New Camera - Canon 7D - Noise???

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

09/20/2013 01:03:15 PM · #26

Originally posted by scalvert:

I did both, but RAW is the true test of the camera.

Fair enough, and I do agree. But I would be interested in any observed differences on that body between the two, especially as the OP clearly stated that she never shoots in RAW.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

09/20/2013 03:41:08 PM · #27

One thing I should have included in my earlier post is that a little noise in a blue sky is not a bad thing. It helps to produce a visually continuous gradient, avoiding visible "posterization" bands.
I also should have emphasized that the benefits of shooting RAW (and exposing to the right, as Shannon posted) cannot be understated. It's simply amazing what can be done in RAW conversion given the best possible input file from a camera, most especially when compared to the default JPEG output. Much better control of noise, higher detail levels, as much as an additional stop of DR, better handling of highlights... the list goes on.

sjhuls

Canon EOS-7D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

09/20/2013 04:03:37 PM · #28

Yep, I have one more testament to add to the excessive noise on the 7D. I have to be really careful how I use it. I always shoot at 100 ISO but still have problems, even when I expose correctly. While I love the 7D for almost everything else I won't be getting another one after this one.

KarenNfld

09/20/2013 06:17:53 PM · #29

Thanks for all the input!!!

I am busy right now but I will try to do side by side shots with both cameras at the same settings in JPEG. As I said I don't shoot in RAW.

And sorry but I'm not interested in getting a full frame camera as this is just a hobby for me, not a money maker, and I can't go buying all new lenses.

MattO

Nikon D4

09/20/2013 06:32:58 PM · #30

When I shot Canon I had a 7d, and while I won't say it had a lot of noise. It wasn't a good kind of noise, and the resolution that it had allowed for the perception(when viewed at 100%) to have a lot of noise. I routinely shot at 6400 ISO and with noise reduction it was acceptable. HOWEVER I will say that if you shot and then cropped, or missed your exposure by much you might as well throw it away.

In today's terms the noise handling of the camera is something that would keep me from getting it even as a backup camera.

Matt

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

09/20/2013 06:53:04 PM · #31

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

... As I said I don't shoot in RAW.

I think this is something you can overcome... the human body is nothing to be ashamed of... O wait not "the RAW" ;-)

In all seriousness, I really think you should experiment with RAW. Honestly, once you make the switch, you will not go back. Can you tell us why you've stayed with JPEG?

sjhuls

Canon EOS-7D

09/20/2013 08:49:22 PM · #32

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure all the lenses you have now will fit on a full frame.

09/20/2013 10:08:02 PM · #33

Originally posted by sjhuls:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Thanks for all the input!!!

I am busy right now but I will try to do side by side shots with both cameras at the same settings in JPEG. As I said I don't shoot in RAW.

And sorry but I'm not interested in getting a full frame camera as this is just a hobby for me, not a money maker, and I can't go buying all new lenses.

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure all the lenses you have now will fit on a full frame.

Nope.

But it's not as bad as it might seem - the only coverage she'd need to update would be the wide end, her longer lenses are all fine. (EF-S lenses are not full-frame or 1.3x crop compatible)

scalvert

09/20/2013 11:38:23 PM · #34

Here ya' go: six 7D JPEGs straight from the camera for comparison. The difference in exposure is likely just a different metering point since I was shooting handheld (and possibly maxing the shutter speed when shooting into the sky at ISO 800 EV-1.7).

ISO 100
-1.7EV

-1EV

0 EV

ISO 800
-1.7EV

-1EV

0 EV

Message edited by author 2013-09-20 23:40:30.

09/21/2013 01:11:59 AM · #35

I'd say that looks pretty consistent with the OP's post. Maybe a tad less noisy, but it's clear to me that an an underexposed area of gradient tonality is sure to show some pretty heavy noise.

In fact, the -1.7 @800 looks nearly as good at the -1.7 @100..

FromDaRock

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

09/21/2013 08:09:50 AM · #36

I managed to find this one which is a lot of sky which is pretty close exposure wise to the 40D sample by the OP. I would say it looks pretty much the same. This was also shot with my 28-135mm lens, which is far from a top performer. This image is the jpeg from the camera, cropped only as far as processing goes.

That being said, I do wish my camera handled high ISO better, but that is because I like to shoot gymnastics, which is always indoors under poor lighting.

