I am just hoping that he realizes that his testing methods are antiquated to the days of film. That isn't how we test noise in the digital age. I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm just saying his method of testing isn't how the rest of the industry tests noise.
LCollector wrote:
Forgive Robert, he know not what he say/do.
When he speaks it is a FACT- lol
I returned this camera because of blown highlights & washed out color shooting at low ISO – It struggles it bright light.
This camera is decent when shooting in low light at higher ISO.
OO7MIKE wrote:
Several professional camera review sites such as dpreview.com and popphoto.com compare camera noise by looking at the pixel level.
Noise at a per-pixel level is misleading as few people view images at a per-pixel level. Even the largest sized monitors on the regular market (QSXGA, 2560x2048) have less pixels than photographs from a Digital Rebel, let alone a 5D2 or D3X. Most people will either:
A) Resize the image to a web-friendly image
B) Print the image
Some people will crop, but even then, a pretty heavy crop would be necessary to view the entire image at 100% on all but the largest monitors.
Thus, a per-pixel noise test is inherently flawed and belies the final outcome of someone's photographs. It also obfuscates other positive qualities of an image that make image noise irrelevant. The 50D was criticized as having more noise at the pixel level as the 40D at similar ISO sensitivities by the "professional" camera review sites, but ignores that the greater resolution of the 50D means that the noise is finer and interferes less with the image as a whole.
In my opinion, measuring noise at the pixel level makes it difficult to compare image noise from image to image. Thus, the best way to represent image noise of a digital sensor is to utilize a ratio of x noise to y area, so that you can scale the amount of noise accordingly.
Then again, I don't care too much. I've shot plenty of photos in the worst possible conditions (5D at ISO 3200 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.4) and still manage to get a bunch of images that are just fine. Even ISO 1600 on my Rebel XT is good enough.
No highlight or colour problems with my 7D in "bright light"- and this was its very first time out. I'll get better with practice...
Very nice photos- I got similar results in similar conditions.
I consider that to be nice soft light- shooting iso 400 @ f 6.3 getting 1/500 ss-
The gull is in brighter light but white bird against sky is not a test.
.
I do like your photos
Stumped wrote:
iso 400 f 6.3 = 1/500
Tells the story-
Stumped, no offense but you obviously don't have a clue what makes hard vs soft light. You've said things like this before (sighting the meter readings) in saying that light is soft vs hard.
You know that hard/soft light is decided by the size of the light source in relationship to the subject, right?
Comparing at 100% is justifiable in many instances. When you need to heavily crop, or are focal length limited, then the pixel level noise is of great relevance. True you always have greater cropability and pixels with a 7D, but the issue is this doesn't come for free - you have to pay to upgrade. Now, if these extra pixels just give you additional noise when you crop heavier, then are these extra pixels really worth anything?
Comparing at print sizes or equalised resolution is all well and good but you expect that you can use a camera up to its specifications. If the only way you can outperform an obsolete 40D is by downsizing the image to the 40D's resolution...well...I'd feel a bit bummed Sure the camera is as good, if not better - but remember, you have to pay to upgrade
I returned this camera because of blown highlights & washed out color shooting at low ISO – It struggles it bright light.
This camera is decent when shooting in low light at higher ISO.
Blown highlights are a result of the ISO, f/stop, and shutter speed used.
May I suggest a book called Understand Exposure to you?
OO7MIKE wrote:
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.
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.
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....Show more →
I did do an online comparison, and posted it.
I am well aware of what noise is, and do not need it explained to me.
The professional review sites such as dpreview, and popphoto, along with DxO are wrote about constantly. Their method of comparing the sensors is flawed.
I can't seem to figure out how to respond to a quote on this, then have my text white, then more quoted text. For whatever reason, it's all yellow. Sorry, I did have a much longer reply, I just don't feel like retyping it.
Dawei Ye wrote:
Comparing at 100% is justifiable in many instances. When you need to heavily crop, or are focal length limited, then the pixel level noise is of great relevance. True you always have greater cropability and pixels with a 7D, but the issue is this doesn't come for free - you have to pay to upgrade. Now, if these extra pixels just give you additional noise when you crop heavier, then are these extra pixels really worth anything?
Comparing at print sizes or equalised resolution is all well and good but you expect that you can use a camera up to its specifications. If the only way you can outperform an obsolete 40D is by downsizing the image to the 40D's resolution...well...I'd feel a bit bummed Sure the camera is as good, if not better - but remember, you have to pay to upgrade
People complaining about the camera and not learning to properly use it. One day I'm to learn NOT to read these threads!
@RobertLynn, @Stumped, I applaud your efforts at defending this fine piece of Canon goodness.
Stumped isn't defending the 7D. Sadly, even though it seems I am, I'm just bringing the facts to light. Too many folks will read someone's post, that says the 7D is noisier than the freaking 10D (exaggerating), and they won't realize that the person doesn't have a clue what makes light hard or soft.
RobertLynn wrote:
Stumped, no offense but you obviously don't have a clue what makes hard vs soft light. You've said things like this before (sighting the meter readings) in saying that light is soft vs hard.
You know that hard/soft light is decided by the size of the light source in relationship to the subject, right?
Robert I don't live indoors-
The thing called SUN is my light source- I do use a little fill now & then -
I am fed up with your personal insults. Who do you think you are?
Stumped wrote:
Robert I don't live indoors-
The thing called SUN is my light source- I do use a little fill now & then -
I am fed up with your personal insults. Who do you think you are?
It's not a personal insult Stumped. I'm just pointing out the obvious, and I'm quite honestly surprised that I'm the one to point it out. You can't say that light is hard or soft just by saying " ISO 400, f/6.3, 1/500".
The larger the light source, the softer the light. The smaller the light source, the harder the light. This is with subject distance being identical.
A camera speedlight flash directly pointed at something will be much harder a light source, than a 60 inch umbrella.
You can soften the Sun up too (diffusion panel, a sheet, sanded plexiglass). Or a cloudy day.
To see the difference between hard light and soft light, look at the shadow your car, or house casts onto the ground when the sun is directly hitting it. You can see every outline of the home/car. Now, look at it again on a cloudy day. The soft edged shadow will be the 1st clue you're shooting in soft light.
I can shoot a photo at ISO 100 f/22 1/250, and make it a very hard, OR soft light.
Sure the camera is as good, if not better - but remember, you have to pay to upgrade
