New Camera - Canon 7D - Noise???

09/19/2013 06:46:58 PM · #1

I got a new camera 2 weeks ago, less than 24 hours before I went on vacation. No time to really play with it before I was taking pics like crazy.

I thought some of the pics were noisy but I was editing my blog pics on a laptop while I was away and wasn't sure.

But now I'm home and I've been looking at them full size and they are a lot noisier than my old camera (Canon 40D).

I've attached 2 pics - 1 taken with my old camera and 1 with the new. Can you please look at them and let me know I'm not crazy? Both were taken in P mode, same lens, handheld, same basic settings.

What is causing all the noise in the new camera?

You'll have to click on "view full-sized image" to see them more closely.

Old camera (no noise) -

New camera (noise) -

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

09/19/2013 07:05:30 PM · #2

Something's funky... in both images, the pattern of the noise is exactly the same across all channels. That should not be. There's no EXIF data, so I'm grasping at straws here, but I think part of the issue is that some of the "noise" may be JPEG compression artifact.
Were the images shot in RAW or in JPEG? At what settings? The 7D image is darker, and that will accentuate noise as well.

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

09/19/2013 07:18:21 PM · #3

They were both shot in JPEG, I don't shoot in RAW.

I don't really see any noise in the old camera.

The 7D pic was just one of many - they're all noisy, even the lighter ones (I realize that one is a bit underexposed).

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

09/20/2013 12:06:38 AM · #4

the 7D sucks in noise in blue skies. It's great with everything else. But the noise sucks.

09/20/2013 05:49:37 AM · #5

Oh great!

Originally posted by vawendy:

the 7D sucks in noise in blue skies. It's great with everything else. But the noise sucks.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

09/20/2013 05:50:33 AM · #6

What is the ISO value of the photo taken with the 7D?

09/20/2013 09:52:17 AM · #7

Both at ISO 100.

Originally posted by Alexkc:

What is the ISO value of the photo taken with the 7D?

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

09/20/2013 09:55:50 AM · #8

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Both at ISO 100.

Originally posted by Alexkc:
What is the ISO value of the photo taken with the 7D?

OMG...

Samsung Galaxy S22, S22+, S22 Ultra

09/20/2013 10:56:25 AM · #9

Originally posted by Alexkc:

OMG...

I know!!

This was supposed to be better than my old camera. I think I should send it back.

Tiberius

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

09/20/2013 11:06:18 AM · #10

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

OMG...

I know!!

This was supposed to be better than my old camera. I think I should send it back.

change with a 6D

09/20/2013 11:07:26 AM · #11

Originally posted by Tiberius:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

OMG...

I know!!

This was supposed to be better than my old camera. I think I should send it back.

change with a 6D

That's some solid advice. The 6D seems to have a really good sensor.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

09/20/2013 11:07:29 AM · #12

I really don't think there is anything wrong with the camera. The characteristics of the noise are wrong. The random noise should not be the same in all three channels. That tells me that something is introducing what looks like noise but really isn't.
Unfortunately, with JPEG, you are always going to be questioning what is the sensor, and what is the result of the JPEG processing. If I were testing this, I would be comparing RAW images from both cameras, with full EXIF data, and shot under the same conditions with the same exposure.
If you'd like to run a controlled test, I'd be more than happy to look at the images.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

09/20/2013 11:09:34 AM · #13

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Tiberius:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

OMG...

I know!!

This was supposed to be better than my old camera. I think I should send it back.

change with a 6D

That's some solid advice. The 6D seems to have a really good sensor.

It's true, the 6D is a *really* solid performer. It's also full frame, so three of her lenses would be useless. It's also SD-only, so she would need new memory cards. So there are some gotchas.

09/20/2013 11:19:24 AM · #14

Originally posted by kirbic:

While I do tend to agree with you, at least about this particular image, there has been a long-standing knowledge that the 7D is just noisy, and it shows up especially well on smooth gradients.

I mean a Google search for "7D ~Excessive Noise" returns thirty two thousand or so results.

Perhaps you're right about this image, but in the end the 7D is absolutely known to be fairly noisy, and it seems that there may be some variance, with some bodies being much more noisy.

Here's a fun comparison. You'll see the noise levels of the 40D and the 7D are about the same, but look at that 6D... - Also, for whatever reason, I've found that this tool doesn't tell the whole story - it told me that my 1D mkIII was equivalent to the 50D in terms of signal to noise ratio, but there's just absolutely no doubt that the 1D is superior when you're actually looking at files, not at graphs. It may have about the same amount of noise overall, but the quality of that noise is somehow much more pleasing.

