Canon 7D ISO 1600 Noise

EMA747

EMA747

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm sure there has been a similar thread so I am sorry for posting another one. I just got out with my 7D today and am a bit worried about the noise.
I have moved up from a 400D and to be honest the noise at ISO 1600 seems the same or even a little worse on the 7D! I must admit these shots where taken on an overcast day.

Can someone tell me if they are in line with what others are getting and what is expected from the 7D.

All are at ISO1600, f5.6, 100% crop then saved as jpeg and resized to 800px high. All RAW files processed in LR 2.6 and CS3.

4444097972_4b1f881830_o.jpg


4443328157_f185707b40_o.jpg



Thanks for your help. :thumbs:

Andy S
 
post a non 100 crop? no one actually uses 100% crops in practise and I certainly can't judge from the above.
 
Ok. These ones are just cropped down to 800px as per the forum rules.

4444197044_64c2b3d4fc_o.jpg


4443425787_15856597b8_o.jpg


Andy S
 
Yep they are certainly noisy.

I've just moved from a 400D to 7D and am really impressed with the improvement.

BUT if you process the images - especially anything to up the exposure Post Processing you will enhance the noise. Have you done much PP?
 
ISO 2500:




ISO 3200



ISO 2000
 
This is at ISO 5000 with no PP other than resize for web, taken at night on the streets


IMG_5645.jpg
 
Freester said:
Yep they are certainly noisy.

I've just moved from a 400D to 7D and am really impressed with the improvement.

BUT if you process the images - especially anything to up the exposure Post Processing you will enhance the noise. Have you done much PP?
Click to expand...
None really. All I did was exported from LR as 16bit TIFF>CS3 then cropped then saved as 8bit jpeg>uploaded to flickr and here.
 
you say your images are cropped down to 800px, are these still a crop? can we see the non cropped files resized to 800 px?
 
Yes if I pixel peep they are noisy. I put it down to the high resolution sensor:

ISO 1600



100% crop:

IMG_0297_100pc.jpg
 
33L said:
you say your images are cropped down to 800px, are these still a crop? can we see the non cropped files resized to 800 px?
Click to expand...

Originals cropped to 800px wide.

4444249030_5447d51a09_o.jpg

ISO 1600, 1/1000 sec, f5.6

4443478453_8153e4ac4d_o.jpg

ISO 1600, 1/2000 sec, f5.6

I should also say they were shot with a Canon 100-400 L so not bad glass.

I know the pics are no good but they were all I got today. :'(

Andy S
 
They don't look that noisy to me?
 
they look fine to me.

I take it these are test shots since with the light apparently available didnt warrant the high ISO.
 
Man, those images are flawless. A bit of NR and they won't be a single bit noisy. The picture of the grouse (is that what it is?) is lovely, too.
 
33L said:
they look fine to me.

I take it these are test shots since with the light apparently available didnt warrant the high ISO.
Click to expand...
Yes they are only test shots. The weather was very dull which doesn't help either.
 
trencheel303 said:
Man, those images are flawless. A bit of NR and they won't be a single bit noisy. The picture of the grouse (is that what it is?) is lovely, too.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think it's a female pheasant, but I'm not 100% sure.
 
Personally I would not have chosen to shoot an essentially motionless swan at 1/2000 and 1600 ISO. With IS I'm sure you could have got a very acceptable result at 1/500 and 400 ISO. However, the shot is underexposed in my opinion. I doubt very much the light looked that dim at 15:25 today, and if it did, you would have been better off to expose more brightly and then pull back the exposure in post. Judging from the histogram, and a quick dabble in Lightoom, I think perhaps 1/500 and 800 ISO would have been better, brightening the image by 1 stop while reducing the ISO by a stop too. You would have had more data to play with and less noise. I doubt blur/shake would be a problem for a scene like this at 1/500 and IS on the lens.

Here's one of my 7D shots at 1600 ISO, processed in Lightroom....

20100105_141107_1690_LR.jpg



100% crop....
20100105_141107_1690_LR.jpg



I'm not sure the IQ at 100% is anything to get excited about - I think I missed focus - but the noise isn't too awful, especially when resized for more normal viewing.


I won't waste time posting a 100% crop, but here's a shot I've posted a few times from my 7D at 6,400 ISO, again processed in Lightroom. This has had a slight crop. Not bad for a cropper at 6,400 ISO, I think...

