fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 5

end

Archive 2009 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

7D is superior whatever size you look at the image, printed or not at any ISO. You don't have to resize it. At high ISO the noise is better at 100% let alone down rezzed to 40D size. And that's the least of it's advantages over the 40D.

Apr 27, 2010 at 08:16 AM

thesupe87
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #2 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

What are using to process your RAWs? The samples I've seen were ridiculously noisy, even compared to my 20D. I think that maybe the whole Lightroom 2 processing issues might have given the 7D a bad name in a lot of the tests, then. Did the 2.7 update resolve everything? Are you leaving the in camera sharpening and NR off? Something has to be causing all of these supposed noise issues in the 7D. Either that or it's just Nikon spreading the rumors

I've also heard that the 7D files don't offer as much gimme room without creating extra artifacting after RAW levels adjustments- is that true?

Apr 27, 2010 at 08:27 AM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

thesupe87 wrote:
When you shoot stock photography, the image inspectors are simply looking at 100% view, not downsizing the images or considering the uprezzing of an image in respects to noise. ....

All that tells me is that the "image inspectors" from stock agencies don't know their a#$ from their elbow.

Apr 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Specularist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

michael49 wrote:
All that tells me is that the "image inspectors" from stock agencies don't know their a#$ from their elbow.

They probably don't, for the most part, but they do check at 100% view after you've sent them the file resampled at 16 megapixels (or whatever the pixel-count requirement is). So unless your camera greatly exceeds that pixel count and you insist on giving them the full-res file, they're comparing the real noise performance of the cameras rather than pixel noise. I.e. submitted 20D files will look significantly noisier than 7D files.

Apr 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM

thesupe87
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #5 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

I used to be an image inspector; at more than one agency, also. No, we don't always have time to note what camera shot what image, and 100% view is pretty much what stock standards go by. The goal is to shoot native resolution as much as you possibly can, as larger dimension files are obviously going to yield larger credit downloads. I've been in this game 5 years, it's a joke to some degree... but it is what it is. A game. You learn how to play, how to deal with the approvers, the rejections, and the crazy standards. Stock standards will make a noise nazi out of the best of us. Stock photo approvers have a few seconds to spend on each image, I'd say 10 or 15 tops - to check for proper title, description, keywording, commercial value, proper exposure, and then in the end you make a tiny commission for looking at that image. Obviously speed is key, so that's why us stock shooters have to make sure every piece of our images are clean and neat, not even ISO 100 or 200 noise visible in the darker or defocused areas. Otherwise the one area you left some noise in - well, chances are that's the area the photo reviewer is going to pixel peep. No wonder why I'm a lunatic to be making a living out of this business, most people don't get past the technical standards. Take any average 10 year veteran wedding shooter, birder, or prosumer and ask them to apply to istockphoto, getty, shutterstock, you name it - guaranteed they're going to fail and get denied on their first submission batch. I gave up reviewing photos, because I'd rather spend my time shooting and editing, developing my own portfolio

Noise levels are all so subjective. There are way too many factors to consider, aside from all of these "tests" we see online. Exposure, post processing techniques, which glass, can all effect the final results. In the end, you're better off renting or borrowing whatever camera body you are considering upgrading to, and then making your own conclusions.

Sorry to get so off topic...

Apr 27, 2010 at 03:40 PM

foghorn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #6 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

I own both, and my 7D kicks the crap out of my 40D for IQ. (And in almost every other category).
PoP photo and dpreview got lost in their own methods years ago. Almost forgetting why people take to photography in the first place. There is a whole society of pixel peeper's out there that aren't really photographers, IMO.
It would be comparable if an A vs. B comparison had the same sensor size and resolution.
It isn't in this case. The flaw starts from the beginning.

Apr 27, 2010 at 09:00 PM

grass1hopper
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

Keith,

But I bet you fed those birds so they wouldn't be so 'noisy'

Hey, I kept my 40 when I bought the 7 just to be sure I could get those low noise low ISO shots!

Cheers,

Hopper

p.s. sure is nice to revisit the pixel peepers. Been awhile.

Edited on Apr 28, 2010 at 12:37 AM · View previous versions

Apr 27, 2010 at 11:13 PM

scalesusa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

The 7d has more pixels, and viewing at 100% greatly magnifies your view and any noise. My take is, that if you look at images much more closely and see noise, that doesn't mean there is more, just that you are looking much closer and can see it better.

It is true, that at the pixel level, you can see more noise. My 40D's were pretty noisey at ISO 800, and my 7D did not have near as much when I compared same sized prints.

If you view them at the same size, I doubt if you will see a difference, and certainly not in a same size print.