09/20/2013 11:20:30 AM · #15

Originally posted by kirbic:

What he said. The 7D is not inherently any noisier than the 40D (I posted comparison shots here in 2009), although it is a little more sensitive to underexposure and the higher resolution means you're looking at finer details. For best results, shoot in RAW and expose to the right slightly beyond the edge of the histogram.

09/20/2013 11:21:26 AM · #16

Originally posted by kirbic:

It's true, the 6D is a *really* solid performer. It's also full frame, so three of her lenses would be useless. It's also SD-only, so she would need new memory cards. So there are some gotchas.

True.

Although, on the upside, it's full frame. And SD cards are very cheap compared to CF.

09/20/2013 11:22:27 AM · #17

Originally posted by Cory:

I mean a Google search for "7D ~Excessive Noise" returns thirty two thousand or so results.

A Google search for "40D ~Excessive Noise" returns 127,000 results. I've tested both side by side, and a 7D is not noisier than a 40D. My wife used the 7D to shoot a field hockey game last night, and I had no reservations about setting the ISO to 1600.

Message edited by author 2013-09-20 11:27:11.

09/20/2013 11:27:23 AM · #18

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
I mean a Google search for "7D ~Excessive Noise" returns thirty two thousand or so results.

A Google search for "40D ~Excessive Noise" returns 127,000 results. I've tested both side by side, and a 7D is not noisier than a 40D. My wife used the 7D to shoot a field hockey game last night, and I had no reservations about setting the ISO to 1600.

Well, your observations do tend to agree with DxO Mark.

Seems to me that a lot of people here have experienced exactly this issue with noisy blue skies on the 7D, but maybe it's just some strange processing phenomenon as suggested by Kirbic.

I've only used a 7D for a few minutes, didn't seem bad at all, but I never saw the files - so my experience is really limited to just what I've observed other people saying about it.

ETA: Just for fun I did google 40D ~Excessive Noise, and reading down the posts a little bit, it would seem that the posts it's catching aren't quite as relevant as the ones that come up under the same search with 7D instead. The 40D starts to drift off into less relevant combinations of those words much faster, in fact, only the first three or four results seem to be relevant, then it gets into excessive noise suppression, processing tips, etc... Interesting at the very least - do go take a look, the number might be higher, but the results don't really follow...

(added your edit)

I do think that your point about high iso work is undeniable. The 7D at high ISO settings seems to out perform the 40D no doubt from everything I've seen. I think the issue that people have is almost always at ISO100, where it's surprising to see noise in the sky. Again, not something I've personally experienced, I just know that I've read an awful lot of posts very similar to this one over the years, and I've got it in my head that the 7D tends to produce noisy skies (if clear gradient blue) at base ISO.

Care to experiment with that? Take a slightly underexposed shot of the landscape/sky on a clear(ish) day at base ISO on the 7D.. I'd be really curious to hear if you can replicate the issue, of course, I'm still somewhat suspicious that there's some variance with those sensors.

Message edited by author 2013-09-20 11:40:48.

09/20/2013 12:06:37 PM · #19

Originally posted by Cory:

Care to experiment with that? Take a slightly underexposed shot of the landscape/sky on a clear(ish) day at base ISO on the 7D.

DONE, but I don't have time to download and post them right now.

09/20/2013 12:11:52 PM · #20

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Care to experiment with that? Take a slightly underexposed shot of the landscape/sky on a clear(ish) day at base ISO on the 7D.

DONE, but I don't have time to download and post them right now.

Once you get some time, let us know what you see... Any excessive noise in the blue skies? Especially on the underexposure?

Message edited by author 2013-09-20 12:12:25.

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

09/20/2013 12:23:18 PM · #21

I got shut of my 7D due to high noise just as you are seeing.

It was just unbelievable,others here have had the same problem .

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

09/20/2013 12:26:43 PM · #22

JPEG or RAW was the same.

Pass it on quick.

09/20/2013 12:31:18 PM · #23

Originally posted by Cory:

Any excessive noise in the blue skies? Especially on the underexposure?

Nope. They all seem OK. One thing I remember from years ago is that the default sharpness setting on Adobe's RAW converter really did a number on image quality.

I just tested RAW vs. mRAW and noticed more noise in the bigger files, which is probably the difference of inspecting at a higher resolution that I noted earlier.

Message edited by author 2013-09-20 12:39:48.

09/20/2013 12:42:54 PM · #24

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:
Any excessive noise in the blue skies? Especially on the underexposure?

Nope. They all seem OK. One thing I remember from years ago is that the default sharpness setting on Adobe's RAW converter really did a number on image quality.

I just tested RAW vs. mRAW and noticed more noise in the bigger files, which is probably the difference of inspecting at a higher resolution that I noted earlier.

Hmm, are you testing in RAW? In order to replicate the OP's results, a JPEG test would seem prudent.