I think it's important to establish a good NR workflow to get the most out of these RAWs. I think your ISO6400 look CLEAN. Done for clients no less...and they were happy about it.
I'd say that's a ringing endorsement for usable ISO6400 from the 7D!!!
Those are great. Can you provide some more detail on your NR workflow? Would really appreciate it!
Basically attack noise in steps and not try to eliminate it in one felt swoop. Also, I never try to completely eliminate noise b/c that's the fastest way to pastel land!
Well, you figure you can easily eliminate color noise without affecting detail. Then you figure noise is more apparent in the shadow areas and not so much in the detail and brighter areas.
Sooo...logic would seem to indicate that they are 3 separate processes. So essentially it comes down to being able to identify the shadow/detail area, something that's pretty simple to do in Photoshop, then know how much NR to apply to each area.
You can wrap all that up in a PS action and automate it.
It must be really nice to have the luxury of good light whenever you're out, Kapytalyst, but many of us don't.
Besides, noise performance lends itself extremely well to online discussion.
Here's a wild idea: instead of complaining about the subject matter, why not start an "interesting" discussion yourself? Nobody's stopping you from choosing what you can talk about.
keithreeder wrote:
It must be really nice to have the luxury of good light whenever you're out, Kapytalyst, but many of us don't.
Besides, noise performance lends itself extremely well to online discussion.
Here's a wild idea: instead of complaining about the subject matter, why not start an "interesting" discussion yourself? Nobody's stopping you from choosing what you can talk about.
No kidding. I wish I could shoot at a better ISO at the competition for which I posted pics, but I was already at f2.8 at 1/200th with my 70-200 IS at ISO 6400. I would have liked to shoot a faster shutter speed, and really wasn't comfortable at 12800 for this event, so I was maxed out. I routinely shoot these events at 3200 and 6400, this is the 4th this year, and last year I had this same situation, but with the MKIII.
Oh to live in a world that is brightly lit for all situations so that ISO 1600 and less is all that is needed!
Overall the focusing felt similar to the 1D III, about the same in acquisition speed and I’d say even better in tracking, as surprising as that may sound;
The noise levels and detail at ISO800 are still extremely good. I would be hard pressed to say the 1D Mark III is much better once the filesizes are equalized for a proper 1:1 comparison;
and
A key consideration when comparing noise between cameras is to equalize the file size to give a true 100% 1:1 comparison. Once that is done, the difference between the 7D and Mk III should be fairly small. To have this type of noise performance on such small pixels (18MP on 1.6x crop vs 10MP on 1.3x crop) is really an achievement.
Not quite the yawning chasm between the two bodies that some here would have us believe...
garyvot wrote:
I'm not sure Chris... I think you may want to look at the lighting across the frame (and the noise in different parts of the image) before you make this call. Again, these samples are posted at Imaging-Resource.com:
Unlike some of the other contributors to this thread (apparently), I don't have a horse in this race; I feel the 7D and the 1D3 are both great cameras. However, the samples I have downloaded (full images) don't show that the 1D3 is significantly cleaner than the 7D when equalized for output, at least based on in-camera JPEGs shot at ISO 1600.
I'm happy to be shown evidence to the contrary though; I think it would move this discussion forward in a constructive way....Show more →
The shadow on the wall, behind the brush in particular, is entirely different, which simply negates any conclusion one could have otherwise drawn from these two photos.
Considering many of the photos posted here have been of birds, is there anybody willing to bet that the 1DIII's 10MP 1.3x sensor cropped down to a 1.6x field of view (what would that be, 7MP or so?) resolves more detail than the full 18MP of the 7D in focal-length limited situations? If so, you're braver than I.
timbop wrote:
Well, considering the 1d4, a 1d3 and 7d will be about the same price soon. I'd still rather have my 7d than 1d3
*ducks*
Each to his own I guess - & it's good that you feel that way as you've just bought the camera - but I wouldn't remotely consider exchanging my 1D III for a 7D.
I'm sure that if I had a Mk III myself now I'd feel the same way, GW - but given that my next camera will be either a Mk III or a 7D, I have to say that for me the 7D is pressing all the right buttons.
And I'm speaking as someone who is a big fan of the Mk III.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Considering many of the photos posted here have been of birds, is there anybody willing to bet that the 1DIII's 10MP 1.3x sensor cropped down to a 1.6x field of view (what would that be, 7MP or so?) resolves more detail than the full 18MP of the 7D in focal-length limited situations? If so, you're braver than I.
My bird shots have been cropped down already and at ISO1600 from raw converted to jpeg. Very rare you can take a full frame shot of birds unless they are in captivity or feeder shots. In bird photography, your lens and focal length rule. You can't make up for poor IQ and the lack of resolving power of your lens by extreme cropping. Or higher MP count of your body. Is not bravery. Is a fact. Put a 500L on a 40D and you will get shots with extraordinary details and sharpness. Put one of the Sigma 500mm zoom lens with OS on a 7D and your shots will still lack the IQ and sharpness of a 500L with 40D combo.
TooManyShots wrote:
My bird shots have been cropped down already and at ISO1600 from raw converted to jpeg. Very rare you can take a full frame shot of birds unless they are in captivity or feeder shots. In bird photography, your lens and focal length rule. You can't make up for poor IQ and the lack of resolving power of your lens by extreme cropping. Or higher MP count of your body. Is not bravery. Is a fact. Put a 500L on a 40D and you will get shots with extraordinary details and sharpness. Put one of the Sigma 500mm zoom lens with OS on a 7D and your shots will still lack the IQ and sharpness of a 500L with 40D combo. ...Show more →
I think you missed what I was trying to say. I was saying that it would take a brave soul to claim that 7MP or so from a 1DIII would outresolve 18MP from a 7D, considering those 2 pixel counts represent the same angle of view (1.6x) with the same lens. If you need to crop further, which like you said you always do for birds, the comparison still favors the 7D.
TooManyShots wrote:
My bird shots have been cropped down already and at ISO1600 from raw converted to jpeg. Very rare you can take a full frame shot of birds unless they are in captivity or feeder shots. In bird photography, your lens and focal length rule. You can't make up for poor IQ and the lack of resolving power of your lens by extreme cropping. Or higher MP count of your body. Is not bravery. Is a fact. Put a 500L on a 40D and you will get shots with extraordinary details and sharpness. Put one of the Sigma 500mm zoom lens with OS on a 7D and your shots will still lack the IQ and sharpness of a 500L with 40D combo. ...Show more →
Hogwash. I get full frame shots of birds all the time that are not in captivity (as do many others) .
RobertLynn wrote:
I shoot a ton of sports lately, and I just want to be able to shoot FASTER shutter speeds in these damn dungeon arenas. The AF, frame rate and more MP (for cropping, because sometimes...the fighters are faster than the zoom ring) were a large "kudo" for the 7D.
The 1Dmk3 may well clean up better. Ugh, now I don't know. Stupid stupid stupid.
For shooting indoor sports, I've got to believe the 1DIII will be much better than the 7D. It is awesome in low light. I am most interested in the 7D for birding where you need reach and resolution.