20100115_195834_2032_LR.jpg



Don't let pixel peeping ruin your enjoyment of your camera. Viewing 7D 1600 ISO files at 100%, especially files that are underexposed, is not going to be a rewarding experience. That does not mean you can't get great looking photos. Just don't expect great looking pixels.
 
@ tdodd - What you say makes total sense. To be honest I was really just having a play with the new camera so the settings and shutter speeds are not what I would normally use. I was ill over the weekend when we had the nice weather and otherwise I have not really had a play with my new camera yet.
The swan is underexposed as I had it metering off the white feathers by mistake. Neither of the shots are that good they are just ones that showed the noise so I used them as an example.

I'll try and stop pixel-peepeing now. :D

Andy S
 
tdodd, read the thread man, he was practising.

Andy are you by chance the same guy who posts on TMR as 'Andy S'?
 
trencheel303 said:
tdodd, read the thread man, he was practising...
Click to expand...

And when you're practicing, it helps to have good advice which is precisely what Tim's just given the OP! ;)

I get more than acceptable files from my 7D at high ISO's... I shot a football match recently under floodlights and my ISO didn't dip below 1600 for the whole match. In fact, I think it averaged at about ISO2000.

Looking at the OP's original shots, I don't see anything there to be worried about!

Si
 
Yep I'm with Tdodd on this one. Look too closely at high ISO images (even low ISO images) things might get a little depressing. But keep the PP, crop and pixel peeping to a minimum on high ISO images and they are really good - miles better than the 400D :)
 
Am I missing something? If you are outdoors, overcast or not, why shoot at 1600 ISO?? Especially at f5.6 taking a pic of a almost stationary swan?

I rarely need more than 400 ISO outside even when its cloudy, and still acheive fast shutter speeds. I appreciate they are for test shots but the test should be 'real world'.
 
They look ok. BUT - when shooting at high ISO you must be so careful with your exposure. It's even better to over expose a wee bit to protect the shadows.

If you're slightly under exposing and then increasing the exposure in photoshop all hell will break lose in the shadows and darker areas.

HTH
 
odd jim said:
Am I missing something? If you are outdoors, overcast or not, why shoot at 1600 ISO?? Especially at f5.6 taking a pic of a almost stationary swan?

I rarely need more than 400 ISO outside even when its cloudy, and still acheive fast shutter speeds. I appreciate they are for test shots but the test should be 'real world'.
Click to expand...

he just wanted to 'see' what the results were like at 1600iso... that's all - new camera and all that. :shrug:
 
leftcurl said:
he just wanted to 'see' what the results were like at 1600iso... that's all - new camera and all that. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but shooting at 1600 ISO while underexposing by about a stop is not the right way to judge the camera's capabilities. Since Andy is asking for people to make comparisons with their own 7D 1600 ISO shots (see first post for a reminder of the original aim of the thread) it doesn't seem helpful to be offering underexposed images for the purposes of that comparison. Of course the camera will not perform well if you expose poorly at high ISO.

I would be looking to ETTR for a shot like that, which means I would have exposed one stop brighter, maybe even 1.3 stops. Even if you find metering a subject/scene to be tricky, there is the histogram and blinking highlight warnings to let you know how you're doing.

It's great that Andy is wanting to test out his camera, but to get the best from it he needs to understand the value of correct (or ETTR) exposure in maximising IQ. The same applies to anyone else with a 7D or any other camera, for that matter.

One should also appreciate that pixel peeping high ISO shots on cameras with small pixels is not going to be terribly rewarding. Of course the pixels will be noisey. At 1600 ISO they are only getting fed 1/16 of the light they would get if shooting at 100 ISO. If underexposed by a stop they are only getting 1/32 - just 3% - of the light that they would receive if exposed correctly at 100 ISO. The true measure of a camera's abilities is in the IMAGES it can produce, not the PIXELS. A 7D file, viewed at 100%, is like blowing the whole image up to around 4' across. That's a pretty huge enlargement for assessment from 12" away. You wouldn't print a 4' poster for viewing from 12", would you? To do that with a shot taken at 1600 ISO and underexposed..... you've got to expect a few cracks to show. When you start to push the envelope like that you also need to consider the importance of sympathetic processing to control/suppress noise while enhancing the details that do remain.

