7D noise

Blasted

Blasted

Suspended / Banned
Messages
927
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently got a 7D and have been out playing with it; however I’m a bit concerned about noise in the images. When I open up an image in lightroom and click directly on the image for the normal zoom in they seem noisier than the images that I used to get from my 450D.

Is this because the image size (resolution) is bigger and lightroom is zooming in further as a result?

I’m going to try printing one off tonight and see what a 10x8 looks like.
 
Check if your in camera noise reduction is on and how strong
This can make a big difference at 100%
 
To be honoest I dont know:shrug:

I know people say dont look to close at the images, but I think the magnification is set to 1:1 and if you have no selction in lightroom the default is magnification which i find quite useful.
 
I've found with the 7d you really need to get the exposure right and make sure focus is spot on. If not images do appear to be noisier than you might expect.
 
Blasted said:
I recently got a 7D and have been out playing with it; however I’m a bit concerned about noise in the images. When I open up an image in lightroom and click directly on the image for the normal zoom in they seem noisier than the images that I used to get from my 450D.

Is this because the image size (resolution) is bigger and lightroom is zooming in further as a result?

I’m going to try printing one off tonight and see what a 10x8 looks like.
Click to expand...

Now you don't hear that often :thumbs:
Get the exposure right and it's fine @iso 1600
Check the exif on this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/41190104@N07/5987926771/meta/in/photostream/

Take some time to learn the camera and how to process the images :)
 
I have recently upgraded to a 7d from a 40d and would make the following observations. Compared to the 40d images I dont find the lightroom 1:1 zoom much use given how small an area it zooms to. I find the 1:2 zoom much more useful for checking the image at a realistic level. Secondly if shooting raw its worth setting up the default import settings in lightroom for each ISO value to increase the noise reduction accordingly. The CR2 raw files are inherently noisy and do require some noise reduction and post processing. Jpegs are better out of the camera the camera applies noise reduction. The High ISO Noise Reduction setting will not have any affect on Raw files in lightroom. You can apply it to raw files in the Canon DPP software. Lastly the metering on the 7d does a much better job then the 40d at nailing the correct exposure meaning much less noise from having to adjust the exposure in lightroom. All in all I am very impressed with its low light/high iso performance.
 
Lightroom is a little over-aggressive on the default sharpening sometimes.

I find that moving the masking quite significantly to the right is required. If you hold down the alt key while you move the slider you can see the effect and judge where to stop. LR also doesn't apply ANY noise reduction by default, whereas the same RAW file in DPP for example will have some NR applied.

Once you get used to the way LR handles 7D files, then you can get some quite decent results.

You also need to make sure you expose to the right, and that a little highlight clipping is better than under-exposure and then pushing in LR. The latter will really highlight noise.

I had similar first impressions coming from a 40D.

I also find the much higher MP count makes poor technique a lot more obvious, but when you nail it... :D
 
Blasted said:
I recently got a 7D and have been out playing with it; however I’m a bit concerned about noise in the images. When I open up an image in lightroom and click directly on the image for the normal zoom in they seem noisier than the images that I used to get from my 450D.

Is this because the image size (resolution) is bigger and lightroom is zooming in further as a result?

I’m going to try printing one off tonight and see what a 10x8 looks like.
Click to expand...

NOT JUST THE 7D.

I have a 60D, my father a 7D, until recently I had a trusty 10D,

10D perfect, I have NOISE with the 60D, not much, but more than I expected.

People want more and more Mp in the same space, companies oblige, NOW you are beginning to see theside effects.

http://gizmodo.com/5155942/giz-explains-why-more-megapixels-isnt-always-more-better

There are also VERY highly qualified scientist papers on the net about this all say the same.
 
Last edited:
If I'm understanding the OP correctly, 1:1 on a 450D will deliver an enlargement about half the physical area compared to the 7D, because the 7D has nearly twice as many pixels.

Effectively, at at 1:1 the 7D image is being enlarged much more.
 
