Canon posts firmware update for EOS 7D

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

11/06/2009 10:47:39 PM · #1

My experience with the 7d and d300 (not "s") is congruent with the test posted. My roommate owns the 7d, and I have unlimited access to the d300 through my university. The upgrades to the d300s would have to huge to put it in the same low noise range as the 7d.

My main problem with the photographic community is that it feels like camera companies manage to get people they don't pay to jump through hoops to justify their blind support of said companies. I split my time shooting between the d3 and multiple canon bodies because, quite simply, one company doesn't satisfy all the needs for my photography.

Originally posted by msieglerfr:

I have seen quite a bit of pictures showing some significant chroma noise at ISO 3200 (see dpreview forum).

This is my quick, handheld test of iso 3200 on a store's display 7d several months ago. You can't get much more real-world than this.
//www.flickr.com/photos/robshookphoto/4000439010/

Message edited by author 2009-11-06 22:48:58.

msieglerfr

Nikon D200

11/04/2009 03:57:11 PM · #2

To robshookphoto,

Of course shooting in jpg and using the NR built-in camera is going to affect the test. The NR filter is going to be completely different from one brand to another. I strongly suggest to visit the dpreview forum. There are plenty of threads about the ISO performance for both D300s and Canon 7D. Maybe I will post some pics later this week. The photos I took at ISO 1600 and 3200 are way cleaner than the pics shown in the posted test.

I do not owe the 7D, but I have seen quite a bit of pictures showing some significant chroma noise at ISO 3200 (see dpreview forum).

Max

Message edited by author 2009-11-04 15:58:53.

11/03/2009 12:39:40 PM · #3

Originally posted by zxaar:

i dunno about nikon bias thing but this is a fact that nikon currently makes best low light camera (D3s), it is perfectly alright to assume that they know a thing or two about high iso images.
This along with pixel size info, it is very likely that nikon one outperforms canon's.

Further less noise is also not everything, detail is also important.

The test I linked above makes it fairly clear that the 7d out-performs the d300. This is congruent with my experience with the 7d performing nearly as well as the 5d II, and far better than the d300.

It is at this point far from clear whether the d3s or 1d iv will be better at high noise, and considering the vast differences between chips on those cameras and the ones we are discussing, it isn't very relevant.

SteveJ

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

11/02/2009 06:01:20 PM · #4

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by rider:
I'm thrilled to use 3200 but there seems to be such big debate over iso and noise and it keeps going up as the tech gets better -like cf cards ,and so many other electronic things everything keeps growing 1 way or another i'm sure if you would have told me when i bought my first computer with a 250mb hard drive that 1 day i'd have a 16gb card that was smaller that a pad of matches i'd have said you were nuts!

one of the reasons for such debate is lenses. Generally kit lenses are are f3.5 and zooms are also around 3.5, or f4. (I mean cheap or moderate priced ones). In film days generally cameras were bundled with f1.4 or f1.8 primes. Now since f3.5 is pretty slow the high iso do become important and becomes one of the talking point.

i think for a general person a cam can shoot usable iso 3200 is good enough for almost all his needs.

I have never used flash in last 7 years. Any of my digital cam can not shoot usuable images above iso400. But since I use faster lenses, never felt like craving for iso uber number.

edited to add: my new cam k-x can shoot usuable iso 6400 images. Its surprising good at higher isos. But i doubt i will go above iso800 on it.

I think you hit the nail on the head. No matter what your camera can do, it is all about what lens you use. I don't want a war between Canon and Nikon users about which camera is best. You get what you pay for and if your lens is inferior, you have to bump up ISO, if your lens is f1.4 or 1.4, then you have the advantage over those with f3.5 etc.

zxaar

11/02/2009 05:55:02 PM · #5

Originally posted by rider:

I'm thrilled to use 3200 but there seems to be such big debate over iso and noise and it keeps going up as the tech gets better -like cf cards ,and so many other electronic things everything keeps growing 1 way or another i'm sure if you would have told me when i bought my first computer with a 250mb hard drive that 1 day i'd have a 16gb card that was smaller that a pad of matches i'd have said you were nuts!

one of the reasons for such debate is lenses. Generally kit lenses are are f3.5 and zooms are also around 3.5, or f4. (I mean cheap or moderate priced ones). In film days generally cameras were bundled with f1.4 or f1.8 primes. Now since f3.5 is pretty slow the high iso do become important and becomes one of the talking point.

i think for a general person a cam can shoot usable iso 3200 is good enough for almost all his needs.

