulfeng wrote:
Keith, thanks for pointing this out. I had seen this webpage before, but somehow did not notice the wealth of info available in the "Technical" portion.
For any of you who have not looked at this yet, there is even more information than usually seen in a "white paper," and furthermore, there is discussion of some of the reasoning behind the design choices made. In some places, there are discussions of tradeoffs, such as 'if you choose spot focusing, this other aspect of AF performance takes a hit' and in other places, along the lines of 'we didn't go with this design because it would have impacted such-and-such.'
Certainly there is propaganda in there, but along with a great deal of information. Highly recommended reading....Show more →
Agreed a good resource.
This may only apply to Europe, but it states that one of the kits available will include the 15-85 IS. Hope that comes to North America as well.
thedigitalbean wrote:
ISO 12,800 comparison for the Canon cameras. Forgot to mention that in all of these LR's noise reduction was set to 0 (for both lum. and color) and all sharpening set to 0.
Though the 7D contains more noise, it doesn't have the kind of pattern noise that both the 5D2 and the 50D does.
Thanks for posting this. This pretty much seals my opinion to wait for the 1D3 replacement.
Sorry the 50D image is by far the worst, completely useless at that ISO, the 7D is much better, but still bad. However, the 7D shot is slightly underexposed compared to the other 2 IMO; the white label on the bottle is more grey on the 7D shot. Probably 1/4 stop under the 5D II and 1/3-1/2 under the 50D.
thedigitalbean wrote:
ISO 12,800 comparison for the Canon cameras. Forgot to mention that in all of these LR's noise reduction was set to 0 (for both lum. and color) and all sharpening set to 0.
dolina wrote:
Thanks for posting this. This pretty much seals my opinion to wait for the 1D3 replacement.
But remember two things. The 7D is underexposed, as noted by Pixel Perfect. And there has been no noise reduction applied. The 7D is looking pretty darn good.
If I had over $4k to spend on a 1D4 I wouldn't be excited by the 7D either. But I don't. My next camera is going to either be a 7D or a used 1D3. The 7D is looking like it's going to be a lot closer to the 1D3 than I expected, at least from an image quality standpoint. And potentially a lot more versatile.
