Seems that I recall reading that 7d low iso up to let's say iso 800 is noisier than 40d. Any users notice this? Trying to decide between 7d and 1d mkIII, but grainy low iso would be a no no. I would love the 1d III but the resolution on the 7d is attractive.
Didn't we just have this thread a few days ago? Besides, even if it were a little noisier at pixel level, a 13x19 would still look better on the 7D due to way less uprezzing.
Gochugogi wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread a few days ago? Besides, even if it were a little noisier at pixel level, a 13x19 would still look better on the 7D due to way less uprezzing.
I agree. I am still dismayed when I look at my 7D files at pixel level. But it is silly to judge it by that. I try to use 100% when doing certain editing, but judging sharpness and noise, I use 50%, which is still quite large. I don't see the noise in the prints.
The claim that lower ISO settings have more noise on the 7d is definitely true. Many reviews and user threads have mentioned it. I can confirm it having both cameras. For me its not a big issue. Before I tested my new 7d I had considered holding on to my 40d just because the low ISO noise is so much lower. After testing I found the noise levels to be acceptable. The effects are easily overcomed using ACR noise reduction. ACR noise reduction setting of 5 or 10 is sufficient at an iso of 100 - 400. There is no reason to worry about it.
OO7MIKE wrote:
The claim that lower ISO settings have more noise on the 7d is definitely true. Many reviews and user threads have mentioned it. I can confirm it having both cameras. For me its not a big issue. Before I tested my new 7d I had considered holding on to my 40d just because the low ISO noise is so much lower. After testing I found the noise levels to be acceptable. The effects are easily overcomed using ACR noise reduction. ACR noise reduction setting of 5 or 10 is sufficient at an iso of 100 - 400. There is no reason to worry about it. ...Show more →
You're seeing magnified noise. It looks like it's more noisy at the pixel level but at all LIKE resolutions (meaning if you uprezzed the 40D to the 7D, or downed the 7D to the 40D) the 7D wins.
The 7D has less noise at all ISOs. Case and point.
If there is more noise at the pixel level on either camera then there simply is more noise. There is no need to scale a photo up or down to see how much noise is at the pixel level. That is simply not a scientific way of comparing the two cameras. When scientifically comparing noise of either camera you have to eliminate the differences. Those differences are: Image subject and Image size. By comparing the two images at the pixel level you have eliminated both variants. (apples to apples) This can be done by filling the frame with a white, grey or black card. When the subject no longer distracts your view all you see is noise.
Here are two camera Popphoto.com reviews that support the claim that the 7d has more noise at lower ISO settings:
Image quality isn't about science, it's about what looks better in the same sized print. Why? Nobody exhibits images at pixel level and views from 6 inches. So make two 20 x 24 prints and compare. How much noise is visible in those two prints? Even with 13x19 prints (the biggest I can do at home) my 7D images at any ISO looked cleaner than those from my 40D. The 40D needs a lot more uprezzing and, even if it has less noise at low ISO, it is more apparent. It doesn't matter if such a comparison is scientific or fair. All that matters is the quality of the final print.
If you honestly think that you should just view them at the 100% mag. level, then there's no changing your mind.
The FACT of the matter is, the 7D downrezzes to do any native resolution the 40D does.
Another FACT is that to do an even comparison, you MUST uprez the 40D's output to the 7D. If not, you're NOT comparing apples to apples. More like an apple to an apricot.
When you can show me an image taken with identical settings from BOTH cameras, neither manipulated aside from resizing, in both PRINT and in online display, I will simply refuse to believe that in output the 7D has more noise. The 7D maybe at the PIXEL level does, but if you uprez the 40D file to the 7D file, the 40D file loses a lot of detail, and in fact becomes less usable than the 7D file, even a full stop of ISO above it.
I shoot both cameras, and have spent extensive time shooting the 40D.
I have printed images from both cameras at ISO 100 and ISO 3200 (and stops in between. The 7D produces cleaner files, and resolves more detail.
OO7MIKE wrote:
If there is more noise at the pixel level on either camera then there simply is more noise. There is no need to scale a photo up or down to see how much noise is at the pixel level
Agree completely.
Nobody is resizing images when comparing the 5D and the 5DII .
Nobody is resizing images when comparing the 5D and the 5DII .
If you look, Brainiac did a wonderful comparison of the 5D and 5DII when they came out, and posted how the 5D2 even appears LESS sharp the 5D1...but is it in the end? No, it's the pixel magnification.
I know you have something against the 7D (read your previous posts), and that's fine. But the way you're getting there is like arguing 2+2 isn't 4.