I have never used flash in last 7 years. Any of my digital cam can not shoot usuable images above iso400. But since I use faster lenses, never felt like craving for iso uber number.

edited to add: my new cam k-x can shoot usuable iso 6400 images. Its surprising good at higher isos. But i doubt i will go above iso800 on it.

Message edited by author 2009-11-02 17:57:33.

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

11/02/2009 04:13:59 PM · #6

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by Five_Seat:
Eventually physics will limit high ISO quality. It is true that software determines/guesses how many of the photons coming through the lens are real and how many are stray, but there are still ways to improve sensor technology that improves the efficiency and accuracy of each photo site on a sensor.

However, there is an ISO quality limit, but there is nothing we can do to change it. Just as there is nothing we can do to change the DOF a photo at a given aperture, focal length, and subject distance.

As long as they can get ISO 12800 to be as noiseless as ISO400 is now, then I will be more than happy.

I dunno the particular numbers the companies are dealing with, nor the actual limits, but yes Future 12800 = Present 400 would be sweet!

rider

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM

11/02/2009 04:06:06 PM · #7

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2009 03:59:17 PM · #8

Originally posted by Five_Seat:

Eventually physics will limit high ISO quality. It is true that software determines/guesses how many of the photons coming through the lens are real and how many are stray, but there are still ways to improve sensor technology that improves the efficiency and accuracy of each photo site on a sensor.

However, there is an ISO quality limit, but there is nothing we can do to change it. Just as there is nothing we can do to change the DOF a photo at a given aperture, focal length, and subject distance.

As long as they can get ISO 12800 to be as noiseless as ISO400 is now, then I will be more than happy.

rider

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM

11/02/2009 03:58:54 PM · #9

Originally posted by Five_Seat:

well you say this but didn't someone a few years ago say that a smaller photo site like in the 7d could never have less noise than a larger 1?

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

11/02/2009 03:50:03 PM · #10

rider

Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM

11/02/2009 03:41:17 PM · #11

ok so here is a dumb question from an old faurt that didn't grow up with computers---isn't this whole noise high iso thing more about software and new tech. than anything else? it seems to me that 1 day we will be just conecting the lens to the computer and telling the computer what we want from the view thru the lens.

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2009 03:17:19 PM · #12

Originally posted by zxaar:

I have been reading up on both the 7D and D300s and to be honest they are both incredibly good at high ISOs, much better than my current 1D. My second shooter uses a 5D mk2 and the iso 1600/iso 2000 is breathtaking - so if these two are coming in with less noisy images than that at high ISOs, then they are both great cameras.

Just dont let them get too wet though ;P

Message edited by author 2009-11-02 15:17:52.

smurfguy

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/02/2009 02:38:07 PM · #13

Originally posted by Tez:

If only Nikon dropped their lens prices...

That's what I kept telling myself as well. But the tide is officially turning: Canon 70-200 2.8 IS - retail $1950. I'm pretty sure that lens has jumped $200-$300 in the past year.

Tez

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/02/2009 12:34:21 AM · #14

I wonder if Canon see a new body as a way to find new innovative ways to screw it up: AF issues, banding, random skin tones, noise at ISO 100 and now ghosting.

If only Nikon dropped their lens prices...

zxaar

11/01/2009 09:39:31 PM · #15

Originally posted by robshookphoto:

Originally posted by msieglerfr:

This test is irrelevant. Pictures should have been taken in raw formats (uncompressed or lossless), and NR should have been turned off. Theoretically, the noise should be better handled on the Nikon, simply because the pixel density is higher on the Canon.