Apr 27, 2010 at 11:45 PM

digitalbug30d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

OO7MIKE wrote:
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.
well I wouldnt call DPR or Pop Photo INDUSTRY standards

Apr 28, 2010 at 12:17 AM

digitalbug30d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #10 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

foghorn wrote:
I own both, and my 7D kicks the crap out of my 40D for IQ. (And in almost every other category).
PoP photo and dpreview got lost in their own methods years ago. Almost forgetting why people take to photography in the first place. There is a whole society of pixel peeper's out there that aren't really photographers, IMO.
It would be comparable if an A vs. B comparison had the same sensor size and resolution.
It isn't in this case. The flaw starts from the beginning.
+1000

Apr 28, 2010 at 12:18 AM

ultimaterowdy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #11 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

Oh this thread again

I may have something useful to add (though pardon me if it's been stated already).

Basically, it's to acknowledge that an OP asking which camera has "better noise" is simply not providing enough information. It would be best if the OP were to ask "which camera has better noise given an output method of X" (where "X" was say, 8x10 print or whatever). this way the purpose/end state of the image is noted in the question.

it is conceivable that somebody would ask "which has better noise when you look at the image at 100% of max resolution the camera offers". I personally think such a question is, well, not worth answering, but that's somebody else's peragotive, not mine

for most photographic purposes, measuring noise @ 100% is simply lazy. at worst, it drives camera designers & marketeers to design for 100% view. Which is TRAGIC. (I'm totally with brainiac on this one.) In fact, I am proud of Canon that they have designed a camera that doesn't look stellar at high ISO at 100%... it means they aren't caving to the illogical and unserving pressure.

ps I used a 7D this weekend, after having used a 40D for years, and I was quite impressed. I actually shot at the "mRAW" setting... probably a good compromise for 100% noise peepers. for low ISO settings, open up the res to full RAW, but for higher ISO, limit it to s or mRAW so you don't freak out when viewing at 100%. (which, the first time I used a 7D at shot at 1600 and 3200, I kind of did. there's some uglinesses when you look up that nostril...)

Apr 28, 2010 at 12:24 AM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #12 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

ultimaterowdy wrote:
(which, the first time I used a 7D at shot at 1600 and 3200, I kind of did. there's some uglinesses when you look up that nostril...)

Using the Canon NR, I've found the 7D files look pretty smoth at 100% (albeit losing detail) up to about ISO 800, then start to show rather unpleasant artifacting by ISO 1600. 3200 is pretty darn crunchy at 100%. (At output sizes these files may still look fine though.)

However, I find I can obtain substantially more natural looking results from the 7D at these ISO speeds, either via the new NR in LR3, or by disabling all NR in DPP and using Neat Image in PS. (By "natural looking" I mean luminance noise that is fine-grained with little visible artifacting.) I can also preserve more detail.

Processed this way (with state of the art NR software) my impression is that the 7D holds *a lot* more detail at high ISO than either the 40D or the 50D. I have also done tests downsampling the processed 7D images to 10Mp, where they look easily as good as the 1D3 in terms of noise.

Likewise, I find that adding a touch of NR to low-ISO shots gives the 7D files a look closer to that of the 5D2 (minus the shallow DOF of course).

Apr 28, 2010 at 01:27 AM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #13 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

A few pages back there was some discussion of dynamic range and whether the 7D "blows out" the highlights.

I personally have found that both the 50D and 7D can overexpose sometimes in bright conditions, and that I have to keep a much closer eye on my histograms that I do with my 5D2s. However--I found that if I enable HTP when shooting in hard light that I can recover highlights much more easily if I inadvertently get an over-bright capture. I almost never use this feature on the 5D2, whose metering system seems biased more toward protecting the highlights, so I was pleased at how effective it was. The resulting files seem to have a more film-like look too.

Apr 28, 2010 at 01:40 AM

Antje
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

I don't know, guys... I've had the 10D, the 20D, the 50D, and now the 7D, and I'm so very very happy with the 7D noise, I can hardly believe it. I took photos of mice last week, and because they're fast and the forest was dark, I shot at 800-1600. No banding, pleasing colours, sharp subjects - what more can one possibly want? I didn't ever compare noise at low ISOs, what I get at 400 is totally fine.

Antje

Apr 28, 2010 at 02:26 AM

Ziffl3
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #15 · 7d low iso noise vs 40d

I was shooting a wedding this past weekend and had some blown dresses - go figure - bright sunshine and a white dress.....

The 7D files where all recoverable. I have done this before in RAW and on a 50D but i pushed the 7D by accident on a couple - i was adjusting fill flash - and i can recover 95% of the image.

granted i know we are talking about noise/high iso - i just though i would add to garyvot answer.

As far as high ISO - like it a lot. but use LR3beta2 for best images.

Apr 28, 2010 at 08:21 AM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end