If you guys have to tell yourself that it's noisier, then that's fine too. Everyone has a right to be wrong.
surely most can admit that 100% at 4mp 8mp 10mp 15mp 18mp & 21mp is not the same thing.
shoot all of the above at the same object (keep the same AOV) and then view all at 100% you will see different amounts of the image in each of the MP's.
you have to make all the same amount on screen to compare. that can either be upressing the small MP's or down ressing the large MP's
The worst thing that was included in any PS package was the 100% option
When you shot film did you enlarge to massive proportions just to say that lens is is soft or that 200 iso film grain is way too big?
Thanks all for your input, I feel more at ease now about the low iso noise levels. I think that was about the only downside I can think of about the 7d, I would love a 1d Mk 111 but I really desire the resolution of the 7d.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I must have a crap 40D, because my 7D is at least as clean at 100% magnification at lower ISO and superior at high ISO.
Pixel, I agree, Canon controlled the noise very well in this camera.
My only comment saying that you (well not you, but you get the idea) may perceive more noise, is because there's just a ton more pixels there to capture/show it.
RobertLynn wrote:
Another FACT is that to do an even comparison, you MUST uprez the 40D's output to the 7D. If not, you're NOT comparing apples to apples.
I disagree with this. In the normal course of things, people don't really resize an image to a larger size, but frequently resize an image to a smaller size. As such, resizing an image to a smaller resolution would be a far more apt test. By resizing an image to a larger size, you're exaggerating the noise and artifacts of a smaller image such that high resolution images are almost guaranteed to look better.
The only time that people resize an image to a larger size (excluding noise tests) is when they let their printer resize to fit a certain print size at a certain DPI. This, of course, isn't a digital resize as ink has a tendency to spread out from the point its deposited, making it far less discrete (and, thus, far less noticeable than digital resizing).
kakomu wrote:
I disagree with this. In the normal course of things, people don't really resize an image to a larger size, but frequently resize an image to a smaller size. As such, resizing an image to a smaller resolution would be a far more apt test. By resizing an image to a larger size, you're exaggerating the noise and artifacts of a smaller image such that high resolution images are almost guaranteed to look better.
The only time that people resize an image to a larger size (excluding noise tests) is when they let their printer resize to fit a certain print size at a certain DPI. This, of course, isn't a digital resize as ink has a tendency to spread out from the point its deposited, making it far less discrete (and, thus, far less noticeable than digital resizing)....Show more →
Even if you downsize the 7D to the 40D, the 7D wins.
If you honestly think that you should just view them at the 100% mag. level, then there's no changing your mind.
You can change my mind provided your evidence is clear and scientific (can be reproduced by others).
Several professional camera review sites such as dpreview.com and popphoto.com compare camera noise by looking at the pixel level. So far it sounds like you are ignoring the evidence provided by professional reviewers who have been in the industry for a while. They have been measuring noise for a long time and they have consistently been measuring it on the pixel level. Check out the reviews, you can clearly see the noise and how each camera is tested on the noise level.
Camera noise isn't some kind of magical phenomenon. Noise is an inherent property of digital imaging sensors. Noise happens when the photo sensor is unable to resolve an accurate reading in its color channel. This can be due to many reasons. Here are two reasons: 1. ISO gain - The higher the gain in a color channel the more likely noise will show up in that channel. 2. Exposure - If the photo sensor is unable to accurately sample a color, it will likely give an erroneous reading. This is why correct exposure or even overexposing your photo slightly is likely to produce less noise. More photo sensors are able to get a more accurate sample thus less noise is produced. Again, all of this is happening on the pixel level. Noise happens at the pixel level.
What do you do when you are adjusting the noise reduction slider in ACR, DPP, Lightroom or Noise Ninja? Its no coincidence that Lightroom 3 and Noise Ninja have a 100% preview window which allows you to see the noise and acurate get a view of how much noise is being removed as you move the slider.
RobertLynn wrote:
The FACT of the matter is, the 7D downrezzes to do any native resolution the 40D does.
Another FACT is that to do an even comparison, you MUST uprez the 40D's output to the 7D. If not, you're NOT comparing apples to apples. More like an apple to an apricot.
I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, you can resize a 7d file to 40d size. In doing so you are changing things. You are making the noise smaller and less noticeable. This is not an accurate method of measuring camera noise. Noise happens at the pixel level. Pixels must remain the same size (meaning no resampling) in order to compare apples to apples, pixels to pixels, noise to noise.
RobertLynn wrote:
When you can show me an image taken with identical settings from BOTH cameras, neither manipulated aside from resizing, in both PRINT and in online display, I will simply refuse to believe that in output the 7D has more noise. The 7D maybe at the PIXEL level does, but if you uprez the 40D file to the 7D file, the 40D file loses a lot of detail, and in fact becomes less usable than the 7D file, even a full stop of ISO above it.
An online comparison can be done and has been done. (I have already provided linked evidence) A print comparison is a whole different kind of test and has nothing to do with this debate at all. Nothing was said about prints. The original question was directed towards comparing noise levels between the two cameras. This has to be done on the pixel level or otherwise you are skewing scientific results.
.