I would love to see a 100 % crop of the 7D image at 3200 ISO. The pics that I saw on dpreview did not turn to be advantageous for the 7D.

The test is irrelevent because you have a nikon bias. Your bias is irrelevent because Nikon doesn't pay you.

The test shows the 7d is clearly superior. Turning off noise reduction and shooting raw is not going to change that.

11/01/2009 08:17:52 PM · #16

Originally posted by msieglerfr:

This test is irrelevant. Pictures should have been taken in raw formats (uncompressed or lossless), and NR should have been turned off. Theoretically, the noise should be better handled on the Nikon, simply because the pixel density is higher on the Canon.

I would love to see a 100 % crop of the 7D image at 3200 ISO. The pics that I saw on dpreview did not turn to be advantageous for the 7D.

The test is irrelevent because you have a nikon bias. Your bias is irrelevent because Nikon doesn't pay you.

The test shows the 7d is clearly superior. Turning off noise reduction and shooting raw is not going to change that.

scalvert

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

10/29/2009 06:25:31 PM · #17

Originally posted by msieglerfr:

Theoretically, the noise should be better handled on the Nikon, simply because the pixel density is higher on the Canon.

There's a LOT more to noise than just pixel size. The Canon 5D Mark II has 6.4 micron pixels� the same as a Canon 20D, and significantly smaller than the 7.4 micron pixels on a 10D, yet it shows less noise by far.

msieglerfr

Nikon D200

10/29/2009 06:08:07 PM · #18

Originally posted by robshookphoto:

Check out this 7d vs d300s comparison.
Not overly surprising, but just more proof that eveyone should be buying the 7d.

I had the oportunity to shoot a bit with it at a soccer game a few days back, and the autofocus is not unlike the 1d III. Tracking was very impressive, and I actually prefer it to the older 1d II.

10/29/2009 05:54:01 PM · #19

scalvert

10/29/2009 01:53:04 PM · #20

I do have big hands (to the point that a 350D was uncomfortable to use), and the 7D feels immensely better, but be advised that it's not a light camera. The 7D is noticeably heftier than a 40D, and you can pretty much forget about using it one-handed with a long lens.

Nuzzer

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

10/29/2009 01:49:47 PM · #21

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

The guy I spoke to at one of the shops mentioned firmware updates and said I would have to go to Canon about that. I've seen links to stuff to download in the past, but I would hate to mess something up and then land up having to pay Canon to put it right. That's why I'd rather wait and get the updates ready installed. Not if I can get the camera at a better price now though.

My real issue with the 7D though is size - I've got really small hands and the 400D fits just right. But the 7D has so much more to offer than an update to the 500D. I just hope I can learn to handle the bigger camera when its important and keep my 400D to carry around as an everyday camera.

I don't have the biggest hands in the world and I've just gone from a 350D to the 7D. The size is not an issue (I thought it might be). In fact, it feels a little "sturdier" in my hands.

I applied firmware updates to the 350D with no trouble before, it's nothing to hold off a purchase for IMO.

GinaRothfels

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

10/29/2009 01:27:49 PM · #22

Originally posted by AperturePriority:

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
The guy I spoke to at one of the shops mentioned firmware updates and said I would have to go to Canon about that.

Maybe he thought that you asked if he (or his shop) distributed the firmware updates. If so, he is right--you should to go to Canon (their web site) for the firmware updates.

I don't think I even asked - I think he brought firmware up. This isn't so bad - some of the shops speak to me like I'm an idiot who doesn't know the difference between an SLR and a P&S - just because I'm a woman. I asked about the weight of the camera somewhere compared to earlier models, so the guy tells me the weight depends on the LENS. I've had problems at that shop more than once, and there's no way I'm going to buy anything there unless it's the only place that has what I want (highly unlikely).

Photologist

Apple iPhone 14 Pro Max

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/29/2009 01:19:43 PM · #23

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

The guy I spoke to at one of the shops mentioned firmware updates and said I would have to go to Canon about that.

Maybe he thought that you asked if he (or his shop) distributed the firmware updates. If so, he is right--you should to go to Canon (their web site) for the firmware updates.

scalvert