Now, Andy might know all this, in which case I'm sorry for labouring the point, but from the evidence shown I can see no harm in mentioning it. Maybe someone else will appreciate the comments.
 
tdodd said:
One should also appreciate that pixel peeping high ISO shots on cameras with small pixels is not going to be terribly rewarding. Of course the pixels will be noisey. At 1600 ISO they are only getting fed 1/16 of the light they would get if shooting at 100 ISO. If underexposed by a stop they are only getting 1/32 - just 3% - of the light that they would receive if exposed correctly at 100 ISO. The true measure of a camera's abilities is in the IMAGES it can produce, not the PIXELS. A 7D file, viewed at 100%, is like blowing the whole image up to around 4' across. That's a pretty huge enlargement for assessment from 12" away. You wouldn't print a 4' poster for viewing from 12", would you? To do that with a shot taken at 1600 ISO and underexposed..... you've got to expect a few cracks to show. When you start to push the envelope like that you also need to consider the importance of sympathetic processing to control/suppress noise while enhancing the details that do remain.
Click to expand...

Very good point :clap:
 
At the risk of getting flamed...

I just don't like the look of many 7D shots. In lots of 7D shots the subject looks ok but the background looks horrible. Even at the small sizes posted here they just look a noisy mess. I've been itching to change my camera body for a while but...I don't think that the 7D is for me as better photographers than me and people much better at post capture processing than me produce pictures that make me wonder what the attraction of the 7D is.
 
woof woof said:
At the risk of getting flamed...

I just don't like the look of many 7D shots.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you. From the day the 7D was announced it was supposed to be the camera that would take me away from Pentax and in particular the K-7. It was supposed to have everything I wanted. Fast fps, good af tracking, more megapixels for cropping .. perfect.

Since it was released though I have not seen one picture from it that makes me sit back and say WOW .. and I have done a lot of looking. I have even bought a few decent quality lenses for the changeover but I am just not convinced by the pictures I have seen.
 
I suppose that the only way to know for sure is to personally try a 7D. But, by looking at pictures on the net I've pretty much convinced myself that post capture processing and in particular clever noise reduction is crucial and to be honest I'm not really into that side of things and therefore the 7D isn't for me.
 
I don't think that by and large the "Wow!" comes from the camera body, at least not when comparing cameras of equivalent sensor sizes. Mostly the "Wow!" comes from the light, the subject/scene, the photographer's skill in executing the shot (composition, timing, choice of DOF and shutter speed, perspective etc.), the lens and the post processing. From one APS-C body to the next I really wouldn't expect to see much difference in the IQ, especially when viewing web sized images at 800x533 or so. If you are going to see a body producing "Wow!" in my opinion it is going to be due to a larger sensor requiring a longer focal length and providing more subject separation, higher dynamic range and lower noise, but even then, really only when viewing at (much) larger sizes.

For me, the 7D was of interest mostly for the new AF system, and I bought it primarily as a compact and lightweight alternative to my 1D3. I was not expecting to see any change in IQ from 100-800/1600 ISO over my 50D. From 3200 ISO and up the 7D does start showing an edge, which can be useful. There are other features that push it above the xxD family, including the higher frame rate, better viewfinder, +/-3 stop meter, build/weatherproofing, wireless flash control etc.. Better IQ is, by and large, quite low down the list, but it is there if you know what you're doing.

To put it another way, buying a new guitar won't make you a better guitarist, buying a new saw won't make you a better carpenter, buying a new car won't make you a better driver, and buying a new camera won't make you a better photographer. If you are a good photographer already then upgrading from an xxxxD, xxxD or xxD to a 7D might well expand your options. If you are destined to shoot boring, poorly exposed, poorly composed, poorly lit photographs, using inappropriate camera settings, and really don't understand what you are doing in general, then the 7D is not going to change that for you.

I haven't kept up with this thread on Fred Miranda, but there certainly were some pretty decent 7D photos appearing there (probably some trash too). It might be worth a look - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/836385
 
"...but it is there if you know what you're doing."

The problem for me on the outside looking in is that it looks to me like the knowing what you're doing bit relates more to post capture computer manipulation than the skills I'd bring with me. Stick in the mud that I am I don't mind thinking about aperture, shutter speed, exposure or even ISO setting but I just don't want to buy and learn new software and develop new and cleverer photo processing skills...or use the god awful (IMVHO) DPP....to see an improvement, or rather to maintain a standard and avoid a look I just don't like.

I don't doubt that particularly at the higher ISO end there are advantages over other APS-C Canon cameras, but I still find the overall look of many shots very off putting.