Blasted said:
To be honoest I dont know:shrug:

I know people say dont look to close at the images, but I think the magnification is set to 1:1 and if you have no selction in lightroom the default is magnification which i find quite useful.
Click to expand...

You know looking at a 1:1 image from a 7d file is like looking at a close up section of an image the size of a house don't you?!
 
This was shot at 6400 on my 7D, doesn't look that noisy to me.

Img_2509.jpg
 
High iso Canon raw files need to be processed in Canons DPP and NOT Photoshop or lightroom.

Canon CR2 files are tweaked for processing in DPP and you'll find you get far cleaner and detailed results from using DPP.
 
Last edited:
Blasted said:
Stupid question alert :bonk:, what's DPP?

I haven't installed any of the software that came with the camera.
Click to expand...

You should do!

Canons DPP (digital photo professional) is a powerful raw editing and conversion tool. A lot of people overlook this which is silly as it's designed soley for Canons cr2 files.

I can't understand why people always overlook the software gifted to them by the cameras designers!
 
Last edited:
Ok, the disc is whizzing away.

What is the normal workflow then? Import with the canon software then edit later in lightroom?

I had lightroom set up to drop files into a second disc and file as I like them, no pre-sets in use though.
 
DPP applies the in-camera settings to RAW images, giving quite nice results. But no better than Adobe RAW can do with a little tweaking IMO.

Ken: The OP is suggesting there is noise at 100% crop level, I doubt you'd see it in an image that size :)

My view is the same as others i.e. you need to expose well, or slightly to the right (just in case) and focus dead on...then noise doesn't tend to show itself except at higher ISO settings (3200 and above).
 
manualfocus-g said:
DPP applies the in-camera settings to RAW images, giving quite nice results. But no better than Adobe RAW can do with a little tweaking IMO.

Ken: The OP is suggesting there is noise at 100% crop level, I doubt you'd see it in an image that size :)

My view is the same as others i.e. you need to expose well, or slightly to the right (just in case) and focus dead on...then noise doesn't tend to show itself except at higher ISO settings (3200 and above).
Click to expand...

I disagree.

It's a LOT better than adobe raw. Convert a high iso file on both pieces of software and I guarantee the DPP conversion will have less noise, and more detail.

I have no noise reduction settings in cam.

Agree with the rest though.
 
Last edited:
You can get quite close to DPP in LR/ACR, they key is the sharpening. By default the Adobe settings just don't suit the 7D.

And seeing as the conversion algorithms are completely different, whilst DPP may appear to have no NR, that's not to say that Canon don't compensate at all for the sensor, they just have more detailed info than Adobe on how it performs.

Also by default LR/ACR use Adobe's defaults. If you select the manufacturer settings, they are much closer to DPP too.

Out of the box DPP does give better results, but the workflow is poor. A bit of effort in Lightroom and you can get damn close. I find I prefer to use Lightroom in general, but if I can't get things right, I'll revert to DPP.
 
I suspect he's worried as Adobe have always said to see the effects of sharpening in LR correctly, you should view at 100%. And at 100%, the default effect on a 7D file is quite worrying, even at ISO200. And we all know you need to sharpen a RAW file.
 
artyman said:
This was shot at 6400 on my 7D, doesn't look that noisy to me.

Img_2509.jpg
Click to expand...
Aha.. Tyntesfield ;) TBH, at that size, you aren't going to see any effects of noise on the image....
 
NaturS said:
I suspect he's worried as Adobe have always said to see the effects of sharpening in LR correctly, you should view at 100%. And at 100%, the default effect on a 7D file is quite worrying, even at ISO200. And we all know you need to sharpen a RAW file.
Click to expand...
You can set the default settings to be per camera and per ISO value in LR if you want. Have to say, I haven't tried DPP vs LR at all...
 
I find LR far better than DPP for noise reduction, but you do need to use it properly.

But much more important is to ensure that you don't underexpose and try to drag the image back up in PP. Far better to slightly overexpose.
 