To give an idea of capabilities, I captured this at ISO 3200 in a fairly dark hockey arena. This was shot in raw though and run through Topaz DeNoise. It was also taken with the 70-200 2.8 MII, probably one of the best lenses Canon makes.

Both links are to the original image, so you can look at it at 100%.

KarenNfld

09/21/2013 09:17:04 AM · #37

Scalvert they don't look as noisy as mine!

Tiberius

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/21/2013 10:04:05 AM · #38

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

I would say 6D fits well for a hobby. It's also light, slightly smaller and easy to carry around. Together with the cheap Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM makes an awesome travel companion.

Also you can match it with a tablet or smartphone via wifi for awesome remote control / share possibilities

Message edited by author 2013-09-21 10:06:31.

scalvert

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

09/21/2013 11:01:06 AM · #39

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Scalvert they don't look as noisy as mine!

I used earmuffs.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

09/21/2013 02:02:26 PM · #40

Here's my recent shots -- viewed 1:1 -- 200 ISO.

the bluer the sky, the worse the noise.

This was at 320 ISO, not 200. Full shot, not just a portion at 1:1

all RAW, btw.

I can denoise them in RAW editor, but on the smaller detailed on like the last one, I lose the details in the birds, as well.

I definitely did not have this problem with the 40D. But I also didn't have as many pixels, and couldn't zoom in quite as far into the picture. Sometimes I wonder if that's part of the difference. But then I include the sky in the shot, and it just sucks. I've learned to live with it, and canon says that it's perfectly normal. Yet I still think that if Shannon and I took pictures of the same thing, that his wouldn't be as noisy.

(sorry about the blurriness of the photos -- hand held, zoomed in all the way, viewed one on one suffers a bit. )

Message edited by author 2013-09-21 14:09:39.

09/21/2013 03:33:50 PM · #41

Yikes.

That looks like ISO 3200, not ISO 200.

scalvert

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

09/21/2013 03:56:12 PM · #42

I think you're working with unrealistic expectations. The higher resolution of new camera models allows us to zoom in further than ever before, we're becoming critical of details at 100% that would rarely be visible in practice. Heck, here's a shot at ISO 200 with my 5D Mark III and there's noise visible in the sky at 100%. Should I EXPECT it to be completely clean?

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

09/21/2013 09:10:00 PM · #43

Originally posted by scalvert:

But that's the whole point of a long lens. I frequently shoot at the 400mm mark and zoom in quite a bit. I'd do it with the 40D as well. It doesn't seem unreasonable to want to do so. But anything blue is pretty bad.

I looked at your 5D Mark III, and I'm not seeing much at all there. That's what I was hoping with my 7D, and what I was getting with the 40D. I've never had anything close to that with the 7D.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/21/2013 09:45:03 PM · #44

Originally posted by vawendy:

I looked at your 5D Mark III, and I'm not seeing much at all there. That's what I was hoping with my 7D, and what I was getting with the 40D. I've never had anything close to that with the 7D.

7D is never gonna come even close to that. Too many sensor sites packed too tight. It has great acuity, but at a price. Is it a bad edition of the 7D? We can find out on Tuesday, Penny's will be up at Stowe and you can do a comparo. OK?

FromDaRock

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

09/22/2013 09:02:20 AM · #45

Originally posted by scalvert:

Exacly, this is not how you should compare the images. If I printed the same identical picture from both cameras and put them on the wall side by side, you wouldn't compare them by standing twice as close to one as you do the other. This is exactly what you are doing when you use a 100% crop to compare the quality.

You have to compare the same picture, at the same size from each camera. Possibly that noise you see at 100% is not even visible if you look at both pictures at the same width/height. This would be the only fair comparison since you are comparing the actual end result. If you crop, crop both so that you have the same resulting image, and then I think you will see a much better image from your 7D then from your 40D (due to it's much higher resolution). This will truly tell you what improvement you are getting (if any).

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

09/22/2013 11:07:31 AM · #46

Best use for a 7D

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

09/22/2013 11:11:20 AM · #47

Originally posted by rcollier:

For many purposes this may be alright, but for people who are selling photos as microstock, 100% magnification is really important. It may be possible to hide some of the noise by resizing the photo to a lower resolution but then you lose out on being able to sell your photos to people who want the higher resolution that the 7D offers.

FromDaRock