I don't mean to put others off and thanks for not flaming me, I only posted as after viewing many 7D images on the net I feel disappointed with them and the camera.
 
I like my new 7D. Its noise performance is great compared to the 400D.

It feels nice in my hands.

The AF is far better for my sports photography than the 400D - AF isn't as bad as people say it is and I like the FPS compared to my 400D.

I don't know how you can say the photos are a 'noisy mess' when there are plenty of photos in this thread not at 100% crop that look great at high iso.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about disappointment. Maybe these people hoped more gear would make them a better tog?

In fact just don't believe everything you read on the net. Whatever you do don't self diagnose an illness!

It's not what you shoot with it's how and what you shoot that makes the viewer say WOW!

;)

:)
 
Freester said:
I like my new 7D. Its noise performance is great compared to the 400D.

It feels nice in my hands.

The AF is far better for my sports photography than the 400D the AF isn't as bad as people say it is and I like the FPS compared to my 400D.

I don't know how you can say the photos are a 'noisy mess' when there are plenty of photos in this thread not at 100% crop that look great at high iso.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about disappointment. Maybe these people hoped more gear would make them a better tog?

In fact just don't believe everything you read on the net. Whatever you do don't self diagnose and illness.

It's not what you shoot with it's how and what you shoot that makes the viewer say WOW!

;)

:)
Click to expand...



Amen brother! :clap:
 
"I don't know how you can say the photos are a 'noisy mess' when there are plenty of photos in this thread not at 100% crop that look great at high iso."

It's just my opinion of course but I don't think they look good, never mind great.

Anyway...I don't want to risk either argument or flaming and I only replied as your post was to me and in the interest of harmony I will not post again in this thread.

I do hope people are happy with their 7D's, I am sure that they are, and I'm sure that the only way to be 100% sure is to try one for myself but at the moment I just can't see the 7D as being the camera for me.
 
I certainly don't use any fancy software or creative post processing techniques. I use Lightroom, and only Lightroom, and I've used that since it was first released, with every camera I've owned from the 30D onwards. I try to keep my PP to the minimum - the less the better, and try to do everything I can to get the best capture I can at the moment I release the shutter. I'm not a very good photographer, certainly lacking inspiration and vision, and I'm far from a master of light and lighting. But I do the best I can and I take full responsibility for the results. Even armed with a 5D2 or 1D3, and some L glass, the pictures I take rarely make anyone go "Wow!". Maybe one day. :)

My reference to "knowing what you are doing" was really not about the PP. It was about the capture, and in particular about having realistic expectations for what is reasonable. If you consider shooting with 35mm film as the "standard" from which to judge photography today, how many of us here would dream of shooting at more than 400 ISO? How many of us here would print or display at sizes greater than 12x8? How many of us here would make huge crops out of our 35mm negatives (or slides) and then scrutinise the leftovers at some huge enlargment factor, as you would get when viewing 7D files at 100%? So my comment was much more aimed at good shooting technique and common sense, not absurd expectations that are, quite frankly, impossible to satisfy. Of course, when you are pushing the envelope, and shooting at high ISOs, with a camera that itself has a cropped sensor, and then you go and crop some more, that's when those additional PP skills can come in handy.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure that the only way to be 100% sure is to try one for myself.
Click to expand...

think this is the most sensible thing mentioned in this thread. Different cameras will please different people - best bet is to try camera before you buy :) doesnt matter if joe bloggs thinks its crap, you can work with it and like it!

:love::love::love::love::love::love:
 
All of mine are very little PP.

I convert the RAW to DNG (simply because I am a cheapskate and am still on Lightroom 1.x).

Import to LR. Small levels / white balance tweak then export to JPEG.

Now let's see an image at high ISO that you do think is great so I know what to aim for.

:)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woof woof
At the risk of getting flamed...

I just don't like the look of many 7D shots.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. From the day the 7D was announced it was supposed to be the camera that would take me away from Pentax and in particular the K-7. It was supposed to have everything I wanted. Fast fps, good af tracking, more megapixels for cropping .. perfect.

Since it was released though I have not seen one picture from it that makes me sit back and say WOW .. and I have done a lot of looking. I have even bought a few decent quality lenses for the changeover but I am just not convinced by the pictures I have seen.
Click to expand...
Interesting I've thought the same too. Not totally sure what it is, but I just don't like the images or the quality of the 7D that I've seen. I was interested in maybe getting one as my spare body, but not any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top