I'd rather nail my manhood to a galloping horse than use DPP. It's a hateful piece of crap IMVHO. Canon should make cameras and lenses and photocopiers and leave software to others.
 
woof woof said:
I'd rather nail my manhood to a galloping horse than use DPP. It's a hateful piece of crap IMVHO. Canon should make cameras and lenses and photocopiers and leave software to others.
Click to expand...

You really need to start expressing your inner feelings. It can be harmful if you repress your real emotions.
 
I've been watching this thread as I'm considering a 7D just now instead of my 1D2 and 40D.

What is it with this camera - I've never known opinions to be so divided.
 
woof woof said:
I'd rather nail my manhood to a galloping horse than use DPP. It's a hateful piece of crap IMVHO. Canon should make cameras and lenses and photocopiers and leave software to others.
Click to expand...

Your loss.

Don't get me wrong, for standard stuff I just use CS3 but for anything over iso 1600 DPP gives massively cleaner and more detailed conversions.
 
Last edited:
+1
Dpp is my preferred converter, and i own photoshop, lightroom, rawtherapee and have had a go with the trial of capture one.

I find Dpp gets more detail out of files while at the same time having less noise. The colours just seem more accurate, more easily too.

The only time i don't use it is for difficult white balance conditions or highlight recovery for nearly blown highlights, in which situation i use Lightroom/Acr.

odd jim said:
Your loss.

Don't get me wrong, for standard stuff I just use CS3 but for anything over iso 1600 DPP gives massively cleaner and more detailed conversions.
Click to expand...
 
dinners said:
I've been watching this thread as I'm considering a 7D just now instead of my 1D2 and 40D.

What is it with this camera - I've never known opinions to be so divided.
Click to expand...

My feelings as well Phil, I am considering an upgrade from my 40d but there does seem to be a lot of talk about noise and the 7d :shrug:
 
woof woof said:
I'd rather nail my manhood to a galloping horse than use DPP. It's a hateful piece of crap IMVHO. Canon should make cameras and lenses and photocopiers and leave software to others.
Click to expand...

pretty much what I feel too except I'd pour acid down my japs eye aswell lol
 
odd jim said:
Your loss.

Don't get me wrong, for standard stuff I just use CS3 but for anything over iso 1600 DPP gives massively cleaner and more detailed conversions.
Click to expand...

that's what noise ninja is for
 
POAH said:
that's what noise ninja is for
Click to expand...

Noise Ninja isn't as good, not by a long shot.
 
I do not shoot high ISO on my 7D very often, but here is a sample ISO 3200 image processed with DPP with and without NR. I also attach the RAW file incase anyone wants to play (or show me how NR should be done:)).

Sample jpeg without NR
Sample jpeg with NR
Sample RAW file

Sorry about the large file sizes.

edit: I just noticed that my DPP shrapness setting is set to 5, making the jpeg without NR look MUCH noiser than it would otherwise do without sharpening.
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
I find LR far better than DPP for noise reduction, but you do need to use it properly.

But much more important is to ensure that you don't underexpose and try to drag the image back up in PP. Far better to slightly overexpose.
Click to expand...

Whats LR and DPP abbreviations are ok but pleasde don't assume we all know
 
JSER said:
Whats LR and DPP abbreviations are ok but pleasde don't assume we all know
Click to expand...

I assume that anybody reading my post has also read the rest of the thread. If they have they will already have encountered the expansion of DPP and should have noticed that Lightroom was mentioned in several previous posts, at least one of which referred to it in full as well as using the abbreviation.
 
woof woof said:
I'd rather nail my manhood to a galloping horse than use DPP. It's a hateful piece of crap IMVHO. Canon should make cameras and lenses and photocopiers and leave software to others.
Click to expand...

I only use DPP for confirming the focus point in a shot, as soon as Adobe put that into LR I'd be much happier.

Using DPP is like driving a 4 wheel car that your dads given you that's only got 3 wheels.
It's free and eventually you'll possibly get near to your destination but the journey won't be fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top