Calling all 7D users (especially in Yorkshire)

No worries, mate.

Those examples are only relevant if they're from RAW files (are they?) and have been altered to account for pixel density.

I'm actually starting to think I made a mistake selling my D700.
 
Last edited:
Tbh, I think your crazy for ditching the D700, and not sure why you were having issues with your lenses, all 4 of my primes at least worked and focused perfectly out of the box???

Now that it's sold though, I'd opt for a 5Dii, no way would I be happy going from a D700 to 7D...
 
The23rdman said:
Those examples are only relevant if they're from RAW files (are they?) and have been altered to account for pixel density.
Click to expand...
They are all from unedited RAW files. There are just rough crops so no they are not altered for pixel density (I'm not even sure how that would be done :thinking:). I still think they show it pretty much how it is. The 7D has more noise that I would like at low ISOs but when viewed on the web at normal web-res it's not really noticeable, as shown by the cockpit shot. Of course it's ISO performance will not match the D700 or 1DmkIV but that's not a surprise given the price difference.
 
I think its only going to be the 100% crops on computers where these kind of noise issues crop up anyway. At normal print and web sizes I'd be very surprised if anyone could make any kind of evaluative judgement of these cameras when it comes to ISO noise except for the most abnormal lighting circumstances.
 
As a 7D owner I'd have to concur that the samples posted show the same sort of noise I get too.
 
NaturS said:
I'm nowhere near Yorkshire, but as a 7D owner, I can't imagine it will even come close to the D700 for high ISO performance. On the 7D noise starts to creep in and become visible when viewing at 100% from ISO 400 and above, esp. when using Lightroom. This means you have to be quite careful in PP not to exaggerate the noise when sharpening. Of course when not viewing at 100% and printing, it is not a big issue, unless you screw up the sharpening.

Just worth keeping in mind if you are used to viewing nice clean images at 100% from a D700.

I've never used a 5D, so no idea how that would compare.
Click to expand...

7d noise?? here is a photo taken hand held at 12800 ISO and you say noise above 400 ISO ? what are you doing wrong...
5433312820_d899903cf7_o.jpg
100% part from above image
5432702007_85d8e20ff2_o.jpg
 
MomentCapture said:
Nice post processing!
How about you post a sample that's SOOC?
Click to expand...

I take your point but surely if the noise can be reduced/removed in PP (which you have to do if you shoot in RAW) without much degredation in IQ what's the problem?

If the noise was such that PP couldn't remove it to a point where you have a useable image then I'd agree completely ;)
 
I remember when Chaz posted this originally. Bit noisier then!
 
Never said there was, but your post implied that there wasn't a noise issue. Its great you can pp it out though.
 
Russ77 said:
I take your point but surely if the noise can be reduced/removed in PP (which you have to do if you shoot in RAW) without much degredation in IQ what's the problem?

If the noise was such that PP couldn't remove it to a point where you have a useable image then I'd agree completely ;)
Click to expand...

No such thing as a free lunch!
High noise at the point of capture, kills detail (which you can't get back) which gives images a soft muddy look.
Luminance noise reduction kills texture, thereby also killing real image texture, which I see often overdone, this also has a softening effect and makes the image appear murky.

To fix that 'muddy look' people then often increase the sharpening, which thus also increases noise, leading them to then increase luminance noise reduction which then turns into a viscous cycle, where I often see the resulting image resemble an 'oil painting' because it has zero fine texture.
This 'oil painting' look, doesn't often look that bad when viewed at low resolution, however neither would the original image.

Below is an example of the muddy look you get at high ISO's like 12800.
Both images processed identically in lightroom.

example2.jpg


http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
 
Last edited:
This stuff is kind of interesting to know but seriously when was the last time anyone went anywhere near ISO 12800? :suspect: When I had my mkIV I used ISO 4000 a few times but didn't really have a need to go higher that that.

I agree with Chaz on this one. I think if a camera produces acceptable noise for a finished product then that is what matters. Unless you are shooting commercially and they require noise free RAW files. If that was the case you would probably not be using a 7D anyway. ;)
 
MomentCapture said:
It's the same story at lesser ISO's also...

50% Crop ISO 6400, identical processing.
7D looks OOF.

example32.jpg


http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
Click to expand...

Is that a mannequin?

My 50D was rubbish at high ISO, I occassionally got something worth keeping at 800, a couple at 1000 but quite rare. The 1Dmk4 is (to me, in comparison) amazing. I don't want to get too technical but I was really pleased with this @ ISO1600:

5833309139_29836d2320_z.jpg


That's pretty high for me. I've had a go with higher ISOs but nothing spectacular yet. In the real world though, I doubt for what I photograph I'd be going any higher than 3200. There is noise present and loss of detail at that level. Testing side by side with Dean's D700 I thought he had the edge but he reported the RAW files were slightly better on the 1Dmk4. Still not sat down and looked for myself though Dean - Sorry!
 
Thankyou. If I remember rightly there is no (or very little) noise reduction at all. Its not super sharp by any means but at normal viewing sizes its fine. I dare say if I pixel peeped I'd see something I wasn't happy with. By the way her eyes really are that blue in the right light! I had to sit in the hall in front of the door (with windows in it) and wait for her to approach to get that shot, hence the composition not being brilliant (although for me it seems to work even though the 'rules' are broken!)

Why is this relevant? Well Dean shoots kids and I find its doing stuff like this where you do need higher ISO's and resolution (for cropping) that makes it more possible to get the shot you're after.

This shot was wide open f2.8, ISO 1600 (can't remember the SS) and I was using Servo AF and 10 fps shooting. I got around 23 shots, 21 of which were OOF or where she was blinking/turned away etc.
 
Ste, I've taken some test shots with your 50D at 1600 and I can tell you straight that the noise is perfectly manageable and would disappear in print.

edit: I'd also like to note that I'm edging towards the D7000 now.
 
Last edited:
Ste Manns said:
I never could! In print yes, but they always looked horrible on screen no matter what I did. Still, you are the PP king not me! How you getting on with the 50D?
Click to expand...

It's back at yours now. No camera in the house!

This is a 100% crop with zero noise reduction added. ISO 1600 f/2.8 1/200th

Now that will print just perfectly well.

5866711680_2680d52ac8_b.jpg
 
Bah! You just wanted to show us how cultured you are with that shot innit? :nuts:

Take no heed folks, I happen to know Dean only likes the Beano and Viz...:D

Was that the nifty or the 60mm?
 
Haha! That was the 60mm. Great lens, love it.

Still undecided.
 
Dean, just one thing. Why are you considering the D7000 if you didn't get along with the nikon lenses?
 
menthel said:
Dean, just one thing. Why are you considering the D7000 if you didn't get along with the nikon lenses?
Click to expand...

Because I'm willing to accept that I have had bad luck buying used and I may have better luck buying new. Canon still don't make a camera I'm really happy to use that doesn't cost 2.5K up and the D7000 is selling for 500 quid less than the 7D right now. That's a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 :)
 
The23rdman said:
Because I'm willing to accept that I have had bad luck buying used and I may have better luck buying new. Canon still don't make a camera I'm really happy to use that doesn't cost 2.5K up and the D7000 is selling for 500 quid less than the 7D right now. That's a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 :)
Click to expand...

Cracking lens the siggy. The D7000 is a bit of a steal at that price as well, especially if you don't need the odd little things the 7D does better and aren't tied into the EOS system.
 
The23rdman said:
Because I'm willing to accept that I have had bad luck buying used and I may have better luck buying new. Canon still don't make a camera I'm really happy to use that doesn't cost 2.5K up and the D7000 is selling for 500 quid less than the 7D right now. That's a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 :)
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense, provided the D7000 is all the camera you want. Not sure of the spec? I just hope you get everything you're after mate, and can concentrate on making beautiful images again.
 
As far as I can see the D7000 has better DR and better noise handling (although that's mute as noted above).

My reasoning is that I'll have a great little camera until we see what the new lines are...whenever that happens.

Saying all this...I'm still undecided. Still might even pick up another D700!
 
You'll get used to Chaz. He speaks a language the rest of us can only guess at.
 
The interesting thing on the site that Chaz has linked , if you look at the 60D it has consistant results with the D7000 . Does that mean that the 60D is better than the 7D ? Don't they both have the same sensor ?
 
BigJohn said:
The interesting thing on the site that Chaz has linked , if you look at the 60D it has consistant results with the D7000 . Does that mean that the 60D is better than the 7D ? Don't they both have the same sensor ?
Click to expand...

Did they use the same lens?
 
BigJohn said:
The interesting thing on the site that Chaz has linked , if you look at the 60D it has consistant results with the D7000 . Does that mean that the 60D is better than the 7D ? Don't they both have the same sensor ?
Click to expand...

7D is fab'd at a different plant, and apparently has more read noise.
Also the AA filters maybe of different strength.

Having said that, the 60D samples I looked at wasn't consistent with the results of the D7K.
 
I think i'll have to have a better look on my calibrated monitor when I get a chance . It was just a quick look on the sites enlarged shots on my laptop and i could see very little differance . The only down side with the set ups on that site are that there are too many variables as Dean pointed out was the same lens used on both Canon bodies for one .
 
It's pointless taking any notice of jpeg output as in camera processing varies wildly. RAW is where it's at.
 
Jamtea said:
For the record on the 7D vs 5DMkII autofocus, the 7D isn't only out of the 5D's league, it's virtually incomparable. The 7D has almost a spooky sense of what to lock on to. It is fantastic.
Click to expand...

:) I agree. Gosh I love the way you put it :) really made me giggle reading it.
I shoot lots of fast pace sports and I can tell you that after refining my settings shooting any fast pace sports is a breeze, and its exactly like what you said, "almost a spooky sense of what to lok on to" lol.

At first I used to keep my IS on but then experimenting with various options etc, and finally settled for IS off, try to maintain the ss above 800 and with a monopod the AF truly shines. There were times that I had to double check if the AF was really working because it felt as if it wasn't doing anything at all. AF on these bodies is really awsome.

Having said that I am getting a second body today and its going to be a 5D MKII and am hoping it will complement the 7D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top